Why free will is impossible

[Sarkus]

I'd agree.

And all those things are conscious perceptions, speaking nothing to the underlying nature.

If you wish to get behind the perception then you need to offer arguments that speak to it, rather than continually offering examples that merely beg the question with circularity.

For mundane scenarios, those Easterners would possibly agree with Sarkus.

There's more than just the "mundane"??? :shrug:

 

[Gustav]

You do realise that each passing moment is an effect of the previous one, and the cause of the next?

interesting
are you sure your brain is not perpetrating a fraud on a massive scale to make it appear as if time is real and not an illusion? a magic trick? an elaborate deception?

i mean we consciously perceive time as real, but what of its underlying nature?

Einstein: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones."

 

[Sarkus]

i originally phrased my question to you like so....

"interesting
could you present a few scenarios?
perhaps ones that do not involve the village idiot as the test subject"

Apologies - but much of this thread seems to be me and Pandaemoni speaking to just such a crowd.

i do acknowledge that bias is a possible factor in picking a number off the scale.
it could be as you said, a numeral actually visualized, perhaps heard; recently. it could be a favored numeral due to any number of reasons. it could also be..... an actual, random pick.

i see no logical reason to discount that last possibility

Sure - but random is still not a conscious choice... is not demonstrably "free will". Or does a rolled die exert its "free-will" in the number it lands on?

speaking of "unconscious micro level", are you postulating a neural correlate to the number 5? an instinctual, perhaps inherited, preference for particular numbers? a predisposition for picking one over the other?

Not precisely, although there might be an element of that as a result of what I'm talking about: which is the interaction between every atom, molecule, quark etc that make up the brain, the body, and everything that influences them.

anyways, i would say i am mostly confident, to a very high percentage, that my choice of number was not influenced by biases, biological or otherwise

But confidence is similarly a conscious perception, and can only speak of the those influences of which you are aware.

 

[Sarkus]

interesting
are you sure your brain is not perpetrating a fraud on a massive scale to make it appear as if time is real and not an illusion? a magic trick? an elaborate deception?

i mean we consciously perceive time as real, but what of its underlying nature?

It's a good question, but how would that affect the question of free-will?
If all things happen at the same instant, then possibly every "moment" effects every other moment - but I can't see how that would necessarily allow for genuine free-will.
Perhaps you could elaborate in that regard?

 

[Gustav]

it has nothing to do with justifying free will

what it does however, is to show you that your discourse here with regards to the operation of "free will" within the "causal chain" rests on the assumption that time is real and not an illusion. ie: you argue and maintain the alleged illusory nature of free will on another alleged illusion, that of time

i mean, consistency and rigor is something we aim for here, ja?

for instance...

"You do realise that each passing moment is an effect of the previous one, and the cause of the next?"

there is no "passing" ,no "previous", no "next"

hold those to be axiomatic and imagine how this topic would have unfolded
(dont ask me cos it is seemingly impossible)

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

it has nothing to do with justifying free will

what it does however, is to show you that your discourse here with regards to the operation of "free will" within the "causal chain" rests on the assumption that time is real and not an illusion. ie: you argue and maintain the alleged illusory nature of free will on another alleged illusion, that of time

i mean, consistency and rigor is something we aim for here, ja?

for instance...

"You do realise that each passing moment is an effect of the previous one, and the cause of the next?"

there is no "passing" ,no "previous", no "next"

hold those to be axiomatic and imagine how this topic would have unfolded
(dont ask me cos it is seemingly impossible)

I don't know were the idea time is not real comes from . I don't understand that ? I think time is real . It is Things in motion if you ask me . A line . Like a sextant and plotting courses . Sailors used them and navigators . Position is dependent on them . Hey maybe that is why intelligent people out of the universities don't understand charting . No concept of time as a real thing

I don't know I must be that village idiot

 

[Sarkus]

it has nothing to do with justifying free will

what it does however, is to show you that your discourse here with regards to the operation of "free will" within the "causal chain" rests on the assumption that time is real and not an illusion. ie: you argue and maintain the alleged illusory nature of free will on another alleged illusion, that of time

With regard this thread, the "flow of time" is certainly an assumption that is taken as an axiom for the purposes of this thread.

