Why I don't believe in 'free will'

[Edwardo Piet]

I have no evidence for my position just as you have no evidence for yours.

I don't need any. The burden of proof is entirely on those who believe in this 'free will'.

There is evidence of physics...there is NOT evidence of any 'free will' to CHOOSE what physics happen or to 'choose thoughts' or to choose your own 'choices'.

It is more parsimonious to simply believe that it's all physics....I know of no evidence of free will...I do not need any evidence to REJECT it - there is no evidence OF it.

This is why it's called philosophy and why philosophers have been arguing about it since the the beginning of philosophical thought.

I've got plenty of reason to believe this is all physics and 'automatic' whether it's deterministiic OR INdetermistiic....to believe that we can some how 'direct' WHICH 'path' we go down IN an INdeterministic universe of though...I will need evidence for that....

I know of no reason to believe we have any choice in the matter. To HAVE free will for it TO exist is what needs evidence...I don't need any evidece to reject it! There is evidence of physics...I don't need any evidence to reject the notion that there is 'something else' that there is 'free will' - I have no reason TO believe that there is 'something else' or 'free will' no evidence whatsoever!

There is already evidence for physics. Not for free will - I don't need ANY evidence to REJECT free will...

To believe it actually EXISTS though...to believe that rationally AT ALL - I could do with some fucking evidence first!

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..

.

1. I don't know your view but from both Adrian and others I have heard that Quantum Mechanics apparently supports INdeterminism not determinism? I'm not sure on the matter but for the time being at least, for that reason I lean towards INdeterminism. I know fuck-all about that matter.

2. My point is that there is no reason to believe in free will WITH or WITHOUT determinism. And that as far as I'm concerned: Dennett supports my argument! Because HIS definition of free will is NOT what most people define as free will nor what *I* am defining as 'free will'...

Why aren't I defining it like Dennett? Because he defines it as 'evitability' or 'avoidability' so it's compatible with determinism too....but evitability fucking OBVIOUSLY exists! Humans have more 'evitability' or 'avoidability' than a pile of rocks because they can drive motorcars, build computers climb mountains and go to the moon!!

With or without what *I* and how MOST people define free willl....of COURSE there's EVITABILITY - whether we have ANY choice in out avoiding, in our evitability or not...with or without ANY free will - there is still evitability...there is still 'free will' in THAT sense as Dennett defines it! But that's fucking obvious to everyone! People have the freedom to 'do things' whether they have a choice in the matter or not!!

As Dennett says....if someone throws a brick you can duck....whether you can choose it or not...whether it was determined or not! - that's obvious! That's EVITABILITY - but how does that give you any freedom in whether to MAKE that choice or not? It doesn't.

All it's saying is that YOU CAN DO IT - not that you can really CHOOSE it. Just that you can do it and you can BELIEVE you can 'choose it' there's no evidence that you actually can....

If you define 'free will' as EVITABILITY then fine....but even computer A.I has evitability...even an ANT has evitability....the ability to avoid things....it's stating the obvious and it's got nothing to do with actual 'free will' AS IN - having any real choice in the matter.

Whether you BELIEVE you have 'choice' or not...that doesn't mean you actually do. You can call it what you want.

I know of no evidence or IOW reason to believe whatsoever.

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 this is obviously philosophical is perhaps, oxymoronic.

How is lack of evidence oxymoronic??? There's plenty of evidence for physics...but no evidence whatsoever that we can even REMOTELY....CHOOSE our own choices...MAKE our own decisions out of CHOICE - we just believe we do and CALL IT 'making choices' - I know of no evidence that we have any choice in the matter....

Wouldn't that belief require evidence? No evidence is needed whatsoever to reject it...I know of no evidence and have no reason to believe that there really IS 'free will' or any choice in the matter.

I would think it would be claims about the UNIVERSE....to SAY that we CAN make choices without any evidence whatsoever that we ACTUALLY CAN - why would you believe if there's no evidence or reason to believe that?

It's not open for choice here. Either 'free will' exists or has SOME effect in this universe or it doesn't.

