Free will is a hoax.

Skaffa
How does one define free will?

I always assumed it is the ability to make a decision, without direct outside influence, based purely on your own thoughts and.. well.. will.. of course.

But why is this such a big concept?

Even though our decisions may not be based on direct influence, they are always based on indirect influence.
Everything we do, we do because of our previous experiences and received influences.

Every decision we make is based on causality, so it is never truly "Free".. is it?

Unfortunately this also means that we don't really have a say in anything.
All of our lives have been pre determined since the beginning of time, and there is nothing we can do to change our ''Destiny'', because everything that happens in our linear timeline is subject to causality.

This isn't nearly enough words or sentences to disprove free will. Your premise doesn't bely the conclusion. Just because past events, chemical stimulus from your body, or outside influences may influence your decision making process doesn't automatically discount free will. For instance, if I'm sitting in my room and my stomach starts to growl, but I decide not to go eat; that is a choice I am making to ignore a chemical reaction occurring in my stomach to tell me to eat. My stomach doesn't growl and then I just stand up and start searching for food. No *I* make the decision to go find the food when I'm ready.

Now you may very well be right that free will doesn't exist. I just feel like you need to do a better job of positioning your premises.

Skaffa
How does one define free will?

everything that happens in our linear timeline is subject to causality.

You just answered your own question. You exercise free will each time you reach out and causally subject your will upon the ongoing structure of your own unique timeline. Your future is affected by your past, but it's not determined by it.

NorEaster

Skaffa
How does one define free will?

everything that happens in our linear timeline is subject to causality.

You just answered your own question. You exercise free will each time you reach out and causally subject your will upon the ongoing structure of your own unique timeline. Your future is affected by your past, but it's not determined by it.

Politicians do that well, they cover up their past to positively effect their future.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by g146541

 

This is a scary thing for folks and "the establishment" to accept

On the contrary, I'm sure the establishment would love us to believe we have no free will.

No - because if it was revealed there was no freewill the 'establishment' would not be able to punish people for 'crimes'.
Rapists and murderers could not help doing the act - they could however be removed from the public arena but not punished.

ChaoticOrder
Consciousness implies the ability to produce thoughts and actions via free will,

You can be conscious of the next thought that arises. However, can you know what that thought is before it has appeared?
Do you choose the next thought?
Can you choose the next sound you hear?
Can you choose the next sensation that arises?
Can you choose not to be angry or choose to be happy?

If happiness was a choice then there would be no work for therapists.
And it is that time of year when people make 'new year resolutions' - why do they do that and why do most people go back to the habit the resolved to give up not long after new years day?

Skaffa
This is what i am asking for.. what is there besides previous conditioning?

Free will to act out of the box, without previous experience on the outcome of that choice.
How would you arrive at new experience otherwise?

Free will means to me that, for instance, I could step up to you and kill you, if I choose to do so. Nothing would stop me, except you, if you could. This action would not be without consequence of course, but it's an example of free will.

Krazysh0t


This isn't nearly enough words or sentences to disprove free will. Your premise doesn't bely the conclusion. Just because past events, chemical stimulus from your body, or outside influences may influence your decision making process doesn't automatically discount free will. For instance, if I'm sitting in my room and my stomach starts to growl, but I decide not to go eat; that is a choice I am making to ignore a chemical reaction occurring in my stomach to tell me to eat. My stomach doesn't growl and then I just stand up and start searching for food. No *I* make the decision to go find the food when I'm ready.

Now you may very well be right that free will doesn't exist. I just feel like you need to do a better job of positioning your premises.

I didn't think it would require more words.. besides i like to leave some room for discussion.
I am looking for the core, the initial reaction that forms a decision, how can you say that reaction comes from you and you alone, and not something that made you.. you.

Show me one part of you that is truly independent from that which created you and your mind?
Show us something about you that would not have been any different, if you never experienced this life.
As far as any of us knows, there wouldn't be anything else to go by.

There is always a reason for making a decision.
Although it may seem completely random, there is always a ''trigger''.
Wether this is a thought without language, or a synapse sending an impulse, even these things have something that caused them. You cannot simply say that something was you.
What made it you?

The exact same goes for thinking outside of the box and wanting to kill me.

NorEaster
You just answered your own question. You exercise free will each time you reach out and causally subject your will upon the ongoing structure of your own unique timeline. Your future is affected by your past, but it's not determined by it.

How are you so sure?
What made that decision mine?

kneejo
Free will means to me that, for instance, I could step up to you and kill you, if I choose to do so. Nothing would stop me, except you, if you could. This action would not be without consequence of course, but it's an example of free will.

What makes you so sure that you would be able to kill someone? Could you even kill a dog in cold blood?

reply to post by Skaffa


Big picture. BIG. Uncountably huge number of super galactic clusters spinning through the universe as far as we can see. All, seemingly mechanistic. Machine parts, circling other, larger, machine parts circling even larger cousins.

And down here, patterns of evolution, weather, migration, etc. Everywhere we look we see what you have seen. Repeats, copies, patterns, one two three kick one two three kick. Over and over and over again.

