Are any of you intelligent enough to understand the argument that there is no free will? Read first -?

Question

Free will has nothing to do with God or no God.
It has nothing to do with fate or destiny.

When you make a decision, you have no choice in the matter. The information in your head leads you to make that decision. You have no choice in the matter. If you make a decision, then change your mind, that is because the information in your head makes you reason that way and come to that final decision. You have no choice, because all you have to work with are the ideas and values already in your head. These inevitably lead to the final decision that you make. Therefore, there is no free will! Can anyone understand what I have just said?

I had to make a decision whether to add a comment after reading the answers so far. Some would say it is free will because I had the opportunity to make a decision. I say that I had to add this comment because with my store of memories, and the effect of reading these comments, I had to write more. Other people with less responsive personalities would not have added a comment. And many people were forced to anwer here without giving the question very much thought, because that is the way there brains function. None of us have free will, then.
As for determinism, I have never studied it. I just work with what appears to be common sense.

I had to make a decision whether to add a comment after reading the answers so far. Some would say it is free will because I had the opportunity to make a decision. I say that I had to add this comment because with my store of memories, and the effect of reading these comments, I had to write more. Other people with less responsive personalities would not have added a comment. And many people were forced to anwer here without giving the question very much thought, because that is the way their brains function. None of us have free will, then.
As for determinism, I have never studied it. I just work with what appears to be common sense.

Answer 1

I know how you feel, you know, where you think of somthing...think deeply about it, but have a h ard time putting it to words that will allow people to understand, or think as deeply about it as you...however, you are incorrect...nothing makes us do anything. we ourselves can choose whether or not to do somthing. yes, some things change how we react, but we still can controll ourselves. as human beings, there is no outside force *making* us do anything. even if we re-evaluate things in our head, its still our head, right...its still our will that this be done, or else we would not do it....

Answer 2

This argument is asinine. The originator of this post simultaneously fails to grasp the concept of free will even as it is spelled out and defined in an argument against its own existence. A decision (which is spoken of multitudinous times) is inherently a choice and what is a choice if not a decision made inside the brain based on the information possessed and other factors known at the time? The poster is trying to postulate that the fact that the mind can reason disqualifies it from making choices and thus 'having free will'. Therefore I must ask what the poster's definition of 'free will' is if not a rational choice. What is more qualified to have a will than the human soul expressed through the organic brain? In other words, the poster is too caught up in the physical act of making a decision to realize that this act is necessary for free will to occur. The only way to act in one's own free will is through a choice made by the person. It is only common sense that one's own welfare and the circumstances surrounding the decision be taken into account before the choice is made. Respond as you will.

Answer 3

It totally agree with you. I have though studied intensely the human brain, behavior, processes and so on. Phineas Gage was a classic example given to many psychology students of the biological factors of behavior. In 1848 a construction worker named Phineas Gage had a 3’7 piece of iron blown through his head. Although he recovered, his previous easygoing, kind, and respectful personality change into a rude, irresponsible, new one. He in fact was no longer ‘Phineas Gage.’ This is the perfect example of the impact of the physical brain and the non-existence of free will. Free will is an illusion created by our conscious brains. Besides genetics, there are certain determinants to our behavior; there are conscious behaviors and unconscious ones. Conscious behaviors are actions that we are aware of. The decision making processes however are beyond our undoing and comprehending. We are only a window into the brain that is our great determiner, and it creates the illusion that we had a part in the decision. In reality, the can't be a free will because their is no I. There is no singular structure in the brain that acts as the control room. There is no conscious 'you' that hits the execute button to perform an action. Our brains carry out their functions based on many factors, taking into consideration what we consciously see as our input. In fact, the brain decides even what it wants you to see. You notice that there are thousands of things going on around you, but you only notice a select few? What makes you select those few? Although the brain is mostly unknown, we have discovered the functions it performs. And as you said common sense will lead anybody to realize that free will is not so free when it comes to a lifetime of experience, genes, and environment.

Answer 4

It was a decent argument, but I'm not sure why you need to question our intelligence first... but anyway.

Before I make a decision, I consider what the consequences of that decision will be. My projection of the possible consequences is based on the results of previous such decisions made by myself and others, as well as a logical reasoning as to what will happen in a cause-and-effect type of way. I believe I actively participate in this process, therefore, decisions I make (which aren't made under duress etc) are an expression of my will.

The "information in my head" contributes to my thought processes. A piece of "information" with no will of its own cannot control something.

Feel free to message me and rebut my argument if you like.

Answer 5

a million. You stated it your self they're only recommendations. they're abstractions. concepts. 2. On evolution you're purely thoroughly, completely incorrect. you're incorrect. i am going to't placed it any extra purely than that. i'm actual being variety and providing you with the great element about the doubt and in no way calling you a liar. we've transitional fossils, 1000's of them, in case you care to call a particular lineage i am going to call some for you. Charles Darwin did not recant his concept and it would not remember if he did. He did admit that transitional fossils were lacking on the time yet he also stated that he became hoping destiny generations would locate them, which we've. bear in mind in Darwin's day the technology of palaeontology became decrease than 50 years previous. organic techniques DO upload advice and that i'll teach it utilising any definition of advice you care to apply. i have in no way met a creationist who would tell me what definition they were utilising. 3. you're utilising instinct. you're extrapolating your primary understanding of physics to an section the position it does not belong. reason and outcome contained in the classical experience does not prepare to quantum mechanics. after all this is a controversy from lack of information. God purely did it isn't an evidence. This argument became debunked seven hundred years in the past and this is not any extra constructive immediately. 4. No i do not imagine there is the type of element as objective morality, and did you realize what unhappy ******* day for us. All you've stated is that the shortcoming of an objective morality will be undesirable, hence objective morality exists, hence God exists. No you want as an instance the existence of an objective morality. 5. particular, teach it. purely affirming the sky is proper isn't evidence this is very few dull white wash. teach it, or close up. this is that straightforward.

Answer 6

Interesting counter-argument from a psychological point-of-view, not from a religious one. Interesting.

However, I believe the fact that you CAN choose A or B and contemplate what to do beforehand disproves the "it's been pre-programmed in my head theory."

For example, I can type 10 "x"s RIGHT NOW or I will not. It is up to me. Hmmm...should I or should I not. I am thinking now. I am thinking about it. This is my choice. Now, you would say, eventually, my pre-programming, upbringing, etc., will eventually lead me to the end of whether I will be typing those "x"s or not.

Yes, that is true. But it does not escape the fact that it is still my choice! The "pre-programming" and background for me are only the tools I have that assist me in making that choice.......they do not make the choice for me!

And so........









x x x x x x

I decided to type neither zero nor ten "x"s but six. My choice to do so.

Great topic.

Answer 7

Sure, I can understand what you said. You're saying that our choices don't come from a vacuum but are conditioned by our thoughts and circumstances. However that argument only places conditions upon our will, it doesn't negate the truth that we still have options from which to choose and that eventually for whatever reason or reasons we make a choice. For instance I can flip a coin and choose between two options depending on whether it lands on heads or tails. Saying that the coin has determined the choice that I will make negates the fact that I have already made the choice to be guided by the coin toss.

Answer 8

The legitimacy of determinism is actually unknown, and it is therefore not a valid justification of the nonexistence of free will. Down at the very smallest level of reality, determinism doesn't seem to apply at all; exactly what that means is the subject of much debate. Read this article for more information on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

While i'm inclined to agree that there's no free will, that's only a tentative suspicion of mine - it cannot be rationally justified, because the reality is, we just don't know.

Answer 9

Hey Brenda, I understand. As you can see from what has already said by others, the idea of no free will grates on some people. I have decided this is because it threatens the concept that we exist outside of and apart from our perceived world - the so-called Cartesian split.

Personally, I have yet to learn of any compelling argument that supports the existence of free will. You may already be aware of Alan Watts' comments on the subject, including his very simple experiment to test the question.

Email me for details, if you would like to hear more.

Answer 10

I do understand, but I do not a agree with your premise.

It all boils down to your first sentence. Making a decision is precisely, "making a choice." Your assumption in your argument is that "x" facts in "y" brain equals only choice "z". However, people come up with multiple solutions to situations all the time. If equally good choices can be made, then to say you have no choice in the matter is simply determinism, which cannot be if you see two or more equally good choices.

Answer 11

rhythym is correct in his assessment and terminology.

you're arguing psychological determinism

unfortunately, this idea cannot be evaluated. How could you prove it wrong? You cannot. Given that determinism makes no predictions and can explain anything after the fact, it's validity cannot be assessed.

It's a philosophical question, but one that is really pointless. What would it mean if you were proven wrong? proven right?

absolutely nothing.

It's fun to think about but is little more than mental masturbation.