These arguments against free will tend to mirror the arguments for atheism. In discussions on deism or theism, I fully agree we should not believe in the existence of something for which we have no evidence, like gods or fairies. But there is a huge difference between this argument and those.

While as a child I went to church and was told God created everything, it was only my ignorance and misguided trust in adults which lead me to believe it. Not surprisingly, it didn't take long for me to begin questioning, and eventually to discard the notion altogether. But regarding free will, quite the opposite is true. It took no indoctrination whatsoever for me to believe I am responsible for my own actions. And no amount of rational argument so far has done much to sway my belief that I consciously choose to make the decisions which are important to me.

I've heard many atheist, including Richard Dawkins and Laurence Krauss claim that if god revealed himself, if he rearranged the stars to spell out "I am here," they would believe. So if everyone saw god, we wouldn't automatically assume it was an illusion even as incoherent as the notion may seem. But many claim free will (in the sense that we are responsible for our decisions) is simply an illusion. That it must be so because we cannot find a coherent reason how it can exist.

This is an interesting suggestion, which I believe has merit. However, due to the strong experiential sense I have that I control my actions, a sense everyone I know shares, which is so real there is probably nothing in this world more convincing, it seems to me the focus of the argument should not be on proving free will exists, but instead on proving it is an illusion.

maybe stars already spell out 'I am here' , just not in english. The idea of something omnipresent communicating is a bit bizzaree anyway, it would be just talking to itself.

Probably.

Most of us are using exactly the same definition. Occasionally a compatibilist stops by to muddy the waters.

The particular causes are interesting, but don't change the definition.

No. I couldn't hold you ultimately responsible for anything that leads up to you making a decision, so holding you responsible for the decision would be incorrect. If I were a compatibilist I could.

If you knew with certainty that someone committed a crime (for instance, killing someone you cared for) because they are an *******, and that they are an ******* (to simplify things) purely because of an event in their past (again, oversimplification), would you hold them responsible?

There might be a mirror elsewhere, but not in my arguments.

I am making a positive claim that cause and effect are how people work. I am not simply stating that there is no evidence.

I wouldn't call it an illusion. A misinterpretation would be more correct.

What you sense is that you are autonomous. Except for in instances where a gun is at your head, you are free from the outside world forcing your hand. That is completely true.

Your actions involve all of the things we have been discussing (thoughts, wants, etc.). Completely true.

None of this has any bearing on cause and effect at all. Your internal workings either follow cause and effect or they don't.

If they don't, what is there?

Randomness? That is a definite possibility, but doesn't meet the definition of "free" except in statistics.

Uncaused thoughts? That seems to be worse than insanity.

Even the way people describe themselves shows an implicit understanding that cause and effect is the rule. "I had a chicken sandwich because I wanted something a little healthier than normal today and am tired of salads."

I still think it is very similar. Just because you are posing an explanation - a good and rational one - yet one with it's own holes, doesn't change the fact that the lack of what is viewed as a "coherent argument" in support of free will is the main driving force for the determinist's argument against it.

We could look at another similar example. For centuries, many people could not decide on the true nature of space. Most believed it couldn't exist, until Newton "proved" it was real, only to be "disproven" by Leibniz and Mach, only to have the whole notion redefined by Einstein in the form of space-time. Now we understand absolute space and absolute time do not exist, but together they define one another. Perhaps someday free will and even consciousness itself will be redefined in similar fashion.

Call it what you want, but many on your side of the fence refer to the notion of free will as an illusion. And if what you claim is absolutely true, I believe I am under a very strong illusion of something that isn't.

Sure, and I also feel I am often in control of my actions and decisions. I'll even go a few steps further than you and list other instances where I am not in control: when I'm asleep, when I'm distracted, when I'm surprised, when I'm simply not paying attention. None of those states distort my feeling of responsibility when I am focused. Then, I have a strong sense of control over my actions. Don't you?


Your argument is compelling, and many smart people agree with it. There are also many smart people who find it unsatisfactory in describing the full picture. I believe it is missing something. I don't know where to begin, but I'd probably start somewhere along the lines of our ability to focus our mind to solve problems, the process of decision making itself. It's truly a fascinating argument. No wonder it's raged on for so long!

Let me ask you a question. Do you think you fully believe your stance? Do you ever find yourself doubting ... "misinterpreting" your sense of responsibility for your actions, thinking you are actually in control? If so, how often?

I think it is more that it is a direct either-or sort of thing. No big deal.

If you are trying to state that some new idea (or evidence) could come along and change my mind, I could hardly disagree.

You are being a little to harsh on people (both you and I included). An illusion is seeing something that isn't there. A misinterpretation is just a misunderstanding of something that is there.

Of course. No one else is controlling them, so I must be controlling them. I just notice that my wants and thoughts are caused by who I am at that very moment.

I can hardly be blamed for who I am, right?

It is hardly a theory of everything.

There are whole teams of researchers working on the nature of consciousness, decision making, awareness, etc.

