The Illusion Of Choice

[John Stuart Mill]

Too little has been said on topic of free will. Here I will attempt to demonstrate the fallacy of free will. It is a comfortable, but unfortunately false assumption. I will analyze how the lie has been propagated, and the evidence against free will. Hopefully I will answer one of humanities most significant questions.

As you are well aware free will has been the doctrine of Christians for quite some time. They realize that if it does not exist god predetermines who goes to hell. Of course the erroneous logic does not bother them; if God were truly omnipotent he would foresee all possible occurrences. Having put forth the first cause argument the Christians effectively dug their own grave. God before having started the universe would have seen all it would entail. Therefore, either God isn't omniscient or all actions were preordained by it. It created the universe knowing who would be good and bad. Even if in his omnipotence he could suspend his omniscience the blame would be unchanged. Why would a "good" god play chance with the universe?

I put forth that all actions are result of the interaction of instincts and memory. Sometimes experience persuades us to do something contrary to instinct. This easily gives us the illusion of free will. This happens to be prominent in humans do to our large amount of memory. I would theories that we can override instincts to be more adaptable. Perhaps, some instincts could even become harmful. It could also prove beneficial to a tribal society. To form a cohesive unit one must learn to trust others. This can only be accomplished by overriding certain key instincts. We also have instinct of various strengths that occasionally clash. Eventually the stronger prevails but the interim indecisiveness is key. While your mind goes through memories and instincts you believe it is somehow making a free choice. In reality if you could program a computer with all your memories and instinct it could predict your actions.

Though this may be a disturbing revelation, it does not render life meaningless. You are still influenced by those around you and can impact others. By affecting their memory, by say recommending a book, you could change their life. If anything this emphasizes the need for participation in life. Edited May 15, 2007 by John Stuart Mill

[AKammenzind]

"To little has been said on topic of free will."
Not to be a stickler or anything, but shouldn't it be "Too little"? It irritates me when people use the wrong to/too and there/their/they're (Edit: Especially if it's the first word of a paragraph....)

Free will in this context can neither be proven nor disproven. We simply have to think about it as we like and go on with life. Edited May 15, 2007 by AKammenzind

[John Stuart Mill]

Thanks for pointing out the error. That did look rather foolish.



We are all governed by the laws of physics. Whether you espouse a belief in god(s) or science this is evident. Bertrand Russell wrote, "Under the influence of this reaction against natural law, some Christian apologists have seized upon the latest doctrines of the atom, which tend to show that the physical laws in which we have hitherto believed have only an approximate and average truth as applied to large numbers of atoms, while the individual electron behaves pretty much as it likes. My own belief is that this is a temporary phase, and that the physicists will in time discover laws governing minute phenomena, although these laws may differ considerably from those of traditional physics. However that may be, it is worth while to observe that the modern doctrines as to minute phenomena have no bearing upon anything that is of practical importance. Visible motions, and indeed all motions that make any difference to anybody, involve such large numbers of atoms that they come well within the scope of the old laws. To write a poem or commit a murder, it is necessary to move an appreciable mass of ink or lead. The electrons composing the ink may be dancing freely around their little ballroom, but the ballroom as a whole is moving according to the old laws of physics, and this alone is what concerns the poet and his publisher. The modern doctrines, therefore, have no appreciable bearing upon any of those problems of human interest with which the theologian is concerned."

He goes on to state, "The free-will question consequently remains just where it was. Whatever may be thought about it as a matter of ultimate metaphysics, it is quite clear that nobody believes it in practice. Everyone has always believed that it is possible to train character; everyone has always known that alcohol or opium will have a certain effect on behaviour. The apostle of free will maintains that a man can by will power avoid getting drunk, but he does not maintain that when drunk a man can say "British Constitution" as clearly as if he were sober. And everybody who has ever had to do with children knows that a suitable diet does more to make them virtuous than the most eloquent preaching in the world. The one effect that the free- will doctrine has in practice is to prevent people from following out such common-sense knowledge to its rational conclusion. When a man acts in ways that annoy us we wish to think him wicked, and we refuse to face the fact that his annoying behaviour is a result of antecedent causes which, if you follow them long enough, will take you beyond the moment of his birth and therefore to events for which he cannot be held responsible by any stretch of imagination."



