I mostly agree with this. To me, though, the interesting bit is where it sometimes breaks down. When I blow it, and lose my temper. When I weaken, and do something short-sighted. (e.g., eat way too much. I hit an all-you-can-eat buffet for lunch today…)
But, otherwise, I’m with you. It isn’t any good calling it an “illusion,” any more than calling one’s sense of self-awareness an illusion. We really are self-aware – with some fascinating limitations.
I do accept that, to some degree we act, and then rationalize our decisions after the fact, deceiving ourselves that “we meant to do that.” But that can’t serve to explain all our behaviors and all our choices.
These posts which we sit and write are complex little gems of micro-philosophy. They aren’t the product of illusory thought; they are the product of real thought.
To say that all our thoughts are illusions is to travel too far down the road to solipsism.
If you think this “story” supports the existence of free will, then you haven’t learned anything from this discussion, Waldo.
If free will exists, then it shouldn’t matter what kids are exposed to or what role models they have. As long as kids are endowed with God-given morality, they have the power to override every influence or stressor. Individuals choose to be good or bad. They aren’t “created” good or bad.
So if a person professing to believe in free will cited this story as evidence that they’re right and I’m wrong, I’d tell them what I’m telling you right now: You neither understand what “free” or “will” means.
None of these things you’ve listed are under your control. You don’t will your reasoning ability. You don’t will your ability to be reasoned with. You don’t will your capacity to learn. You don’t will your experiences. All of these things are external to your consciousness. So don’t go patting yourself on the back too hard.
If you truly had free will, you would know exactly why you reason the way you do. You’d know exactly why certain subjects appeal to you more than others. You’d have the ability to find other subjects appealing at will. And you wouldn’t at all be influenced by your environment. You’d have the power to make yourself forget unpleasant experiences or traumatic memories or subconscious associations. No one could ever hurt your feelings, because you could will yourself to be mentally tough.
Do you really not see how your whole mindset would be different if you really had free will?
I’d be utterly misanthropic if I believed in free will. Because it would mean that everyone who is a jerk is that way because they want to be one even though they know better. I would have no reason to give anyone a break or have compassion. Everyone would suck (much more than they already do).
What I have said is that “I” can’t take credit for my thoughts. “I” meaning my conscious mind. I say this because I don’t deliberate my thoughts before I have them. I’ve never said, “What am I going to think about next?”
But my thoughts certainly exist. I wouldn’t be a sentient human being if I didn’t acknowledge that I have thoughts.
I understand why people don’t like thinking about this too much, but is it really that weird? Does it leave people THAT dispirited about their importance in the world to admit that we don’t know nearly as much as our limited vantage points would have us believe we do?
Who said anything about being “created” good or bad in that story? It’s a story about learning from experience, where different people – who, for the sake of argument, start off the same – have different experiences, and so learn different lessons.
If everyone you ever trusted betrayed you, you’d learn a different lesson than someone who’d trusted folks and been repaid with kindness. If you see criminals get punished, you learn a different lesson than if you only ever see them live like kings.
Well, that’s a sobering rebuke, and I…
…wait, what? That’s what you think “free will” is? You think it’s the power to forget unpleasant experiences and traumatic memories? Jesus, no wonder you don’t believe it exists. This whole thread suddenly makes a lot more sense; I’ve been wasting a whole lot of time thinking you were talking about something else.
So, yeah, I’m ready to call this debate: if “free will” means the power to make yourself forget experiences and memories at the drop of a hat, then, yes, as far as I can tell, I don’t have “free will”, and naturally doubt anyone does.
No one teaches themselves. If a person is taught how to say “please” and “thank you”, a polite person is created. If a person is taught how to say “fuck you” and “kiss my ass”, a mean person is created. Especially if these lessons are learned in childhood, when the brain is well-primed for learning.
It’s like you couldn’t be arguing more for my position if you tried! If what I experience is THAT critical to my belief system, then how can you say that my decisions, the ones that are based on that belief system, are freely made?
I feel like I’ve wasted lots of time debating with someone who is poorly educated on the subject matter. You think “free will” means learning from experiences and making decisions from them. :smack: Talk about missing the entire point. This is not the “free will” that neuroscientists or philosophers are challenging. Either read a book or…I don’t know. Do whatever you want. CUZ FREE WILL, BRO!!
Indeed I do. And you think “free will” means having the power to make yourself forget memories and experiences. That’s where we differ.
If neuroscientists and philosophers are challenging the “free will” that’s defined in terms of the power to make yourself forget memories and experiences, then they’re sure as hell doing a piss-poor job of it, since folks should be able to win that challenge just as fast as they can spell it out.
