What is the appeal of considering free will an illusion?

For you there maybe something repugnant about the notion. But repugnance at an idea is not evidence that it is incorrect.
Further, I do not consider it repugnant as a notion at all. That people might use the notion as an excuse to act immorally is concerning, but that is to misunderstand the notion and the actual implications of the notion.

Because there is no evidence that we are anything else.

Because there is no evidence that there is anything else... and this is actually fairly damn good. But perhaps if you can tell me what it was like for you before you were conceived, or what it is like for someone after they die - and provide supporting evidence - then perhaps you can lay claim to this not being "as good as it gets"?

Are you suggesting your "intuition" is correct? Surely this is just your subjective viewpoint? I do not find the notion at all repugnant - and I would suggest that you do only because you have not thought it through fully - or because you misunderstand the implications of the notion.

As Pandaemoni has suggested, you probably see "freewill is an illusion" as a means to become "immoral" - yet this is a fallacy. Whether or not free-will is an illusion or not can not change how we act... and we act as though we have free-will... therefore we can not argue that we acted "without free-will therefore can not be blamed" because we act in accordance with the illusion.
Therefore everything like "morals", "responsibility" etc remain in tact.

Like Glaucon, I am intrigued as to your meaning here... optimism in what, exactly? And what exactly should humanists be offering?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes having an autonomous "self" agent subroutine in the RTS does add a layer of complexity, but you are missing the point of it.

That self is "you" only an information processes, not a body, so it can decide (and does) to do what it wants - is not controlled by a physical body or the laws of physics. It is controlled by its ever more complex and evolving program code.

When it choses, that can be considered, free will in action.

Again I admit that it will deterministically make that choice as it is basically a program that has become quite complex with years of learning / interactions with the RTS's representation of the external world (and its memories of the results of prior choice it has made), but it is none the less still just a program /structured set of code. So when it chose to do "a" it is only an illusion it has that it could have chosen to do "b." Despite this the self agent is choosing to do what it wants / thinks is best for it. That can be, if you like, considered to be an exercise of the free will of that self agent.

If you omit this "self agent" then the body is just responding to stimuli and there is no "self." Not only are there no real choices being made, there is really not even a "you" to be making the choices. That you think otherwise if pure illusion. I.e. the body is just a complex biochemical machine, no different than your desk top computer, except vastly more complex. There is no agent making choices. Just a biochemical machine responding to stimuli.

BTW, The RTS was not "invented" to offer a possibility that free will could exist, be consistent with natural laws. - That just "fell out" as a consequence. The RTS is a way to understand perception which is much more consistent with the known facts of human perception and neurophysiology than the accepted POV that "perception emerges" following a chain of neural computational transforms of the sensor input signals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its not that im missin the pont... i jus disagree wit you'r clame that this autonomous "self" agent subroutine equates to free will when its behavior is deterministicaly controled.!!!

The lack of a body is irrelevent... an you mite as well call it magic to suggest that the autonomous "self" agent subroutine does not abide by laws of physics... ie... clearly... the "choises" it makes cant be considered free will because those "choises" are directly determined by its program.!!!

Thats no mor an exercise in free will than a calculator displayin "4" when it has been influenced by the keys 2 + 2 = bein depressed.!!!

It seems to me that you'r bes argument (the weakest argument ive ever seen) that RTS produces free will... is that you re-define cause an effect as bein free will... an amazinly... you do that after you admit that the "choises" it makes are caused by a deterministic program... an the real kicker... you also thoroughly esplane that the "choise" it made was only an illusion of choise.!!!

The autonomous "self" agent subroutine responds to... an acts on the stimuli it receives jus as our brane does... ie... ther are no free choises bein made by the autonomous "self" agent subroutine.!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The difference is that the calculator is not a self aware agent making a choice consistent with its' wishes. It has is no self to be choosing.

 

This is possible if one doesn't take one's own reasoning seriously ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Logic in and of itself does nothing. It all depends on the premises we choose to operate on with logic.

