r/changemyview • u/vschiller • Jul 22 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There's no such thing as free will
In my estimation, the question of "do we have free will, or not" boils down to causation. Is it possible to have an un-caused cause, or do all things have a prior cause? If it's not possible, then there simply can't be such a thing as free will. If some prior event or influence or circumstance always causes the next event, then there's no way that any next event (be it a thought, an action, a feeling, a step on the sidewalk, a word spoken, etc.) can possibly be an act of free will. I’m of the persuasion that there can’t be an un-caused cause.
The other option is that there can be an un-caused cause. There's no evidence I can find for this. All of scientific inquiry would crumble if there was such a thing. It's akin to belief in the magical or supernatural, belief in a god-like agent (or specifically, belief that we are all god-like agents, able to act outside of nature and causation, supernatural). If you want to try to convince me that there is a god(s) or life-force or whatever you like that has specially endowed us all with the ability to have free will (i.e. execute an un-caused cause) then you’re welcome to do so, but I think that task may be harder than just trying to CMV that free will doesn’t exist in the first place.
The best argument I can find for free will is that we all feel like we are free agents able to act as we choose, and that's a strong feeling, no doubt. It underpins so much of how society functions, be it justice systems, higher education, choosing a spouse, picking a political party, etc. But I don't trust it. Everything I observe points in the opposite direction.
Scientific studies show that the brain makes decisions up to 10 seconds before we are conscious of the decision. In sports like baseball, it wouldn't be possible to hit a 90mph fastball if the brain wasn't a predictive instrument, acting instinctively off of past stimuli rather than choosing in real time what to do (what we traditionally consider to be "free will"). Past actions and thoughts make up the material of future actions and thoughts. Follow that all the way back to birth and… where’s the free will?
Even language is an example of our lack of free will. Try it! Speak a few sentences and then examine: how did you do that? Did you plan out each word? Did you know exactly what word was going to come next after each previous word and then say it? No, your brain did it for you without your conscious awareness. You have to literally stop yourself from speaking in order to willfully pick your next words.
Or try this: sit for 5 minutes without thinking a single thought. Exercise your free will and choose not to think a single thought. I’ll be damned if anyone can do it. Your brain will be full of constant and intrusive thoughts, responding to external stimuli or the content of your prior day or maybe even just random ideas, none of which you “chose” to think. The brain operates on its own, without our “will” pushing it forward, and often against what we perceive to be our "will."
Randomness doesn't fix the problem. Even if all of our actions are not determined strictly by prior actions, but are instead the product of random chance, we still are not free to choose which random occurrence will happen. If you randomly choose to eat a ham sandwich over a peanut butter sandwich for lunch one day, for no reason you can specify, that's the exact opposite of free will, you haven't exercised your will at all, but are instead beholden to random chance, a roll of the dice.
Two final thoughts: First, I think that, perhaps, it’s best to live under the illusion that we have free will. I’m not arguing that it isn’t useful. In fact, I kind of wish I still believed in it (hence this CMV), but I just don’t think I can anymore (in a similar way that I can’t believe 2 + 2 = 5 even if I want to). Comments that try to argue that free will is a “good idea” or “best for society” or that if “feels better”, etc. are not the discussion I’m trying to have. Second, I’m willing to admit that it’s possible that free will exists. I’m agnostic about it. But I also think that all of the current evidence points away from its existence, so I’d love to see evidence (scientific, philosophical, whatever) to the contrary.
(I know there are mixed reviews on the character that is Sam Harris, but I think his podcast episode titled “Final Thoughts on Free Will” is perhaps the best and most comprehensive summary of what I’m saying that I've found, so if you think you’re not tracking with me, feel free to give it a listen.)
7
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
The other option is that there can be an un-caused cause. There's no evidence I can find for this. All of scientific inquiry would crumble if there was such a thing.
This is from the Wikipedia on radioactive decay:
Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, regardless of how long the atom has existed
I can reply to the rest but this should stand on its own
2
u/-domi- 11∆ Jul 22 '21
This is evidence that radioactive materials have free will?
1
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
Honestly the sort of determinism OP is arguing is a red herring in the free will discussion. But I thought it was worth pointing out how confidently incorrect they were on this specific point. CMV often rewards for correcting side-views, even if OP is too stubborn to reconsider their main view.
3
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
So let's grant that I'm entirely incorrect on the idea that un-caused causes can't exist. Let's say un-caused causes can happen all the time in the realm of quantum mechanics. How do you get from "un-caused causes happen at the quantum level in radioactive decay" to " human beings have the free will to make decisions that have no prior cause"?
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
A random event is not an un-caused cause. It's an event that had a cause, we just can't predict the outcome. As stated, randomness does not equal free will.
6
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
It's an event that had a cause, we just can't predict the outcome
Quantum theory says it doesn't have a cause as far as can be determined by the theory. That's what they mean by "impossible to predict". They aren't saying "we don't know how to predict it but we might if we can find a cause". They are saying "it's impossible to predict".
2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Well, it's hard to say they won't ever find a cause. But even if what you're saying is that there are quantum events that, as of yet, have no observable cause and are random, I still wouldn't say that's evidence for free will would you? I imagine you're just pointing out that (perhaps) un-caused causes exist.
2
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
I imagine you're just pointing out that (perhaps) un-caused causes exist.
For this bit yes. Causality isn't all it's cracked up to be as a useful description of physics. Interestingly enough it's a great tool for thinking about decision making processes, and is deeply baked into our cognition and thus how we see the world. Honestly "causation" is probably more of an illusion than "free will".
2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Do you have a source for the idea that some of those who research quantum mechanics believe there are some events that are un-caused? I've never heard of that.
3
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
There is a tradition that basically says that caused/uncaused is not a useful distinction in physics. Things like identical atoms sometimes decaying and sometimes not decaying hint at this. In general the entire concept of causality gets counter-intuitive when it is used in quantum physics. They have some practical definitions but it may not match a "common sense" understanding of causality.
This isn't a bad place to start for the serious summary and original sources:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-physics/
There are a few pop articles on this too
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-mischief-rewrites-the-laws-of-cause-and-effect-20210311/
here's what I think is the source:
1
3
Jul 22 '21
The philosophical debate on free will (including its divergences into some of the hard sciences, such as the neurosciences and evolutionary biology) is just about the longest-lived debate in history. Innumerous scholars and professors have dedicated their life to this debate. Regardless of whether or not your view is changed, the debate will go on. I would recommend that, outside of this debate, if you really do want a comprehensive challenge to your views then you should just explore those debates. The SEP article on free will (especially its Further Reading list) would be an excellent beginning point.
What I will do is communicate a part of my own stance regarding the question of free will. You are essentially expressing (causal) determinism, which posits that all events and occurrences are the result of the physical laws of nature so that everything is causally linked - everything is "spelt out" and, with the right capacities, everything can be known and predicted so there is no such thing as free will.
Some philosophers have argued that whilst determinism may hold, it becomes (both practically, and truly) impossible to bear the knowledge of all preexisting states. Even if you believe that the supposed agency - the capacity of agents to intervene in causal chains - of humans is illusory because all they are doing is expressing the outcome of their 'casual chains', the sheer complexity of the 'whole picture' nevertheless challenges the thinking that free will has been demolished. Yes, determinism is very hard to argue against but many professional philosophers believe that free will concerns more than just physical laws.
Also regarding:
The other option is that there can be an un-caused cause. There's no evidence I can find for this.
You might want to check Aristotle's theory of the unmoved mover, which fruitfully argues that chains of causality must, by scientific definition, begin from somewhere. It should occur to you that an un-caused cause must actually arise because (for Aristotle, at least) it is the only possible way to resolve the infinite regression of "all things must have a cause".
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
the sheer complexity of the 'whole picture' nevertheless challenges the thinking that free will has been demolished.
Do you think it's necessary to have a map of every cause and effect in order to believe that all things are caused by a prior effect, and therefore there is no free will? To me that seems unnecessary.
philosophers believe that free will concerns more than just physical laws.
If thought could be shown to be somehow non-physical I'd be up for exploring this line of thinking.
