If free will was not real

[RozKek]

In any case, your will nor your freedom is free. In any case they're determined. In any case they are governed by the laws of physics, in this case classical physics, they're fully causal and therefore every single millimeter you move, every single knee jerk reaction you get, every single step you take is determined and you cannot do anything to do otherwise. How are you free if you're constrained by the laws of physics itself?

Oh, you're free because no one is holding a gun to your head. No. Every action you do is determined, there is no free if it's determined. How is it possible to be free if it's already determined?

Because if you want to go with a reasonable definition of "free", free and determined are not opposites of each other.

If it's already determined that you're going to eat chicken for breakfast there's not a single thing you can do to not eat chicken for breakfast. How are you free in that situation? Every decision you're going to make regarding that will have been determined, how are you free in that case? Don't say "Well I decided that for myself, and no one held a gun to my head" because even then you're constrained by the laws of physics. You're free from the gun but you're not free from causality. You make the decisions, but they aren't free.

[GrandizerII]

Because if you want to go with a reasonable definition of "free", free and determined are not opposites of each other.

If it's already determined that you're going to eat chicken for breakfast there's not a single thing you can do to not eat chicken for breakfast. How are you free in that situation? Every decision you're going to make regarding that will have been determined, how are you free in that case? Don't say "Well I decided that for myself, and no one held a gun to my head" because even then you're constrained by the laws of physics. You're free from the gun but you're not free from causality. You make the decisions, but they aren't free.

That's fine. It's all a matter of perspective at the end of the day.

[Jehanne]

I don't think that it is free.  If the conservation laws apply everywhere throughout the Universe, then they also apply within one's head.

I think you're arguing against the wrong person here  Anyway, I agree with you. I don't believe that free will exists under any circumstances, just the irrelevant definitions of it, but yeah. They're irrelevant.

Agreed.

[Angrboda]

I think the biggest problem with this personhood argument is that it ends up in having you be responsible for things you did not have a part in. Take a choice at time T. The personhood responsible for making the decision at T was formed by a prior decision at T-1. And personhood at T-1 was formed by a decision or experience at T-2. And so on back to the birth of the individual at T-N.The experiences at T-N that form this causal chain were themselves formed by events at T-N-1, -2, -3, and so on, before the individual was even born. So when you say the personhood is responsible, you're really holding all past events in the universe as being responsible, yet prosecuting the contemporary expression of that causal chain. It makes no sense to hold the personhood responsible in the present moment as there was no point in history that this personhood could have diverged from becoming what it is now.

I have a conception of choice that is as follows. A choice is when a person has within their power to actualize one of two or more possible worlds by the expression of a simple act. Thus I could choose between the world in which I eat chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream by the execution of saying the appropriate word, vanilla or chocolate, to the ice cream vendor. The manifestation of will comes about through the recognition of a choice followed by an evaluation. At the end of the evaluation, the simple act is expressed. But what does this evaluation consist of? I think that when presented with a choice, we evaluate the options to find that which best fits our inclinations at that moment. It is an optimization. We always choose the best for us at that particular moment, even if we consider doing something bad for us as best (which we sometimes do). But where do the inclinations of the present come from? They were already formed at T-1. Thus which simple act we will perform is predetermined by the world of our inclinations prior to being given the choice. Given any choice and set of inclinations, there will only be one possible evaluation, that for which is best. So at the moment a choice appears, it has already been decided. That is not in any sense 'free' in my opinion.

[bennyboy]

Many many people are arguing the kind of free will I'm talking about, yours is irrelevant.

Nobody who SUPPORTS the free will idea is using your definition. You and several others are strawmanning by sticking to it. If I'm wrong, then quote someone who is arguing by the definition you're using.

Who cares if a thief is holding a gun to my head, of fucking course by your definition the answer is going to be "well a thief isn't holding a gun to my head therefore I have free will" If the answer was so simple it wouldn't have been a hot topic for three thousands of years. It's only your irrelevant definition that has a simple answer. Also if people aren't debating my definition of free will why are they classified under determinism and indeterministim? Because people generally want to know if it ultimately is their decision. Have you ever watched Sam Harris talk about it? He even mentioned in one of his talks how his friend Daniel Dennett completely shifts the meaning of free will and then says, it exists.

You are making a subtle mistake-- you are treating the brain as part of the environment, and not part of the self. If the brain makes a decision, that IS the self making a decision. If the brain can make a decision and ACT on it without compulsion or obstruction from a foreign agent, then the brain is deciding freely.

