Free Will, can it logically exist?

[grannymh]

That’s a proof that those who hold you accountable suffer from the illusion of free will, not a proof of free will.

Pardon me. I did not say I was presenting a proof of free will. Nor did I intend a proof as I was very careful to acknowledge that from my point of view, free will is invisible, that is, intangible. Instead, I presented how I personally know that free will exists which is from its results. Then, since this is a friendly, informal kind of discussion, I left it up to the reader to consider results as evidence or not.

As for those who hold us accountable, where is the “illusion of free will” in our legal/justice system?

We sense our preference, something we didn’t choose.

If I may, I would like to distinguish between the verb usage and the noun usage of prefer and preference. In the above sentence, preference is the object of the action verb sense. Something is the object of the action of not choosing. We can sense a preference or object, dislike a possibility or objective, and be grateful that we didn’t chose something and so on. While the use of that kind of sensing is correct, it is not what I was writing about.

What I was writing about is the action, not the objective, of the verb prefer. While I flat out refuse to be a bucket of bolts held together by electric currents, I can imagine someone else --when presented with a black sedan and a classy sports car and having only enough money to buy one-- saying hmmm, I can feel my brain bumps popping collecting all the data, gas efficiency, youthful dreams, the dull practical car of my great-grandfather, the cool sound system, being directionally challenged in need of a mapping device, etc. so I will rest my eyes and wait for the print-out of my choice. Point is that no matter what one believes about free will, some kind of action, mechanical or personal, takes place to determine the preference. And that action is no illusion.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Benadam]

Choosing is an action too.

 

[Benadam]

Choosing is an action is the description of free will. That is the whole point.

Exactly. And why the argument below is not removed from an act of free choice. Reason or by chance, both depend on free will, freedom to choose or freedom to not choose.

Because whenever we act, we act for a reason or without a reason. There is no other possibility. Therefore whatever we do is determined by a reason or by chance, and the supposed ability of free will makes about as much sense as a round cube.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I wouldn’t call it a fact but an illusion, because I don’t see how it can work.

we may not understand the mechanism by which physical determinism is broken, no great surprise as the only possible culprit is non-physical actor, but to say that the quadrillions of decisions made on a daily basis by all of humanity is illusory, indicates a very great faith. in something unobserved.

think about it, free will is literally tested billions of times a second, every voluntary motion and thought every human has performed through all time confirms our universal experience of free will, not understanding the mechanism, as opposed to there being no mechanism seems an insufficient reason to make it a special pleading in light of that universal experience.

1. we plainly have a universal experience of free will
2. we test free will thouroughly and continually, and have done so for millenia.
3. you are making a special pleading in violation of that universal experience. the justification that there is no mechanism, as opposed to no possible mechanism is contrary to what we actually observe

its as if you ask us to believe something unobserved, without sufficient reason, what difference is there between that and faith?

we should believe that which can be rationally justified, not just what might seem possible

in short, if i were to believe free will was illusory i would just be practicing a different faith.

 

[tonyrey]

*“Robots are not responsible for their action whereas human beings are.”

*That’s your unfounded claim. The fact that most people believe this is not a proof that it is true. People also used to believe that the earth is flat, which didn’t make it true either.

Now your argument is verging on the ridiculous. You are implying that robots are responsible for their activity even though they are programmed in every detail by human beings. If a robot kills a person it is the programmer who is responsible not the robot.
Would you put robots on trial if they commit a crime?

 

[glowingembers]

Please, would you describe the “aspect of independence” in regard to free will? I know you said that this aspect is randomness, but I am having a hard time picturing randomness as part of human nature. Of course, randomness played some part in the formation of cells and the genomic structure, but I don’t think that is what you are referring to.

The aspect of independence is that the choice is not determined by anything but you and you are not determined. However I say that if something is not determined then it’s random because it doesn’t follow from any conditions. So you have an aspect of randomness and this randomness is causally transferred to your choices. You might imagine it like there is a totally spontaneous part of you that is not motivated by anything.

 

[glowingembers]

Point is that no matter what one believes about free will, some kind of action, mechanical or personal, takes place to determine the preference. And that action is no illusion.

Yes, cause leads to consequence, which leads to consequence and so on.

 

[glowingembers]

Choosing is an action is the description of free will. That is the whole point.

“Choosing” is a word that describes a process where one of apparent alternatives is apparently selected. I say apparent because it only seems, due to lack of our knowledge, that the selector could have selected something else. In reality, it was determined beforehand what the selector would do, so there was nothing to really choose.

