The illusion of free will

Logic would suggest it a necessary conclusion from the premise of cause and effect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

reread my post then apologize for your ineptitude and deliberate attempts at slander.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The cause is often thought of as the driver of choice but what if we choose from the myriad of causes of the probable effects we seek and not only from the effects we wish to manifest?

so it's not:
cause===> )choice===)> effect
it's more like:
cause====><(====choice(=====>effect

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My definition is as simple as the ability for self-determination.
So you also conclude that this is an illusion?

Why do you say that we are certainly able to freely choose which causes we are influenced by?
Is that not the very issue in question?
To blithely state that you are certain we do it is rather an unsupported claim on your part.
I would say that all our choices of causes are themselves caused.
And if we could choose which of those causes we are influenced by then those choices are caused.
And they get to such a number and to such a small scale that we can not be aware of them to be able to choose.

So I don't agree with your unsupported claim that we are able to choose as you suggest.
Perhaps you would also be so good as to define what you mean by "choose" that does not simply beg the question of freewill.

 

now you are arguing in Sarkus style bullsh*t.

How do you get from A to B when you haven't defined self determination yet.

I stand corrected thanks. [not sure why I turned an IF statement into a claim statement...I do apologize.]
the point/claim for me was the term freely and not cause. To be able to freely choose from the causes presented and I understand this word presents a problem..
So what do you mean by a non-free choice by act of will?

 

What exactly do you consider "bulls*t"?
Is self-determination not a term you have used previously?
If so, why not assume I mean the same as you.
If not, how about going with: the ability to determine the output of a selection without any external influence.

I never mentioned "by act of will".
So I can not answer your question.

 

ok

self determination: the ability to determine the output of a selection without any external influence.

What is wrong with external influences aiding us in self determining?
How do influences external or internal "determine" anything?
They are only influencing a choice not determining it after-all... or are they determining instead of influencing or both?

 

How is your post in any way a refutation of what I said? You have merely restated, and so in return I will restate mine:

And there is no deliberate attempt to slander, as for that I would need to be making false accusations. Yet with each subsequent post you make my case for me.

And WTF do I care whether any other poster uses the exact same phrasing. What purpose do you have to state such an irrelevancy?

 

Our self would consider the influences, but at some point it must make a determination.
This is all that is meant by the definition I gave.
I am not saying it is a good definition.
Just one to work with.

The question would then be how the act of determining operates.
And whether it is caused.
Whether self-determination as defined is even possible.

If one reaches a conclusion that it is impossible with a given definition, then perhaps the definition and understanding of what self-determination is needs to change so that it can be argued to be possible.

 

lol.. there is no proof of God, so lets redefine the argument so it is possible that he can exist..???

 

And in redefining "God" so as to be possible, one starts to understand what God may or may not be.
My point is that if the conclusion of an argument is not what is expected, it may be that the argument is valid but the premise (the definition being used, for example) is not adequate for purpose.
It may be that no definition will get to the conclusion required.
Or it may be that one needs to define things as "illusion" in order to be possible.
Or some such.
So it is not simply saying that one redefines the argument so that it is possible.
Because in redefining the term / premise one is defining what "it" is that is now being deemed possible.

 

sounds like you are getting into the realm of Politically Correct.. or spin doctors.
make your premise fit the conclusion.. etc..

 

Probably unintended but this reeks.. sorry!

 

Why does it reek?
Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction on your part.

It's called problem-solving.
If I want to know what is required to get something to the top of a building, I can start with some fairly rudimentary equipment (i.e. premises).
E.g. a ladder.
When analysis shows that it is impossible to get something to the top of the building with that equipment (e.g. the ladder is insufficiently tall), all I have in fact done is show that it is impossible if I start with that equipment.
So I change equipment.
Then reassess whether it is now possible.
In that way I can understand what is required to get something to the top of a building.
It might be that my change in equipment is too much and that I didn't need everything.
So I begin to work out exactly what might be required to reach the top of the building.
And from there one can establish what is necessary.

So no, it does not reek.
It merely approaches the question from a different angle.
By asking what might be required for freewill to be genuine.
And from that to what is necessary for freewill to be genuine.
If what is necessary can be shown also not to be possible (given our understanding of the universe) then we would have learnt that genuine freewill itself is impossible.

 

On the surface it reads "changing the facts to suit the agenda" that's why..

or as
NMSquirrel suggested "Make you premise to fit the conclusion"
'tis called deceptive self justification.

Can you not see that?
Oh I understand from the rest of your subsequent explainer post that it was not intended to be read that way.
But hey, all we have to go on is what you write....

 

One of the ways I work at issues like this one is I pose tough gedankens "thought experiments" and try to assess accordingly:
Example:
a range of questions on a scenario:
We have a large room with only 4 chairs.
We have 30 people standing in the room.
They will be in the room for 8 hours and will have to work out who uses the chairs to rest upon. No lying or siting on the ground allowed.
Questions:

• How important is an empty chair to every one in the room?
• How does a chair with no one sitting on it act as a cause?
• How does a chair with someone sitting on it act as a cause?
• What is the difference between Cause and Inspire?
• How does the above when answered relate to the topic of freewill being an illusion of perception?

and others....

I find this process to be rather effective at nailing down the situation to a level that can be tackled better.

 

So why are you bothering to argue the point?
You have read my explanation.
You have understood it.
I am not going to be held at fault when you take lines in isolation and criticise them, when the rest of the post provides clear and adequate explanation.
'Tis called being petty.
Can you not see that?

 

I don't.
It does nothing to tackle any a priori assumptions you might hold about the nature of freewill.
The only result will be that you, rightly or wrongly, reinforce your preexisting views.

 

no.. its called being clear for the other readers who do not reply or post responses, but just read.
this written form of communication leaves misinterpretation as a distraction to the users, it is the responsibility of both parties involved in the conversation to comb out any chance of misinterpretation, to that end, any statements that would cause misinterpretation should be clarified, not assumed

one of my favorite lines with my daughter.. "just because you know what you are talking about, doesn't mean I do."
or.. "just because you don't know what I am talking about doesn't mean I don't."

we(I) were not trying to get your panties in a bunch.. we were just clearing a potential point of misinterpretation.

 

The "being petty" was referring to Quantum Quack's last post.
Not your initial comment, which was duly noted and clarification put forth.
To have him subsequently pick out a single line rather than read the explanation as a whole I consider to be petty.
And rather pointless on his part.

I accept that of you, and your posts highlighting the matter were fairly worded.
However I find Quantum Quack's subsequent posts on the matter to have ulterior motives.
Such as a desire to score points.
Although he will undoubtedly plead innocence.