If you do not understand and accept the simple logic behind my statement then all we can say is that you have one belief system and I have another and there is no possible decision procedure.
There is no proof that humans have free will. Some people ‘choose’ to believe it, others are sceptical. In the empirical world in which we live, it is up to the party proposing the existence of a force or other entity to provide truth.
It is the same argument as that for the existence of God. God and free will are empirically unsupported opinions with no positive truth value- they are individual contentions currently lacking proof. One group may believe in particular God and another may not. There is no empirical or rational decision procedure to decide either way. Empirical Science (you know that procedure behind all modern technology and knowledge) requires proof of an entity before it is admitted as part of the universe. Free Well and God both fail that test.
The non-libertarian position is that events may be determined or random. Some events are determined or random processes that take place within animal brains and these processes are originally caused by genetics or experience; no platform for or evidence of Free Will exists.
Almost all philosophers and all neuroscientists accept that the world is determined or random. Some believe that it is rationally possible for words to be used that seem to require human agency (they are called compatibility) but there are vanishingly few libertarians.
But this is the source of the illusion. This is why illusions are so power…what seems to be happening isn’t happening at all.
The first thought you have upon waking dictates the course of thoughts throughout the day, because one thought leads to another. No thought occurs in a vacuum. If you wake up thinking about pancakes, this will trigger a thought about eating pancakes, which will trigger a thought about whether pancakes are better than cheerios, which will trigger a thought about corn chips, which will trigger a thought about this thread, which will trigger a thought about whether you should read more about free will. Etc. Etc.
The fundamental question is, who initiated this cascade of thoughts? You? Well, when did you first decide to contemplate pancakes? While you were asleep? Did you tell yourself this morning, “First thing I’m gonna think about when I open my eyes is PANCAKES!!” Nope. No one does this. We don’t decide what will be on our minds when we rise in the morning.
Nor do we decide what the second thought will be. Or the third or the fourth or the fifth. Thoughts come and go into our minds by a process that is unknown to us. If it was known to us, we could accurately predict what will be on our minds at 3:36 this afternoon.
If you can’t find the time to read “The Illusion of Free Will”, maybe you can just listen to this: On Repeat. You can fast foward through the story about the comedy act. It’s a story about a woman with no short-term memory, who exposes something that would be normally unapparent to us: We’re all operating on a script. It’s eerie and fascinating and may just get you thinking about this subject in a different way.
Neuroscientists like Sam Harris are well-positioned to see the farce that is free will. I know that for me, my personal “see the light” moment was when I realized that my tic disorder is just an exaggeration of what everyone has. I’m compelled by inner forces outside of my control to twitch and say weird things out loud. So-called normal people are compelled in the same way about their actions. It’s just that their actions are not quite as bizarre as mine are, so they feel they have them under control. But we’re all being controlled by strings we have no access to. The feeling that we do is the crux of the illusion.
That has nothing to do with it. If my stated hypothesis is true, then the universe is governed by causal determinism, and knowing the future is just a matter of having enough information. Whether we actually have that information or not doesn’t change the fact that under this hypothesis there is only one future and objective free will is a meaningless illusion. And there is no way to disprove the hypothesis.
That’s true at least in an approximate or practical sense. In theory and perhaps more accurately, the perception of randomness may be entirely due to a lack of sufficient information about the complete state what is actually a fully deterministic universe. There is persuasive evidence that even quantum processes are deterministic, and quantum uncertainty only governs what we can know about them. Quantum mechanics is the last frontier in which we can conceivably posit non-deterministic behavior – if it doesn’t exist there, it doesn’t exist anywhere, and the entire universe must be truly deterministic.
It is true in a complete sense in that it includes both the determined and random option. There is evidence to support either without being adeaute to exclude the other. What is missing is anything that supports the idea that something other than determined or random processes control what happens in the world.
It is also compelling to listen to the testimony of intelligent and verbal people with autism like Temple Grandin who are able to give account of almost fully functional human beings who lack some of the normative delusions that lead to an assumption of Free Will and Agency.
The moment it made sense to me was when I realized one of my tics is connected with a specific thought. If I think this thought, I automatically “bop” my head backwards. But not when I “force” myself to think the thought. Only when the thought comes to me spontaneously. Then it occurred to me that all my other tics operate in a similar fashion. I just haven’t identified all the “thought” triggers yet, because doing so would require a level of mindfulness I haven’t developed yet.
Then it occurred to me that my so-called “voluntary” actions are triggered by forces that are just as mysterious. But because these actions seem voluntary (e.g., they make sense given the context), I don’t question them. Both neuroscience and psychology have shown us that we often tell ourselves stories to explain why we do what we do. But those stories are usually convenient bullshit. I may think I make food choices because I’m conscientious about my health. But I don’t really know this. I may just be telling myself this because it makes me look good to my own appraising eye. People who work in advertising/marketing exploit this facet of human nature all the time.
You are the one using the word “predetermined”. Everything could be driven by randomness and still oppose free will.
Take away the interaction of my genes and environment and what the hell is left? Nothing. There is no moment when I’m able to step out of the milieu of my genes+environment and evaluate the situation objectively. My genes+environment create my reality. My genes+environment dictate to “me” which options are preferable and which ones aren’t. There will be no point in my life when I go counter to the options that my genes+environment make available to me, because if my genes+environment don’t know about them, they don’t exist.
