The Existence of Free Will

[Deleted member]

As the thread title says, this thread is about whether or not free will exists. I’m taking the position that it does not exist. This is often labeled as determinism, but what I think is different from determinism for reasons which I will explain later.

Defining Free Will

Free will is hard to define, so I’ll define it in the following way. If you were to have a previous decision repeated over and over again, with all “inputs” being the exact same, if free will exists that decision can potentially happen differently based on our own control. If free will does not exist then that decision will be the same every time.

What I will attempt to show

I will be attempting to show that not only is there no evidence for the existence of free will, but that free will itself is a logical impossibility. In addition, the impossibility of free will has no relation to whether or not there is a god (who also cannot possibly have free will), or whether or not there is a soul.

My explanation of thought processes

Any decision, no matter how small, is based on thoughts, whether conscious or sub-conscious. From this we can say that decisions depend solely on thoughts. This builds the first part of the chain,

Thoughts -> Decisions

-> = leads to

Now we need to find what it is that determines what we think. By inspection we can see that 2 things affect our thoughts and those 2 things are preceding thoughts, and senses. Again from this we can say that thoughts depend solely on preceding thoughts and

Preceding thoughts + senses -> thoughts -> decisions.

Preceding thoughts are based on “even more” preceding thoughts and senses, and our senses are based on our experiences of the external environment. Those experiences of the external environment are based on previous decisions. So now the chain looks like this.

Previous decisions leads to

external environment + preceding thoughts + senses leads to

preceding thoughts + senses leads to

thoughts leads to

decisions

Based on the above chain, the movement from previous decisions to decisions is an unbreakable chain. There may be individual steps made in between which I left out but the points is made. Previous thoughts, decisions and senses are what lead us to current thoughts decisions and senses. This does take into account the fact that the effects of previous thoughts on current thoughts is nearly instantaneous. Those previous thoughts lead to our current thoughts constantly.

Where free will fits into all of this

Free will refers to something which can cause the above process to cause different results, and that something comes in at this step.

Previous decisions leads to

external environment + preceding thoughts + senses leads to

preceding thoughts + senses leads to

thoughts + free will leads to

decisions

This is where free will is said to enter into the decision making process. The reason why we know that this won’t work goes back to the definition of free will. Free will is using our own control to change what the decision is. However, act of “free will” done under our own control is in itself, a decision. That decision is subject to the same thought process outlined above. This is why I believe that the concept of free will is a logical impossibility. The use of “free will” in order to make our decisions is simply the flow of thoughts, which as defined above is based on preceding thoughts and so on.

Extra Notes

Quantum indeterminacy states in short that it is possible to have inputs which can produce random outcomes. The classical argument against free will, or determinism, states that all events are predetermined, and that if there was some kind of being which could measure absolutely everything in the universe at once, that being could predict the future. Quantum indeterminacy is a rejection of that theory, stating that it is indeed possible for random events to occur. Many take this to be an argument for free will, as it is an argument against determinism. That is the reason why the position I take is not one of determinism, but also a rejection of the idea of free will.

Quantum indeterminacy does not actually relate at all to free will, but it instead to the claims that everything in the world is predetermined. I don’t have any particular feelings for or against quantum indeterminacy, as not even the scientists who study it assert it with certainty. However, even if it is true that the events of the universe are not predetermined, that does not mean that they can be influenced by free will. Instead quantum indeterminacy says that events of the world are changed by randomness, not free will.

I’ve written a lot already, but I’ll just quickly mention that the points I raised are not impacted by the existence of god or the existence of the soul. Whether or not a soul exists, our general thought process is the same, and the same applies for god. In fact, as I am asserting that free will itself is logically impossible, I am also stating that god (if god exists) does not have free will.

To Sum Up (and the TLDR I guess, although I don’t encourage that)

The exact process which I put up above is not a perfect model. It’s simply a reference to how our thought process generally works – with a continuous flow of thoughts from one stage to another. The idea that we can influence this chain of thoughts is logically impossible, as the decision to influence that chain of thoughts would have to be made based preceding thoughts.