They are slowly shrinking the box in which the idea of free will can reside. No worries though! Music theory doesn't reduce the impact of any of the Brandenburg Concertos, right? As a kindness, I offer this pleasant diversion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49IOK...eature=related

I'm always waiting for a better explanation of the data. Even more, I find enjoyment in new data. I rarely worry about such things as my ideas are even more fleeting than my life is. As an atheist, I'd be the one who upon meeting a god would say "Heh. Didn't see that coming. How exciting!"

You admit to controlling your own actions, but in the same breath claim you cannot be blamed for who you are. That is a bit incoherent to me. It seems like it should be one or the other, not both.

I think I am to blame(or credit) for who I am. There are obvious things out of my control, and so I don't get too hard on myself, or too high and mighty, but there are parts I am very comfortable taking credit/blame for. To do otherwise would be a cop out, imo.

Thanks for the link... I love Bach! You never really did answer my question though

No. And neither would you if you actually thought about it some more. I'll explain.

If you're not asleep, how are you in any position to say you are in control of whether or not you feel sleepy? If the thought enters your mind that you'd love a nap a lot more than anything else at that moment, you will sleep. Just because it doesn't happen often, you seem to think you're in control.

When you're focused, how are you in any position to say that you chose to be focused? What if your body suddenly stops doing something you were used to it doing automatically and you are suddenly erally disrupted. Let's say you couldn't digest food and became terribly constipated all day long. Clearly this would cause you to not be focused. Did you "choose" to not be focused? No. The constipation example is extreme to make my point clear, but everything is like that to a degree. You never choose anything, it just seems like you can to a greater degree when your basic needs are met. Still, this is an illusion. Your choices are always caused by something you have no control over.

Sitting in silence and paying attention to the stream of consciousness is another way to break the illusion of free will. If you try this, you'll notice that you simply can't control which thoughts arise.

Another way is to name a United States president, or to name a color, or say a number. Why did you choose whichever one you chose in particular? Because it popped into your head, the same way all your thoughts do. If you choose to contemplate between two or more options, the entire process consists of thoughts popping into your head. You control none of them.

This is SMP, so we expect "I believe x" statements to be followed by arguments.

I've heard this argument before and I think it is hogwash! I'll admit I cannot always control which thoughts come to mind, but why should I be able to in order to satisfy my ability to control my actions? If I am asked to think of a US president, I would simply reach into a virtual hat in my mind (or perhaps a filing cabinet) and pick one out. It's a random request which ought to generate a random response.

The first president that pops to mind could be the most popular one in my mind (Lincoln), or perhaps it would be the most recent one (Obama). I don't have a problem with the idea that I can't perfectly control which thoughts arise out of the muck, as long as I have the ability to guide which thoughts I need when I attempt to retrieve them. For example, when asked for a random US president, I did not think "Scooby Doo." I picked Lincoln. If I try to think of the youngest president I think of Kennedy, not "Hitler."

I don't think it is necessary to be able to control every aspect of your mind in order to have control over what matters. In fact, it would probably be mentally exhausting. I'm glad many processes are delegated to the unconscious, or else I'd never keep up!

I meant it more as I am the watch has control over my second hand when no one is fiddling aroung with the knobs.

Obviously people are a bit more self-repairing and have more interesting things inside them than a watch does.

Consider the possibility that your feelings about credit/blame are motivational and that such things might be built-in necessary for survival stuff rather than correct assertation of truth. No worries though. The music still is there.

I did answer. Quite clearly, I think. To make it plain, I doubt. And Bach is awesome. I have no doubt about that at all.

But your concession that you did think of presidents and not cartoon characters upon my suggestion supports my argument. Even if you didn't randomly pick the first one that popped into your head, you'd have no greater degree of free will than if you did. The processes not delegated to the unconscious are no more free than the ones that are. Hence the illusion.

Let's say you decide to "guide which thoughts you need when you attempt to retrieve them," as you put it. Well, what caused you to do that? In this case, my suggestion to name a president did. Even when you deliberate and use the least automatic brain processes, you are no more free to "choose" a president than you are to "choose" to have a heart attack. And you're no more responsible for your choices than you are responsible for having been born.

It's an interesting theory. I wonder how we could test it.

Fair enough. I don't mean it as a challenge. I just want to know how it feels to believe what you do. If at some point you are able to completely discard the illusion or "misinterpretation" of control.

I assume it would have been really hard for people who first learned the earth was turning and rotating around the sun, instead of what they had been raised believing that everything rotated around the earth.

So your claim is that because you can point out some things that are done involuntarily, that somehow proves everything is done involuntarily? It does not follow. And just because everything has a cause, does not mean that I cannot claim responsibility for some of those causes. I believe when I reason my way through an argument or a decision I am responsible for guiding and prioritizing my thoughts, delegating, reorganizing, and judging the conclusions, and focusing the process into a coherent and rational outcome. (By the way, I'm also responsible when I do it incorrectly, which you might attempt to point out). We hit an impasse when you declare I can take no responsibility for that process.

You can claim responsibility for those causes, but you'd be wrong in doing so, because there's an infinite regress for which you are simply not responsible. You're only responsible for those causes in the way that a tornado is "responsible" or a gorilla is "responsible." This is not what most people mean when they use the word "responsible." They mean "could have freely chosen to do otherwise." This belief is disastrously incorrect.

