Why illusion of free will?

>depression
Constant stress of modern life, worrying about future, social standing, stability, warped view of security and world. All thingsthat wouldn't have place in our natural primitive enviroment causes our natural defences and responses to overload and our mind goes haywire.
>mental illnesses
Many of which might well be results of modern civilazation, all of which makes victims less likely to reproduce
>believing in paranormal stuff
Is a result of natural abilities of patern recognition going haywire in todays world
>thoughts about murdering, raping
Natural agression that had it place in our natural enviroment. Plus boatled agression that our modern world doesn't let us to properly "use".
>gorillaposting
The horror... we shouldn't speak about true horror of this reality...

All this traits are either flukes of naturaly positive traits or/and are constantly making their victims less likely to reproduce = are removed from gene pool.

Plus our modern civilization is very new in evolutionary squale it has yet to make a real discernable impact on genetic makeup of our species.

...

>all of which makes victims less likely to reproduce

Pretty sure mania and hypomania increase sex drive though (also kinda useful to get shit done during short summers, see the ice age).

Natural isn't Positive. rape, cannibalism, cancer, poison, disease, greed, jealousy, hatred, being born with disfigurations, schizophrenia are all natural and have no evolutionary purpose.

Your post makes no sense.

>Because evolutionary process rarely allows unnecessary, wasteful traits to propagate?
That is a basic fallacy that you learn to avoid when studying evolution.

You can't look at someone's bones, see that they are white, and ask "mh, there must be a reproductive advantage to having white bones, what is it?"
The answer is of course, that there is no such advantage. Bones are white because of calcium, which is light and resistant. So bones being white is a secondary consequence of an evolutionary advantage.

Similarly you can't look at a single aspect of our psyche and ask "what is it for?". That's reasoning by final cause, which you really shouldn't do when discussing evolution.

They are perversion of natural processes that have evolutionary sense and purpose.

Let me use an example you provided: cancer.

Cancer is inevitable outcome of cells ability to multiple and "reproduce" which is absolutely fundamental during gestation, later growth and even in adult life. Cancer occurs when natural mechanism against uncontrolable multiplying fails. Cancer is perversion but all the processes that are fundamental to it are also fundamental to our existing.

Your other points would be on the scale from: perversion (like cancer) to complete idiocy (greed, hatred)

Ofcourse greed and hatred has evolutionary purpose. Greed is just a slight perversion/hyperbole of instinct to aquire as much resources as possible. Hatred is a strong negative emotion again enemies.

All your examples are quite easy to explain given time. Disfigurations are errors in the natural process but we clearly see that processes that errors were "made in" are very much necessary in healthy organisms. And on top of that such disfigurations would mean death in natural setup and would not propagate in evolutionary sense.

If illusion of free will is like this perversions show me underlying process that leads to it.

That's interesting, I would argue with some of it. BUT you aren't really saying anything about topic of this thread. If free will is illusion, why does this illusion even exist? What and who and why need to be decievied by this illusion?

Aha! But it is you who make basic falacy! Ofcourse we can ask why the bones are white and not different color! The answer is just "that is calcium and ultimately colour is irrelevant since they are deep in the body and as such not visible to predators etc." As such the color of the bones remain in state that uses least ammount of energy in a colour that is natural to it's building blocks. If it was relevant what colour that bone would have colour that is best for the animal (as we see in horns of eels!)

So is free will illusion?

>What and who and why need to be decievied by this illusion?

Well, would this be an illusion along the lines of "you are what you eat" as in where can you divide between yourself and not you (mitochondria too?), I'd guess greater awareness/pattern recognition and language ability associated with the form of consciousness which diverged in our evolutionary branch was useful for the complex social groups and generalist lifestyles that allowed humans to spread across the world prior to the development of agriculture.

