# Free will -- How and when do you make your first choice? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2016, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244 "2016-09-29T22:23:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/61 "2016-10-01T19:23:24Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > If your brain has a directional bias–a bias that is unbeknowst to you–then you cannot know whether you are freely choosing between left and right. Only an outside observer would be able to discern this. I don’t think it is possible for someone to get enough of your internal state to figure this out, especially in real time. And I agree with you that you can’t do it either. > [@](#): > > Again, if your brain only presents you with the option to eat pancakes, then you have no choice but to eat pancakes. From an outsider’s point of view, of course the options seem limitless and “free”. But for the individual with a brain that is perseverating on pancakes, their hand is being pushed to go with the pancakes and that’s what they’re always going to do. Say you wake up and go “pancakes, pancakes,” and head for the kitchen - but then see this croissant on the counter which is simpler to make and needs to be eaten. So you choose it. Is that still not free will because of a new input? How can you say you were programmed to want pancakes when the programming can be changed so easily? If you say that you were really programmed for a croissant in the first place, what if someone bought it while you were asleep, so you didn’t know it was there and truly wanted pancakes - until you saw it. > [@](#): > > Have you ever suffered from a hallucination, either visual or auditory? I have. And I can tell you, it didn’t feel like “me”. It feels very much “other.” When your unconscious creeps into your conscious, you don’t get a feeling of “oneness”–like you’re meeting another part of yourself. You get a feeling like your mind isn’t functioning right. That little person behind your eyes is supposed to stay hidden. All the time, when I was attending boring talks at the end of the day when I didn’t get enough sleep the night before. But I always thought it was me. My reaction was an urge to say something stupid based on the hallucination, which I luckily always resisted. But if you want a good example of no free will, try dreams. As far as I can remember, I’ve never decided anything in a dream. Things happen, and simple decisions I’d make in real life in that situation I can’t make in the dream. > [@](#): > > I think it is a cop-out to attempt to solve the free will question by defining “self” as the entirety of one’s brain. Personally, I wouldn’t know the last thing about which hormone needs to be squirted out when, or when to relax or contract this or that smooth muscle. “Free will” speaks to voluntary actions exerted in accordance with one’s desires and values. My unconscious mind’s comings and going are, by definition, involuntary. And my unconscious mind’s activities are always going to be in line with my desires and values since it is my unconscious mind that establishes my desires and values. Duh. By itself the unconscious mind does not do voluntary things, but what it does do is contribute to the working of the mind in general, for instance by answering questions and coming up with ideas. My subconscious is a good programmer also. Mozart’s was a great composer. But our brains (and the rest of us) are heavily interconnected thanks to evolution, and so I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to carve out a chunk of the brain as our self. > [@](#): > > At any rate, defining “will” so broadly that it encompasses the whims of the reptilian brain means that there is no real difference between a human’s free will and a rat’s. I don’t think most people attribute “free will” to rats. That rat brains can “choose” to navigate through a maze successfully or not doesn’t impress people very much. Probably because a robot can do the same thing. We would like to think that human cognition is superior to both the rat and the robot–that we possess something special that both of these things lack. Again, entities without higher brain functions don’t have free will. I’m not sure where that cutoff is - my really smart border collie mix showed some signs of it, while dumb Labs I’ve raised didn’t. If free will involves the interoperation of all parts of the human brain, I’m fine with animals not having free will. > [@](#): > > You think it is impossible because your definition of free will is so broad. If you were using my definition of free will, you would have a much easier time imagining what it would look like. (And again, I make no claims about the nature of the universe. I am only speaking about free will in the context of cognition, not physics). If we accept your overly restrictive definition of free will, I agree we don’t have it. Not even close. Forget about physics, look at sociopaths. But if free will is the ability to freely choose among a number of choices which might be limited by the environment and history, then it is at least possible that we have it. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2016, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/62 "2016-10-01T19:56:07Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > At the moment the soul moves/attaches to the new person’s body it does have ultimate free will, that is at the moment of the body’s death the soul will be given the option, to come out with God back to life or descend into death. Where that point is, when the soul is firmly rooted into the new body is uncertain but very early and in-utero - I would place it at the point it ‘roots’ into the uterus. Before this the soul is still free floating unattached, though attracted to the new body, if at that time the body is destroyed it simply floats on. Ummm…this would be valid if there is positive evidence of the existence of a soul. Until then, it’s just conjecture. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2016, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/63 "2016-10-01T20:05:01Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I would not say “none” are possible. [Neuroscience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will) is rife with examples of the self-delusions of free will. I recommend reading David Eagleman’s book “Incognito: The Secret Life of the Brain”. He talks about “just so” stories in the context of neurological disorders–like [Anton-Babinski syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%E2%80%93Babinski_syndrome). Then he posits that it’s not just people with disordered brains who tell themselves “just so” stories, but all of us do. > > Just [because](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_illusion) our [brains](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion) control [our](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_illusion) perception of reality does not mean that it is impossible for us to know that reality is being distorted. You’ve cited quite a few references to support an argument that I already agree with! I fully agree with your last sentence, for instance. The problem with your argument here is that when I speak of the subjective nature of free will this isn’t what I’m talking about at all. We can distinguish reality from delusion (at least, in most common cases) precisely because reality is testable and therefore has an objective existence outside our consciousness. I might imagine that the walls of my house have disappeared and I am surrounded by a beautiful sunlit meadow. How this reality plays out will be determined in part by what happens if I try to walk out into it. If I am suddenly stopped by a hard surface and bang my nose into it, I might question the reality of the disappearing walls with meadow beyond. Free will is not like that. If I decide to get in my car and drive to an actual meadow and feel I can make the choice to do so or not, then it’s free will in action. I can decide to do it, then change my mind and go to a movie instead. How much freer can it get? I think we’re very close to being on the same page WRT free will. It’s just that you claim (if I understand you correctly) that free will doesn’t exist because our actions are determined by prior events – events that build up the totality of our mental state and so we then respond deterministically when new events occur. I agree, but then I say, so what? I am no less happy and feel no less free knowing that my brain is a deterministic information processing machine. Just one other point in passing. The cited “neuroscience of free will” (your first link) is at best a controversial area on the fringes of real sciences like the larger fields of neuropsychology and the important field of cognitive science, one of the prevalent theories of which is the computational theory of mind which holds that all our cognitive processes are, at their core, computational in nature. So one has to be careful to distinguish this fringe area from the real sciences in which it’s embedded, and having said that, I would consider this particular fringe area to contain a lot of hokum, pseudo-science, and rather pointless exercises to try to determine whether or not the brain functions as a deterministic machine, albeit an imperfect one (what else could it possibly be? Magic?). It’s full of experiments like this one: Libet found that the unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision by the subject to flick his wrist began approximately half a second before the subject consciously felt that he had decided to move. Libet’s findings suggest that decisions made by a subject are first being made on a subconscious level and only afterward being translated into a “conscious decision”, and that the subject’s belief that it occurred at the behest of his will was only due to his retrospective perspective on the event. This seems to have provoked a lot of rather pointless controversy. Since the concept of making “choices” involves a good deal of neural churning which eventually bubbles up to the conscious level, it’s trivially unsurprising that early, subconscious signs of it can be detected. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2016, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/64 "2016-10-01T20:12:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > . . . But if you want a good example of no free will, try dreams. As far as I can remember, I’ve never decided anything in a dream. . . . Total side-issue, and I’m fully in agreement with what you’re saying in this thread: I’m on your side! But there are lucid dreamers. (I’m a semi-lucid dreamer; I can steer the path of my dreams, but only in rough ways. Storyboarding, not scripting.) I believe free will – or mere volition, if anyone prefers – definitely exists. Hasn’t every one of us “screwed up our courage” or “steeled our will?” Haven’t we all fought to resist temptation…and sometimes failed? Free will is susceptible to failure! Ask any dieter! It is fragile, and limited, and flawed, and it sometimes gets completely boogered. Grocery stores place the candy near the check-out stand for a very good reason. It doesn’t mean we’re “destined” to buy candy; it just means that we can be persuaded, even against our will. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/65 "2016-10-01T20:14:42Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t think it is possible for someone to get enough of your internal state to figure this out, especially in real time. And I agree with you that you can’t do it either. I can imagine an experiment that begins with me mapping your brain. After doing a few day’s worth of testing, I learn that when you are thinking “left”, your brain lights up a certain way, and when you think “right”, it too looks a certain way. So I set up an experiment, and your brain is hooked up so I can read its activation patterns. I ask you to choose either left or right every time you are prompted by a flashing light. The very moment you make the decision, you are to speak it out loud. If I can tell what answer you’re going to go with before you speak it–before even the light flashes–what would this indicate to you? Because to me, it would indicate that you, your conscious “you”, hasn’t made a decision, but rather your biology has. And that would mean you don’t have freedom to behave anyway you consciously want. You are tied down by the “will” of your body and its history. Your body is telling you what you want and allowing you to take the credit for it. > [@](#): > > Say you wake up and go “pancakes, pancakes,” and head for the kitchen - but then see this croissant on the counter which is simpler to make and needs to be eaten. So you choose it. That just means that the “pancakes, pancakes” thought was swapped out for “croissants, croissants” thought. At any rate, you didn’t “will” either thought to enter your head. They just popped into your head. And you go with the “croissants,croissants” decision because this option is presented to you by your brain as being the best one, not because you–independent of your brain–spent a long time researching the pros and the cons of each. > [@](#): > > Is that still not free will because of a new input? Neither of those are free will. Changing from a “pancakes” program to a “croissant” program does require higher level execution function. All it takes is an if then statement. > [@](#): > > How can you say you were programmed to want pancakes when the programming can be changed so easily? I never said my programming was hard-coded. My cat’s behavior certainly isn’t hard-coded. I’d like to think I’m slightly more flexible than he is. > [@](#): > > By itself the unconscious mind does not do voluntary things, but what it does do is contribute to the working of the mind in general, for instance by answering questions and coming up with ideas. My subconscious is a good programmer also. Mozart’s was a great composer. > But our brains (and the rest of us) are heavily interconnected thanks to evolution, and so I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to carve out a chunk of the brain as our self. But most people don’t claim to know parts of themselves that are, by definition, unknowable. I most certainly don’t. My sense of self comes from those things I’m conscious of. When people tell me I do things that I’m not aware of (which happens fairly often, unfortunately), my first reaction is to deny it because it doesn’t jibe with what I know about myself. This is why people who commit crimes while sleep-walking or having a psychotic break plead for leniency. They do this because their crimes were committed outside of their free will, presumably. If free will encompasses everything the brain does, then these people are just as culpable as anyone else. If free will is everything the brain “wills” to happen, then–again–how are humans different from any other animal in the animal kingdom? Or protists, for that matter. I’m fine with saying that humans are no different from other organisms. But that’s because I don’t believe in “free will”. This term presumes things not in evidence. > [@](#): > > Again, entities without higher brain functions don’t have free will. I’m not sure where that cutoff is - my really smart border collie mix showed some signs of it, while dumb Labs I’ve raised didn’t. If free will involves the interoperation of all parts of the human brain, I’m fine with animals not having free will. So at what age do humans acquire free will, using your rubric? > [@](#): > > If we accept your overly restrictive definition of free will, I agree we don’t have it. Not even close. Forget about physics, look at sociopaths. Look at sociopaths for what, exactly? > [@](#): > > But if free will is the ability to freely choose among a number of choices which might be limited by the environment and history, then it is at least possible that we have it. But how is it free, given all those constraints? What do you gain by using such a loaded term? And if it is just merely possible but can never be proven, what do we gain by pretending we have it? It’s like saying we’re all billionaires because there’s a possibility we have a treasure chest in our backyards. Are we that insecure in our non-animalness that we have to pretend we’re something we are not? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2016, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/66 "2016-10-01T21:02:54Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Free will is not like that. If I decide to get in my car and drive to an actual meadow and feel I can make the choice to do so or not, then it’s free will in action. I can decide to do it, then change my mind and go to a movie instead. How much freer can it get? People have their “free will” tested all the time when they go to psychotherapy. A therapist will say, “ **wolfpup** , why did you choose that particular meadow and not another one?” And you will give an answer. If the therapist has been following your narrative long enough, they may discern a pattern that you are unable to see from your vantage point. Like, that all the decisions you seem to make for the apparent reason X are fully consistent with the behavior of a person compelled by deep-seated reason Y. Now you are certainly free (hehe) to discount the therapist’s hypothesis as pure hogwash. But science does lend support to the idea that people aren’t always aware of their decision-making processes. If a person doesn’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing, then how can they say they are operating under free will? All you can really say is that the meadow seemed right to you at the time when that decision was made. > [@](#): > > I think we’re very close to being on the same page WRT free will. It’s just that you claim (if I understand you correctly) that free will doesn’t exist because our actions are determined by prior events – events that build up the totality of our mental state and so we then respond deterministically when new events occur. I agree, but then I say, so what? I am no less happy and feel no less free knowing that my brain is a deterministic information processing machine. Well, this isn’t a trivial navel-gazing exercise IMHO. People who believe that our choices are freely made tend to downplay things like education, socioeconomics, and mental health when it comes to things like crime, for instance. Instead of advocating societal changes to improve human behavior, “free willers” blame individuals for their failures. They say things like “We all make choices” as society crumbles around them. For centuries, people thought the Sun revolves around the Earth. Because that’s what it looked like from our vantage point. The moment we found the truth and realized we’d been suckered by an illusion, that’s when humanity paved the way for astronomy and space travel. Perhaps we could do even more amazing things if we could let go of the notion that we exist apart from our biology. Obviously, most free willers concede that environment is very important, which is why they spend so much time and energy protecting their children from bad influences. But I kinda feel like by clinging to the notion that we all make choices freely, they still leave the door open for sloppy thinking and wasteful finger-pointing. People don’t behave the way they do because they are “willful”, because they want to be “bad”. People always have a reason motivating them that makes perfect, rational sense to them. If you want someone to change their behavior, you’ve got to get them a compelling reason to change. Guilt and shame and spanking only go so far. > [@](#): > > Just one other point in passing. The cited “neuroscience of free will” (your first link) is at best a controversial area on the fringes of real sciences like the larger fields of neuropsychology and the important field of cognitive science, one of the prevalent theories of which is the computational theory of mind which holds that all our cognitive processes are, at their core, computational in nature. So one has to be careful to distinguish this fringe area from the real sciences in which it’s embedded, and having said that, I would consider this particular fringe area to contain a lot of hokum, pseudo-science, and rather pointless exercises to try to determine whether or not the brain functions as a deterministic machine, albeit an imperfect one (what else could it possibly be? Magic?). I don’t think neuroscience is “fringe”. It is nascent, yes. But “fringe”? Every experiment in every field can be challenged and taken apart. As technology continues to advance and we get a better handle on how our genes interact with environment, I suspect the science will become less speculative and more rigorous. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/67 "2016-10-02T03:40:01Z")
If the concept of biological determinism was widely adopted what impact on policy do you think we’d see? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/68 "2016-10-02T06:35:08Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Again, if your brain only presents you with the option to eat pancakes, then you have no choice but to eat pancakes. > > Have you ever suffered from a hallucination, either visual or auditory? I have. And I can tell you, it didn’t feel like “me”. It feels very much “other.” When your unconscious creeps into your conscious, you don’t get a feeling of “oneness”–like you’re meeting another part of yourself. You get a feeling like your mind isn’t functioning right. That little person behind your eyes is supposed to stay hidden. I think this is a critical part of this discussion. Yes, intuitively it feels often like our subconscious is a separate “other”. But your hallucination example actually shows why this feeling is so wrong. Because, to a large extent, we’re _always_ hallucinating. If your eye sees an object at position A, then position C then position E, you will see the object flow smoothly through positions B and D too. In terms of the data that goes into generating one “image” that you see, IIRC more than 80% of the input comes from other parts of the brain, and only 20% from the eye. A lot of information of what you’re expecting to see, and your understanding and classification of the world. My point being just that you cannot untangle the conscious and subconscious minds as easily as it may seem. It doesn’t make sense to see it as some separate other that is controlling you. Without that facet of you, there is no “you”. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/69 "2016-10-02T06:50:57Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If the concept of biological determinism was widely adopted what impact on policy do you think we’d see? Presumably you mean _accepted_? Well one difference I’ve discussed on the Dope before is in criminal justice. That you basically have to remove any notion of retribution or punishment. So you lock people up as a deterrence to others, to try to rehabilitate them, and in some cases, to keep the public safe – all of which still makes sense in a Deterministic universe. In the West, most countries’ justice system is already like this, but in the US there’s still a lot of desire to make prison as bad as possible, and sentences as long as possible, regardless of whether it leads to better outcomes for society. A public acceptance of Determinism would of course be a problem for religion, and I think that’s largely how we got into this mess of defining free will in a strange, self-contadictory way. People like the idea of a God judging humans ultimately, and bearing no responsibility because, hey, Free Will. But the concept of a god judging humans is very problematic for lots of reasons, with the fact it needs an incoherent concept of “free will” being just one. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/70 "2016-10-02T13:49:43Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If the concept of biological determinism was widely adopted what impact on policy do you think we’d see? Medical and psychological treatment would be elevated over religion and self-help/willpower stuff. Prisons would still have their place. As would punitive measures, since for some significant portion of the population (myself included), punitive measures are a sufficient deterrence. But we’d have the ability to find out–through a battery of psychological and genetic tests–what kind of prison and prison sentence a convict would respond to best. There would be some fraction of prisoners who need to be re-programmed in addition to being physically separated from environments that trigger their bad behavior. Maybe some prisoners just need a different environment for them to see the light. We would no longer be skeeved out by the concept of “re-programming”. You’re a gaming addict who keeps destroying relationships? Why not be re-programmed? Maybe you spend a few weeks at a clinic, where your unconscious associations can be studied and then re-jiggered through a combination of hypnosis and brain stimulation. We’d have to make sure that non-criminals are re-programmed on a purely voluntarily basis, though. I don’t like the idea of government rounding up all the anti-vaxxers, for instance, even though re-programming them would be in society’s best interest. There would be other excesses we’d have to be wary of. If genetic testing can be used to predict whether a child is going to be in and out of detention before they even start kindergarten, what do we do with that information that doesn’t lead to self-fulfilled prophecies? I wouldn’t go any further than doing early intervention, kind of like how we do with kids on the autism spectrum. Maybe all he needs is a teacher who rewards him for positive behavior and makes him feel important. Maybe research indicates that kids with his genetic profile would do better with a male teacher for the first three years of school. But I would not be in favor of using such a genetic test to label kids or tracking them in punitive/remedial programs. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/71 "2016-10-02T14:00:11Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I think this is a critical part of this discussion. Yes, intuitively it feels often like our subconscious is a separate “other”. > But your hallucination example actually shows why this feeling is so wrong. Because, to a large extent, we’re _always_ hallucinating. If your eye sees an object at position A, then position C then position E, you will see the object flow smoothly through positions B and D too. > > In terms of the data that goes into generating one “image” that you see, IIRC more than 80% of the input comes from other parts of the brain, and only 20% from the eye. A lot of information of what you’re expecting to see, and your understanding and classification of the world. > > My point being just that you cannot untangle the conscious and subconscious minds as easily as it may seem. It doesn’t make sense to see it as some separate other that is controlling you. Without that facet of you, there is no “you”. Of course. But if I don’t know what my unconscious mind is doing and can’t tell how it’s distorting my reality and yet it is always involved in my decision-making, how in the hell can I say that _I’m_ in control of anything. If I’m sleep-walking and get into my car and start driving it around town, I would not say that I’m in control of the car, even though literally I am. Would you say I was in control? If I plead for leniency after smashing my car into a storefront window while in this sleep-walking state, would you, the jury member, say to yourself “Well, we all make choices and **monstro** made hers.” Or would you say to yourself, “It’s not like she smashed her car on purpose. She wasn’t in her right mind, poor thing.” I will take responsibility for my unconscious mind inasmuch as I’m aware of what it is doing. If I’m a habitual sleep-walker, I will make sure that my doors are locked before I go to bed. And I will stop taking that damn Ambien. But I’m not going to claim that my unconscious mind is exerting my “free will” just because my unconscious mind is “me”. I don’t take credit for all the other involuntary processes my brain is in charge of–like breathing and digestion. So I don’t know why I should take credit for my involuntary thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. That seems bizarre to me. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/72 "2016-10-02T18:00:46Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I can imagine an experiment that begins with me mapping your brain. After doing a few day’s worth of testing, I learn that when you are thinking “left”, your brain lights up a certain way, and when you think “right”, it too looks a certain way. > > So I set up an experiment, and your brain is hooked up so I can read its activation patterns. I ask you to choose either left or right every time you are prompted by a flashing light. The very moment you make the decision, you are to speak it out loud. > > If I can tell what answer you’re going to go with before you speak it–before even the light flashes–what would this indicate to you? Because to me, it would indicate that you, your conscious “you”, hasn’t made a decision, but rather your biology has. And that would mean you don’t have freedom to behave anyway you consciously want. You are tied down by the “will” of your body and its history. Your body is telling you what you want and allowing you to take the credit for it. This is pretty much the experiment **wolfpup** mentioned - and I agree with his interpretation of it. The issue is not that you can read the decision earlier than the conscious mind, but how the decision was made. I’m