Will is the expression of intent, a kind of decision, and free will is the capacity to express intent without compulsion or obstruction. Your definition, the freedom from causality, is incoherent. Obviously, we like things because of our lives, and this affects our desires and ultimately our intent. So why would you even argue in a thread about such an incoherent idea of free will?

And usually the compatibilist ideas of free will are dumbed down to "a thief isn't holding a gun to my head = free will, wow! problem solved!"

Only by you.

The free will I'm talking about is much more relevant when you're e.g going to sentence a criminal. That's what people are interested in, if one really ultimately is responsible for his actions. Your definition doesn't adress the question if one is ultimately responsible for ones action i.e if they could've done otherwise. Because if they cannot break the causal chain they couldn't have done otherwise at all, they might've been "capable" to, but what they were going to do was already determined. Your definition doesn't adress that question, that's why it's problematic.

It totally does address it-- in fact, it's perfectly designed to address it-- since will is the expression of intent, and since the law is predicated on intent. If someone has no intent, then he will be charged with a lesser crime. If his intent is formed under compulsion-- for example involuntary drug use by someone slipping something in a drink-- leads him to go crazy, he may not be charged with a crime at all. It doesn't matter whether ultimately we believe his acts were a product of a chain of deterministic events starting at the Big Bang. What matters is whether he was able to form and act on intent.

That is THE useful definition of free will, and is the only one that is applicable to real world situations like the execution of criminal justice.

In the end, if you can't break the causal chain, every single thing you do was bound to happen, you had no way of doing otherwise therefore your will still isn't free. Free will is an illusion in other words, it feels real, but it isn't real. Your intentions, will, they way you express yourself or intentions, everything is determined. How is it possibly free if it's already determined?

In your view, then, since everything is determined, we should not blame rapists or serial killers-- since they had no chance to act other than they did. In my view, they formed and acted on improper intent, and must be dealt with. My view is better than your view.

[bennyboy]

I think the biggest problem with this personhood argument is that it ends up in having you be responsible for things you did not have a part in.  Take a choice at time T.  The personhood responsible for making the decision at T was formed by a prior decision at T-1.  And personhood at T-1 was formed by a decision or experience at T-2.  And so on back to the birth of the individual at T-N.The experiences at T-N that form this causal chain were themselves formed by events at T-N-1, -2, -3, and so on, before the individual was even born.  So when you say the personhood is responsible, you're really holding all past events in the universe as being responsible, yet prosecuting the contemporary expression of that causal chain.  It makes no sense to hold the personhood responsible in the present moment as there was no point in history that this personhood could have diverged from becoming what it is now.

I think this view of personhood is in accord with reality. And EVEN IF there were a magical soul, I believe it would still go down like that: a soul could be born pure, then come into corrupting influences in the world, leading to the same causal chain. And even in an indeterminist world, while you couldn't predict the future, because of the way time works, the past must be deterministic anyway, so you can STILL trace that chain back to the Big Bang, and anyway randomness, unless it is somehow under the control of the thinking agent, isn't really a kind of freedom anyway.

I have a conception of choice that is as follows.  A choice is when a person has within their power to actualize one of two or more possible worlds by the expression of a simple act.  Thus I could choose between the world in which I eat chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream by the execution of saying the appropriate word, vanilla or chocolate, to the ice cream vendor.  The manifestation of will comes about through the recognition of a choice followed by an evaluation.  At the end of the evaluation, the simple act is expressed.  But what does this evaluation consist of?  I think that when presented with a choice, we evaluate the options to find that which best fits our inclinations at that moment.  It is an optimization.  We always choose the best for us at that particular moment, even if we consider doing something bad for us as best (which we sometimes do).  But where do the inclinations of the present come from?  They were already formed at T-1.  Thus which simple act we will perform is predetermined by the world of our inclinations prior to being given the choice.  Given any choice and set of inclinations, there will only be one possible evaluation, that for which is best.  So at the moment a choice appears, it has already been decided.  That is not in any sense 'free' in my opinion.

Yeah it is. The point of using the concept of personhood is that the history is not regarded. At the moment of making a decision, you form an intent and act on it. I think you are thinking of the idea of a soul that is outside this universe. . . but I've argued even such a soul couldn't meet the definition of free will as freedom from causality anyway.

