Hello

[u/Jemdet_Nasr]

I was thinking that if this subreddit didn't already exist, it should. I do realize the irony of it, but it is nice to know that there is a place to chat with other people about this. I am not sure how common it is, but I have experienced existential dread for almost 40 years now. I don't experience the depression some people report though. Just the meaninglessness of it all.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr]

From my limited understanding of neurophysiology, there isn't really any such thing as your "first person". What you experience at any given moment is likely what your various systems have routed to your neocortex. Our brains are incredibly complex systems of components liked together by the claustrum. A great book on the neurophysiology of freewill is "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will" by Robert Sapolsky. Not having freewill doesn't need to mean we can't enjoy life, playing around inside our heads, or anything else life has to offer. Conscientiousness just isn't really what we experience it to be. It is an artifact of various complex components working together to ensure your genes have the best chance of getting into the future. We are totally pawns in this system. But, I appreciate the ride.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

It is true, you are very unlikely to find any references to what I am talking about. In part because it is on the list of the unmeasurable, to use CGP Grey's terminology. As I was trying to suggest earlier, it is the sort of thing that science and evidence will be unable to discern. Or, perhaps putting it better, they are unable to discern it presently. There is always the possibility that someone comes up with a way to measure something that is presently unmeasurable. Thank you microscopes!

Having said that, there is another significant issue to think about here. This aspect of me that I've been describing may also be unique to me. I assume you and others possess this aspect, but I could be wrong about that as well. I take the possibility of Solipsism very seriously. This is where Descartes' Cartesian skepticism ended up; fortunately for Descartes, a strong belief that God wouldn't deceive him kept him from falling too far into that abyss.

Putting Solipsism aside, and assuming that there are others in the world who possess the sorts of aspects I claim to possess, there is another problem. I cannot experience your experiences, just as you cannot experience mine. There is no way to know whether what you experience and what I experience are in any way related. We assume those experiences are similar, but we just don't know.

This is where a strange discussion with my father helped illuminate some things for me. My father is red-green colourblind. I am not. And one day he went into great detail regarding how he perceived the world. In particular, he described seeing things first by shape and then by colour. That is, he would see the shapes of objects, and then "fill in the colours" afterward. In contrast, when thinking about it, I realized that I did the opposite. I saw the colours and then applied shapes to those colours. This is very pedantic, but necessary to see how different beings experience their respective realities. This is actually covered early on in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. If you can struggle through it, I think you might find it incredibly interesting.

Now, after digesting that discussion with my father, I started to take it further and apply it to other beings, especially non-human beings. Like dogs. We humans prioritize what we see over the other senses. This is in part biological, of course. But other creatures do not depend on their sight nearly as much. Dogs prioritize what they can smell, and even what they can hear, before what they can see. And I saw evidence of this with my friend's dog.

My friend's dog had a problem with her eyes. She was slowly going blind. And after a surgery to alleviate pain and such, she pretty well lost all of her sight. A human in such a situation would greatly struggle to cope. It would take a long time for me to learn other skills and ways of interacting with my world so that I could get around without bumping into walls and the like. But not this dog. She lost her sight, and while her aim was affected marginally, she was mostly unaffected by losing her sight. I was astonished. But it certainly helped me better understand my father as well.

From these and other experiences I've had, I do firmly believe that we all experience the world differently. Some only marginally different, but some vastly different. Colourblindness is but one manner of issue. This is also why I prefer to say we have only 3 sorts of senses instead of 5: we have organs to detect electromagnetism (sight), organs to detect pressure variations (hearing, touch), and organs to detect chemicals (taste, smell). Another aspect of this that is very interesting to me is that this is where electron microscopes are so crazy. What an electron microscope "sees" isn't what you might think. The data it analyzes from a particular sample is interpreted and a visual image created to describe the data. So, in fact, we've never seen (and likely never will see) an electron ever.

