Why I don't believe in 'free will'

[Darwinian]

I believe that I know it's an now illusion

That wouldn't be belief without evidence would it? i.e. Faith?

[Edwardo Piet]

Not if there's evidence of that belief (or in this case, not if there is indeed no evidence of an objective (behavioral) 'free will' - I don't believe there is because I know of no evidence).

EvF

[Darwinian]

Not if there's evidence of that belief (or in this case, not if there is indeed no evidence of an objective (behavioral) 'free will' - I don't believe there is because I know of no evidence).

EvF

Which there isn't..

[Edwardo Piet]

There's no evidence of free will. But I believe that there is the equivalent of evidence of my belief. And that equivalent is there is NO evidence OF 'free will'...

For my belief is not a belief but a dislbelief. When I say "I believe there is no free will" I am IOW saying that I DISbelieve in free will. So I don't need evidence of 'no free will' I need evidence OF free will - since I am not being absolutist.

And yes, remember - my evidence I just mean a logical reason to believe that objective (behavioral) 'free will' actually exists. So don't go there with the 'there can be no evidence' again because you'll be beginning to sound like fr0d0 only about 'free will' rather than God :S

fr0d0 tells me that there can be no evidence of God so it's ridiculous to ask for it. And I say that I'm still not going to actually believe without evidence though.

He mixes up 'needing no evidence' for 'needing no evidence to believe rationally.'

In other words: If there indeed can't be evidence that doesn't mean it's rational to believe without evidence!

So the point is it's the same with free will: Whether there can be evidence or not - I'm still not going to believe in it, to believe it's true without evidence!

EvF

[Darwinian]

There's no evidence of free will. But I believe that there is the equivalent of evidence of my belief. And that equivalent is there is NO evidence OF 'free will'...

No.. Just because there is no evidence for proposition A in no way does it follow that proposition B has gained credibility as a result.

I could say, but I don't, that you have no evidence for your belief in the illusion of free will so therefore and because of that, that I have some sort of evidence in favour of it.

For my belief is not a belief but a dislbelief. When I say "I believe there is no free will" I am IOW saying that I DISbelieve in free will. So I don't need evidence of 'no free will' I need evidence OF free will - since I am not being absolutist.

But you clearly said..

I believe that I know it's now an illusion

This is a statement of belief without evidence. Faith!

fr0d0 tells me that there can be no evidence of God so it's ridiculous to ask for it. And I say that I'm still not going to actually believe without evidence though.

Who understands what fr0d0 says? Not even fr0d0 I suspect. No offence fr0d0

[Edwardo Piet]

No.. Just because there is no evidence for proposition A in no way does it follow that proposition B has gained credibility as a result.

I'm just saying that no evidence to believe in A =no reason to believe in A. That's not faith. It's the opposite. Faith is belief without evidence. Not disbelief without evidence.

I could say, but I don't, that you have no evidence for your belief in the illusion of free will so therefore and because of that, that I have some sort of evidence in favour of it.

It's by default an illusion because the fact people merely believe it is not evidence of the truth of it - that would be circular reasoning.

I need a reason to believe it's actually true. The fact people believe it is not evidence of the truth of it, as i said - that's circular. That's why it's an illusion because belief does not equate to truth of belief because that's circular!

The fact those who believe in God experience the illusion of God existing is not evidence of the truth of it! Their belief in God is not evidence of the truth of their belief in God! That's circular.

Why would it be different for free will?

For my belief is not a belief but a dislbelief. When I say "I believe there is no free will" I am IOW saying that I DISbelieve in free will. So I don't need evidence of 'no free will' I need evidence OF free will - since I am not being absolutist.[/u]

But you clearly said..

I believe that I know it's an now illusion

This is a statement of belief without evidence. Faith!

I believe it's an illusion because I iow have no reason to believe it's true. I iow disbelieve in free will because there is no evidence. That's not faith. Disbelief without evidence isn't faith - belief without evidence is faith.

The fact that there's no evidence that 'free will' is true is all the evidence I need to believe it's an illusion! Same with God...for all those who believe in God and experience the illusion of God's existence there is still no evidence of the truth of it - That's all I need for evidence that they're merely experiencing an illusion. As with 'free will'.

And if you can't call absence of evidence evidence of absence in this case then that's irrelevant to this matter because it's still not faith. As I said - faith isn't disbelief without evidence...it's belief without evidence.

If you disbelieve in something because there's no evidence then that's not a faith belief! And nor is it irrational:

Just as it's rational for when there's evidence for you to believe...it's rational for when there's no evidence for you to disbelieve.

fr0d0 tells me that there can be no evidence of God so it's ridiculous to ask for it. And I say that I'm still not going to actually believe without evidence though.

Who understands what fr0d0 says? Not even fr0d0 I suspect. No offence fr0d0

Okay...but my point is that I've been told the similar about 'free will' here as fr0d0 tells me about God it seems...and I don't see why free will is any different on this matter here...?:

Because: If there can be no evidence of God that doesn't mean you don't need evidence first before you rationally believe - I still expect evidence first before I actually believe in "God".

And just like that: If there can be no evidence of (behavioral) 'free will' that doesn't mean you don't need evidence first before you rationally believe - I still expect evidence first before I actually believe in 'free will'.

Fr0d0 tells me there can't be evidence of God but that there can still be reasons. I ask what reasons, and he can't give me them.

If there can't be evidence for "God" that does not mean it's in any way rational to believe in God without evidence for him. That would still be irrational.

Just like that though, here I have been told there can't be evidence of free will will. But there can be reasons. I ask what reasons, and it seems I'm not given anything but the same circular argument and or changes back and forth to other definitions of 'free will' that are completely different and even I don't reject.