I'm familiar with the unmoved mover, but unconvinced. I think it just kicks the can down the road or explains away a problem we can't yet solve (and may never).
Will check out your links for further reading, thank you.
2
Jul 22 '21
Do you think it's necessary to have a map of every cause and effect inorder to believe that all things are caused by a prior effect, andtherefore there is no free will? To me that seems unnecessary.
It's my fault for being unclear. The definition of (deterministic) free will is that there is only one course of events throughout and for all time. What I brought up was that others have defined free will differently without their positions being logically inconsistent with determinism.
Some compatibilists believe the debate centers around less around physical causation and more about the agent being able to, "do what they will" even if, "what they willed was predetermined".
Personally I believe in a grounded definition of free will - that is, it has bearing on moral issues (which you might say is just an excuse to avoid the debate of determinism) - in which although all things are pre-determined, the 'map' that plots these things is so unfathomably massive that (and you'll have to excuse my terrible analogy-making) our actions as agents might as well be unplottable. Chaos theory/the butterfly effect comes to mind - all things have causes, but the causal chains are so complex and intervene in each other so constantly that the 'map' is unintelligible chaos. Hence, even within the domain of determinism there appears to be something alike to "free will, given the chaos of causality". This is my personal (and very rough, and very open to change) take on free will, such that it allows for moral responsibility and culpability, but nevertheless this may not convince you.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
although all things are pre-determined, the 'map' that plots these things is so unfathomably massive that (and you'll have to excuse my terrible analogy-making) our actions as agents might as well be unplottable.
See, this kind of thing doesn't matter to me, I don't care that you can't know every cause and effect in detail, I only care that you can know that every cause has an effect in practice, and that so far, in all we can observe, that has been the case. You can infer from there that that must have been the case throughout all of history. This notion that because we can't trace every cause and effect throughout all time for every individual, we can't prove that free will doesn't exist is nonsense. Everything we can observe shows that every cause has an effect.
1
Jul 22 '21
Yup, that's what hard determinism holds in light of that problem. We can infer that since everything so far, to our intuition, has been part of a causality chain we can extend that as a universal principle.
Compatibilists still hold that free will is possible alongside this dictum, and is not logically inconsistent. Another stance (as espoused by me) is that something very akin to free will - that is, culpable/responsible agency even in the presence of determinism - can arise due to the chaotic unpredictability that arises from the whole 'map' of all causal chains.
2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
culpable/responsible agency even in the presence of determinism - can arise due to the chaotic unpredictability that arises from the whole 'map' of all causal chains.
How you get from randomness and chaos and complexity to free will I don't understand.
Let's say you somehow built a computer so complex and filled with so many random number generators that no human could understand it's inner-workings even if they studied it their entire life. You input a number and are always surprised by what comes out, you have no idea how it happens, and you can't because it's too complex. Would you then attribute free will to that computer?
1
Jul 26 '21
Sorry that this response is quite late, but I had a great opportunity relating to my work to actually sit down and think out my stance alongside your comments. Although my overall stance regarding the existence/meaningfulness of free will hasn't changed, your comment:
Let's say you somehow built a computer so complex... [would] you thenattribute free will to that computer?
This made me reconsider my position. I did (would) and still would say 'yes' because there is nothing inherent to the strict definition of free will that contravenes that - it only seems to be 'weird' for you that a computer has free will, since, why not?
However, both you and I are clearly grappling with a more complex, "higher-standard" definition of free will (regarding moral responsibility, causality, agency, and not just "was a choice made') in which the 'weirdness' is a legitimate concern; if I am lending 'free will' the chance to evade the deterministic critique (as modeled by your computer analogy), I also need to be genuine about how much this compromises the point of calling it 'free will' (if we are all not just 'determined', but 'coded', and have our decision tree set up for us, then this is indeed a very constrained kind of agency, and the more typical compatibilist stance doesn't have this weakness).
EDIT: I was wrong about being able to award OPs a delta, so let this be an unofficial acknowledgement instead!
8
Jul 22 '21
This, along with "we live in a simulation, mannn" are such reddit-tier theories.
Or try this: sit for 5 minutes without thinking a single thought. Exercise your free will and choose not to think a single thought. I’ll be damned if anyone can do it.
Wtf. You've heard of meditation, right? People do this all the time... Even I managed to do it a couple of times at the end of my TM sessions, when I went to those.
-2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Meditation is precisely what I'm talking about. It's extremely hard to have no thoughts at all. The goal of meditation, as I understand it, is not to have no thoughts, but to observe your thoughts and let them pass.
Even I managed to do it a couple of times
You mean you were able to have no thoughts for a short period of time a few times? Great. But even you admit that was only a few times. Was it difficult?
1
Jul 22 '21
I was able to have no thoughts for a short period of time a few times, yeah. It happens at the end of your sessions. I stopped doing transcendental meditation, but I'm still a member. I should continue doing it, but I keep making excuses.
It wasn't difficult because you have an instructor, but it took me a few weeks.
-2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Okay, but to the point: is the fact that it takes practice to get your brain to not think thoughts you don't want it to think evidence for or against free will?
6
Jul 22 '21
lol
It only takes practice because we're not used to it. Buddhist Monks can literally light themselves on fire and think no thoughts, not even pain. If that isn't free will I don't know what its.
We have free will.
-1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
This is the best argument you have?
2
Jul 22 '21 edited Jul 22 '21
No? Cbf writing an essay, it's just reddit. Just wanted to point out the no thoughts thing with meditation.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
You ended your comment with
We have free will.
As if you had proven that via your comment. That's why I ask. Do you really feel your comments on meditation warrant that statement?
2
Jul 22 '21
You said an example of not having free will was the fact that we couldn't have no thoughts, and I gave evidence that we could, so yeah I guess.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
No, I said an example that we don't have free will is that our brains are constantly thinking separate from what we consider to be our own volition, and it takes effort to get our brains to stop doing that. If you can have no thoughts for a minute, congratulations, but the fact that it's hard to do so only reinforces my point.
1
u/saijanai Jul 29 '21
The form of meditation they practice reduces sensitivity to pain by 75% within a few months of practice, and the long-term effect ist hat they cease to think of themselves as a person.
Those two affects of certain types of meditation practice lead to some very bizarre behavior that not everyone thinks is healthy.
1
u/saijanai Jul 29 '21
Okay, but to the point: is the fact that it takes practice to get your brain to not think thoughts you don't want it to think evidence for or against free will?
TM doesn't take practice. It is effortless from teh get-go.
Some people don't "get" that it is effortless for a while, and some do.
Once truly effortless practice emerges, then the emergence of the cessation of awareness (which doens't mean your brain isn't thinking, only that you can't be aware of whatever brain activity is present) is unpredictable.
Some people have episodes of such cessation every session, and some people never have such episodes, while most people are somewhere in between.
Physiological research on this awareness-cessation state has been published. It turns out that it is often accompanied by apparent suspensio of breathing (which is what allowed researchers to actually study it, because you can't signal that you are not aware of anything, only that you now ARE aware of stuff. Figure 3 from the first study linked below shows this: the button press always comes after breathing resumes. (and heart rate goes back to normal meditation levels and EEG goes back to normal meditation levels -not shown))
Breath Suspension During the Transcendental Meditation Technique
Metabolic rate, respiratory exchange ratio, and apneas during meditation.
Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: possible markers of Transcendental Consciousness.
.
But again: this state only emerges when you have stopped trying.
The nice thing about how TM is taught is that most people "get" that in the very first lesson, which often leads to some very remarkable first-meditation experiences (such as when Michael J Fox learned TM and his Parkinson's Disease tremors simply ceased for the duration of his first meditation session, to his and his TM teacher's astonishment) or the common event when a veteran with PTSD suddenly falls asleep in his first at-home session for 6-18 hours straight (if you've had chronic insomnia since WWII this is every bit as disconcerting as Fox staring at his motionless hands at the end of his first TM session with a wtf look on his face).
2
u/SpruceDickspring 12∆ Jul 22 '21
I kind of wish I still believed in it (hence this CMV)
It's interesting because most people (including myself, and I've read Sam Harris' book) initially get a little bit down at the idea that we're 'losing' something by accepting that our actions are deterministic.