If you wish to raise a thread regarding the truth or otherwise of that assumption, feel free.

But for this thread the assumption stands and it is valid to use it.

i mean, consistency and rigor is something we aim for here, ja?

Perhaps if you really had bothered to read the thread, even the opening post, you might be inclined to more than trolling?

 

[Gustav]

sarkus
flaming and trolling?

"i mean, consistency and rigor is something we aim for here, ja? "

this?

But for this thread the assumption stands and it is valid to use it.

i understand that but what does it say about your conclusions when an key assumption is actually based on nothing but an illusion
why would we ignore that?
is an exercise in useless semantics productive?

 

[Gustav]

since you are being unnecessarily combative....

i think some here are comfortable with dismissing your professed agency as an instance of erroneous perception.

ja
they are calling you stupid

No they're not.
Is there a reason you're trying to add flames to this thread?

i originally phrased my question to you like so....

"interesting
could you present a few scenarios?
perhaps ones that do not involve the village idiot as the test subject"

Apologies - but much of this thread seems to be me and Pandaemoni speaking to just such a crowd.

what crowd is that, sarkus?
what are you implying?

/snort

 

[Gustav]

Sure - but random is still not a conscious choice... is not demonstrably "free will". Or does a rolled die exert its "free-will" in the number it lands on?

that last sentence is a strawman.

when i picked a number on that scale of yours, i did so consciously. i cannot execute that task any other way. i visualized the 10 numbers and picked one. it is a straight forward operation. i did not have numbers popping into my concious willy nilly. "random" in this case signifies that each # had an equal probability of being selected. i chose. i acknowledged possible biases. i compensated. i also indicated probability of equal wieght

do you accept my account or not?
if not why?

But confidence is similarly a conscious perception, and can only speak of the those influences of which you are aware.

agreed
now rather than all these vague and nebulous allusions, posit as many possible instances that might influence my choice of a number b/w one and ten. could a butterfly halfway around the world do that? and if so, would the recognition of that fact allow you to compensate for that possible bias in your choice?

ie: change your selection?

how about if i recuse myself on the grounds that i have no confidence my choice could be impartial

could that line of reasoning and the subsequent opting out, be a better indication of free will? an instance of a greater degree of freedom than actually making a choice

Not precisely, although there might be an element of that as a result of what I'm talking about: which is the interaction between every atom, molecule, quark etc that make up the brain, the body, and everything that influences them.

well i am
the existence of learned behavior. my language, reasoning, the utilization of, hardly constitutes an argument against the notion of free will. it is just something that has to be taken into account. impressing me with a cosmological event a billion light years away, a quark impinging on a neuron as an influence is just useless and unproductive

the position you adopted is similar to a theist that explains away every event as the unfolding of gods immutable will

its an unassailable position
and quite useless

 

[Sarkus]

sarkus
flaming and trolling?

"i mean, consistency and rigor is something we aim for here, ja? "

this?

Not that line specifically - just the demeanour of your posts in general thus far on this thread.

i understand that but what does it say about your conclusions when an key assumption is actually based on nothing but an illusion
why would we ignore that?

It says nothing about the conclusions as far as they relate to the assumptions within this thread.
And your point is an irrelevancy unless you can show how it renders one position, or all of them, invalid or unsound, given the assumptions on which this thread is based.

is an exercise in useless semantics productive?

"Useless semantics" is your view - and if such a thread as this is not productive then why are you here if not to flame or troll?

 

[arfa brane]

World English Dictionary
free (friː)

— adj (and foll by from ) , freer , freest
1. able to act at will; not under compulsion or restraint
2. a. having personal rights or liberty; not enslaved or confined
b. ( as noun ): land of the free
3. not subject (to) or restricted (by some regulation, constraint, etc); exempt: a free market ; free from pain
4. (of a country, etc) autonomous or independent
5. exempt from external direction or restriction; not forced or induced: free will

This definition obviously applies to conscious beings.
But look at the first line: "able to act at will; not under compulsion or restraint".