For example:
P1: An embryo or a foetus are parasites.
P2: We should strive to get rid of parasites.
But does it follow that every woman upon finding that she is pregnant, should have an abortion?

There is something about you, something that you do not question, that makes you care about the consequences of your actions.

I think you are actually an utilitarian/pragmatist, rather than a determinist.

 

Thats no mor an exercise in free will than a calculator displayin "4" when it has been influenced by the keys 2 + 2 = bein depressed.!!!

A calculator is not as complex as an autonomous "self" agent subroutine (or a human brane)... but my pont still stands... the autonomous "self" agent subroutine has no mor free will than a calculator... both are deterministicaly controled.!!!

I dont... i suspect that i coud be rong about everthang... how bout you... is ther any thang you are certan of.???

oK... an how do you relate that to the issue of this thred... or even the free will debate.???

What do you thank that is.???

Coud be... i have no idea what that is

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

One source of feelings of repugnance comes merely with the act of settling: when we settle for something, this is an act of underestimating ourselves - and that never feels good.

(Although for some time, we might feel a certain magnanimity about having made a sacrifice, and as long as this magnanimity is active, we don't feel repugnance. Just like for some time, a woman might feel it is right to stay with a man even though he has a drinking and aggressiveness problem, as she feels she should sacrifice herself, not be selfish and such.)

Actually, it's more a formality.
If we agree than we are not omniscient, and yet we refuse to explore other options even though we feel some unease about the one we have currently opted for, then this is by definition "settling", and settling comes with a discomfort.

We don't know that a better position is available; but if we agree that we are not omniscient and that as such, we have not explored all potential options, then it creates cognitive dissonance to stick with one option, and even more dissonance if sticking to this option causes us distress.

The very act of choosing to talk about one topic and not another is a consequence of a value judgment.

The people discussing a philosophical topic are still people; one does not cease to be a person (with all kinds of needs, interests and concerns) upon entering a philosophical discussion. These needs, interests and concerns underpin how one will take part in a philosophical discussion.

I mean that mundane, humanist solutions to the problem of free will are not as satisfactory as many of us would like.

Certainly, for some time, one might feel perfectly convinced that, say, existentialism is the way to go. But this conviction may fade over time. I hear that even Sartre himself renounced existentialism toward the end of his life, and that Camus was eventually making arrangements to get baptized.

A specific philosophy or worldview may seem perfectly coherent; but this may not yet be enough for it to serve as a viable guide in life.

 

Again, you are making an ad personam, which, depending on your intention, could be justified or not.
Unless you see me as trustworthy and even authoritative, there is no point in me answering your question one way or another.

You have to ask??

Then look it up!

 

I never said it was. See my reply to Glaucon.

Why do you settle for empiry as being the most relevant way to obtain relevant knowledge?

Note: You can't say "because there is no evidence of anything better" because that would be circular/self-referential.

Then how do you explain that many people are dissatisfied with materialistic notions?

If I were to base my notions of self-trust and relevance of my person on whether I am able to persuade anyone who opposes me, then I'd be really poorly off.

Mind you, I am not making the claim that I know that popular materialistic notions are "as good as it gets".
A simple argument from lack of human omniscience is enough to justify my incredulity toward materialistic notions.

It's not simply subjective or unique, because many people have this intuition (even Glaucon).

Secondly, my understanding is that you are currently in a phase where you are still charmed by the logic of your "free will is an illusion" explanation.
Simply seeing a nice logical sequence gives many people a sense of satisfaction; however, this is not yet enough for that sequence to serve as a viable guide in life.
Over time, the positive emotions that you feel toward your explanation may change, and then you might begin to view it differently and perhaps even see the inconsistencies in it.
We can see this phenomenon in the lives of many great scientists and philosophers: how they started off completely convinced of the correctness of an explanation, but years later they changed their views about it.

I don't see it that way.

Except for the underlying belief that it is all somehow a hoax, and all the world's a stage ...

