Why I don't believe in 'free will'

[athoughtfulman]

What I'm saying at least, is that the reason for choosing either the ravioli or steak are completely beyond you. There are thousands upon thousands of things which affect this choice, which cause it to be thousands of times less free than you think. From the last time you ate, to your mood, to what's easier to cook, to your emotions, to your hydration levels, to the chemicals in your brain, to what you had last night and the night before, and so on.

The point being that for every choice, there is next to infinite amount of reasons and choices/causes which lead you to making that choice. So instead of being completely free to choose between the steak or the ravioli, you are left with the illusion of that choice. What makes you decide one or the other is beyond both you and me.

Each choice you 'make' affects the next choice. But every choice is affected by thousands of things that we can't control. From other people, to other things, and so on. If you have a mind which can comprehend everything, then you might have some idea of what it actually feels like to be truly free. But really, we are all victims of our past, our genetic makeup, and our current state of mind.

Any choice, regardless of how tiny and ineffectual, was made under the influence of thousands of other things, hence the choice was not 'freely' chosen, but rather influenced by the thousands of other things.

[Darwinian]

What I'm saying at least, is that the reason for choosing either the ravioli or steak are completely beyond you. There are thousands upon thousands of things which affect this choice, which cause it to be thousands of times less free than you think. From the last time you ate, to your mood, to what's easier to cook, to your emotions, to your hydration levels, to the chemicals in your brain, to what you had last night and the night before, and so on.

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?

The point being that for every choice, there is next to infinite amount of reasons and choices/causes which lead you to making that choice. So instead of being completely free to choose between the steak or the ravioli, you are left with the illusion of that choice. What makes you decide one or the other is beyond both you and me.

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?

Each choice you 'make' affects the next choice. But every choice is affected by thousands of things that we can't control. From other people, to other things, and so on. If you have a mind which can comprehend everything, then you might have some idea of what it actually feels like to be truly free. But really, we are all victims of our past, our genetic makeup, and our current state of mind.

Any choice, regardless of how tiny and ineffectual, was made under the influence of thousands of other things, hence the choice was not 'freely' chosen, but rather influenced by the thousands of other things.

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..

[infidel666]

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?

I am not one of those people who belives in no free will. As I've said, I hold no belief. But let me describe what I imagine might be the case.

Imagine a computer that is programmed to do two things, make chess moves in response to external stimuli (opponent's moves + a random number input) and assess whether or not it has free will as a function of whether or not it decided to make the chess moves. Sometimes it responds to it's opponent's first chess move one way, sometimes another. After the opponent's move is made, it feeds that stimulus into its move decision making module, references a table of possible responses, awaits the input of the random number, and selects its response. When asked whether it has free will, it responds that it does have free will on the basis of observations that it goes through a process of making a decision as evidenced by the observation that it assesses options and makes a choice.

Now imagine that the computer evolved naturally. The behaviors it exhibits come into existence randomly and, lacking a disadvantage, are not deselected by natural selection. Does it have free will, or is everything that it is and does the product of chaotic events?

I think it more likely than not that we are chemical computers that evolved naturally, and that the sense of self is just a side effect of the non-disadvantageous, randomly evolved ability to self evaluate by processing stimuli to compute contextually dependent weights for application in our neural networks. When a context is new and/or no previous responses have produced positive feedback, stress hormones are produced in order to trigger the computer to generate new potential responses. Weighted by data produced by an assessment of possible outcomes, one of the responses is selected. Perhaps there is a neural structure that serves as a random number generator for breaking ties. But does resorting to an external source, such as a flipped coin, exhibit the ability to give up free will, or just one more tool in the computer's shed?

I know I've explained this to you before. What is it that you are having trouble understanding?

[Darwinian]

I think that you've summed it up pretty well and I'm perfectly willing to accept that definition. The problem I was having, or at least, was trying to get consensus on was a decent definition of free will itself.

But I think this thread has now run its course

[Kyuuketsuki]

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.

Didn't come across that way to me and to my mind you're falling into the trap many theists do in mistaking a forcefully put argument with anger. Even though I (evidently) don't quite agree with him I think Ev has put his case exceptionally well.

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.

Kyu

[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.

Didn't come across that way to me and to my mind you're falling into the trap many theists do in mistaking a forcefully put argument with anger. Even though I (evidently) don't quite agree with him I think Ev has put his case exceptionally well.

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.

Kyu

Yes, yes, you're probably right.. My mistake was misinterpreting Ev's CAPITALS for shouting and his swearing for insults. In my mind I had the image of a person shouting and swearing at me and so didn't pay too much attention to the post itself.

And I'll forgive you for comparing me to a theist

[Kyuuketsuki]

And I'll forgive you for comparing me to a theist

If you think about it we share far, far more in common with them than we don't.

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

We do indeed.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

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.

How exactly are we defining 'free will' here?

I'm defining it as the ability to actually MAKE choices as in deliberately and intentionally CHOOSE what we DO and choose our own THOUGHTS .....voluntarily....

As opposed to NO free will which is without that....whether we BELIEVE we make choices, 'choose our own thoughts' OR have 'free will' or not. The belief is not reason to believe in the truth of the belief. That's circular reasoning.

Belief in 'free will' is not evidence of free will...why believe is what I wonder? Why?

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.

How so?

You believe it's your choice....why? You think stuff...you 'make choices' in the sense you CALL it choices...but what reason do you have to believe that you actually DO have a choice in that matter? Simply CALLING it 'making choices' does not mean you DO have a choice and simply BELIEVING IN 'free wil' does not mean 'free will' exists - that's circular reasoning.

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

Once again - How so? (see above response for more detail).

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?

Well it was your decision in the sense that you are 'doing stuff' and you BELIEVE it's your decision and that you have a choice in the matter. I know of no reason to believe that you actually DO have a choice in the matter though....so in that sense I believe it's not your choice...I don't believe in 'free will' because I know of no reason to believe in it whatsover (IOW I know of no evidence of the TRUTH of it whatsoever...but you don't like the word 'evidence' in this context it seems...but all I'm saying is I need a valid reason to believe 'free will' is actually TRUE! So in that sense I 'need evidence' for that belief before I believe it!

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

I do not know the reasons why people believe in free will....they're probably evolutional and psychological reasons - I'd say people want to take credit for what they do...but not just that - the fact that they ARE doing stuff makes it intuitive and seem entirely plausible that it IS their choice and so they take credit for it....

But in all seriousness....how is belief in 'free will' remote reason to believe in the truth of it? That's circular reasoning...I think it is simply NATURAL to believe in it. I know of no actual logical reason (or IOW any 'evidence' of the TRUTH of it whatsoever).

My mistake was misinterpreting Ev's CAPITALS for shouting and his swearing for insults. In my mind I had the image of a person shouting and swearing at me and so didn't pay too much attention to the post itself.

Well none of the swearing was directed AT YOU....none were ad homs and none were personal. So I do not understand why you took them for insults - perhaps because you didn't pay much attention to the post as you said? Because I never directed any swear words AT YOU. There were no ad homs there...and I take nothing personal from you either

And the thing is with the caps... - I don't know whether you've noticed with my posts much....but I REGULARLY use caps for EMPHASIS (like right there lol).

EvF

[Darwinian]

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.

How so?

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

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

Once again - How so? (see above response for more detail).

End of contentious statements

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.

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

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.

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