Are you really able to act "at will", and are you really not under any compulsion or restraint? Wouldn't the answers depend on the context you use?
For instance, a prisoner is not free to go where they want, or do what they want.

A human isn't free to breathe underwater, or in a vacuum because humans depend on a breathable atmosphere. It depends what kind of restraint and the context it's used in, right?

You are free because you aren't compelled to do things. But you do things which are, for the most part, "socially acceptable", because acceptability in society is a compelling influence on most people.

You can contextualise any of the dictionary definitions as circular reasoning: they all assume that there is such a thing as a free agent.

 

[Sarkus]

that last sentence is a strawman.

No it's not. The implication was that "random" implies free-will... the example shows how that implication is false.

when i picked a number on that scale of yours, i did so consciously. i cannot execute that task any other way. i visualized the 10 numbers and picked one. it is a straight forward operation. i did not have numbers popping into my concious willy nilly.

I couldn't honestly care how you consciously picked those numbers... the fact is that you can only be consciously aware of certain macro aspects that influence any "choice"... and not the vast number of micro-level interactions that cause that "choice".

i chose. i acknowledged possible biases. i compensated. i also indicated probability of equal wieght

do you accept my account or not?

I accept your account as being your consciousn awareness of your account - more or less making my point for me, for which I thank you: your consciousness was not aware of the underlying nature of the interactions... of one atom interacting with another... and the cascading of those interactions through your body, through your neural pathways, resulting in your "choice".
All you were aware of were a few macro items that you consciously thought were influences.

agreed
now rather than all these vague and nebulous allusions, posit as many possible instances that might influence my choice of a number b/w one and ten. could a butterfly halfway around the world do that? and if so, would the recognition of that fact allow you to compensate for that possible bias in your choice?

ie: change your selection?

Possibly. It is simply unknown.
The butterfly might have caused winds that built into a tornado that killed 7 people, which got into a newspaper headline that you subconsciously recalled, and thus selected 7. Who knows.
You would not be consciously aware of it (the butterfly), and as such you might hold that it did not affect your "choice". But your conscious simply could not know.

The point remains that there are far more causes than we can ever be conscious of. Even with the butterfly example: what caused the butterfly to flap its wings at that precise time and frequency etc.

how about if i recuse myself on the grounds that i have no confidence my choice could be impartial

could that line of reasoning and the subsequent opting out, be a better indication of free will? an instance of a greater degree of freedom than actually making a choice

No, because it stems from the same underlying nature of interactions at the micro level. Besides, "choosing not to choose" is still a "choice" and thus still the same activity as making any other choice.

And, as stated numerous times throughout this thread, it depends how you define "freewill". If it is purely a conscious perception of activity (again, all your examples, like everyone elses' arguing against my position, stem from conscious perception rather than the underlying nature) then free-will can be said to exist and for such a definition the underlying nature is actually irrelevant, because it starts and ends at the level of conscious perception.

But it is only when you look at the underlying nature of that activity can you see whether our perception is what some of us deem illusory, or whether there is genuine ability to affect through "free-will".

well i am
the existence of learned behavior. my language, reasoning, the utilization of, hardly constitutes an argument against the notion of free will. it is just something that has to be taken into account.

As conscious perceptions they speak to the argument that notions of freewill are at least also conscious perceptions... but can not and do not speak to the underlying nature, one way or the other.
While people continue to look purely from the conscious perception of free-will they can not begin to assess the underlying nature.

impressing me with a cosmological event a billion light years away, a quark impinging on a neuron as an influence is just useless and unproductive

If you hold that then continuing this discussion with me would be to what end?

the position you adopted is similar to a theist that explains away every event as the unfolding of gods immutable will

Not really, as my position starts with the science of the micro world, and builds up from there.
As far as I am aware, theists have no such evidence.
My position is, as far as I can tell, a logical conclusion - irrespective of its ultimate value or worth or utility.

its an unassailable position
and quite useless

I hope your intention is not to argue that a position is either correct or incorrect depending upon its utility?
If you find it useless... don't use it... but that won't make it any less true or false.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

:shrug:
I have not changed any definition.

