Why I don't believe in 'free will'

[Edwardo Piet]

This comes from what the Moral Nihilism thread turned into later on... - this is what I think on the matter of 'free will':

Firstly:
I need a reason to believe in this 'free will' thing - I would think NO 'free will would be the default. Because there's already evidence for physics and the mechanics of the universe. But no evidence (as far as I know) that we can influence THAT other than what we are doing simply BECAUSE of it whether we like it or not. In which case we don't really influence stuff 'ourselves' because we are PART OF it. We are bound by the same things as far as I know; either we are determined like the rest of the universe (determinism) or we're not (indeterminism) and we're more random. This applies to the rest of physics - what evidence is there even remotely that it isn't exactly the same for US? I know of no evidence that PHYSICS ITSELF has 'free will' - why would we be any different?


The fact people merely believe that GOD exists or is present in the universe is not even remotely evidence that he exists - why would it be different for free will? And if we need evidence FOR GOD's presence/existence first why wouldn't we for free will too?

Secondly:
Determinism='free will' is impossible.

INdeterminism='Free will' is now perhaps, possible - but as far as I know no more probable other than the fact the mere possibility is perhaps open. I STILL know of no evidence that we actually make decisions other than the fact we (at least those who believe in free will) merely believe we do. INdeterminism just means the universe isn't determined; i.e. physics is more random... How does more random remotely give any evidence of or reason to believe in 'free will'?

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?

How does possibility remotely imply any real CHOICE OF possibility?

Thoughts?

EvF

[Darwinian]

Oh my God, EvF... You don't believe in anything!!! Next thing you'll be telling me is that ghosts aren't real or that rational faith is an oxymoron

Of course free will must exist. If it didn't that means that every tiny aspect of our lives and thoughts are pre-determined and 'free will' is an illusion and if it is an illusion who is the subject of that illusion?

[Samson]

This was written by a lady a while back...I thought her breakdown of Freewill was really good... Take a read and tell me what you think...

It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not. How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences? That completely conflicts with the definition of free. If I were to hold a gun to your head and say “you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you.” Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter? Of course not. Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self defeating. Call it Circumstantial Will, for that is what it truly is.

[Darwinian]

For me, free will is the ability, as a rational agent, to be able to act freely in making a choice when I am able to do otherwise. In the example given the person still has the freedom to make a choice but that freedom is highly restricted based on the consequences of the decision made.

In this example the ability for a person to exercise their free will has been all but crippled.

So, not a very good example.

[Edwardo Piet]

Of course free will must exist.

How so? Where is the evidence?

If it didn't that means that every tiny aspect of our lives and thoughts are pre-determined

No it wouldn't - as I explained there is no more evidence for free will in an INdeterministic universe than there is in a deterministic one. If determinisim is like rigged dice and INdeterminism is like your normal UNrigged dice...how does simply the more possibilites open in with the UNrigged dice in the INdeterminsitic universe remotely mean there is any choice in the matter of how the dice are thrown any more than if they were rigged? There's simply more options!

More random doesn't=choice! The lottery doesn't have 'free will'! Probability rather than pre-determined does not imply 'free will'!

and 'free will' is an illusion and if it is an illusion who is the subject of that illusion?

There is no evidence of ACTUAL free will..the fact that we believe it is just evidence of the ILLUSION of it BECAUSE there's no evidence of the TRUTH of it...

BECAUSE - BELIEF in choice is not evidence of choice!!! Just because we CALL it that doesn't mean we HAVE it!

If belief equates to evidence to the truth of a belief then that would mean that belief in God equates to evidence of the truth of it! And it fucking DOESN'T as you know!

Belief in 'free will' is not remote evidence of 'free will'. As far as we know it's just physics!

And INdeterministic physics bouncing about more randomly does NOT imply free will any more than if the universe is deterministic and pre-determined! It just opens the possibility! There's still no evidence!

'Free will' is still an absurd notion with no evidence to support it whatsoever as far as I'm concerned (which is the primary reason it's such an absurd notion....taking credit for our choices doesn't make them 'free' choices. Simply BELIEVING in free will doesn't make it TRUE! Either 'free will' exists or it doesn't! I know of ZERO evidence that it REMOTELY exists.,...no reason to believe it.).

EvF

[Samson]

The example given was her using it at as a Christians point of view of what Freewill would be like for them....

[Edwardo Piet]

For me, free will is the ability, as a rational agent, to be able to act freely in making a choice when I am able to do otherwise.

Where is the evidence that you actually do? You just believe you do! Where's the evidence that you actually do? Belief that you do is not evidence.[/quote]

In the example given the person still has the freedom to make a choice but that freedom is highly restricted based on the consequences of the decision made.

Where is the evidence that the person has remotely any choice in the matter other than the fact he believes he does? The fact he believes he has 'free will' does not make it so! He's 'just' a biological robot whether the physics is deterministic (like rigged dice) or INdetermistiic (more random, probabilistic physics, normal UNrigged dice).

Finally I shall repeat once again: Belief in free will and 'choices' is not remotely evidence of the truth of it.

Where is the evidence? AT ALL???

EvF

[Darwinian]

I have no evidence for my position just as you have no evidence for yours. This is why it's called philosophy and why philosophers have been arguing about it since the the beginning of philosophical thought.

All I will say is this.. From what I understand so far about the universe, physics, quantum mechanics, chaos theory, string theory and my own mind I tend to side with Daniel Dennett on this one in that I see no conflict between determinism and free will..

Again, I have NO evidence for my viewpoint as I believe this is a subject that cannot be proved either one way or the other and to try to use the 'lack of evidence' card in favour of an argument that is obviously philosophical is perhaps, oxymoronic.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Of course free will must exist. If it didn't that means that every tiny aspect of our lives and thoughts are pre-determined and 'free will' is an illusion and if it is an illusion who is the subject of that illusion?

There's no of course about it ... at best you can only assume there is free will.

I have no evidence for my position just as you have no evidence for yours. This is why it's called philosophy and why philosophers have been arguing about it since the the beginning of philosophical thought.

And there, I believe, you err because (at least in private conversations with Ev) he has agreed that there is no support for the belief that there is no free will either ... whichever way you look at it the idea that we have free will is based on assumption (it looks like it, it feels like it but there's no evidence because it can't be tested in any objective fashion).

Kyu

[Darwinian]

To err is human

I obviously didn't concentate enough on Ev's original post..