Free-Will DNE

Simply Put Free Will Does Not Exist. This Group is for anyone who believes free will is an even greater mass delusion than God. Those who uphold Naturalism in its purest form. And anyone else who has questions about this topic.

Members: 82
Latest Activity: Jun 12, 2014

Discussion Forum

Sam Harris: The Illusion of Free Will

Started by Jedi Wanderer. Last reply by Steph S. Mar 19, 2012. 1 Reply

Experimental Philosophy

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Jedi Wanderer Dec 22, 2011. 5 Replies

Is free will really a supernatural concept?

Started by Howard S. Dunn. Last reply by Tonya Wynn Apr 6, 2011. 8 Replies

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Free-Will DNE to add comments!

Comment by Howard S. Dunn on December 9, 2009 at 11:43pm
If Free Will DNE - isn't everything we type here predetermined by precursory causes?
Comment by Mike Layfield on May 25, 2009 at 1:04am
More evidence of determinism at work in our decision making and the illusion of free will.
Comment by Ockraz on March 3, 2009 at 2:57am
PS: the quote was from zerosmelt
Comment by Ockraz on March 3, 2009 at 2:55am
"I think we really need a word to describe free will skeptics who are not hard determinists and who are also not compatabilists."

There should be two labels of this sort- one for 'agnostics' on the responsibility issue, and another for those who deny determinism based on an incompatibility with purely probabilistic models of "micro" phenomena.

I'll suggest 'fulcrum determinists' (as opposed to hard or soft) for the former and 'probabilstic will theorists' (as opposed to free) for the latter.

What say you?
Comment by JohnFrost on February 8, 2009 at 6:56am
Hey, I don't know if this is considered inappropriate self-promotion, but I recently wrote a blog about the topic of Free Will/Neuroscience/and Buddhism, and thought that others in this group might have some insight or opinions on it.
Comment by Ajita Kamal on November 23, 2008 at 5:48pm
Quoting Jim from the comment below:

"I too am very much a naturalist.....However, science doesn't have an explanation for consciousness or mind."

The idea of consciousness that you allude to will never be naturalistic, precisely because it assumes that consciousness is a non-material entity. Scientists have proposed many naturalistic models of consciousness, none of which are intuitive. These models are materialist and do not address your subjective experiential conception of consciousness. The point is that they don't need to because there is nothing that a non-material consciousness is demonstrably capable of that the material (naturalistic) consciousness can't also do. The idea that consciousness is non-material fails to survive Ockham's Razor. You are right that consciousness is still mostly a philosophical concept, but there is a lot of evidence that much of the philosophical arguments against it being non-material will go the way-side as have other such non-material explanations of biological phenomena over the years.

Free-will DNE is a parsimonious assertion.

I agree that life is somewhat "special" as you put it, but I refrain from using such naturalistic criteria as "animation" to accord it this status. This begs the naturalistic fallacy. I would prefer assigning "special" status to life simply from a subjective moral perspective. After all, I am alive, and am entitled to my emotional preferences. There is no inherent objective value in "animation" just as there is none in "consciousness" "awareness" or any other intuitive emotional state.
Comment by Фелч Гроган on October 23, 2008 at 5:47am
All well and good in premise. Until you factor in the concept of suicide. Socrates, whether he was a man or a myth, is a good place to start.
Comment by Nate on September 28, 2008 at 8:59pm
Fascinating concept for a group.
Comment by Zerosmelt on September 17, 2008 at 2:51pm
There is no reply option becuase this is the comment section, not a discussion section.

"The physical world is ALL there was for the overwhelming majority of the history of the universe.

Please bear with me.

But LIFE introduces an entirely new element to the physical universe."

-Basically you are not a naturalist, while I am. This topic is better discussed elsewhere.

However i will address one other thing you said:
"We are special."

This made me laugh a little. sorry. I agree that we are but in a completely different way then you see it. I believe. I don't see how your world view actually accounts for us being special. In my world view however, we are realities highest manifestation of itself. We are special not bc. we are somehow distinct from the rest of reality but bc. we are reality itself. How does creating a distinction make us special exactly?
Comment by Zerosmelt on September 10, 2008 at 5:33pm
wow really great debate if you have teh time. (or reverse time. lol. )

Members (82)


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service