'Trick Slattery

'Trick Slattery is the author of Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind. He's an author, philosopher, artist, content creator, and entrepreneur. He has loved and immersed himself in philosophy since he was teenager. It is his first and strongest passion. Throughout the years he has built a philosophy based on analytic logic and critical thinking. Some of the topics he is most interested in are of a controversial variety, but his passion for the topics and their importance drives him to want to express these ideas to others. His other passions include pen and ink line art and digital artwork.

Quarantine Analogy and Free Will Skepticism

 criminal system  2 Responses »
Jul 232015
 

quarantine-no-free-willIf a dangerous contagious disease that we don’t yet have a cure for starts to find its way into the population, we have to quarantine people who have it. But why do we do this? The answer is simple, it prevents the ability for the disease to spread. But what if a person with the contagious disease doesn’t want to be quarantined? Would quarantining them be something we shouldn’t then do? Should we just let them spread the disease they have as much as they want? Of course not. Continue reading »

Leprechauns vs. Free Will (Comparing Beliefs)

 free will  2 Responses »
Jul 092015
 

leprechauns-vs-free-willThere is no evidence for free will (as defined here), just as there is no evidence for leprechauns. Indeed, there is just as much burden of proof required for the claim that such free will exists as there is for the claim that leprechauns exist. We could technically just default to this burden and say that the onus is on the free will believer to prove the existence of free will, just as the onus would be on the person who claims leprechauns, fairies, or unicorns exists, Elvis faked his death, teapots are orbiting planets in distant galaxies, or any other claim that requires more evidence than “I say so”. Continue reading »

Brain Tumors, Microchips, and Free Will… Oh My

 compatibilism, free will  3 Responses »
Jul 012015
 

MICROCHIP_BRAINSome compatibilists think that so long as we can make decisions to “do what we want” that such decisions are sufficient to label as “free will”. They don’t, however, understand the implications of such thinking. Take a look at this excerpt from my book Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind:

Some compatibilists have a different idea of what’s meant by the word “freedom.” They may say that if a person’s thoughts dictate the event (are the antecedent causes of the event), it’s free, but if the person’s thought does not control the event, it’s not free.

For example, they may say that if a person is stuck in a rainstorm and there’s no shelter available, they are not free to decide to stay dry. But if someone is under shelter during a rainstorm, they are free to step out from the shelter and get wet (or not) because they can make the conscious decision to do so. Continue reading »

“Free Will vs. Determinism” – Do We Need a Better Label?

 determinism, free will, incompatibiism, indeterminism  6 Responses »
Jun 222015
 

free-will-vs-determinismThe free will debate is almost always classified/labeled as a debate between “free will vs. determinism”. This confuses many into thinking that if determinism is incompatible with free will (which it is), people just need to show that determinism isn’t necessarily the case and automatically the possibility for free will opens up. In other words, when someone argues against free will, so many people will revert to the idea that perhaps the universe isn’t deterministic, the negation of such becoming their free will savior. The idea that indeterminism can help grant free will is, in philosophical circles, called libertarian free will (not to be confused with the economic/politic position). Continue reading »

Redefining “Free Will” is Like Redefining “Geocentric” – Except Worse

 free will  14 Responses »
Jun 172015
 

geocentric-free-will

Some compatibilists think we should redefine the term “free will” to be something that is consistent with reality, rather than accept a more common definition that is incoherent or outside of the facts. Today I want to address this little snippet from Daniel Dennett’s response to Sam Harris. Dennett is a compatibilist who wants to redefine free will, Harris is an incompatibilist who does not. In one part Dennett says: Continue reading »

We Don’t Have to Act Like Free Will Exists

 free will, free will illusion  13 Responses »
Jun 142015
 

we-don-have-to-act-like-free-will-existsI’ve heard time and time again from people who claim that “even if there is no free will, we still need to act like it exists”. This is a way to bypass the mounds of behavioral adjustments and changes in beliefs that truly do need to take place with the understanding that free will doesn’t exist.

Things just aren’t as simple as asserting we need to act like it exists. There is a whole lot of nuance to the understanding that we don’t have free will. To behave like it exists is to behave in a way that is not in accord with reality, and such has great consequences. Continue reading »

Ontic Probability Doesn’t Exist: Assessing “Probability” for the Free Will Debate

 probability  33 Responses »
Jun 032015
 

ontic_probability_doesnt_existThis topic is going to be a bit more on the “for people familiar with knowledge of some philosophical jargon” level.  In other words, this won’t be a typical post that I normally make for larger mass consumption. Perhaps at a later day I’ll create a whittled down version, but this one is needed to point others to who claim ontic probability and use this as a way to contrive free will.

I’ll be using words such as “ontic / ontological” and “epistemic / epistemological”, I’ll be talking a little bit about quantum mechanics, and I’ll be talking about the differences between “epistemic probability” and “ontic probability” and my problem with the latter.

If you can deal with a few jargon words and a post that may be a little more technical than normal, please stick with this, because it comes up more often than I’d suspect in free will debates. What am I addressing? It’s this idea that, according to some quantum interpretations (interpretations of the scientific findings of quantum mechanics, basically the teenie tiny particle level), some people assert that probability is ontological. Continue reading »

10 Reasons Why People Can’t Let Go of Their Free Will Belief

 determinism, free will, free will illusion  4 Responses »
May 282015
 

10 reasons people can't let go of free will beliefThis week I’d like to focus on 10 reasons why people find it difficult to let go of their belief in free will (as defined here), even when given the evidence against it. There are many factors involved, so as always, this is just a brief list from the many possibilities. Some may apply to some people, others may apply to other people, but there is usually a good mix of these that make it hard for people to give up their free will belief.

So what’s one to do about this? It depends, but persistence seems to be one key in combating these reasons. And with that, on to the 10 reasons why people can’t let go of their free will belief: Continue reading »