Does free will truly exist?

[Spirithound]

I’m talking about the fact that my opinion requires no supernatural intervention. Yours clearly does - or where do you suppose free will comes from?

I’m not aware of any explanation of where free will comes from, if not from within our brains. If it comes from within our brains then it is a physical process, therefore deterministic, as far as we can tell.

So are you saying that in a universe without a deity, there cannot be any beings with free will?

Is our basic disagreement, the one whose resolution would naturally conclude in either of our diverse beliefs, whether God exists or not?

 

[wanstronian]

Concepts require a rational mind.

And? I’m not denying the existence of rational minds!

Concepts are abstract. No non-human creature has ever demonstrated the capacity for abstract thought.

Would you consider morality to be an abstract concept? If so, your statement is wrong.

Abstract thinking involves thinking about that which is immaterial. So without immaterial things there are no concepts.

But all immaterial concepts are grounded in material objects or consequences. You didn’t reply to my request to provide an example of something that doesn’t exist in the material world, but if/when you do, I’ll demonstrate.

Indeed, what choice do we have. Without choice we can not judge things as true or false since there is no thinking going on.

No - you still don’t get it. We can judge things, but we might be wrong. History demonstrates plenty of incorrect judgements. A deterministic brain process does not preclude the power of thought. You’re arguing a straw man here.

There is only predestined chemical reactions. Having a good argument relies on a rational mind understanding the argument and judging its merit.

And there is no barrier to this.

If all we do when considering an argument is respond based on a chemical necessity then we are not truly considering the argument.

Why not?

I’d like to know what evidence you have of this claim?

Well, unless you’re a history-denier, the fact of evolution is well-established science.

And what do you mean by evolved here? I certainly agree that over time some ideas concerning morality can change. But how do you know they evolved? Or by evolved do you simply mean changes slightly. What mechanism causes them to change over time in your material world?

I used the word “evolved” intentionally - morality and human sociality have been subject to selection pressures just the same as the rest of natural evolution. Ever since our ancestors started living in groups, the need for cooperation would have become apparent - indeed, intrinsic, I would say.

There is evidence the mind exists. That evidence is our experience.

I don’t deny the mind exists, I just deny that it’s anything other than the result of brain processes. Why? Because there’s zero evidence to suggest that it’s anything else. Nobody has been able to provide a plausible non-brain based source for the mind, nor a plausible mechanism for its transportation from this mystical source to the reality of our natural environment.

It is really that simple. You dont seem to understand that implications for asserting that one of our most basic experiences is a fraud.

I think I do understand. It makes no tangible difference because the model works perfectly well. Just like the geo-centric model works perfectly well. But we know the latter is wrong, and we are starting to accumulate evidence that the former is, too.

Proves nothing? So the ability to think about things you have never directly experienced is meaningless? That seems to me the root of human creativity and invention.

No - it proves nothing, not in the context of your previous comment, which was that “[t]he imagination is more proof of the minds metaphysical nature,” for which you stated that “[t]he imagination is able to cogitate on things that dont exist in the real world.”

Your latter statement here does not constitute evidence for your former.

Actually its a very solid argument and there is no way to argue against it. But you can certainly just dismiss it.

Right - so your considered response to my statement amounts to “Is so!! Nyah nyah!” Very good.

I haven’t just dismissed it, I’ve given reasons why it’s an unsafe conclusion. Of course, you can just dismiss it, as you hypocritically accuse me of doing, but you are unable to provide any substantiation other than, “It feels that way to me.”

Well prove to me science using science (hint, you cant).

Oh, that old chestnut. Really - as if this tired old argument has any bearing. It seems to be a typical retort from theists who realise they can’t actually back up their claims. It gets very boring.

And then prove to me why science isn’t another illusion of my brain that seems to want to trick me by having my consciousness think that it is making thousands of choices during the day when that is not so.

This is a bit incoherent, actually. The idea of one’s brain “wanting” to trick one’s consciousness, when the latter is the product of the former, makes no sense. Nor does the idea of the brain making the consciousness “think.” You’re clearly thinking with the worldview of a mind/brain dualism, which may be why you appear to continually misunderstand what I’m saying.

 

[wanstronian]

So are you saying that in a universe without a deity, there cannot be any beings with free will?

Is our basic disagreement, the one whose resolution would naturally conclude in either of our diverse beliefs, whether God exists or not?

I don’t think so. My position is that the world is materialistic. Certainly there’s no evidence that this isn’t the case. If it’s materialistic, then it’s most likely deterministic.