And if there can't be evidence for (behavioral)'free will' that does not mean it's in any way rational to believe in 'free will' without evidence for it.. That would still be irrational.

Why would 'free will' be any different?

EvF

[Darwinian]

Just like that though, here I have been told there can't be evidence of free will will. But there can be reasons. I ask what reasons, and it seems I'm not given anything but the same circular argument and or changes back and forth to other definitions of 'free will' that are completely different and even I don't reject.

My reason for accepting the notion of free will is simply that I 'appear' to experience it. So therefore I accept it and would require evidence of some kind to think otherwise.

This is quite different from God. With this the default position is not to accept it as there is no reason to think otherwise. Unlike free will, we don't have sense of God within us do we?

Of course, it may be that you are different in that you don't sense anything akin to free will, but I do and so do all the people I have spoken to about it, whether they actually think it real or not.

[Edwardo Piet]

My reason for accepting the notion of free will is simply that I 'appear' to experience it. So therefore I accept it and would require evidence of some kind to think otherwise.

And that's the circular argument once again.

If you do have free will then to you - you appear to experience it...

But if you don't have free will then to you - you still appear to experience it.

There's no reason to believe the appearance would be any different with or without it. How can we possibly tell?

So to say the appearance of it is evidence when you can't possibly tell the difference either way is fallacious.

And to say that the fact you believe in free will or people commonly believe in it is evidence of (or reason to believe in...) the truth of it - is a circular argument.

To say that the fact you believe in free will is rational because it 'appears that it exists' to you pretty much equates to saying:

"The fact that people commonly believe in free will is all the evidence they need to be rationally commonly believing in the truth of it".

That's circular because you are saying belief in free will is a rational reason to believe that free will
is true.

This is quite different from God. With this the default position is not to accept it as there is no reason to think otherwise. Unlike free will, we don't have sense of God within us do we?

I don't have a sense of 'free will' within me anymore. Free will I think is simply even more common a belief than God. And free will is instilled in us more from evolution while religion is more culture.

But the fact 'free will' is more commonly believed and instilled in us through evolution is irrelevant. The fact we believe it or even that we have evolved to believe it is not remotely evidence of the truth of it...because the belief itself cannot support the truth of the belief - that's circular reasoning.

What evidence or reason have you got that we couldn't just as easily believe in free will without free will?

Belief in free will is not evidence that we couldn't just as easily believe in it without it. We could believe in free will without having it! How couldn't we?

So all that is irrelevant. It still comes down to the fact that there's no evidence of (or reason to believe in...) free will that I know of.

and as I said:

1. Belief in free will is obviously not evidence of free will itself, because a belief is not evidence of the truth of a belief - that's circular.

2. Belief in free will is not evidence that without free will we couldn't believe in it. I have know of no reason to believe that we couldn't just as easily believe in free will without actually having it.

3. So what reason is there to believe in it then?

Of course, it may be that you are different in that you don't sense anything akin to free will, but I do and so do all the people I have spoken to about it, whether they actually think it real or not.

Sensing free will is irrelevant to the truth of it because you could just as easily be sensing it without actually having it. You can't back up the existence of free will with the experience of it because what you are experiencing as 'free will' you could just as easily be experiencing without it as an illusion (as I believe you indeed do).

EvF

[Darwinian]

And that's the circular argument once again.

No it isn't, it's simply the reason why an acceptance of free will is my default position.

But if you don't have free will then to you - you still appear to experience it.

And that's the point. I do appear to experience it which is why I require evidence to disprove it.

To say that the fact you believe in free will is rational because it 'appears that it exists' to you pretty much equates to saying:

"The fact that people commonly believe in free will is all the evidence they need to be rationally commonly believing in the truth of it".

No, it would be more appropriate to say that "The fact that people commonly believe in free will due to a common experience that it 'appears' to exist is all they need to require opponents to provide some sort of evidence to support their claim that it is in fact an illusion."

Sensing free will is irrelevant to the truth of it because you could just as easily be sensing it without actually having it

I sense it therefore there is something to sense. If you are saying that what I sense isn't really what I think it is then you need to come up more persuasive arguments than 'a lack of evidence'. As I have already inferred, there is a reason to believe because I am aware of it.

It's a bit like people believing in God because we can all see him in the clouds. Of course, he may be an illusion but it would be those who state that who would have to prove it.

[Tiberius]

For my belief is not a belief but a dislbelief. When I say "I believe there is no free will" I am IOW saying that I DISbelieve in free will. So I don't need evidence of 'no free will' I need evidence OF free will - since I am not being absolutist.

A disbelief and a belief are entirely different things. If you say "I believe there is no free will" then you are making a claim, and it needs backing up. This is not the same as saying "I disbelieve in free will". To disbelieve does not require any assertion of your own, just a rejection of a certain belief.

This is why the gnostic atheists will say "I believe there is no god" or "I know there is no god" (both are claims). The agnostic atheists will say "I do not believe in a god" or "I don't know if there is a god" (both are rejections, the first rejecting belief, the latter rejecting claims of knowledge).

Your belief that it is an illusion is a positive belief, not a disbelief. If someone says "I believe that my mother is in heaven", my rejection of that idea does not mean I believe that the belief is an illusion. It simply means that do not accept the belief that someone's mother is in heaven. Illusion is a claim, not a default position. The default position is non-existence. Something can not exist, but at the same time it cannot also be an illusion. An illusion must exist itself to be an illusion, so by claiming something is an illusion, you must provide evidence that the illusion exists.