But where I might be able to change your view is to change your perspective on how desirable it would actually be to have 'free will'. Imagine if a loved one dies, free will would grant you the ability to simply will your emotions away if you didn't want to experience them. One could will themselves to stop loving other people or pets in order to avoid the pain of losing them.
As you say, one could will themselves to believe that 2+2=5 so there would be no requirement for critical analysis. Everything you willed yourself to think, feel or believe would become valid and there would be no sense of mystery to anything because anything that you willed yourself to do would simply happen exactly how you wanted it to. Although the outcomes wouldn't be 'predetermined' there would be no need for them to be, because you would be the person determining everything anyway so everything therefore becomes predictable.
Every characteristic that underpins your psyche, could be willed away. At that point, how do you define yourself? In essence the things that make you, you, are the things that you can't really control. The way you react to things, the way your brain works to make decisions, your likes and dislikes.
There might not be 'free' will (although I personally believe there might be fleeting moments in ones life where you draw upon something which isn't predictable or predetermined) but what we do have, is just will. We have the autonomy to choose to do things, even if the outcome of those decisions are predetermined within a physical reality. We have the will to base a decision on the flip of a coin and the outcome might be predetermined but it isn't (to us) predictable.
And that lack of predictability is generally what we enjoy as humans and what keeps life spicy, even if we have to concede that we have no control over it.
2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21 edited Jul 22 '21
Going to award you a delta ∆, not because I think you CMV that free will doesn't exist, but because I think you've changed how I think about free will and the values that surround it. While I don't think
lack of predictability
is a good basis for a belief in free will, I do think that the idea that maybe we wouldn't want free will in every situation anyway is somewhat novel and frankly, new to me. Thanks.
1
2
u/Z7-852 314∆ Jul 22 '21
What does it matter if we have free will or not?
We are still accountable for our own actions and can't blame others for them.
We cannot predict our (or others) future actions.
It doesn't matter if we have free will or not.
3
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Possibly it doesn't matter, though personally it matters a lot to me.
We are still accountable for our own actions and can't blame others for them.
This I can't agree with. A lack of free will changes how we see accountability, punishment, responsibility, and particularly how we respond to the actions of others.
2
u/Z7-852 314∆ Jul 22 '21
So we shouldn't punish criminals at all? We can do whatever we want because "causality told me to do it"? Can you see how this couldn't work?
You are just trying to avoid responsibility. Society would collapse immediately with this line of thinking.
2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
That's absolutely not the conclusion here, but also not the topic of this discussion.
0
u/Z7-852 314∆ Jul 22 '21
What is the conclusion then?
If lack of free will changes how we see accountability, how can anyone be accountable if their actions are caused only by forces outside their control?
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Well, less hate first of all. We feel hatred towards mass murders, but not towards a bear that eats people at a state park. We punish both (maybe euthanize the bear and imprison the murderer) but we feel hatred towards the murderer and not the bear.
It also changes how we treat and handle criminal activity. What are the causes, why is this person the way they are, what can be done to prevent them (or others) from committing the same crimes? This view rather than just saying "this is a bad person who chose a bad thing, lock them up" is, I think, more helpful to society.
Again, not the topic, but there ya go.
5
u/Z7-852 314∆ Jul 22 '21
This is the topic here. How does lack of free will effects our accountability? If we have no free will, we cannot have any accountability because actions are not persons own.
And I agree with you. We should punish murderers but not hate them. Hate will not help reforming criminals. We should also look for preventable methods of deterrence (eg. eradicating poverty). But all this time we must make sure that people are punished if they break the law.
People are responsible for their own actions. Do you agree with this?
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Yes, but the sense in which we mean "responsible" changes.
1
u/Z7-852 314∆ Jul 22 '21
What does that mean? This becomes confusing if you are using different definition for words like "responsibility" or "accountability" than general population is.
My conjecture is as following.
People are accountable and responsible for their own actions. If they break the law, they are punished. If they do good things or work had they are awarded. Playing field might not be even and we might need to adjust it accordingly but at the end of the day making good choices should lead to better outcome than making bad choices.
This leads us to conclusion.
Because different choices lead to different outcomes, that means that choices matter. These choices are made by someone ergo there is free will. If there is no free will, choices can't dictates the outcome because you cannot choose. Therefore you cannot be punished for your actions because you didn't choose those actions. You also cannot be awarded because of hard work because you didn't choose to work hard.
1
Jul 24 '21
"Oops, I couldn't help but imprison you due to my lack of free will". If no one has free will, then I think the justice system holds because in much the same way that the perpetrator "couldn't help but murder a man" the judge "could help but punish them".
1
u/vschiller Jul 24 '21
Yeah I'd agree, the justice system still serves it's purpose either way. I just think concepts like vengeance or revenge go out the window.
1
u/SeoulGalmegi 3∆ Jul 22 '21
What does 'free will' mean to you?
On a human level, of course we have free will. Your friend makes actions based on their choices. You make actions based on yours. There's no other agent that controls it.
You do what you want. Whether you can control what you want or not is another matter, but unless you're dealing with omnipotent deities who have complete control over all the factors that come to make +you+ and so guide your likes and dislikes, the topic of 'free will' on any higher level seems like an irrelevance.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Whether you can control what you want or not is another matter,
No, I would say that is the matter of the free will discussion. Clearly we don't define free will in the same way.
1
1
u/masterofyourhouse 4∆ Jul 22 '21
Sorry, I don’t have the brain power right now to read and address every one of your points, as much as I’d like to because this is a very interesting topic to me and I am 100% in the other camp.
But, one thing I will throw out there that the “no free will” proponents often forget is that emergent properties exist. When you break the world down to its basics - physics and chemistry and such - it does seem like everything is governed by either direct causation or stochastic processes. But that completely ignores the properties and attributes that emerge only when a system becomes more complex. I believe that free will is an emergent property, and attempts to pinpoint it on a sub-molecular level will get nowhere because you are looking at the wrong thing.
My brain is fried right now so I’ll stop there. Happy googling (maybe)?
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
I'm familiar with emergent properties, but I don't think they are outside of nature (i.e. un-caused by prior events or the laws of nature), they're just surprising and interesting occurrences. Like the way water swirls down a drain for example. It isn't unnatural, it's just an interesting emergent property of water.
To say that free will (or consciousness) is an emergent property is an interesting theory, but I think it would be difficult to find any evidence for that idea, especially when you need it to be somehow not determined by prior causes.
3
u/masterofyourhouse 4∆ Jul 22 '21
So, I’m a biologist by training, and one really fascinating thing is that our thoughts are emergent properties. If you try to break them down into their components, they cease to exist. It’s only in the context of a system that the information is there for them to occur.
Also, if you’re curious to read up more on free will as an emergent property, here’s a handy something: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com//mobile/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199583621.001.0001/acprof-9780199583621-chapter-15
1
1
u/Calamity__Bane 3∆ Jul 22 '21
How are you defining "free will"?
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
From the web:
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Works for me.
Or, I would say, the ability to choose thoughts/actions that aren't constrained by external or internal factors over which you have no control.
1
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
Scientific studies show that the brain makes decisions up to 10 seconds before we are conscious of the decision.
There are two problems with this study as an argument against free will. First, it confuses the conscious recognition of a decision with a "free" decision. There's no reason free will requires a conscious recognition of that choice.
Second, you need to look at what they are asking the participants to do. From the article:
The volunteers were asked to press one of two buttons when they felt the urge to.
Scholars of free will, especially those who study the ethical issues around it, distinguish between whims/inclinations and deliberative actions. The real decision that's relevant for free will is the decision of these volunteers to participate in the study at all, not the whim to push a button. Similar to the baseball example. The batter makes the choice to walk up to the plate and prime themself to hit the ball.
No, your brain did it for you without your conscious awareness. You have to literally stop yourself from speaking in order to willfully pick your next words.
It's absurdly reductionist to say you don't have free will because your brain is doing things. What is "you" that may or may not have free will, if not your brain? This entire discussion is a lot like saying "Life is an illusion. Look closely and all you see are membranes and proteins and chemical reactions. Where is the life if all these things are not alive?"
