Why I don't believe in 'free will'

[Edwardo Piet]

Who's decision is it then? I say it's my choice because I can't see how it can be anyone else's.

You're making decisions as in you are 'doing stuff' and you BELIEVE you make choices and you BELIEVE in free will. I know of no evidence of the truth of this though. And as I say - belief in 'free will' is not evidence of it. I know of no reason to believe.

Who's decision is it then? Well - it's yours in the sense THAT YOU 'do stuff' and BELIEVE it's your choice...but I know of no actual evidence that you have any choice in the matter...

You have thoughts yes... - do you CHOOSE them? I know of no evidence of this.

You do stuff yes...you BELIEVE you CHOOSE that yes...and you CALL it 'choosing' - but any evidence that you actually DO? I don't know of any.

As far as I'm concerned your thoughts and actions depend on many things, genetic, enviromental, etc, it's all physics ultimately. I know of no evidence that YOU somehow 'choose this' - the fact you BELIEVE you do is not evidence for the truth OF that very belief! That's circular reasoning as I say.

Basically it all boils down to the fact that I believe that free will exists and as you rightly say I have no evidence for this.

Indeed you have no evidence. No evidence to believe it though yeah? No reason?

On the other hand you believe that free will is simply an illusion but you have no evidence for this either.

Why would I? I don't believe that free will is some 'big illusion' and that I also like you having no evidence FOR it - I also have no evidence 'of the illusion'...

No - the fact that people believe in God does not mean I need evidence for the 'illusion of God'. It doesn't matter how many people believe in God - I don't need evidence that it's 'just an illusion'.

The point is...the fact people DO believe in free will ( commonly anyway), THAT 'illusion' that 'seems to be true' or whatever - is not evidence of the truth of it.

The fact that people commonly believe it is not evidence - and so I need no reason TO dismiss it as an illusion. Just as I don't need evidence for an illusion of God being there for those who DO believe in "God". I assume it's an illusion to theists and a delusion to me because I know of no evidence! Same with free will! I don't need evidence FOR the illusion because the illusion to them itself is not remotely evidence or reason to believe whatsoever! And I know of no OTHER evidence or reason to believe either!

I can just dismiss it on the grounds of no evidence. It's an illusion to me because people believe it but I know of no evidence or reason to believe whatsoever! The illusion of it...the fact that people DO believe it is not remotely evidence of the truth of it - and I don't see how it's a reason to believe at all.

It seems to me that free will exists based on my own experience of life.

So if you DON'T have free will what would have to be different for you to believe otherewise? What experience have you gained that makes you think "I choose these thoughts...." - you believe you do but how do you?

Experience is the only evidence I have and it seems strange that someone could argue so passionately against any degree of free will.

Strange maybe because it's so uncommon. I know you believe free will. But to me it seems the only reason I hear to believe free will is that they have 'experienced it' from you (well I experience life too you know - how would I tell the difference?? How do YOU tell the difference? What actual reason is there to believe it? - the belief itself isn't..that's circular reasoning).

But the only answer I seem to get from both others AND you is that the reason to believe in free will is that we commonly seem to THINK there is a reason and it's commonly believe so there must be reasoning there.....it 'seems' that way.

But that's not a reason because it's circular logic. Belief in free will=reason to believe in free will? And HOW CAN it 'seem' that way if you have no reason to believe it couldn't ''seem' that way' WITHOUT - free will and yet you still have no reason TO believe in free will (that I have heard of I mean).

Isn't the fact that it 'seems' that free will exist kind of similar to the fact that theists speak of how the intelligence and APPARENT designer of nature gives indication that God exists because it just 'seems' that way to them?

Belief is not evidence of the belief itself...that's circular.

I maintain that I know of no reason TO believe in 'free will' or any evidence of the truth of it whatsoever.

I'm going to start another thread for which there is no evidence and see where it goes.

Good luck

EvF

[Darwinian]

The whole thrust of your argument seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that because you have stated a disbelief in something then the onus is on the other party to 'prove' there case.

A bit like someone who believes in God having to prove it rather than an atheist have to disprove it.

However, free will is different isn't it. Whether it is truly free or not it is most certainly something that everyone experiences and therefore, in whatever form, be it illusion or other actually exists.

So, your original statement which was "I don't believe in free will" must have the emphasis on free as in this instance the word 'will' simply means to choose and even you would agree that choices are made in our lives. You simply don't believe that it is yourself who consciously decides.

It would be more accurate to say instead that "you believe that free will is an illusion." If this, as I hope I have demonstrated, is what you are actually saying then the burdon of evidence is upon you to proove your case.