So in order for free will to exist, there must be both a non-material source, and a mechanism for it to manifest itself in our physical brains. I don’t think we need to call it “God.”

There is no plausible explanation for either the source or the mechanism. However, there is a plausible explanation for the appearance of free will even while it doesn’t actually exist.

Proving the existence of God wouldn’t, in itself, prove the existence of free will. Or vice versa.

 

[exnihilo]

Oh, that old chestnut. Really - as if this tired old argument has any bearing. It seems to be a typical retort from theists who realise they can’t actually back up their claims. It gets very boring.

All your arguments rest on science. Since you cant prove science from science then you aren’t left with much of an argument. It might be a tired argument and typical, but that is because it is so strong and unassailable.

 

[wanstronian]

All your arguments rest on science. Since you cant prove science from science then you aren’t left with much of an argument. It might be a tired argument and typical, but that is because it is so strong and unassailable.

And all your arguments rest on speculation and wishful thinking - I know where I’d rather put my chips.

It’s incredible that you value science so little, when you consider how much it’s done for us all. It’s also a shame that you consider science-based arguments so weak, when they’re so objectively verifiable! I suspect your acceptance of science is selective - you’re happy to have the technology and improved quality of life that it’s brought, but as soon as it conflicts with your subjective, evidenceless dogma it’s suddenly an unreliable process.

Your “can’t prove science with science” argument could be considered unassailable I suppose, but only because it’s incoherent and stupid. It’s unassailable in the same way that a non-existent castle is unassailable.

Given that you clearly have nothing to say other than, “I think X, therefore X,” maybe we should leave it here.

 

[tlimon]

I suspect your acceptance of science is selective - you’re happy to have the technology and improved quality of life that it’s brought, but as soon as it conflicts with your subjective, evidenceless dogma it’s suddenly an unreliable process.

You have been here long enough to know the Church’s position on science. Consistent with Church teachings, I am willing to concede everything to science that is within the jurisdiction of science. What exnihilo is grasping for is the fact that science is not the only method of understanding reality. If you are looking for a silver bullet argument, Catholic apologetics will always fall short in some sense.

But, alas, we find ourselves amidst this twilight once again. Another game “won” in which you have defined the rules and forced another predictable outcome based on your own presuppositions. Such behavior is perfectly consistent with fatalism. If you sincerely believe in your own thesis, all your conversations are quixotic tilting at a minimum. I suppose one in your situation would find screaming at steel plates because they are dense and obtuse equally as satisfying as commenting on CAF. Actually now that I think of it, if you wish, I have a pile of bricks at the back of my house ripe for your feverish kicking. I trust that you would find this ultimately satisfying.

 

[wanstronian]

You have been here long enough to know the Church’s position on science. Consistent with Church teachings, I am willing to concede everything to science that is within the jurisdiction of science. What exnihilo is grasping for is the fact that science is not the only method of understanding reality. If you are looking for a silver bullet argument, Catholic apologetics will always fall short in some sense.

Well, science is the only method of understanding reality - or at least, it’s the only objectively demonstrable method of understanding reality. Anything else falls neatly under the umbrella of “opinion.”

But, alas, we find ourselves amidst this twilight once again. Another game “won” in which you have defined the rules and forced another predictable outcome based on your own presuppositions. Such behavior is perfectly consistent with fatalism. If you sincerely believe in your own thesis, all your conversations are quixotic tilting at a minimum. I suppose one in your situation would find screaming at steel plates because they are dense and obtuse equally as satisfying as commenting on CAF. Actually now that I think of it, if you wish, I have a pile of bricks at the back of my house ripe for your feverish kicking. I trust that you would find this ultimately satisfying.

So, reading between the lines, I think you’re saying that Catholic dogma has a more powerful hold on its victims than science and reason. That seems to be true in the majority of cases, however, that doesn’t mean that there’s never any point in having these conversations. For one thing, they can be quite enjoyable and challenging. For another, who knows - one day I might encounter someone who’s interested in challenging their own beliefs rather than blindly regurgitating dogma. That would be a most rewarding conversation!

It’s interesting that you refer to a confidence in science as a “presupposition” - I think science has proved its mettle sufficiently by now that “presupposition” should not be used as a pejorative term! I also have a “presupposition” that if I jump in the air, I’ll come back down again.

 

[exnihilo]

And all your arguments rest on speculation and wishful thinking - I know where I’d rather put my chips.

