Free will and humans

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Pool: you want a source for the body constantly replacing its cells?

I can look one up if you want, our resident biologists can probably produce a better one or kick my ass, whichever

Oh sorry, I thought you meant bits as in the bits in Comp Sci

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Except you haven't really demonstrated that you have control over your actions, which if false, demolishes your argument.  

It doesn't matter if it's true or false, simply making the claim demolishes any argument for free will based upon it, regardless of whether or not one actually has free will or free will even exists.  Claiming to have control over our actions is claiming to have free will.  It's a non-starter.

May as well have said;

I have free will
Since I have free will I have free will
Free will exists because I have free will

I've never understood the need to jump through hoops over free will. Either we have it or we don't, but it's difficult to see what the difference in our lives would be regardless. At best, it's an attribute that a person has failed to provide compelling argument for but possesses nevertheless, at worst, it's a delusion that harms no one.

By your logic you don't believe in anger either :

I have a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.
Since I have a a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility I have anger.
Anger exists because I have a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.

Might as well have said,
I have anger
Since I have anger I have anger.
Anger exists because I have anger.
Right?

Actually by your logic you can't believe in anything.
So is that what you're telling me? That you don't believe in anything?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

@Camus Indeed it is (irrelevant).  In the same fashion, a person might claim that they did not "freely will" to murder another..what with not having any, but that doesn't change the fact that we'll need to remove that persons access to other potential victims.  You'll hear alot of slippery slope style arguments that, like free will, fail to materialize as claimed in the first place.

@Pool, is there more than one person posting on your account, or do you have some sort of short term memory issue? In any case, we haven't gotten to the point where we wonder which of your statements is sound, there's no need until you come up with a valid form. It could be true, you may really have free will, for example...the argument you've made fails regardless of whether or not you have free will, regardless of whether or not free will is what you say it is, and regardless of whether or not free will exists.

Hmm,I don't think anyone other than me is posting from my account though I do suspect that I may have a slight case of short memorism

[Kiekeben]

In your opinion do you feel that humans possesses free will? What is your opinion on the matter?

It is my opinion that humans does possess free will, so I will be arguing for it. I feel that I do poses free will as I am capable of deciding what I'm going to do in the very next minute. If I didn't poses free will then I should've been incapable of deciding what I'm going to do even in the next second. Thus as I have a control over my actions I have free will.

It depends on what you mean by free will. We have desires and we are able to act on them. If that's all you mean, then of course we have free will. However, the majority of people mean something more by free will - especially in a religious context.

The usual understanding of it - and I say this based on asking people questions that make them explain further what they mean, as well as on what many religious (and even nonreligious) people say in general - is that free will involves the ability to choose from among more than one possible way of acting. So for instance, at the moment you decided to write your post, if there is such a thing as free will, then - everything else being equal - you could have decided not to write it. This is what is called "libertarian free will," by the way.

IMO, there is no such thing as libertarian free will, for a very simple reason: the very concept of it is incoherent.

[LadyForCamus]

It doesn't matter if it's true or false, simply making the claim demolishes any argument for free will based upon it, regardless of whether or not one actually has free will or free will even exists.  Claiming to have control over our actions is claiming to have free will.  It's a non-starter.

May as well have said;

I have free will
Since I have free will I have free will
Free will exists because I have free will

I've never understood the need to jump through hoops over free will. Either we have it or we don't, but it's difficult to see what the difference in our lives would be regardless. At best, it's an attribute that a person has failed to provide compelling argument for but possesses nevertheless, at worst, it's a delusion that harms no one.

By your logic you don't believe in anger either :

I have a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.
Since I have a a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility I have anger.
Anger exists because I have a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.

Might as well have said,
I have anger
Since I have anger I have anger.
Anger exists because I have anger.
Right?

Right. It doesn't make sense, does it? I don't think rhythm ever stated he "didn't believe in" free will. He was merely explaining that your proof was fallacious. And there is no, 'your logic' or 'my logic'. It's just LOGIC. And yours still begs the question, I think.

[Jehanne]

In your opinion do you feel that humans possesses free will? What is your opinion on the matter?

It is my opinion that humans does possess free will, so I will be arguing for it. I feel that I do poses free will as I am capable of deciding what I'm going to do in the very next minute. If I didn't poses free will then I should've been incapable of deciding what I'm going to do even in the next second. Thus as I have a control over my actions I have free will.

The Conservation of Energy strongly argues against the notion of free will:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%2...om_physics

Anytime that you "choose" to do something (say, drink Coke versus a Pepsi), neurons in your brain fire; what causes those neurons to fire?  Answer:  other neurons.  Some will say that quantum uncertainty will lead to indeterminism, which will lead to "free will"; however, QED phenomenon do not typically occur on a macroscopic or "classical" scale.  The brain is likely governed more by biology and chemistry than it is by physics, however, the Conservation of Energy underlies all of reality.

Take the rotation of the Earth; it's hard to notice the fact that you are going around and around in a circle at nearly 2,000 kph near the equator to near 0 kph very close to the poles, and yet, every molecule in your brain, your body, your house and computer, the oceans and air, trillions upon trillions of molecules all conserve energy in the form of angular momentum.  Of course, what is true of your body and surroundings must also be true of your brain, which means that you have no "free will".  Your "choice" is just an illusion, the end product of trillions upon trillions of neurons that have fired in your head over the course of your lifetime.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

In your opinion do you feel that humans possesses free will? What is your opinion on the matter?

It is my opinion that humans does possess free will, so I will be arguing for it. I feel that I do poses free will as I am capable of deciding what I'm going to do in the very next minute. If I didn't poses free will then I should've been incapable of deciding what I'm going to do even in the next second. Thus as I have a control over my actions I have free will.

It depends on what you mean by free will. We have desires and we are able to act on them. If that's all you mean, then of course we have free will. However, the majority of people mean something more by free will - especially in a religious context.

The usual understanding of it - and I say this based on asking people questions that make them explain further what they mean, as well as on what many religious (and even nonreligious) people say in general - is that free will involves the ability to choose from among more than one possible way of acting. So for instance, at the moment you decided to write your post, if there is such a thing as free will, then - everything else being equal - you could have decided not to write it. This is what is called "libertarian free will," by the way.

IMO, there is no such thing as libertarian free will, for a very simple reason: the very concept of it is incoherent.

Beautiful.
I had that same thought,now I know it's called libertarian free will but I don't understand why you think it's false. Now I consider free will as the ability to form an algorithm to a given task.
This is the reason why I asked rob if he had the ability to slap himself on the face (I gave him a random task and asked him to form an algorithm for it).
This is also the reason why computers doesn't have free will.

[Jehanne]

This is also the reason why computers doesn't have free will.

Do all epileptics have free will?  How about Alzheimer's patients?  Are the latter simply just "choosing" to forget the names of their children and grandchildren?  How about those with Dissociative Identity Disorder ("multiple personality disorder")?  How can different individuals with different (sometimes, opposing) wills exist in the same brain?  How about those who have suffered a stroke resulting in aphasia?  Are they just "choosing" not to speak?  How about the young woman (as documented by Professor Steven Pinker) who got into a car accident,  having her head crushed, losing nearly all of her long-term memories, including, the fact that she was a recent newlywed?  Did she just "choose" to forget her recent marriage?

The list is just endless.

[Angrboda]

It depends on what you mean by free will. We have desires and we are able to act on them. If that's all you mean, then of course we have free will. However, the majority of people mean something more by free will - especially in a religious context.

The usual understanding of it - and I say this based on asking people questions that make them explain further what they mean, as well as on what many religious (and even nonreligious) people say in general - is that free will involves the ability to choose from among more than one possible way of acting. So for instance, at the moment you decided to write your post, if there is such a thing as free will, then - everything else being equal - you could have decided not to write it. This is what is called "libertarian free will," by the way.

IMO, there is no such thing as libertarian free will, for a very simple reason: the very concept of it is incoherent.

Beautiful.
I had that same thought,now I know it's called libertarian free will but I don't understand why you think it's false.

Say your brain has an algorithm for choosing the best amongst alternatives. And it always chooses what it thinks is best after examining the alternatives. Now suppose you are shopping for a car. You have, already in place, a set of values or things that you desire in a car. And the facts about what cars offer which things suitable to your already existing values doesn't change. So this algorithm, by combining the values with the facts can only come to one conclusion about which car is 'best'. Given that you always choose what you think is best for you (including times when you think it's best to do the wrong thing), then you can only choose that one car.

Now saying that we have the freedom to choose amongst alternatives is a way of saying that if we went back to a decision which we had made, under those same circumstances, we could have chosen to do otherwise. That in the case of our car example, even though the inputs into our brain in terms of our values and the facts about cars, the algorithm in our brain for calculating what is the best fit for us could have had a different conclusion, and thus we could have had a different choice. But what has changed to account for this possibility "to do otherwise" that would be required for free will to be real? The algorithm is deterministic, it hasn't changed. And our values and the facts about cars haven't changed. So how could we come to a different decision?

[Kiekeben]

It depends on what you mean by free will. We have desires and we are able to act on them. If that's all you mean, then of course we have free will. However, the majority of people mean something more by free will - especially in a religious context.

The usual understanding of it - and I say this based on asking people questions that make them explain further what they mean, as well as on what many religious (and even nonreligious) people say in general - is that free will involves the ability to choose from among more than one possible way of acting. So for instance, at the moment you decided to write your post, if there is such a thing as free will, then - everything else being equal - you could have decided not to write it. This is what is called "libertarian free will," by the way.

IMO, there is no such thing as libertarian free will, for a very simple reason: the very concept of it is incoherent.

Beautiful.
I had that same thought,now I know it's called libertarian free will but I don't understand why you think it's false. 

Jörmungandr has already explained - very nicely, I might add - a big part of the problem here. Let me add a bit more:

In a nutshell, the problem with the libertarian conception of FW is that it requires our decisions to be neither determined nor ultimately random. If your decision to write the post was determined - so that, given the totality of the situation at the time, it had to happen - then obviously you don't have LFW. (In case it's not immediately obvious why, recall that LFW means that there is more than one possibility available to you; determinism, however, means that there is only one possible outcome.) If, OTOH, your action was ultimately random - a matter of chance - then that too is incompatible with LFW, because then it wouldn't really be something that you were in charge of; instead, it would be something that just happened. 

LFW, then, requires that there be a third alternative, something in between the determined and the random. But the problem is that logically, there can be no third alternative. If an event can either happen or fail to happen in the same exact situation, then there cannot be anything in that situation that explains why it happened or failed to happen. And that is what it means for the event to be random.

BTW, in ch. 7 of my book THE TRUTH ABOUT GOD, I explain this further and then use it as part of an argument for atheism.