 

[glowingembers]

we may not understand the mechanism by which physical determinism is broken, no great surprise as the only possible culprit is non-physical actor, but to say that the quadrillions of decisions made on a daily basis by all of humanity is illusory, indicates a very great faith. in something unobserved.

think about it, free will is literally tested billions of times a second, every voluntary motion and thought every human has performed through all time confirms our universal experience of free will, not understanding the mechanism, as opposed to there being no mechanism seems an insufficient reason to make it a special pleading in light of that universal experience.

1. we plainly have a universal experience of free will
2. we test free will thouroughly and continually, and have done so for millenia.
3. you are making a special pleading in violation of that universal experience. the justification that there is no mechanism, as opposed to no possible mechanism is contrary to what we actually observe

its as if you ask us to believe something unobserved, without sufficient reason, what difference is there between that and faith?

we should believe that which can be rationally justified, not just what might seem possible

in short, if i were to believe free will was illusory i would just be practicing a different faith.

It’s not that I can’t understand the mechanism of free will. I just made a simple logical argument that whatever you do is determined by something that you cannot control.

 

[glowingembers]

Now your argument is verging on the ridiculous. You are implying that robots are responsible for their activity even though they are programmed in every detail by human beings. If a robot kills a person it is the programmer who is responsible not the robot.
Would you put robots on trial if they commit a crime?

Actually I was implying that neither robots nor humans are responsible for their activity.

 

[grannymh]

Actually I was implying that neither robots nor humans are responsible for their activity.

If neither robots nor humans are responsible for their activity, then why have a court/legal system? Why jail someone who is not responsible for their activity. Who can determine if the red light goes on top or bottom of the pole?

Somehow we have gotten into the silly area.

 

[grannymh]

While fanciful, some of the discussion on this thread appears to be a tremendous effort to explain away free will.

Questions? What are the reasons for eliminating free will? Why do that? What would be gained if there were no free will? Would one have any fun?

The substitutes, such as chance and/or determination don’t appear to fit in with human nature’s activities, so what is their value?

**Major question for the OP. Can Free Will logically not exist? **

 

[glowingembers]

If neither robots nor humans are responsible for their activity, then why have a court/legal system? Why jail someone who is not responsible for their activity. Who can determine if the red light goes on top or bottom of the pole?

Somehow we have gotten into the silly area.

We should help people behave in a way that will contribute to their happiness as well as the happiness of society. Sometimes a punishment can do the job.

 

[glowingembers]

The substitutes, such as chance and/or determination don’t appear to fit in with human nature’s activities, so what is their value?

Realization that pride, guilt and revenge are silly. Everybody just wants to be happy but we can often stray from happinness because we don’t have enough knowledge or good luck. We should help each other and give each other constructive feedback, not blame and destroy.

 

[grannymh]

We should help people behave in a way that will contribute to their happiness as well as the happiness of society. Sometimes a punishment can do the job.

What is being written sounds something like “relativism” which is practiced by humanists, utilitarians and others. If that is the case, I would venture that it would be very difficult for one to believe in free will.

 

[Benadam]

What is being written sounds like “relativism” which is practiced by humanists, utilitarians and others. If that is the case, I would venture that one could not possibly believe in free will.

In the way glowingmembers is using the word happiness, practically speaking it is relative because practically speaking happiness is relative.

The concept of happiness in glowingmembers mind it seems is actually ‘ultimate happiness’ which is not relative but the happiness that everyone, whether they know what it is or not, is seeking.

In that way, in that post, glowingmembers gives evidence of free will.

 

[Spirithound]

If neither robots nor humans are responsible for their activity, then why have a court/legal system? Why jail someone who is not responsible for their activity?

One of the recognized reasons for incarceration is to protect society from the offender.

 

[wasmit]

Instead, I presented how I personally know that free will exists which is from its results. Then, since this is a friendly, informal kind of discussion, I left it up to the reader to consider results as evidence or not.

I also “know” and “feel” that free will exists. I make choices. Yet I am swayed by the argument in my OP.

Perhaps this situation is like the Sun and the Earth. I stand still and look at the sky - I see that the sun goes around the earth. I also “know” and “feel” that the sun (and stars) go around the earth. But this is obviously wrong.

 

[wasmit]

**Major question for the OP. Can Free Will logically not exist? **

Until a valid argument is presented showing that free will must absolutely exist, then it is logically possible that free will can not exist.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I think it can be an interesting discussion, but end the end, I don’t think it matters. I don’t think we can know with 100% certainty whether free will exists. Even if we think the chances that free will exists are only 1 in a trillion, it makes sense to act as if free will exists. If free will does not exist then we cannot actually change how we act. But if free will does exist, we’re better off acting like it does rather than acting as if what we do doesn’t matter. At first this may seem like Pascal’s Wager, which is a bad argument, but the difference here is that there is no downside at all to acting as if free will exists (and also you don’t have to choose between different types of free will like you do with religion).