No I said the illusion of free will is also an illusion. There's no illusion of free will, it doesn't exist at all and there's no reason to think it does once you realise how obvious your lack of agency is

Well the OBVIOUSLY ATLEASAT is and illusion of free will because as hell I belive that I have free will in replying to you. So even if free will is non existant, it's illusion still exist. I belive I have free agency and can do things freely (ableit influenced by past experiences and instincts). What would you call this belief of mine then? Why almost every person on this planets believes he/she has free will? Why most of philosophers of past thought that free will is obvious?

Yes, and I would propose that this complex ability of pattern recognition, social interactions, forward planning, evaluating etc. is FREE WILL. Our counciousness is like a captain on a ship.

But many people say that it is just illusion. Why this illusion even exist? Why do we have counciousness? Why must "world" have me being decieved as to having free will? Why do "I" exist if I have no control?

discussion about free will is a waste of time for unintelligent people

fuck off, this is not Veeky Forums related you idiots

Define free will.

>Why must "world" have me being decieved as to having free will? Why do "I" exist if I have no control?

What if you are conscious but there is no static 'you' or is it free will or partially restrained will, is agency synonymous with free will, is this just a non-problem that arises as a side effect of language?

Well but I certainly feel that "I" as in "me" exist and I feel I have free will.

I was afraid so, but Veeky Forums is too eerie for serious discussion, /x/ is well /x/.

And stop acting like any real science in made on this board, half of the threads are shitposting as usual on Veeky Forums. No need to be butthurt elitist.

>and I feel I have free will

Maybe there "was" a benefit in a hunter gatherer lifestyle that selected for feeling like you have free will, or X concept/idea/feeling/understanding experienced prior to the ability of it to be expressed in a comprehensible form verbally transmissible between individuals?

That's simple, there is no advantage. The illusion is a consequence of having abstract thinking in general.

If you study evolution long enough you realize that evolution is completely blind and random.
in reality, usefull things are kept (survival of the fittest theory)
damaging stuff are reduced (but if they don't stop you from living or reproducing enough, they are kept)
and neutral stuff are randomly shuffled (no need to remove or add them, and they can just happen by random)

so as you can see, it's not as black and white as all best survive and all worse then that are killed. It's a mix of features with the good ones having a better chance of being passed down.

thus you ask the wrong questions. The real question would be, what's the probability of a creature with evolved thinking having the illusion of free will, at which case the answer is unknown, but probably higher then 50/50 just because of the close coupling of those two concepts

There is evidence that the sense of self is an invention, just as language is, and propagated as a meme.

why people still obsess over that book when Harris wrote a better one

>If illusion of free will is like this perversions show me underlying process that leads to it.

Neuroscience isnt there yet; doesnt mean god is real.

>If you study evolution long enough you realize that evolution is completely blind and random
Just from that one sentence I can tell that you have NOT studied evolution even remotely "long". Because you don't seem to understand concept of evolution at all. You might want to read about Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Evolution is direct oposite of random. Through process of natural selection order is created from randomness of mutation and recombinations. It's very purposeful process that aim to create creatures best adapted to it's enviroment. It's neither random nor blind, some of it's aspect can be but as a whole process is everything but random. This is beauty of it.

I know of Dunning-Kruger ofc.
and ofc I don't know everything about evolution, But what you said is also what I was trying to point out. that mutations and recombination (and errors during these) are random accidents. Random in terms of genes not deciding when to forget to copy a part of it's self or duplicating itself on purpose.
So while Evolution is this amazing process that always converges to a solution, the motor behind it is random mistakes.
This is the reason why I'm telling OP that not ALL changes and mutations have to have a purpose.
You may be familiar with the term vestigial organs. Animals and humans alike have these parts that seem to serve no purpose. however from the view of evolution, the better way to look at these is "they don't make my survival harder". Thus these get passed down to offspring and now you have them, but don't really use them.

I'm sorry if I made evolution sound like a random shuffle at first.