So that’s my argument as to why I believe free will is a logical impossibility.

 

[jaswa]

Free will is hard to define, so I’ll define it in the following way. If you were to have a previous decision repeated over and over again, with all “inputs” being the exact same, if free will exists that decision can potentially happen differently based on our own control. If free will does not exist then that decision will be the same every time.

I just punched my friend for no reason at all. I then decided to not punch my other friend. To keep the situations the same - lets say I've known them for the same time, they both don't care about a casual punch and we're all in a vaccuum! I think we can deduce through observation (yiew science!) that we can decide differently in the same situation.

Haven't wrapped my head around Determinism yet, so I'll go with advocating free will rather than refuting determinism

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I just punched my friend for no reason at all. I then decided to not punch my other friend. To keep the situations the same - lets say I've known them for the same time, they both don't care about a casual punch and we're all in a vaccuum! I think we can deduce through observation (yiew science!) that we can decide differently in the same situation.

I don't believe the situations were exactly the same. Put simply, there were two different people involved, and you've already punched another person. These two factors would have probably influenced your actions. And did this really happen? Because if it's a hypothetical, it's not a very strong one.

 

[Dre89]

Good post Puu.

But if free will doesn't exist, why do we have a concept of "I" or "self" or "me-ness"?.

What would be the point of acknolwedging ourselves as individual minds, separate from other minds if we in fact are not? Such a perception being naturally ingrained in us would then constitute a deception, but what would there be to deceive if we have no free will? So basically, determinism necessitates deception, yet deception necessitates free will.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What would be the point of acknolwedging ourselves as individual minds, separate from other minds if we in fact are not? Such a perception being naturally ingrained in us would then constitute a deception, but what would there be to deceive if we have no free will? So basically, determinism necessitates deception, yet deception necessitates free will.

Actually I disagree with that. Not deceiving would change the inputs, so a different outcome would result. So, that's the point of deception if determinism exists.

 

[Deleted member]

I just punched my friend for no reason at all. I then decided to not punch my other friend. To keep the situations the same - lets say I've known them for the same time, they both don't care about a casual punch and we're all in a vaccuum! I think we can deduce through observation (yiew science!) that we can decide differently in the same situation.

Haven't wrapped my head around Determinism yet, so I'll go with advocating free will rather than refuting determinism

As Bob said, this wouldn't really be a proper example as the 2 situations would be very different, but that's not really the point.

Even if something were to happen differently (which I have my doubts that it would, and it would be impossible for us to actually test), it would likely be a result of quantum indeterminacy if anything.

Good post Puu.

But if free will doesn't exist, why do we have a concept of "I" or "self" or "me-ness"?.

What would be the point of acknolwedging ourselves as individual minds, separate from other minds if we in fact are not? Such a perception being naturally ingrained in us would then constitute a deception, but what would there be to deceive if we have no free will? So basically, determinism necessitates deception, yet deception necessitates free will.

Even if we do not have free will, we are still capable of thought and reasoning, separate from other minds. We still have thoughts and senses independent from others, I don't see what free will has to do with that.

 

[Dre89]

But we are naturally inclined to believe we are free. Hence a concept of "I" or "the self".

If we're determined, I don't understand why we perceive ourselves to be free. To incorrectly perceive ourselves as free would mean we are being deceived, but being deceived means we
must be free.

 

[rvkevin]

but being deceived means we must be free

Please explain. For example, when I look at an optical illusion, this one for example, the reason I see them as different colors is because of my biological makeup and/or experiences, which determines how I perceive objects. In a sense, I am being deceived because how I envision the picture is not how it actually is, but it in no way entails libertarian free will.

 

[Dre89]

In the case of an optical illusion, yes it is the will that is deceived, but is by means of perception. In my example, the will is deceived by means of the will.

 

[Deleted member]

But we are naturally inclined to believe we are free. Hence a concept of "I" or "the self".

If we're determined, I don't understand why we perceive ourselves to be free. To incorrectly perceive ourselves as free would mean we are being deceived,

Up until this point my only disagreement is semantic. I wouldn't use the word naturally and I wouldn't use the word deceive, but that's irrelevant, I know what you mean. In general we believe that we have free will, and I am making the claim that that general belief is an illusion/wrong.

but being deceived means we must be free.

