Why you don't really have free will

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,977
It's not a simple concept at all. It's only simple because you don't want to delve into it.
Oh no on the contrary I think it is a very simple concept.

You expel every single paranormal and "external" factor in the universe and naturally this concept is what you will arrive at as it is then the only thing that makes sense without those factors.

In other words, drop your beliefs about things you can't even see or prove and what do you end up with? A real physical world. There is no alternative that I know of and I beg anyone to show me if there is. Perhaps with the exception of quantum physics and the element of randomness, that is the only uncertainty in this whole equation.

And I don't think it takes much delving into to understand how an entirely physical world automatically means fate without free will.
 
Last edited:

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
24,709
Oh no on the contrary I think it is a very simple concept.

You expel every single paranormal and "external" factor in the universe and naturally this concept is what you will arrive at as it is then the only thing that makes sense without those factors.

In other words, drop your beliefs about things you can't even see or prove and what do you end up with? A real physical world. There is no alternative that I know of and I beg anyone to show me if there is. Perhaps with the exception of quantum physics and the element of randomness, that is the only uncertainty in this whole equation.
An assertion.

Here's another: Some of these philosophical truths are too lofty for many minds, it seems. Once a reductionist-materialist view prevails, society inevitably crumbles into violence - after all, there is no right and wrong, no good and bad, no justice or injustice (all these are mere constructs). If you think it's physics all the way through you're missing the core of reality (which is Ratio), and telling me or anyone else they're "wrong" or "stupid" is, er, pointless, along with everything else. By the way, there are no such things as the "laws" of physics. Their quiddity merely is.

Just sayin'.
 

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
25,019
Yep. have also known this for quite a while.

-A person who steals something, does it because of external factors. it's not a choice really.
-You keyed a persons car? well, you were probably driven to it somehow....external force.
-You hungry? yeah, that's not really a choice.... but having debonairs tonight is a choice, right? Oh no.... might be because of that "new promotion" they have.
-Chose to call your dad have you? maybe it's because you haven't called in a while and just saw a sad movie involving a person and his father.


This is all just a simulation, we have the same amount of "choice" as a pinball deciding to hit a paddle.
I agree that there are a lot of things that influence our decisions. But what makes us ultimately select something ?

The fact that we can be stuck on a choice for hours and then eventually make a random choice means that we have free will.
We have the ability to put one option over all the other options for the sake of making a decision.
 

Keeper

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
23,588
The fact that we can be stuck on a choice for hours and then eventually make a random choice means that we have free will.
random choices mean the sum is equal. (or near enough not to make a difference)

Yesterday:
Want for Choc ice-cream: 5/10
Want for Banana Ice Cream: 3/10

Get the Choc ice cream.


Today:
Want for Choc ice-cream: 5/10
Want for Banana Ice Cream: 5/10

You had the choc yesterday, and want something different...however, it was damn good, and the banana might not be as good...
this is what we would call a 50/50 choice - you are up for both, and so make a "random choice"


- You see that as free-will, as you are making a random choice.
- I see it as Yesterdays choc was just as good as the prospect of a "new flavour" today.
(if the choc was bad, you would take banana, if the choc was REALLY good, you would take it again...meaning, yesterdays events affect today's choice)


"Random choices" only occur when the "choices" are equal. We always do these calculations to get THE BEST return for ourselves.
It's is a survival trait.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
38,778
"Random choices" only occur when the "choices" are equal. We always do these calculations to get THE BEST return for ourselves.
It's is a survival trait.
The problem is your rendering of the path of calculations is extremely reductionist. You draw a post-hoc chain of thoughts which might have led to a decision, but a choice is the outcome of an entire biological historical and personal system. A decision - particularly great ones but even quotidian bread-or-crackers decisions - is the product of an entire person's history and thinking.

You couldn't even hope to begin to model the state of a person at a point in time - they are an accretion of all the books they have read, all the places they have seen, their biology, their antecedents, sociocultural and political influences, the cadences of their language, their intelligence, and literally countless other factors that contribute to the neural pathways involved in making an outcome happen.

If you could even hope to model an outcome you would need to account for every factor involved in making it. And since you place such importance on the preconscious mind's role, you would need to understand of what the preconscious mind actually consisted. And at that point the level of complexity is of such magnitude that you have effectively created a random system. So EVEN IF you truly do have an illusion, the illusion is so effective that it is the thing itself. And the fact that a person can still rationalize, filter and impose their will against all conflicting data points; choose to die for a cause, choose a university major, a hairstyle, a wife and so on; eventually even a complete materialist has to admit that we should ACT as though the human will was a real thing.
 

Keeper

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
23,588
of course my model is 10 billion times simpler than what really goes on, but I can't really model it all here now could I?

But yes, I completely agree 100% with what you've said above.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
38,778
To me it is, because you choose to make it complicated is your .... well choice.
If it was simple and self-evident there would be universal agreement on it. Your view and mine are probably quite different. I can assure you it's not simple. You've just shelved it because it has a prima facie appearance of straightforwardness.
 

Cloudster

Expert Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,575
If it was simple and self-evident there would be universal agreement on it. Your view and mine are probably quite different. I can assure you it's not simple. You've just shelved it because it has a prima facie appearance of straightforwardness.
I'm talking to what the OP originally said.

Look, there is only one way things will play out and in a way it is pre-determined because that was the only choice you were going to make in the first place but now that doesn't mean that you don't make the choice yourself.

There is only one outcome to where I will be at 7pm today when ALL variables and factors (i.e: EVERYTHING that exists) are taken into account. But hey, nothing is capable of taking all these into account so we go along making real decisions which yes we were going to make.

The bottom line is, you still decide whether you are going to have a coke or fanta at lunch time.

I haven't shelved it, I just understand what it's about and what the OP is saying ... I don't agree with the article but at the same time I understand the logic it was based upon.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,977
An assertion.

Here's another: Some of these philosophical truths are too lofty for many minds, it seems. Once a reductionist-materialist view prevails, society inevitably crumbles into violence - after all, there is no right and wrong, no good and bad, no justice or injustice (all these are mere constructs). If you think it's physics all the way through you're missing the core of reality (which is Ratio), and telling me or anyone else they're "wrong" or "stupid" is, er, pointless, along with everything else. By the way, there are no such things as the "laws" of physics. Their quiddity merely is.

Just sayin'.
I don't mind asserting the only plausible alternative to "normal" beliefs ;)

"Once a reductionist-materialist view prevails, society inevitably crumbles into violence" - Why do you say this? Evidence? Do animals suffer this or are there communal animals or those with inherent social structure who look after one another and seem to do pretty well without those belief structures?
 

FrankCastle

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
7,331
Yes I've necroed an old thread but just to provide some input before the lock.
1. The threads Ive necroed previously were relevant and current topics that still inspired robust debate.
2. Should we start a new thread every time the same issues warrant discussion.
3. Should we derail other threads in order to discuss unrelated topics - look at "The Soul" thread for instance.
4. Philosophical debated seems to be limping along on flat tyres, so sometimes an old thread is needed to provide different perspectives and stimulate various ideas.

Right, now why this thread - I specifically want to address this response because i think it gives a whole new perspective on how free will can be approached and perceived. If a new thread is required please feel free to engage. Will add the relevant post but will wont respond to the poster until i receive feedback from other members. Again, as I've shown previously, the odd necro is sometimes a good thing in order maintain interest in the Philosophical debate section.

 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,588
Yes I've necroed an old thread but just to provide some input before the lock.
1. The threads Ive necroed previously were relevant and current topics that still inspired robust debate.
...
you keep telling yourself that as the threads get locked
 

EADC

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
5,341
Yes I've necroed an old thread but just to provide some input before the lock.
1. The threads Ive necroed previously were relevant and current topics that still inspired robust debate.
2. Should we start a new thread every time the same issues warrant discussion.
3. Should we derail other threads in order to discuss unrelated topics - look at "The Soul" thread for instance.
4. Philosophical debated seems to be limping along on flat tyres, so sometimes an old thread is needed to provide different perspectives and stimulate various ideas.

Right, now why this thread - I specifically want to address this response because i think it gives a whole new perspective on how free will can be approached and perceived. If a new thread is required please feel free to engage. Will add the relevant post but will wont respond to the poster until i receive feedback from other members. Again, as I've shown previously, the odd necro is sometimes a good thing in order maintain interest in the Philosophical debate section.

No stop necroeing threads to push your agenda.

Just stop.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,977
If there is no such thing as free will, why do we than have rules, the law and judges?
It doesn't seem like free will is a good argument for or against action or consequence. It questions maybe the purpose of those things, but not whether they would occur.

And if you're asking me about purpose (why), well you're asking the wrong dude :)
 
Top