I am not a very well read philosopher nor have I studied it, but it fascinates me.

I have a question.

Can anyone here offer up an explanation of how metaphysically there cold be an ILLUSION of free-will?

I like to believe I have free-will but am interested in counter arguments.

Every decision that you have ever made is a reaction to exterior stimuli. Vis a vis you have no more freewill than a flower that follows the arc of the sun.

but I could have chosen a different path. the "reaction" is created through my will.

But you didn't.

The path you chose was the path you always were going to choose. The fact that you think you chose it has no bearing on the situation.

is there anything to gain from not thinking I can choose?

and could I switch to that paradigm?

Your reaction comes about from your will , which is shaped by your personality which has, in turn, been shaped by what you have experienced in life. Sorry mate, but you might aswell get used to the idea that you are a victim of circumstances. On the plus side you can always blame any of the crap things that you have done in life on some butterfly in China flapping it"s wings.

Saved by the butterfly!!

but there is a loophole

since every decision/choice is based on exterior,interior,mental,spiritual or other bizzare factors

the only wise thing to do is to not make any decision/choice

this loophole is extremely hard to exploit since making decisions feels natural

also check this out https://www.dmt-nexus.me...spx?g=posts&t=12458

Jin, but not making a choice is still a choice.

As for the free will topic in general....Obviously we don't have 100% free will. The billion-dollar budget of the advertising industry is a good indication of that, and so are the hundreds of social psychology experiments which show how people can be influenced by the circumstances, influenced by external circumstances to a great degree. Want a quick thought experiment to show that we are not 100% free? Think of a 7-dimensional object... You can't, right? Think of a color that doesn't exist and isn't a combination of known colors... You can't either, right? We are limited.

We could go to the other extreme, and say that we don't have any free will at all. And to some extent it is easier to argue for this idea. But why do we have the illusion of free will? From an evolutionary perspective, does it offer any advantage? I can't really think of one, it just seems like it would mess up things more and be a disadvantage... We might as well be robots, would be easier to guarantee our survival without any confusion from making choices to screw things up.

Now, talking from a purely personal perspective, without any grand philosophical argument or scientific proof to back it up, but I feel that free will is not a black and white thing that either you have or you don't. It feels rather like it is some kind of gradient, which is related to inner development. I don't think as humans we will ever reach 100% free will, but I do think the more I develop my consciousness and awareness, the free-er I am. As I develop myself, the more variables I am able to take in account regarding different phenomena due to my expanded awareness, the closer I am to being really free.

On this subject I have an exciting image in my head of what reality looks like with the whole future and past mapped out, so also no free will.

Imagine (much like Donnie Darko) the shape of me or you or anything in 3d every centimetre or so for each 0.1 of a second or so. these infinite "trails" of us loop around like roller-coasters in a spaghetti junctionesque pattern through the dimension of what we know as "time" but do not perceive as a whole usually.

We just ride around the paths forever.

I just had to explain this because I usually cannot put deep visions I have into words very well and I felt I could with this.

I wonder what happens when and if you can step out of this ride and view it in its entirety.

I also wonder what happens if the roller-coaster crashes!

To me 100% lack of free-will, but with the illusion of it is metaphysically pointless.

Couldn't the entire history of the universe play out without us in our minds like patrons at the cinema?

You are in there observing, choosing, feeling etc.

YOU.

If there was no free will, YOU would be totally unnecessary.

Nailed it.

yess this exactly

not making a decision is a decision

that's why its a loop hole , not total freedom

living this way can be great and is certainly a step up from making decisions

another step up would be to not make a decision about not making decisions

the rest is for the individual to figure out

This feels technically illogical. Not making a decision is the absence of choice. You do not have to choose not to choose to not choose.

I think we have the illusion of freewill precisely because we have the illusion of a self. By self I mean an independent entity that is separate from the environment. And while we can all agree intellectually that we are in fact part of the environment we still hold a fundamental view that there is a tree over there and a me over here.

This all stems from our internal labelling mechanism. This is an apple. This is an apple tree... in truth is there any division between an apple and it's tree? If not then is there really any division between the sun, wind, rain, nutrients and the apple tree?



