Free Will Is An Illusion

[Solitary]

Religious believers often claim that we as human beings have Free will. This means that we have the ability to make choices freely. Or to put it another way, it means that we have complete control over our actions. This is a myth. Free-will doesn't exist. It is an illusion. Keep those cards and letters coming! 8-[

Many religious believers will object, as well as many here will object. They will assert that if I don't believe in Free-will, than I must believe that we have no choices at all. This of course is a false dichotomy. My claim isn't that we don't have choices, but rather that our choices are not "freely determined." Instead, our choices are determined by a complex set of variables which play out within the complexity of our brains.

All our choices are determined by our nature and our nurture. Nature represents all the genetic variables and nurture represents all the environmental factors (most of which we are not even aware of). Even as an unborn fetus, there are environmental factors at work which shape us and help to determine who we might become. Once born, we experience much more than we are consciously aware.

The complex interplay between these two factors is the determining characteristics for all of our actions and choices. The thing is that we don't know how that interplay will play out so we have the appearance of Free-will. Now here is the catch, we can still make choices. We can still weigh the options based on our conscious knowledge. However, there are subconscious factors which we are unaware of which also play into and help to determine our choices.

Regardless of which path we choose, it was a choice that was determined by the complexity of the interplay of our two determining forces. Here is an example: I am walking down a hall that I am familiar with. I know that there is an intersection ahead and that both paths will lead me to my destination. Which path do I choose?

My mind works very quickly. Quicker that I even realize and calculates things that I am not even consciously aware of. I choose right. To someone who believes in Free-will, that choice is a free choice. But to a rational, thinking, person who is aware of modern psychology, that choice was a determined choice. Why did I go right is the question?

A believer in Free-will would claim that such a choice is a random decision made by the choice maker. They might claim that it is a free choice with no baggage or attachment to it. But the fact is that even if we don't know what determined that choice, it was still a determined choice. If I would have gone left, that too would have been the determined choice.

It might have been as simple as the fact that I am genetically right handed and that is why I went right. It could have been because a saw a cute girl down the right path a few weeks ago and subconsciously I hope she might be there again. Maybe subconsciously I am trying to avoid someone I saw down the left path weeks earlier that I completely forgot about. It could even be a subconscious complex calculation based on multiple factors. Or perhaps it isn't subconscious at all.  :P  

Solitary

[SGOS]

I think someone, I don't know who, maybe some fancy pants philosopher, said, "You don't have free will.  You only think you do," and that sounded just paradoxical enough to create a new age following of sorts, because people tend to gravitate to this kind of shit.

But I'm here to tell you that you have free will, and you just believe that you don't.  So there!  No one can prove it either way.  So why does this debate keep popping up?  Do you guys like arguing about shit no one can prove?  Is this some sort of elevated level of skepticism, or are both sides just talking out of their asses about something unknowable?  And for what purpose?   :-D

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think religionists are talking about free will in morality, not in which path they'll take walking home.

Don't confuse the two.

[MrsSassyPants]

So basically all aspects of religon are an illusion.  GOD is an illusion

[SGOS]

Logically, you can't prove that theists are right or wrong about the existence of an omni god or the possession of free will.  All you can logically do is show the existence of two mutually exclusive claims.  At least one has to be false, possibly both, but both cannot be true.

[Jason78]

I do enjoy reading the work of Staks Rosch

[Solitary]

And that is the very reason it keeps being brought up because there is more and more evidence that we don't from neurology. Decisions aren't determined by two variables and black and white thinking like religion is, but by a life time of experiences, billions of calculation that we make unconsciously and consciously that finally determine the choices we make. We shouldn't want to know which is the correct one of the contradiction? Why does this subject always cause people to get emotional, because it is a personal delusion we have freewill like religion is perhaps? :shock:  Solitary

[SGOS]

Many religious believers will object. They will assert that if I don't believe in Free-will, than I must believe that we have no choices at all. This of course is a false dichotomy.

Many atheists will object.  They will assert that if I believe that choices are a complex interplay of unconscious activity, then I must believe I have no choices at all.  This is also a false dichotomy.

[Solitary]

Many religious believers will object. They will assert that if I don't believe in Free-will, than I must believe that we have no choices at all. This of course is a false dichotomy.

Many atheists will object.  They will assert that if I believe that choices are a complex interplay of unconscious activity, then I must believe I have no choices at all.  This is also a false dichotomy.

What? All that complex interplay is the very reason a choice is made. If you believe you have no choices at all you would be correct that it is a false dichotomy, but you do and can make a choice. Solitary

[Plu]

What? All that complex interplay is the very reason a choice is made. If you believe you have no choices at all you would be correct that it is a false dichotomy, but you do and can make a choice. Solitary

Seems this entire argument stands or falls based on how you define "you" in the phrase "you make a choice".

As usual, when it comes to definitions like that, the whole argument is unresolvable.

[SGOS]

Many religious believers will object. They will assert that if I don't believe in Free-will, than I must believe that we have no choices at all. This of course is a false dichotomy.

Many atheists will object.  They will assert that if I believe that choices are a complex interplay of unconscious activity, then I must believe I have no choices at all.  This is also a false dichotomy.

What? All that complex interplay is the very reason a choice is made. If you believe you have no choices at all you would be correct that it is a false dichotomy, but you do and can make a choice. Solitary

That makes the case for free will being complicated, but not an illusion.

[SGOS]

Seems this entire argument stands or falls based on how you define "you" in the phrase "you make a choice".

And/or on how you define "free".

As usual, when it comes to definitions like that, the whole argument is unresolvable.

Which is why this thing is an unending debate.

[GurrenLagann]

I'd say the evidence against the concept of libertarian free will is overwhelming. Compatibilism seems possible though.

[Colanth]

And that is the very reason it keeps being brought up because there is more and more evidence that we don't from neurology. Decisions aren't determined by two variables and black and white thinking like religion is, but by a life time of experiences, billions of calculation that we make unconsciously and consciously that finally determine the choices we make.

And that's exactly the kind of "free will" theists claim that we have.

It's "free will" as opposed to "God makes you do everything you do" (like a puppeteer), not free will as opposed to what you do being mitigated by reality.

If you let go of a rock it falls, right?  Not if it's sitting on a shelf.  Does that mean that gravity is an illusion?

We can define anything to be unsolvable, but muddying up a clear assertion (even if it's based on nonsense) doesn't really get you anything.  Just as the default position vis-a-vis gods is "uh-uh", the default position vis-a-vis "we can decide what we want to do" is "unless you have actual evidence to the contrary, and assuming 'we' refers to a sane individual mature enough to think rationally, sure."

That's not to claim that I can do anything I want to do.  I can decide to fly by flapping my arms, that's free will.  Reality says that I can flap my arms all I want, but it won't lift me 1cm off the ground.

[The Whit]

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/br ... you-decide