Why I don't believe in 'free will'

[Darwinian]

I don't sense an illusion. I sense no free will at all.

I'm amazed!!!

[Edwardo Piet]

Yup. What illusion? I sense an illusion for those who BELIEVE It....to THEM it seems to be there....

But for me personally there is no sense of it - I sense no illusion.

Doing stuff is not an illusion for CHOOSING to do stuff for me. Not anymore.

Evidence of free will? I know of none. Any reason to believe in it AT ALL? Not as far as I know, nope.

That is how it feels to me. I sense no free will. I sense no illusion. I am simply aware that OTHERS sense it (i.e. - those who believe in free will).

EvF

[Tiberius]

I'm not going to believe on 'faith'. I need a rational reason to believe - I need evidence.

As I explained to you last night (and I seem to remember you agreeing with me), evidence isn't the only example of rational reasoning. There is no evidence that 1 + 1 = 2, but we believe it because maths works better when that holds.

Philosophy and logic cannot possibly have evidence for them, and this is a philosophical issue. Hence there is no evidence for either side. The rational reasons to believe are based on logic.

[infidel666]

Let me try approaching the concept of lack of belief in "free will" from another angle.

There are lots of people who think that it is a choice to be a gay person. Most gay people I know disagree. Then some theists respond, even so, it is still your choice whether or not to act on it. But aren't some people just biologically (nature) and/or experientially (nurture) prone to exercise more self denial than others? Don't you think it likely that "ex-gay" people get some kind of reward out of that self denial that more than compensates for the cognitive dissonance they experience from their self-denial?

We could perform the same types of analyses for people who are overweight, or people who are into S&M. And however much these things seemed like choice some years ago, more and more we find that they have a biological cause, and less and less that things can be attributed to "free willl."

All I'm saying is that I see a trend developing. That's all. And while I decline this excellent opportunity to leap to the conclusion that there really is no such thing as self control, I certainly don't discount that possibility. At least, I'd go so far as to say that the concept of "free will," in the Biblical sense, is long gone out the window. May I have an "Amen" on that?

[lrh9]

I believe that options equate to free will. (Especially when there are stimuli for more than one of the options.)

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not going to believe on 'faith'. I need a rational reason to believe - I need evidence.

As I explained to you last night (and I seem to remember you agreeing with me), evidence isn't the only example of rational reasoning. There is no evidence that 1 + 1 = 2, but we believe it because maths works better when that holds.

Philosophy and logic cannot possibly have evidence for them, and this is a philosophical issue. Hence there is no evidence for either side. The rational reasons to believe are based on logic.

I didn't agree actually. I agreed that I cannot absolutely know these things. I'm agnostic on basically everything.....In that sense I'm philosophical.

I do expect evidence for a belief though. By evidence I mean in a very general way - I simply mean I need a valid reason to believe in something. If there's no valid reason to believe then why believe? If there is a valid reason to believe then that would have to be an indication of the truth of the belief - otherwise it wouldn't be valid. And if it's an indication of the truth of the belief then for me it is iow evidence. That is all I mean.

I need some indication that free will is true. By evidence I just mean that. A valid reason to believe in the truth of it - any whatsoever. If valid then it would iow count as some form of evidence, I would think?

I believe that options equate to free will. (Especially when there are stimuli for more than one of the options.)

How couldn't options be there just as easily without free will? I know of no reason whatsoever to believe that options are an indication of free will. Options can be there and you can still 'act them out' without having any real choice in doing so. Without 'free will'. How would options make a difference?

I still need reason to believe in free will. Otherwise I don't see why on earth I would.

EvF

[Tiberius]

[Edwardo Piet]

[Darwinian]

If fruit flies have it then so do I

http://brembs.net/spontaneous/

To be honest, the researchers are aware that a philosopher could quibble over "that's not really free will", so they are not quite as blatant as I presented it. Still, any philosopher who wanted to use such a defence would be faced with defining what free will is, if it isn't what has been found now.

This of course raises the question, what is free will? Specifically, if we can find it in all sorts of animals, including insects, does it really count?

Anyway, I did say that I was going to leave this subject alone, but perhaps something in my brain has taken control and is making these decisions for me

[Edwardo Piet]

If fruit flies have it then so do I

This of course raises the question, what is free will? Specifically, if we can find it in all sorts of animals, including insects, does it really count?

From the above article that Adrian posted - once again:

As humans, we are as much in control of our behavior as anything in the universe.

Not just animals. And not just life forms. Anything. So we are as much in control of our behavior as an a spec of dust of a stray atom iow. Zero in other words...

It's not about control of behavior. It's about freedom as in more capability, consciousness, intelligence and freedom in general (avoidability/'evitability' that Dennett speaks of basically).. And defining 'free will' as being capable of controlling our own behavior (when there's no real reason (at least that I know of yet to believe we are anyway) is a completely gratuitous definition. It might seem meaningful but it doesn't give us any more powers, ...you don't need it to be moral in anyway, doesn't give us any more real meaning, nothing that matters anyway, you don't need them, who cares (to paraphrase Dan Dennett at the end of that vid somewhat).

It doesn't really give us any more powers to believe otherwise...as Dennett says in the vid it's just an illusion[ to think that it does.

I believe that I know it's an now illusion though and since because of that and incidentally I don't believe in (behavioral) 'free will' - it's no longer an illusion for me other than I'm aware that it is for others who do[/b] believe in the behavioral definition of 'free will'.

Anyway, I did say that I was going to leave this subject alone, but perhaps something in my brain has taken control and is making these decisions for me

...

Something in your brain that was either influenced by external things or from other thoughts in the brain, or both - I'd say that I think it's almost certainly it [i]must be both. Because there is a constant interaction between what goes on internally in the brain and how it interprets and is effected by the outside world...surely?

So I'd say something in your brain, and your reactions in the brain to things outside of your brain, your genetics, your environment, etc, - made you have to chip in just that once more (whether it was determined or not. I don't believe it is because I'm a indeterminist. Because that Quantum Mechanics supports INdeterminism right?)

Because of course INdeterminism as (as least attempted to be) explained in this thread by me doesn't give any more power to (behavioral) 'free will' than does determinism....determinism simply makes it impossible.

Because the thing is...how does more random equate to more choice? It doesn't does it? That was my point about the dice. Simply being random as opposed to rigged doesn't make you have make you have any more 'free will' (as in behavioral free will.).

To close again with another quote from the article that supports this point I am making and have been at least trying to make throughout the thread lol (crucial part bolded) :

Since the 1920s physicists have been trying to convince themselves that quantum indeterminacy can in some way explain Free Will. Dennett dismisses this idea as silly. How, he asks, can random resolutions of quantum-level events provide people with any control over their behavior?

This is why INdeterminism gives no more power to the more common definition of free will (behavioral free will) than determinism....determinism simply makes it impossible. There is still no known valid reason to believe that INdeterminism would somehow give people 'any control over their behavior' (as said in the above quote) whatsoever.



Basically it's physics. And you and I are part of physics. And whether we believe that we are simply doing what it is compelling us to or not - we are. Because the belief itself is part of physics either way, whether believed or disbelieved - it's still physics. The way it rolls - we are part of it and we follow it - we are part of the ride! Whether we have a consciousness or awareness or not. Whether we are intelligent or not.

I am what I am. I am doing what I am doing. It may be stating the obvious but at least it's without any wishful thinking - tells it like it is.

EvF