a terrible poker player because I just overflow with tells, none of which are conscious. We all have tells for all sorts of things. > [@](#): > > That just means that the “pancakes, pancakes” thought was swapped out for “croissants, croissants” thought. At any rate, you didn’t “will” either thought to enter your head. They just popped into your head. And you go with the “croissants,croissants” decision because this option is presented to you by your brain as being the best one, not because you–independent of your brain–spent a long time researching the pros and the cons of each. > > Neither of those are free will. Changing from a “pancakes” program to a “croissant” program does require higher level execution function. All it takes is an if then statement. I believe in a computational theory of mind, but not one this trivial. The croissants might not even appeal if you’ve had them for a week and are well rid of them. Your decision is based on a complex set of weights influencing which factor go into the decision. And those weights come in large part from your mind. They may be influenced by tiny differences in your internal environment, and may have a chaotic and random component. > [@](#): > > But most people don’t claim to know parts of themselves that are, by definition, unknowable. I most certainly don’t. My sense of self comes from those things I’m conscious of. When people tell me I do things that I’m not aware of (which happens fairly often, unfortunately), my first reaction is to deny it because it doesn’t jibe with what I know about myself. But the unknowable parts change the behavior of the knowable parts. Subconscious to me is just the part of your brain that your conscious brain does not knowingly monitor. > [@](#): > > This is why people who commit crimes while sleep-walking or having a psychotic break plead for leniency. They do this because their crimes were committed outside of their free will, presumably. If free will encompasses everything the brain does, then these people are just as culpable as anyone else. If free will is everything the brain “wills” to happen, then–again–how are humans different from any other animal in the animal kingdom? Or protists, for that matter. > > I’m fine with saying that humans are no different from other organisms. But that’s because I don’t believe in “free will”. This term presumes things not in evidence. We’re different because our brain monitors itself, which other animal brains don’t. (We think.) Free will, whether or not it exists, is immaterial. > [@](#): > > So at what age do humans acquire free will, using your rubric? Kind of hard to answer since we lack a definition, but my four-month old grandson already deliberately drops things off his high chair tray, so that is looking like free will to me. He gets no obvious benefit from doing so, so this is not the same as him asking for food. > [@](#): > > Look at sociopaths for what, exactly? Sociopaths are missing important curbs on behavior. Thus actions which get filtered out of your or my decision making process subconsciously don’t get filtered out of theirs. > [@](#): > > But how is it free, given all those constraints? What do you gain by using such a loaded term? And if it is just merely possible but can never be proven, what do we gain by pretending we have it? It’s like saying we’re all billionaires because there’s a possibility we have a treasure chest in our backyards. Are we that insecure in our non-animalness that we have to pretend we’re something we are not? I covered this before. Freely choosing one of of ten possibilities is still free, even though there might be a million choices eliminated because they are physically impossible, impractical, or wrong based on our internal ethical system. Since our actions kind of look like we have free will, the treasure chest is not a good example. A better one if people treat us as if we were attractive or smart even though we might not feel attractive or smart. Smartness can be kind of measured but if everyone thinks we are attractive (and I do not speak from personal experience here) we really are attractive though we see all our flaws. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/73 "2016-10-02T18:10:38Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Presumably you mean _accepted_? > > Well one difference I’ve discussed on the Dope before is in criminal justice. > > That you basically have to remove any notion of retribution or punishment. So you lock people up as a deterrence to others, to try to rehabilitate them, and in some cases, to keep the public safe – all of which still makes sense in a Deterministic universe. > In the West, most countries’ justice system is already like this, but in the US there’s still a lot of desire to make prison as bad as possible, and sentences as long as possible, regardless of whether it leads to better outcomes for society. Whether or not you believe in free will, ones actions are influenced by calculations of the benefits of them, and making “bad” actions more expensive might be useful. The problem is in dealing with sociopaths or those who cannot look far enough ahead to even imagine that they might get caught. Prison and punishment don’t do anything to stop them. > [@](#): > > A public acceptance of Determinism would of course be a problem for religion, and I think that’s largely how we got into this mess of defining free will in a strange, self-contadictory way. > People like the idea of a God judging humans ultimately, and bearing no responsibility because, hey, Free Will. But the concept of a god judging humans is very problematic for lots of reasons, with the fact it needs an incoherent concept of “free will” being just one. Some religions are already deterministic. Christianity traditionally is in that we are all sinners condemned to hell unless we follow their rules. Then there are the religions which refuse to acknowledge human drives that even believers of free will acknowledge. One thing about religion is that the precepts seem to use the weighting function of the founder - thus the very different attitudes towards sex of St. Paul and Joseph Smith. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/74 "2016-10-02T19:08:30Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > This is pretty much the experiment **wolfpup** mentioned - and I agree with his interpretation of it. The issue is not that you can read the decision earlier than the conscious mind, but how the decision was made. I’m a terrible poker player because I just overflow with tells, none of which are conscious. We all have tells for all sorts of things. So you’re saying if I did that experiment and I was able to predict your responses with 99.9% accuracy, you still would be convinced that you have free will? Just because my model isn’t absolutely perfect? Or because you think the time lag in your consciousness may be confounding the results? Wow. Is there anything that would convince you you don’t possess free will? > [@](#): > > I believe in a computational theory of mind, but not one this trivial. The croissants might not even appeal if you’ve had them for a week and are well rid of them. Right. But if the croissants are crappy enough, the brain will probably will not present that as an option. Just a few minutes ago I was starving, but when I went into the kitchen, my brain did not present either the toaster or the cat food as lunch options. My brain did not direct my attention to the frozen biscuits either. My brain only presented “salmon kabob” and “corn on the cob” as options. And guess what I ate for lunch? Toaster? No. Cat food? No. Frozen biscuits? No. Or salmon kabob and corn on the cob? Yep. > [@](#): > > Your decision is based on a complex set of weights influencing which factor go into the decision. And those weights come in large part from your mind. They may be influenced by tiny differences in your internal environment, and may have a chaotic and random component. I only make decisions based on the information I receive and process. If my brain does not present something as an option to me, it doesn’t matter if that something is sitting right under my nose. It does not exist as an option to me. My thoughts are not weighted by any process that I am consciously aware of. The “croissant” thought has a valence that I did not consciously attach to it. So when my brain presents “pancakes” or “croissants” as options, it’s not like I’m going to step out of my brain and say, “Hmm, let’s see. Which one is the best?” No, the evaluation has already been done and I did not consciously do it. I will pick the option based on how it has been presented to me, by my brain. > [@](#): > > But the unknowable parts change the behavior of the knowable parts. Subconscious to me is just the part of your brain that your conscious brain does not knowingly monitor. That’s in line with my understanding as well. But it still doesn’t argue against what I’m saying at all. > [@](#): > > We’re different because our brain monitors itself, which other animal brains don’t. (We think.) Free will, whether or not it exists, is immaterial. How do you know that your dog isn’t able to monitor its own cognition? Have you asked him? We deny animals free will because they don’t speak, pure and simple. Their behavior is just as apparently random as ours, and yet we think they’re furry and scaly robots with inferior intellect. For no good reason at all. > [@](#): > > Kind of hard to answer since we lack a definition, but my four-month old grandson already deliberately drops things off his high chair tray, so that is looking like free will to me. He gets no obvious benefit from doing so, so this is not the same as him asking for food. My cat does the exact same thing. He jumps up on my dresser and knocks objects onto the floor. Sometimes I think he does this to wake me up, but sometimes I think he’s just bored. One time, the little bastard knocked over my mirror, shattering glass everywhere. I was pissed for the rest of the day, but I am guessing my cat did not intend for that to happen. Why should I believe your grandson has something that my cat doesn’t have? Neither of them can communicate their thought processes. Both of them behave without regard to any apparent motive (the key word being _apparent_). So I would not say being able to drop things off a high chair indicates anything but the ability to drop things off a high chair. > [@](#): > > Sociopaths are missing important curbs on behavior. Thus actions which get filtered out of your or my decision making process subconsciously don’t get filtered out of theirs. So you’re saying that sociopaths are true agents of free will? They have the ability to act however they want, without any respect to the morality lessons and shaming the rest of us are corralled by? That’s an interesting take, if I’m understanding you correctly. You seem to be agreeing with me, though, that non-sociopaths are hindered in ways that the sociopaths are not. Which would then argue that the mentally ill have more “free will” than the non-mentally ill. Is that what you’re saying? > [@](#): > > I covered this before. Freely choosing one of of ten possibilities is still free, even though there might be a million choices eliminated because they are physically impossible, impractical, or wrong based on our internal ethical system. If your “internal ethical system” is the one that judges which options are wrong and this “internal ethical system” primarily results from deep-seated associations that you have no conscious authorship of, there is no way for you to know that you are freely selecting anything. If the “croissants” idea is laden down with the “EW GROSS!” tag the moment it is presented to you and there is no way to change this tag unless your brain presents you with a counter tag, why would you ever select it? If all the options you’re presented with except one have a “EW