Is free will really an illusion?

[Skwim]

This seems to be a hindsight observation. One turned right so of course all of the events leading to it lead to a right turn showing causation. Is this what you are saying?

Or, had to turn right if your prefer. In any case, No. Turning right, or doing anything else does not show causation. The event, whatever it may be, is the outcome of causation. All the events that led to turning right are part of the causation.


,

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Or, had to turn right if your prefer. In any case, No. Turning right, or doing anything else does not show causation. The event, whatever it may be, is the outcome of causation. All the events that led to turning right are part of the causation.


,

So, at no point in real time could the decision have been made to turn left?

 

[Skwim]

So, at no point in real time could the decision have been made to turn left?

Because decisions have to be what they are, no. Turning left could never have happened.

 

[EtuMalku]

This is why I believe in limited free will. We are free to make choices in some areas but willing yourself to levitate most likely will never happen.

This is why I stand by my personal definition . . . Freedom From the Will of Another
We physically exist in the objective universe and are limited by its laws and principles
On the other hand we are completely free from it in our subjective universes . . . I levitate.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This is why I stand by my personal definition . . . Freedom From the Will of Another
We physically exist in the objective universe and are limited by its laws and principles
On the other hand we are completely free from it in our subjective universes . . . I levitate.

It's nice that you have your own definition but nobody else seems to go along with that. We're talking about something else.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because decisions have to be what they are, no. Turning left could never have happened.

Does this mean that future actions are predetermined?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

On the other hand we are completely free from it in our subjective universes . . . I levitate.

And I fly in my dream world.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I find free will to be a lot like color: you have pigments and you have wavelengths of light, but "color" only exists in your head.

 

[viole]

I have a question regarding this. Go ahead and tell me how I am wrong on it if I really am wrong. I personally don't think free will is an illusion because if you were to look at an unconscious organism such as a plant, then its acts are fixed. They are fixed towards survival. For example, the plant takes in sunlight, absorbs water, and all other processes of the plant are never random and are never against its own survival. They are fixed towards the survival of the plant.

So the same thing should hold true for the brain. If our acts and choices are predetermined, then they too should be fixed towards our survival and towards the survival (helping) of others as well. But I could choose to mindlessly perform a bunch of random acts right now such as frailing my arms up in the air. As a matter of fact, I could choose right now to perform acts that go against my own survival and the survival of others.

For a brain to perform such acts would imply that the brain is malfunctioning just as how I could also say that the plant performing random acts and acts against its own survival is malfunctioning as well. But the brain is not malfunctioning. It might of very well been my awareness right now of such acts that lead my brain into performing them. But still, the question remains. Why would the brain even perform such acts in the first place?

It shouldn't. So the very fact that I did perform them implies that free will exists and is not an illusion.

Do you believe it is possible to change the physical state of things by means that are not reducible to physics?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Does this mean that future actions are predetermined?

Yup.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yup.

Unless I have a random thought along the way?

 

[Skwim]

Unless I have a random thought along the way?

Your "random" thought is still determined. There is something in your brain that creates it, and the reason it creates it rather than something else is because . . . . . . . . . .


.

 

[viole]

I've been reading about determinism, and there are arguments that are rather convincing. One of them being that our choices are only our choices because of the external circumstances that have led us to make or desire those choices. I find that fascinating. For example, if someone grows up in an abusive household let's say, that person may make a choice to never treat his/her own children in the same way, or he/she may make bad choices, and be abusive based on what he/she witnessed and experienced during childhood. Either choice can be said to have stemmed from the external circumstances that shaped his/her childhood. I've always been a believer in that our lives are often the sum total of our choices, but having read some of these new philosophical viewpoints on determinism, I'm not so sure.

Determinism is a slippery slope towards atheism. Or, at least, a slippery slope away from belief systems that base all their theology on (metaphysical) freedom of choice.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Are you implying that will, free or not, is a brain function?

What else could it be?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Determinism is a slippery slope towards atheism. Or, at least, a slippery slope away from belief systems that base all their theology on (metaphysical) freedom of choice.

Ciao

- viole

Well, it certainly robs the sin and salvation of Christianity of any meaning.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What else could it be?

Ciao

- viole

I see the mind as the spirit, the will and thought. I'm not sure the will and the spirit are a function of brain processes.

 

[Nous]

As I say, no one chooses anything.

Where you demonstrate your inability to choose between truth and falsehood is in the fact that an object lacking volition or free will--such as you claim to be--is unable to determine whether or not some other entity is able to act volitionally or willfully. Obviously it requires the ability to choose between truth and falsehood--such as you claim to lack--in order to determine that an entity is able to act volitionally or willfully.

 

[Nous]

Wow, gee great. I made a really cool point which you ignored.

Repeat your "really cool point." I didn't see it.

Really, what part of your mind makes the decision.

Why do you ask? Is the answer to that probative of to some issue here?

 

[Nous]

I find free will to be a lot like color: you have pigments and you have wavelengths of light, but "color" only exists in your head.

So you are saying that you are unable to choose between truth and falsehood.

 

[Nous]

Do you believe it is possible to change the physical state of things by means that are not reducible to physics?

What do you mean by "means that are not reducible to physics"? How does one determine whether a "means" is or is not "reducible to physics"?