This is where you lost me. How is it that being deceived implies that we are free?

 

[BOB SAGET!]

I remeber this debate! I pwned Dre. in it. The first post from puu looks familiar, like I saw it from a website when I was researching the topic.....

 

[Dre89]

What do you mean you pwned me lol.

I just didn't respond. Not saying that I won or anything, but pwned is drawing a long bow don't you think lol.

 

[Deleted member]

I skimmed that thread before I made this thread. Didn't think there was any conclusion. There was really only 1-2 posts made by either of you.

Would you happen to have a link to that site Bob?

 

[KrazyGlue]

I just punched my friend for no reason at all. I then decided to not punch my other friend. To keep the situations the same - lets say I've known them for the same time, they both don't care about a casual punch and we're all in a vaccuum! I think we can deduce through observation (yiew science!) that we can decide differently in the same situation.

But is any "decision" actually happening? Or is it just a chemical/biological reaction that makes you do the act, and then think you made a decision?

To incorrectly perceive ourselves as free would mean we are being deceived, but being deceived means we
must be free.

I disagree. A lack of free will does not mean you can't have incorrect thoughts.

I remeber this debate! I pwned Dre. in it.

Don't troll, dude.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

I was just joking......lol

 

[Dre89]

I disagree. A lack of free will does not mean you can't have incorrect thoughts.

But can you deceive something that isn't free? You have to remember, what's deceiving the being isn't an external agent, it's the being's will itself.

If the being's will is determined, then why is it producing thoughts which believe the will to be free?

If the will is not free, then what are these thoughts deceiving?

 

[Deleted member]

But can you deceive something that isn't free? You have to remember, what's deceiving the being isn't an external agent, it's the being's will itself.

If the being's will is determined, then why is it producing thoughts which believe the will to be free?

If the will is not free, then what are these thoughts deceiving?

By using the belief of free will as an example, you're being deceptive (unintentionally). The belief in free will is the same as any other thought, and is subject to the exact same process (the ones which I put in the OP). Furthermore, whether or not those beliefs are correct or incorrect are irrelevant to whether or not they are are result of free will.

In case you disagree with that, I'll put it in the form of a question before responding to the content itself.

Why should the belief in free will be different than the belief in anything else?

Why should the truth of a belief impact whether or not it is a result of free will?

Now to your actual point, there is nothing wrong with the will "deceiving" itself, the problem is the use of the word "deceive". While deceive by its strict definition does not imply intent, we usually use the word to imply intent, when really that it what we here are trying to determine, whether or not that will actually has an intent.

I'm contending that the will can and does deceive itself, and give itself accurate information. That's what I meant in the OP by a continuous flow of thoughts. The will is constantly feeding itself information without intention; it has a direct path which it follows from thought to thought.

To sum up, saying that the will deceives itself implies intention (although it shouldn't imply that), which is what we're actually trying to determine.

 

[Dre89]

By using the belief of free will as an example, you're being deceptive (unintentionally). The belief in free will is the same as any other thought, and is subject to the exact same process (the ones which I put in the OP). Furthermore, whether or not those beliefs are correct or incorrect are irrelevant to whether or not they are are result of free will.

In case you disagree with that, I'll put it in the form of a question before responding to the content itself.

Why should the belief in free will be different than the belief in anything else?

Why should the truth of a belief impact whether or not it is a result of free will?

Now to your actual point, there is nothing wrong with the will "deceiving" itself, the problem is the use of the word "deceive". While deceive by its strict definition does not imply intent, we usually use the word to imply intent, when really that it what we here are trying to determine, whether or not that will actually has an intent.

I'm contending that the will can and does deceive itself, and give itself accurate information. That's what I meant in the OP by a continuous flow of thoughts. The will is constantly feeding itself information without intention; it has a direct path which it follows from thought to thought.

To sum up, saying that the will deceives itself implies intention (although it shouldn't imply that), which is what we're actually trying to determine.

