Free Will is a Delusion

Again, events either have a cause or they do not. If they do not, they cannot be the result of free will, because free will requires that choice be the causal agent.

And, of course, the event we call "choice" itself either has a cause or it does not. Here we have a vicious regress which makes the traditional libertarian version of free will essentially meaningless.

Again, events either have a cause or they do not. If they do not, they cannot be the result of free will, because free will requires that choice be the causal agent.

And, of course, the event we call "choice" itself either has a cause or it does not. Here we have a vicious regress which makes the traditional libertarian version of free will essentially meaningless.


Then, say, if one were to rob a bank- what caused such an event? His desire for money? Why would one desire money, if he isn't poor? Greed? Why be greedy? Greed stems from the belief that there isn't enough "stuff" to share with everyone. Why do people believe this? Because they believe our resources are limited. Why do they believe our resources are limited? Because they believe the World itself, and all of that within it, is finite. Now, tell me, why would they believe that? Because greedy people hoard of all the "stuff" for themselves.

Now why are these people greedy?

:clogic:

It's a never ending cycle. The only other option is choice. The cause and effect principle does not apply to all things. They do not apply to intangible concepts and thoughts. They do not apply to that which cannot be conceived.

Again, events either have a cause or they do not. If they do not, they cannot be the result of free will, because free will requires that choice be the causal agent.

And, of course, the event we call "choice" itself either has a cause or it does not. Here we have a vicious regress which makes the traditional libertarian version of free will essentially meaningless.


Then, say, if one were to rob a bank- what caused such an event? His desire for money? Why would one desire money, if he isn't poor? Greed? Why be greedy? Greed stems from the belief that there isn't enough "stuff" to share with everyone. Why do people believe this? Because they believe our resources are limited. Why do they believe our resources are limited? Because they believe the World itself, and all of that within it, is finite. Now, tell me, why would they believe that? Because greedy people hoard of all the "stuff" for themselves.

Now why are these people greedy?

:clogic:

It's a never ending cycle. The only other option is choice. The cause and effect principle does not apply to all things. They do not apply to intangible concepts and thoughts. They do not apply to that which cannot be conceived.


You are introducing the circular logic. It is not part of my argument. The chain of causation which influences all non-random events stretches backward in time to the big bang. It does not loop back on itself, it simply proceeds from cause to event in the direction of time's arrow. Each event then becomes a cause which influences future events.

Think dominoes.

According to free will, each freely chosen action is in fact a "first cause," independent of of all other causal factors.

But I don't believe in first causes. I believe that Nature (that which brought about the creation of the Universe) is infinite and eternal, and is without cause.


===============

So, you are calling Nature the Creator, then - seeing that you capitalize the word, 'Nature'.

Hence, in effect you are blaming the endless problems (those events we need protection from) on the Creator.

Correct?

In reply to your answer, Natyrul, no, see now you're overstepping pure logic and going into assumptions...

>>>
According to free will, each freely chosen action is in fact a "first cause," independent of of all other causal factors.
>>>

That's not my definition of free will.

Be careful that you're not subconsciously using the old strawman tactic, creating a "convenient" definition of free will that is easy to dismiss. You're saying it's either free will, or causality, and I disagree. I think it's elements of both.

I accept that maybe 99% of my actions at this point are not done by free will. It's all causality... I sleep when tired, eat when hungry, work when I need money, find something fun to do when bored, my life is a result of my genetic heritage and parental upbringing, etc. I have no problem with your argument on that account, and I'm sure we could both argue long and hard to support that argument if someone paid us to do so.

You say however you don't *believe* in first causes... ok, now we're getting somewhere.

>>>
But I don't believe in first causes. I believe that Nature (that which brought about the creation of the Universe) is infinite and eternal, and is without cause.
>>>

Well then this is the point where I say that I don't *believe* in anything that's infinite and eternal, just like you don't *believe* in first causes ;)

Notice how at this point none of us can really prove anything? My "first cause" disproves your logic, and your "nature is infinite and eternal" disproves mine. You were first using pure logic, but now you're using belief to counter my argument...

That's my whole point, really. Your first premise in the OP argument is *potentially* flawed, hence your conclusion is also potentially flawed.

You can't *disprove* free will with logic if it requires a disbelief in a First Cause, hence, you have to accept the *possibility* of it existing :P My belief is that there's a part of me that's in touch with an element of "free will" while your belief is that there is no such thing.

I don't care either way, I'm happy to agree to disagree... I just like arguing with people who claim they have found "the truth", because I've yet to see anyone make a perfect argument :P

Well then I just wonder, for you personally, where do you get your moral code? Do you have a moral compass at all? The belief in a lack of free will would not make you a very good neighbor, I'm afraid.

"we have prisons
because people ARE responsible
for their behavior"

That is precisely the danger of the free will delusion. It makes people believe that the purpose of criminal justice is to punish rather than to protect society from further criminal behavior. It fosters a punitive "people deserve what they get" mentality which allows us to justify exploitative hierachies and excuse all kinds of abuse and cruelty by saying "they deserved it."

Without the belief in free will, the world would have already eradicated poverty, for example. Poverty is only allowed to exist because the wealthy are able to argue that the poor somehow deserve it due to their own "free choices."

"Free will" is a very dangerous delusion. It is at the root of a great deal of evil. The sooner we realize this, the better.

In reply to your answer, Natyrul, no, see now you're overstepping pure logic and going into assumptions...

>>>
According to free will, each freely chosen action is in fact a "first cause," independent of of all other causal factors.
>>>

That's not my definition of free will.

Be careful that you're not subconsciously using the old strawman tactic, creating a "convenient" definition of free will that is easy to dismiss. You're saying it's either free will, or causality, and I disagree. I think it's elements of both.

I accept that maybe 99% of my actions at this point are not done by free will. It's all causality... I sleep when tired, eat when hungry, work when I need money, find something fun to do when bored, my life is a result of my genetic heritage and parental upbringing, etc. I have no problem with your argument on that account, and I'm sure we could both argue long and hard to support that argument if someone paid us to do so.

You say however you don't *believe* in first causes... ok, now we're getting somewhere.

>>>
But I don't believe in first causes. I believe that Nature (that which brought about the creation of the Universe) is infinite and eternal, and is without cause.
>>>

Well then this is the point where I say that I don't *believe* in anything that's infinite and eternal, just like you don't *believe* in first causes ;)

Notice how at this point none of us can really prove anything? My "first cause" disproves your logic, and your "nature is infinite and eternal" disproves mine. You were first using pure logic, but now you're using belief to counter my argument...

That's my whole point, really. Your first premise in the OP argument is *potentially* flawed, hence your conclusion is also potentially flawed.

You can't *disprove* free will with logic if it requires a disbelief in a First Cause, hence, you have to accept the *possibility* of it existing :P My belief is that there's a part of me that's in touch with an element of "free will" while your belief is that there is no such thing.

I don't care either way, I'm happy to agree to disagree... I just like arguing with people who claim they have found "the truth", because I've yet to see anyone make a perfect argument :P


Fair enough. let's try this, then.

You are arguing that I am basing my dismissal of first cause on belief rather than logic. That's fine, because I did use the term "I believe." However, I do think I can support it logically.

Premise 1. If anything is not infinite and eternal, it is either caused or random.

Premise 2. You claim that First Cause is not caused or random.

Conclusion: First Cause is infinite and eternal.

Some people call this infinite and eternal first cause "God." I prefer to call it Nature, to avoid all of the usual "god baggage." In my view, The "god term" is uncessary and potentially misleading. However, I might be worthwhile to mention that I am on the Board of Directors of the Universal Pantheist Society.

[link to pantheist.net]

But yeah, we can agree to disagree. Reasonable people can do that. :)

Very little of that makes any sense.

Again, events either have a cause or they do not. If they do not, they cannot be the result of free will, because free will requires that choice be the causal agent.

And, of course, the event we call "choice" itself either has a cause or it does not. Here we have a vicious regress which makes the traditional libertarian version of free will essentially meaningless.


Then, say, if one were to rob a bank- what caused such an event? His desire for money? Why would one desire money, if he isn't poor? Greed? Why be greedy? Greed stems from the belief that there isn't enough "stuff" to share with everyone. Why do people believe this? Because they believe our resources are limited. Why do they believe our resources are limited? Because they believe the World itself, and all of that within it, is finite. Now, tell me, why would they believe that? Because greedy people hoard of all the "stuff" for themselves.

Now why are these people greedy?

:clogic:

It's a never ending cycle. The only other option is choice. The cause and effect principle does not apply to all things. They do not apply to intangible concepts and thoughts. They do not apply to that which cannot be conceived.


You are introducing the circular logic. It is not part of my argument. The chain of causation which influences all non-random events stretches backward in time to the big bang. It does not loop back on itself, it simply proceeds from cause to event in the direction of time's arrow. Each event then becomes a cause which influences future events.

Think dominoes.

Well, Let me introduce (lead in) you to the irrational world.

The world of logic makes me a little nauseous. I BELIEVE it is because Logic is an Anunnaki devised and controlled tool.

I believe it is part of the 'mind-control' techniques taught in 'higher' education to erase from awareness the experience of Inner Light and non-linear expressions of the True Creation.

I believe in devas and angels and Divine Will, my free will, the destruction of evil, oh...yes and fairies and I'm gonna call one now to come and put you all it your seats so you don't misbehave again.

Well then I just wonder, for you personally, where do you get your moral code? Do you have a moral compass at all? The belief in a lack of free will would not make you a very good neighbor, I'm afraid.


You're quite mistaken. I have a strong moral compass. I believe that harming others is wrong. I value the Golden Rule highly. My life experiences and personal views determine that I find compassion and morality important values in my own life. I am caused to care about the well-being of others.

What you really need to worry about are your neighbors who believe in free will, because they can harm you and then justify it in their own minds by deciding that you "deserved it."

Wow. You believe in a Creator. You believe in the Golden Rule. You believe in predeterminism.

Goodness. That all adds up to Calvinism. Christian Calvinism.

According to India's saint Ramana Maharshi and the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, everything is already set, so the trick is to let go and observe since you are not the doer.

According to some study I read about (sorry no link at the moment), the brain begins to start firing neurons to pick up a glass, etc. before you even think of picking it up. That one tripped me out!

Wow. You believe in a Creator. You believe in the Golden Rule. You believe in predeterminism.

Goodness. That all adds up to Calvinism. Christian Calvinism.


If I was a Christian, I'd probably be a Calvinist. I have a good friend who used to be one. But John Calvin was a miserable prick. And I don't accept supernaturalism in any form.

My "Creator" (Nature) has no personality except that of its individual sentient aspects. I don't believe in anthropomorphic deities.