Free will is an illusion because we are rational being

[Bahman]

St Paul in the Bible says:
“Why is it the good I would do, that I do not,
And the sin I would avoid, that I do.”

Jesus own words in the Bible:
“Amen, truly and sincerely and solemnly I tell you,
He who sins is a slave to sin.”
(gamblers, drug addicts, alcoholics, Pornography addicts,)
Sinners are NOT free,

Jesus says in the Bible:
“I have come to set the captives free,”
“The Prince of this world has been overthrown,” (satan)

On the extreme end of the battle between freedom to choose good,:
Jesus had to spend much of His ministry casting out demons from possessed people that were being completely controlled by evil spirits.

I don’t understand how these are related to our discussion.

 

[meltzerboy]

Different individual could have different prioritized options depending on their personalities even if options are similar yet they still use their rationalities to find their prioritized options.

They use THEIR rationality, which may be different from other people’s rationality. IOW, one may be rational to the extent that it serves one’s purpose, yet, in an objective sense, illogical in one’s thinking. Logic is objective while rationality is subjective. Thus rationality connects with subjective free will since we are free to choose according to our own immediate purpose despite its being objectively illogical to the degree of causing long-term harm to us or to others.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Sure.

1. Free will is ability to freely decide in a given situation
2. A situation is defined as a set of prioritized options
3. We prioritize our options using our rationality
4. We pick up the best option among prioritized options, so called rational decision making
5. From (2), (3) and (4) we can deduce that we have not any freedom in our decisions making
6. From (1) and (5) we can deduce that free will is an illusion

I don’t know how to proceed in this situation, Bahman. How can I start? There are so many gaps in your thought, that…

If a situation was a set of prioritized options, then I would always know how to proceed. But I don’t; so, a situation is not a set of prioritized options. Sometimes I am in situations where I see no options at all.

Dr. Antonio Damasio once had a patient who, among other things, was unable to make decisions. Dr. Damasio thought that perhaps his patient was unable to generate options. So, he prepared a test. He formed a group of persons which included his patient; and he gave them a collection of texts describing different situations (please, do not understand by this “sets of prioritized options”). Then he asked them to generate as many options as they could. He expected that his patient would generate none. He was surprised when he saw that while the normal individuals generated one or two courses of action at the most, his patient generated many. But he reported that when the test finished, the patient declared: “however, if I would have been asked to select one of the options, I wouldn’t have known which one to choose”; which implies that his sets of options where not prioritized. There was something missing in him, and it was not reason.

You could ignore Dr. Damasio’s reports. It would be your choice (I don’t know if free or imposed by your personality); but it would not be rational. What could we deduce from that?

 

[Bahman]

Is the gambler addict, drug addict, alcoholic, and all other disordered addictions free? Are.they rational? Especially when the victims know.they are destroying their lives through these.sinful things.

You need to put yourself inside their shoes to see what you do.

Jesus said: “Anyone who sins, is a slave to sin.”

We are slave of our rationalities, like it or not.

 

[Bahman]

Your statement is contradictory. Free Will can’t be an illusion if we are rational beings. Please start using some better arguments to defend your philosophy because they aren’t very good

I unfortunately didn’t find any argument in your side!

 

[GEddie]

You need to put yourself inside their shoes to see what you do.

It makes no difference to put yourself “in someone else’s shoes” for the simple reason that you have different feet!

Even if you could share someone’s circumstances, you would not be them and would not think the same.

We are slave of our rationalities, like it or not.

Now that makes zero sense. Rationality is what we use for knowing. You could as well say that we are a slave to our breathing, or to our eyes.

Philosophical wannabes throw the terms “slave” and “slavery” around profusely to refer to the natural limitations of humanhood. Methinks those who have in fact been affected by enslavement (and there are still thousands such in the world) would find the reference very offensive.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Any situation is defined by a set of options. Our personalities have important role in defining options. We however as rational agents give different weight to our options. This lead us to a prioritized options which we rationally pick up the best option from it.

