Free will - an illusion?

[yellowperil]

I was bored during Spanish class today so I wrote a set of assumptions about why I believe free will is an illusion. These are partially drawn from one of my posts at ATOT several weeks ago.

My assumptions:
1. People make decisions from multiple choices
2. Decisions are based on costs vs. benefits
3. The outweighing of benefits over costs leads to one decision; the outweighing of costs over benefits leads to another.
4. Factors comprising costs and benefits are determined by the environment, by personal history, and by internal factors (e.g., mood, personality, genetic predisposition)
5. Many of these factors are not recognized or perceived by the individual at the time of the decision, or even in ex post facto analyses.
6. The factors cannot be thoroughly identified, because of a) a lack of objective information about the current situation, and b) a lack of understanding how much, and in what way, these variables contribute to the decision.
7. Individuals perceive they have free will because they do not identify those variables.
8. Arguments for free will are based on cultural and social factors.
9. In order for a will to be truly free, it must be capable of making decisions independently from any influences
10. I do not think this is possible.

 

[BA]

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

 

[yellowperil]

The argument is not whether we make choices, but whether those choices are the result of free will or determined.

 

[BA]

If a choice is determined for you, it's hardly a choice, is it?

 

[yellowperil]

Maybe choice is the wrong word - how about 'alternatives'?

 

[Darein]

Wow, you were bored. I like to hope we are all under free will or choice, I guess only time will tell?

 

[BA]

Personally, I go for free will. If it is an illusion, the debate becomes completely pointless.

 

[yellowperil]

I agree, free will sounds nicer, but I don't know of any argument supporting it except for "it feels like I have it". I suppose conceptually it is a useful fiction.

 

[Amused]

YP,

What to consider here is how one controls what influences them. Do they actually go beyond what basic advertising tells them and research what they choose, or do they allow their emotions to control them.

Objectivity is the surest way to "free-will." While no one can ever be 100% objective, the more objective one is, the more free they are of outside influences.

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought a free will was when your lawyer forgets to charge you.

 

[frizzlefry]

You 3rd point states that there is a choice to make. IF a decision is based on cost vs benefit, the person DECIDING is making a choice. Even though many of the factors are nor perceived, some factors are taken into consideration. Therefore a choice is still made.

If you were in a rage with a gun in your hand. And you had a decision to make whether or not you wanted to shoot that person standing in front of you, it is a choice. I don't think it matters if other factors are known or now, it's just in the moment, that decision that is made, is by definiton a choice and therefore free will.

Is it completely free will? Not really, because sometimes the things we do have factors that affect what we do. Let's say someone crashes their car into mine. It wasn't my decision to have someone crash into my car. It was their carelessness, their decision at that moment not to pay attention to what they were doing that caused it to happen. So it is free will in the sense that you are able to decide what you want to do. Its a self point of view when dealing with free will.

Choosing fate as your way of life in my opinion is similar to not taking the responsibility and for one's actions.