Bill B

Why do so many free thinkers accept without question the concept of free will? I see it as a purely religious concept and from a scientific standpoint, it doesn't make much sense. To me, free will is merely an illusion. Every simple decision we make in our lives ultimately comes down to the firing of specific neurons in our brains and the release of a precise mix of neurotransmitters. And any individual neuronal firing is contingent on the hundreds of trillions of events which preceeded it and their individual effects on thousands of other neuronal systems in the brain, occuring over the life of an organism on a sub-nanosecond frequency. And these events are themselves contingent on the hundreds of billions of events occuring in our individual environments and picked up by our sensory nerves. Consequently, the choices we think we are making are actually preordained by our past experience. For example, you don't decide to commit suicide or murder. You will kill yourself or others if all the prior events in your life cause your neuronal balance to so indicate. And on a personal note, I wouldn't be writing this unless my brain "required" me to do so. Your responses will certainly change my future destiny.

Alonzo Fyfe

I would like to draw your attention to Part VIII of the Ethics Without God essays I am writing.

When I looked at the problem of free will in college, I discovered (to my surprise) that it did not promise anything that was incompatible with determinism. Decision, within a determined universe, is not even a mystery. It is pretty straight forward.

I invite you to read it over. If you think I missed something, let me know.

VivaHedone

Take a look at this free will thread in the philosophy section (don't be obliged to plough through all 92 posts!). I have been arguing a similar position to yours - I'm sure that this contribution would be very welcome.

Bill B

Thanks! The philosophy section thread on freewill is very thought provoking. As someone with no background in this area, I am beginning to gain much needed insight and am glad that others have come to similar conclusions

Philosoft

I suspect this topic won't stay in MF&P too long, but you might want to look at this thread also.

Nowhere357

Hi Bill. I understand your position here.

With this view in mind, I ask what you think about the concept of pain. If a creature is suffering, is it adequate to describe it as illusion?

Bill B

I think the following: Pain is real. The suffering that a creature experiences as a result of that pain is real. But the nature of that suffering and the very concept of that suffering is determined in advance by the trillions of events in an organism's life leading up to the pain and the consequence of those events on its internal biochemical response and the billions of neuronal interactions in the central nervous system. The consequence of the pain stimulus will vary for every organism. For me, the illusion for humans is thinking that we have a freewill choice between suffering and not suffering. The extent of our suffering is predetermined by the entirety of our past experience. The past determines our future.

Nowhere357

Yes I understand this position. Your OP said: "Why do so many free thinkers accept without question the concept of free will?". I'm trying to give you an answer for that.

First, to say accept "without question" is loaded, and not neccessarily accurate. Neither position has a corner on rational thought, and neither position is free from dogma.

The point of the 'pain' question was to identify your view of subjective mental entities. You agree that suffering is real. The view I'm trying to share is that the suffering is not visible to physical science.

This point is clear to me, and I think to others, but it is not clear to many. Once I realize that my mental states are not accessible to physical science, I can easily accept that my feeling of free will does not conflict with the mechanistic worldview.

IMO the view that free will is deterministic is not wrong. The view that free will actually exists is also not wrong. We actually can affect the world, and we really are responsible for our actions.

Ultimately, I think free will is observed in the macro world as randomness. So is it 'just' randomness? Well, is pain 'just' neurons firing? IMO no; pain is ALSO a real entity suffering. In the sam way, free will is more than randomness - it is also an entity exercising free will.

I hope this helps you see that belief in free will is not an unthinking position.

Jamie_L

I still haven't made up my mind what I think about free will.

For the sake of arguement, I often accept the proposition of free will in order to show that, even if it were real, many theistic notions that depend on it are erroneous.

One can argue the error of many Free Will theories without actually believing in Free Will. Sometimes the errors that depend on Free Will are easier to refute than the notion of free will itself.

Jamie

Philosoft

I don't know if this was intentional or not, but I find it wryly hilarious. :notworthy