It’s incredible that you value science so little, when you consider how much it’s done for us all. It’s also a shame that you consider science-based arguments so weak, when they’re so objectively verifiable! I suspect your acceptance of science is selective - you’re happy to have the technology and improved quality of life that it’s brought, but as soon as it conflicts with your subjective, evidenceless dogma it’s suddenly an unreliable process.

Your “can’t prove science with science” argument could be considered unassailable I suppose, but only because it’s incoherent and stupid. It’s unassailable in the same way that a non-existent castle is unassailable.

Evidenceless? Getting back to the topic, my evidence was my experience and that of everyone else. So you are left to deny experience and claim it is a false experience, the same as a hallucination. And yet you unquestionably question the rest of your mental experience. Then you have the nerve to call my argument stupid.

Given that you clearly have nothing to say other than, “I think X, therefore X,” maybe we should leave it here.

On that I can agree.

 

[wanstronian]

Evidenceless? Getting back to the topic, my evidence was my experience and that of everyone else. So you are left to deny experience and claim it is a false experience, the same as a hallucination. And yet you unquestionably question the rest of your mental experience. Then you have the nerve to call my argument stupid.

Based on your “evidence,” we have evidence that the sun revolves around the earth.

I’m not sure what you mean with your “…unquestionably question…” sentence.

On that I can agree.

Okay. Until next time, then!

 

[exnihilo]

Based on your “evidence,” we have evidence that the sun revolves around the earth.

Cant let this go. No, based on our basic experience we have no evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Based on our basic experience we have no evidence of revolution at all. Our basic experience is that a bright orb appears at the edge of the horizon and moves across the sphere. And neither the theory of the Sun revolving around the Earth or the Earth revolving around the sun changes our most basic experience. In fact for most people the actual mechanics are completely irrelevant.

 

[wanstronian]

Cant let this go. No, based on our basic experience we have no evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Based on our basic experience we have no evidence of revolution at all. Our basic experience is that a bright orb appears at the edge of the horizon and moves across the sphere. And neither the theory of the Sun revolving around the Earth or the Earth revolving around the sun changes our most basic experience. In fact for most people the actual mechanics are completely irrelevant.

Exactly - the model works! That’s what I’ve been saying. Although it appears as though the sun goes around the earth (and you surely don’t need me to tell you that this was accepted for many years), we know that actually it doesn’t. However, this doesn’t change the way we live our lives.

Ditto we appear to experience free will. However, there’s no actual evidence that we do, nor is there any explanation for where free will might come from, nor for any mechanism by which it might arrive from this unexplained non-physical plane to our physical reality.

The most efficient (and therefore, in my view the most satisfying) explanation is that free will doesn’t exist - that we each operate within the bounds of the processes of our brains, which are physical entities influenced by other physical entities.

If you want to add unnecessary, unevidenced and unexplainable supernatural phenomena to justify what you believe you experience, be my guest. Just don’t try to instantiate your opinion as fact, when what evidence there is (by which I mean proper evidence), not only fails to support your opinion but actually contradicts it.

 

[tlimon]

So, reading between the lines, I think you’re saying that Catholic dogma has a more powerful hold on its victims than science and reason. That seems to be true in the majority of cases, however, that doesn’t mean that there’s never any point in having these conversations. For one thing, they can be quite enjoyable and challenging.

Try reading the lines instead of between them. Either you haven’t a clue what I’m talking about and you find these conversations, well, too challenging or maybe, and perhaps more likely, you know exactly what I’m saying and you’re skirting the main issue. You kick the bricks alright, you kick them with the distant and inconsistent hope that they might have meaning. See, now we’re leaning toward something of actual importance. That didn’t take long, did it? Every once and a while you have a tickle and your reach back to scratch it. One short conversation and we’re already taking a peek behind the tough-sounding veneer. I’ll leave you here. Take care and God bless.

 

[tonyrey]

You’d like to think so! But unfortunately, it’s built on false - or at least baseless - premises, and so the conclusions are unsafe.

Your statement is baseless unless it is supported with evidence…

 

[Windfish]

Exactly - the model works! That’s what I’ve been saying. Although it appears as though the sun goes around the earth (and you surely don’t need me to tell you that this was accepted for many years), we know that actually it doesn’t. However, this doesn’t change the way we live our lives.

Ditto we appear to experience free will. However, there’s no actual evidence that we do, nor is there any explanation for where free will might come from, nor for any mechanism by which it might arrive from this unexplained non-physical plane to our physical reality.