[athoughtfulman]

I would agree with that. But I could argue that all these conditions are part of me and I'm using my free will to make a decision based upon all available information. Also, if it were as simple as that why have I yet to decide?

There will always be a reason why someone chooses one course of action over another. The question for me is, can that choice be predicted based on the laws of cause and effect or is there some random element intervening as well?

Although we go through our lives like robots most of the time, predictably making decisions that we are unaware of the process behind I still think that we do have the ability to override this automated system with our innate sense of self.

Again, this is just how it seems to me and I have no evidence..

Of course you could argue that, and I would wholeheartedly agree with you. When it comes to choices, we make them based very much on our own personal experiences. There will always be a reason why one person chooses one action over another, but that does not change the fact that we are oblivious to the reasons.

And as for our ability to override the automated system, I'm forced to ask, what makes us decide to override that system? In the end, my point isn't that we aren't the ones making the choice, my point is that we, in the end, have no idea what actually caused us to make a certain choice. So I guess in one sense, we are free. But it's a far cry from the free will that so many believe us to have.

If all the choices I make are influenced by next to infinite amount of reasons, I have absolutely no way of making a completely free choice. Sure, I can comprehend a few of the factors in a choice, but when it comes down to it, I am making the choice based on thousands of other things. It is for this reason that I will not say we're free. Though this does not mean I believe it to be completely random, nor am I for a deterministic world. All it means is that our supposed free will is much reduced.

Reminds me of something in the Matrix Reloaded. Neo is told by the Oracle that he doesn't have to make a choice, he has to understand why he made it. In the end, we make our choices, but it is near impossible to understand what actually brought us to make that choice.

---

It seems to me that free will exists based on my own experience of life. Experience is the only evidence I have and it seems strange that someone could argue so passionately against any degree of free will.

Just on a side note, and I quite funny one I think , we all are arguing for either free will or no free will. Does that mean EvF didn't 'choose' to argue or hold his point of view, and that you chose freely? Or that I didn't have a choice to not believe in it? It's a strange idea methinks.

[Edwardo Piet]

The whole thrust of your argument seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that because you have stated a disbelief in something then the onus is on the other party to 'prove' there case.

A bit like someone who believes in God having to prove it rather than an atheist have to disprove it.

However, free will is different isn't it. Whether it is truly free or not it is most certainly something that everyone experiences and therefore, in whatever form, be it illusion or other actually exists.

But the illusion is not remotely reason to believe that it is ACTUALLY true. That would be circular reasoning. Belief in free will is not evidence of the TRUTH of free will.

So, your original statement which was "I don't believe in free will" must have the emphasis on free as in this instance the word 'will' simply means to choose and even you would agree that choices are made in our lives. You simply don't believe that it is yourself who consciously decides.

Correct.

It would be more accurate to say instead that "you believe that free will is an illusion." If this, as I hope I have demonstrated, is what you are actually saying then the burdon of evidence is upon you to proove your case.

No it isn't. The illusion of free will is there in the sense that people merely BELIEVE it. That is not remotely evidence. That would be circular reasoning. I need reason to actually believe the TRUTH of this, that free will actually IS so...I need evidence.

The burden of proof if on anyone - is on you. It's on those who believe in it. The fact people believe it cannot be evidence to support the TRUTH of what they believe because that's circular reasoning...

What ACTUAL reason to believe is there?

EvF

[athoughtfulman]

I agree with that....EXCEPT that you seem to be supporting determinism but whether you are or not I myself am an INdeterministic and I maintain that while DETERMINISM makes free will IMPOSSIBLE there is still no evidence of, or reason to believe in 'free will' whatsoever that *I* know of. So free will is NO more PROBABLE with INdeterminism than determinism...except simply that the MERE POSSIBILITY is open.

I'm not supporting either one. I think it's impossible to know, and I think it's a non-issue, since whichever one is true we will still keep acting in the same way. Our days will keep going by with us making seemingly 'free' choices in a seemingly 'non-deterministic' world.

I don't think free will exists, but I think it impossible to argue for either a non-deterministic or deterministic world. Of course, one must ask evidence for the positive claim, but I think in this situation, one would need evidence to prove it non-deterministic, so instead the default should be, "I don't know whether it's non-deterministic or deterministic.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me, and I'm not really interested in it, since that's even more impossible to come to a conclusion about. The free will debate though I find very interesting

[Darwinian]

Why would I? I don't believe that free will is some 'big illusion' and that I also like you having no evidence FOR it - I also have no evidence 'of the illusion'...

Whoa!! Hold the phone..

Let me get this straight.

You have been arguing all this time that you don't believe that free will actually exists which is a definate point of view.

But, on the other hand...