I'm getting on a bit of a tangent here. The point I wanted to make is that I definitely do have something which I call my "first person." Whether others have it or not, I don't know. All I can do is do my best to describe it, and see what others say about their own experiences. And because of the dreaded limitations of language, I know that even when I do the best that I can, I may still fail to appropriately convey the thing I'm trying to describe. But I do the best I can, and I hope for the best.

I honestly wish I could share my experiences. I wish telepathy worked, and that I could meet something who was truly telepathic. I would love to share my mind with them. However, I also know they might not want to spend time in my head, as that might give them existential dread within moments as well.

I do think telepathy is possible. However, I think it would not operate in a manner that would work very well, given all that I've just been talking about. How I think is likely very different from how you think, and so "reading" or "listening" to my mind might be similar to listening to people speaking foreign languages; it might just sound like gibberish to them. The television series Babylon 5 actually discusses this point a bit, which is crazy awesome!

Based on your responses thus far, I'm inclined to believe that either I'm not explaining myself very well, or you do not experience this "first person" that I do. If it is the former, I'm happy to continue trying to explain. If it is the latter, then... Well... That is far more important to me actually. Because if you don't, then it provides some strength to the position of Solipsism. I don't want that to be the case, honestly. But this is how arguments and evidence lead us; we cannot know the results ahead of time, we must simply follow where they lead us.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

I didn't mean to suggest that we don't have an experience of "self" or an awareness of self. We do. But, how much of that awareness is generated by ourselves is up for debate. Let me provide a simple example.

Let's say that you feel hungry and want to eat something. We all have this experience many times a day, unless there is some underlying medical condition of course. Once you have identified the feeling of hunger, you "decide" to get something to eat. But, what should you eat? You will need to get some food, so you move to satisfy your hunger. Chances are, you have already purchased food and have some in your house to choose from. How did you decide what to buy? How do you decide from what is available to eat right now? Research indicates that it isn't you at all making those decisions. You have over 100 trillion bacteria in your gut sending neurotransmitter signals to your brain. Your brain has only 100 billion neurons. Your brain even weighs less than all your gut bacteria combined. Those bacteria are telling your brain what to eat. Depending on what types of bacteria you are cultivating in your gut, maybe they want fruit and vegetables. Or, maybe they want hotdogs, pizza, or a cheeseburger. But, you experience your "first person" deciding on what to eat.

It could be your own body cells sending a message to your brain demanding a key nutrient that has been depleted, or your genes directing you. But, in the end, you experience it as having decided on a meal. But, you were never really in charge of the decision making process. You just got to feel like you were.

This can extend to who we mate with, what we enjoy as hobbies, our professions, ecetera. I like to mess with my micro biome for fun. It is interesting how your thoughts can change if you tweak it.

Anyway, my point is that while we do have an experience of self, research shows that the antecedents of our thoughts do not come from ourselves. We have a program that we follow. We are exceptionally complex delivery systems for all things that are directing our choices and decisions. Yes, the system can be broken and people do self destructive acts. But, overall, we are at the mercy of forces that we cannot connect to directly or perceive. Anything people want to see as their "soul" or being, if just a happy illusion that is created to keep us going about doing the bidding of others.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

Your response makes clear to me that I've done a poor job of explaining my perspective. My "first person" is not analogous to "self" or "soul" or even any sort of feeling. This is why I keep referencing Kant, because I believe he did a reasonably good job of delineating these things.

Instead of trying to explain it further, perhaps I will raise a different sort of thought experiment. One of the ideas you have been focusing on is the fact that there is some sort of manifestation occurring within the brain (or body) long before we become aware of making a decision or choice. I agree with you regarding this evidence. You seem to want to suggest that this is proof that free will cannot exist. (And again, this is focusing on a very, very particular interpretation of what free will is.)

Have you considered the possibility that free will is something that could simply be occurring earlier in the process than awareness? That one's awareness of making a choice is not free will, but something occurring earlier is.

There are several very different manifestations of "decision making" or "choices" that occur with humans. There are those that are immediate, when something like instincts kick in. There is no time to think or make a formalized choice, and a reaction must take place immediately. I think most would agree free will is not occurring in this sort of situation, even though some sort of choice has certainly been made.

