Free Will is a Delusion

Indeed. And your credentials sir?????

So from the invention of the wheel all the way up to our glorious present day civilization, was all random?

Our neurons sure do have some great luck if so.

You're missing the spark of free will. The drive is there. It is caused by itself on a larger scale, if you understand.

You are making a faulty assumption. Choices are never random, they are made by a *conscious* (intentional, planned) decision. A random event is an event that does not happen with any order or definite plan, a planned event always does; Therefore, by definition, a planned event can never be a random one, and vice-versa. Bottom line: when consciousness is involved, an action or event can never be random.

...And despite what modern Physics/Physicists say(s), there is no such thing as a "random" event. As Einstein - most elloquently - stated ("PC" 'adjusted' for you Left-wing types):

"The Cosmos/Supreme Being does not play Dice".

OK, had to go to sleep last night (it was getting to be around 5am here in Europe). Just caught up on this thread, however, and I see this is probably not going to be resolved!

So just some closing remarks, perhaps.

Natyrul, no offense intended, but I think you're too smart for your own good ;)

You obviously are very highly educated, but the fatal flaw of highly educated people is that they're tempted (even more than others) into believing that they are right. When you can back up your beliefs with 9 pages of consistently good arguments, it can be hard to doubt them within yourself. LOL, I know, because I too am "over-educated" :P

I can relate to your theory of determinism, because like I said, for a few months I was there too - after I played "Devil's Advocate" in a discussion about the Merovingian's speech in Matrix II, and ended up convincing myself as well! For me, however, it was a quite depressing ideology, especially since I realized there had been many "coincidences" out of my control that had pushed me in a certain direction in the past.

Again, however, the problem with being "too smart" is that one will always try to figure things out - *including* the things that our brains at this stage probably can't grasp. It can lead to a static mind-set, which I find to be detrimental to open minded exploration/conceptualization. You rationally analyzed the problem of free will vs determinism and ended up firmly in the determinism camp.

For myself however, I accept that there are some "paradoxes" out there which I'm not ready to figure out "rationally".

I believe in causality AND free will.

Yes, it's a paradox, because one would assume that it's either one or the other. My *belief* in free will comes from the fact that I can almost grasp the concept of a timeless part of creation, one not based on linear time nor causality, nor randomness. It just IS, for lack of a better word, but it's an active force, not static - and that adds an *element* of free will into the cosmic equation.

I also *believe* I have a soul of some kind. If I didn't then yes, we'd all just be (for all intents and purposes) powerless components in a mechanical cause & effect universe. The link with that "soul" however, is a link to the "timeless" part of creation... and hence, even if I probably do not have full free will *now*, the possibility exists that I may one day have it.

I don't present this belief as fact, because like I said, there are some things I can't figure out yet.

You made an excellent attempt at doing so, but I still remain unconvinced. Your entire argument is based on *your* premises... if this and this, then that.

Natyrul:
>>>
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.
>>>

I'll have to dispute the first premise again.

Infinite and eternal, caused or random... these are words, and our language is flawed enough that it makes discussing certain concepts very hard due to semantic interpretations. Our language doesn't have a word for the "5th option", which is neither infinite/eternal/caused/random... However, as Carl Sagan (IIRC) correctly said,

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Just because there exists no *proof* of free will doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Your logic is very good, but I'm afraid that until we have ALL the facts and an ULTIMATE brain/computer to analyze the multiverse with, that logic must have an element of error - and therefore, it's not the *undisputed truth*.

I'm not even sure that the equation 2+2=4 is absolutely 100% true, for example :P It just takes ONE example where that's not the case to disprove it, after all... and in a potentially infinite and eternal universe? It could happen, one day.

But thanks for a good discussion, in any case, we'll just agree to disagree then.

Oh, and one last thing... just be mindful that only a Sith deals in absolutes!

:)

"My *belief* in free will comes from the fact that I can almost grasp the concept of a timeless part of creation, one not based on linear time nor causality, nor randomness. It just IS, for lack of a better word, but it's an active force, not static - and that adds an *element* of free will into the cosmic equation."
-- sol invictus

well said

This thread seems to be an over-intellectualized/philosophically- draining exercise is parsing a metaphysical concept beyond recognition.



Free will is the modus operandi here on terra firma.



It is fueled by desire and expressed by choice.



All is choice, whether conscious or subconscious - whether by commission or omission (not to choose is a choice).




Now, the arguments that our choices in any given moment might be limited, in a sense, by the depth and breadth of our consciousness/awareness and blinded by personal likes/dislikes/fears/phobias/understandings/beliefs/prejudice​s and on and on and on.....does not discount the fact that we choose freely whatever we choose.



The fact remains that we have individual minds, individual thoughts, individual desires and a collection of motivations that form the basis of our choosing and thus define what free will may described as in the life stream of one extant free-will unit.

