The Death of Free Will

[Walker]

I'm not alone in admitting that I say one thing and do another. St. Paul described this situation in Romans 7 and called himself the "Wretched Man." How do we deal with the human condition as it expresses itself in our being? We may want one thing yet do another.

As with how you spend your money, action is a more accurate indication than words of what one really wants, and what one really wants may come as a surprise to the wanter. Once the root of confusion is cut, the want for confusion shrivels.

[MustaphaTheMond]

if free will truly isn't then my stubborn belief in it is as determined as every-thing and -one

that is: if you're right, then I have no choice in the matter...I believe in free will (libertarian agent causation), believe I am a free will (a causal agent), and that's beyond my or your control

robotic you wrote your piece cuz that's simply how the causal chain unfolded

robotic me rejects your piece cuz that's simply how the causal chain unfolded

neither of us can take any credit or be burdened by any blame

'nuff said

Yes, whether you like it or not, your belief in free will is also determined.
And yes, that is how the causal chain unfolded.
Reductionism is true, whether we like it or not.
To argue against this simply because you don't like it is the "appeal to consequences fallacy".

if I have no free will, am not a free will, as you assert, then, literally, I have no choice in the matter...any argument I make, whether sound or not, whether substantive or fallacious, simply is

I'm no more responsible for my fallacy than you are for your 5000 word essay

now, if I am a free will, a causal agent, I might argue that experience of myself in the world informs my view; I might argue that no one really understands how the brain works, the nature of mind, or why free will, if an illusion, seems deeply persistent; I might argue that while the universe is certainly deterministic, there's no real evidence the universe is determined

but: what's the point in prolonged conversation? you say I'm determined...if so, I'm determined to reject your assertion, determined to offer no undergirding for my rejection

as you reckon things: all of it is utterly beyond my control

So essentially you're falling into dramatic fatalism which completely misses the point.

[MustaphaTheMond]

We are evolutionarily programmed to consciously feel that we are in control, have free will etc. which is why it is so shocking and unintuitive to think the converse.

actually, as you reckon it, this too is a fiction, an illusion...the counter-intuitive shock is a shadow, just dominoes fallin'...no more meaningful than fallin' rain, or a lightnin' strike

you, sayin' you agree with KL: no you don't...you're a bio-machine, followin' a complex natural program...just trifles in the air

It IS an illusion but an evolutionarily beneficial illusion that evolution has bestowed on us.

Once again, you are falling into fatalism and an appeal to consequences.

We are all bio-machines following neuronal programmes. The initial conditions determine the later consequences. If time was reversed to the big bang, everything would be played out in exactly the same way and, yes, you would indeed have the exact same thoughts and opinions. But what are you going to do with this knowledge? Fall into fatalism and decide that there is no point in anything as nothing can be changed or solved or affected? We are humans and still have to play out our roles as the main characters in our own RPG games.

[MustaphaTheMond]

if there is no freedom of choice, there can be no moral consequence

-Imp

Correct, but society is still going to lock you up to protect the rest of the citizenry.

Things can still be immoral, heinous and evil without the people committing them being ultimately morally responsible for them, don't you think?

society does what it does, mechanically, just like you and me and him and her...it can't be any other way, if free will is a fiction

and: all this talk of immorality & evil...poppycock...my outrage at, say, a child's rape: just a determined reaction, no more or less meaningful than the rape itself, which is, of course, just another determined event

this is what you reckon, yeah?

So you're making the mistake of thinking that without freedom or ultimate moral responsibility, and in the truth of determinism, that morality does not exist. This is a fallacy too: morality does not depend on free choice. Moral RESPONSIBILITY does.

What do you think henry?

[MustaphaTheMond]

In determinism the physical universe moves step by step. Each step comes from a previous state and the previous state is part of an ever progressing causal chain.

The brain also functions step by step but the mind often leaps from one line of thought to another. The leap is causally unexplainable. It could have a cause but that cause is unknowable. To say that it comes from a causal chain is not true. To say that it comes from a causal leap is unknown.

So believe what you want but don't say you have definite proof.

I believe I have free will. Why? That's what I want to believe.

You want to believe it exists, so you believe it exists, fair enough. But I would hesitate to describe that as a powerful or legitimate argument, more a sort of fideism.

And the mind "leaping" from one line of thought to the other is the result of neuronal activity and chemical states of the brain. It is not truly a leap in causation, that is just the way your mind is interpreting it. Everything slots into the chain of causation (other that indeterministic quantum events as already described).

What do you think Jaycob?

no, not fair enough...without free will, Jay only seems to choose to believe...as you reckon it

does it matter what Jay thinks? you might seem to have an interest in his view, but, as you know, your interest is false, not really your interest, or a interest, at all

It is still my interest, a determined interest yes, not one of my own free volition yes, but I still embody the bag of neurones that I am. Just as you do henry. This concept seems incredibly hard for you to grasp.

[MustaphaTheMond]

In determinism the physical universe moves step by step. Each step comes from a previous state and the previous state is part of an ever progressing causal chain.

The brain also functions step by step but the mind often leaps from one line of thought to another. The leap is causally unexplainable. It could have a cause but that cause is unknowable. To say that it comes from a causal chain is not true. To say that it comes from a causal leap is unknown.

So believe what you want but don't say you have definite proof.

I believe I have free will. Why? That's what I want to believe.

You want to believe it exists, so you believe it exists, fair enough. But I would hesitate to describe that as a powerful or legitimate argument, more a sort of fideism.

And the mind "leaping" from one line of thought to the other is the result of neuronal activity and chemical states of the brain. It is not truly a leap in causation, that is just the way your mind is interpreting it. Everything slots into the chain of causation (other that indeterministic quantum events as already described).

What do you think Jaycob?

Hell no. The causal chain doesn't exist in the mind. It does in the brain which is subject to the mind's direction. Prove that their is neural activity in the MIND that neural scientists have identified. Besides, the mind is the cause that comes from the mind. Circular?? Perhaps. How do you explain that circularity?

Disagree with your assertion. There is a large body of work in neuroscience and cognitive science which makes a powerful argument that the "mind" or the experience of consciousness is the product of physical reality: neurones, electrophysiology etc.

The mind is subject to the causal chain (determinism) and quantum jumps (indeterminism) just like everything else. Neither leave room for freedom unless you start playing semantic games and change the definitions. To argue the converse is just mysticism and religion.

[MustaphaTheMond]

Everything slots into the chain of causation (other that indeterministic quantum events as already described).

no, not fair enough...without free will, Jay only seems to choose to believe...as you reckon it

does it matter what Jay thinks? you might seem to have an interest in his view, but, as you know, your interest is false, not really your interest, or a interest, at all

And why would it be true that: "Everything slots into the chain of causation (other that indeterministic quantum events as already described) "? All that is called a 'quantum event" are things we do not currently understand the causal nature of. But is that enough to give us the conclusion that they have no causal nature? No, of course not. When nobody knew the world was round, was it flat? Did it only become round with Magellan? Of course not. Why would "quantum events" be the lone, unique case of a "non-causal" event, if everything else was strictly a product of a causal chain?

On the other hand, if "quantum events" are genuine exceptions to causal determinism, how would we know consciousness wasn't another such genuine exception? The whole strength of the Determinist argument depends on there being no other possible explanation for anything. If we allow for exceptions at all, then the Deterministic argument becomes as useless as a jug with a hole in the bottom; for then, it only describes a limited subset of all the events in the world, and no number of Deterministic "cases" would warrant the conclusion that all others had to work the same way.

Any way you slice it, some measure of freedom of will returns, unless strict and absolute Determinism can be shown to be true. But since it cannot, we can paraphrase the old saying of Mark Twain, after his mistaken obituary:

"The reports of the death of free will are greatly exaggerated."

Haha - respect for the last line but also respectfully disagree. If consciousness is some kind of quantum event/exception to determinism it would therefore be random/prone to the vagaries of chance rather than anything else. This doesn't leave room for free will either. Free will is dead Immanuel, let's bury it.

We make conclusions based on the empirical observations, data and evidence we have. As I have tried to expose in the essay, the current evidence is overwhelmingly against "free will", whether this truth is palatable or not. Of course IT IS POSSIBLE that in the future we make some incredible discoveries which overturn the existing data, though I believe it to be unlikely.

And if you've always led your life believing you have free will and still do, and it still works for you, then feel free to continue.

