If free will was not real

[Excited Penguin]

That's ableness, mate. Free Will is rather different. Free Will describes a magic way to circumvent all of the rules that govern the rest of the universe to make a "decision" by yourself, in a vacuum, uncaused and entirely "on your own" - whatever that means.

If that's how you define free will, then I'm not surprised you don't believe it exists.  Maybe I missed a couple pages of this thread, but I'd be very surprised to find that anyone who DID believe in free will defined it as you have.

I'd define will as that about a person which brings intent to fruition.  For example, if I intend to move a leg, and it does in fact move, I've exercised my will.

Free will I'd describe as the ability to form intent based on my world view or other aspect of my personhood, and act on that intent without obstruction or coercion from another agent or other environmental factor.

OR. . . being able to buy the motherfucking ice cream of my choice.

bold mine


That's simply not possible. You don't have such an ability. It doesn't exist. It couldn't exist. And for the same reasons that I listed earlier - what you just described is exactly what I described.

You are coerced by environmental factors. You can't escape them. And no matter how much you rationalize your decisions after the fact, it's been proven beyond a doubt that most of the time people have no idea why they do what they do. They come up with reasons if asked, and they truly believe those reasons, but they turn out to be wrong more often than not. Because you see, you are only conscious about so much that goes on in your brain and gives rise to your consciousness and subsequently to your decisions. But you don't control any of it. It controls you. You only experience control, but it isn't really there at all.

You don't control your thoughts. Yet your thoughts are what you are, in a sense. Your thoughts are what make up your decisions. Without thinking, you wouldn't call yourself as having free will, would you ? But that's just it, you can't control your thinking. It just comes out of nowhere, and you identify with it because it's always there and thus the illusion of control comes in, naturally.

Your environment produces your thoughts. And your thoughts produce your decisions. Nowhere is there a place for a free agent here.

[bennyboy]

I think anger is a natural human emotion that needn't be as long lasting once belief in free will is dropped but it's not something we could ever stop ourselves feeling in the first place. It's a natural reaction to feeling that yourself or those you care about are violated.

Arguments against free will, and the subsequent pointlessness of punishment, are dropped by the wayside when someone's daughter is raped, or parents are murdered.  Fuck that guy, and the outrageous thing he did!

The thing is that we are equivocating on agency and environment.  We treat the brain as a mechanism external to the personal agent-- he doesn't have free will, because his brain function dictates how he will behave.  But all that stuff, all that brain function, IS the self.  Asserting that the self is brain function, and then defining free will in such a way that for it to be real there'd have to be MORE than brain function, begs the question in a pretty obvious way.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's hard to explain.

[bennyboy]

You are coerced by environmental factors. You can't escape them. And no matter how much you rationalize your decisions after the fact, it's been proven beyond a doubt that most of the time people have no idea why they do what they do. They come up with reasons if asked, and they truly believe those reasons, but they turn out to be wrong more often than not. Because you see, you are only conscious about so much that goes on in your brain and gives rise to your consciousness and subsequently to your decisions. But you don't control any of it. It controls you. You only experience control, but it isn't really there at all.

I'm not coerced by environmental factors-- I respond to them according to my world view and my personhood. Saying, "You wouldn't have bought ice cream unless it was hot. . . so there!" doesn't really say anything useful about the human experience.

And what's this "your brain" stuff? Am I more than my brain, or other than it? You would argue not, I assume. It therefore seems to me you are saying, "The brain's brain doesn't control any of the brain. It controls the brain. It only experiences control, but it isn't really there at all." Again, it doesn't say anything really useful about the freedom I exercise in buying my ice cream.

You don't control your thoughts.

I AM, at least in part, my thoughts. Thinking otherwise means I would be able to control my own nature. But this introduces an obvious circularity, and circles are bad.

Yet your thoughts are what you are, in a sense. Your thoughts are what make up your decisions. Without thinking, you wouldn't call yourself as having free will, would you ? But that's just it, you can't control your thinking. It just comes out of nowhere, and you identify with it because it's always there and thus the illusion of control comes in, naturally.

Your environment produces your thoughts. And your thoughts produce your decisions. Nowhere is there a place for a free agent here.

Who's this "you" you keep talking to? A boy is not a "you." A boy is only a brain. A boy is only a collection of neuronal functions. But you do not refer to "a boy's brain." You keep talking to this "you," as though there's something there which is more than, or different than, a boy's brain.

/GoT plagiarism

[Excited Penguin]

You are coerced by environmental factors. You can't escape them. And no matter how much you rationalize your decisions after the fact, it's been proven beyond a doubt that most of the time people have no idea why they do what they do. They come up with reasons if asked, and they truly believe those reasons, but they turn out to be wrong more often than not. Because you see, you are only conscious about so much that goes on in your brain and gives rise to your consciousness and subsequently to your decisions. But you don't control any of it. It controls you. You only experience control, but it isn't really there at all.

I'm not coerced by environmental factors-- I respond to them according to my world view and my personhood.  Saying, "You wouldn't have bought ice cream unless it was hot. . . so there!" doesn't really say anything useful about the human experience.