The other day, my genes+environment made me break out into hives while I was walking to work. I had no choice in the matter. Now, I suppose you can scold me for scratching myself like a crazy baboon–because theoretically I had a choice not to scratch. But have you ever tried not to scratch a burning hive? This is like saying a person who is drowning has a choice not to scream and flail their arms. At one point do we know that action is an involuntary reflex as opposed to one under our full control? Someone who doesn’t understand how misinformed the concept of free will is will not think a question like this is important. But it actually is.
Free will not existing does not mean the universe would be or is predetermined.
Fundamentally, every action you take is the sum of a bunch of interactions between atoms. These interactions would in most peoples opinion would certainly NOT be considered free will. Its just basic physics.
Free will exists if the sum (the choice to eat that vegimite sandwich) is greater than the parts (atom A doing its thing).
Sum greater than parts sounds nice, but like good porn, it gets hard to define pretty quickly.
Not at all. But if you don’t happen to be suffering from hives at the moment, can you right now spend a minute scratching yourself like a crazy baboon anyway? Or refrain from doing so altogether? Or scratch for a bit, and then stop for a bit, and then scratch for a bit, and then stop for a bit – never itching, but occasionally scratching?
I didn’t say it did. I merely find it intriguing that (a) he mentioned a time when he couldn’t help but scratch, as if that example established something; and that (b) rather than answer the question about other times, you rushed in to assure everyone that, no, what happens at those other times wouldn’t establish it.
So what was the point of mentioning the scratching to begin with?
And why didn’t you jump in to declare irrelevance then?
I would need to be compelled by something to scratch myself for a minute. The burning itch of a hive is a powerful compulsion. A desire to amuse myself is another. A desire to prove myself wrong is yet another.
Absent a compulsion, no, I can’t scratch myself for a minute.
Refraining from scratching also requires a compelling reason. I actually scratch quite frequently because of my tic disorder (not because I am conscious of an “itch”). However, if I am very very mindful, I can hold myself back. But I have to have a good reason to be so very mindful. Being in the presence of an important person is one good reason. I also imagine that if someone held a gun at my head, I could keep my hands still for a minute.
(I think it is strange to equate not doing something as a choice. I’m not currently standing on my head as I write this, but it’s not because of any active choice I have made. It’s because it didn’t occur to me to do this in the first place.)
I don’t decide to myself beforehand what does and doesn’t count as a “compelling reason”. Not any more than I decide to break out into hives. A hive is involuntary. So is the fear I experience when I see a loaded gun pointed at me or when I think I’m being harshly judged.
Well, it’s occurred to you now, and yet still here you sit.
You say a reason can compel you to do stuff; you mention a desire to amuse yourself, and a desire to prove something, and so on; being in the presence of an important person is also a good reason, you add. And you’d reason likewise if someone put a gun to your head, you say.
If you had free will, what would you be saying instead?
I don’t feel a compelling reason to stand on my head. For one thing, I have never in my life done such a thing, so I don’t know how I would even go about making it happen. It also seems dangerous, and I’m compelled not to do dangerous things. Especially when doing so will not benefit me in any way.
That I’ve never stood on my head before and that I’m risk averse are two things about me that I am not responsible for. They alone are sufficient to explain why I have not “chosen” to stand on my head in the last forty-five minutes since the thought first crossed my mind.
I don’t know.
But it seems to me that it requires a higher burden of proof to know that I have free will than it is for me to believe that what appears to be under my volition (my free will) is actually not the case. The fact that I do not know why I do what I do is evidence that I’m not in control. Thus, how can I assert that I am “free” to do anything? If I do not know why I’m so risk averse and did not will myself to be so risk averse, than how can I possibly take credit for the wise “choice” not to stand on my head?
None of this means I don’t act as if free will exists. When someone does something sweet for me, I thank them profusely and praise them for being so kind-hearted, even though I know they aren’t responsible for their kind-hearted nature and thus don’t really deserve “credit” for it. But their brain hears my praise and no doubt reacts in a positive, dopamine-releasing type of way. And the person will then continue to do kind things for others, without really knowing why. The nonexistence of free will doesn’t mean that we’re just atoms bumping into each other. It just means we aren’t as self-aware as we think we are.
I think that is up to you to explain the meaning of “free will” and its mechanism. How does it escape from simple deterministic physics and how does it affect the physical body. At what age is free will inserted into an individual and at what development stage is free will fitted to animals and by whom or what is it fitted.
One definition of Free Will which is accepted by Compatibilists (people who believe that libertarianism is false yet free will still exists) is the concept of “could have done otherwise” meaning that their were options open but not followed by a person. If you are plummeting through space from a plane you cannot do otherwise than fall to the ground- you can do no other than continue to fall no matter what you do. If you shoot a gun and kill someone you could have not done so if your genetics and your experience were different, but you were determined to act that way. Compatibility would say that this was free will- not that you ever would in that situation have had the option of deciding that you would act differently, but that a difference of genetics or experience would have caused you to act differently.
What is claimed is not that you chose the wrong option (there was no choice) but that you are socially accountable for the behaviour of your person within the societal expectations current.
But you do know; you said so yourself; you patiently explained that you do things because they amuse you, or because you desire to prove something, or because you’re in the presence of an important person, or because you otherwise have a reason for doing them.
And, you add, you don’t know how it’d be any different if you had free will and were of course still doing the same things because you still had the same reasons.
What or who causes physical stuff (human bodies including brains and its neurons) to divert from deterministic physics. If you know that free will exists, surely you can explain how it affects physical matter, changing the effect of atoms and molecules to alter their trajectories.
I didn’t say that. I’ve already said I didn’t say that. I merely note that folks claiming they have no free will would apparently make the same choices, for the same reasons, if they had free will – a statement I could make regardless of whether or not I believe free will exists.