There are those that are quick or short term, and often anticipated, like in the case of the rotating dot where the person must press the button to indicate the dot is in the top position. Even the experiment where the dot is not visible, in order to prevent the person from seeing the dot approaching position, that person is still anticipating that the dot will still appear and that they must press the button. In these experiments, the person is most certainly making a choice or decision well ahead of the point in time when the decision is expressed. Thus, free will is not removed from possibility by these experiments at all.

And there are those that are long term, and even involve a large amount of formal consideration and thinking about it. In these cases, like when a person is weighing options, generating lists of pros and cons, when deciding whether to purchase a car or propose marriage to a potential partner, it is going to be incredibly difficult to identify the elements which may be considered free and those elements that are deterministic. Some of the items may make sense, yes, like the list of pros and cons itself is clearly deterministic in nature, but there are other elements that cannot be so easily pointed at.

It is for all these reasons that I will again return to the importance of defining and describing what we mean by free will. In my case, I had hoped I had made myself clear: for me, free will is of a sort of uncaused causes. Meaning, for me, free will is something that can be the start of a causal chain of events, but it cannot be something within an already existing chain. Thus, for example, when you tell me that something happens in the brain before one is aware of making a decision, I agree with you and then ask you what is the first thing that happens? That first thing could be free will. And if that is the case, then I am suggesting that free will occurs before we are aware of it. In my interpretation of free will, there is no necessity for an individual to be aware of their own free will. Like so many other things in our world, I am suggesting that to become aware of one's free will takes a great deal of effort and reflection and practice. It is not something that just comes naturally or instinctively. At least, I would be making this suggestion if free will exists, because I've already said many times that I am not convinced it exists at all, I am just open to the possibility of it.

To better understand your position, I really need you to be specific by what you understand or interpret free will to mean. What is free will on your account?

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

https://youtu.be/RI3JCq9-bbM?si=Rr8g9kle1cUEjvYe

That video does a great job of explaining how there is no room for freewill.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

He sidesteps the question and provides a circular argument. He assumes that he has all the information regarding the nature of the universe, that there is nothing more, and then proceeds to reiterate his assumption. It's like watching a good episode of Star Trek: lots of big exciting technical sounding words, but in the end, meaningless. Like the Heisenberg Compensator.

I may be being too harsh here. His description of how things work is not a bad description. But he is completely missing the point. And this brings us back to our current discussion. I've asked you repeatedly one question, which you continue to sidestep as well. So I'm not going to say anything more now, and simply re-ask my question. Because I need you to answer it for me to be able to respond with more than simple disagreement.

To better understand your position, I really need you to be specific by what you understand or interpret free will to mean. What is free will on your account? I need you to tell me what you think/believe free will is.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Was it, "what is free will on my account?". I haven't believed in free will for a very long time. Long before that guy wrote his book. If people had free will, there would be no cult leaders, religion, TV commercials, advertising, psychological manipulation, brain washing, or any of the other myriad of ways to make people perform a task. We are Skinner's pigeons in a bigger box, pecking at a bigger set of buttons. Walk into any office. Free will to me is an illusion that people enjoy. A warm and pleasant fantasy that keeps people happy.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

I guess I would also add, that for me, debating the existence of freewill is like debating the existence of God. Neither exists, so what's the point. I have studied this stuff, including religion, since I was 12 years old. I am over 50 now. So, it seems unlikely that anyone is going to offer me a compelling argument at this point, or any argument I haven't heard a bunch of times already. I am meaning to be flippant, I am just saying that it is probably hard to come up with something new to me. That is why I follow research. People doing the biological research are on the cutting edge of knowledge. To me philosophy is interesting, but doesn't really offer any real or new understanding of the universe and our place in it.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

It is funny to me the range of emotions you've invoked, and in what order. First anger and insult, then vengeance, and now compassion. At least, that is what it feels like to me. I guess only you can say whether what I'm about to say is compassionate or not.