If you were actually paying attention to the discourse, you’d see that your free will “folks” haven’t been winning this fight. And you yourself haven’t challenged squat. All you’ve done is argued my points for me, as obliviously as you can.
You may laugh at the incontrovertible idea that our memories and experiences dictate our choices and thus render our “will” a prisoner to outside forces. But you have yet to explain why this is so funny.
Um… I didn’t say you did. I didn’t say anyone had said it. I’m laying down end-zones that are (so to speak) beyond the goal-posts. It’s a dead zone that no one actually favors, so we can, at least, all agree that it isn’t an issue.
(Like, when discussing tax rates. One could say, “Okay, are we all agreed that 90% is too high? Good.”)
I agree…somewhat. There’s the unconscious mind, and there’s the “community of minds” effect, where we’re pulled in different directions by different capacities of mental activity. Heck, in a way even the stomach has a vote, in that we make different choices when hungry than when full.
Well, good. That was all I was after: trying to negotiate a place to stand where we can all actually agree.
It is, alas, threatening to a lot of people. And the fallacy of the homunculus is a very compelling one. It’s attractive as an explanation for how it feels when we try to analyze our thoughts at a naïve level.
It takes some rather sophisticated psychological experiments, and some very advanced neuroscience, to start to break down the illusions of selfhood…
And I accept that there are some illusions involved! There are well-established experiments that show that we’re just plain bog rotten at assessing risks accurately. We (all humans) rationalize more than we know.
I just don’t accept the premise implied by the title of the thread, “The illusion of free will.” Too strong. I think the weak form of the principle has greater explanatory power than the strong form. “The role of illusion and self-deception in decision making and conscious awareness.” It definitely exists; it just isn’t the whole of the thing.
I am absolutely with The Other Waldo Pepper here. This seems like a really extreme straw-man version of the kind of Free Will I believe in. I quite absolutely reject the implications that monstro draws here. That doesn’t describe my beliefs in any way at all.
We do seem to have been talking past each other, if he thinks this is what we have been defending!
Second off, this is completely nuts. “Free will”–just like any other concept–has a set definition. It’s not whatever we want it to be so that we can win the argument on the Straight Dope message board.
My definition of free well is simple. It’s the ability to make choices unconstrained by external factors. I’ve given this definition eleventy-billion times in this thread. Memories and experiences count as basic “external factors” because a person doesn’t consciously make their own memories. They don’t create the confluence of events that generate their experiences. So if they are the determinants of his choices, then *he *is not determining them.
If you’re saying that a person can override these things (as well as their genes, as well as the limits of his brain power) to make any decision he needs to make, then you believe in free will. If you believe a person is limited by these things in any way, you DO NOT believe in free will. You may believe in your own idiosyncratic definition of the term. But you do not believe in the definition that is implied when people preach from the pulpit on matters of morality, nor the definition that has made thinkers think so much on this topic for centuries. What you believe is “constrained will”. Can’t we agree that “constrained” and “free” are polar opposites? Or am I going to have hear another crazy example that allows something to be called free if it’s also constrained?
There’s a huge body of scientific and philosophical writings about this. This simply would not be if your facile twisting of the terms was meaningful or convincing.
Monstro, I strongly recommend you go out and meet people who believe in free will. Ask them: “Do you believe people can learn from experience?” You may be surprised by the answers you receive. Ask them: “Do you have the power to forget memories and experiences as you please?”
If you’re not up for that, provide a cite that most folks – or some folks – or anyone, really – has ever advocated for the position you’re railing against: someone who believes people have free will, as defined by an inability to learn from experience, coupled with the power to forget memories and experiences on a whim.
Or, if you’re not up for that…
…maybe just provide a cite for this. Supply a cite for that definition; I’ve only ever heard folks who believe in free will offer up what you call the idiosyncratic one.
Then your task should be easy: find one – of what must surely be many – item in that huge body of writings that argues in favor of “free will” as defined in terms of failing to learn from experience and wishing memories out of existence. I’ll wait.
What would this show other than people don’t care about the meanings or implications of the words they use?
People are experts at cognitive dissonance. Or is this another concept that flies way over your intellectual understanding?
Anytime someone sits in judgement of an individual without attempting to understand the conditions explaining their choices, they are displaying their belief that individuals are supposed to be free agents. Anytime someone says something like, “I don’t care if he was depressed/schizophrenic/abused as a child/mentally retarded/brain damaged/genetically inclined!! He knew what he was doing was wrong and he CHOSE to do it anyway!!” they are making a statement about the power they think individuals should have over their circumstances.