And what's this "your brain" stuff?  Am I more than my brain, or other than it?  You would argue not, I assume.  It therefore seems to me you are saying, "The brain's brain doesn't control any of the brain.  It controls the brain.  It only experiences control, but it isn't really there at all."  Again, it doesn't say anything really useful about the freedom I exercise in buying my ice cream.

You don't control your thoughts.

I AM, at least in part, my thoughts.  Thinking otherwise means I would be able to control my own nature.  But this introduces an obvious circularity, and circles are bad.

Yet your thoughts are what you are, in a sense. Your thoughts are what make up your decisions. Without thinking, you wouldn't call yourself as having free will, would you ? But that's just it, you can't control your thinking. It just comes out of nowhere, and you identify with it because it's always there and thus the illusion of control comes in, naturally.

Your environment produces your thoughts. And your thoughts produce your decisions. Nowhere is there a place for a free agent here.

Who's this "you" you keep talking to?  A boy does not have a name.  A boy is only a brain.  A boy is only a collection of neuronal functions.

/GoT plagiarism

Let me put it this way.

You can't claim to "be" anything more than your conscious experience of reality, not in the sense we're talking about here. So don't give me that bullshit about your being your brain. You are most definitely not your brain. Your brain is yours, but you are not it. You don't control your heart beat, your brain does. You don't control your metabolism. Your brain does. You don't control the movement of your muscles. Your brain does. You can only experience things. That is you. The experiencer. You are not in charge of anything, and you can't claim to be anything that controls you.

Your worldview means shit if your brain suddenly "decides" to paralyze your body and make you unconscious. You would have no idea why it just did that. You enjoy your "freedom" while it lasts, but simply the fact that you have no control over your life and are bound by reality is what disproves this notion of freedom completely.


Now let's look at the ice cream example. First of all, your "choosing" to eat that ice cream for whatever reason had fuck all to do with why you actually ate that ice cream. You didn't control how hungry you were going to be at that moment, or indeed whether you'd like an ice cream or not. That's simply ridiculous to think that you did. Your body did, you didn't. No, you are not your body, as I just said, anymore than you "are" your atoms. You didn't choose the presence of the ice cream either. You just happened onto it.

You're trying to describe the fact of causality in such a way that it offers some extra meaning to your meaningless life. Well, I'm sorry, there isn't any kind of meaning to be had here. Get over it.

[Edwardo Piet]

I like mango ice cream.

[henryp]

Thoughts aren't special. They are just matter moving mindlessly in accordance with the physical laws of the universe, just like walking, or a rock rolling down the hill, or an apple falling from a tree.

It's sort of the same problem intelligent design people have with evolution. The scope and improbability of it is hard to wrap one's head around.

[bennyboy]

You can't claim to "be" anything more than your conscious experience of reality, not in the sense we're talking about here. So don't give me that bullshit about your being your brain. You are most definitely not your brain. Your brain is yours, but you are not it.

Really? Who/what am I? You seem to be talking about a spirit or something.

You don't control your heart beat, your brain does. You don't control your metabolism. Your brain does. You don't control the movement of your muscles. Your brain does. You can only experience things. That is you. The experiencer. You are not in charge of anything, and you can't claim to be anything that controls you.

The problem is that the experiencer experiences freely buying ice cream. The experiencer is whatever it is, including brain function. It is not from this that the experiencer should be expected to be free in any sensible definition of free will. Are you sure that the sense of agency and self aren't as illusory as free will? And if so, then who's this "you" to whom you keep referring, as though it were not an illusion?

A boy has no name.

Your worldview means shit if your brain suddenly "decides" to paralyze your body and make you unconscious. You would have no idea why it just did that. You enjoy your "freedom" while it lasts, but simply the fact that you have no control over your life and are bound by reality is what disproves this notion of freedom completely.

If my brain malfunctions and I cannot experience anything, then I will have neither a will, nor by extension a free will.

Now let's look at the ice cream example. First of all, your "choosing" to eat that ice cream for whatever reason had fuck all to do with why you actually ate that ice cream. You didn't control how hungry you were going to be at that moment, or indeed whether you'd like an ice cream or not. That's simply ridiculous to think that you did. Your body did, you didn't. No, you are not your body, as I just said, anymore than you "are" your atoms. You didn't choose the presence of the ice cream either.

Eh? You keep on saying "you, you" and telling me all the things I am not. What, exactly, do you think I AM?

I'll tell you what I am: I'm my ideas, my beliefs, my experiences, my sensation, and my feelings. I'm not controlled BY my hunger, I AM, at least in part, the experience of hunger. And when I eat, it's a natural expression of that aspect of my personhood at that moment in time. You want to separate the agency into an abstract concept, and all the mechanisms of agency into the category "environment," to show that I am compelled by my environment. This view isn't a good one, in my opinion: ALL the things you keep saying I'm not are exactly what I am.

[Edwardo Piet]

[bennyboy]

Thoughts aren't special.  They are just matter moving mindlessly in accordance with the physical laws of the universe, just like walking, or a rock rolling down the hill, or an apple falling from a tree.  

It's sort of the same problem intelligent design people have with evolution.  The scope and improbability of it is hard to wrap one's head around.

If thoughts aren't special, then everything in the universe is experiencing itself.  Trippy, dude!