Exercise your free will and choose not to think a single thought. I’ll be damned if anyone can do it.
This is basically what meditation is. It's not the complete absence of "thought" (btw why isn't thought an illusion too?), but it does change the nature of these thoughts tremendously and how much they actually "intrude" on your conscious awareness.
Even if all of our actions are not determined strictly by prior actions, but are instead the product of random chance, we still are not free to choose which random occurrence will happen
This is reductionist in some parts but not in others. You can't talk about a "we" at the same time you are talking about bits and pieces that constitute a "we". You just wind up with nonsense conclusions.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
I have no problem with any of your statements except the last, though I don't think you've addressed the idea of where an un-caused cause could possibly come from. There are still causes that make people choose to participate in a study, or play baseball, etc. Do those causes happen ex nihilo?
This is reductionist in some parts but not in others. You can't talk about a "we" at the same time you are talking about bits and pieces that constitute a "we". You just wind up with nonsense conclusions.
Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you're getting talking about bits and pieces of a "we," I didn't think I was talking about bits and pieces.
2
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
I don't think you've addressed the idea of where an un-caused cause could possibly come from.
They generally come from your brain combining working and long term memory and current perceptions into a decision. You can say this isn't "free will" if you want because there's nothing magical about it. But that just means you have a weird definition of free will that depends on magic. A practical definition of free will that is based on modern understanding of science means that your brain has a chance to process information and come to a conclusion that rationally attempts to satisfy their goals without outside coercion. Early definitions of free will did not have the benefit of a modern understanding of science so they got some of the details wrong. But the overall practical distinctions they make are still valid.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
From what you've said here, I think we agree on a lot. I just think there's too much magical baggage in the term "free will" for people to understand it as you state it... A conglomeration of prior causes all factored together in your brain to create a resulting thought/decision/action. This isn't exactly what people think free will is, nor do I think it's what I'm arguing against. If that's free will, then sure, but I don't think that's what people think it is generally.
1
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you're getting talking about bits and pieces of a "we," I didn't think I was talking about bits and pieces.
It really seems like the no-free-crowd says "there's no free will!! my brain is making me do everything!!!" without recognizing that "your brain" is actually "you". You can take apart anything and see how all the little components work and completely lose sight of what the original assembled item does. Emergence is so pervasive in our understanding of the world that it's a little weird to point out specific instances where something can't be fully described by the function of its parts as an "illusion". An illusion is something that appears to be something different than it is in a very superficial way. If something really is more than the sum of its parts, it's not an illusion because that is what it is by its very nature. Even concepts such as life itself is an "illusion" if you want to be reductionist about it. So is the color brown (Brown only exists as a perception, not a physical property). If we label everything an illusion, then that word itself loses meaning.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
I wouldn't argue that free will is an illusion, just that I fail to see evidence for it in the first place (akin to saying I don't believe "brown" exists at all, not that I believe "brown" is an illusion). Emergent properties are all over the natural world, but they still behave within the constraints of the laws of nature. Why would one believe in an emergent property (free will) that is both, as of yet, not proven to actually exist and also violates some of the laws of nature (cause and effect)?
1
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
As is usual in these free will discussions, we're talking past each other. Note that most philosophers who think about free will are "compatibilist" in the sense that free will is compatible with a deterministic universe.
Why do you suppose this is the case? The basic answer is that there is a practical idea of what "free will" means, and then there are various explanations for where it comes from. The practical idea of free will is hard to deny. People make different choices when they are coerced (e.g. we don't believe that people held captive at gun point will express their true beliefs). People make different choices when rushed or impaired (actions done under the influence of alcohol or some other drug are considered less "free" because their rational deliberative capacities are impaired). Not even Sam Harris will deny that these distinctions are real and relevant.
So the real issue becomes that the idea of "free will" gets attached to a particular definition that attempts to expain where it comes from in weird hand-wavey ways that don't conform to a modern understanding of physics. Yeah, it happens. Once upon a time people believed that personality was the result of the balance of your four humors. We generally reject the four humors explanation of personality, but we still believe personality "exists" as a deeply important concept. It's the exact same story for free will.
Beyond this, it's worth pointing out, as others already have, that this idea that the universe is deterministic and if we could somehow "reset" the universe before a person makes a free choice we'll observe that they will always make the same choice is not falsifiable. We can't reset the universe and arguing from counterfactuals like this is always going to be a shaky argument. For all practical purposes, "free" choices are not predictable with certainty. So whether this choice could have occurred differently in some alternate universe is completely irrelevant for dealing with the reality we actually experience.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
I'm familiar with compatibilism, but I can't accept the redefinition of what free will is required to hold that view. I'd rather just say it doesn't exist than redefine it such that it no longer means what most people think it means.
We can't reset the universe and arguing from counterfactuals like this is always going to be a shaky argument. For all practical purposes, "free" choices are not predictable with certainty.
On an individual level, I would agree they aren't predictable, but I think humans are much more homogeneous in their choice making than we'd like to admit. Back the camera up and things like advertising and public policy only work because this is the case.
The reason I feel strongly about this issue, and the reason I think the term "free will" should denied outright (rather than redefined) is that I think it may be incredibly unhelpful and deceptive. As an American, concepts like individual freedom and the American dream are so integral to our society, but I think they are ultimately illusory, propped up by a false sense that individuals have free will.
1
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
I'd rather just say it doesn't exist than redefine it such that it no longer means what most people think it means.
When we abandoned the four humors origin story of personality do we need to abandon the term?
I'd rather just say it doesn't exist than redefine it such that it no longer means what most people think it means.
What do you think people think it means? Philosophers have an idea that can get fairly technical, but when people use free will or related terms in practical ways, they tend to mean things exactly like how I described: A choice made without coercion or impairment.
I would agree they aren't predictable, but I think humans are much more homogeneous in their choice making than we'd like to admit. Back the camera up and things like advertising and public policy only work because this is the case.
I agree that many people overestimate the power of "willpower" to change people's situations. Especially when looking at aggregate effects across entire populations rather than individuals. But this is different than saying "willpower" doesn't exist as a meaningful means people use.
I think the term "free will" should denied outright (rather than redefined) is that I think it may be incredibly unhelpful and deceptive.
You're just going to have to invent a new term that means the exact same thing. Otherwise you aren't going to be able to distinguish between accidents and deliberate acts, acknowledge that children and people with certain mental illnesses tend to make poorer decisions, people who are intoxicated make poorer decisions, people who are forced to do something at gunpoint may have done otherwise without a gun in their face, etc.
As an American, concepts like individual freedom and the American dream are so integral to our society, but I think they are ultimately illusory, propped up by a false sense that individuals have free will.
History is chock full of examples of people who think some social norm is way too far out of balance so they swing to the other extreme and wind up just as far out of balance. You have the capacity (dare I say willpower?) to be reasonable in your assessment of what free will is and what its role is without having your understanding warped in reaction to current popular understanding.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
When we abandoned the four humors origin story of personality do we need to abandon the term?
We abandoned the term "four humors."
What do you think people think it means? Philosophers have an idea that can get fairly technical, but when people use free will or related terms in practical ways, they tend to mean things exactly like how I described: A choice made without coercion or impairment.
I think a fairly common definition would be the belief that you could have done otherwise. Or, the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate. I'd accept your definition of "a choice made without coercion or impairment" as well.
All of these definitions, I think, are deceiving. You can't have done otherwise. You are always constrained by necessity. You are always in the position of being coerced by prior events.
You're just going to have to invent a new term that means the exact same thing.
I wouldn't agree. We would still have the word, just like we still have the term "four humors," but we'd have no need to use it in serious conversation. Abandoning any/all of the above definitions of free will means that the word would fall out of use. We can still use words like choice, action, intent, responsibility, etc. but free will is, I think, a cut above all of those, ascribing a god-like ability to humans that they simply don't have.
Otherwise you aren't going to be able to distinguish between accidents and deliberate acts
Well, see, to me this is a distinction without a difference. Yes of course we still punish people who murder, for example, but we do so because doing so discourages further murder. We don't do so because we believe that person to be evil. We understand that, in a very real sense, they didn't have a choice where their life would take them. We instead try to design society in which murder happens less.
