nordsmog
Cock mogger
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
- Posts
- 667
- Reputation
- 1,438
I’ll be brief with my explanations here, but elaborate in the comment section more if anyone is curious.
The argument against free will at the most fundamental level, “am I in control of any decision I make?”, boils down to determinism and the fact that every decision is based off a want and that you have no control over what you want. The ramifications of this being granted essentially leaves you as an observer stuck in a body/brain.
How every decision you make is based off a “greater want”
Take a scenario where you’re offered the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Let’s say you pick vanilla, why did you pick vanilla over chocolate? Of course the only explanation is that you wanted vanilla more than you wanted chocolate ice cream for a variety of reasons, such as previous positive experiences with the flavor, a genetic propensity towards liking the taste of vanilla, it’s color and your perceived associations of that, etc etc.
I’ll run through a few questions you’ll often get when posing this part of the argument, and explain how they all actually have a greater underlying want behind them.
“Okay, but I don’t WANT to work/go to the gym but I do it anyways”
The problem here is that you’re only focusing on the initial negative experience of working for example, and ignoring the positive experience (typically earning money) which drives the reason behind why you made the decision to apply for the job in the first place and continue to clock in everyday. You work at this particular job because you value the combined pros (earning money, socializing, using that money to pay for things like bills a car tuition etc) and cons (the negative experience of actually working: cleaning dishes, working the register, filling out spread sheets, etc) more than just staying at home or working at another job with less perceived benefits.
TLDR: You actually just want to go to work more than you want to stay at home
“What if I just choose chocolate to prove a point?”
This question runs into the exact same problem as stated earlier, you just want to prove a point that you have “free will” more than you want vanilla ice cream for all the potential reasons listed above.
Think about this through and through, I guarantee you that there’s no decision you can think of that doesn’t have a hidden “greater want” behind it. Remember that being forced to do something is not free either (which is its own argument, but also not technically even a thing if you break it down anyways. If I told you I was going to shoot you if you didn’t delete your .org account, you could still choose to not delete it and let me shoot you, this would still just be you wanting to keep your .org account up more than you want to continue living even if the decision is obvious.)
Sure, but how do I not have control over what I want? I can change my “want” to eat junk food into a desire for losing weight and getting a good physique.
This unfortunately runs into the same exact problem as mentioned earlier, and is probably the biggest factor behind why free will seems so intuitive to us at first glance. What you’re actually doing here is just adding a second want, “I want to start wanting to go to the gym more than I want to not start wanting to go to the gym”. Then you ask the same question, why do you want to change your want of going to the gym more than not? This would be for more reasons that require their own wants to change with reasons all the way back into an infinite regress. Do you sort of see where I’m going here?
Determinism
As eluded to, there’s this sort of “infinite regress” of reasons behind why you made a decision. Everything that happens has a cause before it, and the issue is that if you trace the line back you’ll always get to a point before you were born all the way up to the beginning of the universe. This is the core idea behind determinism, and while technically untrue because of the seeming randomness of quantum superposition, it’s important to remember that by definition something being random is not under your control.
To help visualize this, ask yourself what the factors are behind any decision. If you break it down, it becomes clear that the only factors are your genetic makeup and past experiences (essentially just memories, and everything that branches off from that such as current knowledge). Take a second and think about this, I guarantee you can’t find any other factor behind why you make a decision. Now apply that logic across the line of all decisions you’ve ever made, leading up to the first decision likely inside of the womb, something insignificant like opening your eyes or moving a limb. Notice how nowhere down that line does “free will” or any control whatsoever sneak in, that first decision is based entirely off past experiences (and genetic makeup but we already know this is outside of your control) outside of your control. Hence, that first decision that was entirely outside of your control affects the 2nd decision and the 3rd all the way up to now.
As demonstrated, the consequences of this being true leaves you as purely an observer in a body/brain with all the decision predetermined and outside of your control. Remember that trying to redefine the term “free will” to something along the lines of “being able to do whatever I want”, is essentially saying “I can do whatever I want as long as it’s this specific thing I have no control over”.