The difference between the belief in free will and any other thought is that if we don't have free will, such a thought is the will deceiving itself, which is impossible.

The point is that the fact we have an experience of "me-ness" or "the self", as distinct from the thoughts we have, suggests that we are free.

If we weren't free, then we wouldn't have a concept of the self, because there would be no distinction between the will and the thoughts we experience. But there is, which is where the deception arises from.

 

[Deleted member]

The difference between the belief in free will and any other thought is that if we don't have free will, such a thought is the will deceiving itself, which is impossible.

The will deceives itself all the time. When people are anorexic it deceives skinny people into believing that they are fat. When people do things which are wrong it often deceives itself into believing it did something right (rationalizations). In fact any time it is wrong it is deceiving itself. When somebody thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 it is the will deceiving itself. Again, "deceive" implies (wrongly) intent but in this case we're trying to determine whether there actually is intent.

The point is that the fact we have an experience of "me-ness" or "the self", as distinct from the thoughts we have, suggests that we are free.

If we weren't free, then we wouldn't have a concept of the self, because there would be no distinction between the will and the thoughts we experience. But there is, which is where the deception arises from.

You statement relies on there being a distinction between the will and our thoughts, which is what I was putting in the OP when I finished the "thought equation" from a free will perspective.

thoughts + free will leads to

decisions

So when you say there is a distinction between thoughts and will, you are already asserting that we have free will. I am saying that the will is nothing more than a manifestation of our thoughts, and that the connection is simply thoughts leads to decisions.

So in short, there is no actual distinction between our thoughts and our will, which was the basis behind the rest of what you said.

 

[jaswa]

Is it right for us to punish people for their actions via a judicial system etc., if they're just responding to chemical and biological reactions that they have no control over?

 

[Dre89]

Yes, so they are conditioned into good behaviour.

If anything, punishment becomes more crucial, because past experiences are more influential in decision making.

 

[Deleted member]

What Dre said.

With our current system of life, we have 4 reasons to punish people for bad things, and 4 reasons to reward people for good things.

Bad Things

1. As retribution for bad things that people do.
2. To remove people from society (in the case of prison) so they can't do those bad things again.
3. To set an example for others so that they will not do those bad things.
4. In order to hopefully rehabilitate the person who did the bad thing.

The reasons for rewards for the good things are the same but just the opposites. There might be more than 4, but the point is that only one of those reasons is actually about how you treat the individual him/herself (reason #1). Even without reason 1 there are still 3 very good reasons why we punish people for doing bad things and reward people for doing good things.

 

[jaswa]

It almost seems like you think we're living in 1984 or Equilibrium...

 

[KrazyGlue]

But can you deceive something that isn't free? You have to remember, what's deceiving the being isn't an external agent, it's the being's will itself.

If the being's will is determined, then why is it producing thoughts which believe the will to be free?

If the will is not free, then what are these thoughts deceiving?

The being's will doesn't have to always be right, even if it is determined. Otherwise we'd all be omniscient.

 

[AltF4]

I love Free Will debates!

Is the concept of Free Will even coherent without making an appeal to Dualism? I don't think it is. The problem with Free Will is that no matter how you try to define it, it violates causality. In fact, I'd say that's exactly what Free Will is: violating the most fundamental law of nature... just because.

 

[Deleted member]

I love Free Will debates!

Is the concept of Free Will even coherent without making an appeal to Dualism? I don't think it is. The problem with Free Will is that no matter how you try to define it, it violates causality. In fact, I'd say that's exactly what Free Will is: violating the most fundamental law of nature... just because.

I couldn't agree more with this. Free Will is simply a self contradictory concept, and it's so fun to discuss!

 

[asianaussie]

So fun to ridicule, more like :3

That's not true, the concept itself is defendable/defensible (which one o.o). I only enjoy ridiculing humanistic psychology, the branch of psychology that is defined by free will.

 

[Dre89]

Can someone explain how free will violates causality?

And how is dualism a necessary condition for free will?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Can someone explain how free will violates causality?

And how is dualism a necessary condition for free will?