[Immanuel Can]

If consciousness is some kind of quantum event/...

Wait. Stop.

Nobody said consciousness is a "quantum event." Maybe the rules that govern quantum events and the rules that govern consciousness are the same, or similar, or maybe very different. Maybe. For the present point, we don't have to decide which it is. It doesn't change anything.

If quantum events are exceptions to strict Determinism, then exceptions to strict Determinism exist. And we no longer have any basis upon which to insist that consciousness cannot be another exception to Determinism.

That's the point.

....exception to determinism it would therefore be random/prone to the vagaries of chance rather than anything else.

Non sequitur: it might be, or it might not be. All we know is that it is an exception. We do not know that it is "quantum" or random.

But you are right about this much: IF it WERE random, then it would be worse than Determinism, even. For it might well be preferable for us all to be mere slaves of a Deterministic system than for us to be helpless victims of a random one. That's plausible: it's not obviously necessary.

However, this is not how we experience free will, and so the burden of proof is on Determinists to show that despite all such appearances, free will isn't actual. Without being able to insist that ALL is Deterministic, and with allowing for exceptions, they've lost the argument they need in order to insist on the impossibility of free will.

And they've lost the whole force of their argument.

Free will is dead Immanuel, let's bury it.

It's not...and you know it's not. For you just appealed to me to decide to side with you and "bury it." But if Determinism were true, I could not decide anything.

Determinists, you see, cannot even keep faith with their own reductional view. You can see this: for they keep insisting it can be argued for and believed. In fact, they insist on you doing so, and offer particular reasons and lines of argument to get you to give your assent to Determinism. That's not possible by any light Determinism itself offers. If Determinism were true, I would already believe or not believe in it, and would have no more power to change my mind than a rock has power to decide not to fall off a cliff or to stay poised at the top.

But even Determinists know consciousness and will are real. They can't escape depending on these things, if they argue at all.

So free will is not nearly "dead." It's not even in trouble.

So here's the right concluding note: if you've always led your life believing you do not have free will, and you think that supposition still works for you, then you aren't actually free to continue to believe it. You're predetermined to believe it, regardless of the facts.

In any case, you have to know that your belief is not oriented to, or associated with evidence, facts, reasons or truth, but only with what has been predetermined for you to believe. That confidence is, by your telling of it, a mere product of Determinism.

[Nick_A]

I'm not alone in admitting that I say one thing and do another. St. Paul described this situation in Romans 7 and called himself the "Wretched Man." How do we deal with the human condition as it expresses itself in our being? We may want one thing yet do another.

As with how you spend your money, action is a more accurate indication than words of what one really wants, and what one really wants may come as a surprise to the wanter. Once the root of confusion is cut, the want for confusion shrivels.

Suppose a person wants to have the free will to be master of themselves. Then they learn in reality they are a slave to their desires. They may want to lose twenty pounds but lack the free will to do so and are a slave to box of chocalate chip cookies.

A person may profess all sorts of humanistic values but spend their money on the sleaziest forms of entertainment so what do they really want? What are they attracted to? It seems humanity in general has a conflict between the conscious attraction to higher values and the attraction to acquired earthly negative emotions. But to be master of oneself a person must have the free will to acquire freedom from the dominance of acquired negative emotions. That is why free will is only possible for conscious Man. Lacking consciousness we are governed by desire; the desire of the mind and the dominant desires of negative emotions.

[Immanuel Can]

Suppose a person wants to have the free will to be master of themselves. Then they learn in reality they are a slave to their desires.

They cannot "learn" such a thing, Nick. If Determinism is true, they don't "learn" anything...ever.

Every move they make and every cognition in their heads is nothing other than a material-causal chain doing whatever it was predetermined to do.

[Walker]

Suppose a person wants to have the free will to be master of themselves. Then they learn in reality they are a slave to their desires. They may want to lose twenty pounds but lack the free will to do so and are a slave to box of chocalate chip cookies.

A person may profess all sorts of humanistic values but spend their money on the sleaziest forms of entertainment so what do they really want? What are they attracted to? It seems humanity in general has a conflict between the conscious attraction to higher values and the attraction to acquired earthly negative emotions. But to be master of oneself a person must have the free will to acquire freedom from the dominance of acquired negative emotions. That is why free will is only possible for conscious Man. Lacking consciousness we are governed by desire; the desire of the mind and the dominant desires of negative emotions.

You can only be master of yourself, in the here and now.
That is also the place where true change, and want, is revealed as action.
That is also the only place where reality exists.

Thoughts are not change.
If anything, they are the confusion that chooses.
Thoughts come and go, most are soon forgotten.

To be master of yourself in the here and now is to clearly see who you are.
Who you are is defined by action, born of intent, shaped by limitations.
To see that is to also see who you will be.

Such sight takes into account all the wishin’ and a hopin’ that goes along with human nature.
This is why age gives humans an edge in understanding.

Who is this mysterious "they?"

[henry quirk]

Yes, whether you like it or not, your belief in free will is also determined.
And yes, that is how the causal chain unfolded.
Reductionism is true, whether we like it or not.
To argue against this simply because you don't like it is the "appeal to consequences fallacy".

if I have no free will, am not a free will, as you assert, then, literally, I have no choice in the matter...any argument I make, whether sound or not, whether substantive or fallacious, simply is

I'm no more responsible for my fallacy than you are for your 5000 word essay

now, if I am a free will, a causal agent, I might argue that experience of myself in the world informs my view; I might argue that no one really understands how the brain works, the nature of mind, or why free will, if an illusion, seems deeply persistent; I might argue that while the universe is certainly deterministic, there's no real evidence the universe is determined

but: what's the point in prolonged conversation? you say I'm determined...if so, I'm determined to reject your assertion, determined to offer no undergirding for my rejection

as you reckon things: all of it is utterly beyond my control

So essentially you're falling into dramatic fatalism which completely misses the point.

you've missed your own point by a 1000 miles

if you're right: I can't fall into anything, or rise up, or fail, or succeed, or think or feel or love or hate, and on and on

If I not a free will, if I'm determined, then I am nothing

obviously, I don't believe your poppycock...and, to be frank, I don't think you believe it either

in this forum, stretching back over the years, there are dozens of threads where folks like yourself have declared they've come to drive the final nail into the coffin of free will (you don't actually believe your arguments against free are novel, do you?)...they, ultimately, slammed up against the same wall you will: as much as they claimed to reject free will, they still, as you do, comported themselves as free wills

look, I can't prove free will is real, and, certainly, you and your compatriots haven't falsified free will..we each can point to what we believe stand as evidences, but -- either way -- there is a mystery to free will, to mind, to self, that hasn't been pierced

fundamentally, as I see it, you -- a free will -- have chosen to see yourself as less...I find this self-denigration offensive...the universe is largely a hostile place already and I don't understand why any man chooses to piss on himself, to purposefully be less

[henry quirk]

look here, guy...

We are all bio-machines following neuronal programmes. The initial conditions determine the later consequences. If time was reversed to the big bang, everything would be played out in exactly the same way and, yes, you would indeed have the exact same thoughts and opinions. But what are you going to do with this knowledge? Fall into fatalism and decide that there is no point in anything as nothing can be changed or solved or affected? We are humans and still have to play out our roles as the main characters in our own RPG games.

...explain to yourself how I can, as the bio-machine you say I am, as the determined event you believe me to be, do anything with any knowledge? I can't fall into fatalism, can't decide there is no point in anything

only a free will can defy or despair

[henry quirk]

So you're making the mistake of thinking that without freedom or ultimate moral responsibility, and in the truth of determinism, that morality does not exist. This is a fallacy too: morality does not depend on free choice. Moral RESPONSIBILITY does.

What do you think henry?

I think you're tryin' to have it both ways, that's what I think...you wanna embrace determinism, but, in your gut, you know it's poppycock...you're fence sittin'

a truly committed bio-robot you are not

[henry quirk]

It is still my interest, a determined interest yes, not one of my own free volition yes, but I still embody the bag of neurones that I am. Just as you do henry. This concept seems incredibly hard for you to grasp.

further evidence you don't get your own position, or don't truly believe what you claim

if, as you say, I am determined, then it is determined that I will not grasp the concept...it is what it is...I can't be anything other, do anything other, than what's determined, yeah?

if you truly beieve what you say, then all you ought to say to me, or anyone, who disagrees with you is: so it goes...