 

Still, Sarkus's point is correct. All of the concepts we implicitly want to retain—responsibility, morality, etiquette, etc.—those all developed in this world. Whether we have free will or not, the concepts developed, apply and will continue to apply in the same way they always have. If we lack free will, then those concepts are likely just an emergent phenomenon (much as interactions among particles, temperature and radiation in the atmosphere lead to organized, spiral-shaped storms, without an independent agent "directing" that result), rather than a result of collected individual "choices".

It might be that the notion of "responsibility" attaches because we are free moral agents is wrong, but it would not be that "responsibility" could or should be disregarded.

The appeal of the denial of free will is not that it lets us argue for a significant change in the way we live, we'd just have to reevaluate a few of the explanations we have for things.

 

You asked me to expand upon what my autonomous self was and I did. Now I ask you to tell me what is a choice?

I assume that you think there is no such thing as a "choice" because, leaving quantum uncertanity aside (an even if not left aside that is chance, not choice), you clearly think there is no choice made by deterministic systems. All non-quantum physics is deterministic - so no such thing as choice exists, according to you. Is that correct?

As I don't expect you to tell what a choice is, I will try to define it:

First, and most important aspect of "making a choice," is the it must be made an autonomous agent. I.e. by a self aware agent which has some desires, wishes, and has ability to both perceive and move objects in the world so as to make that "choice."

Secondly that agent must have prior experiences or some learned (or inherited from DNA for humans) basis for projecting the consequence of its choice. I.e. you cannot make a choice in total ignorance of what you are choosing. Without any knowledge when selecting "a" vs. "b" you are acting randomly, not choosing, as I define choosing. Choosing must be based on the belief that one ("a" vs "b") is more likely to satisfy your desires.

NOTE: never have I said anything that rules out this agent with desires, and basis for expectations of consequences cannot be a deterministic program. So I think choice is possible, if such an agent with wishes, etc. exists (and clearly they do in humans). Probably in a few hundred years autonomous agents with hope, desires, wishes, fears, expectations, wants, etc. will exist in what we call machines also, but not one of these aspects of an autonomous choosing agent is present in your calculator.

While both the autonomous self I postulate to be part of the RTS being executed in parietal brain tissue is just a complex self-aware self-evolving deterministic program like the deterministic calculator, the autonomous self of the RTS has wishes, expectations, etc. so it ("you") can choose, but the calculator cannot.

You have only ASSERTED, NOT SHOWN that deterministic programs can not choose, WITHOUT EVER DEFINING what is this thing (choice) they cannot do.

Again I ask you to define "choice." Until you do, you can not make ANY assertions about it including the assertion that deterministic programs cannot make choices.

 

From a logical standpoint, those who support the idea that free will is an illusion, they are right, and I do not find any mistake.

Determinism and free will .

But what happens when the unconscious mind is inconsistent with the consciousness mind?
What is your choice?
How much confidence do you have in infallibility of your logic?Human logic is infallible?
It's important or negligible what the unconscious mind tells us?
All my instictele say to react.What purpose is to react so I choose?
Or my instincts cheating me?Whatever I choose, the result is predetermined?
In this case I chose to listen to my unconscious mind and say there is free will.
For this I used (improperly) the notion axiom, because I can not explain logically but taken as truth.

 

Because I have never learnt anything that is not based on evidence. Have you?

If you are talking materialist as in holding that everything is derived of matter, then I can not answer for them, as it is liking asking why some people like the colour red and others do not.
I can only guess that perhaps they are afraid of what they see as the implications - one of which would be the loss of a potentially emotionally-satisfying afterlife?

So you think that because humans are not omniscient that this is not "as good as it gets"?
You think omniscience is a practical possibility? :shrug:

Many people having the same subjective viewpoint does not make it true. Your point is thus irrelevant.

Is that what you think such a viewpoint is for? To serve as a viable guide?? You think we should only come up with conclusions that satisfy as a viable guide rather than build a guide around what we uncover?