Well, I'm not sure about the idea of free will. On one hand I'd like to believe I've got free will, and that I make my own fate. On the other, I don't see the fundamental difference between us and other objects when it comes to free will. The question is, why do we have free will and nothing else does? We're made of atoms, cells, our brains are made of neurons, and so are animal brains. Our brains make decisions, and so do computers, what's the difference?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Can someone explain how free will violates causality?

I never thought of it this way, but I think what Alt is saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Alt) is that there is no cause that results in the effect of you having a "will". So, in other words, what causes you to make decisions? One who does not believe in free will would argue that all decisions are caused by biochemical reactions in your body. So, what would your argument be?

 

[Dre89]

Well the will would be the cause of decisions.

To me, the fact we have a concept of the self seems to conflict with determinism.

If there was no free will, we would have no concept of the self, we would just be bodies doing actions. But we have a concept of the self distinct from our thoughts and actions.

The other factor is that we're structured to believe we're free. Now if we're not free, that would constitute as deception, but what is there to decieve if we're not free?


This isn't like an illusion, something external deceiving our thoughts. This is our thoughts deceiving our other thoughts, or themselves, which doesn't make sense.

The only thing they could possibly deceive is the self, but for that to occur, the self needs to exist distinct from the thoughts, yet if that were the case, we'd be free, because our thoughts are trying to deceive independent of them.

 

[AltF4]

You conveniently leave out a definition of what you mean by "The Will". By your usage, you seem to be indicating that it is something supernatural. That is, not an object made of matter. (Presumably a brain process.) Which is exactly my point. That you have to resort to dualism (Mind and body being separate distinct objects) to account for Free Will.

And even then, your answer is begging the question. If the cause of your bodily actions are "The Will", then what is causing "The Will" to choose what it does?


Which is why I give you two options:

A) You can say "The Will" decides on its own, which is to say that it makes effects with no causes. This violates causality.

B) You can say "The Will" follows a normal causal chain. In which case, it's not really much of a "Will" at all. It doesn't "decide" anything. This choice has no Free Will.

 

[Dre89]

You conveniently leave out a definition of what you mean by "The Will". By your usage, you seem to be indicating that it is something supernatural. That is, not an object made of matter. (Presumably a brain process.) Which is exactly my point. That you have to resort to dualism (Mind and body being separate distinct objects) to account for Free Will.

I think you misunderstand dualism. Not every theory which invokes the non-physical is dualist.

And even then, your answer is begging the question. If the cause of your bodily actions are "The Will", then what is causing "The Will" to choose what it does?

This itself is an assumption, that something prior to the will needs to cause the will to act in every instance that it does. Once the will is instantiated, it can cause multiple effects on its own. This is why some theists say God caused humans to cause themselves, it refers to their will causing their actions.

Which is why I give you two options:

A) You can say "The Will" decides on its own, which is to say that it makes effects with no causes. This violates causality.

An effect without a cause is something coming from nothing. The will itself is the cause. I don't understand why it needs something prior to itself to cause it, every time it wills an act.

By your logic, if we were to put a log into the fire, the log wouldn't catch fire unless something prior to the fire activated the fire's "fireness" and allowed the log to catch fire. That simply isn't the case, the fire does not need a prior cause to set objects alight, the fire itself functions as a cause.

 

[Deleted member]

I responded to this one before but I think the conversation following died out. I'll restate it here.

Well the will would be the cause of decisions.

To me, the fact we have a concept of the self seems to conflict with determinism.

If there was no free will, we would have no concept of the self, we would just be bodies doing actions. But we have a concept of the self distinct from our thoughts and actions.

There's a jump in the logic here which doesn't make sense. If we have a concept of the self, we have free will, that's a statement which would need to be proven.

Incidentally, as I said before, I am stating that there is no distinction between the "self" and our thoughts.

The other factor is that we're structured to believe we're free. Now if we're not free, that would constitute as deception, but what is there to decieve if we're not free?

This isn't like an illusion, something external deceiving our thoughts. This is our thoughts deceiving our other thoughts, or themselves, which doesn't make sense.

The only thing they could possibly deceive is the self, but for that to occur, the self needs to exist distinct from the thoughts, yet if that were the case, we'd be free, because our thoughts are trying to deceive independent of them.

I'll quote my response from before (this is where we left off, the topic got changed before).

... there is nothing wrong with the will "deceiving" itself, the problem is the use of the word "deceive". While deceive by its strict definition does not imply intent, we usually use the word to imply intent, when really that it what we here are trying to determine, whether or not that will actually has an intent.

I'm contending that the will can and does deceive itself, and give itself accurate information. That's what I meant in the OP by a continuous flow of thoughts. The will is constantly feeding itself information without intention; it has a direct path which it follows from thought to thought.

The will deceives itself all the time. When people are anorexic it deceives skinny people into believing that they are fat. When people do things which are wrong it often deceives itself into believing it did something right (rationalizations). In fact any time it is wrong it is deceiving itself. When somebody thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 it is the will deceiving itself. Again, "deceive" implies (wrongly) intent but in this case we're trying to determine whether there actually is intent.

 

[Dre89]

I don't think anyone here will contend that we have a concept of the self, in that I have a concept of "I-ness" or "me-ness".

I think the contention here is that the self is distinct from thoughts. Now if I can prove there is a self distinct from thoughts, then I think I've proven free will, because it would be the self being deceived by thoughts, but that would suggest that the self is free.

Determinism is pretty much just saying we have just have a stream of thoughts. We know that if we don't have free will, deception (intentional or not) must be occurring, but what is being deceived? My thoughts?

My thoughts are often deceived, but by external agents. That's the problem with determinism, thoughts are deceiving themselves. It's like saying that "I perceive that I cannot perceive".

The problem is we need to believe we're free to act. If you just sit there and wait to be "determined" to act, nothing will happen. Now I'm going to anticipate an this objection- "but you've just answered your own question and strengthened my argument, the reason why the will deceives itself is because it needs to be deceived to act, that doesn't prove free will at all".

But the problem is, if our will is just a stream of biologically/environmentally determined thoughts, we wouldn't need to believe we were free at all, we would just act. The fact we need to believe we're free to act suggests that the self is distinct from our thoughts.

 

[AltF4]

I think you misunderstand dualism. Not every theory which invokes the non-physical is dualist.

I also have taken philosophy 101. A theory that involves a non-physical mind is dualist. That's what dualism is. I don't understand the problem, here. You're suggesting the "existence" (whatever that means in this context) of a non-physical mind, which you've named "The Will". This is dualism.

This itself is an assumption, that something prior to the will needs to cause the will to act in every instance that it does. Once the will is instantiated, it can cause multiple effects on its own. This is why some theists say God caused humans to cause themselves, it refers to their will causing their actions.

Yes, EVERY effect needs its own distinct cause. That's what causality is. EVERY action taken by a human needs to have its own separate cause. Just like everything else in the universe. Every action has a causal chain which links all the way back to the big bang. (At which point a more interesting conversation starts.) You can't have a causal chain which just ends abruptly.

*I raise my right hand into the air*

What was the cause of this action? Well, my muscles contracted due to an electrical signal in my brain. But what caused the electrical signals? You say it was some non-physical "Will". Okay... is that where the causal chain ends? Nothing caused this "Will"? That's precisely what causality is here to prevent.

An effect without a cause is something coming from nothing.

Supernatural forces acting upon the world is something coming from nothing. To say that a supernatural entity is exerting a force upon physical matter is to add energy to it. Where does this energy come from? And if you have a sensible answer to this question which does not violate physical law, then in what sense can you call this "Will" non-physical?

If it has energy, it has mass. If it follows physical law, then it is just merely part of the universe like anything else. Nothing supernatural about it. To say that something is non-physical and effects the physical world is in violation of everything that we know about the universe. It violates locality, causality, conservation of energy, conservation of mass, all of Newton's laws, everything.


EDIT: In conclusion, if you subscribe to Dualism, (The idea that the mind is separate from the body) then you can at least make sense of the concept of Free Will. It is a coherent idea. It violates every known physical law, but you can at least describe it in sensible terms.