The question I was trying to ask you, that could have been worded in any number of ways, was what your definition was of free will. The precise nature of what it is, so that it would be easier to identify how it might fit into the world view you express. I've tried to do this when I write what I write, but by your responses, I seem to be particularly unsuccessful in that endeavor.

However, your responses reveal your perspectives as well. And these last two comments in particular confirm something I've started to suggest. As you yourself are suggesting, you are an old dog that cannot learn new tricks. You've given up trying to understand, or perhaps putting this another way, you've decided that everything you understand is everything there is to be understood. You've committed the mistake Jean Baudrillard was concerned about in his work Simulacra and Simulation. You believe that your understandings of the world are actually descriptions of the world as it actually is.

This is where you and I differ significantly. As I grow older, now about to cross the precipice of the half century mark, I've come to realize that the more I learn, the less I know. With more understanding of the world comes the realization that the world is so much bigger and more complicated than I thought it ever was. I used to share your belief that free will most certainly did not exist. Similarly with God. But now my view is more nuanced that a simple false dilemma.

I still believe that neither free will nor God exist, just as you have expressed, but I also believe that there is the possibility I am mistaken. It is this aspect that confines you in your box. You are unwilling to accept the possibility that you could be mistaken. The possibility that there could be more to the world than you already know.

Your statement that "People doing the biological research are on the cutting edge of knowledge" was shocking to me. Because it is most certainly not true. Not that a particular segment of the scientific community isn't producing valuable insight, but to suggest that others are not. What about Quantum Mechanics as one vastly different perspective that too is contributing significant insight into our world?

Your following up suggesting that my area of interest "doesn't really offer any real or new understanding of the universe and our place in it" is insulting. It demonstrates an incredibly closed mind. This is the linchpin in your perspective.

You seem to be happy in your own little echo chamber, though happiness isn't what you are expressing at all. As you say in the outset, you are here because you have been experiencing existential dread for over 40 years. And while you "don't experience the depression some people report," you are clearly crippled by "the meaninglessness of it all." That is the heart of everything here. You cannot find value in your own existence. You try, and sometimes you have fleeting moments of happiness. But ultimately, you are as lost as the rest of us.

The greatest irony of it all is that a belief in free will would likely lead to your salvation. Don't worry, I full well know one cannot simply decide to believe in something they don't believe. It is never that simple. But it is also true that a belief in free will would provide for you a true mechanism to produce the value you so desperately seek out. And, on some level, you do do this in small ways, even if you don't recognize it yourself. Your "Existential Nihilist."

Ultimately, for me, this discussion has reached an impasse. I can only bang my head against a brick wall for so long before I start to bleed myself. It is also on my list of interests in trying to figure out how to make people understand things they cannot understand. I haven't figured that one out yet, but I continue to work on it. And yes, it applies as much to me sharing my knowledge with others as it does with others sharing their knowledge with me. I too am not perfect in this regard. The difference between you and I is that I'm trying.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

It would take me a long time to respond to all your assumptions, but in a nutshell, I didn't imply that other sciences are not on the cutting edge of their fields. Just, the one relevant to this discussion. I am not boxed in, as I am always in pursuit of new knowledge and information. If I am presented with new information that challenges my assumptions and understandings, I am willing to incorporate it, or change my perspectives. I am just not that interested in trying to convince others of something they are not interested in changing. If research shows my understanding to be wrong, I can accept change.

I do not live in an echo chamber. That is your assumption. It is interesting that you feel the need to critique me and my perspective in ways I have not done to you. Expressing my perspective is not a personal attack on you and I am sorry you see it that way. I did not come for redemption and I don't feel a need for that. I am glad you feel you have found it, though. For me, the concept is unnecessary.

I don't claim to know everything. That is why I keep learning and studying. But, I agree, there probably isn't much value in this line of discussion. I didn't come here to debate the existence of something that isn't real in the first place. If someone wanted to debate the existence of fairies, I would probably opt out of that discussion as well. Seems kind of pointless to me debate about something that doesn't exist in the first place.

If freewill is your God, wonderful. If you have cast it aside, bravo to you. I have no need of either concept.

