What is the appeal of considering free will an illusion?

[wynn]

This is related to other threads on free will, but it is a topic in its own right, I'll outline it with some questions:


What is the appeal of considering free will an illusion?

What do you gain by considering free will to be an illusion?

What is the benefit of considering free will to be an illusion?

Why is the traditional notion of "We have free will and we are reponsible for our actions" unappealing?

Because the fact is that the official legal system and many people do hold to that traditional notion of free will.
But some people do not. Why don't they?

 

[Sarkus]

Simply put - there is no appeal.
Such positions are not borne out of appeals to emotion but after an investigation of the evidence.
If the position held can be shown to be incorrect (e.g. evidence does not fit the position held), such people will/should adjust their position.


There is no gain, per se, in considering it an illusion - as this is just putting a label on one's understanding.

Benefit? None - it is just a following of the evidence. To think that there may be some benefit if the evidence goes one way or another is to put an unscientific bias in the assessment.

As for your last couple of questions - these are borne out of your misunderstanding of the term "illusion" - as you (and others) seem to think that it means "non-existent", "unimportant", "irrelevant" etc.
All it means is that what we think we observe is not what is really happening.

If you see an optical illusion, even though you might know it is an illusion you can not alter the way your brain interprets it.

The "illusion" of free-will is likewise one that our brain can not escape.

But while we can ignore the optical illusion and act with the knowledge that it is an illusion rather than with what our eyes tell us, free-will is not so easy to override in such a manner... and thus makes all these issues of ethical considerations, in my view, moot, due to the misunderstanding of what an illusion actually means.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is related to other threads on free will, but it is a topic in its own right, I'll outline it with some questions:


What is the appeal of considering free will an illusion?

What do you gain by considering free will to be an illusion?

What is the benefit of considering free will to be an illusion?

Why is the traditional notion of "We have free will and we are reponsible for our actions" unappealing?

Because the fact is that the official legal system and many people do hold to that traditional notion of free will.
But some people do not. Why don't they?

I think for a majority of such people, it is the issues that are a consequence of free will that confound them, .....so its, ironically, a diminished sense of responsibility that enables them to go about more comfortably making their decisions in life

 

[Emil]

How did you come to the conclusion that there is no free-will?
(That is Illusion or whatever)

An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. While illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most people.

What are a set of permises that you rely on?
and what is your Deductive reasoning?


I embarked on reverse.
I am also totally agree with the following:

I read just the other day an excellent quote. "We believe we have free will because we have no other choice."

I used Inductive reasoning

 

[SolusCado]

Simply put - there is no appeal.
Such positions are not borne out of appeals to emotion but after an investigation of the evidence.
If the position held can be shown to be incorrect (e.g. evidence does not fit the position held), such people will/should adjust their position.


There is no gain, per se, in considering it an illusion - as this is just putting a label on one's understanding.

Benefit? None - it is just a following of the evidence. To think that there may be some benefit if the evidence goes one way or another is to put an unscientific bias in the assessment.

As for your last couple of questions - these are borne out of your misunderstanding of the term "illusion" - as you (and others) seem to think that it means "non-existent", "unimportant", "irrelevant" etc.
All it means is that what we think we observe is not what is really happening.

If you see an optical illusion, even though you might know it is an illusion you can not alter the way your brain interprets it.

The "illusion" of free-will is likewise one that our brain can not escape.

But while we can ignore the optical illusion and act with the knowledge that it is an illusion rather than with what our eyes tell us, free-will is not so easy to override in such a manner... and thus makes all these issues of ethical considerations, in my view, moot, due to the misunderstanding of what an illusion actually means.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[hrebic]

I think that many of those who reject the notion of free will are motivated (would they say compelled?) to do so based on the idea that free will is incompatible with determinism. To the extent that one's decisions can be deconstructed into a series of biochemical or neurochemical processes, those decisions can be considered deterministic, therefore not free.

Personally I find no problem reconciling the notion of free will with determinism.

 

[M00se1989]

You gain a better conscious realization and knowledge of the world around you as well as a certain "indifference" to many trivial thoughts of others.

But the indifference still does not come without question. It just take a more creative manner of approach.

 

[jpappl]

Sarkus,

But while we can ignore the optical illusion and act with the knowledge that it is an illusion rather than with what our eyes tell us, free-will is not so easy to override in such a manner... and thus makes all these issues of ethical considerations, in my view, moot, due to the misunderstanding of what an illusion actually means.

or it's not an illusion at all.

 

[M00se1989]

You sound like a fan of the caste system Jpappl...

 

[jpappl]

You sound like a fan of the caste system Jpappl...

How so ?

 

[wynn]

Simply put - there is no appeal.
Such positions are not borne out of appeals to emotion but after an investigation of the evidence.
If the position held can be shown to be incorrect (e.g. evidence does not fit the position held), such people will/should adjust their position.

There has to be some benefit in doing so, otherwise, there is no point in doing it.

There is no gain, per se, in considering it an illusion - as this is just putting a label on one's understanding.

There is some gain in that.
Otherwise, you would not do it. Unless you presume people act irrationally and that that is perfectly allright.

Benefit? None - it is just a following of the evidence. To think that there may be some benefit if the evidence goes one way or another is to put an unscientific bias in the assessment.

To think therere is no benefit, gain or advantage in doing so, is to, in the cae of assuming free will to be an illusion, justify a stance with the stance itself. Ie., it's circular reasoning. "We accept that free will is an illusion because we claim free will is an illusion."

All it means is that what we think we observe is not what is really happening.

While that may be a truism, specifics like "free will is an illusion" do not follow from it.

The "illusion" of free-will is likewise one that our brain can not escape.

Then, to begin with, you cannot know you do not have free will, you cannot know anything, since it is this very brain of yours alone (which, per you, cannot escape illusion) that you are left with to know things.

But while we can ignore the optical illusion and act with the knowledge that it is an illusion rather than with what our eyes tell us, free-will is not so easy to override in such a manner... and thus makes all these issues of ethical considerations, in my view, moot, due to the misunderstanding of what an illusion actually means.

No, the way I see it, the problem is that you state a general truism, but then assume a specific something automatically follows from it.

Similarly as some Christian preachers say "One should build on a good foundation" (which is a truism nobody disagrees with), but then conclude "and therefore you should accept Jesus" (which is a specific that does not automatically follow from the afore-mentioned truism).

 

[wynn]

I think for a majority of such people, it is the issues that are a consequence of free will that confound them, .....so its, ironically, a diminished sense of responsibility that enables them to go about more comfortably making their decisions in life

I agree.

Another idea I have about this is that given that sometimes the notion of free will being an illusion has a somewhat scientific- and philosophically-sounding formulation and is common in certain intellectual circles, this suggests that it was developed due to a desire to come up with an unassailable position (because in some regards, the illusionist position is unassailable).
Having an unassailable position can feel mighty good.

(Although even dumb drunkards or miserable housewives entertain the notion that free will is an illusion, they do not wax philosophical or sciency about it, which makes them distinct from the intellectual types.)

 

[wynn]

I couldn't have put it better myself.

How do you, as a theist, subscribe to the notion that free will is an illusion?

Are you a Protestant?

 

[wynn]

or it's not an illusion at all.

Exactly!

 

[Sarkus]

There has to be some benefit in doing so, otherwise, there is no point in doing it.

I have an interest in trying to understand these things. So I set out and try to be rational, not knowing what my destination will be. There is no benefit in the destination but in the journey.

There is some gain in that.

Apologies - yes, there is a gain in putting a label on something as it enables me to categorise things. I find it makes thinking that much more efficient.

To think therere is no benefit, gain or advantage in doing so, is to, in the cae of assuming free will to be an illusion, justify a stance with the stance itself. Ie., it's circular reasoning. "We accept that free will is an illusion because we claim free will is an illusion."

No - my explaination for reaching the conclusion can be found in this thread. You have read that thread (I presume) and if so then you know your statement above to be false.

While that may be a truism, specifics like "free will is an illusion" do not follow from it.

If I think free-will is an illusion, and have explained why (see the thread linked above), then saying "free will is an illusion" does indeed follow from it.

Then, to begin with, you cannot know you do not have free will, you cannot know anything, since it is this very brain of yours alone (which, per you, cannot escape illusion) that you are left with to know things.

I do not claim to know - I claim to hold a position that I consider to be rational... a position that will change with evidence that is contrary to that position.
Secondly, just because one acts according to the illusion does not mean that one can not understand it to be an illusion.
Your eyes can see an optical illusion - and your eyes can not escape the illusion. But intellectually you can understand that it is an illusion.
Why can you not accept that if an illusion is all-pervasive in terms of influencing your actions it can still be understood intellectually to be an illusion?

No, the way I see it, the problem is that you state a general truism, but then assume a specific something automatically follows from it.

I have done no such thing.
This thread is discussing your questions of "the appeal of considering free-will an illusion" and so I am not going to regurgitate my reasoning for holding such a position. If you want that then go to the linked thread above.

 

[wynn]

Why can you not accept that if an illusion is all-pervasive in terms of influencing your actions it can still be understood intellectually to be an illusion?

Why can you not accept my non-acceptance of your stance?

 

[Sarkus]

Firstly, I thought that this was a discussion... so why resort to juvenile counter questions?

Secondly, I can accept your non-acceptance of my position or not, but that doesn't answer the question that I asked and that you quoted above... so let me rephrase:

What is it about someone having an intellectual understanding of something but not being able to act on that understanding that you seem to find unacceptable? Is it only in so far as this relates to free-will, or does it also cover such matters as phobias, for example?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Why is the traditional notion of "We have free will and we are reponsible for our actions" unappealing?

A couple reasons. One, an absense of free will absolves you of all responsibility for your actions. Do whatever you want, blame it on deterministic factors beyond your control.

The other reason is that some people basically define free will as some sort of magic and as we discover the neural mechanisms behind decision making they refuse to accept any mechanistic process as being "free".

 

[wynn]

Firstly, I thought that this was a discussion... so why resort to juvenile counter questions?

Secondly, I can accept your non-acceptance of my position or not, but that doesn't answer the question that I asked and that you quoted above... so let me rephrase:

What is it about someone having an intellectual understanding of something but not being able to act on that understanding that you seem to find unacceptable? Is it only in so far as this relates to free-will, or does it also cover such matters as phobias, for example?

I am just giving you your own medicine back.

And in a puff of logic, off it goes!

 

[Sarkus]

I am just giving you your own medicine back.

Excuse me?
Where have you asked a question that I have similarly dismissed with such a juvenile tactic?

If you have no intent on answering a reasonably civil question then you can do better than responding in such a pathetic way that erroneously tries to mimic my "medicine".
:shrug: