Is free will really an illusion?

[Skwim]

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.

Not at all. Just because you and I cannot choose A over B or B over A doesn't mean we can't form conclusions. I conclude you cannot "act volitionally or willfully" through the logic I was caused to use. Thing is, I have no choice in concluding you're wrong here, just as you had no choice in writing the following:

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.

Not at all. All the cause/effect events that led up to the point of my conclusion determined the nature of the conclusion. Absolutely no choosing took place. That there may be alternatives facing a moment of acting does not control what will be determined.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Philosophically, free will is a term for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. In essence, freewill is commonly taken to mean "I could have done differently if I desired." But just how does this work? How does the mental operation that makes the choice to go left rather than right, work?

I wish free will was not continually a discussion about 'Ultimate' causation. If I rob a bank, then I'm responsible for it. Ok I admit that had the bank not existed I couldn't have robbed it. Had I not been born and had I had a different breakfast cereal, different parents etc... You can go on and on about causations, but what difference, practically, does it make whether our decisions are deterministic or whether they can be otherwise? We still are who we are, and we still have debts to pay. There is one exception which is the claim people make about pre-determinism. If they believe in pre-determinism it might be a big deal, but in general I don't see why it should matter whether there is absolute determinism or absolute chaos or something in between. Whether its illusion or not you still are who you are and do what you do.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I wish free will was not continually a discussion about 'Ultimate' causation. If I rob a bank, then I'm responsible for it. Ok I admit that had the bank not existed I couldn't have robbed it. Had I not been born and had I had a different breakfast cereal, different parents etc... You can go on and on about causations, but what difference, practically, does it make whether our decisions are deterministic or whether they can be otherwise? We still are who we are, and we still have debts to pay. There is one exception which is the claim people make about pre-determinism. If they believe in pre-determinism it might be a big deal, but in general I don't see why it should matter whether there is absolute determinism or absolute chaos or something in between. Whether its illusion or not you still are who you are and do what you do.

If we did not have free will we would share the same generic human opinion of everything ? Free will conclusive in subjective reality can think and impose whatever you want.
Objective reality to prove free will one needs to impose it on others ? So there is only so much you can get away with my granddaughter uses free will to try get her own way ,eating sweets is bad enough but between meals, but its only proven if I let it happen ?.

 

[Skwim]

I wish free will was not continually a discussion about 'Ultimate' causation.

But that's what the discussion of freewill-or-no-freewill comes down to. If it doesn't interest you then I suggest not paying any attention.


.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If we did not have free will we would share the same generic human opinion of everything ? Free will conclusive in subjective reality can think and impose whatever you want.

Sorry, but I do not understand your sentences. Can you get a translator to help you?

Objective reality to prove free will one needs to impose it on others ? So there is only so much you can get away with my granddaughter uses free will to try get her own way ,eating sweets is bad enough but between meals, but its only proven if I let it happen ?.

I understand that you are talking about your grand-daughter using free will as an argument. Is that right?

But that's what the discussion of freewill-or-no-freewill comes down to. If it doesn't interest you then I suggest not paying any attention.

Yes. I don't intend to get much deeper other than that objection I posted.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Sorry, but I do not understand your sentences. Can you get a translator to help you?

I understand that you are talking about your grand-daughter using free will as an argument. Is that right?

Yes. I don't intend to get much deeper other than that objection I posted.

Sorry will avoid your posts in future

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sorry will avoid your posts in future

No insult was intended.

 

[EtuMalku]

And I fly in my dream world.

Exactly

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

Of course, the seat of motivation for for thoughts that lead to action would seem central to me for a discussion of free will.

 

[viole]

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"?

Let me rephrase. Do you think that your will is not caused by something reducible to simple physics?

Let me make an example.

Consider the Universe at time t. At that time that ball is stationary in front of me.
At time t + 1 minute, I choose, or express the will, to kick that ball.
At time t + 2 minutes, the ball is somewhere else because of my kick.

Between t and t + 2 minutes the physical state of the Universe changed also because of that ball not being here anymore but somewhere else.

Do you think that the chain of causality that brought that physical ball to change position includes not physical causes?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nous]

Not at all. Just because you and I cannot choose A over B or B over A doesn't mean we can't form conclusions. I conclude you cannot "act volitionally or willfully" through the logic I was caused to use.

All you have done here is demonstrate your inability to choose between truth and falsehood, which is obviously a requirement for deducing a true conclusion rather than one that is false.

 

[Nous]

Let me rephrase. Do you think that your will is not caused by something reducible to simple physics?

Let me make an example.

Consider the Universe at time t. At that time that ball is stationary in front of me.
At time t + 1 minute, I choose, or express the will, to kick that ball.
At time t + 2 minutes, the ball is somewhere else because of my kick.

Between t and t + 2 minutes the physical state of the Universe changed also because of that ball not being here anymore but somewhere else.

Do you think that the chain of causality that brought that physical ball to change position includes not physical causes?

It sounds like what you describe as "simple physics" is just the definition of determinism that I quoted from the SIP: “The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ No?

As noted, the findings and theories of modern physics refute the thesis of determinism.

 

[Nous]

By the way, no one offered any alternative explanation for my ability to predict my own future (volitional, willful) acts:

The ability of humans to act volitionally--i.e., to freely will the performance of certain bodily acts--is easily provable by our ability to predict (ceteris paribus) one’s own performance of these bodily acts, but inability to predict other people’s performance of such acts. There simply is no other explanation for our ability to perfectly predict one’s own voluntary acts while being unable correctly predict the same sorts of voluntary actions of another person.

[. . .]

I cannot predict who will post another message on this thread (or on any other thread), nor what will be the content of another member’s posts. But I do predict that within less than 10 minutes but more than 2 minutes of posting this message, I will (certeris paribus) post another message on this thread that will contain nothing but the Czech words that translate to “free will” using this translator: http://imtranslator.net/translation/english/to-czech/translation/

And, even more particularly, I predict that I will write those Czech words in deep purple font (a color I've never before used to post a message here or anywhere else).

svobodná vůle

As noted, the only explanation of my ability to perfectly predict my future bodily movements by which I posted the Czech words for "free will" in purple is that I--not anyone else, and not the initial state of the universe--determined the performance of those bodily movements.

 

[Nous]

Of course, the seat of motivation for for thoughts that lead to action would seem central to me for a discussion of free will.

"The seat of motivation for thoughts that lead to action . . . " I don't know where that seat is.

Sitting on my desk here is a cup that contained coffee that I was drinking hours ago. There is still about an inch of coffee in the cup--cold, icky coffee. I have no motivation to drink it. But I can pick it up and drink. The ability to act willfully enables one to act contrary to even one's most pressing motivations.

 

[Skwim]

All you have done here is demonstrate your inability to choose between truth and falsehood, which is obviously a requirement for deducing a true conclusion rather than one that is false.

As I've said so many times already, There is NO choosing. And because "deducing" is simply a form of choosing, it's nothing but another conclusion one reaches because of all the relevant deterministic events leading up to it.

One cannot "choose" any differently than what one has been determined to "choose."

One cannot "deduce" any differently than what one has been determined to "deduce."

One cannot "decide" any differently than what one has been determined to "decide."

One cannot "pick" any differently than what one has been determined to "pick."

One cannot "select" any differently than what one has been determined to "select."

One cannot "opt for" any differently than what one has been determined to "opt for."

One cannot "elect" any differently than what one has been determined to "elect."

One cannot "prefer" any differently than what one has been determined to "prefer."

One cannot "judge" any differently than what one has been determined to "judge."

One cannot "favor" any differently than what one has been determined to "favor."​

 

[muhammad_isa]

As I've said so many times already, There is NO choosing. And because "deducing" is simply a form of choosing, it's nothing but another conclusion one reaches because of all the relevant deterministic events leading up to it.

Not much point in having a brain then

 

[jeager106]

Not much point in having a brain then

People who believe in that they are helpless and have no use in society
have already spoke that they have no will or no choice.
Thus they are losers and can't possibly resist evil forces.

 

[JustWondering]

Thus they are losers and can't possibly resist evil forces.

So those that don't mindlessly share your magical, supernatural world view are losers, or is it another group of people you are insulting?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So those that don't mindlessly share your magical, supernatural world view are losers, or is it another group of people you are insulting?

I think that jeager was referring to people who thought that they had 'no say' in decision making..
ie. they think that they can't influence what has been decreed, or determined by previous events

 

[JustWondering]

I think that jeager was referring to people who thought that they had 'no say' in decision making..
ie. they think that they can't influence what has been decreed, or determined by previous events

Guess we'll know if/when he responds.