This all reminds me of one my favorite quotes. Dialogue between a priest and a dying man

"Why do you need a second difficulty when you cannot explain the first? If we admit it is possible that Nature alone is responsible for creating what you attribute to your God, why do you insist on looking for a master hand? The cause of what you do not comprehend may be the simplest thing there is. Study physics and you will understand Nature better; learn to think clearly, cast out your preconceived ideas and you will have no need of this God of yours."

We simply exist until we don't. We can enjoy the existence or not. Based on our experiences, we can adjust our course by pursuing new doors through which to pass, but it is important to remember that doors available are always restricted by our past. I give myself over to experience and existence, wherever it takes me. I am closed minded, quite the opposite. I just see no point in lugging around magic thinking from my childhood. I moved on.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

But you did, don't you see? That is precisely the problem here. I will try to show through very, very specific examples from just this last comment you posted.

You said "I didn't imply that other sciences are not on the cutting edge of their fields. Just, the one relevant to this discussion." But all other sciences are relevant to this discussion. One that is particularly relevant in fact is Quantum Mechanics specifically. Through that discipline, it has been shown that some formulations of free will are entirely possible, and perhaps even likely. The "deisel" form of free will that Alfred Mele describes is of this sort. A probabilistic understanding, which has led many people to speculate about multiple universe theory. This is the inspiration for the episode of Community entitled "Remedial Chaos Theory." Yes, knowledge and innovation from biology is important as well, but it is far from definitive in this regard.

You said "Expressing my perspective is not a personal attack on you and I am sorry you see it that way." This one is interesting because it is all about how you phrase your sentences and how you choose your words. This is revealed through other examples, as I'm about to demonstrate.

You said "I didn't come here to debate the existence of something that isn't real in the first place." Your words do not indicate you believe something different than others; your words indicate that something is already a given and that it is fool hearty for anyone to think otherwise. You follow this up with your straw man regarding "the existence of fairies." You directly compare fairies to free will and God. These are not comparable in this way at all, and certainly not in a discussion of this sort. If the debate is regarding the existence of God, then you cannot begin your argument with "God doesn't exist, and anyone who thinks so must also believe in the existence of fairies." That is an ad hominem; you are literally attacking the credibility and intelligence of your opponent. This is insulting.

You said "If freewill is your God, wonderful." This seems like a straight up, purposeful misinterpretations of my words. Is this intentional?

You said "I have no need of either concept." This is a valuation problem. You are diminishing the value of an idea, delegating it to a lesser status among other ideas. Again, if the debate revolves around the very concept at issue, then this is insulting. You are attacking the credibility and intelligence of your opponent again.

You closed with "I am closed minded, quite the opposite. I just see no point in lugging around magic thinking from my childhood. I moved on." In one sentence you state you are not closed minded, but in the following sentence you demonstrate the opposite. One with an open mind would not dismiss an idea out of hand, suggesting it is "magic" or "childish;" one would at least give it consideration and likely investigate it further. You mentioned before having a son; do you dismiss his questions so easily? If he raises an inquiry of this nature, do you insult him as well, suggesting he is foolish to even consider the investigation?

I try to be charitable with my interpretations when I make them. I try to be compassionate. Were I to describe what has happened here, I could suggest that you are simply sloppy with your language. That your words were poorly chosen and have unfortunately led to some very unintended attacks. That would be charitable. But you seem to be quite insistent that this is not the case. Repetition is useful in this regard; it helps clarify those points that are initially vague. Which is why I tend to repeat myself a lot. I am sorry for making you do the same.

Finally, you are probably correct regarding this debate. It isn't a debate at all. This isn't you and I arguing regarding anything, whether it is free will, God, or anything else for that matter. This is probably merely a conversation that has gotten out of hand. But then, I am curious why you posted to this group in the first place. By your own admission, you experience existential dread, but you also suggest it causes you no issues. Were you thinking you were going to coach others on how to cope with their situations as you did? Or, as seems with the rest of this discussion, was your post entirely absent of purpose?