My question was “How do you “prioritize” rationally?”, and you respond saying that “we as rational agents give different weight to our options”. There is a difference between the word “how” and the word “what”. If you prioritize your options rationally, you should know how. It should be through a correct logical argument, and you should know which argument it is; but you don’t know. The weight that you supposedly add to each option should be a “rational weight”, consisting of rational statements. And you should know those statements; but you don’t (I don’t either, Bahman. No one does).

I naturally use my rationality to make a decision unless I believe in free will and my freedom (which is fake) is challenged.

Well, you don’t believe in free will; so, is it optional to you to use your rationality?

 

[Robert_Sock]

To the degree almost all of us have unconscious conflicts that have not been worked-out, we are subject to act irrationally.

 

[Bahman]

They use THEIR rationality, which may be different from other people’s rationality. IOW, one may be rational to the extent that it serves one’s purpose, yet, in an objective sense, illogical in one’s thinking.

Those are their personalities which are different among different individuals and not rationalities.

Logic is objective while rationality is subjective.

Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason, hence it is objective.

Thus rationality connects with subjective free will since we are free to choose according to our own immediate purpose despite its being objectively illogical to the degree of causing long-term harm to us or to others.

Again, that is the personality which might be different among different individuals and not rationality.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t know how to proceed in this situation, Bahman. How can I start? There are so many gaps in your thought, that…

I unfortunately don’t see any gap. We can work it around if you let me know.

If a situation was a set of prioritized options, then I would always know how to proceed. But I don’t; so, a situation is not a set of prioritized options. Sometimes I am in situations where I see no options at all.

Any situation is a set of options in the beginning when we face the situation. It becomes a set of prioritized options after we analyze it.

Dr. Antonio Damasio once had a patient who, among other things, was unable to make decisions. Dr. Damasio thought that perhaps his patient was unable to generate options. So, he prepared a test. He formed a group of persons which included his patient; and he gave them a collection of texts describing different situations (please, do not understand by this “sets of prioritized options”). Then he asked them to generate as many options as they could. He expected that his patient would generate none. He was surprised when he saw that while the normal individuals generated one or two courses of action at the most, his patient generated many. But he reported that when the test finished, the patient declared: “however, if I would have been asked to select one of the options, I wouldn’t have known which one to choose”; which implies that his sets of options where not prioritized. There was something missing in him, and it was not reason.

That is an interesting case.

You could ignore Dr. Damasio’s reports. It would be your choice (I don’t know if free or imposed by your personality); but it would not be rational. What could we deduce from that?

To be honest I don’t know what is wrong with the patient.

 

[Bahman]

It makes no difference to put yourself “in someone else’s shoes” for the simple reason that you have different feet!

It of course make a difference.

Even if you could share someone’s circumstances, you would not be them and would not think the same.

Then you are not properly putting yourself inside their shoes!

Now that makes zero sense. Rationality is what we use for knowing. You could as well say that we are a slave to our breathing, or to our eyes…

It does make sense when you realize that you have to say goodbye to free will as a rational agent.

 

[Bahman]

My question was “How do you “prioritize” rationally?”, and you respond saying that “we as rational agents give different weight to our options”. There is a difference between the word “how” and the word “what”. If you prioritize your options rationally, you should know how. It should be through a correct logical argument, and you should know which argument it is; but you don’t know. The weight that you supposedly add to each option should be a “rational weight”, consisting of rational statements. And you should know those statements; but you don’t (I don’t either, Bahman. No one does).

I am afraid that I don’t understand you.

Well, you don’t believe in free will; so, is it optional to you to use your rationality?

No, I cannot make any decision then.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I unfortunately don’t see any gap. We can work it around if you let me know…

Yes, indeed, it is very unfortunate.

That is an interesting case.

To be honest I don’t know what is wrong with the patient.