If you are not a dualist, then the concept of Free Will is not even coherent. The universe acts according to physical law, not whim.

 

[Dre89]

Dualism argues that there is the physical world, and a non-physical world of ideas. Physical things are only real insofar as they participate in these ideas.

Hylo-morphism, or Thomistic notions of the soul are examples of theories which invoke the non-physical without being dualist.

Dualism is just a specific type of theory which invokes the non-physical.

The chain isn't broken. The will itself, as in the actual ability to have free will, was caused, by birth, or God, or whatever. From there, once the will is in existence, it serves as the cause for multiple effects.

Also, don't confuse non-physical with divine. A non-physical agent, such as my mind, can still be finite (assuming no afterlife) in that it was instantiated into existence at one point (birth) and will end at one point (death).

And I don't see why this process requires physical energy. Decision-making is not a physical potency, it decides which physical potency, of the options humans have, will be applied. To will something is distinct from carrying out the act. For example, I could have my hands tied, and I will to raise my hand in the air, but I can't due to my comprimised physical state. Only the action itself requires energy.

For example, the first cause of the universe, be it God, or some naturalistic singularity, would not require prior energy to act, it would create the energy that everything acts upon.

Or even think about a robot. A robot's AI has a structure; it's programmed to have certain responses to every situation, but at the same time can also be programmed wit han element of randomness to it. So when it comes to situation X, given the structure of the AI the robot may chose between a number of responses.


The will has a structure. It is always subject to desires, it's intelligence is limited etc. The will, when confornted with situation X, can hose between a number of options.

 

[AltF4]

You are still dodging the question. Just what the heck is this "Will" thing that you keep talking about?

And sure. This "Will" is allowed to be the cause of something. But the chain is not allowed to end there. At time X, the "Will" acts upon the body, sure. But this action, the "Will" acting upon the body, is itself an effect. An effect which must have a cause.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm glad you brought up computer AI. (I'm a computer scientist, in case you've forgotten.) Computer AI is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. There is no such thing as randomness in computers. The term for randomized functions in computers is "PRNG", or Pseudo-random number generator. The "Pseudo" is important, since there is no way of making actual random numbers. You just can't. The best you can do is make something so complicated that it seems random for all practical purposes.

The same thing is true with computer AI. It all sounds so mysterious and amazing when you don't know how it works. But I can sit down and show you the algorithms actually in use, and it's all just smoke and mirrors. Clever mathematical constructs which improve themselves and appear to learn.

Why is it inconceivable that the human brain works the same way, but more advanced? The human brain is a series of complex processes which create the appearance of intelligence. Highly mysteriously, until you actually understand how it works. Then it's kind of a let-down as to how simple it all is.

 

[ballin4life]

My least favorite argument against free will is the "Free Will violates the laws of physics!" argument.

The reason for this is that I have just as much evidence (if not more) that free will exists as I do that the so called "laws" of physics are true. Both are just based on observations.

In other words, the so called laws of physics don't prove anything because they aren't necessarily true at all.

 

[KrazyGlue]

My least favorite argument against free will is the "Free Will violates the laws of physics!" argument.

The reason for this is that I have just as much evidence (if not more) that free will exists as I do that the so called "laws" of physics are true. Both are just based on observations.

In other words, the so called laws of physics don't prove anything because they aren't necessarily true at all.

While this is technically true, we assume that things can be proven for the sake of debating. Otherwise every debate would eventually degrade into whether anything actually exists. In other words, yes, the laws of physics MIGHT not be true, but perhaps humans don't even exist at all, which would make this debate useless. But we assume that humans do exist for the sake of debating.

While the laws of physics can't be COMPLETELY proven, we're 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure they're right. Which is about as close to proof as you can get. This is why the term "reasonable doubt" exists. Sure, we can just doubt the legitimacy of the foundational laws of physics, but that doubt is unreasonable, because there is virtually no chance that those laws are incorrect.

And no, you don't have the same amount of evidence that free will exists as the law of physics do. Unless you have billions of people for a period of thousands of years observing free will in action.