Is Free will an illusion?

[bahman]

1) Free will is ability to freely decide in a given situation
2) A situation is defined as a set of options
3) We prioritize our options using our rationality
4) We pick up the best option among prioritized options, so called rational decision making
5) From (2), (3) and (4) we can deduce that free will is an illusion

[Conde Lucanor]

1) Free will is ability to freely decide in a given situation
2) A situation is defined as a set of options
3) We prioritize our options using our rationality
4) We pick up the best option among prioritized options, so called rational decision making
5) From (2), (3) and (4) we can deduce that free will is an illusion

#3 and #4 are clearly false: we have rationality, but we're mostly driven by emotions, so we sometimes even decide for the least rational option. Sometimes we move freely following a habit, without complete consciousness of the action being taken.

#2 is also questionable, as a "set of options" are not objective circumstances, external to the subject, they already imply an experience of the world organized in consciousness, in subjectivity, which makes up the situation.

[TSBU]

How many times are you going to post the same fucking thread?

[bahman]

#3 and #4 are clearly false: we have rationality, but we're mostly driven by emotions, so we sometimes even decide for the least rational option. Sometimes we move freely following a habit, without complete consciousness of the action being taken.

(3) and (4) are correct. Emotions play role on what options are.

#2 is also questionable, as a "set of options" are not objective circumstances, external to the subject, they already imply an experience of the world organized in consciousness, in subjectivity, which makes up the situation.

That is what I meant.

[bahman]

How many times are you going to post the same fucking thread?

I don't remember if I had such a thread.

[Hobbes' Choice]

1) Free will is ability to freely decide in a given situation
2) A situation is defined as a set of options
3) We prioritize our options using our rationality
4) We pick up the best option among prioritized options, so called rational decision making
5) From (2), (3) and (4) we can deduce that free will is an illusion

#3 and #4 are clearly false: we have rationality, but we're mostly driven by emotions, so we sometimes even decide for the least rational option. Sometimes we move freely following a habit, without complete consciousness of the action being taken.

#2 is also questionable, as a "set of options" are not objective circumstances, external to the subject, they already imply an experience of the world organized in consciousness, in subjectivity, which makes up the situation.

Yes we are at a deeper level compelled by basic drives, emotions are the expression of those drives. Rationality can direct those drives to divers needs and wants, which can be esoteric, and complex, but gut feelings have priority over the cold consideration or analysis of any situation. Emotions are what get us up in the morning and cause us to strive and want and need.
None of these reflections dilute the conclusion that free-will is an illusory concept, as with each decision we make whether emotionally or rationally, each choice is the result of antecedent conditions.
But as determined agents the exercise of our will is unknown and rarely predictable by others, and so it appears free at the point of observation.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How many times are you going to post the same fucking thread?

Until everyone agrees to the question of the thread title, or he changes his mind?

[bahman]

...but gut feelings have priority over the cold consideration or analysis of any situation...

How is this relevant to discussion of free will? Of course you ran after your emotions if you are in serious need. We normally don't decide in such a situation so the question of free will is irrelevant.

[Hobbes' Choice]

...but gut feelings have priority over the cold consideration or analysis of any situation...

How is this relevant to discussion of free will? Of course you ran after your emotions if you are in serious need. We normally don't decide in such a situation so the question of free will is irrelevant.

Are you kidding??
If we do not know what motivates us we have no way of assessing how the will is expressed.
You seem to live in some dream world where you think people only make decisions on matter with a cold hard rational analysis. This is so far from the truth it is possible to get.

[bahman]

...but gut feelings have priority over the cold consideration or analysis of any situation...

How is this relevant to discussion of free will? Of course you ran after your emotions if you are in serious need. We normally don't decide in such a situation so the question of free will is irrelevant.

Are you kidding??
If we do not know what motivates us we have no way of assessing how the will is expressed.
You seem to live in some dream world where you think people only make decisions on matter with a cold hard rational analysis. This is so far from the truth it is possible to get.

No, you got me wrong. You are either under emotion rush or in a situation that you want to make a decision based on circumstances. The relevance of free will of course is matter of second case.

[Conde Lucanor]

(3) and (4) are correct. Emotions play role on what options are.

Then emotions play a part in prioritizing and making a choice, therefore #3 and #4 are false. In any case, even if we accepted your statements as they are (relying on the computational theory of mind and the false concept of agency as rational choice), nothing in this syllogism lead us to the conclusion that free will is an illusion. To do that, your syllogism would have to show first that the selected choice was predetermined and unavoidable by the agent, but it only states that there are options to choose from.

[bahman]

Then emotions play a part in prioritizing and making a choice, therefore #3 and #4 are false.

Yes, I agree with you.

In any case, even if we accepted your statements as they are (relying on the computational theory of mind and the false concept of agency as rational choice), nothing in this syllogism lead us to the conclusion that free will is an illusion. To do that, your syllogism would have to show first that the selected choice was predetermined and unavoidable by the agent, but it only states that there are options to choose from.

So you didn't understand the syllogism. It is simple. We choose the best option if we have a set of prioritized options. So what is the use of free will?

[Conde Lucanor]

We choose the best option if we have a set of prioritized options. So what is the use of free will?

If options have been prioritized, then free will has been at work. And even more, options are not being given to the subject by an external agent, they are made options by the agent. From your post we can conclude that free will is pretty useful.

[bahman]

We choose the best option if we have a set of prioritized options. So what is the use of free will?

If options have been prioritized, then free will has been at work. And even more, options are not being given to the subject by an external agent, they are made options by the agent. From your post we can conclude that free will is pretty useful.

No, we use our intellects to prioritize options. There is nothing like using free will to prioritize options.

[Conde Lucanor]

No, we use our intellects to prioritize options.

You get yourself caught in a contradiction then:

Then emotions play a part in prioritizing and making a choice, therefore #3 and #4 are false.

Yes, I agree with you.

There is nothing like using free will to prioritize options.

How come? I thought that was what you were trying to demonstrate, but it just shows circular reasoning: "prioritizing options means no free will because no free will is involved in prioritizing".