>remain in state that uses least ammount of energy
If that's what you will accept for "an utility" then I can use the exact same argument for whatever aspect of our psyche you want to talk about, i.e. "it serves no purpose it's just a lower state of energy for our brain"

>Because evolutionary process rarely allows unnecessary, wasteful traits to propagate?
WEW
LAD

The opposite of determinism. All actions are not set in stone since the inception of the universe, and are in fact, random.

If you're suggesting it's a vestigial trait, that would imply it served a purpose at some earlier time.

What served a purpose?

>The opposite of determinism. All actions are not set in stone since the inception of the universe, and are in fact, random.
Not necessarily.
In Catholic theology, the key trait of free will is that you aren't constrained to obey God's will.
You aren't magically compelled to obey his law, though you could still be deterministic.

And most secular definitions stress decisions made free from external constraint.
Since your genetic predispositions and the sum of your life experiences are part of who you are, I'd say such (potentially deterministic) constraints don't qualify as "external".

>Implying there is a purpose.

>believing in the paranormal is pattern recognition going haywire in the modern world

kek, spirituality, religion, superstition. all modern day inventions, folks

>"it serves no purpose it's just a lower state of energy for our brain"
I think OP's point is that the illusion of free will is not a lower state of energy for our brain. Maybe this is true, but humans only recently developed enough analytical thinking and brain power to realize this and so it's still in the process of being weeded out by evolution. Why it's there in the first place is a good question that I don't know the answer to.

>You aren't magically compelled to obey his law, though you could still be deterministic.
Let's assume you are deterministic. Why would God create laws that he knows you will not obey?

>Let's assume you are deterministic. Why would God create laws that he knows you will not obey?
Why not?
With your logic, you could ask: "If God knows how the whole universe plays out, why would he create it in the first place?".
Apparently there's some purpose to our lives, even if God can't watch without spoilers.

if you could clone a copy of this universe into another place and ""run"" them side by side, what would happen? one of two things, the way i see it

either everything stays exactly the same always, or things very very slowly start to diverge based on tiny tiny fluctuations

I think they'd diverge from one another

Quantum mechanics puts some randomness into our actions that makes it impossible for classical physics to predict our future actions based on our past actions.

Thus, I don't think our universe is entirely deterministic, because randomness plays a factor. But I don't know how exactly that makes us "free"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

>randomness is a factor
>ergo, free will

I don't quite get this jump

>Quantum mechanics puts some randomness into our actions that makes it impossible for classical physics to predict our future actions based on our past actions.

>what is pilot wave theory
>what is superdeterminism

>implying I'm not a pleb
>implying I know what those things are

>Quantum mechanics puts some randomness into our actions
>quantum
>our actions
I don't diffract, disperse, my position as well as momentum can be determined with nearly absolute accuracy at any given time

>Thus, I don't think our universe is entirely deterministic, because randomness plays a factor.
Ever read into the everett interpretation?

MWI interpretations are random for all intensive purpose

Pls elaborate. Also why do random variables refute determinism? I can program a function with a random variable and it outcome will be determined by the functions input. So even if the input variables are random a certain input Xn will output Yn.

>nearly
>absolute
pick 1

>Pls elaborate.

>can you tell me what's gonna happen tomorrow
>well, my interpretation of MWI tells me all outcomes will happen in a superpo...
>yeah yeah but can you write what will happen tomorrow on a piece of paper and when we check it will be the same thing
>n...no but superpos...
>not determinist

Quantum mechanics is irrelevant at brain scale.

this guy gets it

Meh. I know the argument "quantum effect are irrelevant in water based organism at 300K", but really that's not true. Like we saw the other day, there is a role of quantum walk in photosynthesis for example.

Yes perhaps, but the randomness of qm is irrelevant for photosynthesis aswell. How can qm influence the firing of a neuron I wonder

This borderline touches on philosophy, really. That's dangerous on Veeky Forums.
Please note that that's a very confused notion of free will. Actions not being set in stone is libertarian free will, and randomness actually belongs to the no free will camp.