Any time someone has told someone with Tourette’s to “stop doing that” or expected someone suffering from obsessional thoughts to “just stop thinking about it” or told someone suffering from depression to “snap out of it”, they are denyng that people are at the whims of their brains.
Any time a person thinks punishment makes more sense than rehabilitation and preventation measures for the vast majority of criminals, they are making a statement about the ability of the individual to be shaped by their environment.
I’m not up to being intentionally misunderstood, I’ll tell you that. So if all you have is more inane questions for me, then you can counnt me out of this discussion.
Open up any dictionary and look up “free will”. If you find a definition similar to “learning stuff and making decisions from this”, then I’ll concede the argument to you. But if you find something similar to “the ability to make choices independent of eternal factors”, will you concede anything? No. Because for some reason, you can’t stop showing your ass.
Your reply shows that you grant the fact I’m out to establish: that people who believe in “free will” define the term in a manner exactly opposite from the definition you’re using. To reiterate, your reply shows that you already know this.
Which is breathtaking, really. I mean, look at this:
I ask you to supply a cite for your claim – that “free will” means folks can wish their memories and experiences out of existence – and you of course come up empty. But you ask me to supply a cite for my claim – after you already grant that people who believe in “free will” may well define the term in that manner: a manner exactly opposite from the one you propose.
That said, there’s a dictionary right here, and,
*free will
freedom of decision or of choice between alternatives
2.a. the freedom of the will to choose a course of action without external coercion but in accordance with the ideals or moral outlook of the individual
b. the doctrine that people have such freedom*
::shrugs:: I’ve heard worse. Here’s another dictionary definition: “the ability to make a choice without coercion”. Hmm. So “coercion” is off the table – force, threats, et cetera, as per that same dictionary – but “learning from experience” ain’t. Interesting.
Interesting discussion. I use the analogy to a computerized random number generator. If all you see is the output, it seems random. If you know the algorithm used, seed, etc. you know what is coming next.
Similarly, if someone had complete knowledge of all of your experiences, body chemistry, etc., at any point where you are presented with a choice, they would know what you are going to do. To you, it feels like free will.
If you can’t see how memories and experience are coercive, then seriously, there’s no need for us to go any further. Because I can’t think of anything more coercive than the thoughts screaming in one’s heads and the feelings those thoughts engender and the associations embedded in their subconscious. To rise above these forces would require someone to step out of this milieu whenever a decision needs to be made. And I assert that this is impossible.
I can’t make this any clearer. So this shal be my final words to you.
It’s possible to have free will and also to be influenced by your environment. There is no contradiction there. So, even those who believe in free will are not being contradictory when they espouse education programs or prison programs to reduce recidivism, etc.
I like both chocolate and vanilla. When I go for ice cream, I pick one. There are no voices screaming in my head. From my point of view, this is free will. Likewise, I didn’t like pickles but decided I wanted to learn to like them, and trained myself to like them. From my subjective point of view, this is free will.
That doesn’t mean I’m not subject to the laws of physics, or that my choices weren’t either predetermined or partially predetermined with some random elements. Regardless, I am faced with a choice, and I have to make one.
Whether one believes in free will or not has little to do with social programs. Social programs should be based on what works. (One thing that might work is to convince people that they have free will. This doesn’t mean that free will exists, and it doesn’t even mean that we should teach that it does exist – that would be the fallacy of “argumentum ad consequentium”.)
The whole problem of the discussion with this guy is hiher failure to use words in the way that they are used by other people- a common law in people arguing about subjects in which they have no grounding.
Coercive does not mean aggressive forceful action, but actions which are decisive beyond the desires of the person concerned.
I stopped arguing with him when it became a series of disagreements over what well defined words actually meant.
It is worth pointing out that such future knowledge is logically impossible to achieve in our physical world. Given the number of potential nodes in any decidion process it would take a computer with more bits than there are atoms in the universe to compute a single person’s behaviour. The best option open is to assume free will against their genetic background and experience and current knowledge about their personality- which is why evolution has led us to this point- quick fix low cost solution.
I keep getting the impression that there’s a lot of fuzziness about who the person is.
The person is over here *points but their memories and experiences are over there points in other direction , something apart from the person, and they can or do coerce the person?
Then there’s the context. Here’s this helplessly overdetermined person, at the mercy of the surrounding universe, both social and physical. Coercion by context. As if the border between the person and the rest of the universe were a characteristic of the universe but not of the person.
And inside the person’s head, all these reasons and tastes and inclinations and beliefs and attitudes and whatnot. Making the person choose things. Those damn reasons. Clearly the person is being coerced by those reasons!
And at the cellular level, there’s those damn genes. They aren’t part of who the person is, they are something that pulls the person’s puppet strings and it’s all coercive and stuff.