It is not only an interesting case, but one which refutes you.

But as I said before, though you don’t believe in free will, you have the option to ignore the refutation, or pretend that you don’t see it (unfortunately!). It is your choice; and it is not rational.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I am afraid that I don’t understand you.

Be patient, read it again; several times until you get it.

No, I cannot make any decision then.

So, you don’t “use” your rationality; you are your rationality! (not my opinion, Bahman, of course!, but it would be consistent with what you are saying). Then you are in a situation X, and you generate two different courses of action “a” and “b”, which will be your options. How do you determine the weight of each option? Or, at least, how do you determine which one weights more?

 

[GEddie]

It of course make a difference.

Then you are not properly putting yourself inside their shoes!

It does make sense when you realize that you have to say goodbye to free will as a rational agent.

I don’t hold to free will as commonly stated anyhow.

ICXC NIKA

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes, indeed, it is very unfortunate.

It is not only an interesting case, but one which refutes you.

But as I said before, though you don’t believe in free will, you have the option to ignore the refutation, or pretend that you don’t see it (unfortunately!). It is your choice; and it is not rational.

Ah, but it is rational because it suits the OP’s purpose, which is to defend his proposition. However, it may not be logical. There is a distinction, which I was attempting to point out in my prior post.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Ah, but it is rational because it suits the OP’s purpose, which is to defend his proposition. However, it may not be logical. There is a distinction, which I was attempting to point out in my prior post.

Good point. The word “logos” was used by Aristotle to specify the kind of animals we humans are. The word was translated to “rational”, and so, we became “rational animals”. The same word was used to compose this other: “Logic”. But it makes some sense if we distinguish between a “logical rationality” and a “tricky rationality”.

But then, the title of the OP should say “Free will is real because some of us are tricky rational”, no?

 

[littlestsouls2]

Sure.

1. Free will is ability to freely decide in a given situation
2. A situation is defined as a set of prioritized options
3. We prioritize our options using our rationality
4. We pick up the best option among prioritized options, so called rational decision making
5. From (2), (3) and (4) we can deduce that we have not any freedom in our decisions making
6. From (1) and (5) we can deduce that free will is an illusion

Thanks!

You’re suggesting that our choices are constrained by our rationality. But you say that we are not free. So how can our thoughts be rational? They just are (according to what you have said); they lack a final cause, and are therefore arbitrary (even if they appear rational, or if they happen to correspond to truth). In which case, your argument falls apart.

Also, why do you believe that the act of reasoning itself (or prioritising options) is unfree? Your argument hinges on this belief.

 

[Tomdstone]

Sure.

1. Free will is ability to freely decide in a given situation
2. A situation is defined as a set of prioritized options
3. We prioritize our options using our rationality
4. We pick up the best option among prioritized options, so called rational decision making
5. From (2), (3) and (4) we can deduce that we have not any freedom in our decisions making
6. From (1) and (5) we can deduce that free will is an illusion

A fallacy is (4). You may not always choose the best option.

 

[mikekle]

Is the gambler addict, drug addict, alcoholic, and all other disordered addictions free? Are.they rational? Especially when the victims know.they are destroying their lives through these.sinful things.

Jesus said: “Anyone who sins, is a slave to sin.”

To do and use those things are their choice though, its really only ‘wrong’ because its illegal and leads to a lot of other sins/ crimes, due to the high cost of things that are illegal…If a person lived on a island completely alone and wanted to use opium all day long, every day, and they had poppy plants to supply them…would this still be ‘wrong’ or sinful.

Its not really the use or action that is wrong imo, its the** consequences** of doing those things that lead to negative things, arrest, jail, loosing jobs, homes, etc

As long as your choice does not impact or harm anyone else, free will should be neutral, no right or wrong choices…only choices.

I do stress the part though about NOT harming anyone else by your choice…that is important, it would definitely be sinful/ wrong if your choice led to harm for another person.