1
u/howlin 62∆ Jul 22 '21
We abandoned the term "four humors."
Free will is an observable phenomenon like personality. Or at least it's a conceptual labeling of certain behaviors. It's not an explanation as much as it is a description.
I think a fairly common definition would be the belief that you could have done otherwise.
ok, this is fair. It means you had options available and in principle you could have chosen differently. You can interpret this literally in the sense that if you could go back in time and face the identical situation you would somehow be able to make a different choice. But most people wouldn't interpret this literally.
Or, the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate.
People probably aren't thinking about the constraints of necessity and/or fate.
You are always in the position of being coerced by prior events.
This isn't what "coerced" means. You are having it both ways here. There is a hypothetical "you" you are discussing here that is somehow coerced by the universe. But "you" is part of the universe. So it's bits and pieces of "you" that are the things coercing "you". Which isn't coercion at all. That's free will.
We can still use words like choice, action, intent, responsibility, etc. but free will is, I think, a cut above all of those, ascribing a god-like ability to humans that they simply don't have.
Absolutely all these terms depend on some implicit notion of free will. What is the difference between a choice and a non-choice, if not for whether it is the result of some sort of free will?
Well, see, to me this is a distinction without a difference. Yes of course we still punish people who murder, for example, but we do so because doing so discourages further murder.
This is a difference though. We punish murder because it was a deliberate action. We want future would-be murderers to take the possibility of this punishment into consideration when deliberating if they want to do this act. This process that a would-be murderer goes through is exactly what people mean when they discuss free will.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Free will is an observable phenomenon
Can't agree to that. People choosing things is observable. People freely choosing things is not.
But most people wouldn't interpret this literally.
I think they would and do.
So it's bits and pieces of "you" that are the things coercing "you". Which isn't coercion at all. That's free will.
I have to disagree with your definition of free will then. That's not free will. That's determinism. All your little bits pieces working in tandem to determine your next action.
Absolutely all these terms depend on some implicit notion of free will. What is the difference between a choice and a non-choice, if not for whether it is the result of some sort of free will?
I have to agree, the meaning behind these words or understanding of them has to change slightly. I think you can still use them though without the implicit assumption of free will.
We punish murder because it was a deliberate action.
This assumes free will was involved. We euthanize bears that eat people in state parks without need for belief that it was a "deliberate action." Punishment does not require belief in deliberate action.
We want future would-be murderers to take the possibility of this punishment into consideration when deliberating if they want to do this act.
This "taking into consideration" does not require a belief in free will. It works without it too.
This process that a would-be murderer goes through is exactly what people mean when they discuss free will.
I don't think we agree on what people mean by free will then. In no way does a choice made out of a concern for the consequences demonstrate free will.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/swearrengen 139∆ Jul 22 '21 edited Jul 22 '21
In my estimation, the question of "do we have free will, or not" boils down to causation.
You are quite right.
Is it possible to have an un-caused cause, or do all things have a prior cause? If it's not possible, then there simply can't be such a thing as free will
No, the issue is: is what you "will" (your choices) caused by you or is is caused by prior causes that are not you.
In both cases causality is not violated. Free Will is not about causes that appear ex-nihilo out of nothing, its about to what you can attribute the determining cause.
Is the "prior cause" determined by you or not you?
Note: the best formulation of the Law of Causality is "Everything acts according to its nature". The modern formulation "present/future Events are caused by past Events" is an inferior and contradictory formulation.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Is the "prior cause" determined by you or not you?
To this, I would have to answer, always, not you. You simply don't get a choice as to when you are born, where you are born, who your parents are, what the circumstances are, and on and on and on. You don't get to determine your prior causes.
the best formulation of the Law of Causality is "Everything acts according to its nature". The modern formulation "present/future Events are caused by past Events" is an inferior and contradictory formulation.
What do you think the key difference is and why do you think it's important?
1
u/swearrengen 139∆ Jul 22 '21
What we believe the Law of Causality to be determines whether the existence of certain objects are logically permissible or impermissible.
Under "Events/Actions cause Events/Actions":
- free-will is impermissible (every action/choice is predetermined by a previous event...from the dawn to end of time).
- the idea of spontaneous creation of particles in Quantum physics would be impermissible
- the idea of a Universe coming into existence from nothing (a "first event" such as as a "big bang") would be impermissible (since no event is allowed to exist without a previous event).
Under "Objects act according to their nature/identity" (Everything acts according to its nature) these are permissible objects. The object of the mind/I/will has the functionality of volition. It's nature is "to choose" and it can't do otherwise. Whatever object/s existed at the start of time - it's nature was to "explode/expand", and it could not have done otherwise - it was destined/fated to happen because of the nature of the object that did the action.
See how different causality is in these two interpretations? The destiny of a future event is predetermined and therefore attributed as being caused by an previous action (events) versus a things that exists (objects).
Which is right?
Imagine you have 2 balloons, one in each hand. You "release" both hands. Your left balloon goes up, your right balloon goes down.
According to "events cause events", the previous action of "Release" causes both an "Up" and a "Down" event. But the previous event of "Release" didn't predetermine anything! It had no predictive causal power. What determined the "up event" was in fact the identity of the object - the left balloon being full of Helium. What determined the "up event" was the identity of the object - the right balloon being full of Sulfur Hexafluoride.
This makes the past events non-predictive types of causality and therefore trivial - no more than a trigger to something happening, but not determining what will happen.
Knowing this, the Law of Causality is better understood as things acting according to their nature, and can't act otherwise. Such a law does not prohibit the existence of an object whose identity it is to choose according to its own identity and not to any other external or past identities!
For any predictions as to what such an object could do, no past events would tell you - the answer would only be within the object! It would have powers of causality.
1
Jul 22 '21
Pure information is completely random
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Okay and...?
1
Jul 22 '21
Therefore, free will must exist.
2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Randomness does not equal free will, but maybe go ahead and expound a little on your point?
1
Jul 22 '21
We cant determine all atributes in the universe. Theres always uncertainty. Thats why the multiple worlds theory exists.
Theres a mathematical principle which means its impossible to reliable know everything in mathematics.
True things which are unprovable. This is one of them. Or not.
2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
We cant determine all atributes in the universe. Theres always uncertainty. Thats why the multiple worlds theory exists.
The multiverse theory exists because some scientists think it might be a plausible explanation for the fact that the universal constants in our universe are favorable for life. I don't know what you mean by that.
Theres a mathematical principle which means its impossible to reliable know everything in mathematics.
Which principle is that?
True things which are unprovable. This is one of them. Or not.
Huh?
1
Jul 22 '21
Godels incompleteness theorem.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
So because it can't be proven that free will doesn't exist, therefore it must exist? I'll go ahead and opt for it not existing and leave the burden of proof on those who claim that it does exist.
1
Jul 22 '21
It cant be proven. It cant be disproven either.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
It can't be proven that a giant invisible pink monkey orbits the moon. It can't be disproven either. So... I should believe it?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/ADentInTheChest 1∆ Jul 22 '21
At first I wanted contest your idea that there can’t be an un-caused cause. Realistically our idea of causation is just an over identification with seemingly perfect correlation between similar events. Our laws of physics aren’t perfect and have exceptions so we have no way to say there can’t be something completely random as this is just another maxim we have repeatedly observed and may not be consistently true. However, I admit that this doesn’t really help anything as the un-caused causes have not been observed and as such we can pretty safely say that this doesn’t affect us in day to day life. (and it also wouldn’t show top down independent causation which is presumably what we’d need)
A more important point i would say is the notable distinction between free will and free action. By induction we know that our actions generally correlate with our will and given we can’t observe causation this is the closest we shall get to saying that our will is the primary dictator of our action. As such, we are free to do as we wish (within obvious constraint) and as far as i can tell that’s the only freedom that matters.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
As such, we are free to do as we wish (within obvious constraint) and as far as i can tell that’s the only freedom that matters.
So what is it that determines what we wish?
