How To Prove Free Will

We will never be absolute free. Our mind and will is always going to be commanded by our bodies/flesh constant need to be satisfied. We have to take care of our bodies needs. If you want to live you have no choice but to comply. So we are basicaly the flesh's slaves from the start of.

To have free will, we would need at least one factor in place. That is eternal life. Were our body is not dependent on food, water, oxigen, a toilet and humain temperature. All this things prevents us from having absolute free will at all times.

reply to post by trysts


I disagree. If free will is an illusion brought about through emergent behavior within the neurology of our brains, and we cannot readily escape that illusion, the "desire" to raise the specter of free will being illusory is not alone proof of free will's existence. The illusion would be persistent and omnipresent in our subjective experience of reality, and words or thoughts arising from it on their own would not be proof of free will existing as an ontological entity necessarily.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that free will doesn't exist. Only that its existence has not been (and perhaps cannot be) proven to my satisfaction.

Originally posted by JustMike

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by jed001
[snip]

you first need to know what free will is before you can decide if it exsists. i belive that free will is action without consequence or repercusion for that action. the more we have to lose the more repercusion we can feel for our actions.

So, that implies free will is determined by what might result? That's an interesting way of looking at it. But a question: doesn't every action have some form of consequence? If not, then some actions exist entirely in isolation and in our realm of existence I doubt that's possible.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Results happen regardless of FREE WILL...this is not the point...actions do not exist in isolation, this is a red herring...what is always in question when FREE WILL is dissected, is the extent to which choice is 'apparent'...

We have memories with holes as big as the Grand Canyon at the best of times...forgetting from minute to minute...this does not prove 'non-choice', and therefore, isolation from consequences...people experience what they have 'driven' themselves into...many do not remember that little decision which changes the paths' direction - this is the problem...memory...and since many do not remember thier birth [for an extreme example] (but rely on second-hand accounts), a seeming house of cards collapses, but is not really the case, since the starting point for such a conclusion is wrong to begin with...and colors all discussion of FREE WILL with the brush of incredulity...as it would be when following the original starting point to its 'logical' conclusion...

Observation (primarily at a subjective level) is the only way to 'prove' any concept of FREE WILL...is this unscientific?...who cares!


A99

Originally posted by Ralphy
How would one prove that free will exists?

I'm not sure it can be proven.

We would need to prove that we control matter(circuits in our brain) with our consciousness. If there was no conscious control then how do we have free will? Then if we experience having a choice in life and then chose based on our information from past experiences does that really mean free will? Because we depend on information to make decisions, we are at the mercy of knowledge to make choices in life. If one is extremely limited in knowledge then a choice would be just a guess. Does free will include guessing?

Maybe you guys could elaborate if free will can be proven?

Use Your FREE WILL to sit in a chair in a room in your house, and attribute it to someone elses' WILL...

...or alternatively, pretend to have been forced into sitting in a room in your house (if you do not believe in FREE WILL) the result will be the same...in both instances, you have made a decision to 'act', based on FREE WILL...regardless of whether you believe in FREE WILL or not...

Proven...

A99

Originally posted by JustMike
For example, people are sometimes coerced into acting "against their will", which suggests "will" implies there might be some degree of freedom involved anyway.

Good example! I said Wow, after reading it.

If our free will can be taken away from us, then we must have free will in the first place.

Everything is just happening. It is now and it is too late to do something else, it is happening and you are not separate from the happening. You can see the happening happening but what is happening has happened by the time you can do anything about it. The mind just narrates and says it can do things. The mind has never done anything.
Ever heard the question 'Do you know what thought did?'

You do not need to stress your minds about this silly question, if you can choose to go left or right, choose to go up or down. That is free will in it self, it does not take over complications of one's life to discover free will. If you choose to read this post I have replied. Then the free will is self evident.

reply to post by SparkOfSparks6


If freewil is self evident please tell me why people make new year resolutions. Why are fat people are fat and don't want to be fat? And why is it that people can't stop smoking? Why do people promise themselves that you won't do it again and do?

I watch the mind telling stories, making promises, making deals but in the actual event life just happens. There is no control but to the mind that is just to scary to realize.
What the mind does not realize is that it's 'wanting' and 'believing' in control that makes life feel so bad. Life is happening and the mind 'thinks' it knows better, it says 'this should not be happening!!'. This resistence to what is happening is caused by the belief in you have control.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


It is self evident as well, that people see themselves as their bodies, they seem themselves as their egos. Now explain to me, if they see themselves as their bodies and egos. How can they not stop smoking? how can they not stop eating? They live in the addiction of the brains which is influenced by the nicotine, they live in the addiction of their stomachs which never can be satisfied?

People who transcend these addictions , transcending their desires that the body or ego have influenced with them. They give the self evidence as well, that people are not their bodies. They give the self evidence as well, that people have the free will, but if they succumb to their desires. That is free will of their surrender to it.

In its purest form, true free will does not (and cannot) exist. There will always be laws of both man and nature that make true free will impossible, much like the way that human nature prevents true anarchy.

It is all just happening and there is no one who is separate from the whole. The appearance appears before you, you do not choose what appears.
You know it's just a movie, it's just happening:
youtu.be...

I think people try to prove free will so much is because much of their identity hinges around the concept of free will. I'm not trying to disprove free will because I don't know but a lot of people in this thread claim to prove free will in 2-3 sentences with certainty.

The causes of a choice is what should be addressed, not the fact that a choice was made.

reply to post by Ralphy


"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."
Schopenhauer.

Originally posted by Ralphy
I think people try to prove free will so much is because much of their identity hinges around the concept of free will. I'm not trying to disprove free will because I don't know but a lot of people in this thread claim to prove free will in 2-3 sentences with certainty.

