Free will is an illusion because we are rational being

[Bahman]

Yes, indeed, it is very unfortunate.

So, where is the gap?

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

How come?

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.

I don’t see any refutation. You tell me that there is a gap in my argument. You don’t answer me when I ask where is the gap so I don’t know how to proceed.

 

[Bahman]

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

I understand what you say now. You asked me how we prioritize our options and I answered by giving the weight. How we give different weight to our options? I don’t know.

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?

I don’t know how do we give weight to our options but I am sure we do for any decision.

 

[Bahman]

Thanks!

Your welcome.

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?

We are rational beings because we use our thoughts for any decision.

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.

Our thought are not arbitrary.

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

Because we reason for a purpose.

 

[Bahman]

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

Why not? That is irrational.

 

[littlestsouls2]

We are rational beings because we use our thoughts for any decision.

How do we use our thoughts? Are you a dualist?

Our thought are not arbitrary.

They are if we are unfree.

Because we reason for a purpose.

I agree; we reason for a purpose i.e. freely. Our thoughts don’t just formulate themselves.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

So, where is the gap?

How come?

I don’t see any refutation. You tell me that there is a gap in my argument. You don’t answer me when I ask where is the gap so I don’t know how to proceed.

Let’s see…

In your post # 6, third statement, you say that

“We prioritize our options using our rationality”

In your post #42 you acknowledge that you don’t know how it is that you prioritize your options. In other words, you don’t know how you got your third basic statement. This gap is enough for a rational being to reject your “argument”.

On the other hand, the case presented by Dr. Damasio is an example of an individual who was rational, who was able to generate options to proposed situations, but who was unable to prioritize his options. So, this is a case which is an exception to your third basic statement. If you know elementary logic, you know that one exception is enough to refute a universal proposition. So, your third statement is false.

Further, I can propose the following argument :

1. 
   *]Every rational being is able to prioritize his options rationally.
   *]If Bahman is a rational being then he is able to prioritize his options rationally.
   *]Bahman is not able to prioritize his options rationally.
   *]Therefore, Bahman is not a rational being.
   
   Can you see now one of you gaps and the refutation to your “argument”?

 

[Aloysium]

Let’s see…

In your post # 6, third statement, you say that

“We prioritize our options using our rationality” . . . Further, I can propose the following argument :

1. 
   *]Every rational being is able to prioritize his options rationally.
   *]If Bahman is a rational being then he is able to prioritize his options rationally.
   *]Bahman is not able to prioritize his options rationally.
   *]Therefore, Bahman is not a rational being.
   
   Can you see now one of you gaps and the refutation to your “argument”?

1. 
   If I were Bahman, I would argue that:
   if we are not rational and
   cannot prioritize our options,
   then we cannot have free will.
   
   We are either rational or irrational.
   In either case we do not have free will.
   
   But, since we do have free will,
   something is faulty
   in the logic or
   understanding of the meaning of free will.
   
   It does not mean
   we can do whatever we want or
   that we are omnipotent.
   
   We choose between goods.
   I can decide to do
   what is good for me and/or
   what is good for you.
   
   If I do what is best for you,
   that is called love.
   
   We can choose to love or not to love.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

If I were Bahman, I would argue that:
if we are not rational and
cannot prioritize our options,
then we cannot have free will.

We are either rational or irrational.
In either case we do not have free will.

But, since we do have free will,
something is faulty
in the logic or
understanding of the meaning of free will.

It does not mean
we can do whatever we want or
that we are omnipotent.

We choose between goods.
I can decide to do
what is good for me and/or
what is good for you.

If I do what is best for you,
that is called love.

We can choose to love or not to love.

:clapping:

 

[Bahman]

How do we use our thoughts?

What do you mean? We cannot plan our thoughts. Our thoughts come into our mind and we process them as it is required.

Are you a dualist?

I am not.

They are if we are unfree.

Knowledge is structured inside our brains hence our thoughts are not arbitrary.

I agree; we reason for a purpose i.e. freely. Our thoughts don’t just formulate themselves.

We cannot reason **freely ** when there is a purpose.

 

[Bahman]

Let’s see…

In your post # 6, third statement, you say that

“We prioritize our options using our rationality”

In your post #42 you acknowledge that you don’t know how it is that you prioritize your options. In other words, you don’t know how you got your third basic statement. This gap is enough for a rational being to reject your “argument”.

So lets give it a try: Knowledge is structured inside our brains. Any single conscious thought, in the case of decision making, is the result of
processing the situation with our knowledge. It is through this process that we can form a set of prioritized options.

On the other hand, the case presented by Dr. Damasio is an example of an individual who was rational, who was able to generate options to proposed situations, but who was unable to prioritize his options. So, this is a case which is an exception to your third basic statement. If you know elementary logic, you know that one exception is enough to refute a universal proposition. So, your third statement is false.

The patient might not be able to process the situation properly.

Further, I can propose the following argument :

1. 
   *]Every rational being is able to prioritize his options rationally.
   *]If Bahman is a rational being then he is able to prioritize his options rationally.
   *]Bahman is not able to prioritize his options rationally.
   *]Therefore, Bahman is not a rational being.
   
   Can you see now one of you gaps and the refutation to your “argument”?

1. 
   I cannot see how your argument is related with the gaps in my argument. I however covered one of the gap with my argument, see first comment.

 

[Bahman]

If I were Bahman, I would argue that:
if we are not rational and
cannot prioritize our options,
then we cannot have free will.

We are either rational or irrational.
In either case we do not have free will.

But, since we do have free will,
something is faulty
in the logic or
understanding of the meaning of free will…

How do you realize this (the bold part)?

 

[Aloysium]

How do you realize this (the bold part)?

Reading through wine lists will never get you drunk.

 

[Bahman]

Reading through wine lists will never get you drunk.

What do you mean?

 

[Aloysium]

What do you mean?

I was answering your question as to how to realize what is meant by free will. I think it is as clear as such responses can be.

But, it does not provide you with something you can argue about. So, I will make it less effective by explaining it.

In order to speak about God or oneself, one must know the subject matter. In either case, one does so in being, just sitting silently, praying and being charitable if one wishes to commune with God. How can one know goodness without being good or know oneself except through simply being oneself. I can’t tell you how to realize what is meant by free will. Juggling concepts and assumptions no more reveals the juggler, than reading about wines gets you drunk.

 

[littlestsouls2]

@Bahman:

What do you mean? We cannot plan our thoughts. Our thoughts come into our mind and we process them as it is required.

You said that we use our thoughts, and I was asking how this makes sense, given your denial of free-will.

Why do you trust your thoughts? How do you know that they are reasonable if they simply come into your brain without your consent? Isn’t it possible that the validity of your thoughts is as illusory as free-will?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

So lets give it a try: Knowledge is structured inside our brains. Any single conscious thought, in the case of decision making, is the result of
processing the situation with our knowledge. It is through this process that we can form a set of prioritized options.

The patient might not be able to process the situation properly.

I cannot see how your argument is related with the gaps in my argument. I however covered one of the gap with my argument, see first comment.

I assume your answer is very convincing to you!

Let’s suppose that your options are prioritized because they are structured in your brain: How does it work?: do those that have higher priority go in the upper part of your brain and those that have lower priority go in the lower part?

 

[Bahman]

Why do you trust your thoughts?

We can check our thoughts by using the knowledge we accumulate. We however have the ability to extend and correct our knowledge in a case that our thoughts are wrong by studding the related subject matter.

How do you know that they are reasonable if they simply come into your brain without your consent?

The knowledge is structured inside our brains. Our thoughts seem reasonable to us if they are consistent with our knowledge. We however could have wrong thoughts without noticing until we face a contradiction in our knowledge.

Isn’t it possible that the validity of your thoughts is as illusory as free-will?

That is very possible in the case that we have wrong thoughts which are consistent with our knowledge.

 

[Bahman]

I assume your answer is very convincing to you!

Yes.

Let’s suppose that your options are prioritized because they are structured in your brain: How does it work?: do those that have higher priority go in the upper part of your brain and those that have lower priority go in the lower part?

Lets assume that we are dealing with a situation with a few options. The options or situation are result of the person we are and how we are affected with external stimulus. We could have access to options once the situation is realized, in another word when options are part of our knowledge, or our unconscious mind. This is done by experiencing the situation consciously. Decision however is made by conscious mind through one introspection.

 

[Nyx]

I don’t believe free will is an illusion (nonexistent)…but I do think that in reality we are more “limited” in our choices than many people are willing to admit.

The way I see it, when we are facing a certain problem (situation) we are analyzing it and come with different possible solutions (might be two or ten). Yes, next step is to analyze this options- and we do this considering various factors- our purpose, needs, past experience, beliefs (be them religious, moral, political, etc), role-models (from the present or the past), the possible consequences of each option, etc. After analyzing all this factors. we end up taking a decision. A very simple example would be this- I have an exam and I have to study for it-> possible options: A) I start studying for it. B) I can read a few things, go take the exam and hope somehow I will pass. C) I might not take the exam at all. Now, how important is this exam for me? Because if it is not important, I might as well go with option C. If it is, and in the past I’ve tried option B and failed and I can learn for my mistakes, I might go with option A. If I didn’t fail, I might try option B again. If I’ve been taught all my life how important is to be a hard-working person I might not even seriously consider option B and C, etc.

So, we have a certain degree of freedom. But we base our choices on past experience, what we’ve been taught/shown in our childhood (by parents, community, group), our socio-economic status, etc. Think at dysfunctional families and how much was talked about the cycle of dysfunction- does that means every person will repeat the choices he/she saw in his/her family, group, even community and might have even grown up to see them as normal. No, but the fact is- the possibility he/she might do this is higher than in the case of other persons. It is even higher if he/she already imitated those around him/her and was successful.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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

To simplify and summarize you are claiming

1. Free will is the ability to decide between a set of options that we ourselves prioritize using our own will and intellect.
2. Our will and intellects dictate what we will choose.
3. Therefore we do not have free will

However, our will and intellects are us. We are the ones using them for our good. Thus, we are choosing the best option based on a set of criteria. The alternative would be to choose randomly. But that would be less free will because you are letting random results dictate to you what you should choose.

Free will is really the ability to choose what is good. Don’t we all want what we consider to be good? Even people who like evil consider that to be good. We choose what we think will be good for us. The discernment is in recognizing what is truly good for us. And learning to reject something we may think is good but isn’t actually good for us like something that will hurt us in the long run. For instance eating only potatoe chips everyday.

Our free will is weakened if we can not stop eating the potatoe chips. If we know they are bad for us yet we continue to eat them. If we have the freedom of the will to choose to eat more healthy then we are more free than someone who can not.