The fact that you do not see how your definition is merely a conscious perception of activity, and does not speak of the underlying nature of that activity, is your weakness.

Keep repeating that to yourself. It will eventually feel true. Pascal's wager.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

Sarkus, your insistence that what we think, experience and feel are illusions smacks of solipsism and the early rationalist/empiricist debates. You seem to think that there is some fundamental impossibility of us every figuring out what is real. And I find that totally inconsistent with you taking the materialistic/deterministic line you also seem to believe.

If we are the clock you say we are, we will figure out exactly how it works at some point, and the "illusions" will be explained and bypassed. If you truly feel fooled by your perception of the reality of your ability to make decisions and change the future, you shouldn't assume that is a permanent condition. Moreover, you shouldn't assume that others really don't understand how they make decisions. Heck, I think we have a really good handle on it (at least outside of philosophy 101).

 

[Regular0ldguy]

This definition obviously applies to conscious beings.
But look at the first line: "able to act at will; not under compulsion or restraint".

Are you really able to act "at will", and are you really not under any compulsion or restraint? Wouldn't the answers depend on the context you use?
For instance, a prisoner is not free to go where they want, or do what they want.

A human isn't free to breathe underwater, or in a vacuum because humans depend on a breathable atmosphere. It depends what kind of restraint and the context it's used in, right?

You are free because you aren't compelled to do things. But you do things which are, for the most part, "socially acceptable", because acceptability in society is a compelling influence on most people.

You can contextualise any of the dictionary definitions as circular reasoning: they all assume that there is such a thing as a free agent.

Correct. They apply to humans who happen to be self-aware and are capable of volitional thought and intention.

The definitions are defining types of behavior. They aren't reasoning at all. So there is nothing circular. They describe a concept which we apply to free behavior (which is a type of intentional, goal directed behavior that is allowed to result in the desired action. They didn't make up a word with nothing to apply it to, as you seem to believe. As if it were just a useless word/concept with no denotation. Nuts. How would you even do that? It isn't like Santa Clause, where you just add a few characteristics together to create an imaginary being for fun. (Sorry, if I traumatized anyone by that particular revelation.)

Yes the guy in the jail isn't free to run wild. That doesn't mean he has no freedom to do anything. For example, he can pick his nose as frequently and in the manner he desires. He can even hone that skill, or, he can feel guilty about it and work on squishing that behavior. I really don't see the point you are trying to make.

 

[arfa brane]

The definitions are defining types of behavior. They aren't reasoning at all. So there is nothing circular.

You can't see that "types of behaviour" defined in terms of behaviour is circular reasoning, so it is reasoning and it is circular?
You then do this yourself, with:

They describe a concept which we apply to free behavior (which is a type of intentional, goal directed behavior that is allowed to result in the desired action.

You may not have heard of forms of argument called modus ponens, and modus tollens.

They didn't make up a word with nothing to apply it to, as you seem to believe.

What makes you think I believe that?

 

[Pandaemoni]

so zombies are real?

i know i can walk off a cliff anytime i want
play russian roulette
and whatnot

i had thought all other sapiens were like me
having similar degrees of freedom
i know differently now
thanks

/superior smirk

First, Zombies may well exist, in the sense that animals may be only highly complex machines. That said, being a zombie does not mean that we act differently than you observe us acting in our ever day lives. Obviously, as a starting point, we all agree that animals behave in complex ways.