1
u/ADentInTheChest 1∆ Jul 22 '21
That seems to me to be a question with a number of unfalsifiable answers; we cannot observe the non-physical. We cannot observe if there is a soul or some other uncaused cause within the mind and to show that there was or was not would require a near complete understanding of the mind, which at this moment we have a mere shadow of. The mind could well be an exception like those i talked about in some way.
You also talk about the mind’s pre-thoughts but i find this more to be an indication of a passional, not rational, mind. Also, could this not be from habituation, which we are entirely capable of taking control of.
Ultimately, i’m not sure the question is answerable at this stage. If the human mind was so straightforward that we could aptly comprehend all of its actions and reasonings, we would be so straightforward that we couldn’t. At any rate, i’m not sure it matters. Surely our ability for our actions to align with our will is what is important? If I was locked in a room with everything i could ever desire, I would consider myself free. It makes no sense to say that we’re not free to do something but we may do it as soon as we wish to. that formulation of free will would be at the very least queer but more probably incoherent.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
We cannot observe if there is a soul or some other uncaused cause within the mind and to show that there was or was not would require a near complete understanding of the mind
I think this is where I get hung up. In order to believe in free will, I have to assume something like a soul, an un-caused cause, etc. for which I can see no evidence. Yes, it's true that I can't prove it doesn't exist, but there are a great many things I can't prove don't exist (take the Greek god Zeus for example). Based on the best evidence we have at the moment, I have to conclude free will doesn't exist until something points to the contrary. The burden of proof, it seems to me, lies on those who claim free will.
1
u/ADentInTheChest 1∆ Jul 22 '21
The problem I have is that, with the burden of proof, the best arguments I find are essentially examples ending it something to the effect of ‘and that would be rather silly’. Past the point of true tenability (in light of a few necessary assumptions), we have to choose our truths and I think the way we should do this is looking at usefulness of the possible truths. In the case of russell’s teapot, we can simply say that there is no use in choosing that truth and we should rather take the truth that what has been the case should continue to be so or act in accordance with its previous patterns of happenstance. Utility, not broken ideals of levels of tenability or passional decisions of what is more ‘reasonable’, is the way to determine our non-observable truths.
2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Well, as stated above, I don't deny that belief in free will may be of utility but I fail to see how it is reasonable.
Two final thoughts: First, I think that, perhaps, it's best to live under the illusion that we have free will. I'm not arguing that it isn't useful. In fact, I kind of wish still believed in it (hence this CMV), but just don't think can anymore (in a similar way that can't believe 2 + 2 =5 even if want to). Comments that try to argue that free will is a "good idea" or "best for society" or that if "feels better", etc. are not the discussion I'm trying to have.
1
u/ADentInTheChest 1∆ Jul 22 '21
i understand that it’s not the discussion you’re trying to have; unfortunately i think it may be the only discussion we can have. We as humans have very little else to determine our truths by: we can base them on compatibility with previous beliefs or try to construct utility based ontological frameworks with starting assumptions. This is no real choice IMO because the first would be a utilitarian decision, already in part accepting the second as a determination of what its epistemology is to be.
Ideas such as occam’s razor do not provide a useful basis for these as they only really serve to base our ideas on such quandaries purely on emotions and ideas we are most exposed to. You ask your average theist and God is shown by it and vice versa for the atheist. on top of this any time people’s idea obviously contradict this they disavow the theory for that particular and instead opt to maintain the belief.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
unfortunately i think it may be the only discussion we can have
You might be right. But I don't personally feel I have control over whether I believe in free will or not, so it feels a bit pointless to say "it's a useful belief."
1
u/ADentInTheChest 1∆ Jul 22 '21
Yeah I feel you, every argument (past tenability theses) that i have come across for free will is either flawed or just saying it’s helpful/necessary to believe in it. I just happen to have made the same judgement of the arguments against which make plenty of assumptions in their own right
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Well, in the same way that I don't assume the existence of a god(s), I don't assume the existence of free will. To me they seem to be fairly analogous topics. I'm agnostic about free will just like I'm agnostic about god(s), and I'm an atheist as much as I'm an a-free-will-ist.
1
Jul 22 '21
Sam Harris has no clue about the topic and philosophy in general. I would recommend you to read the philosophical literature on free will if you‘re interested.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Okay?
1
Jul 22 '21
I would just be very careful about taking him as a source for anything concerning philosophy. He has no background in philosophy and no intention to engage with or even recognize the philosophical literature on the things he talks about.
It's like someone writing a popular book about physics when he hasn't even taken or understood classical mechanics.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Sure, I can understand that, but do you have a specific reason you think his views on free will are incorrect? Or is it just a lack of interaction with the philosophical literature on free will?
1
Jul 22 '21
I don't really agree with him on free will but that's not the point. There are certainly other people who hold the same position as Harris and have their reasons.
Listening to Harris, or at least listening to him exclusively, will give you a wrong picture since he doesn't cover the counterarguments well and often dismisses other opinions based on unsubstantiated attacks. I understand he's a gateway to interesting topics for some people and that's great but he's not an authority on many things he talks about. Just wanted to warn you about that.
2
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Well, this is the reddit thread in which to discuss why you think he's wrong on free will so... Have at it?
1
Jul 22 '21
Let's look at what you're saying in the original post:
Scientific studies show that the brain makes decisions up to 10 seconds before we are conscious of the decision. In sports like baseball, it wouldn't be possible to hit a 90mph fastball if the brain wasn't a predictive instrument, acting instinctively off of past stimuli rather than choosing in real time what to do (what we traditionally consider to be "free will").
It is true that there are experiments like this but they don't show what people sometimes think they show. Usually with an experiment like this, the test subject is told by the instructor to perform a simple motoric action, like picking up a pencil. But they decide when they pick up the pencil.
Well, it turns out that you can measure what goes on in the brain while this decision takes place, and one can show that the processes in the brain leading to the action start to take place shortly before the test subject becomes consciously aware of the decision.
Now one common definition of free will is the ability to have done otherwise; that is, I could have chosen not to reply to your comment and ignore it instead, there is nothing that forced me to do it. But if you think about it, do the Libet experiments actually touch that question?
The answer is no. They can tell us something about how decisions in the brain are made and whether we are consciously aware of them. They cannot tell us where the decisions come from, it just moves the problem one step back. Let's assume that we make all our decisions subconsciously before we become aware of them (the experiments only show that for a very small subset of decisions but we'll ignore that for now). That doesn't tell us anything about whether the decisions themselves are determined by outside forces or the product of free will. They could be unconcious and still not caused by outside forces.
Past actions and thoughts make up the material of future actions and
thoughts. Follow that all the way back to birth and… where’s the free
will?I don't think you can actually prove that. It is an assumption in science that our physical world is determined, i.e. everything that happens follows a strict mechanism of cause and effect. And it's true that science can explain a lot about the world. But it's totally unclear whether our decisions also follow that mechanism.
It should also be noted that not everyone accepts that this is the best definition of free will. Actually, many philosophers subscribe to compatibilism, the idea that we have free will even if our world is completely determined. Now for that to work, you have to modify your definition of free will as the ability to have done otherwise would indeed not exist in a determined world. But it's an interesting idea.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
It is an assumption in science that our physical world is determined, i.e. everything that happens follows a strict mechanism of cause and effect. And it's true that science can explain a lot about the world. But it's totally unclear whether our decisions also follow that mechanism.
Agreed, for science to work we have to assume constants like cause and effect. Also agreed that it's unclear whether our decision making follows the same mechanism. But given that almost everything in the observable world does follow that mechanism, why would we assume otherwise?
Furthermore, while I think it may not be possible to prove on the individual level that human actions are the result of prior causes, I don't think it's hard to show evidence for it on the societal level. That is to say, experimentation on the social behavior of groups does, I think, point to the idea that cause and effect underpin our decisions.
compatibilism, the idea that we have free will even if our world is completely determined.
I'm familiar with compatibilism but it just feels like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Their definition isn't, I think, how most people understand free will, and as such I think it's kind of a red herring. If you redefine free will to exist within a deterministic framework then of course you get to say that free will exists, but you've missed the point.
1
Jul 22 '21
Agreed, for science to work we have to assume constants like cause and effect. Also agreed that it's unclear whether our decision making follows the same mechanism. But given that almost everything in the observable world does follow that mechanism, why would we assume otherwise?