As far as randomness goes. Nothing is random as all is connected and influenced by everything else and thus acts in relationship to everything else as either a cause, an effect, or both.



The bottom line for us is that we have thoughts that spring from the eternal bedrock of our transcendent being - and as they float upward through our minds, they gain expression through the entire matrix that is us as I described above - and issue forth as an individualized action based upon that initial impulse - and the expression of that thought/desire represents our individual free will.


I think what some of the postings here intimate suggest that unless we have an infinite ability to think and create anything and everything in any given moment - then we do not have free will.


My response would be that as master beings (that we once were and are soon to become once more) we are master creators, able to create as god creates - from pure intent - anything and everything the mind can conjure.

Perhaps this more unrestrained version of free will is what is being debated and is questioned as to whether or not it exists.

Just science proving what the scriptures teach. Predestination is true. God doesn't wait around for people to make a move and "accept" Him. He drags His people into His kingdom and gives them the want and desire to seek Him. He's THE Almighty!

Regurgitated Bible quotes are not a valid argument.

It's just the appearance of free will. Saul, in battle, told his amourbearer to draw his sword and kill Saul, and when he wouldn't Saul fell on his own sword. He committed suicide. Yet, what do the scriptures say? They say that God slew saul for his disobedience to God. Read on.

1 Chronicles
10:4
Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

....
10:13
So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;
10:14
And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

Freedom of will is merely an appearance, like "sudden" events. If we could actually see the causal chain leading to any such events we would never call them "sudden". Freewill is the illusion; belief in the freedom of will is the delusion.

Btw, does this place have tags for italics and bold type and quotes etc? Doesn't seem to.


Dan Rowden

So something outside of you caused you to post?

And you could not have "not" posted?

"Freewill is the illusion; belief in the freedom of will is the delusion"
------------

I can't understand how anyone can bear to
live if they truly believe this is true.
If I believed this, I would have to use
my deluded sense of freewill to cease to be.

:)

What they are really saying is that "will" doesn't exist - that everything is a reaction to something - not a cogent argument - but I suspect they're Christians and what they're getting at is that there is only "God's" will and we are here to act it out - that we have no will of our own - again, an intellectually bankrupt position.

Ahh, that makes perfect sense to me now,
thanks


:)

You and me both, Celador...

The pure existential horror of it all... it wouldn't be great :)

Did you even read the rest of the thread? Naturyl has said explicitly that he is not a Christian.

I'm a foundation member of the Atheist Society of Australia so you place that condescending little theory where the sun don't shine. Free will is an illusion that we necessarily live with - it's just that we don't have to be delusional about it.

Understand the difference? Did you even comprehend my "sudden event" analogy?


Dan Rowden

No, I haven't read the rest of the thread....but there does appear to be some bible quoting going on...and I wasn't referring to all the posters of course.....maybe our atheist friend from 'down under' can elaborate on his "sudden event" hypothesis.

And then answer my questions as to what "caused" him to post, and could he have "not" posted and what dynamic supports or drives these decisions.

A lot of people seem to feel this way. I don't understand why.

The reverse is closer to the truth for me. I consider "free will" a dangerous and despressing delusion. Say that 3 times fast.

The basic flaw in op's argument is defining thought as an event in the first place. Neurons firing electrical charges across synapses along neural pathways can indeed be defined as an event, and is most likely responsible for the subsequent thought. But the event of neuro electric disharging does not neccessarily equate to thought. There are similar phenomena throughout the universe that we do not classify as thought, planets and stars themselves exhibit incredibly robust electromagnetic fields with intermittent static discharges which on the physical level can be compared to a brains electrical pattern in complexity. Are they therefore conscious? (perhaps, but can you prove it?)
Raw thought is not an event. It is the ultimate expression of nothingness until defined by a subsequent action.

114312,

Who cares about the Bible, Satan, or any of that?

Can you understand that not everything is about your religious fantasies? The issue of whether or not "free will" exists does not have anything to do with religious blatherings.

Where did you acquire your definition of thought?

.... you're funny, and your so called analogy is sheer rubbish too, sorry... although, it is rather creative as well, lol. How were you able to come up with it?

Thought he was a killer whale.

That's the delusion in action. What you erroneously interpret as "proof" of free will is precisely what I and others are saying is a result of causal factors. In other words, something *causes* you to believe that you have free will.

But, of course, you'll just say that "God" causes you to have the belief, right?

Dan, meet gooderboy. His ignorance is exceeded only by his arrogance.

I'd say he's a quite a unique character, but sadly, he's not.

I often see people try to use their own beliefs to validate their point of view. I try to use facts, as opposed to using my beliefs. I did not think that this was a religious discussion to begin with.

This thread is like a dog chasing its tail.


It's going nowhere in circles.