If I may ask, how do you propose to defend free will? There seems to be no coherent argument in favor of that position. Perhaps, that is due to the fact that people would rather not discuss such things. Edited May 15, 2007 by John Stuart Mill

[AKammenzind]

I cannot defend free will in general as I don't think anyone can.

I do, however, believe that there is no overwhelming evidence either way. It is fun to suppose about really, but one ends up in one of two beliefs.

1. That we choose, based upon experience, what to do and how to react and therefore are in control of our actions.

and

2. That because of previous experience our actions are already predetermined and that the decisions we make have already been decided by what our lives have made us.

In a way they are both true, as it depends on your perception of time. In the present we are thinking, and acting, and choosing (and feel as if we are acting of our own free will). But looking at us from the past it is possible to make a good, but not always perfect, prediction of what will happen.* Also from a vantage point in the future one might have a completely different perspective, but could not come to an indisputable truth unless the observer was omniscient.**


*It could be argued that this imperfect prediction was due to a lack of knowledge of a variable and, if we're thinking butterfly effect, one could suppose that this is the error of those making the prediction.

**One would have to be omniscient to determine whether or not the butterfly effect is applicable, or if a decision is made that could not have been caused by previous events, but was a true decision; therefore proving free will.

I apologize for any errors, or complete lack of sense. This was written while talking to the girlfriend at 11 PM =)


Edit: It should also be noted that we are existing in the past, present, and future simultaneously... and that serves to further blur how we percieve things. (ever try having a conversation with someone in the present, while talking strictly in past pluperfect?) Edited May 15, 2007 by AKammenzind

[John Stuart Mill]

I gave a relatively concise argument against free will. The fact that the opposite party is incapable of offering a counter speaks for my case. We do make actions based on previous experiences, but we don’t choose what to do. Free will is a delusion that arises from the complexities of our minds. To say that free will exists goes against the laws of science and logic. In reality we can neither prove nor disprove anything. We can only find things probably or unlikely. For instance, your argument could be compared to Bertrand Russell teapot around the sun. No one knows it doesn’t exist so it could, though there is no evidence supporting it.

[AKammenzind]

"In reality we can neither prove nor disprove anything."

I presented no real arguement for either side, and I cannot because I don't strictly believe either. There is no certainty either way, but hey... it's fun to think about no?

[John Stuart Mill]

"In reality we can neither prove nor disprove anything."

I presented no real arguement for either side, and I cannot because I don't strictly believe either. There is no certainty either way, but hey... it's fun to think about no?

Would you agree the evidence supports an absence of free will? That is unless you’re a true skeptic. Reality influences our perceptions and our perceptions influence reality so we can know nothing. Soon I will post another topic on reality. However I’m going to bed soon and may not respond to it.

[AKammenzind]

"In reality we can neither prove nor disprove anything."

I presented no real arguement for either side, and I cannot because I don't strictly believe either. There is no certainty either way, but hey... it's fun to think about no?

Would you agree the evidence supports an absence of free will? That is unless you're a true skeptic. Reality influences our perceptions and our perceptions influence reality so we can know nothing. Soon I will post another topic on reality. However I'm going to bed soon and may not respond to it.

Certainly there is more evidence against free will than for it, but there is one fatal flaw in that evidence. One cannot prove a negative. By that I mean that it would be quite impossible for anyone to prove without a doubt that there was no random chance in a choice, or that what we do is based completely off of past events. That is, of course, unless they were omniscient.

[sicklecow]

One cannot prove a negative.

A and not A is false.

There. I just did it. Where does this belief that we cannot prove negatives come from?

[AKammenzind]

One cannot prove a negative.

A and not A is false.

There. I just did it. Where does this belief that we cannot prove negatives come from?

It is a saying, and not to be taken to that extent.

It is to say that one cannot prove that something does not exist at all, in this case the presence of choice, without being all-knowing. Edited May 15, 2007 by AKammenzind