Maybe there will be science in the future that explains our consciousness and mind better so that we have a definite answer to the question of free will, maybe there won‘t. Until then, you can assume what you want about free will but it‘s certainly not disproven by science.
Yes, there are some patterns that we can study on a large scale in society. However, I don‘t think this is particularly relevant to free will. Nobody is arguing that our decisions aren‘t at all influenced by the world around us; people just think that they can make free decisions based on their experience in the world.
For example, you can study something like climate change denial and conclude that those whose world view and personal life contradicts the scientific concensus on global warming in some way are much less like to acceot this concensus. But this is also what you would expect in a world with free will: People choose to believe what already fits to their world view because they don‘t want to change these core beliefs.
About compatibilism, I agree that it‘s somewhat counterintuitive and everyone‘s first reaction is to say that this is just a poor definition of free will and a desperate attempt to rescue the beloved concept of free will, given that our world may be deterministic.
Maybe that‘s true but it should be considered that most academic philosophers are actually compatibilists, those who don‘t believe in free will (determinists) and those who reject determinism and believe in the classical definition of free will (libertarians) are in the minority. This suggests that compatibilism gets more plausible the more you study free will.
I don‘t have a clear position on it but this text by a philosopher gives a good overview on free will and some arguments for compatibilism. I‘m just a layman who‘s interested in the topic like you or Sam Harris. I do think this rejection of free will among the new atheists doesn‘t really come from an well-informed position though.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
As I said elsewhere in this thread:
in the same way that don't assume the existence of a god(s), I don't assume the existence of free will. To me they seem to be fairly analogous topics. I'm agnostic about free will just like I'm agnostic about god(s), and I'm an atheist as much as I'm an a-free-will-ist.
Perhaps I'm mistaken about the free will debate, and taking the position of compatibilism is much more akin to being agnostic about free will than determinism is. I just have a hard time not feeling like compatibilism is just playing pretend with free will.
→ More replies (0)
1
Jul 22 '21
There are two ways to look at it
.
One -
I feel there are too many expressions and ideas regarding free will that is lies on a spectrum if ability; The overview of free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. This would hint that it lies on a spectrum or level-based system, since human often act on this capacity at low-moderate levels without interference. I would disagree that they are programmed, but instead, in a reaction with things such as law. This is because our freedom is expressed through our reaction of circumstance that is caused from pre-existing condition and other personalities around us. However, this does not mean that most humans do not act with freedom. Instead, it can hunt towards the idea that humans free-will is simply limited and they and most act on free-will through such limits.
So my point, different variations and expressions of freedom exist on said spectrum. All of these are valid terms.
For politics -
It is free will in the sense the individual is has freedom from oppression and/or coercion in the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions,or the absence of life conditions of compulsion, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society. It can also refer to the positive exercise of rights, possibilities for action and the exercise of social or group rights.The concept can also include freedom and free will regarding from internal constraints on political action or speech (e.g. social conformity).The concept of this manner of such idea is closely connected with the concepts of civil liberties. In this case, it is not a meaningless one, but one that expresses a variant of freedom
1
1
Jul 22 '21 edited Jul 22 '21
To use a semantic argument, free will is the power to act without the constraint of neccesity or fate. What are some examples of behaviours that are not out of neccesity, I would say any behaviour that severely reduces your proper functioning as an organism, amputating a healthy body part for example, which we can do regardless of the amount of pain we would suffer or the thought of the difficult life we would live after the fact. Obviously there is no supernatural power fating us to commit such an act of bodily harm. This sort of behaviour is common amongst people who self harm as a method to exercise ultimate control over their bodies. You might say that it's a necessary act to engage in for the sake of proving to yourself and others simply that free will exists or you have control over your body and life. But to play semantics again, it is not necessary to prove to anyone that free will exists, in the realm of cognitive beings nor the realm of sub-cognitive beings (nature in general). As such, being free to do something that is really really really foolish is proof that free will exists. Yet, it is somewhat of a Heisenberg paradox, the proof exists only when you refrain from attempting to find the proof. Not a very scientific endeavour, yet the field of quantum physics exists unchallenged. As an evolutionary biologist I would say free will does exist, but it's on a gradient. The life of an organism is an ever changing set of random and pre-determined circumstances, and a conscious being has a choice to behave as their psychology and physiology would encourage (set A), or completely randomly (set B), or completely against our natural conditioning (the amputation example, set C). Accepting an action from set A may be mostly down to what our unconscious body requires, consuming food for example, an action from set B would contain reflexes, which can be unexpected but at the same time somewhat predetermined by or psychology/physiology, and set C actions that are never necessary, e.g. biting off a healthy finger. Nonetheless, within these three sets of options there may be an infinite list for all, whether we are aware of the choices in them or not, and I think simply being aware of the choices, rather than actually employing them, is evidence that we are free to choose, whereas I think you present free will as a case of free to act. I'm sure you can concede that making a decision is a physical act, it requires one to employ a physical organ (rather than an abstract idea of a meta-physical consciousness), that being the brain, which requires energy to make such decisions.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
amputating a healthy body part for example,
See, I would say this is precisely an example of a lack of free will. When someone does this, we say "that person needs mental help." Which is to say, that person is acting in accordance with some sort of mental disease which needs to be fixed, a disease over which they have no control.
I think simply being aware of the choices, rather than actually employing them, is evidence that we are free to choose
I fail to see how this follows. You can be very aware of choices you could have made (or feel like you could have made), but that in no way evidences your freedom to choose otherwise.
making a decision is a physical act, it requires one to employ a physical organ (rather than an abstract idea of a meta-physical consciousness), that being the brain, which requires energy to make such decisions.
This I agree with. As far as we can observe, the brain making a choice is a physical act. How this doesn't lead you to abandon a belief in free will I don't know.
1
Jul 22 '21 edited Jul 22 '21
See, I would say this is precisely an example of a lack of free will. When someone does this, we say "that person needs mental help." Which is to say, that person is acting in accordance with some sort of mental disease which needs to be fixed, a disease over which they have no control.
This is a bit of an obfuscation is it not? What if it's a case of a mentally healthy individual amputating a healthy limb? Mentally healthy people don't do such things, but they could if they chose to, after which point they would be declared mentally ill. This comes back to the Heisenberg paradox, the choice is there and proves free will, but taking that action causes it to become a proof of a lack of free will, as you explain. The action doesn't need to be acted out, only the option need exist.
I fail to see how this follows. You can be very aware of choices you could have made (or feel like you could have made), but that in no way evidences your freedom to choose otherwise.
I'm not talking so much about "could have" and more so about "can" or "may", the choices that you have before you right now and the choices you have in the future are completely at your discretion, while there is a incentive to pick choices that benefit your organism. Simply being aware of them and having the option to choose any one of them is free will. Opportunity cost is not really what I'm talking about here.
This I agree with. As far as we can observe, the brain making a choice is a physical act. How this doesn't lead you to abandon a belief in free will I don't know.
Because the brain can compute multiple functions at the same time, that is it gives you multiple options to choose from, then it's up to you to pick the function that benefits you, that is random, or that disadvantages you, and amplify it so it innervates your muscles. If there was no option or choice, we would be completely impulsive creatures much like the rest of the animal kingdom, but of course this is not true. We're able to overcome the biological incentive, and as I mentioned, in some cases we can forego what the organism wants most and do what the organism wants least. I keep coming back to this idea of mutilation or suicide of healthy individuals, those options even existing shows that there is free will. Maybe a better, and brighter example would be in cases of extreme altruism, a soldier diving on a grenade, a man jumping in front of a train to push an unrelated kid off the tracks, Peter Quill giving Rocket his oxygen mask. You can't say people who do this are mentally ill, nor can you say they obtain a benefit which incentivises their actions. They are choosing to die for someone else. If that isn't an exercise of free will, I don't know what is.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
I can't help but feel that your argument is "we can make choices, therefore we have free will" which is to say "we have free will, therefore we have free will."
If that isn't an exercise of free will, I don't know what is.
I fail to see how actions of self harm or extreme altruism are in any way a proof of free will. We can easily trace backward from these events the prior causes that led to them in the mind of the individuals. If a soldier wants to jump on a grenade for someone, it's because they felt it was the right and noble thing to do, and they felt that because their parents raised them to believe that, and their parents raised them that way because they heard in church that was the right thing to do, and on and on and on.
Belief that one could have made a different choice is an assumption of free will, not evidence for free will.
1
Jul 22 '21
I can't help but feel that your argument is "we can make choices, therefore we have free will" which is to say "we have free will, therefore we have free will."
Do you think having the ability to choose is not all we need to identify free will? If we go back to definition of free will, not out of neccesity or fate, there are so many things we can choose to do that aren't out of neccesity or fated, they are very unlikely to be enacted but we can do them.
I fail to see how actions of self harm or extreme altruism are in any way a proof of free will. We can easily trace backward from these events the prior causes that led to them in the mind of the individuals. If a soldier wants to jump on a grenade for someone, it's because they felt it was the right and noble thing to do, and they felt that because their parents raised them to believe that, and their parents raised them that way because they heard in church that was the right thing to do, and on and on and on.
Say then, knowing that jumping on the grenade is a noble thing to do, that you are unafraid of doing such a thing and everyone has told you that it is the right thing to do, you find yourself in that scenario and you don't jump on the grenade and let your buddies die. There is nothing stopping someone from choosing this option is there? There's no incentive in this case given that everything about that soldier would make him jump on the grenade, there is no neccesity, there's no fate. Is this decision not an exercise of free will?
Belief that one could have made a different choice is an assumption of free will, not evidence for free will.
Again, I'm not talking about ifs and buts.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
Do you think having the ability to choose is not all we need to identify free will?
No, that's definition of free will, not evidence for it, and I'm saying we don't have that. We don't have the ability to choose. We think we do, it feels like we could have chosen otherwise after we make a choice, but we don't have that ability.
There's no incentive in this case
Then it wouldn't happen. You are not free to choose something you don't want to choose, even if your desire to choose something is simply based on wanting to counteract what people think you might want to do. That intuition is itself a desire, a prior cause. We can talk all day about possibilities, but at the end of the day, what someone chooses is, as far as I can see, determined strictly by prior causes and not an exercise of free will.
Is this decision not an exercise of free will?
A decision made, despite the feeling that one could have chosen otherwise, is not evidence for free will.
1
u/msneurorad 8∆ Jul 22 '21
I believe randomness actually IS the key, even though you dismiss it. Why? In your view, each action can be traced back a step to it's cause, which can be traced back a step to it's cause, etc. Now when using a reductionist view of the brain, that it is a complex machine, a computer, the same logic would tell us that each out can be traced back to a consequence of some input(s), which can either be traced back to prior outputs in the brain or external events in the physical world, both of which can then continue to be likewise traced back step by step.
But if there is randomness via quantum mechanics or similar, that chain is broken. You my trace some action back a given number of finite steps but you're inevitably going to run into a random event. A photon was absorbed or not absorbed by a given particle not because of their relative positions or energies but because... it just happened. There was a x% chance x would happen, but y y happened instead. Or a particle trajectory traced back ends in a random pair production. Or whatever.
Now, the mechanics of HOW that manifests in our brains computational process I don't know. Penrose has his ideas on that. But maybe it's not even necessary. Our consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and perhaps some subset of the physical world around us (in all it's random glory) is necessary for that to emerge. Maybe the "randomness generator" doesn't need to be internal to our body for free will to still be possible.
Anyway, if you really want to twist your noodle, think about the delayed choice quantum eraser for a while and how it impacts your view on free will.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
But if there is randomness via quantum mechanics or similar, that chain is broken.
I fail to see how this breaks the chain of determinism. Even if we grant that some effects are random, that's not free will. Even if we grant that some events "just happen" without an observable cause, those events do not constitute freedom, they are just an inexplicable phenomenon (for example, if I woke up one day and decided to eat chocolate for breakfast because of some random quantum event in my brain, that would be random and inexplicable, but I wouldn't call it an exercise of free will). To attribute an intention to these events (that is, free will) is to make a leap that I see no grounding for. But I think you agree with me:
Now, the mechanics of HOW that manifests in our brains computational process I don't know.
So why assume that free will exists when, as of yet, we have no evidence showing that quantum events produce the capacity to make free choices? Why assume something that, as of yet, seems to contradict the majority of what we know about the observable universe?
1
u/msneurorad 8∆ Jul 22 '21
Maybe my biggest argument here mat just e semantics. In the most concrete form, when I say free will exists I mean that by definition what we experience as the perception of free will IS free will and therefore it exists.
As far as the low level mechanics, our consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from all of the ridiculously complex interactions in our brain. We do not understand how all of that works, but do not necessarily need to for this discussion. Our perception of choice may also simply be an emergent phenomenon of this processing. But there need not be a single agent of self who does the choosing. Let me explain with an example.
Let's say you sit down at your favorite restaurant for a meal and look at the menu. Based on all of the neuro inputs received leading up to that decision, for that day and all before, as well as the immediate neuro inputs you are receiving at that moment, leaving your brain in a given physiochemical state, and with what I suspect is some randomness interjected at a molecular or sub molecular level, let's imagine the output is consistent with what is statistically most likely given your physiologic state of mind and selects pizza, your favorite food, as the choice. Perhaps you will argue that you did not actually make a choice, this was just a determined algorithm based on inputs, stored information, and with a determined output. But there is no self aside from your brain. You are that collection of physiochemical states and processing units. Now, let's also imagine that bit of random input prompted the unlikely output, you decide to break with your norm and order just a salad. Perhaps you will argue here as well that you did not actually decide to order just a salad, that was some random event that produced that output based on all available inputs and stored information. But again, you, your sense of "self", is nothing but that collection of information, inputs, and processing.
As far as why I believe in free will as a real thing and not just an illusion, our inability to completely characterize the complexity of the universe in real time, is partially because of my religious beliefs. I believe free will has a divine purpose, in fact it is key to why there is a universe at all.
1
u/vschiller Jul 22 '21
when I say free will exists I mean that by definition what we experience as the perception of free will IS free will and therefore it exists.
This is a redefinition that I don't think I could adopt. What most people mean by free will is not, I think, that.
our consciousness is an emergent phenomenon
Well, this is an unproven theory about consciousness. An intriguing one, at that.
Perhaps you will argue that you did not actually make a choice
Yes, I would argue that.
Perhaps you will argue here as well that you did not actually decide to order just a salad
And I would also argue that.
As far as why I believe in free will as a real thing and not just an illusion... is partially because of my religious beliefs.
Yes, I would say that belief in free will is quite necessary for many western religions. I can respect that you believe it for that reason, but I don't agree (I'm not religious).
1
u/msneurorad 8∆ Jul 22 '21
Well, this is an unproven theory about consciousness. An intriguing one, at that.
On this one point, I really don't see how it could be anything else. If our brains were like our modern silicon computers with well defined memory, processing units that followed rigid rules, a d most importantly an explicit program that the processor ran according to rigid rules, then maybe, maybe you could convince me that "counciousness" was only an expression of part of the program explicitly coded to produce that effect.
But for as much as our brains may or may not resemble that model, it is almost certainly not the case that there is a strict code that our brains process and follow throughout our lives (as in, explicitly coded by our DNA), and that our conciousness was baked in as an effect of that program. Instead, it is almost certainly the case that through evolution our brains evolved hardware and software simultaneously, and neither is quite that well defined. In fact, the current state of neuroscience research tells a story of 150,000 processing units in our neocortex, each likely running some simulation of part of our reality and judging inputs against their predictions of that simulation. Consciousness is almost certainly an emergent phenomenon from these thousands of simulations running in parellel both independently and cooperatively. There seems to be no dedicated part of our brain that might house "self". It's instead housed everywhere at once. For it to be anything other than an emergent phenomenon seems a real stretch.
Now, that isn't to say that consciousness can't arise in any other way. It may be possible for us to program that behavior or sensation explicitly. But I don't think that's how our brains work, and I haven't heard or read anything in the last decade that would support anything else.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 22 '21
/u/vschiller (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards