What is the appeal of considering free will an illusion?

[glaucon]

But mor to the topic of this thred:::

What is the appeal of considering free will an illusion?

Mod Note:

Thank you clueluss'.

It seems that, as of late, people have forgotten the topic at hand.
To be clear: what's being considered herein, is the appeal of the denial of free will.

Note how this does not mean that a discussion concerning the ontological status of free will is required.

 

[wynn]

Sure. Whether or not I care shouldn't really affect you trying to resolve whatever issues you clearly have.

Ah. A proud man cannot be defeated by another's pride.

 

[wynn]

Said the guy who evaded my queston... eh

Said the guy who evaded my question ...

:bugeye:

 

[LunarSun]

Thanks for the warm welcome Clue!
In my personal opinion, for general society to think of free will as an illusion would occur due to people not wanting to feel like they are responsible for their own lives. Having free will means, everything that happens to you in life, is due to choices that YOU made. And as many of us know, it is human nature to try and shirk responsibility for choices we've made and put it on someone or something else. This is shown in how people in distress, or those who feel they made a wrong decision will ante it up to Fate or turn to religion, instead of focusing on the person they see in the mirror. The fact of people trying to accepting free will as an illusion is simply people trying to make themselves feel better morally and ethically, if they made a questionable decision.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Does there really have to be an attraction? If I live beside a volcano, there is no attraction to believing that some day it will erupt, but it is a needed thought.

If free will exists, then the chaotic individualist will be happy, in control of himself.

If it does not, then the ordered planner will be happy, as everything is already planned, they can, well, plan for it.

I think LunarSun is right, though. If you WANT there to be no free will, then moral end ethical excuses are a good example of why you'd want it.

 

[historicfuture]

there is no free will.

It's a fallacy. Physics is god in this universe, and free will defies the laws of physics. So if you believe in free will, you dismiss all that is rational and sane in our knowledge base.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Having free will means, everything that happens to you in life, is due to choices that YOU made.

What about diseases which are inherited... or a child who starves to death dew to livin in an area which has little food.???

 

[LunarSun]

@HistoricFuture: Physics holds nothing to do with the idea of choice. Choice is a matter all in it's own. I agree with the factor that physics dictates most of our lives, but there are also situations in which physics hold no value, where we must make a choice.

@Clue: Where it is true disease and birth defects are genetic, and we personally do not have a choice, the idea of choice can then be tied into the factor that all lives our connected. If one person makes a decision to do something, it then affects the next person, who has a specific experience to make an impact on a choice which will hold an affect on the next person, and the chain goes on. So in a sense, it truly is: "A small world after all." Though I do understand where you're coming from, and see some of the flaws in my previous statement. My point was more of a philosophical idea, than that of a flawless fact.

 

[Sarkus]

@HistoricFuture: Physics holds nothing to do with the idea of choice. Choice is a matter all in it's own. I agree with the factor that physics dictates most of our lives, but there are also situations in which physics hold no value, where we must make a choice.

So you think that each time we make a "choice" that somehow physics does not apply, that the laws of our universe are somehow bypassed?

How do you envisage this law-breaking to occur?
Is such non-applicability only found with "choice" or are there other actions / things that equally defy the universal laws?

 

[scifes]

running away from responsibility.
taking off the weights of "making" choices.

 

[LunarSun]

So you think that each time we make a "choice" that somehow physics does not apply, that the laws of our universe are somehow bypassed?

How do you envisage this law-breaking to occur?
Is such non-applicability only found with "choice" or are there other actions / things that equally defy the universal laws?

That is not what I was referring to. The idea I was imposing was thus: Yes, the laws of physics are always enacted, there's no denying that. There are however, cases where the laws of physics do not directly act upon the situation. If I were to make a decision whether I should drive to the mall, or the movies, I am making a choice. The laws of physics however, are not directly acting upon the choice I make. So no, I am not saying we can break the laws of physics, but instead, the laws of physics do not always have a direct correlation or relevance to the choices that we make.

 

[Sarkus]

That is not what I was referring to. The idea I was imposing was thus: Yes, the laws of physics are always enacted, there's no denying that. There are however, cases where the laws of physics do not directly act upon the situation. If I were to make a decision whether I should drive to the mall, or the movies, I am making a choice. The laws of physics however, are not directly acting upon the choice I make. So no, I am not saying we can break the laws of physics, but instead, the laws of physics do not always have a direct correlation or relevance to the choices that we make.

If the laws of physics are "always enacted" - how then do you propose that they "are not directly acting upon the choice you make"?
Are choices somehow outside the laws of physics? Do they somehow fit on top of those laws?
Surely either everything abides by the laws of physics - or they don't.

When you decide to drive to the mall or the movies - surely every iota, every moment of activity that goes on inside your brain, every influence that has affected you up to the point of you making the choice, has done so in accordance with the physical laws of this universe. Even your act of choosing is in accordance with the physical laws.
If it is not then what you are saying is that there are things that do not follow those laws. And yet you have also stated that "the laws of physics are always enacted". You can not have it both ways.

Perhaps the issue is in what you perceive to be factors in choices? Every single factor you name will have been governed by and act in accordance with the physical laws. And even your act of choosing will do so.
Unless, of course, you can name something that does not follow those laws? And then it will not be that they act outside the laws, but merely that our understanding of those laws is lacking.

 

[wynn]

there is no free will.

It's a fallacy. Physics is god in this universe, and free will defies the laws of physics. So if you believe in free will, you dismiss all that is rational and sane in our knowledge base.

Oh well. Among all these rationalists , one indeed has to be crazy to still think that free will exists.

 

[Emil]

What is the logical choice between "Free will exist" and "Free will is an illusion"?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...as many of us know, it is human nature to try and shirk responsibility for choices we've made and put it on someone or something else.

Have you ever shirked responsibility.???

running away from responsibility.
taking off the weights of "making" choices.

That free will is an illusion has been my positon for about 40 years... an i dont recall ever runnin from responsibility... however... i dont feel that makin "choises" as a burdon... do you.???

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Where it is true disease and birth defects are genetic, and we personally do not have a choice...

Sinse my reply to you'r post is mosly about "free-will"... its at the link below which is a thred about free will.!!!

My reply is post #185 at the link below.!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2644034#post2644034

What is the logical choice between "Free will exist" and "Free will is an illusion"?

Thats also discussed at the link above.!!!

 

[Emil]

What you think?
Your dreams during a sleep are determined by a causal chain from the real world?
If we have the same reality we will have the same dreams?

 

[Sarkus]

What you think?
Your dreams during a sleep are determined by a causal chain from the real world?

Yes.

If we have the same reality we will have the same dreams?

No.... no two people have the same reality... first you have genetic differences, and even if you take identical twins with the same genetics, they would have different viewpoints on the world from birth: they would see slightly different perspectives, hear slightly different things, even if they stood next to each other all their life.
Secondly, there is randomness involved at the micro level - which means that even with the same starting conditions you won't necessarily end up with the same output.

 

[Emil]

Yes.
No.... no two people have the same reality... first you have genetic differences, and even if you take identical twins with the same genetics, they would have different viewpoints on the world from birth: they would see slightly different perspectives, hear slightly different things, even if they stood next to each other all their life.
Secondly, there is randomness involved at the micro level - which means that even with the same starting conditions you won't necessarily end up with the same output.

Maybe I expressed myself wrong.
What I dreamed had a cause.With this I agree.
But what I will dream is already determined? With this I no longer agree.
So I think that free will is not an illusion.

 

[Billy T]

The appeal of considering free will an illusion is that that POV is consistent with the facts we know, such as every act or thought is the result of nerves discharging and their discharges obey the laws of physic and chemistry.

For example, the transit of a neuro-transmitter from the point of its release on the pre-synaptic neuron to the activation site on the post-synaptic neuron is controlled by the laws of diffusion for uncharged neuro-transmitters, which most are. If it were charged, then the electric field force laws would help control its motion across the synaptic "clef."


I have suggested that genuine free will is not necessarily inconsistent with the natural laws that control the firing of every nerve in your body. See it at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66