(June 15, 2015 at 5:00 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they are certain there is no kind of free will. Has anyone actually said that? Even if so, not many people I should think.
Saying people act "as if they have free will" is a badly formed phrase I believe. It assumes that they are wrong. If they are right, and there is no free will, then they are simply acting as they must act, so to say they are doing something "as if" makes no sense. They are making no real choices. It's not "as if" because there is no free will and no choices.
If they are wrong, and they do have free will, then yes they have free will and are using it, whether they realize it or not. Even the choice to do nothing is a choice. If there is free will, how could you possibly act "as if there is no free will"? What would that entail? If it involves any kind of choice, then that's a contradiction. It would just be choosing to do what they imagine no free will would be like... but if they think they are making that choice, then they've failed! They made a choice, using their free will. See, it doesn't make sense. In other words, everyone must by definition act "as if" they have free will, because that's literally all they can do. So it's more accurate to say they do have free will and have no choice but to use it. They may simply be unaware they are using it, and have come to the wrong conclusion about whether free will exists. That's the crucial part: we don't know, both explanations produce an identical result, so it seems. We can't rewind time and look for possible different choices.
What I'm saying is, if the objection is that people act "as if there is free will", what is the alternative?
I think it's very important to separate the two scenarios and examine them independently. If you talk like both at once could be true, the language makes no sense. And they can't both be true. If you take someone's actions, you don't know which is true. So either they are doing what they must do, or they are acting under free will and cannot "choose" to do otherwise.
I think the confusion comes by the mental trap of thinking in terms of there being free will, while examining whether or not there is free will.
The issue isn't over choosing, it's over what role the individual plays in choosing. With no free will, it's just a matter of genetics/input. With free will, i'ts a matter of genetics/input/mystery force.
Either way, our brains are still plodding through our mental process, it's just a matter of whether or not we have the mystery force that represents our contribution to the conclusion.
So when we say "as if there is free will", that's our brain operating under the idea there is mystery force. Of course, there may not be. But our brain doesn't know that, so it is just acting on bad info. But it could definitely do this without 'free will.' Because 'choosing' isn't what free will is. It's having input into the choice.
