Dennett’s “Free Will” vs a Free Will Not Worth Wanting

 determinism  12 Responses »
Mar 122015
 

dennett_jump
Daniel Dennett, author of Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting and  Freedom Evolves, is a philosopher that is considered a free will “compatibilist”. What this means is that Dennett accepts that the universe is deterministic or that even if there was indeterminism, this wouldn’t help free will such as what libertarians think (different than political libertarians) – but at the same time he thinks free will is compatible with determinism.

On the other hand, hard determinists and hard incompatibilists such as myself think that free will is not compatible with determinism (nor indeterminism).

So obviously one of us must be wrong…right? Well yes and no. The first thing that needs to be addressed is if we are both on the same page in regards to the term “free will”. As it turns out, Dennett’s “Free Will” is not the free will of concern for the hard determinist or hard incompatibilist. Continue reading »

Freely Willed Decisions are Even Intuitively Nonsensical!

 free will  10 Responses »
Mar 052015
 

decisions

The free will debate can get into a lot of philosophical discussions on determinism, indeterminism, causality, acausality, and can get into some pretty heavy topics such as quantum mechanics, theories of time, and a bunch of other really complex discussions. For this article I’m going to move away from all of this high level stuff and take things to a more intuitive level. If you are looking for some insight on how quantum mechanics can’t help free will (which it can’t by the way), this is not the article for that, but do subscribe for articles that get into some of these more complex topics as well! For this article, lets just try to analyze our own decisions just a bit.

Imagine what it would mean for you to have, of your own accord, been able to have decided otherwise than what you did. Just picture this for a second and then imagine what it implies. Or better yet, think of any example of a decision, and ask yourself if there was a reason why you made the decision you did. And if there was, how could you have gone against that reason? And if there wasn’t, how could you have, of your own accord, stopped the decision from happening? Continue reading »

Existence Conflated with Knowledge and the Free Will Debate

 determinism, free will, indeterminism  3 Responses »
Feb 262015
 

ontology-epistemology-conflationA common occurrence that happens in the free will debate is the conflation between what “is” or what “exists” with what we can or cannot “know”. In philosophical terms such is the conflation between an ontic understanding and an epistemic understanding. In case the philosophical terms arise in a discussion, all you really need to know is that ontology is the study of what exists, is real, or the nature and properties of “being”, while epistemology is the study of what we can know and how we can know things. In philosophy these words are very broad fields of study. For example, ones epistemological standard (standard of knowledge) might play into their ontological understandings (what they think exists or doesn’t exist).

If you are unfamiliar with the philosophical jargon, don’t be too concerned. For the free will debate, just know that one addresses existence claims and the other addresses knowledge claims. And the distinction between these two things are of great importance. Continue reading »

Deserve Justifies Inequality

 free will, naturalism  2 Responses »
Feb 192015
 

deserve-inequality

In this article I want to get people thinking about the types of things that justify inequality. And when I say “inequality” I mean inequality of anything at all, but for the most part let’s address inequality of well-being (e.g. wealth, health, etc.). What are the reasons one might justify their own well-being at the expense of another, with such justification being rational if we were to accept the reason?

From what I can tell, most, if not all, entitlement of well-being over another’s lesser well-being depends on if a person deserves their better well-being over the other or if the other deserves their lesser well-being. It’s the idea that one is “more or less deserving” than another that allows most, if not all, justifications of inequality to take place. Continue reading »

Brain Noise Being Labeled as Free Will? Not So Fast!

 determinism, free will, incompatibiism  5 Responses »
Feb 122015
 

brain_noise

According to a study from the Center for Mind and Brain at the University of California, Davis, random fluctuations in the brain’s “background electrical noise” might have a say in our decisions. An article on the ucdavis.edu website suggests that this could possibly be labeled “free will“. In other words, it opens the free will door.

Take a look at the article here:
Does ‘free will’ stem from brain noise?

The article is brief, but has some conclusions that simply do no follow from what is explained in the study. It first says this, in order to prep you for the really bad thinking to come:

“How do we behave independently of cause and effect?” said Jesse Bengson, a postdoctoral researcher at the center and first author on the paper. “This shows how arbitrary states in the brain can influence apparently voluntary decisions.”

Continue reading »

“Determinism” and “Indeterminism” for the Free Will Debate

 determinism, incompatibiism, indeterminism  13 Responses »
Feb 052015
 

determinism-indeterminism-semantics

The words “determinism” and “indeterminism” tend to cause a lots o’ confusion when they are used. That’s because, as with many words/terms, they can often be used with ambiguous meanings. This post is going to point to some of these usages and also to the common usage that’s of importance for the debate on free will.

Let’s start with determinism and look at the possible ways this has been used by others.

For many such as myself, determinism is interlinked entirely with causality. It says something about the universe and all events that ever happen within it. If every event that happens in the universe has a cause, the universe, per this definition, is said to be “deterministic”. Continue reading »

Consciousness Can Exist without Free Will

 consciousness, determinism  5 Responses »
Jan 292015
 

Consciousness-no_free_will_required

A common mistake associated with the idea of free will not existing is people thinking such follows to the conclusion that consciousness doesn’t exist either (Yes, I’ve had numerous people argue consciousness can’t exist without it). This, however, does not follow. There’s mounds of evidence for consciousness, and none for free will (the ability to have, of one’s own accord, done otherwise), and the lack of free will does not implicate a lack of consciousness. Continue reading »

Kindle Countdown Deal – Breaking the Free Will Illusion…

 uncategorized  Comments Off on Kindle Countdown Deal – Breaking the Free Will Illusion…
Jan 262015
 

Amazon_Countdown_Deal

…for the Betterment of Humankind!

For a limited time the Kindle version of Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind will be having an awesome deal (amazon.com and amazon.co.uk only).

Starting Thursday January 29 @ 8AM PST and ending Thursday February 5th at 12AM PST (or midnight on Wednesday), the Kindle version will be having what is called a “Countdown Deal”. So how does a countdown deal work?

The price will start at 99 CENTS  and  go back up to the full price on February 5th.

You will see something like this on the Amazon Kindle book page:
timer

So yeah, download your copy of the Kindle version at this time. Don’t miss out! Follow one of the links below:

AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.CO.UK

And when you read it, send me an email to let me know whatcha think. And if you liked it or it gave you “food for thought”, please leave me an Amazon review – I’d be very grateful!

Thanks,

‘Trick

“Is Logical” is Not “Will Act Logically” – So What’s a Philosopher to Do?

 misc. philosophy  3 Responses »
Jan 212015
 

static_vs_dynamic_philosophy

In my book Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind I make a logical case against free will (I prove a negative through proof of impossibility). I then go on to explain that if (the majority of) people understand this logical case, and if they understand what follows from such and act accordingly, the world will be a much “better” place than it currently is in many regards.

Saying something “is logical”, however, is not the same as saying someone actually “will act logically”, or hold a logical belief, or even care to educate them-self on the topic. For example, if I say that a certain type of fairness and equality follow logically from the rational understanding that there is no free will (and give the case as to why), that is not the same as saying that someone who believes there is no free will will act fair or equal  – which implies they took the time to learn about it, and care enough to act on it. Continue reading »