Free Will Argument

[philosopher]

I've been for a long time anti-free will pro-deterministic. But recently, I've been wondering a lot about this world view of free will - or lack thereof.

This will be a lengthy philosophical post of mine, please take your time to fully understand it, and ask questions.

If the world is one big clock-work universe, and everything is determined from the very beginning to the end, all atoms are positioned in a non-random, determined way.

This means that our brains, which creates our minds from neurological systems consisting of chemical (molecular -> atomic) balances. These balances are subject entirely to the laws of this deterministic universe.

Thus your mind - which creates your will to do stuff, is already fixed and your entire life has been pre-determined from your very beginning.
(of course taking into account environmental stuff, genes etc.).

In other words, your will is not free. But what is free? What does "free" mean? I'll come back this question later.

In quantum physics, there are two major opposing and equally valid theories - The Copenhagen Interpretation where the entire universe is random - fundamentally random (you can't know a particle's position and momentum equally by 100 % - if you want to know for sure its position, its momentum becomes fuzzy and vice-versa). A consequence of The Copenhagen Interpretation is the many-worlds theory - where for every particle's action, change or whatever, the universe splits into different universes in a gigantic multiverse. We just notice one of those universe's which we live in. There could be one where you are the president of U.S. and another where you're a prisoner in China.

This was made as an explanation for the infamous double-slit experiment where particles seem to go through both slits as a wave, independently of those particles being fired with several minutes apart. It still creates the wave/interference pattern on the screen.

- And then there is the Bohmian Mechanics - after the de-Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave theory.

It says that particles are real - they have definite position and momentum, but they are carried by pilot waves - ultimately they are all subject to the Universal Wave Function. Some argues this is against the Bell Theorem - a no-go theorem stating that local hidden variables cannot exist. But it says nothing about global/universal hidden varariables. If you abandon locality, you have perfectly well defined and deterministic theory that is consistent with making the same predictions as the Copenhagen Interpretation. It also produce surreal trajectories - predicted by the pilot waves - and there is evidence for this.

But even if the Copenhagen "True Randomness"-"Many Worlds" Interpretation is real, it still leaves you without a "free" will. After all, you are still subject to the bouncing-off atoms making up your mind and creating the neuro-chemical signals creating your consciousness, you will and actions.

It's just that they happen to be fundamentally random then. But still no free will.

But what exactly is Free Will? What is "free"? What is "Will"? If you can define those terms, you are better equipped with a clear-cut answer to the question.

If you feel an urge to open a door - that urge is the will. You had the will to open the door.
But was it free? If someone prevented you from opening the door, you certainly had the will - but not the freedom to open it.

So logically speaking, if you feel the will to open the door, and succeed - you must have had the freedom to act on your will. Hence Free Will.

Surely, your neurological atoms caused your will. But why does that matter to the freedom? After all, if you cannot define freedom, you cannot argue we don't have it.

[henry quirk]

Henry: I'm a free will.

Stan: Prove it.

Henry: I can't. It's an internal experience that I can't give you access to. I believe, however, you have the same experience.

Stan: So, you can't prove you're a free will.

Henry: *shrug* Nope.

Stan: Then free will doesn't exist.

Henry: Okay. If that's what you wanna go with...

Stan: You have to 'go with' it too...say it.

Henry: Say what?

Stan: *tensing* There's no free will.

Henry: Oh...sure, there's no free will.

Stan: *relaxing* I'm glad we agree.

Henry: *nodding* Sure, there's no quality or substance or characteristic that stands alone called 'free will'. All there is, in context, are events and agents. I'm an agent. In other words I 'am' a free will, I don't have free will.

Stan: *angry* No, No, No! That's not right! You can't say that!

Henry: *shrugging* I just did. Listen, I'll do it again. I'm an agent. In other words I 'am' a free will, I don't have free will.

Stan: *convulsing* No, No, No! Cause and effect! Determinism! Science!

Henry: Meh. Fuck all that. That's shit describes and describes poorly, without all the facts.

Stan: *head expodes*

-fin-

[philosopher]

Henry: I'm a free will.

Stan: Prove it.

Henry: I can't. It's an internal experience that I can't give you access to. I believe, however, you have the same experience.

Internal experiences are proven to be illusions, they cannot be trusted because they are purely subjective experiences and they certainly are not objective.

What we call objective realities are expereriences we can reproduce experimentally in a science lab using The Scientific Method.

If you say you have a free will, it is your experience, but it is simply your brain hallucinating creating the illusion of a free will.
This has been proven experimentally to be the case.

Henry: Meh. Fuck all that. That's shit describes and describes poorly, without all the facts.

You suffer from fact-resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth

[henry quirk]

No, I'm blessed with whole whack of 'I don't give a fuck'.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/indifference

[Age]

Henry: I'm a free will.

Stan: Prove it.

Henry: I can't. It's an internal experience that I can't give you access to. I believe, however, you have the same experience.

Internal experiences are proven to be illusions, they cannot be trusted because they are purely subjective experiences and they certainly are not objective.

What do you mean by 'internal' experience?

Are ALL internal experiences illusions?

Are there objective internal experiences? If no, then ALL of YOUR internal experiences, which have supposedly already been proven to be illusions, can not be trusted also, correct?

Now, have YOU internally experienced determinism?

If so, then, according to your logic and argument, that is also just an illusion, which also can not be trusted. Or, is it only the ONES you have internally experienced free will, (opposite of your beliefs), who are the ones with the proven illusions, of which also could not, and should not, be trusted?

Human beings have to realize that if they are going to argue for some thing in regards to views, then that argument has to be in relation to their own views also.

What we call objective realities are expereriences we can reproduce experimentally in a science lab using The Scientific Method.

Can you provide any actual examples of, what you call 'objective realities are experiences', and HOW those experiences can actually be reproduced experimentally in a science lab, using the scientific method?

If you say you have a free will, it is your experience, but it is simply your brain hallucinating creating the illusion of a free will.

If that is your argument, then how do you respond to; If you say you DO NOT have free will, is that also YOUR experience? Is it also YOUR brain hallucinating creating the illusion of NO free will?

Or, does this NOT apply to YOU?

This has been proven experimentally to be the case.

Do you have any examples that we could actually look at? Or, do you just expect us to believe you?

Henry: Meh. Fuck all that. That's shit describes and describes poorly, without all the facts.

You suffer from fact-resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

Do YOU, also, suffer from fact-resistance? Or, do only those with opposing views and internal experiences to YOU suffer from that human behavior?

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth

Are you at all aware that just some times actually the person who is being labelled with "denialism" is the one who is actually seeing reality, while it is the so called "experts", (who are doing the judging of another, with so-called "denialism"), are the actual ones who are denying reality? For example, if the word "denialism" was around when a person was choosing to say that the earth revolves around the sun BEFORE any one else could see this reality, then that person, who was making the choice to speak out, would be the one classed as having denialism.

In that example who are/is the actual ones/one with actual denialism, and who are/is avoiding a psychologically uncomfortable truth?

Obviously, if the truth was actually the very opposite of what YOU believe is true now, then that would be a very psychologically uncomfortable position to be in for you, and one that you would certainly want to avoid also, correct?

If you are able to look at this openly, and answer ALL of my questions honestly, then could YOU be the one who is in denial? Could you be the one wanting to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth?

I will suggest this to you, as I do to ALL adult human beings, instead of TRYING TO argue for a position why not just always remain open to seeing what the actual truth IS first?

Then obviously you would not have to TRY TO argue for some thing, as you would already be able to successfully argue for it. As we all know, here in this forum, that if some thing can be successfully argued soundly and validly, then it is an already known unambiguous fact, of which it can not be disputed, successfully. And, as I have suggested earlier throughout this forum TRYING TO argue either for, or against, free will and/or determinism is a complete waste of time. The past give or take couple of thousands years should be enough evidence for this fact, as the truth and falsehoods do not lay within one or the other but in both of them. This obvious fact is easily seen, known, and understood.

The reason I am speaking to you, philosopher, like this is because you are TRYING TO argue for your position, very unsatisfactorily I must add. Whereas, the other here is just expressing their view whilst also openly admitting that they are completely unable to prove it. Although they have also, incorrectly, "picked" one side in this topic, they are not TRYING TO argue for that position.

When a person TRIES TO argue for their beliefs, as you are so obviously doing, then that is when I will expose what is actually taking place here.

[henry quirk]

"Internal experiences are proven to be illusions, they cannot be trusted because they are purely subjective experiences and they certainly are not objective."

No, not illusions. There is the internal experience of 'selfness' and this is no illusion. Folded in (perhaps synonymous) with 'selfness' is the sense, the experience, of self-efficacy or agency (being a free will) and this is not an illusion (as you well know from your own experience of 'self' and agency).

There is the internal experience of apprehending the world and this is no illusion. What it is is a construct, a map put together from information apprehended by the senses coupled with memory (against which new information is compared and contrasted). These maps, the constructs, are accurate enough to allow a body to drive a car, cross a crowded room, piss in a toliet without hittin' the rim, romance an attractive other, post to a forum, etc.

These experiences of 'self' and agency, and of the world (and one's relative place in the world), can be trusted, should be trusted, cuz such things serve us well, serve us consistently, serve us accurately. These experiences are real, and are of real things/events.

#

"it is simply your brain hallucinating creating the illusion of a free will. This has been proven experimentally to be the case."

Nope. There is no science 'disproving' free will conclusively. I defy you to cite any science conclusively disproving agency.

##

"they have also, incorrectly, "picked" one side in this topic"

Oh, I think my position is the correct one and while I can't 'prove' it I'll certainly defend it. Neutrality is a fine thing, Age, but not across the board. The human individual is not sessile, he's active, seeking, apprehending. To suggest he withhold judgement, decline to choose, opt out of discerning, is unrealistic.

Simply: I'm a free will, an agent, and nuthin' offered in this thread, or in the body of research currently available, moves me to abandon this stance.

#

What interests me: why some folks are so eager to deny their own experience of 'self' and agency simply cuz some 'authority' sez such things are illusions. There's sumthin' goin' on in the heads of such folks that I don't get, a lack of 'rooting', a blunted sense of autonomy. What causes such a profound distrust of one's self is a mystery to me.