And how could you possibly do something voluntarily? I mean actually think about it. What does that even mean?

To even have the opportunity to "voluntarily" make a choice, you have to be in a position such that your mind was caused to consciously deliberate. Any time you're in a position to voluntarily make a choice, there were causes that resulted in you being in that position. It's possible that you could live your entire life and never have that option. If there was a handgun held to your head at all times, you'd never "voluntarily" make a choice. And yet, this is precisely what we're talking about! The handgun is your experience, which dictates your thoughts, which dictate your choices. The most "voluntary" and the most "involuntary" of choices are all a part of the same stream of thinking. You're more aware of the voluntary ones than the involuntary ones. You control neither at all though.

There's the rub. If we take that argument into an infinite regress as you would like, where do we stop? The big bang? Multiverses? What is before that? That solution really sheds no more light on the issue at all. The answer simply becomes undefined. I suppose we could argue away just about notion we wanted in that fashion.

Hey, it may be right though.

clfst17,

I'll ask you the same question as Brian. Do you fully believe this notion you are now arguing at all times? Do you sometimes have trouble squaring it with the "illusion" of responsibility? If so, how often? This is not a challenge.

Well, where we stop isn't important in my mind. What's important to me is the implications it has on our experience as humans and society at large, which are undeniably profound. The realization that I am not the author of my actions completely changed and continues to change my perspective on life. Most people don't like this idea, and I didn't at first either. But one can't really unlearn the truth. And in my experience, life is much richer when I embrace truth as opposed to fighting it. Still, lots of people will fight for free will and for religion for many years to come. And we will all likely suffer for it.

No. But I don't fully believe anything. I mean I could change my mind that Issac Newton really existed if something caused me to change my beliefs. I absolutely have trouble squaring it with the illusion of responsibility. The illusion seems to be hardwired into us. But I'm getting better at it and gradually getting to the point where I just know it in the same way that I know the earth is not flat even though it seems that way. Do I truly know these things? No. I am not 100% certain the earth is not flat. But I can't help but believe it given the type of evidence that persuades me and everything I've been exposed to as of this moment.

That seems reasonable. But I would caution getting as comfortable with it as the notion the earth is round. We have a lot of scientific evidence to support that fact. We have very little scientific evidence supporting your claim, or any claim for that matter. And there are still many philosophers who disagree.

Would you consider yourself to be much calmer and less worried about the future now that you subscribe to your belief? Does the notion that you have no control give you an inner peace? I would think it would for me.

(just brainstorming here, so don't take offense)

Why should it be? I suspect it isn't really an argument. How is this infinite regression different from reducing life to it's basic elements and then claiming life cannot exist?

I am made of cells, which are made of proteins, which are made of organic molecules, which are not alive. Therefore, I cannot be alive. But I am obviously alive. The sum of all those organic molecules put together with the right organization becomes a living being which might just be me.

So, why can I not correctly claim responsibility for an organization of processes and thoughts, which by themselves may have been out of my control, but when I organize them in a certain way become my own?

Point is, we can get something from nothing. Some things can and are greater than the sum of their individual parts.

At first it did a lot, and I went through a phase that was basically nihilistic. I think this phase is probably somewhat common and I would guess that it frightens many people back into "free will mode" because their lives get a lot worse in the short-term and they give up control and don't care about negative consequences because nothing seems to matter anymore (this happened to me and was scary). This, I suppose, is a necessary phase for some people and, what can I say, it sucked. But in my case, I just couldn't go back because my life was such that stuff kept happening that I knew I couldn't control and it would've been more frustrating to pretend I had free will and blame and hate myself for stuff that was out of my control (despite what I believed was a growing body of solid evidence to the contrary) than to be a hard ass and take ownership over all of my life's circumstances, if that makes any sense. I would've gone crazy if I kept making myself believe in free will, just like I would go crazy if I try to make myself believe in ghosts.

You can claim responsibility for whatever you want. You can believe whatever you want. People do it all the time. That doesn't mean the belief accurately depicts reality though. And I think it becomes dangerous in the same way that other inaccurate beliefs become dangerous; that is, you make choices that are not in your best interest (as in conducive to your well-being, health, happiness, etc. and the well-being of others) because you believe you are a conscious self separate from the laws of the universe. You might give yourself too much credit to make free choices. You might make choices based on your ego or your pride at the expense of your well-being. It takes tremendous humility to give up the free will illusion, and this I think is another turn-off to a lot of people.

Clearly my experience doesn't have to correlate to reality. I can experience hallucinations and all sorts of crap. That doesn't mean, however, that my happiness or suffering are not real. And most importantly, it doesn't mean my happiness or suffering do not matter. They are, in fact, the only things that could ever possibly matter to me.

In my mind, this is the "promised land" on the other side of nihilism. Living as if nothing matters is simply living a lie, because our experiences matter to us. They are all we have. Even if we're not in control of them, we can't help but care about them. And when I started to care again, my actions didn't have to be "mine only" for them to be extremely meaningful to me. That's where I currently am.