The causes of a choice is what should be addressed, not the fact that a choice was made.

Hmm...Maybe add boundaries to your freewill post, maybe?

Now if there are boundaries then we truly don't have freewill, is this what you are saying?
Boundaries could mean lack of information or too much information, or earth itself for example -- the inability for a human to visit Mars at this very moment.. Well I choose to go to Mars now to visit, but I can't because of boundaries (lack of technology for example)…

So you are given two choices because of boundaries. The choices (boundaries) are: You can have chocolate cake or apple pie.
You freely choose between the 2 and choose the apple pie.
You take one bite into the apple pie and you are disappointed. Does this in anyway negate freewill, your bad choice took away your freewill because of lack of information, if only you were told that the apple pie sucks then you would have put FREEWILL into better use??? Or why were you only given two options, there should have been more to choose from?

I am trying to follow your logic that’s all my friend…

Thank you for your post… I freely choose to say thank you… You got me thinking..

Originally posted by syrinx2112
Hmm...Maybe add boundaries to your freewill post, maybe?

Now if there are boundaries then we truly don't have freewill, is this what you are saying?
Boundaries could mean lack of information or too much information, or earth itself for example -- the inability for a human to visit Mars at this very moment.. Well I choose to go to Mars now to visit, but I can't because of boundaries (lack of technology for example)…

So you are given two choices because of boundaries. The choices (boundaries) are: You can have chocolate cake or apple pie.
You freely choose between the 2 and choose the apple pie.
You take one bite into the apple pie and you are disappointed. Does this in anyway negate freewill, your bad choice took away your freewill because of lack of information, if only you were told that the apple pie sucks then you would have put FREEWILL into better use???

I am trying to follow your logic that’s all my friend…

Thank you for your post… I freely choose to say thank you… You got me thinking..

Yea, that's along the lines of what I had in mind.

People claim to make a choice and call it free will because they can make choices that they seem to want. Now what I'm getting at is do we control what we want?

If you like apple pie you will chose to have it if the opportunity comes up. Why do you like apple pie? Do you consciously choose to like it? So yes we may get to choose what we want sometimes but maybe we don't control what we want. just an idea.

My best attempt:

You are a consciousness, the individual experiencer of a conscious experience. You can be conscious or unconscious.

You recognize that you are conscious and exist. You can be absolutely sure of that.

A consciousness could possibly be in a bit more extreme state than sleep paralysis, conscious but without free will or illusion of it. No action — not even a mere action of willing — would be possible or would seem possible for you. You wouldn’t be able to even try to move a limb. (And you wouldn’t be able to even want to try to move a limb?) You can know that state by imagining it and acting it out.

Only a consciousness could be free, so we are at least halfway there. Everything else is dead matter. There wouldn’t be an actor there. We are probably dependent on matter though and ran by our brains.

You recognize other things besides you existing and being conscious. Events that feel like your actions, for example. If unfreedom is true, they are pseudo actions (a will [a will to move your arm with the illusion of choosing it yourself] and the willed event [the movement of your arm with the illusion of moving it yourself] happen one after the other) and if freedom is true, they are actions. You notice their beginning and end.

[The will and the action seem to happen about concurrently.]

(An action the cause of which is not freedom, and in the place of which there couldn’t have been another action, is not a real action in my opinion.)

You may also notice apparently outer forces, such as very strong wind or another person, move your limbs. These events don’t feel like your own actions. Things would be very crazy if they were, so you are probably right.

I believe you get the rest of it right too. A consciousness can reach a state of completely free will. We are in it for most of our time.

The readiness potential observed in lab studies doesn’t disprove free will. It is interesting though. Is there truly a related brain event 0.3 seconds before every action you make? Has a test subject ever attempted to upset the prediction visible to him on a monitor? Would he never be able to make a surprise?

(In Libet’s experiment, the test subject reports his decision to move his finger. In my opinion, this is not the real decision. We don’t work like that. The real decision is in the movement of the finger.)

[A. Hard determinism: The universe causes your will to move your arm, the movement of your arm and your illusion of doing them freely yourself.

B. Compatibilism: That counts as freedom.

C. Agent-causal libertarianism: You as a free agent and, in this regard, independent from the rest of the universe, are the cause of your will to move your arm and its movement.

Some believe in the existence of randomness. That would be unfreedom just like determinism.]

Free will defines itself through the ability to choose between options.

For example:

Would you like to drink some coffee?

- Yes
- No

a reply to: Untun

What flavour ice cream do you prefer?

originally posted by: Ralphy
How would one prove that free will exists?

I'm not sure it can be proven.

We would need to prove that we control matter(circuits in our brain) with our consciousness. If there was no conscious control then how do we have free will? Then if we experience having a choice in life and then chose based on our information from past experiences does that really mean free will? Because we depend on information to make decisions, we are at the mercy of knowledge to make choices in life. If one is extremely limited in knowledge then a choice would be just a guess. Does free will include guessing?

Maybe you guys could elaborate if free will can be proven?

I like to think that you do have free will to make a choice, yes, based on knowledge but you can also choose from intuition and from your feelz, so still a free choice according to the moment and what you choose to drive that decision.

You also have free will to research the subject of your choice extensively, so free will plays into upping your knowledge before the choice or using free will to ignore that newfound knowledge and reject the logic and do nothing. When in doubt, don't. If the right course of action is not clear to you, then wait. When in doubt tell the truth. Or not, free will choices all the way around. Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.

FAIL = First Attempt In Learning

Now as to free will within a political and societal system then that becomes more complex, but to me voting allows us choice but it depends on exercising one's free will to get off one's butt and actually vote. So it's all relative.

a reply to: quintessentone

There's no knowing what will appear until it does.

What thoughts will occur on hearing this?

The witness and the witnessed appear as one seamless happening.