You also don't believe that free will is an illusion either.

You see, I actually do experience something that I call 'free will', whether it turns out to be true or false it's still there as a definate experience, but you don't experience anything at all then? Nothing, even if it does turn out to be an illusion and not of our own making?

Are you having a turkish?

[Edwardo Piet]

Why would I? I don't believe that free will is some 'big illusion' and that I also like you having no evidence FOR it - I also have no evidence 'of the illusion'...

Whoa!! Hold the phone..

Let me get this straight.

You have been arguing all this time that you don't believe that free will actually exists which is a definate point of view.

But, on the other hand...

You also don't believe that free will is an illusion either.

Not to me either. To me it's a DELUSION.

Just as God is not an illusion to ME - only those who actually believe it. To THEM it seems real. I however think God is a DElusion. As with free will - because I don't believe in it...it's not an illusion to me. Doesn't seem apparent at all - it DID in the PAST though when I believed it.

So you don't experience anything at all then? Nothing, even if it does turn out to be an illusion and not of our own making?

I don't sense an illusion. I sense no free will at all. OTHERS do - they BELIEVE that THEY make choices. I CALL it making a choice when I 'choose' a certain flavour of pack of crisps for example. But for me PERSONALLY there is no illusion of 'free will' - there's no reason to believe in it AT ALL.

You see, I actually do experience something that I call 'free will', whether it turns out to be true or false it's still there as a definate experience,

You experience life. And you believe you have free will. Where does the experiencing 'free will' come in there? The fact you believe you have 'free will' is not an indication that you DO have it. As I said - that's circular reasoning.

but you don't experience anything at all then?

I experience stuff...I just...don't know of any reason to believe in free will that's all!

Nothing, even if it does turn out to be an illusion and not of our own making?

I no longer sense even an illusion. I know of NO reason to believe in free will whatsoever.

I do stuff. I think stuff. But I do not believe that I choose this...I just AM. I'm part of physics - if I DID believe I had free will that would not be any reason TO believe the TRUTH of it because that's circular reasoning... And THAT - is why I don't believe in free will.

Are you having a turkish?

I don't understand that expression. Perhaps you could clarify?

Just on a side note, and I quite funny one I think , we all are arguing for either free will or no free will. Does that mean EvF didn't 'choose' to argue or hold his point of view, and that you chose freely? Or that I didn't have a choice to not believe in it? It's a strange idea methinks.

My argument is objective because belief in free will is irrelevant to the truth of free will. I know of no reason to believe that ANY of us are 'CHOOSING' to do ANY of this - whether we BELIEVE it or not makes no difference and whether we simply CALL it 'choosing' or not makes no difference!

EvF

[Tiberius]

And Adrian ... I think that using philosophy to substitute for lack of evidence is insane, whilst it may be of interest philosophy (and I'm not talking "of science") alone has never proven a damned thing.

I never said it proved anything, those are your words. I'm saying that there are some things that science cannot explain, things like free-will. The only way to prove free-will would be to go back in time and see if actions played out exactly the same as before. We simply do not have the technology (and science says it is impossible) to do so.

Unless you can come up with a better experiment than that, the question of free-will lies in the realm of philosophy, as does God, etc.

[athoughtfulman]

My argument is objective because belief in free will is irrelevant to the truth of free will. I know of no reason to believe that ANY of us are 'CHOOSING' to do ANY of this - whether we BELIEVE it or not makes no difference and whether we simply CALL it 'choosing' or not makes no difference!

Indeed. I agree with you. I just think it's funny, because either we're exercising free will to argue about all this, or we're simply doing it without choice.

It's the same as religion - It doesn't matter how many people believe it's real and feel like it's real, in the end, we need evidence. The sense that we are free, and the amount of people who believe in it, has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of it.

[Edwardo Piet]

And Adrian ... I think that using philosophy to substitute for lack of evidence is insane, whilst it may be of interest philosophy (and I'm not talking "of science") alone has never proven a damned thing.

I never said it proved anything, those are your words. I'm saying that there are some things that science cannot explain, things like free-will. The only way to prove free-will would be to go back in time and see if actions played out exactly the same as before. We simply do not have the technology (and science says it is impossible) to do so.

Unless you can come up with a better experiment than that, the question of free-will lies in the realm of philosophy, as does God, etc.

So I IOW reject DEISM and think deism is highly implausible for exactly the same reason that I reject 'free will'.

I.e. No evidence or reason to believe whatsoever. I don't care whether it' POSSIBLE or not for there to be evidence - I need evidence! I'm not going to believe without evidence. I'm not going to believe on 'faith'. I need a rational reason to believe - I need evidence.

EvF