The Delusion of "Free Will"

[RickD]

"Free will is the ability to choose betwixt ... choices." Yes it is, which is why it's a bogus concept.

In truth, we don't choose anything at all. Choosing is an illusion we have come to incorporate in our lives so as to retain a sense of unique personal agency. It's the notion that "I could have done differently had I wanted to." Trouble is, you did what you did because you could do no differently. That this may throw a monkey wrench into the notion of culpability, both good and bad, is too bad, but that's the way the universe works. Want to call the good stuff people do admirable, heroic, praiseworthy, etc., and the bad stuff, deplorable, wicked, sinful, etc. go ahead, but when it gets down to the sum and substance of the matter they're all based on the mistaken notion that people choose to do what they do. That they could have done differently had they wanted to. But they couldn't have. They had to do what they did.

So, when Mr. Dranktoomuch gets in a car and crashes into a van full of daycare children and kills them all, you're saying he had no choice whether he should drive, or call a taxi?

BINGO!

Actually, it would be better put by saying that choosing never entered into the picture: He had to drive.


.

So, you're saying that a choice, an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities, doesn't exist?

Yes.

You've been away from this forum, on sabbatical since March, and this is what you've learned?

[Audacity]

So, when Mr. Dranktoomuch gets in a car and crashes into a van full of daycare children and kills them all, you're saying he had no choice whether he should drive, or call a taxi?

BINGO!

Actually, it would be better put by saying that choosing never entered into the picture: He had to drive.


.

So, you're saying that a choice, an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities, doesn't exist?

Yes.

You've been away from this forum, on sabbatical since March, and this is what you've learned?

Actually, it's something I've been aware of for some time. And other than being distasteful to the point of unacceptability, just what problem do you have with the fact that free will is an illusion?


.

[RickD]

BINGO!

Actually, it would be better put by saying that choosing never entered into the picture: He had to drive.


.

So, you're saying that a choice, an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities, doesn't exist?

Yes.

You've been away from this forum, on sabbatical since March, and this is what you've learned?

Actually, it's something I've been aware of for some time. And other than being distasteful to the point of unacceptability, just what problem do you have with the fact that free will is an illusion?


.

I choose not to answer that.

[Audacity]

So, you're saying that a choice, an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities, doesn't exist?

Yes.

You've been away from this forum, on sabbatical since March, and this is what you've learned?

Actually, it's something I've been aware of for some time. And other than being distasteful to the point of unacceptability, just what problem do you have with the fact that free will is an illusion?


.

I choose not to answer that.

Ah yes, you had no choice but to think so

[RickD]

Yes.

You've been away from this forum, on sabbatical since March, and this is what you've learned?

Actually, it's something I've been aware of for some time. And other than being distasteful to the point of unacceptability, just what problem do you have with the fact that free will is an illusion?


.

I choose not to answer that.

Ah yes, you had no choice but to think so

"The fact that free will is an illusion?"
Since when is free will being an illusion, a fact? And, did you decide that it's a fact?

[Audacity]

"The fact that free will is an illusion?"
Since when is free will being an illusion, a fact?

Just like the fact of evolution, from the very beginning.

And, did you decide that it's a fact?

No more so than anyone decided that gravity is a fact. It's more of a recognition that it's a fact. Thing is, if you consider free will to be the ability to have done differently (a common definition of FW) then one is faced with showing how such a thing could have happened. How could you have chosen B instead of having chosen A? I underlined "have" because it points to the operation in question: the deciding mechanism that would run the "choosing." You chose A instead of B because __________________fill in (explain) the operation_______________.

.

[Jac3510]

And that's why non-philosophers have no business doing philosophy. It is simply not true that before you can acknowledge an effect you must first explain the cause, because then you would create an infinite regression of explanations of causes. Take evolution, since Audie raised that herself. We don't understand how abiogenesis works, nor do we have to. Medicine works this way. We don't have to understand the mechanism for why some particular drug works--very often we don't. We just observe the effect. That's even MORE common in sciences like psychology and economics.

The other problem is that Audie is begging the question. She starts with a particular assumption about human nature (or, more specifically, about the lack there of), and uses that as the basis for which to conclude there is no free will. And then she challenges others to provide an explanation without a framework that has already denied the explanation. She's asking us to spell "cat" without using letters.

There are other problems, like proposing the wrong definition of free will and her incorrect usage/understanding of modal language.

Bottom line: it is just not a fact that there is no such thing as free will. That is just a bad and unwarranted philosophical position. It's shallow and rooted in a Newtonian, and thus discredited, view of the world. It is, in a word, a childish position. And it's one she doesn't even consistently hold. She expects people to "not lie" about her, to take but one instance. She has moral and cultural expectations. Moreover, the whole idea of there being "facts" in her worldview is plainly stupid, because if she is only thinking as she is forced to by blind chemical reactions, then those thought processes necessarily have no relation to truth. There is no such thing at all as a fact. So her entire argument is self-defeating, because reason doesn't exist at all. Therefore, any argument she puts forward in defense of her own position--including the sad attempt at one in the post just above--is self refuting, because it makes use of the very thing her position says doesn't exist.

In a word, it's a lazy position. No one should take it seriously. It's about as credible as gapism. As she likes to say, kites and sewers. And if that's where her kite is, then really nothing she says on any subject whatsoever has any credibility. So ignore it.

[Kurieuo]

Audacity has no choice (no pun intended), he's just remaining logically consistent with his view of the world. If Physicalism is true, there is no free will. While our closest intuitions might say otherwise, that we have any choice is at best a mirage. I'll go with my intuition here though, and say Physicalism is wrong.

People do have responsibilities, and are responsible for their actions. Love does exist, and we can love others. Justice really does exist, and those who are imprisoned for a crime are responsible for their actions (not merely a victim of their chemistry).

[Jac3510]

Noting that I accidentally attributed the stupidity of denying free will to Audie when Audicity is the offender. My apologies, sincerely, Audie for implying you would say something so downright dumb.

[Audacity]

And that's why non-philosophers have no business doing philosophy. It is simply not true that before you can acknowledge an effect you must first explain the cause, because then you would create an infinite regression of explanations of causes. Take evolution, since Audie raised that herself. We don't understand how abiogenesis works, nor do we have to. Medicine works this way. We don't have to understand the mechanism for why some particular drug works--very often we don't. We just observe the effect. That's even MORE common in sciences like psychology and economics.

The other problem is that Audie is begging the question. She starts with a particular assumption about human nature (or, more specifically, about the lack there of), and uses that as the basis for which to conclude there is no free will. And then she challenges others to provide an explanation without a framework that has already denied the explanation. She's asking us to spell "cat" without using letters.

There are other problems, like proposing the wrong definition of free will and her incorrect usage/understanding of modal language.

Bottom line: it is just not a fact that there is no such thing as free will. That is just a bad and unwarranted philosophical position. It's shallow and rooted in a Newtonian, and thus discredited, view of the world. It is, in a word, a childish position. And it's one she doesn't even consistently hold. She expects people to "not lie" about her, to take but one instance. She has moral and cultural expectations. Moreover, the whole idea of there being "facts" in her worldview is plainly stupid, because if she is only thinking as she is forced to by blind chemical reactions, then those thought processes necessarily have no relation to truth. There is no such thing at all as a fact. So her entire argument is self-defeating, because reason doesn't exist at all. Therefore, any argument she puts forward in defense of her own position--including the sad attempt at one in the post just above--is self refuting, because it makes use of the very thing her position says doesn't exist.

In a word, it's a lazy position. No one should take it seriously. It's about as credible as gapism. As she likes to say, kites and sewers. And if that's where her kite is, then really nothing she says on any subject whatsoever has any credibility. So ignore it.

OMG is this sad, and on so many levels. No one should have to struggle this much.

Have a good day.


.

[Audacity]

Audacity has no choice (no pun intended), he's just remaining logically consistent with his view of the world. If Physicalism is true, there is no free will. While our closest intuitions might say otherwise, that we have any choice is at best a mirage. I'll go with my intuition here though, and say Physicalism is wrong.

If physicalism is not true, in what manner would free will express itself?

[Kurieuo]

In a way that our mind isn't entirely reduced to mechanical processes, but exerts influence on the mechanics.

[Jac3510]

[Jac3510]

OMG is this sad, and on so many levels. No one should have to struggle this much.

Have a good day.

There certainly is something very sad going on here. Sincerely, you have my pity.

[Hortator]

I often wonder what answer Audacity is looking for from us. Certainly, he has an answer for himself already. But he apparently wants to hear some magic words from us to satisfy his, whatever.

So Audacity, consider me your Speak and Spell. What do you want one of us to type?