Is the sensation of free will a universal fallacy?
Yes - The sensation of free will is a universal fallacy
No - The sensation of free will is not a universal fallacy
I don’t care
Other - Please explain
0voters
It seems that all people share the experience of making a choice. This seems to be at the root of the argument in support of free will.
The argument against free will often reaches beyond the superficial experience of human perception into the chemical and electrical actions that make up the human mind. Since we know as an undisputed fact that our actions are the propagated affects of chemical/electrical reactions (as DanMan and others have indicated) the denial of this fact not only implies a fallacy, but the realization that we all share the illusion of choice makes it a universal one. Universal in that all people share it.
So while we all understand the sensation of choice, there are fewer of us who understand that there is no choice, just “the machine” (our brain, and in an extended way, the universe) in motion.
I wonder what other fallacies fall into this category.
I disagree. I believe you are using circular reasoning. Since the brain has a scientific basis for it’s functioning, you are using this fact to “prove” that all choice is mechanical, since the process is mechanical.
Your logic is not subject to falsibility. The very nature of your logic can only be used to make your point. This is not science.
There are a number of ways to “prove” the fallacy. In my opinion, none are legitimate. For example you could tell us that decision making is the result of the cumulative experience of the individual, which makes the decision “inevitable.”
Another example of circular reasoning because it denies the ability of the mind to analyse data.
All such answers ultimately come down to artificial intellectual constructs in which we are forced to make a specific decision.
No, sorry, I don’t buy it. It’s much like throwing a rock into the sea; it makes a big splash, but in a hundred yards or so, one cannot see the ripples. There are far too many factors involved, which is why we might indeed make oppositie decisions two days running.
It may very well be true that SOME decisions are not “free,” but rather the result of heavy conditioning. But to anyone who sits down and thinks, such is not the inevitable outcome.
I’m not understanding your points. I am saying that the brain (and everything) is mechanical, this based upon the understanding of chemical and electrical reactions. And that is based upon science.
Is any of that untrue?
Then when I say that that means there is no free will, I am just making my point. I am saying that we don’t control electro-chemical reactions, they control us.
Anyway, this isn’t so much a discussion of the existence of free will, there are hundreds of threads already going on in this forum for that. I just realized that since we all share the perception of choice, that IF you see the acceptance of free will as a fallacy, that it is a fallacy we all experience.
If you believe that we have free will, then the sensation of choice we experience would be a “universal truth”. And in a way, it is: our perceptions definitely exist, but to assert that our perceptions dictate reality… to some of us… looks fallacious.
Those electro-chemical reactions are our will. Who is the “us” that those reactions control? Those reactions are us, or part of us.
The real fallacy is that we think that the part of us that speaks is all there is to us. That we are ego alone.
It’s all us. Not just what we recognise as the “mental” us - the whole organism is us. Will is organic. When we jettison the dualistic idea of “mind” and realise that we have a brain and a body - that it’s all our body, we needn’t think in terms of a purely “mental” us.
We are “determined” by ourselves. Those limitations do not entail some sort of slavery - unless we are slaves to our own bodies. Which, of course, we are. But the term “free will” is only meaningful when juxtaposed with “God’s will”. That’s the origin of the term. Or some other infinite regression of causation.
Chains of causation do not have to be “infinite”. Chance and causation can exist in the same universe. Let’s broaden our conceptual horizons a little past theistic/mechanistic paradigms.
I think I try to be broad minded. But I also can be persnickety about defining terms. Probably my biggest standard is the scale between the objective and the subjective. I can appreciate the concepts afforded by contexts within this realm. But it is when someone tries to dilute or combine those concepts (the objective/subjective) that I feel the need to hold my ground.
I think that’s what I’m doing in this thread: saying that subjectively we experience free will, but that objectively free will doesn’t exist. I can accept or reject the existence or non-existence of free will depending on which context is used.
But if the objective and the subject are considered to be similar, I lose interest in the discussion. I think one has to have a bit of firmness to their position otherwise the outcomes become homogeneous.
You are, as Faust states, a unity of mind and body. You can if you wish simply write us off as an organic machine. This would be a “true” statement, and also a meaningless one. To say that your decision to reply to my post was not a free choice; is a predetermined choice, is just playing with words.
Every process that occurs has a description. You have given that description, and in turn tell us that there is no such thing as free choice, because the mechanics can be parsed, broken down, described, labeled, and given technical names…
This is circular reasoning, not subject to falsibility for the simple reason that if you COULD describe an organism that you feel has free will, then I in turn could parse and describe the process, once again reducing it to mechanical terms.
So your response to me is to state that free will by definition cannot exist, no matter what organism is given as an example…
Membrain - my comments have nothing to do with the subjective/objective dichotomy. In fact, I have no idea what you are talking about. Either a thing (a process, in this case) exists or it doesn’t - there is no subjective/objective tension to it.
I can almost guess why you would lose interest in the discussion - you are shoehorning this dichotomy into a space where it doesn’t belong.
I tried to clarify what is science and what is supposition. I agree that my supposition is not science. It’s what I think is considered to be an ontological argument. Do we argee that “ontological arguments” are not “science”?
As far as “a unity of mind and body”, I can conceptualize myself as a unity of mind, body, and universe. It is the conceptualization of infinite conenctions that play out like falling dominoes that allows one to see free will as not existing. If that is “playing with words” then I guess everything is just playing with words. There’s probably a hundred different ways of saying the same thing. I’ve heard that it has been explained in detail by the likes of Spinoza, Epicurus, and Omar Khayyam.
So if you think that free will exists, this topic probably isn’t your cup of tea. It’s more an extension of the no-free-will argument that tries to define human perception as universally flawed. This sensation of choice that we all experience.
I was merely trying to give an example of a discussion losing its meaning when the terms become convoluted or perhaps too similar.
The adoption of the no-free-will position requires the use of “infinity” in my opinion. To ask for the axiom that “chains of causation do not have to be ‘infinite’” strikes me as unnecessarily limiting and “shoehorning”. It is the conceptualization of the infinite that makes the conceptualization of no-free-will possible (again, in my opinion). I’m asking for a broadening of one’s horizons with the conceptualization of the infinite. I guess it might be as broad a broadening as broadening can be broadened!
I don’t argue someone elses mataphysics when they have no scieintific basis either to support or refute. If this is what you Choose to believe, who am I to argue? On the other hand there is no scieintific proof to back your position, and that is all I am saying.
Of course that doesn’t mean I agree with you, even without science.
First, yes, I would agree that when science refutes a metaphysical argument, that the argument should change. Hey, agreement!
Now about “parsing”: let’s give some examples since I don’t think I’m clear on what’s being said. It sounds like we need:
a subject
a parsing of that subject
the creation of an argument based upon that parsing to dismiss the subject
analysis and explanation to show why the argument to dismiss is wrong
I’ll try one first:
a subject
Cats are evil.
a parsing of that subject
Cats are animals. Evil is a force that comes from a metaphysical being. Animals are alive.
(is this parsing?)
the creation of an argument based upon that parsing to dismiss the subject
Here I’m at a loss. I need help to understand why parsing can be used to dismiss the subject.
analysis and explanation to show why the argument to dismiss is wrong
Again, help.
So I hope you can see that I don’t understand the logic. Please provide a better example or examples.
So, what I mean is that you “parsed” the human brain, and concluded that since you had shown AND proved that it was merely a “machine,” how could it have free will?
I replied that this was a meaningless proof, that if you could postulate any organism that did indeed have free will, I could turn around and do the same. That you used semantics to prove that free will by definition didn’t exist.
So “parsed” means “analyzed” or “broken up into components”? That doesn’t sound like a bad thing.
So I analyzed the brain and saw that it was ultimately manipulated by the laws of physics which means we ultimately don’t have control over our lives.
I’m willing to work with any definitions you want to provide. If you want “free will” to be defined as “the perception of choice” then I would agree that we have free will. But like I said earlier in this thread, the relaxing of definitions can make an argument meaningless, since in this case for example, there is no argument about whether humans experience the perception of choice or not. The argument is more meaningful when we talk about does free will objectively exist separate from our perceptions of it.
But I basically just can’t understand your reasoning. Saying that the laws of physics control the brain isn’t just a bare postulation. It’s a conclusion based upon the supportive science.
Hey, membrain. The brain is subject to the laws of physics. That doesn’t mean “the laws of physics” stand in for God - that every individual brain is “controlled” by the laws of physics.
The rules of baseball don’t control the game. The game as played is subject to them.
“Control” is just the wrong word. It sounds okay, but you are giving it a connotation that just doesn’t fit. That’s just linguistic legerdemain. Which metaphysics relies upon.
If the idea of independant manifestation replaces the truth of dependant origination, it is generally a universal fallacy.
-“I can do it with my free Will”,
as opposed to
-“It can happen through me because of the controls and capacities resulting from combinations of forces and patterns before me.”
[re-reads OP]
…but, the sensation of being free, that should not be called true or false. Instead it is a utility of the body, like any other sensation, which is meant to be put to use in some way. So, it is a resource, not a moral.
