Home > Book Writing, Lacking Free Will, Nonfiction, Philosophy > “Free Will” is Incoherent

“Free Will” is Incoherent

Free Will is IncoherentIn the book I am currently writing titled Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind I not only argue that we do not have free will, but I argue that free will is logically incoherent. That it is nonsensical. That it is something that cannot coexist with reality.

I show that thoughts are events, and that there are only two possibilities for events. I show why these possibilities are entirely incompatible with free will.

I also explain why compatibilist notions of free will, which basically is a redifining of the term ” free will” in such a way that it fits in with one of these possibilities, misses the point entirely. That these notions of free will are not helpful in any way, and that they just allow people to contrive their own notion of free will that does not relate to the compatibilists notion.

In other words, the book I am writing is not one of those books that do not take a side. It is not one that suggests that there is any possibility what-so-ever that we can or do have free will. It is a firm stance on one side of a controversal issue.

But just because the book only takes one side does not mean it is not for everyone. The book is for both people that already understand that free will is impossible as well as people that hold a belief in free will.

For those that already disbelieve in free will, the arguments will strengthen their conviction or give them some new ways to think about the topic.

For those that believe in free will, the book is a challenge. It is a challenge for them to see if, after reading the book, their belief in free will still holds water. Maybe they will be able to. Maybe they have a good argument I have missed. I doubt it, but who knows? So I throw the challenge out to them.  Prove me wrong. And who isn’t up for a challenge?

If they fail the challenge, which I think they will, it is my hope that the book changes minds. That people begin to understand this important fact about reality. The book goes into depth of why this is so important. Hence the second part of the title “… for the Betterment of Humankind”.

I invite people with dissenting  points of view to read my book once it is out.

And if you are one of those with a dissenting point of view, do me a favor. After you read the book:

Send me an email.
In it explain how “free will” really is logically coherent.

I betcha can’t. 😉

  1. October 12, 2011 at 12:49 AM

    how’s the book going along>?

    • October 12, 2011 at 1:07 AM

      Hi theRealSasha,

      The book is coming along slowly but surely. Done with the first draft, now it is rewrite, then rewrite some more, and then more, then illustrate, get edited, create book cover. Lots to do yet.

      Thanks for asking 🙂

  2. ferociousvegan
    December 12, 2011 at 8:25 AM

    I chose to write this comment. Nothing coerced or instructed me to, other than the logical outcome of a series of my own choices. Obviously choices and options are constrained and determined in some form. I can’t comment on a Spanish-language blog because I wasn’t born in a Spanish-speaking country nor worked hard enough to study the language, for example. Nonetheless, I’d be interested in reading more about your theory. The part I’m troubled about is this: a prime end of any consequentiality ethical system would create to create maximum agency for the object. This seems to be negated by any ethical system which rules out the possible existence any such free will.

    • December 12, 2011 at 2:04 PM

      Hiya ferociousvegan,

      Thanks for the comment. Always good to talk to another non-meat eater who is so for ethical reasons.

      What I will be arguing for in my book is that either -A- You could not have chosen otherwise than to write this comment (determinisim – every event has a cause) OR -B- if you could choose otherwise, it would be due to an event entirely out of your control (acausal event) that would push you not to write the comment (indeterminism – acausal events possible). It will be argued that you writing the comment was an event led to from either a long chain of causality that ultimatley stemmed outside of your control or a chain of causality combined with acausal events that you also would have no control over.

      “maximum agency for the object”

      I would argue that free agency (different than “agency” by itself) is not a requirement of an ethical system. Ethics can be prescribed and either causally aligned with or not, via a conscious agent. The interaction of conscious agents happens causally. There is a difference between ethics (the logical prescription), and holding a person blame-worthy when they act unethically. This is an important distinction I clarify in the book. The prescription of an ethic can be part of the causal chains of events that lead to ethical action.

      Have a good day.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: