We have no free will (and that's not a bad thing)

Post Reply New Topic

Whenever I see people debating about this, they often aren't even talking about the same thing. When I say free will, I'm talking about whether or not there is some aspect of ourselves outside of our physical components (like a soul) that controls what we do, as opposed to us simply being physical lifeforms that are governed completely by the laws of physics.

But people often respond to it with something like, "If we don't have free will how can we choose to do anything?" As if we wouldn't be able to decide what to wear in the morning or something silly like that.

The answer is that we do make decisions, but we are not ultimately controlling what our decision will be. It feels like we are, but it's an illusion. It's helpful because it would be impossible to comprehend all the little things that led to our decision and still function properly. Like trying to watch and understand all the little commands occurring in a computer at once, and be using the computer at the same time.

People also seem to assume that not having free will is bad. But unless your religion tells you that wrong choices will send you to Hell, I can't see what is so negative about it. If anything, the idea of free will is what is negative and harmful. Plenty of people who believe in free will think you can will yourself to be better if you have certain mental illnesses. But someone like me will understand that even small issues have some underlying cause that can be addressed, and that goes beyond oversimplifications like "laziness".

But that's just what I think. It seems like even a lot of nonreligious people tend to think we have some degree of free will. That doesn't make sense to me, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

When looking at those cases about how people got brain injuries and their character very much changed afterwards, yes, I'd agree, humans seem to have much less choice in how they act than we like to think. I do see difficulties coming with this however, too. What about criminals for example then, does it mean they should still face consequences for what they've done or can't they be held responsible?

I think the big thing people need to understand, if they accept that there's no free will, is that doesn't mean it's all hopeless so pop some rohypnols and shag an ant hill. I see people jump to a nihilistic conclusion really fast, I think that reaction goes to show that they still have yet to really think it through.

Sam Harris likely explained my own take on the issue better than I could on this Joe Rogan interview. At the same time I'd put the whole issue even farther back than the nervous system; ie. the nature of time seems to mandate that everything has a cause outside of itself and if not directly from outside you have a tabulation of an impulse from outside and a reaction to that thing - some kind of limitation, opportunity, or whatever the case may be. That and at any increment of time one would be in the exact state they're in as would their environment.



A multiverse where every opportunity is pursued wouldn't generate free will - after all every opportunity would be pursued and it would be dumb luck, not merit, which path the you that you think of as you followed. Add God, gods and goddesses, archangels, elemental beings, LSD, and lots of Steiner and Blavatski you're still living in time and while no doubt that might be very complex causality it's still just as frozen a temporal structure as the universe of a reductive materialist.

Most all people are afraid of it.

Deathlishly afraid.

Most all people will stay away from it at any cost. For any price. Even fool themselves.

It is safer to remain grounded, and know nothing.

I try to think for myself. I think I can think for myself... I think I can. Then there are other descriptions of reality that explains our thoughts as being a matter of which aspect of "God" that we connect to (either the creative or destructive aspect). I put "God" into quotes due to the ambiguity of the word itself. I believe that all of existence can actually be explained in technological-vocabulary at this stage of human-history. Let me re-name God into a different phenomenon, more along the lines of a technological-connection, into the frequencies of thoughts/emotions.

I think of consciousness as a phenomenon that can be regarded as a type of artificial-intelligence. You have seen the existence of artificial-intelligence for yourself, even to the point that A.I. can now pass the Turing Test, meaning that the robot is indistuinguishable from a human in terms of having conversations. A.I.s can have self-learning capabilities, and if our consciousness-phenomenon is a matter of how well-developed our A.I. becomes, then it starts to have more and more complex decision-making options from which we can "choose" from, limited of course to the parameters of a three-dimensional, material-existence, but some people have a consciousness A.I., perhaps to the point where we would no longer call it some "Artificial" Intelligence, but perhaps a Genuine-Intelligence or otherwise just Consciousness.

I think we have some level of free-will depending on how free we are from the emotions of fear or other forms of negative feelings (the angry person will not be able to exercise the will to hold himself back from causing destruction, the psychotic individual has less control over choosing a path that does not go down the route of revenge, and basically, people who have not learned how to be able to control their emotions simply have less free will against what their emotions compel them into deciding). Know that decision-making can be affected by various phenomena, not just drugs and alcohol, but also even from contamination of certain foods or gases or smells, exposures to certain frequencies or radiations (like psychotronics), etc.

Conclusion : Some people have a greater degree of ability to exercise decision-making ability, whilst others, for which-ever reasons or factorcs, have less ability to be able to exercise decisions. A fearful-individual will absolutely follow the orders of which-ever "authority" that he fears even to the point of committing acts of aggression against others (this is an example of the lack of being able to exercise freedom of will due to the control from one's fearful-emotions). The one who lacks fear is less easily "controlled" from external-forces. I, personally, happen to be absolutely frightened to death of karmic-consequences, such to the point where I will not even pay tax (due to its complicity to theft/extortion/kidnapping/hostages/war-mongering/domestic-terrorism/international-terrorism/terrorism/deception/etc). I refuse to let any blood stain my hands like some sort of Absolute-Pacifist.

I'd agree that arguing temporal determinism and arguing for the necessity that the same mistakes be made over are completely different things. The cultivation of knowledge and information have to be considered as a very real part of the causal structure.

I believe that I do have free will. I'm a free-range aspie, and I do things my own way. My way might not make sense to a lot of people, because people tend to follow rather than let themselves be free.