Why Free Will Doesn't Exist - YouTube

[Willamena]

Now without doing actual science as neuroscience, there are 3 possible situations:

• You are a caused process in nature. Then you don't have free will, because you are the effect of something else.
• What you do, is random. That is not free will, that is random.
• Free will is a causation which comes about out of nothing. When you choose something you create the causation out of nothing as it is not related to the rest of the world.

No, it "comes out of" you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it "comes out of" you.

Free floating unsupported claim.

 

[bobhikes]

This is CosmicSkeptic's refutation of free will. It's the simplest and best argument against free will that I have heard. I can't think of any problems with the argument. Thoughts?

I like his definition and some of your thoughts but he hasn't overwritten my theory. We neither have free will or determinism but the ability to stop and allow changes in the environment to effect our decision. We also have the ability through thought to influence the direction while stopped. Basically we have the will to say no. In life there is no 100% right or wrong with decisions. There is always a grey area. In the gray area, things freeze or act contrary to normal and then fail. Humans do this to but don't fail we keep moving forward. This is only possible if you use more or other information to make the decision, so while stopped we continue processing until we decide yes. We set our own value for when to decide yes or no. We have the ability to stop and wait until we get the desired result.

 

[Willamena]

Free floating unsupported claim.

Support. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

 

[Nakosis]

Bingo. I can understand stage 6 and I can "glimse" it, but I can't keep it. And when I check it is not universal, it is still subjective.

Ok, IMO we occasionally have a glimpse of free will.

In fact, I don't want even continual free will. Free will is not that useful. Meta-standards is far more useful. But, sometimes, just for ****s and giggles.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Support. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Okay, you did notice that it didn't claim that we have free will. Please don't tell that you didn't check?!! You can't use philosophy like that, because it is not science like the law of gravity.
Did you get this far:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#ArguAgaiRealFreeWill

The link you gave don't answer if we have free will or not. It simply lists overall what is involved in checking it, but doesn't answer it.

 

[Willamena]

Okay, you did notice that it didn't claim that we have free will. Please don't tell that you didn't check?!! You can't use philosophy like that, because it is not science like the law of gravity.
Did you get this far:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#ArguAgaiRealFreeWill

The link you gave don't answer if we have free will or not. It simply lists overall what is involved in checking it, but doesn't answer it.

Philosophy poses questions. It's not really its job to answer them.

 

[exchemist]

Well, not exactly. The claim is that whatever makes us decide (either the force or the want) is not changeable by us. And though not directly addressed in the video, I think that the reason we can't change our wants (whatever makes us decide) is that there is a want that causes every want, and the first want is ultimately caused by something outside our control (genetics or environment).

For instance:

Why do I want to go the gym? Because I want to be healthy.
Why do I want to be healthy? Because I want to feel good and live longer.
Why do I want to feel good and live longer....? I think in this example, it only takes three steps to get to something outside our control, in this case, to the point where natural selection has led to genes that favor self-preserving behaviors over self-destructing behaviors, at least in most people. Now some may still choose self-destructive behaviors. But again, I think the causes of these choices can be traced back to prior experiences and genetics, neither of which one has control over.

But this is just a chain of assertions. What evidence is there that this is always so, especially when we all know it doesn't feel like that?

One can reasonably point to a myriad things, in a given example, that can be argued to influence what we think of as "choices", but to deny free will you need to go a lot farther and show that these so-called choices we make are in fact completely predetermined. I don't see how it is possible to demonstrate that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Philosophy poses questions. It's not really its job to answer them.

Okay, well, it is philosophy's job to answer questions. Just not like science or religion. Philosophy have indeed answered some questions, but because the answers are subjective, you can claim that they are wrong, because you can claim that you can do it objectively.

 

[Willamena]

Okay, well, it is philosophy's job to answer questions. Just not like science or religion. Philosophy have indeed answered some questions, but because the answers are subjective, you can claim that they are wrong, because you can claim that you can do it objectively.

We differ on that.

To me, the dictionary serves to express what free will is: as such, we each have free will as long as we live, as long as we are (or imagine ourselves to be) conscious entities present in a world full of existents, and as one of them, make decisions/choices/actions that affect the world, made of our own accord, in contrast to decisions/choices/actions made despite us (i.e. affected by fate, determination, or predestination). To define free will in terms of what may have been misses the point of free will, which is to loudly shout, "I am!"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We differ on that.

To me, the dictionary serves to express what free will is: as such, we each have free will as long as we live, as long as we are (or imagine ourselves to be) conscious entities present in a world full of existents, and as one of them, make decisions/choices/actions that affect the world, made of our own accord, in contrast to decisions/choices/actions made despite us (i.e. affected by fate, determination, or predestination). To define free will in terms of what may have been misses the point of free will, which is to loudly shout, "I am!"

Yeah, that is a form of existentialism. I do that myself.

 

[Quintessence]

Simple: whichever place one chose was chosen because they wanted to, and the WANT was determined by a variety of factors outside one's control: how strong the urge was to go, cultural norms, genetics, etc.

If you didn't insert that word "simple" in there I might be inclined to give credence to this argumentation.

It isn't simple.

It is not even remotely simple.

The main reason why belief in "free will" developed in the first place is because the causal variables that (presumably) go into every static outcome are innumerably complex and incomprehensible to humans. As such, humans operate under the illusion of "free will" whether they want to or not because of limited knowledge.

Which then, of course, begs the question - with human knowledge being as limited as it is, can we really know whether or not the free will is illusory or not? It's a rhetorical question, of course. We make assumptions, nothing more. There's no answering this question outside of making conclusions that follow from certain assumptions that must be granted as unquestioned. It's how all philosophy works, really.

 

[H Finn]

We differ on that.

To me, the dictionary serves to express what free will is: as such, we each have free will as long as we live, as long as we are (or imagine ourselves to be) conscious entities present in a world full of existents, and as one of them, make decisions/choices/actions that affect the world, made of our own accord, in contrast to decisions/choices/actions made despite us (i.e. affected by fate, determination, or predestination). To define free will in terms of what may have been misses the point of free will, which is to loudly shout, "I am!"

Thank you for the direct statement releasing us from the deep ruts of bondage of the will dug by Luther and Jonathan Edwards whose arguments started this thread. It is true that a will free of wants does not exist. It is a good thing it does not. It is the will entangled with the difficulties and possibilities of life and wanting goals which is interesting.

The commonplace meaning of freewill, able to do what one wants is the only meaning that matters.

 

[Nova2216]

This is CosmicSkeptic's refutation of free will. It's the simplest and best argument against free will that I have heard. I can't think of any problems with the argument. Thoughts?

.


* The word of God proves men have FREE WILL with only one word.

WHOSOEVER

 

[columbus]

Free will, IMO, is not related to an uncaused caused. Free will comes from the ability to alter cause.

What causes anyone to choose to alter the cause?
Something must.
Tom

 

[Jimmy]

Freewill 101
Pepsi or coke?
I'll have a coke.

 

[Tambourine]

Freewill 101
Pepsi or coke?
I'll have a coke.

As our marketing department predicted.

 

[Tambourine]

Thank you for the direct statement releasing us from the deep ruts of bondage of the will dug by Luther and Jonathan Edwards whose arguments started this thread. It is true that a will free of wants does not exist. It is a good thing it does not. It is the will entangled with the difficulties and possibilities of life and wanting goals which is interesting.

The commonplace meaning of freewill, able to do what one wants is the only meaning that matters.

I'd argue that a will free of wants would be a contradiction in itself.
Our will, free or not, is what drives us to act, after all.