The Majick of Libertarian Free Will

Do you ever feel like you're making meaningful choices in your life? Do you feel like you have the power to shape your own destiny? If so, you're not alone. Most people believe in the idea of free will, the notion that we are capable of making choices that are not predetermined by external factors.

However, upon closer inspection, the concept of free will is an obvious contradiction in terms. After all, if an event is truly "free" and not caused by any prior factors, then it is essentially a random event - and not a product of our own choices or agency. In other words, to be truly free, an event must be uncaused by anything else - and that is simply impossible.

This is where compatibilism comes in. Compatibilists argue that free will and determinism can coexist, and that our choices can still be meaningful even if they are ultimately determined by prior causes. However, this perspective is a bit of a smoke screen - it's essentially redefining free will in a way that almost nobody thinks of it.

For example, when most people talk about free will, they mean something like "the power to act untethered to fate." They're not thinking about internal mental processes or the influence of their environment on their decisions. By redefining free will in this way, compatibilists are essentially dodging the issue of determinism and the idea that events are pre-determined by prior causes.

To make matters worse, even magic and supernatural powers cannot solve this simple logic problem. The idea of causing an uncaused cause is inherently flawed and runs counter to the basic principles of logic itself.

So what's the takeaway from all this? At the end of the day, the concept of free will is an impossible and incoherent one. While it's certainly true that we feel like we're making decisions and acting on them, this feeling is a product of our internal mental processes and the influence of external factors - not a supernatural power to break causality.

In short, if you want to feel like you have free will, go ahead and do so. But just know that this feeling is not based on any coherent or logical perspective.
I hope you find this post entertaining and thought-provoking!

We do know that any sense we have of being in control of our actions is, to some extent, an illusion. In particular, neuroscientist Benjamin Libet showed in the 1980s that mechanisms within the brain initiate actions long before that brain’s owner is aware of deciding to perform them.

I think we would first need to define "free will", which is somewhat difficult.

I know what is "will".

However, "free will" implies:

1) Will that is free from something

2) Will that is free to choose something or not choose it

The 1) obviously asks "Will that is free from what exactly?".

The 2) implies that the will creates choices out of nothing. The only cause of the choice is will. Therefore, such will if left alone still makes same choices as if when it isnt left alone.

However, that brings us to questions like

What caused will?

Why does "free will = choices it makes"?

Why does "free will = certain choice"?

The only answer that makes any sense is that "free will" should not be an argument at all. It is a poor argument that we cant even put into work.

For example, if we say "free will = guilty", then does that mean "no free will = not guilty"?

The obvious answer is that being guilty is irrelevant of free will, and the application of punishment is same in cases where free will exists and in cases where it doesnt.

Nobody will say that we shouldnt destroy a meteor heading towards Earth that could kill lots of people.

@3RU7AL

I like Best.Korea's point of 'Free from 'What?

There's also the point that when individuals 'believe in free will,

They often take greater action/autonomy.

Though I suppose individuals can 'still believe in a lack of free will,

Yet believe they 'might still be capable of an action or not, depending on whether they exert their will,

Or whether their will is exerted 'for them.

Though I 'assume humans respond more often to 'their own exerting of their will idea.

@NoBodyInParticular

Zeno,

. . .

I suppose one might argue that the world was always going to line up a certain way,

'Once the act has occurred.

But then fate becomes an afterthought, a stating of what 'was.

Until then,

How does one 'know,

Maybe even after, given how some people are crazy and see not reality or the past.

And that awareness of 'If this had been that,

One can look with awareness of what they might do, that fate doesn't end up as such,

Though I suppose it doesn't really solve the problem of them being pushed by something else/Fate 'To 'Be aware of what they might do.

agreed

will must be defined as conscious-intentional-goal-seeking-in-service-of-desire

this type of will can never be free from desire

and as such, this type of will can never be free from a cause

desire must by definition be the cause of will

the ancient greeks and romans and chinese held strong beliefs about fate and destiny

and they still managed a few meager accomplishments

Are Free Will and Autonomy linked?

Sounds dismissive of Libertarian focus on freedom,

You say feel free to 'feel,

Ought or not,

People have freedom as well?

If one is bound by fate,

Is there a difference in being bound by other humans?

One might say that physical slavery brings discomfort,

But if the slavery was 'comfortable,

Would this make it 'right?

voluntary, comfortable slavery would seem to be not only acceptable, but ideal

I disagree,

Due to highly valuing (Apparent) freedom,

Why do you consider it ideal?

if you take the forced labor out of slavery, it's not really slavery anymore, depending on your definition of course

If the slaver is 'getting something from the arrangement. . .

Whether it be a human, their sense of duty fulfilled,

Or a robot, their function fulfilled,

I'd argue the forced situation is the slavery,

Though from that one could also argue slavery exists in existence,

Not to mention all the governments and social interactions, gives and takes,

Hm,

But that's a recent problem for me, 'defining 'when, coercion, slavery,

. . .

Hm,

'Instead, easy enough to say slavery, coercion 'exists,

But that it be one of our values to 'lessen it, when the pain of it reaches too much,

Too much being a vague point,

Like pain is a vague point,

Different people, different numbers from 0-10 given.

I like this alot

thanks, can you be slightly more specific ?

a true classic,

you might enjoy this one as well,

all you really need to do is make your definition of slavery explicit

Nicely stated.

Free from what?

Free from itself?

you can't be free from causality

without being a slave to random noise

Noise or Sound?

And causality for sure, which brought to mind Kaitlyn's discussion on Consent and Antinatalism.

random noise

as in  random signal

as in random influence

anything considered non-causal or un-caused is functionally indistinguishable from random

because it cannot possibly be in response to

any goal

Isn't any noise or signal generated for a reason?

Even if not for a premeditated reason.

The door banging isn't random.

It bangs relative to airflow and all the physical elements of the door and it's environmental situation.

Doesn't necessarily require a disgruntled teenager.

Humans can have a goal within the known cycle of birth and death.

Chaos is the Meta-space minds in-ability to find the order of their immediated environment.

Universe has a cycles of birth and death also, ergo, as above so below goes the old saying.

There is only the moment that is eternally in momentum forward to whatever degree in whatever direction.

Humans attempt to steer their direction, their environment and in perhaps the Universe.

Hope > Faith > Spirit-1, 2, 3 and 4 is the basis of existence.

if you are asserting that nothing is truly random

then free will is reduced to a human emotion

but even if

even if you believe that some things are truly uncaused

like the apparent randomness of the quantum foam

the injection of uncaused, functionally random noise

into an otherwise causal system

still does nothing to salvage the idea of free will

as nothing more than a mere emotion

Well,

The big unanswerable question,

Negates assertion.

Other than to assert that everything,

Is or isn't random.

Including a cause.

Though within a system of unknowable random non-random origin

Some sort of order persists.

Out of the Quantum foam,

And fundamental jus.

Came thinking person.

Did it have a choice?

your will can only be goal seeking in service of desire

desire always CAUSES your intentional action

desire might be uncaused

but your will can never be uncaused

ipso facto

not free

Ipso facto

Not free

Tee hee

I agree.

We always do stuff

After

Rather than

Before.

Not eating one's cake

Before having it

As it were.

As it were.

In a nutshell.

Sometimes when I lay in a morning bed, Thinking I ought get up,

Or before an unpleasant task, I want not suffer, but want what it grants me,

I state to myself,

"You have a choice"

Often invigorates my will towards what I'm trying to do.

Ignoring whether said choice is true or not,

I wonder,

Do individuals big on the lack of free will,

State to themselves?

It 'might be in the skein of fate, that I make X action.

Is the will towards the small want,

'Equally increased?

I'm not saying it's not,

Just musing, idle thoughts.

i've been without free will for quite some time now

and i still make mistakes

and i still try to improve my skill

i do the best i can

but the most significant change

is that i don't blame others for their own short-sighted actions

i still react

but i understand they are also

doing the best they are currently capable of

The statement "I could have made a better decision yesterday" is an opinion rather than a fact. It's based on your own subjective assessment of the situation and your belief that you had more information, resources or clarity today that would have led to a better decision yesterday.

While it is possible that with new information or hindsight, you may come to realize that there were better options available at the time of making the decision, this realization does not change the fact that you made what was then considered as the best decision based on all available factors and constraints. Therefore, whether or not you could have made a better decision in retrospect remains an opinion rather than a verifiable fact.