Free will does not exist

That our choices can be rational and well thought-out is an argument for self-determination, not for for a liberum arbitrium. What we perceive as the "self" is the manifestation of our conscious deliberation and rationally chosen identity, and when we act according to our rational selves, we are determined by our selves. But this is not free will. Free will would be being able to act in any which way we please, uninfluenced by our instincts, behavioral conditioning and free from subconscious impulses, none of which were chosen but all of which influence our choices and guide our actions. When we make a choice we not only act according to our facticity and our surroundings, but the choice itself is the product of our facticity. Even the choice to deliberate upon our actions and the conclusions we arrive at that define our rationality are the product of instantaneous impulses that the conscious self does not control and can not change.

Not that this is of any consequence to life or to existential thought. Our actions can always be more self-determined, more the product of conscious deliberation. That our actions are the result of instantaneous impulses based on our facticity is inconsequential to our perception of our will's freedom, and thus our dignity as sentients.

 

But one can easily argue that our so called "reasoning" is merely a reflection of an infinitely complex chain of chemical reactions, and thus is a complete illusion. My breath, every keystroke, this discussion, us - all may have already been written into existence long before anybody made the "decisions" necessary for such things to occur. It's possible that we're merely being dragged along for a ride that's course we have no power to alter, in which case our experience of the ride would be inherently meaningless as well.

I don't necessarily believe that and on a personal level I find the whole idea a little absurd, but all of this discussion proves nothing unless somebody brings an in depth understanding of physics to the table.

The scientific/philosophical world is yet to come to a solid consensus about the problem, but the implications are so useless anyway. It's almost like a big joke played by God.

 

how so? I agree those biochemical reactions are infinitelly complex, but you must see how they make us "human" and unique. the fact that we have language is pretty awesome, and the fact we can be creative about everything, like music, such arbitray thing, but so beautiful. You can see how the mid-brain and the hind-brain are so basic, but how the latter part of our brain that evolved is kind of specific, its not so primary and so reflexial like for example animals have it. I think the fact that we are so social greatly expands to all the choices we would ever be able to make, because there just is that cooperation and information flow. (I am well aware about social constraints, and the law and politics and all that)
now I dont think we are determined because of destiny or anything, I do assume we are determined biologically and because of everyones specific environment, but I think you are able to change a lot about who you are and where are you going in life.
my buddy that I mentioned said about this topic, and hes a smart guy, imagine someone once approached Stephen Hawking and said to him, hey man, want some acid? he could have taken it and god knows what would have happened, but hes where he is today because he made all those choices, in spite of his condition, to do what he does.

 

I totally understand what you're saying. Within the sphere of understanding that I'm free to move within, I act as if everything you say is true, but that still doesn't answer the question of whether or not their is free will.

Was it Stephen Hawking that made those choices, or was it simply a complex interweaving chain of meaningless, non-human events leading up to what he thought, what we thought, were choices?

 

he could have taken the acid sometimes we surpass even the survival mode to make the choices, and its not for example the maternal instinct, but say you have someone at the bar say offensive things to your girlfriend, you dont care if the guy has a knife, you will act to defend her honour.

 

I know what you mean though, there is so many things around us that cause us to act a certain way, thats without a dispute

 

Very nice. I would look at the term conscious self in your statement and lend that perhaps "discriminating self" fits more aptly, all your considerations.

 

Okay, this is going nowhere. I'm going to go have a beer.

Good luck with your useless philosophical pursuits everybody.

 

Good assessment. In retrospect, conscious self isnt the apt phrase because consciousness is more the faculty which perceives and is aware of things than it is a force of self-scrutiny. I think that I was using conscious in place of CONSCIENTIOUS, which would have made more sense.

 

yay for beeeeeeeeeeeeeeer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You can say this is next morning.

Life is not worth living; which means either there is no life in oneself for the thoughtful so-called free will he applies, or one is not aware for anything one'd make of the thinking he is alive.

 

Was it the guy in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof."?

 

I am what I am, that's all I can be. I do have Free Will, but only within the confines of my own personal nature, abilities and awareness.

 

Every choice is influenced by a variety of variables- both genetic and environmental. But the scientific aspects of free will seem to leave an empty space that humans need to fill- either with the idea of an omniscient God or by removing themselves from the limitation of these forces that confine free will. God vs. existentialism. Either God is dead (and my will to power is paramount, I am the superman) or God knows every action's outcome (and what I theoretically choose is actually the one and only possible outcome).
For me free will really boils down to how tightly one holds to the aspect of time.......

 

If there is a "you" it must have a will. Some people say there is no you, but you could just as easily look at it the opposite way and say there is a you.

Is its will free, though? Free from what? It's not free from everything else. You have no choice but to make decisions in the environment you find yourself in. How can that truly be called freedom? It's like being thrown into a prison and told that you're free because you can still make choices.

 

Also, God, being all-knowing, should know exactly how a soul will react to the parameters of the world when he creates it. It seems to me that all souls who are damned are damned from inception. What kind of God creates a soul just to damn it?

Given the possibility of damnation, it is totally irresponsible for God to create souls in the first place.

 

I'll be damned if I know.

I choose to believe in free will.

 

No, not God vs. existentialism again. We'll make mistakes in either Way of Science. then emotions get in the way, and what the scientific observer really is about is that his Free Will was a refusal to be in Space and Time.

 

I suppose you can choose to believe in anything, even if it doesn't make sense. If you have no choice in the first place, how can what happens afterwards really be your responsibility? Unless it's totally your responsibility and God has nothing to do with it.

Not to be atheistic, 'cause I'm not.

 

Space and Time is particularized (never universal, as might be thought for Scientific by rote thinking). How particular? Is it as particular as this philosophically questioning situation? Or is it just the abstract subject of my present delusion for the co-incidences I fear from the background of communication deception? The Other is ultimately in Me: beyond situation, and space and time. I thought that free will had justification for being as Me unless with the Other per will of the Will.


Are we a willing community?