Belief in free will is equivalent to believing in Santa Claus

The concept of "free will" is just a fictitious concept without any inherent truth. "Free will" cannot possibly be mapped into any coherent logical reality. Saying it exists is like saying that we're possessed by Pluto the dog. And it surprises me that this fact isn't most commonly accepted within most typical philosophy forums that I've visited. They go on and on for hundreds of pages arguing whether there's free will or not, and honestly it's sort of hilarious. Its as if they're stuck in a subtle cult of confused intellect, masqueraded as a logical assumption.

I say that free will, in the most fundamental sense does not exist. This includes our every decision we make be it conscious or unconscious. To assume there is a special entity which can make a decision completely free of any circumstance makes absolutely no sense and as said above, is almost equivalent to a cult like belief.
Every decision we make is being made by a very complex process of synapses, electrical signals ect, over which we obviously have no control of. Show me where we're free to make a decision completely free from physical conditions? It's impossible.
Most people counter the facts by saying, "well whenever I chose to suppress my feelings of hatred and forgive a person, that's proof I have some form of free will"
And the answer to this is, yes you can do whatever you want, but you have no control of what you want to do. You have no free will in the uttermost fundamental sense and it's totally okay. Instead of being depressed that our illusions about who you are, are being destroyed we can instead accept this fact and get develop more logical compassion for ourselves and humanity.

I could've explained the fallacy of free will more in depth but I will leave that to the replies if there is still someone who thinks otherwise.

Edit: Points clarified so far: Two types of free will. This post refers to one of them. Using the other form of free will to disprove this wouldn't work because they are two different things.

I chose to reply to this. I didn't have to. Sure, I might be acting out a script but in that script I have a choice. It's pointless to debate fate. If you believe I made a choice, or I acted out a plan doesn't really matter. I experienced a choice, and I considered all the possible outcomes my little brain could manage and picked this one. That process, that we all experience in the same way, is free will.

a reply to: Andy1144

The concept of "Free Will" has nothing to do with the biological processes contained within the brain--but, it's your free will to believe otherwise.

From the dreaded Wikipedia:

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. It is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgments which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. There are numerous different concerns about threats to the possibility of free will, varying by how exactly it is conceived, which is a matter of some debate.

As you can see, and this is a similar description of free will to which I subscribe, it pertains to the ability to choose between different courses of action.

Of course, over time, we develop instincts and default reactions (versus responses) and are guided by past experiences and subconsciously noted environmental variables, but at the base of the concept, we definitely have free will, and it certainly does exist.

ETA: I guess a concise point that I'm trying to make is, it depends on what your definition of "free will" is, and you did not give us a good basis of your definition of the concept.

a reply to: Andy1144

I could've explained the fallacy of free will more in depth

So you say. But according to your post, you could not because you had no choice in the matter . You HAD to post the way you did. Right? To say you could have invalidates your entire premise.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I guess a concise point that I'm trying to make is, it depends on what your definition of "free will" is, and you did not give us a good basis of your definition of the concept.

Yeah, it depends what you mean by free will. You are completely correct about explaining the type of free will you represented and I agree. But I am talking about free will on another level if that makes sense. That even though you can choose between different courses of action, you still choose what your unconscious processes choose for you. So in that sense there is no free will. In your sense there is and I obviously agree.

GO walk in front of a car, whichever one you choose.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Andy1144

I could've explained the fallacy of free will more in depth

So you say. But according to your post, you could not because you had no choice in the matter . You HAD to post the way you did. Right? To say you could have invalidates your entire premise.

I had no choice, I couldn't have possibly made another decision at that point. It's like a rock falling from a canyon. Could the rock have not fallen otherwise based on those circumstances? Obviously not. Our body and minds are a natural environment that function by the same rules as nature.

originally posted by: Templeton
I chose to reply to this. I didn't have to. Sure, I might be acting out a script but in that script I have a choice. It's pointless to debate fate. If you believe I made a choice, or I acted out a plan doesn't really matter. I experienced a choice, and I considered all the possible outcomes my little brain could manage and picked this one. That process, that we all experience in the same way, is free will.

True, it's just a matter of one choosing to become more aligned with the hard facts or not. I think there are a few benefits of knowing there is no free will. Anger and compassion being affected the most. breakingthefreewillillusion.com...

I understand you, OP.

Every decision we make has a "because" behind it.

You forgive those who do you wrong because you were previously conditioned and encouraged to believe that being forgiving means being a better person and that being a better person will get you more respect and love even if in the end you're really just doing it so you can respect yourself by living up to the standards of others, your decision is still made based on preconceived notions and beliefs and even biologically we are born wanting and needing very specific things like food and water and love and respect, and etc. It's all a trap.

There's always a reason behind every choice we make. There's only the illusion of free will. We're really just a bunch of forces that have been set into motion and now all we can really do is just let everything run its course. Or so I say.

S & f!

a reply to: Templeton

I chose to star your post and reply. Was my free will. Just as typing my next work which will be ..... gotcha didn't give one.. Again free will!

a reply to: Andy1144

Well, we can go on and get super crazy with free will, too--my son has Asperger's, which means that the synapses that fire (and, apparently, misfire) in his brain control him on many issues and he's incapable of free will because of that. Like with his anxiety in unfamiliar (and sometimes familiar) crowds--I'm quite certain that he'd love to be able to turn that off, but he can't. Same goes with myriad sensory issues and understanding of social cues and all of that stuff that comes with "hi-functioning" autism.

