Does freewill exist?

[HGCC]

Yes, I think you have free will. A whole host of things, both conscious and not, go into whatever decision, but you are still free to make whatever choice. I don't believe in predetermination. Each choice you make changes the future, the culmination of your experiences and character determine how you react and the decisions you make around those choices.

There isn't some guiding force for the universe at large, its random. It changes in relation to human actions. We then, in our infinite variety of individual experiences/personalities, react and change to that, kind of an ongoing feedback loop.

 

[rockethoe]

free will and linear time can not exist simultaneously.

 

[CatHedral]

free will and linear time can not exist simultaneously.

Expound please.

 

[rockethoe]

I have to make a choice in the future. I cannot see which it is because I cannot see the future, but because I will have made a decision, that is the only decision I can make.

I have a decision to make A or B
In the I will have made decision B. This means that in the present I can only make decision B, because otherwise the future does not exist.

Im not sure im explaining it very well because im well oiled. But I will try to return with a more coherent answer at some point.

Edit: we do not have free will because at some point, the future will have happened

 

[CatHedral]

I have to make a choice in the future. I cannot see which it is because I cannot see the future, but because I will have made a decision, that is the only decision I can make.

I have a decision to make A or B
In the I will have made decision B. This means that in the present I can only make decision B, because otherwise the future does not exist.

Im not sure im explaining it very well because im well oiled. But I will try to return with a more coherent answer at some point.

I do think I understand. But a multiverse interpretation allows me to contradict your earlier statement. In a ramified future I will be choosing A, choosing B, choosing an unknown number of C.

 

[rockethoe]

I do think I understand. But a multiverse interpretation allows me to contradict your earlier statement. In a ramified future I will be choosing A, choosing B, choosing an unknown number of C.

Sure, if we live in a multiverse interpretation of time (and space, I guess) then my theory falls flat on it's face. If we live in a singular universe with linear time, however we do not have free will. Maybe we will never know - but thats where the fun is.

 

[CatHedral]

Sure, if we live in a multiverse interpretation of time (and space, I guess) then my theory falls flat on it's face. If we live in a singular universe with linear time, however we do not have free will. Maybe we will never know - but thats where the fun is.

I also enjoy blue-sky thinking about the underlying nature of things. I have no idea if multiverse is correct, but it has two good qualities. It is useful and entertaining.

 

[rockethoe]

I haven't read through this whole post so not sure if this argument has been posited yet: The argument of sufficient cause

1) Take some arbitrary event, A.

2) If A had no cause sufficient to bring it about, then it wouldn’t have happened.

3) But A did happen.

4) Therefore, A had a cause sufficient to bring it about.

5) Since A is arbitrary, we may safely conclude that all events have causes sufficient to bring them about.

6) It follows that all of our actions are caused by prior events.

7) It also follows that the prior events leading to our actions were caused by other prior events, and so on…

Therefore, everything we do is the result of causal chains extending backward in time long before we were born.

9) Therefore, everything we do is caused by forces over which we have no control

10) If our actions are caused by forces over which we have no control, we do not act freely.

11) Therefore, we never act freely.

 

[CatHedral]

I haven't read through this whole post so not sure if this argument has been posited yet: The argument of sufficient cause

1) Take some arbitrary event, A.

2) If A had no cause sufficient to bring it about, then it wouldn’t have happened.

3) But A did happen.

4) Therefore, A had a cause sufficient to bring it about.

5) Since A is arbitrary, we may safely conclude that all events have causes sufficient to bring them about.

6) It follows that all of our actions are caused by prior events.

7) It also follows that the prior events leading to our actions were caused by other prior events, and so on…

Therefore, everything we do is the result of causal chains extending backward in time long before we were born.

9) Therefore, everything we do is caused by forces over which we have no control

10) If our actions are caused by forces over which we have no control, we do not act freely.

11) Therefore, we never act freely.

My trouble here is circularity rooted in the choice of word “cause”. The philosophy of causality is a bit of a mine field imo.

It’s like whenever I encounter a variation on “the purpose of life” I invariably follow it to a religious credo.

 

[Don't Bogart]

I haven't read through this whole post so not sure if this argument has been posited yet: The argument of sufficient cause

1) Take some arbitrary event, A.

2) If A had no cause sufficient to bring it about, then it wouldn’t have happened.

3) But A did happen.

4) Therefore, A had a cause sufficient to bring it about.

5) Since A is arbitrary, we may safely conclude that all events have causes sufficient to bring them about.

6) It follows that all of our actions are caused by prior events.

7) It also follows that the prior events leading to our actions were caused by other prior events, and so on…

Therefore, everything we do is the result of causal chains extending backward in time long before we were born.

9) Therefore, everything we do is caused by forces over which we have no control

10) If our actions are caused by forces over which we have no control, we do not act freely.

11) Therefore, we never act freely.

Chaos theory. Butterfly in the forest.

 

[StonedGardener]

Life would be a pile of shit without it , methinks. Denial is trending......what the f is up with that ?

 

[ComputerSaysNo]

Im not sure im explaining it very well because im well oiled. But I will try to return with a more coherent answer at some point.

You're my favourite person for the day.

 

[Don't Bogart]

Denial is trending......what the f is up with that ?

Misinterpretation of free will.

 

[Don't Bogart]

11) Therefore, we never act freely.

12) Therefore you are not actually able to reason. Since reasoning would produce a self determined action which you would deem as free will.

 

[ComputerSaysNo]

Therefore you are not actually able to reason. Since reasoning would produce a self determined action which you would deem as free will.

I've heard this argument before: "reason implies free will". It's nonsense.

Computers are able to reason, but nobody would suppose free will in that case. Of course "computer reasoning" is within certain bounds, but so is "human reasoning".

In fact, one could even argue that reasoning implies the opposite of self determined thinking. This is because sound reasoning does not even leave a room for "choice". If "B follows A according to reason", then there is no choice, there is only "B" (according to reason).

When you reason about something, and your reasoning is correct (or sound), you will have no choice to arrive at your conclusion(s). And everybody else will get the same results. And there will be no room at all for choice or "free will".

 

[Just Be]

To those that think that free will exists: Try traveling to your ideal location (anywhere in the world) by the end of the day and let me know how that works out for you.

 

[ComputerSaysNo]

To those that think that free will exists: Try traveling to your ideal location (anywhere in the world) by the end of the day and let me know how that works out for you.

That is not a good example, because "free will" does not mean "I could do anything imaginable", but it does mean "I could have done otherwise than I actually did [in the past]".

But a valid variation of what you suggested would be: "only have happy thoughts for the rest of the day". That should be something that could be "willed", if the will was actually free. Good luck.

 

[Just Be]

That is not a good example, because "free will" does not mean "I could do anything imaginable"

The fact that 'free will' has to have a definition implies that there is no free will. The way I see it, we're all free to think what we want to think yet we cannot do what we think ..I think.

 

[ComputerSaysNo]

The fact that 'free will' has to have a definition implies that there is no free will.

All language needs to have a definition. What I've given is just the "folk definition", that is, most people think of "free will" as the possibility to have decided other than they actually have, always regarding past decisions.

In my opinion, defining "free will" in a way that meaningfully deviates from that does not make sense for everyday discussions of the concept. E.g. there are the "compatibilists" who side-step the issue by redefining "free will" in a way that does not make much sense to me.

Looking from the "absolute", nothing really exists, neither free will nor anything else. But our discussions happen in the relative, and within the constraints of language, so we need to settle on some definitions or there will not even be a discussion.

 

[Nixs]

If you don't have a free will, how can you be held accountable for your actions?