The most efficient (and therefore, in my view the most satisfying) explanation is that free will doesn’t exist - that we each operate within the bounds of the processes of our brains, which are physical entities influenced by other physical entities.

If you want to add unnecessary, unevidenced and unexplainable supernatural phenomena to justify what you believe you experience, be my guest. Just don’t try to instantiate your opinion as fact, when what evidence there is (by which I mean proper evidence), not only fails to support your opinion but actually contradicts it.

And thus wanstronian demonstrates another redcutio ad absurdum of atheism/naturalism. The above is totally absurd in so many ways, especially if you assume determinism and try to make sense of the above knowing that wanstronian has no free-will and that you have no free-will of your own. Trippy. From my own view, the above is an excellent (and ironic) demonstration that determinism and naturalism is false! Everytime he posts against the existence of the soul and free-will, he demonstrates them! Bravo! Maybe wanstronian knows that and is just being very clever. Or maybe… maybe he’s just gasp superstitious and clings to ** the absolute truth of naturalism that he dogmatically expounds in contravention of the best available evidence.**

 

[Windfish]

Empirical testability is irrelevant to whether or not you know of your own existence. I know that I exist, I don’t need a scientific test, because its within my immediate knowledge. Its pre-scientific knowledge; just like the fact that we have general knowledge of physical existence before we apply science to it, although self knowledge is more certain. To attempt to ignore this fact, by creating the further illusion that science must have a say first before I can know or express the certain fact that I exist, is a ridiculous joke, and you should know better.

But you forgot to mention that, lol, you cannot empirically test that you exist without presupposing that you already exist to do those tests! [Moderator removed uncharitable comments.]

 

[wanstronian]

Try reading the lines instead of between them. Either you haven’t a clue what I’m talking about and you find these conversations, well, too challenging or maybe, and perhaps more likely, you know exactly what I’m saying and you’re skirting the main issue. You kick the bricks alright, you kick them with the distant and inconsistent hope that they might have meaning. See, now we’re leaning toward something of actual importance. That didn’t take long, did it? Every once and a while you have a tickle and your reach back to scratch it. One short conversation and we’re already taking a peek behind the tough-sounding veneer. I’ll leave you here. Take care and God bless.

Shame you’ve gone, it would have been nice to have the chance to ask you to stop speaking in obfuscated metaphor and say what you actually mean.

Perhaps next time.

 

[wanstronian]

Your statement is baseless unless it is supported with evidence…

Yawn… why do you persist in this disingenuity? I laid out the reasons why exnihilo’s conclusions were invalid, now you’re asking me to do it all over again in response to your one-line support of his post?

Read my response to exnihilo - the same response applies to you, as your post consisted of, “Yeah - what he said.”

 

[wanstronian]

And thus wanstronian demonstrates another redcutio ad absurdum of atheism/naturalism. The above is totally absurd in so many ways, especially if you assume determinism and try to make sense of the above knowing that wanstronian has no free-will and that you have no free-will of your own. Trippy. From my own view, the above is an excellent (and ironic) demonstration that determinism and naturalism is false! Everytime he posts against the existence of the soul and free-will, he demonstrates them! Bravo! Maybe wanstronian knows that and is just being very clever. Or maybe… maybe he’s just gasp superstitious and clings to ** the absolute truth of naturalism that he dogmatically expounds in contravention of the best available evidence.**

Or maybe, you just don’t have the chops to understand the concept, simple though it is.

If you can explain how “everytime * post against the existence of the soul and free-will, * demonstrate them” is true, I’ll be very interested to read it. I strongly suspect that your answer will follow the pattern of other pro-free-will posts to date - i.e “It sure feels that way to me.”

It’s hilarious that you think my statements are in “contravention of the best available evidence,” because I have provided the evidence for my stance, yet nobody, on this thread at least, has provided any evidence for the existence of an immaterial soul or an immaterial source of, or mechanism for, free will.

This is just mealy-mouthed ignorance of reality on your part - I’ve provided justification for my position, you’ve just ignored it and claimed I have no evidence. Ironically, no free-will proponent on this thread has provided any evidence for free will, yet you claim to have done so - when in fact all you’ve done is taken your opinion and claimed it as factual evidence.

Thank goodness science doesn’t follow your definition of evidence - we wouldn’t actually **know **anything!