Same goes for people with addictions--it's a chemical process that happens that often prohibits their logical thinking, knowing that they should not be doing what they are doing, but they just can't stop.

So, yes, in a way, we are all prisoners of how well our brains are functioning, but I don't think that's a fair description of "free will," at least as most people understand it.

Hell, I'd like to be able to not have asthma problems anymore, but I can't just will it away, ya know?

a reply to: Andy1144

Even so, you still have not faced the issue that you said you 'could've'' done it differently.

Now I see that you have edited your OP and added on an entire paragraph, one now claiming that there are TWO kinds of free will, yet, your original claim is that there is none at all.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's true that what we can do is limited but it's important to understand the two different versions of free will and confuse the two. What I mean by free will, is something that none of us have. Something that is fundamental. So whether you have autism, adhd, or Asperger's like your son, or a "normal" mind, there is no free will in any of these because every single choice we make is completely, completely formed by complex unconscious processes which we obviously can't control at all right? This is the absolute perspective. But of course there is the other version of free will which we can talk about the way you've presented it. They are two different things, both being valid in their own context.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Andy1144

Even so, you still have not faced the issue that you said you 'could've'' done it differently.

Now I see that you have edited your OP and added on an entire paragraph, one now claiming that there are TWO kinds of free will, yet, your original claim is that there is none at all.

I stated it vaguely in my original one but wasn't clear. Still, I stand by what I said that there is absolutely no free will.

Talking about the other free will is not the free will I originally talked about, it is something completely different.

originally posted by: Andy1144

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Andy1144

Even so, you still have not faced the issue that you said you 'could've'' done it differently.

Now I see that you have edited your OP and added on an entire paragraph, one now claiming that there are TWO kinds of free will, yet, your original claim is that there is none at all.

I stated it vaguely in my original one but wasn't clear. Still, I stand by what I said that there is absolutely no free will.

Talking about the other free will is not the free will I originally talked about, it is something completely different.

So you are saying that ' that the original free will you were talking about is not free will, that we have none, right? Then you say that there is another free will, right? Does this second free will not exist either? or is it in some way realer than the first.

a reply to: Andy1144
I think your mistake is taking the literal definition of "free" + "will". Maybe that's in fact the accepted definition, but all one has to do to make it reasonable is define "free" in only the most generic possible way. It generally means possessing some capacity to make independent choices. It shouldn't mean the ability to make choices free from external factors. If I slip from a high ledge and plummet earthward, I can't decide to fly or prevent myself from slamming into the ground.

There're many instances in life we can only go with the tides. Whether it be plummeting earthward or suffering from disease or living in a time of war or being indoctrinated into a religion while growing up. You can fight the tides, but it can be futile, so our resulting behaviour is somewhat predictable. Sometimes we do things by habit too, to save ourselves the effort of recreating the wheel. Some choices are constrained from within, like instinct. It could be said the bulk of our choices are instinct. However, it could also be said the "new" brain gave us an alternative. So rather than rely on instinct, we can sometimes rationally think through something and with better results.

Don't confuse the inability to change circumstance by choice as meaning no free will. And don't confuse free will with the ability to always make choices independently of external factors.

I also want to make clear external factors include the brain. Our thoughts, or the illusion of self or mind, are reliant on brain matter to occur. Something can happen to the brain and in turn influence our choices.

My own personal opinion is we do possess free will, but it's not anymore free than anything else in the universe. Life expresses itself differently than non-life, but we're still all at the mercy of nature. I don't believe in substance dualism. I don't believe mind is separate of matter. I believe mind is an emergent property, sort of like how there're five states of matter. When water is heating beyond the freezing point, it melts and becomes a liquid. Similarly, non-life when put into XYZ circumstances, transitions to become life.

a reply to: Andy1144

Now you say this

True, it's just a matter of one choosing to become more aligned with the hard facts or not.

Once again you invalidate yourself. You claim it is a matter of choosing to become more aligned. It there is no free will then this is no CHOOSING at all.

You get to learn you do not have free will long before they get you to believe in Santa

When you are born, they take you out and you see light and are amazed, the next thing you know the doctor or nurse is spanking you and making you cry. Punished for peaking your head out into the real world.

originally posted by: Andy1144
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's true that what we can do is limited but it's important to understand the two different versions of free will and confuse the two. What I mean by free will, is something that none of us have. Something that is fundamental. So whether you have autism, adhd, or Asperger's like your son, or a "normal" mind, there is no free will in any of these because every single choice we make is completely, completely formed by complex unconscious processes which we obviously can't control at all right? This is the absolute perspective. But of course there is the other version of free will which we can talk about the way you've presented it. They are two different things, both being valid in their own context.

In that case I can kind of agree with you.

Free will as the opposite of "against your will" is real.
Free will as the opposite of "fate" is an unprovable debate for either side. It's close, we can choose to subscribe to either one on faith. But the non-existence of santa can be proven so not quite.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

A very good point