Is free will really an illusion?

[Etritonakin]

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.

Free will is not an illusion -but many choices can be predicted.
We need certain things in order to survive and thrive -so our choices will tend to be toward those things.

The main reasons for free will to exist are individuality and creativity.
It makes reality much more awesome and is a constant source of newness, but apart from that it isn't very practical.

It could be said that it is useful for survival among more mobile life forms (why would a plant need to choose to not go anywhere or do anything different?) -by avoiding or foreseeing adverse conditions, etc., but as it has also made possible -even likely -the destruction of most life on earth, I'd say they cancel each other out where humans are concerned.

It is notable that other life forms employ it just for fun, too. They also play, do goofy things and enjoy doing it.

Free will becomes a problem when it is used to make wrong choices -but wrong choices are inevitable in an unfamiliar environment.

We are born essentially ignorant, but experience and maturity (among other things) can lead to acceptance of universal truths, sound principles, etc. -consciously acknowledging and choosing correct ways by free will -which actually frees up more time and effort for enjoying individuality and creativity.

Unfortunately, we die just about the time we get fairly good at living -but I believe it is in preparation for applying this experience later.

 

[Skwim]

Not much point in having a brain then

Gotta have a brain to recognize you have no freewill.


.

 

[Willamena]

Gotta have a brain to recognize you have no freewill.


.

Or faith.

 

[jeager106]

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

Yes. This.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[jeager106]

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

"Jerk" fits so well for you. Recall that YOU chose to use that term for yourself.
Living proof that "knowing ones self is the road to self actualization."
Congrats on such introspection.

 

[Thief]

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.

the best example of freewill that pops into my head......art.

take your pick....sketching, painting, sculpting.....music, dancing, singing.....

takes a lot of will to perform

doesn't have a lot to do with your next breath

 

[Willamena]

the best example of freewill that pops into my head......art.

take your pick....sketching, painting, sculpting.....music, dancing, singing.....

takes a lot of will to perform

doesn't have a lot to do with your next breath

Unless breathing is your art.

 

[Thief]

Unless breathing is your art.

ha!...with a breath!

and having been a martial...'artist'......breathing is sooooooo important!
and sooooo relevant to survival!

oooops.....did I just undo my previous post?

 

[JustWondering]

"Jerk" fits so well for you. Recall that YOU chose to use that term for yourself.
Living proof that "knowing ones self is the road to self actualization."
Congrats on such introspection.

*yawn* So I was correct. You have no valid argument for your position so you result to name calling.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Utter randomness is a total lack of causation.

For something to be completely random simply means that whatever the cause is, the outcome isn't even in principle predictable. It doesn't mean uncaused. Uncaused events are never random.

Events simply pop into being for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

"No reason" imposes a teleological criterion on processes, which assumes the determinism (an EXTREMEY strong determinism) one would like to investigate. For example, in quantum mechanics there are outcomes that caused by particular processes with a particular set of possible outcomes, yet the particular outcome given is probabilistic (or "random") in the sense that neither we nor the universe can "know" what out of the set of possible outcomes the actual outcome will be. There is NEVER ANY reason for ANY ACTUAL outcome to be, but there IS ALWAYS a reason (and cause) nor is it EVER "utter randomness".

While seemingly preposterous, this reportedly occurs in quantum mechanics; subatomic particles sometimes behave as they do for absolutely no reason at all.

Never for absolutely no reason.

So utter randomness can be eliminated as the agent of choosing.

As defined here, it can be eliminated as coherent.

This leaves us with causation as the explanation for our actions.

Which model? If it is the simplistic notion that "for every cause, there is some effect or set of effects which completely determine it", then relativity, classical physics, quantum physics, and basic experience contradict this. Even in classical systems, which are all entirely deterministic, the determined outcome frequently depends on our using our "free will" to arbitrarily choose whether some event will be the cause or the effect. Things get more complicated when we look at systems (such as cellular function) in which functions emerge with causal efficacy (let alone the paradoxes of relativity, acausalities of cosmology and quantum physics, etc.). Of utmost importance in the nontrivial example is that, according to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics the role of "will" is built in. By choosing how we interact with reality, we cause reality (things are significantly more subtle than this, but I'm simplifying some of the most subtle and controversial aspects of the philosophy of modern physics into one sentence).

The "free" part indicates that no coercive factor was involved, but as we've seen, there was a causal agent operating within the will that, in effect, determined its action.

If "free will" determines "its" actions (as this "causal agent" operates within the will), then we have self-determination. Which gives us the Self (the causal agent), which is free to determine.

It determined (coerced) the will to make the choice to go left rather than right.

Then "it" determines itself (again, the causal agent, according to you, is operating within the will).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What you do prove quite well is that you are unable to choose between truth and falsehood.

Among other things, that is his point. It can be true that he (and therefore everyone) is incapable of such a choice (because we are incapable of choices) yet that doesn't make him wrong in any sense.

 

[jeager106]

*yawn* So I was correct. You have no valid argument for your position so you result to name calling.

Me??? Name calling???
YOU used the name for YOURSELF.
Huh???

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But I could have chosen not to scratch. What function motivates the choice?

What if "choice" were the function?

 

[Skwim]

Or faith.

Or faith.

 

[Skwim]

For something to be completely random simply means that whatever the cause is, the outcome isn't even in principle predictable.

No it doesn't. It means more than "simply."

It doesn't mean uncaused. Uncaused events are never random.

Yes they are.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes they are.

Can you give me an example? Thanks

EDIT: I know you originally chose quantum physics as an example. But in my years of using QM and quantum physics more generally, I've never had any uncaused effect that was random nor read about one

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No it doesn't. It means more than "simply."

Ok. What is the "more"?

 

[Skwim]

Ok. What is the "more"?

Not only is the event not even in principle predictable, it has no predictability.

Can you give me an example? Thanks

EDIT: I know you originally chose quantum physics as an example. But in my years of using QM and quantum physics more generally, I've never had any uncaused effect that was random nor read about one

In considering the wave function of a particle, it has to do with the reason the collapse of its superposition is to one state rather than another. My understanding is that it's random.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

t

In considering the wave function of a particle

That is to consider a round square. But nevermind for the moment...

it has to do with the reason the collapse of its superposition is to one state rather than another

The reason given by the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics is that we chose to examine the system in the way that we did. Thus "choice" is indeed (depending upon a legion of nuances) intrinsic to quantum physics itself, and therefore "free will" is written into the fabric of the cosmos. I don't like this view (espoused, IMO, particularly clearly by physicist Henry Stapp in works such as Mind, Matter, & Quantum Mechanics and Mindful Universe). I prefer a decoherence approach to the cause behind the quantum "collapse". However, there is always clearly and obviously a reason as well as a cause. If there were not, the whole of physics would collapse.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not only is the event not even in principle predictable, it has no predictability.

What's the difference?