Schopenhauer and others have already proven the absence of 'free will'

The problem is that philosophy and individuals remain afraid to take ownership of the inevitable consequence. For example they might have to give up the cherished notion of the god of heaven and the god of self. Empty refutation of hard determinism will persist as long as the Gods of heaven and self continue to be adored.

Quantum mechanics and special relativity have provided the formal proof but are equally afraid of the consequence.

To put it simply free will necessitates the linear evolution of time. The future cannot be fixed or already in existence because it is created by our free will. However special relativity insists that temporal shift occurs on the basis of relative velocity. This has been conclusively proven experimentally, by placing synchronized clocks upon planes.

If time travel is possible and has been proven possible, if one can effectively travel into the future... The future must pre-exist if one might travel into it. If the future is already in existence there can be no such thing as freedom of the will.

M

Irrespective of the very good arguments of hard determinism, I, and I think most have the sensation of free will. When I stare at the ice cream in the freezer, I feel i am making an independent choice to have it or not. So is this sensation of choice a valid argument that free will does exist, however it can only be known by experience, and is not able to be known by analysis, investigation or reason. Is it a Qualia?

In the famous thought experiment, a person spends their entire life in a black and white room, with a black and white monitor. She spends her entire existence learning all there is to know about color. How the eye and optic system operate, wave lengths etc. She analytically and theoretically knows everything that can be known about color. Then they let her out of the room into a beautiful sunset - and she says "wow"? And is amazed. Did she learn anything new? I think yes. I think the experience of color is a different thing than the analysis of color. I feel the same about the sensation of choice.

As I said you have your opinion and you evidently can't get over the fact that other people have opinions that differ from yours.

You can have opinions and feelings about the form of reality. But in the approach to truth science has always had a more definitive insight than simple and all too often self serving 'feelings'

I like feelings I have loads but I rarely allow them to dictate over facts.

If and when I do, l must have reasons for doing so.

M

Also, I feel as though free will is just as unfalsifiable as determinism from the points I had raised earlier. Free will is just as 'cause and effect' as determinisim. As I explained before, my view is that we cannot comprehend what 'free' truly is and as a result we also cannot comprehend 'free will'. There is no evidence for it therefore it is unfalsifiable and is meaningless. There is more physical evidence for hard determinism than there is free will. You didn't choose how your cells were aligned to create a human body. You didn't will your existence or anyone else's existence. Hard determinism states causes of our behaviour and personality, genetic makeup, and essentially how we came to be. These are decisions already made for us evidently. We do not know what free is in my opinion.

I agree, Logical evidence and physical evidence are the best thing we have to go one right now. It is how we develop most theories about the world and existence itself.

a quilia is more than just "a feeling" , the concept is, there are things than can not be known by analysis, study, or science. They can only be known by experiencing them. Quilias, if you believe they exist, are facts. You can try describe blue, by some scientific explanations of wave lengths, but does it truly describe the experience of seeing blue ? I do not think so, and that experience of blue is factual.

You can choose to respond to this post or not. That much should be self evident, which is intersubjectivally verifiable.

I don't believe so.

Seems like you made a choice to me.

We make choices all the time, some we make on the spot while others we take time to think about. That much should not be in dispute. In fact when we take time to study the various possible outcomes of our choices, new options may even arise for us to choose from. Options that we would have not considered before, but are now possible paths because we decided to invest more time in making our decisions. This seems a bit more involved than you are giving it credit for.

Correlation does not necessitate causation. So many people make that mistake, it is likely by far the most common error when assessing "evidence."

Hard determinism is very black and white, which is why people grasp on to it; however, I think things are a bit more involved, and like I said the concept just has too many holes.

My point is that the various possible choices are already chosen for us. From which, follows the effect of the choice.

You are anthropomorphizing cause and effect. Objective cause and effect has no will of its own, that is a human trait.

I think the linear framework humans tend to think in makes hard determinism inviting to people. When we think about cause and effect we tend to think in terms of if A then B; however, what if there was an agent of causation in which if A then B was not true? Instead, as the stream of cause and effect passes through this agent it becomes if A then B or C or D, or even if A then {B, C, D}, or any other possible combination.

If I have the capacity for reason in such a way that I can assess possible outcomes of cause and effect, and I have force that I can apply to the world around me, then why can't I influence the posterior chain?

In fact by claiming I am a summation of cause and effect, you place me as part of cause and effect with all the same powers, and if external forces can shape my path, then it seems only reasonable to assume so can internal forces.

Free will is consistent with determinism. Libertarian free will is not (by definition).

One is exercising free will by making decisions based solely on one's personal factors (prior beliefs, dispositions, impulses, emotions, likes, dislikes...), and not being coerced into some choice. This is consistent with determinism because those internal factors determine the decision we will make. This is a compatibilist account of free will.

Libertarian free will is simply the doctrine that our freely willed choices are not determined.

As to which is true (compatibilist or libertarian free will) - it is impossible to know one way or another. Consequently, the concept of free will doesn't really provide a clue into the nature of the mind.

Is there actually any proof for either side? — Thehoneyman

Yes:

Since Libet's results started to trickle out,
there were speculations that we do not have free will...
What??? My free will is useless - I'll give it up.
Now, how could I - give up something I did/do not have???

My joke clearly outlines scenarios - required for proving that we do have free will. This can be "peer-reviewed in a cafe for example, with your friends.

Hearty,

It depends what you mean by free will. If you have read Dan Barker and Sam Harris you would get the impression that free will does not exist on the individual basis, that all of our actions are consequent of physical and psychological traits beyond our comprehension. However, Barker suggests free will in terms of a social context, that when we judge others behavior, we suppose that person had the free will to make such action. To have society without that notion would be chaos.

It depends what you mean by free will. If you have read Dan Barker and Sam Harris you would get the impression that free will does not exist on the individual basis, that all of our actions are consequent of physical and psychological traits beyond our comprehension. — Watts729

Are you suggesting that our (in)actions are triggered by mysterious causes. In this case, ask your friend to tell you which hand to lift - and you will have a mysterious cause replaced with words of your friend...

However, Barker suggests free will in terms of a social context, that when we judge others behaviour, we suppose that person had the free will to make such action. To have society without that notion would be chaos. — Watts729

I can see a scenario with me on a deserted island freely exercising my free will - without anything like social considerations...

I will need a bit more convincing argument - without gossip of WHO said/did WHAT.

Hearty, :cool:

I take the liberty to transfer this topic to The Joke thread...

Sorry, but this thread has lost its direction. :)

Hearty, :cool: