Board index ‹ Free Will

[Glass Works]

Why is it a problem to think that humans don't have free will? So what if we're just the result of biology mutations, and everything is just simple cause and effect?

[jimwalton]

It's a problem because if neurobiological determinism is true, then it would appear that there is no freedom of the will, and therefore humans are without the capacity to make reasoned decisions (reasoned decisions require weighing options and choosing the more likely), and the role of reason itself in any intellectual discipline is suspect. So if you argue that we are purely physical beings, you are also arguing against the reliability of reason, and so are negating your own thought processes.

Our simple "What if.." simulations and scientific inquiry speak in favor of freedom of the will. As a matter of fact, science depends on it.

[J Lord]

Why do you think that reason, moral responsibility, and free will as you define them exist at all?

[jimwalton]

The ability to reason is grounded in free will. If free will doesn't exist, then the ability to reason doesn't exist, and we couldn't be having this conversation, or if we were having this conversation, it would be meaningless at worst, unreliable at best. Without free will, ultimately any talk about the role of reason in any intellectual discipline is misguided.

[Bannister]

The illusion of free-will and actual free-will are indistinguishable. So we just act as if free-will is real.

[jimwalton]

Even if we speculate that is hypothetically the case with free will, it cannot be in real life because it's not the case with reason. If the role of reason in any intellectual discipline is misguided, then our conversation (and all conversations) are ultimately meaningless, science is worthless, and our thoughts are unreliable. If that's the case, then you wouldn't be on this forum trying to have a rational conversation. The fact that you want to have a rational conversation shows that you believe that the role of reason is both meaningful and real, and therefore free will is not an illusion, and my point is the same.

[Pat the Robot]

If I'm understanding his argument correctly (and I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth), then free will may or may not be an illusion.

If it is an illusion, then yes, literally any conversation could be considered meaningless, since nobody involved has any choice in what they are saying, but at the same time his presence on the forum proves nothing since he didn't choose to be here, even though he perceives that he did choose it.

[jimwalton]

Well, but I don't believe that reason is nonexistent or that free will is an illusion. You can't have free will without self-direction,and you can't have self-direction without self-awareness, and you can't have self-awareness without consciousness. The evidences are convincing that we have all these things. If you don't believe in the validity of reasoning, then all your arguments are self-defeating.

[Sure Breeze]

> if that is true, then there is no freedom of the will

This is where you lose me. Why do you think this is true?

[jimwalton]

Because if all mental events are governed by the laws of neurobiology, then we are biologically determined. Free will can only exist where there is self-direction, which can only exist if there is self-awareness, which can only exist is there is consciousness. If we reduce humanity to the cause and effect sequence of mindless molecules governed by impersonal laws, then there is no freedom of the will, and there is no self-direction, and there is no such thing as reason.