I agree with this, though ironically I find that the less self based thinking I engage in the freerer my mind is to perceive reality as it is. Once the ego kicks in the the mind is filled with perceptions and a day can become a 'good' day or a 'bad' day... By that is all just ego stuff attaching and holding onto things.

In the Zen tradition this aspect of mind that clings to other aspects of mind as self is called Manas.

In any event I have pondered this question to the point of essentially flipping it on it's head...and eventually made peace with it in a way that makes sense to me:

Choice, may very well be a fundamental pat of the universe, like an electrons choice to go through one slit, the other slit, or both slits...or an ameba's choice to turn left or right in it's quest for food. But this choice is not free of anything. Let me explain. The very fact that you would be in a situation to make a choice is conditioned. For instance do you choose to have a thug show up and ask for your wallet? Of course not.. but you may very well have a choice to give it to him, run, or fight... And furthermore once the choice is made and an action is taken it becomes part of the universal chain (or web) of cause and effect which isn't just a linear chain through time but also a chain connected through space as well....thus the web analogy.

So I think there is a will or choice. I don't think there is a separate unconditioned entity that has this will and certainly this will isn't free of anything at all.

This also allows me to hold a belief in a concept of Karma.. and no nothing like what many people think... I don't think it's a cosmic score board up there.. and I don't think it's if you kill then you are killed.. not in a direct way any way. I think Karma has much more to do with mental conditioning...but since our minds and what we think have direct effect on this massive web of cause and effects it makes sense that what we give we ultimately receive. And again this doesn't mean if I give a homeless man an apple that I will get an apple back. It is much more subtle than that and it certainly isn't something we can ever write an equation for or design an experiment to prove or disprove. Hell science can't even talk much about consciousness experience yet because it has no mechanism for dealing with subjectivity..

I really no longer see a difference between the mind and the universe. Concepts like mind body duality have no meaning to me any more. We are literally the universe looking at itself.. The fact that there is even one being in the universe that is conscious means the universe is conscious. The fact that there are 2 beings that are conscious means that consciousness is a non local phenomena...because remember even though I described it as "two" beings in truth each being is completely conditioned by the whole universe...

Consciousness is fundamental to the universe in the exact same way that a sun is fundamental.. I mean how many beings have consciousness on this planet alone? A trillion? How many stars are in our milky way? I see no reason to think of consciousness as a random chance than I do the suns appearing as random chance...

To assume that consciousness is a by product of evolution is just that. An assumption. I find it hard to image something like consciousness just randomly appears from evolution. Seems much more likely that evolution is the process of greater and greater expression or tapping into this field of consciousness for lack of a better way to frame it.

And of course these are just my thoughts on it. I allow for the possibility that I am dead wrong.. in fact I try to never hold to an idea as though it is absolute truth anything longer..

These are the conversations that make this my favorite community.

Maybe the illusion of free will is evolutionarily advantageous in the same way that morality could be. Maybe the concepts of free will and morality developed symbiotically. It helps with co-operation in societies - "choosing to do the right thing" for yourself and the group. Thereby helping to guarantee the continuation of the society and the species.



Your choice to give, run or fight will be decided for you by the size of the mugger and how well he is armed, what sort of mood you happen to be in at the time of the mugging and how your character has developed over the years.



Does anything randomly appear from evolution? Opposable thumbs and a bi-pedal posture didn"t just develop randomly. Why couldn"t consciousness have developed as our brains became more complex.

Yep that is a very deterministic (linear view of the cause and effect chain) view and I allow for that possibility... but it seems just as likely to me that choice is a fundamental part of the universe just like electrons are...and for sure I understand many choices are made without consciouses thought.. like the choice to swerve and miss the cat in the road... happens too fast to say we 'chose' to miss the cat. Why is it inconceivable that in an inconceivable universe that choice couldn't be a fundamental aspect of it?

After all consciousness certainly is not responsible for a deterministic universe.. asteroids and planets do there thing all the time without, apparently, the slightest awareness that they are doing anything at all. There would be no advantage to our consciousness evolving as quickly as it did... Remember we are floating on a thin layer of crust on a molten planet with a fire ball in the sky fueling us... What in the world would life or consciousness possibly be for? Sure it could just be a completely and utterly random arising.... and so could the ability to make a choice. Perhaps it's based on quantum noise or what not.. I have seen no compelling argument that makes me jump on the deterministic or random band wagon. And to be honest life would be far easier if I could just blame all my bad luck in life on the universe at large.. denying that I have any responsibility.. --Oh the though arises to kill that man.. well it's not my choice to kill him.... There is a video actually of Charlie Manson essentially saying this.



I think a simple thought experiment is in order. First we must acknowledge that choice is an aspect of consciousness at some level. Unless we are to declare that asteroids make a choice to hit certain planets...

So let's say consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Some studies have in fact shown that if you hit certain brain regions with an electromagnetic field you can alter or close down consciousness... OK... so we have it nailed to a brain region (play along).. now which cluster of neurons in the brain region is responsible for this? Ok now we have a cluster of neurons that we can deem responsible for consciousness..well science, by nature, is reductionist so which neurons are most important? Is it a single neuron? Is it two neurons? If one can't do it then what is it about 2 or more than can... and furthermore is it actually the neuronal cell or is if the small molecule interacting with it... or is it because of the dielectric gradient of interstitial fluid? Is it only one g-protein coupled receptor that gives rise to the first origins of consciousness.. Is it perhaps the neurotransmitter that does it? What about the carbon-caron bonds in say serotonin is that it? Or is it the free amine that ultimately kicks off the cascade of events that allows consciousness to emerge like a flame from materiality? Oh but there is more... what of these molecules we are speaking of.. what does science say about the actual materiality of these molecules... Particle wave duality anyone? Subatomic particles that jump in and out of existence.. and what precisely does it mean to jump out of existence?

Eventually you wind this all the way down to some elementary part of the brain..or universe.. thus the universe is conscious. Doesn't mean consciousness is everywhere any more than it means the volume of the universe is filled with suns... but suns are quite clearly fundamental to the universe no?

So are we really arguing that a material universe (which science has all but proven non existent) is the rise of consciousness?


OK so you say reductionism is the wrong approach.. Ok then let's start building it back up. Is not the entire chain of events in the universe interlinked and interconnected? Can there be a tree without a perfectly maintained biosphere in a perfect solar system? Is the internet the rise of global consciousness? If so what does that say about our individual consciousness? If so then isn't consciousness once again fundamental to the universe?.. something that the universe continues to manifest at higher and higher levels of order? Perhaps one day we have to make decisions on a planetary scale.. say to interact with another species on other planets.... All of this deterministic behavior for a material universe that doesn't even appear to have substance when examined at the smallest level?

Can the universe be experienced without consciousness? Choice appears to be a fundamental aspect of consciousness and that is why I took the line of thought I did. There isn't any benefit to consciousness... in fact there isn't any benefit to the universe at large from a small human evolutionary perspective.

Choice and no choice are equally irrational.. there really isn't anything rational about the universe. So when monkey's start declaring things like it's all just cause and effect and they don't have any choice at all it is humorous.. not because it's wrong, but because it's got no more solid footing than anything else in the universe. The whole sheebang is utterly inconceivable and irrational from a human perspective.


BTW again I can allow for determinism. It however really doesn't stand out as the simplest or most elegant solution to me personally. Choice, though not free will, does appear to be a very real part of at least on aspect of higher level consciousness. Though I openly admit it may not be.. but I see no reason to form a blind view in either direction, though my bias is clearly towards consciousness and thus choice being fundamental.

JoeDirt: DEEEEP

I feel I might be able to add a lil something to this here discussion, maybe not.

Personally, I believe that free will is an adaptation that actually benefits us greatly, in fact allowing us to have become the dominant species of the Earth. The brain is the most complicated object in the visible universe, so having a singular(ish) mechanism to give it coherence and focus is essential to survival. Lately, I've come to believe that all neurologically based lifeforms require and have a consciousness to some extent for this exact reason. Think of a conductor and his orchestra, or a president to unite and parent the Senate and Congresses. I would wager that we, as a species, are merely the one lifeform that took the adaptation and ran with it. Kind of like birds perfected flight, so too have humans perfected thought in the animal kingdom.

Who is this Will character and why is it so unclear whether he is free?