The question isn't whether will as I define it exists-- it does, by definition. The question is whether we should continue using that word, especially in the way I use it. For you and Koz, the answer seems to be no, because there's too much linguistic baggage that taints the word, and maintains unnecessary links to old religious ways of thinking about freedom. For me, the answer is yes, it is useful. Whatever we are and however we've arrived at our respective personhood, we do in fact form intent, and we at least sometimes are able to express it without compulsion or obstruction. "Will" is a perfectly fine word to talk about that.

[bennyboy]

If it's already determined that you're going to eat chicken for breakfast there's not a single thing you can do to not eat chicken for breakfast. How are you free in that situation? Every decision you're going to make regarding that will have been determined, how are you free in that case? Don't say "Well I decided that for myself, and no one held a gun to my head" because even then you're constrained by the laws of physics. You're free from the gun but you're not free from causality. You make the decisions, but they aren't free.

Let me ask you something. How does your view of the illusion of freedom actually affect your experience of life? Have you stopped eating snacks, because you are offended at your real lack of freedom in choosing what snack you want? Are you depressed because your wife didn't really freely choose you, but was predetermined beyond any control of hers to choose you? If someone killed your Dad or raped your mom, would you say, "Que sera sera, that was predestined, can't blame that guy." If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then I'd have to say I suspect you'd be lying just to support your arguments in this thread. But if you say "no," then you have very little real belief in the idea you are selling here-- it is a belief on paper, not one about the reality in and around us.


The problem with the philosophical claim of the illusion of freedom is obvious-- it's useless in the actual living and experience of a human life. In my actual experience, I go out and choose my favorite flavor of ice cream, and I do so freely. I don't sit there in a philosophical bind, cursing the Universe for railroading me into 7-11 on a hot Sunday afternoon. And a philosophical idea that we can't actually apply to the living of life is about as useful as a bag of monkey farts.

[Excited Penguin]

If it's already determined that you're going to eat chicken for breakfast there's not a single thing you can do to not eat chicken for breakfast. How are you free in that situation? Every decision you're going to make regarding that will have been determined, how are you free in that case? Don't say "Well I decided that for myself, and no one held a gun to my head" because even then you're constrained by the laws of physics. You're free from the gun but you're not free from causality. You make the decisions, but they aren't free.

Let me ask you something.  How does your view of the illusion of freedom actually affect your experience of life?  Have you stopped eating snacks, because you are offended at your real lack of freedom in choosing what snack you want?  Are you depressed because your wife didn't really freely choose you, but was predetermined beyond any control of hers to choose you?  If someone killed your Dad or raped your mom, would you say, "Que sera sera, that was predestined, can't blame that guy."  If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then I'd have to say I suspect you'd be lying just to support your arguments in this thread.  But if you say "no," then you have very little real belief in the idea you are selling here-- it is a belief on paper, not one about the reality in and around us.


The problem with the philosophical claim of the illusion of freedom is obvious-- it's useless in the actual living and experience of a human life.  In my actual experience, I go out and choose my favorite flavor of ice cream, and I do so freely.  I don't sit there in a philosophical bind, cursing the Universe for railroading me into 7-11 on a hot Sunday afternoon.  And a philosophical idea that we can't actually apply to the living of life is about as useful as a bag of monkey farts.

Again, this is your experience. Your experience doesn't have to suffer from this change of perspective(it hasn't in mine), except in some small areas - like exacting retribution beyond what's necessary because of emotional evaluation of the offender.

But notice how you're arguing from the POV that it's wrong because it's uncomfortable, is what you're basically saying here, which is what a lot of theists would argue about God. Life without God would be hell, you're lying if you're saying it isn't and if you're saying it is then you aren't really a non-believer. -- Except that's not even true, like I just said, your experience of reality doesn't suffer at all. You'll still make decisions just as before, you won't fall into some depression because you know everything you'll do in your life is completely predetermined. You'll just carry on on with your life as it is. You know what would have to happen for your enjoyment of reality to really suffer? To see into the future. To know exactly what is going to happen and not be able to change it. That would really suck. But this? This is merely about accepting objective reality.

[bennyboy]

Again, this is your experience. Your experience doesn't have to suffer from this change of perspective(it hasn't in mine), except in some small areas - like exacting retribution beyond what's necessary because of emotional evaluation of the offender.

Fair enough.

But notice how you're arguing from the POV that it's wrong because it's uncomfortable, is what you're basically saying here, which is what a lot of theists would argue about God.

I'm not uncomfortable with it, and in fact I accept that determinism is likely the case. But discarding the concept of free will due to determinism isn't really useful, IMO. We treat ourselves and each other as free agents, even when arguing against this freedom. The reality is that in the human world, people think, feel, make decisions and do stuff, and "freedom" refers to the experience of acting on decisions without compulsion or obstruction. It doesn't need to have anything to do with determinism/indeterminism at all.

Life without God would be hell, you're lying if you're saying it isn't and if you're saying it is then you aren't really a non-believer. -- Except that's not even true, like I just said, your experience of reality doesn't suffer at all. You'll still make decisions just as before, you won't fall into some depression because you know everything you'll do in your life is completely predetermined. You'll just carry on on with your life as it is. You know what would have to happen for your enjoyment of reality to really suffer? To see into the future. To know exactly what is going to happen and not be able to change it. That would really suck. But this? This is merely about accepting objective reality.

The reason I carry on living as though I'm free is because I'm free. I can demonstrate this to myself as often as I want. The idea of determinism is fine, but it is not usefully descriptive of the experience of living life and making choices.

As for "objective reality," this is a hush word-- it is an implicit demand to accept the philosophy of the day or be branded delusional. Christians once knew God to be real, beyond any reasonable doubt. People knew the world to be flat. I do not know whether determinism is real. . . but it doesn't matter. A definition of "free will" which demands one be free from causation is broken.

[RozKek]

If it's already determined that you're going to eat chicken for breakfast there's not a single thing you can do to not eat chicken for breakfast. How are you free in that situation? Every decision you're going to make regarding that will have been determined, how are you free in that case? Don't say "Well I decided that for myself, and no one held a gun to my head" because even then you're constrained by the laws of physics. You're free from the gun but you're not free from causality. You make the decisions, but they aren't free.

Let me ask you something.  How does your view of the illusion of freedom actually affect your experience of life?  Have you stopped eating snacks, because you are offended at your real lack of freedom in choosing what snack you want?  Are you depressed because your wife didn't really freely choose you, but was predetermined beyond any control of hers to choose you?  If someone killed your Dad or raped your mom, would you say, "Que sera sera, that was predestined, can't blame that guy."  If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then I'd have to say I suspect you'd be lying just to support your arguments in this thread.  But if you say "no," then you have very little real belief in the idea you are selling here-- it is a belief on paper, not one about the reality in and around us.


The problem with the philosophical claim of the illusion of freedom is obvious-- it's useless in the actual living and experience of a human life.  In my actual experience, I go out and choose my favorite flavor of ice cream, and I do so freely.  I don't sit there in a philosophical bind, cursing the Universe for railroading me into 7-11 on a hot Sunday afternoon.  And a philosophical idea that we can't actually apply to the living of life is about as useful as a bag of monkey farts.

No, I stopped eating snacks but not because of my lack of freedom (ultimately it was because I lack freedom). It is entirely correct that if I had an SO ultimately it wouldn't be our decision to love each other, if that is the case, that is the case. When you're with your wife and play with your kids the emotions you experience aren't under your control. They're simply chemicals firing off in the brain making you experience love. If you say it is your choice then you can even argue that you can cure depression caused by a chemical imbalance with your will. If someone did one of those sick things (please use less harsh examples next time) then I would be angry because it is a natural human reaction. It wouldn't be under my control if my neural net interacted in a way to make me experience anger. However, no matter how much I dislike this idea, I wouldn't agree with giving a very harsh sentence to the criminal e.g lifetime prison or the electric chair because the incident would ultimately be beyond our control. I'd instead agree with keeping him away from society and during that time reconditioning the criminal's brain to make him a good person and make him contribute to society in a positive way. I think this is important.

It doesn't matter if or how much I dislike this idea, I'm not going to deny it because I dislike it. Nor am I going to try and argue a free will into existence by playing word games. All definitions of free will are constricted and lack the free one way or another. Every single part and ounce of your free will is constricted by causality and all of the arguments for it lead to accepting the illusion of free will without acknowledging it but they don't deal with the physically free part itself, instead they avoid it.

It doesn't matter if it's useless or not, if it is the case, it is the case. And, no, it isn't trivial. And I don't sit there in a philosphical bind either, all depressed and crying over why I took vanilla over chocolate. In your experience, you're doing so freely. You're demonstrating the illusion yourself. It feels free, it does to me too, but it isn't free.

Take no offense, but the way you're expressing yourself makes me think you're trying to define and argue free will into existence either consciously or subconsciously because you dislike the idea of not having a free will. Cognitive dissonance comes into mind here.