Sure - this is what science is - as new evidence comes to light then theories and notions change.
But you are basing your dismissal of the notion on seemingly nothing but emotion. You can not (or at least have not) counter the logic. You can not counter any part of the notion other than to say that you find the notion repugnant. And from everything you have said this seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the implications of notion itself... as you (and others) equate something being an illusion to being non-existent... it is still there - just not what it is perceived to be.

As a fallacy? Well, I'm guessing if you saw it as a fallacy you wouldn't have said it, unless you were intending to lie.

Again displaying your lack of understanding of the notion and its implications. Your fear/repugnance of the idea stems from this lack of understanding.

Look at an optical illusion. Understand that it is an optical illusion and then tell your brain not to perceive the illusion. Simply put, you can't.
Now extend that to the entirety of your perception. You can't tell yourself not to perceive this notion of free-will that you have. But just as you can have an intellectual understanding of the optical illusion, one can have an understanding of the illusion of free-will, and yet still be unable to avoid being caught by it.

So even though people might consider free-will to be an illusion it will have zero impact on ethics, morals etc.
Only those that wish to use it fallaciously as an excuse would act that way - and the issue then would not be the concept itself but the fallacious interpretation and usage of that concept.

 

[To Billy T]

Im not gonna completely rehash the recent free will discusson (which is off topic here) jus for 1 person...

My reply to you'r post... is post #189... an its at the link below... (the recent free will discusson that spawned this thred).!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104231

i suggest you read that thred... i thank you will find it very interestin an it may well shed som light on you'r idea that a choise is still free even when its influenced.!!!

 

OK, I will post there after this post. I noted there that you still have not told what "choice" is, but you did tell one thing it is not ("influenced" selections).

I also there again asked you to clearly state that "choice" does not exist, if that is your POV, which it seems to be as you imply no deterministic system can make a choice. Non deterministic quantum mechanical systems clearly do not make choices but produce chance results.

Because there is nothing but these two mutually exclusive systems, I concluded that you think choice does not exist, but want you to clearly state that if my conclusion is correct.

 

No, Sarkus, it is you who does not understand.



Ah, like they say: Never underestimate the power of denial.

 

What is it that I don't understand? That you hold the notion of free-will being an illusion to be repugnant?... nope - I understand that.
That you have yet to offer anything other than an appeal to emotion to suggest how the notion is logically incorrect?... nope - I understand that.
That your arguments continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the implications of the notion other than to latch on to how some might use that notion?... nope - I understand that also.

Normally if you think one does not understand one tries to provide explanations / clarification. If you really do think I don't understand then please feel free to actually provide some explanations or clarifications... at least beyond the "It's repugnant blah blah blah."

I'm guessing you'll fall back to your childish one-line non-responses, though.

 

Im not sure what you mean by an unconscious mind... but if it did conflict wit the conscious mind... how woud you even know that its affectin the "choise" you'r tryin to make sinse its unconscious.???

Do you prefer unfounded beleif over logic in you'r decision makin.???

I dont have beleifs that thangs are *predestined... whenever posible... i put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor an that requires the use of logic.!!!

 

"May the Force Be With You!", do you know ?

Now seriously.
"These phenomena include unconscious feelings, unconscious or automatic skills, unnoticed perceptions, unconscious thoughts, unconscious habits and automatic reactions, complexes, hidden phobias and concealed desires."
"Observers throughout history have argued that there are influences on consciousness from other parts of the mind. These observers differ in the use of related terms, including: unconsciousness as a personal habit; being unaware and intuition."
Wikipedia,Unconscious mind

"Consciousness, in Freud's topographical view (which was his first of several psychological models of the mind), was a relatively thin perceptual aspect of the mind. The unconscious was considered by Freud throughout the evolution of his psychoanalytic theory a sentient force of will influenced by human drive and yet operating well below the perceptual conscious mind."
Wikipedia,Freud and the unconscious


Our logic depends very much, if not entirely, of the knowledge that we have acumlat,of the our conscious memory.
A man raised among animals, that had not contact with other people,
I have serious doubts about his logic.

The our unconscious mind is our ancestral memory is our knowledge, passed along the generations, our instincts.
I understand that when I posted: