Why I don't believe in 'free will'

[Edwardo Piet]

You can see the issue of free-will like the deist god, completely unprovable, but worth some decent arguing about in philosophy.

Completely unprovable and NON-intervening but still requiring evidence to believe! I still need an evidence to believe in deism. And I still need evidence to believe in this 'free will'.

And as you agreed with me... 'NO free will' is the default...I need reason TO believe it actually exists...that it actually IS SO....that it's actually present in this universe...that we actually MAKE choices rather than simply BELIEVING we do - which is not remote evidence that we DO.

How would it be?

Except the rest of the universe isn't determined; any person who has studied quantum mechanics for even 10 minutes can tell you that.

Which is why at least for the time being I continue to support INdeterminism. I still know of no reason to believe in free-will though.

Why would physics need free-will? Why are you even asking that question?

Because I'm trying to show that I think that it's only as stupid as the question of why WE would have free will. The fact that we have more avoidability is no evidence that we have any CHOICE In it. The fact that we have the consciousness, the awareness capable of BELIEVING we have this 'free-will' is no remotely evidence that we DO.

How would it be?

It makes no sense. I don't think free-will is separate from physics, I say that free-will is a part of it. Free-will is a part of consciousness, saying that we have some degree of control over our actions; that we aren't just instinct machines pre-programmed by our DNA. Our decisions are affected by our environment, where we are, the people we know, etc. To suppose that our decisions could not change if these factors did not change is ridiculous in my mind.

I do not suggest we are just instinct machines. I support INdeterminism. I still now of no reason to believe in (or evidence of) 'free will' though. And as I said 'NO free will' is the default position.

Why would I believe it? Because many DO? When that's not remotely evidence that its TRUE?

I'm certainly not going to believe for THAT reason! That's not a good reason! It's no evidence of free will whatsoever!

I know of no evidence of free will or reason TO believe in it whatsoever.

God is an external entity to us, usually considered separate to the universe. Most gods are said to play some part in the universe, and therefore there should be evidence of them. Hence why we ask for evidence. You can't ask that question of a deist though, since they will freely admit that there is no direct evidence. The deist will argue from logic (i.e. purely philosophical) that god exists.

And yet despite the deist wouldn't leave evidence so isn't detectable by science. I of course still reject deism on the basis of no evidence. As I say to fr0d0 - whether there CAN be evidence OR NOT - I'm still going to need evidence TO BELIEVE. I still need evidence for deism TO BELIEVE.

I need SOME reason to believe that a deist God exists!

As with 'free-will' - I need a reason to believe that it is true.

We are part of physics, our consciousnesses exist as part of physics. If physics can be random, then why can't our consciousnesses?

I'm not saying it can't.

It's not evidence in support of free-will,

Certainly isn't. And I need support of 'free will' otherwise I have no reason to believe it!

but it's evidence that suggests free-will may be possible.

Well yeah....INdeterminism makes it perhaps POSSIBLE yeah..... but that's not saying much! GOD is perhaps possible because you can't prove a negative!

I need a reason TO believe. As with God...being POSSIBLE isn't good enough! GOD is possible PERHAPS - you can't prove a negative! But that's not really much support or reason to believe in God now is it?

I do not think free will to be at all probable though - how the hell would it work? Where's any evidence of the truth of it? Any reason to believe in it at all?
It certainly gives a reason though.

If free-will doesn't exist, then the choice to catch a ball thrown at you is always going to be the same.

- that's determinism. How does INdeterminisim remotely IMPLY 'free will' it just opens a mere possibility. Still no reason to believe whatsoever.

If it does, then the choice may be the same, it may be different,

Yes.

but the choice is there.

Well..what we CALL 'choices' and 'decisions' is there. Evidence that we BELIEVE we CHOOSE is there....

But DO we choose? Or do we just SAY/BELIEVE we do? I know of no evidence that we ACTUALLY do. NO reason to believe at all.

And the fact we BELIEVE we 'choose' and BELIEVE we 'have free will' is not remotely evidence that we DO have a 'choice' or that 'free will' DOES exist....

If the belief itself is evidence of or reason to believe in the TRUTH of the belief then that's an ABSURD notion.

Does that mean if you believe in a delusion hard enough it becomes evidence of the truth of it??

It's circular reasoning! Belief in free will and 'choice' is not evidence of the truth of it. Whatever you want to call it.

Even every single decision boils down to a neuron firing, then in an indetermined universe, what's stopping the consciousness from also being indetermined?

Nothing. But how does an INdetermined consciousness imply free will? Just because our thoughts bounce about more doesn't mean we can control them! We just BELIEVE we can - and that's not remotely evidence that we CAN! Otherwise you can't fucking lose!

Belief in 'choice' and 'free will' is evidence of or remote reason to believe in free will? How so? That's circular reasoning!

Dice are random. But do they have any more choice in how they get thrown simply if they aren't RIGGED dice? Just because there are more possibilities?

Strawman. Dice do not have decision making capabilities, there is no choice involved.

Not a strawman because that wasn't my point so is irrelevant to my argument.

It is irrelevant to my argument that we have 'decision making capabilities' and dice don't....the point is that in a deterministic universe it's like everything is RIGGED...like rigged dice....whereas in an INdeterministic universe it's like it's NOT rigged...it's uncertain...it isn't determined...it's like UNrigged dice -they could fall either way.

But the fact the universe is INdetermined is not remotely evidence of 'free will' - it just opens a mere possibility! Still no evidence of, or reason to believe in 'free-will' whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.

The fact we have 'decision making capabilities' and dice do not is not relevant to my argument. Because I was simply using rigged and UNrigged dice as an analogy for determinism and INdetermism...and the fact that we have 'decision making capabilities' is not remotely evidence of free will!

Why isn't it evidence of free will, or any reason to believe in 'free-will' whatsoever? Because as I have said - the fact we BELIEVE we have a 'choice'...the fact we BELIEVE in free will - is not remotely evidence of the TRUTH of it! That's circular reasoning!

EvF

---

If the only way you feel you can debate a subject like this is to shout, bully and basically tell me to fuck off then you can get stuffed. Not in so many words maybe but I get the message, loud and clear.

I meant no such thing. It's entirely in good cheer. I like you...no reason to be offended!! hock:

Seriously

The moment someone sticks to their guns and disagrees with your point

I am only doing the same. You stick to your guns...I stick to mine - isn't that fair?

you take it personally and try to bully them into submission.

I have took NOTHING personally. You have absolutely no reason to submit if you disagree with me - and I don't see how I'm bullying exactly? How so?

And now I'm angry. Not just with your immature attitude but also because for the first time on this forum you've made me swear.

Blimey. How am I being immature? I do my best....I have humility - I do not claim to know anything.

As far as I was concerned this was an interesting point of philosophy but you've turned it into a savage attack on my opinions which is something I won't tolerate.

Savage attack how?

I've met people like you before. People who think that because there is no evidence for something that it can't possibly be worthy of investigation or thought.

Why do you think I created this thread? TO investigate the matter. I find philosophy very interesting...

I simply need evidence TO BELIEVE - that is all. I'm still interested.

I'm interested in religion - and I think that's a load of nonsense!

People who can never concede that someone else may have something interesting to add to a discussion if it doesn't conform to their narrow minded view or isn't backed by evidence.

I'm not going to pretend to agree. And if I know of evidence I will change my mind. Why would I or should I otherwise??

Narrow minded people who only see things in black and white and totally miss the point of a decent discussion.

I can't help but thinking you are stereotyping me! I don't claim to absolutely 'KNOW' ANYTHING! I have humility. I just have a strong opinion of this because I know of no evidence to the contrary!

Is evidence too much to ask? I haven't attacked you personally at all....and also - contrary to what YOU said - I haven't took anything from YOU personally AT ALL...

Actually...for that matter... - I haven't EVER took anything anyone has EVER said on this forum personally!

You are incapable of entering into a decent debate as in the end it will degenerate into a competition on who can shout the loudest and as we've seen now, insult the best.

I have not insulted you....I like you...I take nothing personally...I use caps for emphasis - and on the matter of my poor debating skills...I do my best.

So to use language that you are so very familiar with, you can fu... No. I'm not going to lower myself to your level.

It's no problem. I don't see how I'm in any way like how you appear to be stereotyping me though....I do not remotely blame you though...I reckon it's a misunderstanding (I hope!!).

EvF