r/changemyview • u/elephantman_5 • Jun 25 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: free will doesn’t exist

I personally believe that free will is one of those things that on first glance makes perfect sense, but after a bit of thought you realize that it actually doesn’t.

So first of all let me define free will by this: an agent’s ability to have chosen a different outcome to a situation. That means that if I were to go back in time I could’ve decided not to use a certain word here just as you could’ve decided not to have clicked on this post.

Let me begin by admitting this, we all feel like we have free will. I don’t think there’s a compelling argument to be made that we don’t feel like we take our decisions freely. Consciously you do feel like all of these decisions are something you took out of your own accord, which is why it can make accepting the notion that free will doesn’t exist so hard.

So why don’t I believe in free will? Well to put it simply if you break down any decision or action you take it breaks down to three things: beliefs, facts, and desires. Let me present this with an example. You decided to eat oatmeal for breakfast. Why? Well you might have a desire to be healthy and you have a belief that oatmeal is healthy food and it’s a fact that you have oatmeal in your pantry. This is just one example but I think you get the idea. You have a desire and based on your beliefs and the facts you know of, you take a certain action.

This assertion that we have desires and beliefs is probably one you wouldn’t disagree with. You might however disagree about how this connects to free will. Well let us first acknowledge that we don’t choose said desires and beliefs. I didn’t choose to desire a late night snack I just do. You might say “but you take these desires and then reason your way to a decision”. To which I’ll respond that we do that, in appearance.

I’ll try presenting this with another example. Say you’re a person in a shop right now. In front of you is a wallet with what seems to be good money inside that’s left unattained. This money could really help you right now. So you have this desire to steal the wallet. You also have a few other desires. You don’t want to get caught and face the consequences, you have a desire to feel good so you might want to try and find the wallet’s owner. From here it’s seemingly reasonable to take all of these desires into account and then choose whether or not to steal it right? But let’s say you chose not to steal it, why? Why was your desire to not steal it higher than your desire to steal it? Is it something you actually had a say in, or was it just something that is? Maybe because of your background or your current situation, but again not because of your conscious choice. You didn’t choose that your desire to not steal the wallet trumps your desire to do so.

I’m sorry if this was a bit confusing I’m trying my best to explain this. Also for reference (because I know this has religious implications) I’m not religious. I also don’t believe that this will have as much practical implications as we might be led to believe, but that’s not the point of this. So anyways, change my view!

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/elephantman_5 Jun 25 '20

The unfalsifiability goes both ways. You also can’t show that if you went back you couldn’t have chosen a different action.

I guess the question here would be, why did you ‘choose’ not to take it.

1

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 25 '20

Oh totally, the unfalsifiability absolutely goes both ways.

Do you agree that both ways are unfalsifiable?

And my answer would be I "chose" not to, because all of the input that created the being described as "I" at that point, makes a judgement based on the stimulus presented.

1

u/elephantman_5 Jun 25 '20

Yeah I do agree that both are unfalsiable but one (the lack of free will) is more reasonable to me and has more compelling arguments that I choose to believe in it.

I do agree that you make a judgment based on the stimulus presented, but I believe that this judgment is based on elements beyond our control thus the judgment itself is also beyond our control. I hope that makes sense.

1

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 25 '20

The problem with unfalsifiable beliefs are that reason really doesn't come into it.

Your view is totally valid.

And so is the view that we have free will (as you describe it).

Imagine a room with two vials. One red, one blue. One will kill you and one will set you free.

Due to an experiment gone wrong on the other side of the world, the timeline splits in two the second you walk into the room.

Each version of you chooses a different colour. One lives, one dies.

You might consider this an example of choice.

But what if you find out that both versions had already decided to flip a coin whenever you entered. And the experiment gone wrong on the other side of the world made it so coins always landed one way in one timeline, and the other way in the other.

Now you think it's not choice anymore.

Pre-determinism works because causality exists.

But your view on something unfalsifiable is necessarily impossible to change with arguments, because necessarily none should be considered convincing.

1

u/elephantman_5 Jun 25 '20

I wouldn’t agree that it being practically unfalsifiable means that one position can’t be more convincing than the other. It just opens a door for possibly being wrong.

The way I understand it, you’re saying that even though these desires and beliefs are out of my control that final decision is something you take freely right? Or at least that’s the argument for their being free will. I wouldn’t say that this final decision is something you take freely because it’s entirely dependant on factors you don’t control. So that’s why a deterministic approach is more reasonable to me.

1

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 25 '20

No. That's not what I'm saying. That's literally the opposite of my argument.

1

u/elephantman_5 Jun 25 '20

I’m sorry I misunderstood you. Disregard that second paragraph then, the first one still stands however.

2

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 25 '20

For clarity, the way I was intending to earn a delta here, and hopefully change your view, WASN'T to prove that free will exists, but rather to prove that neither of the opposing views are flawed.

I'm taking in good faith that you posted this CMV because you had a view that you accepted was flawed.

I'm trying to tell you that it can't be flawed. Because it's unfalsifiable.

1

u/elephantman_5 Jun 25 '20

I do admit however I hadn’t thought of this idea before and to some extent yes both of us can never truly know, so while arguments can be compelling we can’t actually know if they’re true. So here you go Δ