Either there is SOME reason to believe in 'free will' SOME evidence...ANY evidence - or there isn't.

I don't know of any...why would I believe it? There's plenty of evidence for physics FFS (DUHH!) - is there evidence that we can influence it WHATSOEVER? Nope.

If we BELIEVE we have 'free will' how is that REMOTELY evidence that we do?

(answer: it isn't. How would it be?)

Finally: I believe 'free will' is also a scientific claim. Why? Because it is a claim that we can CHOOSE our own thoughts and MAKE our own decisions WITHIN this universe that we can CHOOSE the WAY physics actually go - that's an effect within the universe.....either we have that ability WITHIN this universe to EFFECT this universe - or we don't...

Where is the evidence that we DO? As far as I know we just commonly BELIEVE we have free will and SAY we 'make choices' - I know of no evidence whatsoever that we actually DO have 'free will' or 'make choices' - whatever we CALL IT.

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

I actually said to you though Kyu...that while there is no evidence either way - it's free will that needs the evidence because it's making an assumption that we actually HAVE this 'free will' this power within this very universe - I know of no evidence whatsoever of the truth of it....

As far as I'm concerned 'NO free will' is much more probable.....I'd need a shitload of evidence to believe that we actually CHOOSE our own thoughts CHOOSE WHAT path we go down - how the fuck would we do that? Where is the evidence?

As far as I know we just BELIEVE we do! Where's the evidence we actually do? As far as I know we just do stuff and take credit for it! How could we be separate from physics whether it's fixed and determined OR whether it's more uncertain, random and INdeterministiic?!

There is evidence of physics...that we actually CHOOSE how it goes? No.

That we BELIEVE we can 'CHOOSE' and that we have 'free will' - YES, there's evidence that we BELIEVE we do...

But how is that REMOTELY evidence of the truth of it? What...so the belief is evidence of the truth of the belief itself!??!

I don't need evidence to REJECT free willl....I need a reason TO believe it - why should I believe it? The fact it's commonly believed is not REMOTELY evidence that it's true!! How would it be?

EvF

[Tiberius]

I need a reason to believe in this 'free will' thing - I would think NO 'free will would be the default.

Agreed, although in philosophy there is no such thing as evidence, only logical reasoning.

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

There is no evidence that can be used to back up either idea. Unfortunately unlike the God issue, one cannot simply ask for evidence. You can see the issue of free-will like the deist god, completely unprovable, but worth some decent arguing about in philosophy.

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?

Except the rest of the universe isn't determined; any person who has studied quantum mechanics for even 10 minutes can tell you that. Why would physics need free-will? Why are you even asking that question? 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.

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?

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. The difference with God and free-will is that free-will (or determined-will for that matter) are completely indistinguishable from each other, since they both cannot be repeated. The only experiment that could determine free-will existed would be to observe a choice, rewind time to before the choice, and then see if it could be made differently. If it could, the free-will exists, if it couldn't, then free-will does not exist (at least in that individual decision). The problem with this is that we do not have the technology to conduct such an experiment.

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'?

We are part of physics, our consciousnesses exist as part of physics. If physics can be random, then why can't our consciousnesses? It's not evidence in support of free-will, but it's evidence that suggests free-will may be possible. 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. If it does, then the choice may be the same, it may be different, but the choice is there. Even every single decision boils down to a neuron firing, then in an indetermined universe, what's stopping the consciousness from also being indetermined?

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.

[Darwinian]

@ 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 used to have a lot of respect for you and thought that you always put a good argument across, but now I see that I am wrong. The moment someone sticks to their guns and disagrees with your point you take it personally and try to bully them into submission.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[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

[Darwinian]

I may have overreacted but when I read your post you came across as very angry, rude and abusive and I simply wasn't in the mood.

[infidel666]

I perceive a basic disagreement over whether it is OK to believe in something for which there is not any evidence. It might break down as "faith is bad" versus "faith is ok."

Holding no beliefs is a difficult thing to do. I have to discipline myself constantly in the cause of intellectual honesty and, well, sanity.