Second, merely asserting that you "know" you have choices is not a logical argument, it's just begging the question. I also think you'll find that if you really were to try to kill yourself, it would be far more difficult that you seem to be thinking it is. Still, if you actually kill yourself, then I ask: Are you killing yourself because you "chose" to do so, or because you saw my post and my post caused your zombie brain to want to refute the possibility, and so your zombie brain forced you to kill yourself? The chain of events that leads from my post to your suicide *could* be akin to a chain of a billion dominoes each one knocking down the next until eventually the chain results in your desire to kill yourself just to prove me wrong. You think there's choice there, but you may really be just a biological robot with some (rather unusually self-destructive) coding.

If you think there is proof that the real answer is that you "chose" it, then present the proof. This is a debate that has raged for millennia and no one else has offered up such proof (though subjective opinions of the "right" answer abound), so it would be quite a coup.

Personally, I must admit that I suspect that you don't understand the issue well enough to see the complexities, but you could change the face of philosophy if you can wipe the "/superior smirk" off my own face.

 

[Sarkus]

Keep repeating that to yourself. It will eventually feel true. Pascal's wager.

If you wish to accuse me of changing definitions then please provide the evidence.

If you wish to demonstrate how your "free-will" is more than merely a conscious perception of activity and speaks also to the underlying activity - then please explain it... as thus far you have not, but instead have posted more examples merely of perceptions of conscious activity. :shrug:

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, your insistence that what we think, experience and feel are illusions smacks of solipsism and the early rationalist/empiricist debates.

Not at all. Solipsism is the philosophy that one's mind is the only thing we can be sure exists.
This is fundamentally different to the question in hand - where it is merely the nature of things that DO exist that are in question. As explain, an illusion still exists, but its nature is different to perceived.
So any similarity to solipsism appears to be unfounded, unless you wish to explain further?

As for the early rationalist/empiricist debates... my position certainly stems from both rational thought and empirical evidence. Although I fail to see how that has any bearing.

You seem to think that there is some fundamental impossibility of us every figuring out what is real.

No I don't. I am not even sure where this strawman of yours might have stemmed from.

If you see two people arguing over the nature of the mechanisms of a clock... one saying "it's magic" and the other saying "it's cogs and springs"... is either of them saying that the clock itself is not real? No.

And I find that totally inconsistent with you taking the materialistic/deterministic line you also seem to believe.

Then perhaps you should actually try to understand the arguments being raised.

If we are the clock you say we are, we will figure out exactly how it works at some point, and the "illusions" will be explained and bypassed.

Why will we figure out exactly how it works?
That is some vast assumption, and not one I ncessarily hold to.
Further - we might increase our understanding of how it works, even understand it totally, but that is a far cry from breaking the illusion.
Afterall, we can understand optical illusions... yet our eyes/brain can not help but be "fooled" by them.
Understanding at an intellectual level would similarly not affect the practical in this regard... we would still perceive activity as "free-will"... but we would merely understand why we do.
Your point is thus flawed.

If you truly feel fooled by your perception of the reality of your ability to make decisions and change the future, you shouldn't assume that is a permanent condition.

I don't feel fooled. My consciousness can do nothing but accept that that is how it operates.
But again, that speaks nothing about the underlying nature.
As for being a permanent condition... given that understanding an illusion can not always enable us to break free from it (as demonstrated above)... I would say you would need explain how it would not be a permanent condition of consciousness. Can one even be conscious without this "free-will"?

Moreover, you shouldn't assume that others really don't understand how they make decisions. Heck, I think we have a really good handle on it (at least outside of philosophy 101).

If one accepts and defines (as I do, and as I have expressed many times) free-will / choice-making as a conscious perception of a certain pattern of activity, then there is no issue.

But you fail again and again to see that your position starts from one of conscious perception of "free-will" and "choice", and that despite your protestations and assertions to the contrary, ALL your examples merely reinforce that this is the position you hold... and that none of your examples speak to the underlying nature of the activity.

You are trying to counter arguments that DO speak to the underlying nature with examples that CAN'T.
Until you realise that this is what you (and others) are doing... :shrug:

And while I have offered a definition that allows for reconciliation between views of the perception and underlying nature, you have yet to show how your view/understanding of free-will can be reconciled with the underlying nature.