The illusion of Free Will

[Eodnhoj7]

If free will is an illusion, and illusions decieve, how can one be decieved if no choice is present?

Why shouldn't one be decieved without a choice?

Btw. here's an interesting thread:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=24841

Apparently, we can chemically alter thoughts.

Now, this is perfect evidence against the anti-reductionist point of view.

I am simply saying that the illusion of free will necessitates the existence of free will.

[philosopher]

If free will is an illusion, and illusions decieve, how can one be decieved if no choice is present?

Why shouldn't one be decieved without a choice?

Btw. here's an interesting thread:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=24841

Apparently, we can chemically alter thoughts.

Now, this is perfect evidence against the anti-reductionist point of view.

I am simply saying that the illusion of free will necessitates the existence of free will.

Please explain.

[Immanuel Can]

I've read about the traditional objections to the Identity Theory. I must say, these objections are by far the worst bullshit I've ever read.
They are attempting all sorts of escape routes way from the reductionist view, such as Multiple Realizability Theory. They've all been refuted perfectly well by later reductionists.

Well, if mind can be "reduced" to brain (or neurons) then you can't talk to me. A "me" doesn't exist. Just talk to my brain cells, which are all pre-programmed not to be anything other than they already are.

In the end, you won't "convince" anybody, because "free will is an illusion." But maybe you'll feel better anyway -- though if you do, it will only be because you were causally predetermined to do so, not because you have achieved anything, and in any case, there's no actual "you" to have achieved it.

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

What's interesting (and pretty typical) is how philo argues for his position, wants to engage someone in a debate, when his position negates the possibility that minds can be changed (cuz 'mind' is just the impotent product of automated neuro-processes) and makes debate impossible (cuz all of us are just philo-zombies, mechanisms).

One might think philo was an actual person instead of a a toaster.

[Immanuel Can]

One might think philo was an actual person instead of a a toaster.

Good point. His reactions are...almost...what's the word I want...human.

Not possible. He tells me "science" has proved conclusively that we're all nothing but meat-bots.

[Nick_A]

Free Will is an illusion. So says all science.

It won't be logical either, if we did have free will.
What is free will? What constitutes "Free"? If you make a decision, you made some thoughts behind it. But thoughts are generated from something else. Like environment. And chemical and electrical signals in the brain.

So why do people keep saying we have free will, when we don't?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 08181.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -illusion/

Neither of the articles distinguish between animal man and conscious man. We live as animal man and as such what we call free will is just reactions to dominant desires. Free will is an attribute of conscious man. It exists as a potential for animal man. Free will is not a reaction to desire but rather what promotes conscious action independent of worldly desires.

[philosopher]

Well, if mind can be "reduced" to brain (or neurons) then you can't talk to me. A "me" doesn't exist. Just talk to my brain cells, which are all pre-programmed not to be anything other than they already are.

Brain cells are not pre-programmed as such. They are influenced by the environment and many other factors/elements, which I also believe I wrote earlier in this thread.

But even taking all these things into account (environment, drugs, food, genes etc.), since the universe is essentially deterministic, your actions are "decided" since the Big Bang. You can re-wind the entire history of the universe, and if you know all the factors and everything about the starting point, you can also know the end.

[philosopher]

Free Will is an illusion. So says all science.

It won't be logical either, if we did have free will.
What is free will? What constitutes "Free"? If you make a decision, you made some thoughts behind it. But thoughts are generated from something else. Like environment. And chemical and electrical signals in the brain.

So why do people keep saying we have free will, when we don't?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 08181.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -illusion/

Neither of the articles distinguish between animal man and conscious man. We live as animal man and as such what we call free will is just reactions to dominant desires. Free will is an attribute of conscious man. It exists as a potential for animal man. Free will is not a reaction to desire but rather what promotes conscious action independent of worldly desires.

Consciousness is nothing but neurons sending signals.
We are not more than the sum of our parts.

[philosopher]

There is something odd going on this thread...

Whenever I present sources for my claims, they are ignored. Nobody reads them.

Whenever I argue for my positions, I'm ridiculed, but without counter-arguments from those who ridicule me.

I miss some counter-arguments. Not one-liners stating "you're stupid!" (or similar).
I miss some who will actually take the time to read my sources and come up with some counter-arguments.'

For starters, one could explain to me how consciousness is generated if not by the neurons.
Is it the "soul"? What evidence do you have for the existence of a soul? Are you seriously going to claim that we have a soul and go to heaven?

[jayjacobus]

There is something odd going on this thread...

Whenever I present sources for my claims, they are ignored. Nobody reads them.

Whenever I argue for my positions, I'm ridiculed, but without counter-arguments from those who ridicule me.

I miss some counter-arguments. Not one-liners stating "you're stupid!" (or similar).
I miss some who will actually take the time to read my sources and come up with some counter-arguments.'

For starters, one could explain to me how consciousness is generated if not by the neurons.
Is it the "soul"? What evidence do you have for the existence of a soul? Are you seriously going to claim that we have a soul and go to heaven?

On one small section of one your sources the authorss write:

"Humans are convinced that they make conscious choices as they live their lives. But instead it may be that the brain just convinces itself that it made a free choice from the available options after the decision is made."

The brain doesn't make choices. Consciousnrss does. The brain is biomechanical. It doesn't convince.itself. The brain doesn't decide. Consciousness does.

So, writing about free will with regard to the biomechanical brain is missing the point.

[Immanuel Can]

...your actions are "decided" since the Big Bang.

It would have to be long before that. The BB is itself posited as an effect, not an ultimate cause. But when, by what, and how? You've no answers to that.

You can re-wind the entire history of the universe, and if you know all the factors and everything about the starting point, you can also know the end.

That's suppositional. You suppose a deterministic universe, then conclude as necessary what is merely contingent upon that. There's no reason to accept your supposition, though.

Here's the real problem, though: you are appealing to my free will to convince me that free will does not exist. Does that not obviously seem a lunatic project? It should.

If I have no free will, I cannot choose to believe you. If I can choose to believe you, I have free will.

You cannot win. Even you would have to admit that if free will is an illusion, then you're just gassing yourself on a moot point.

So let's not waste any more time -- mine or yours -- on a supposition so obviously absurd.

[henry quirk]

"Whenever I present sources for my claims, they are ignored. Nobody reads them."

According to you: we have no choice in the matter.

#

"Whenever I argue for my positions, I'm ridiculed, but without counter-arguments from those who ridicule me."

According to you: we have no choice in the matter.

You claim your actions are "decided" since the Big Bang. If this is the case: none of us has a choice.

You will offer up your viewpoint and whine about being ridiculed cuz that's the way it must be.

We will not participate in your thread in the way you want (not that you really want anything) cuz that's the way it must be.

Now: from my perspective as a free will, you -- another free will -- have given yourself over to insanity, and you willfully dismiss your own experience as a free will to do so.

So...

If you're right, then you're a toaster.

If I'm right, you're a crazy person.

Me: I don't debate toasters or crazy people.

And: if you're right, I have no choice in the matter.

[philosopher]

On one small section of one your sources the authorss write:

"Humans are convinced that they make conscious choices as they live their lives. But instead it may be that the brain just convinces itself that it made a free choice from the available options after the decision is made."

The brain doesn't make choices. Consciousnrss does. The brain is biomechanical. It doesn't convince.itself. The brain doesn't decide. Consciousness does.

So, writing about free will with regard to the biomechanical brain is missing the point.

Could you please explain the difference between the brain and consciousness?

Is not the consciousness generated by the brain?

[philosopher]

If I have no free will, I cannot choose to believe you. If I can choose to believe you, I have free will.

I can (maybe) influence the neurons in your brain to make a choice to believe me.

[philosopher]

"Whenever I present sources for my claims, they are ignored. Nobody reads them."

According to you: we have no choice in the matter.

#

"Whenever I argue for my positions, I'm ridiculed, but without counter-arguments from those who ridicule me."

According to you: we have no choice in the matter.

You claim your actions are "decided" since the Big Bang. If this is the case: none of us has a choice.

You will offer up your viewpoint and whine about being ridiculed cuz that's the way it must be.

We will not participate in your thread in the way you want (not that you really want anything) cuz that's the way it must be.

Now: from my perspective as a free will, you -- another free will -- have given yourself over to insanity, and you willfully dismiss your own experience as a free will to do so.

So...

If you're right, then you're a toaster.

If I'm right, you're a crazy person.

Me: I don't debate toasters or crazy people.

And: if you're right, I have no choice in the matter.

Nobody needs to be crazy because of disagreement.

You are entitled to your opinions, but I am not crazy just because I don't agree with you!