In the face of all this unremitting evidence of a will-less existence, there still, somehow, has crept into the existential equation a supposition, an illusion, a dream of independent thought. Of free will.

So go on if you must and dismiss this "maybe" and you know what? You will never know. I may neither.But I might.

reply to post by Skaffa


It is a chicken and egg situation ! Which came first ?

Your mind causes your surrounding and your sourroundings affect your decisions. This is the perpetual caroussel that most people jump on.

Yet, the answer is simple. You need to impress your will upon your surroundings and claim your right to shape your environment. It is a battle of wills or wits.

The creative will should not be under-estimated. Every self-made millionaire has in some way imposed their will on their surroundings. Some do it in a nice way and others in a brutal way. Both face choices.

As someone pointed out , A sense of Right and Wrong seems to be the driving force. Without it there is no pure objective and you would then be reacting only.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire

All, seemingly mechanistic. Machine parts, circling other, larger, machine parts circling even larger cousins.

And yet, at the heart of it all, those objects are entirely made up of quantum particles which don't behave in a clockwork machine like manner. And due to that, the motion and behaviors of those large objects is not entirely predictable. Just because photons and electrons are extremely small and not easily visible, does not mean they don't have a huge impact on the macroscopic world.

The nuclear reactions which take place in the sun are a good example. Those reactions are fundamentally caused by subatomic interactions heavily influenced by quantum laws and it's impossible to predict with a high accuracy exactly how the sun will evolve and exactly how it will look at some point in the future, the placement of sun spots and so on, and exactly how much energy it will release towards the earth between now and some point in the future.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I'm not saying i am capable.. ah nevermind.. i'm treading in deep waters anyways.

But to get a little off-topic, I think under certain circumstances anyone would be able to kill.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by TerryMcGuire

 

All, seemingly mechanistic. Machine parts, circling other, larger, machine parts circling even larger cousins.

And yet, at the heart of it all, those objects are entirely made up of quantum particles which don't behave in a clockwork machine like manner. And due to that, the motion and behaviors of those large objects is not entirely predictable. Just because photons and electrons are extremely small and not easily visible, does not mean they don't have a huge impact on the macroscopic world.

The nuclear reactions which take place in the sun are a good example. Those reactions are fundamentally caused by subatomic interactions heavily influenced by quantum laws and it's impossible to predict with a high accuracy exactly how the sun will evolve and exactly how it will look at some point in the future, the placement of sun spots and so on, and exactly how much energy it will release towards the earth between now and some point in the future.

I used the word seemingly. You used the term 'not entirely predictable" and "impossible to predict with a high accuracy exactly" These, for me, all allow for a refutation of the original position of the op on free will. That beneath the "seemingly" predictable patterns of existence which would give credence to there being NO free will, there exists a level of existence which is NOT exactly predictable, and that this then allows for the possibility of free will. I mean, where else are we going to look?

kneejo
But to get a little off-topic, I think under certain circumstances anyone would be able to kill.

Under the right circumstance - yes - killing would happen.
Everything happens because of something else - not because it is chosen.

Everyone who replied including me, has no free will. We needed the op to make the thread to reply, we needed whoever to start the website, we needed someone to make computers and the internet, we and them needed two people to have sex to create them and us on and on and on plus limitless other variables I left out.

I have a will, it let's me interact but it can never be free from cause and effect.

Did I choose to be born? Even if so, who in their right mind would want to die? Wouldn't we just use our free will to choose not to die? To me it seems we do as predetermined as a primary, and willed determination secondarily.

reply to post by Skaffa


So you think there is some fates making a tapestry of your life or writing in a book that predetermines what you do?

Past experiences having influence on you is not really against freewill.

Having some sky beings creating your fate is going against freewill.

You may have predetermined personality etc from your genetic makeup and the way your neurons fire but that doesn't necessarily interfere with freewill. Not in my understanding of it at least.

ldyserenity
reply to post by Skaffa

 

So you think there is some fates making a tapestry of your life or writing in a book that predetermines what you do?

Past experiences having influence on you is not really against freewill.

Having some sky beings creating your fate is going against freewill.

You may have predetermined personality etc from your genetic makeup and the way your neurons fire but that doesn't necessarily interfere with freewill. Not in my understanding of it at least.

I never said someone / being / fate determined my life.. I'm saying fate arose out of the events that shaped me.

By example: the wind blows thus leaves fly.

Where did the wind write a book predetermining the life of the leaf?

Fate is / could simply be a property of causality.

I have not been clear about this but i do actually believe in free will.. I just can't see how it works, can you? That's my point.

I don't believe life is some freak accident.. i don't believe in coincidence when presented in this monolithic magnitude...
(I used to, but personal experience and logical thinking has changed my mind along the way)

So assuming life has purpose, what is the purpose of life if it does not even have free will? Thus i assume it does, but how is it possible?

reply to post by Skaffa

How does one define free will?

The ability to act contrarily to our instincts.