Free Will Is An Illusion!?

I am sure of it, it is a illusion. Since everything is material (including our mind), and since everything material follow the law of cause and effect, free will must be an illusion.
*

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

Singh ji,
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/330-free-will-is-an-illusion.html

Not sure of the msg in this post. Did u say free will as equating to 'Bhaana Man'naa'?

Regards.

Didn't Descartes actually attempt to prove the same thing? That free will is an illusion.

You are sure that free-will is an illusion? Are you being sarcastic or ?

I am certain, that I have free-will, whether its written in any holy scripture or not, I know I have it.

Sikh ji,

Does your Free-will mean not to interfere in the natural flow of Hukam? Pls write back in more detail.

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=330
Best Regards.

dear guys
lemme explain a bit about Free will here and hopefully we can direct our further discossions on that basis


Introduction and Conditions for Free Will

What does it mean to have free will? To have free will at least two conditions must obtain.

1. We must have two or more possibilities 'genuinely open' to us when we face a choice; and
2. our choice must not be 'forced'.

The concept of free will plays a central role in our thinking about the world, particularly in our apportioning praise and blame, and in our finding persons morally responsible for things they have done.

All sorts of conditions serve to diminish moral responsibility (and blameworthiness). We do not hold persons morally responsible for their actions when they are

• under the influence of a powerful medication having unexpected psychological effects
• very young (since the young are unable to predict [foresee] the consequences of their actions and may themselves not have mature concepts of right and wrong)
• delirious
• coerced, e.g. by someone putting a knife to their throats or a gun to their heads.
  
  (An aside: The French Existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre [1905-1980], who fought as a Partisan in the Second World War against the Nazis, refused to accept as an excuse for complicity, "But it was my life or theirs [i.e. the innocent victims of the Nazis]". Sartre argued that even under such dire circumstances, one is still morally responsible for one's actions and one is free to choose life or death, and that in some instances choosing life is an immoral choice.)
• physically forced by a person or thing of superior strength

The list of 'excusing conditions' has grown steadily over the years.

• For example, recently in a court case, a man was found not guilty of murder on the grounds that he was sleepwalking during the killing (including driving his car to the victim's house across town).

Many other 'factors' influencing behavior have been proposed:

• one's genetic makeup (over which one has no control)
• one's environment and upbringing (again over which one has little, if any, control)
• one's education which, at least in one's early years, is - again - beyond one's control

But when all these 'influencing' and 'controlling' factors are considered, is there any room left for the exercise of one's own freedom? Can one truly choose? Or is free choice, ultimately, a myth and/or an illusion?

contd from earlier post

Lets examine a situation here there are two serial killers, can they be not morally responsible for their behavior, it was because of what others had done to them. But these others, in turn, were not morally responsible for what they had done, since they were the product of what had earlier been done to them. And so on, and so on. The argument works like a line of dominos, it is - in effect - the domino theory of moral nonresponsibility. If someone is to be regarded as not morally responsible for what he does because he is the product of someone else's actions, then, ultimately, no one is responsible for anything he/she does.

How compelling are the reasons to accept the first step of this argument? Is none of us morally responsible for his/her actions? Is freedom to choose, is some degree of moral responsibility, an illusion, a myth? What are the philosophical arguments that we are never free to choose? What are the opposing arguments that we are - at least sometimes - free to choose?

Some philosophers portray the situation as if there were only two competing views, in effect that these views exhaust the possibilities. They put determinism on one side and freedom (i.e. freedom to choose) on the other.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=330

But his simple classification does not do the debate justice. There are other possibilities like,that one can subscribe without contradiction to both of these theories: to determinism and to free will. I will try to explain, briefly, how I think that this is possible. (Such theories -- that determinism holds and that we have (at least some significant degree of) free will -- are called "compatibilist theories", and philosophers who subscribe to such theories are called "compatibilists".)

As we will soon see, there is not just one concept of determinism, but three: (i) logical determinism; (2) epistemic determinism; and (iii) causal determinism.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=330

The first turns on the notion of truth; the second on knowledge, in particular on the consequences of God's foreknowledge, if there is a God; and the third on the belief that every event in the universe has a cause.

Only the third of these three kinds of determinism poses a serious threat to the existence of free will. But to see this, we need to see the logical flaws in the first two versions of determinism.

The first version of determinism, so-called 'logical determinism', is often called, alternatively, 'the problem of future contingents'. ("Logical" in the title is not meant to contrast with "illogical", but instead refers to a particular concept of logic, namely truth itself.)

Logical Determinism (or, Logical Fatalism)
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=330

Here is Aristotle's problem of tomorrow's sea battle (reconstructed and considerably embellished).

Two admirals, A and B, are preparing their navies for a sea battle tomorrow. The battle will be fought until one side is victorious. But the 'laws' of the excluded middle (every statement is either true or false) and of noncontradiction (no statement is both true and false), require that one of the statements, 'A wins' and 'B wins', is true and the other is false. Suppose 'A wins' is (today) true. Then whatever A does (or fails to do) today will make no difference; similarly, whatever B does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: the outcome is already settled. Or again, suppose 'A wins' is (today) false. Then no matter what A does today (or fails to do), it will make no difference; similarly, no matter what B does (or fails to do), it will make no difference: the outcome is already settled. Thus, if every statement is either true or false (and not both), then planning, or as Aristotle put it 'taking care', is illusory in its efficacy. The future will be what it will be, irrespective of our planning, intentions, etc.

Is it possible to 'escape' the sting of the conclusion of this argument? How might one argue against accepting the conclusion that planning (for the future) is useless?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=330




We will examine this in the coming times?
all opinions are welcome

Etinder Ji,
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=330

This is fantastic stuff... Please continue with your discussion... do not worry much about nobody is replying or is able to reply to your philosophy right now, but we are learnign so much from your discussion.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=330

Please continue with your next posts... we are learning about Logical Determination... Aristotal said "But the 'laws' of the excluded middle (every statement is either true or false) and of noncontradiction (no statement is both true and false), require that one of the statements, 'A wins' and 'B wins', is true and the other is false."

Please elaborate some more on this so that from next lines I can draw a visual picture in my mind...

Keep it Up !!

Best Regards

Thanks veer

I was wondering weather i was doing justice with the topic or not?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=330

regards