 

[wanstronian]

But you forgot to mention that, lol, you cannot empirically test that you exist without presupposing that you already exist to do those tests! wanstronian is a total tool. Look at this sig, and then look at this dogmatic adherence to empiricism in the face of reality that contravenes it! How more ironic can you get?

Well, a dogmatic adherence to empiricism is what makes science work. And it does work. I don’t know whether you publicly support science or not, but you are clearly happy to reject it whenever it doesn’t conform to your dogmatic adherence to your own subjective opinion. So you’re not really in a position to criticise.

Your resort to base insult is what is truly ironic, considering that you are unable to provide any substantive evidence of a “reality” that contradicts empiricism. However, the fact that you have resorted to such schoolyard vulgarity tells me that you don’t have anything else to bring to this discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

That is clearly false because fatalism is a fact of life. When people believe they cannot change something - like corruption - they make no effort to do so.

You continue to demonstrate that you don’t get this at all. There is a difference between watching decisions being made, and the experience of making those decisions. I don’t claim that we don’t make decisions, I just claim that there is no choice about which decision we make.

If we have no choice we are not responsible for the decision.

You are jumping the gun! If we didn’t have free will it is extremely improbable that we would even be aware of the fact.

Your rationale for this statement is…?

We wouldn’t be able to choose what to think or what conclusions to draw…

Heliocentrism doesn’t affect the way we live because it is not related to the way we regard ourselves.

The difference being what, exactly? The point is that the model works, so we use it, successfully. That the model is wrong doesn’t actually matter to our everyday lives.

It matters because we live **according to **the way we regard ourselves. If we think we have no choice we make no effort to force ourselves to act in any particular way. We just let ourselves be carried along by our inclinations - hoping for the best…

The evidence simply shows that the brain is the instrument with which the mind expresses itself and controls the brain. It is a lump of tissue which doesn’t even know it exists!

1. Do you regard truth as a physical phenomenon?
2. If so explain what it is.

It is an abstract concept held within the mind.

How is it “held”? How can a material brain “hold” an abstract concept? With its electricity?

The mind is a physical entity, as far as we know.

As far as **you **assume…

Therefore “truth” is a product of physical processes. Like everything.

Then we should able to locate it and observe it. Where is it? What does it look like?

1. If not explain how a lump of tissue can grasp an abstract concept.

Well, I don’t know how, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. It seems you’re reverting to type here again, demanding precise and intricate detail for any theory which you personally reject, knowing that such detail doesn’t exist; while simultaneously believing in supernatural jiggery-pokery for which ZERO evidence exists. Really, you should try to at least be consistent!

You’re reverting to type here again by making a virtue out of ignorance! There is ZERO evidence for your natural jiggery-pokery because all evidence whatsoever exists in your mind as the result of inference from - and interpretation of - what you perceive. The only certainties are your thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions - which your mind inconsistently relegates to electrical activity inside the skull you inconsistently call “yours” because according to “your” hypothesis there is no “you”, just a body…

The decision is not made in the brain at all!

No? Where then? Please provide evidence - tell you what, provide an explanation to the level of precision you demand of others. That should be good for a laugh.

The decision is made by your intangible mind of which are directly and precisely aware, whether you admit it or not. I shall roar with laughter if you dare proclaim yourself a mindless body!

Nor do we have any idea of the way in which the mind is related to the brain.

Depends what you mean. The mind is the product of the brain’s processes.

In your intangible imagination!

From that perspective, the relationship is quite clear. The mind is not a separate entity.

This has been shown beyond reasonable doubt.

By whom? When? Where? How?

If you reject the reality of the mind and its decisions “you” - as I have pointed out - do not exist. Nor does consciousness. There is just a network of minute electrical impulses which have no reference to anything beyond themselves.

And this network constitutes “me.” What you’re saying is like saying, “Rocks don’t exist. There is just a structure of atoms which have no reference to anything beyond themselves.”

Are you comparing yourself to a rock? That explains a great deal!

If you deny the fact that superstructure can come about from the conglomeration of substructures, then you’re simply denying reams of evidence. In which case there’s not a lot of point talking to you!

There’s not the slightest point in discussing the matter with you if you’re convinced a rock is in the same category as a person. Your argument is worthless if that is the best analogy you can offer. You have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams - in destroying the rational foundation of your arguments by eliminating yourself in favour of an atomic superstructure of atoms which have no control over, or understanding of, what they are doing…

Atomic autonomy is a comic metonymy! Or a moron’s oxymoron…