While it is not pleasant to imagine that every "decision" I've ever made might actually be the result of randomly interacting forces on a scale so large that I cannot readily and accurately perceive it, I am not going to discount that possibility. If I did that, I would be discounting it as something that could not possibly be worthy of investigation or thought. I would be jumping to a conclusion. I would not be logical or rational. I would be having faith.

[Darwinian]

For me it's not so much about evidence. I freely admit that concerning the subject of free will there is no evidence either way.

I work on the idea that I am free to imagine all sorts of weird and wonderful things without people screaming, show me your f***ing evidence, every paragraph.

Neither am I stupid. I understand perfectly the difference between the scientific process and the philosophical one but sometimes I like to let my mind wander and see where it takes me.

Einstein summed it up perfectly when he said.

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.

[Edwardo Piet]

I may have overreacted but when I read your post you came across as very angry, rude and abusive and I simply wasn't in the mood.

Well I wasn't angry...I was enjoying the debate lol...

And I don't see how I was remotely rude or abuse. There were no ad homs there whatsoever.

I can give you a POSITIVE ad hom if you want though Darwinan: You're a cool guy and I'm fascinated by your interest in and knowledge of physics....

Sorry if you took anything personal...I meant nothing personal - there were no ad homs....

I wasn't (and still am not) remotely angry...actually I was having a good day yesterday so if anything I was kind of elated! Certainly wasn't remotely pissed off!! (Besides, I don't get pissed off on the internet anyway).

I work on the idea that I am free to imagine all sorts of weird and wonderful things

1. I am fine with imagining things without evidence. I will happily IMAGINE God! But I will need evidence to BELIEVE in him....I need evidence to believe that something is actually true or actually exists. Imagination if fine!

without people screaming, show me your f***ing evidence, every paragraph.

IF you are implying that's what I did and I'm like (and I think you perhaps are?) - then I did no such thing. I'm sorry but that is a strawman...

Not one of the swearwords I threw in was an ad hom...non of it was personal whatsoever. And of course you don't HAVE to give evidence....(especially if you don't have any!) - all I'm doing is responding to your arguments and stating the reason why I, personally at least, don't believe in free will - is because there is no evidence.

I think 'no free will' is the default. I need evidence (or a valid reason to believe) that free will actually IS in this universe and it isn't just all physics bouncing about and we simply commonly BELIEVE we have free will (which isn't evidence)...

I'm giving my side...I'm doing my bit - I created this thread on the matter. I respond to your arguments...I'm not going to pretend to agree I'll agree when I genuinely agree, I don't have a problem with you disagreeing I am simply responding...if YOU can stick to your guns as you say then I I can also stick to mine (it's only fair)...

There were no ad homs from me....nothing was personal about it, I wasn't remotely angry and I took nothing personal from you whatsoever either...k?

EvF

[athoughtfulman]

I don't have time to read all this, but I remember talking with EvF about this a while ago.

I too don't believe in free will. To start with, no free will, like EvF said, should be the default. The idea of free will is something so typical of humans. So many of us feel like we are robots without free will. We feel like we HAVE to have free will or we are not human. I used to feel like this, but after thinking about it, I realised it's purely a human conception. The idea is a waste of time.

I don't believe in it. I don't care who does believe in it. It's a non-issue, because in the end, both the determinists and non-determinists will still out the door, seemingly making 'choices'. The fuss over the whole issue is totally exxagerated. Whether we believe in free will or not, we will for the most part, continue to act and live in the exact same way. Because whether you believe in it or not, life goes on.

[Darwinian]

How exactly are we defining 'free will' here?

At the moment I'm sitting here wondering if I should have either ravioli or steak for dinner.

The following statements are based upon belief and not evidence

When I do eventually make a decision it will be my choice and no-one else's.

I have complete freedom to choose either one or the other or in fact, something else.

End of contentious statements

Are you (and when I say 'you' I mean all those who think free will doesn't exist) saying that when I make my decision it wasn't actually mine at all but simply an illusion. And if it wasn't my choice, who's was it?

What are the processes that went into that decision that all these years I thought were me?