I hope this outline of the arguments has convinced you against the case for free will, or at the very least allowed you to consider both perspectives of the argument. I’ll link a few interesting videos on the subject below if anyone is interested
The argument against free will at the most fundamental level, “am I in control of any decision I make?”, boils down to determinism and the fact that every decision is based off a want and that you have no control over what you want. The ramifications of this being granted essentially leaves you as an observer stuck in a body/brain.
How every decision you make is based off a “greater want”
Take a scenario where you’re offered the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Let’s say you pick vanilla, why did you pick vanilla over chocolate? Of course the only explanation is that you wanted vanilla more than you wanted chocolate ice cream for a variety of reasons, such as previous positive experiences with the flavor, a genetic propensity towards liking the taste of vanilla, it’s color and your perceived associations of that, etc etc.
I’ll run through a few questions you’ll often get when posing this part of the argument, and explain how they all actually have a greater underlying want behind them.
“Okay, but I don’t WANT to work/go to the gym but I do it anyways”
The problem here is that you’re only focusing on the initial negative experience of working for example, and ignoring the positive experience (typically earning money) which drives the reason behind why you made the decision to apply for the job in the first place and continue to clock in everyday. You work at this particular job because you value the combined pros (earning money, socializing, using that money to pay for things like bills a car tuition etc) and cons (the negative experience of actually working: cleaning dishes, working the register, filling out spread sheets, etc) more than just staying at home or working at another job with less perceived benefits.
TLDR: You actually just want to go to work more than you want to stay at home
“What if I just choose chocolate to prove a point?”
This question runs into the exact same problem as stated earlier, you just want to prove a point that you have “free will” more than you want vanilla ice cream for all the potential reasons listed above.
Think about this through and through, I guarantee you that there’s no decision you can think of that doesn’t have a hidden “greater want” behind it. Remember that being forced to do something is not free either (which is its own argument, but also not technically even a thing if you break it down anyways. If I told you I was going to shoot you if you didn’t delete your .org account, you could still choose to not delete it and let me shoot you, this would still just be you wanting to keep your .org account up more than you want to continue living even if the decision is obvious.)
Sure, but how do I not have control over what I want? I can change my “want” to eat junk food into a desire for losing weight and getting a good physique.
This unfortunately runs into the same exact problem as mentioned earlier, and is probably the biggest factor behind why free will seems so intuitive to us at first glance. What you’re actually doing here is just adding a second want, “I want to start wanting to go to the gym more than I want to not start wanting to go to the gym”. Then you ask the same question, why do you want to change your want of going to the gym more than not? This would be for more reasons that require their own wants to change with reasons all the way back into an infinite regress. Do you sort of see where I’m going here?
Determinism
As eluded to, there’s this sort of “infinite regress” of reasons behind why you made a decision. Everything that happens has a cause before it, and the issue is that if you trace the line back you’ll always get to a point before you were born all the way up to the beginning of the universe. This is the core idea behind determinism, and while technically untrue because of the seeming randomness of quantum superposition, it’s important to remember that by definition something being random is not under your control.
To help visualize this, ask yourself what the factors are behind any decision. If you break it down, it becomes clear that the only factors are your genetic makeup and past experiences (essentially just memories, and everything that branches off from that such as current knowledge). Take a second and think about this, I guarantee you can’t find any other factor behind why you make a decision. Now apply that logic across the line of all decisions you’ve ever made, leading up to the first decision likely inside of the womb, something insignificant like opening your eyes or moving a limb. Notice how nowhere down that line does “free will” or any control whatsoever sneak in, that first decision is based entirely off past experiences (and genetic makeup but we already know this is outside of your control) outside of your control. Hence, that first decision that was entirely outside of your control affects the 2nd decision and the 3rd all the way up to now.
As demonstrated, the consequences of this being true leaves you as purely an observer in a body/brain with all the decision predetermined and outside of your control. Remember that trying to redefine the term “free will” to something along the lines of “being able to do whatever I want”, is essentially saying “I can do whatever I want as long as it’s this specific thing I have no control over”.
I hope this outline of the arguments has convinced you against the case for free will, or at the very least allowed you to consider both perspectives of the argument. I’ll link a few interesting videos on the subject below if anyone is interested