GROSS!!!” tag attached to it, did you make a free choice? Or did you carry out a program? > [@](#): > > Since our actions kind of look like we have free will, the treasure chest is not a good example. A better one if people treat us as if we were attractive or smart even though we might not feel attractive or smart. Smartness can be kind of measured but if everyone thinks we are attractive (and I do not speak from personal experience here) we really are attractive though we see all our flaws. Hmm, that’s also interesting. I would argue that even though people act like we all have free will, deep down we know this is bullshit. If your four-month old grandson were to start acting completely erratically, I doubt you would be saying, “Hey, he’s just making free choices, man!” I’m guessing you would want him checked out by a doctor. Because even though you’re arguing against me, I think you get what I’m saying. If a person acted as if he had free will, his behavior wouldn’t be predictable at all. He’d behave as if driven by no apparent motivation. No normally functioning living creature does this. ---
**Author:** ![lucid-nonsense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/2acd7d/32.png) [@lucid-nonsense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucid-nonsense)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/75 "2016-10-02T20:54:01Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Medical and psychological treatment would be elevated over religion and self-help/willpower stuff. > > Prisons would still have their place. As would punitive measures, since for some significant portion of the population (myself included), punitive measures are a sufficient deterrence. But we’d have the ability to find out–through a battery of psychological and genetic tests–what kind of prison and prison sentence a convict would respond to best. There would be some fraction of prisoners who need to be re-programmed in addition to being physically separated from environments that trigger their bad behavior. Maybe some prisoners just need a different environment for them to see the light. I also think it would help shift the focus away from punishment and onto prevention, which would do buckets of good. It would also mean results would be more important than the sense of righteousness we get from punishing evil-doers, which would also help. > [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > The very first response contained the first most important concern: in order to have any meaningful discussion of this, you MUST define your terms first. Otherwise everyone is talking at sixes and sevens, and will never say anything functionally meaningful to each other. Very good point, I’ve actually never heard a consistent definition of free will. The way I mostly hear it, it seems to fall in this weird grey area where it’s neither determined nor random, where it controls your self but is also controlled by your self, somehow without being a loop. > [@monstro](#): > > IMy definition of free will is consistent with Merriam-Webster’s: “the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God.” I believe we have free will according to this definition, but I don’t think this is what most people have in mind when they say free will. To me, free will means if I chose A, I could also have chosen B. And it must have a meaningful impact on our choices. For example, without free will, I would have cheated on my wife, but I used free will and didn’t cheat on her. Otherwise, what is the point? Other thought: if you could put a person through the same situation a million times, would they make the same choice every time? If so, their choice was not really free, was it? If not, what made the difference? Is it random? How could free will intervene in this process to change the result while still being non-random? (Yes, I do realise this is basically just the standard argument against free will rephrased, I just thought it was an interesting way to put it.) I do believe we have the ability to choose, in the same way that a car has the ability to go left or to go right; it _can_ turn left or right, but at the exact moment of turning, the factors that make it go left or right are all in the past, and therefore cannot be influenced. It’s not so much that we can’t “choose”; obviously we make choices every day. It’s that the factors that determine our choices are outside of our control, because they are in the past. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/76 "2016-10-02T22:16:07Z")
> [@lucid-nonsense](#): > > To me, free will means if I chose A, I could also have chosen B. And it must have a meaningful impact on our choices. For example, without free will, I would have cheated on my wife, but I used free will and didn’t cheat on her. Otherwise, what is the point? I hate to keep talking about my cat, but I don’t know how else to argue, apparently. According to you, my cat has just as much free will as you do. Every night when I’m getting ready to go to bed, I call his name and shake his treat bag. Sometimes he rushes in to get a snack and sometimes he just stands outside in the hallway, looking at me like I’ve lost my damn mind. I never know what kind of attitude he’s going to have from one night to the next. Does my cat have free will? If you answer “yes”, then what would my cat need to do to exhibit non-free will? If you answer “no”, then you don’t have free will either. I’m curious what your definition of free will is, by the way. > [@](#): > > Other thought: if you could put a person through the same situation a million times, would they make the same choice every time? If so, their choice was not really free, was it? If not, what made the difference? Is it random? How could free will intervene in this process to change the result while still being non-random? I believe people who posit they have free will are implicitly arguing that they could be subjected to a million runs of the same simulation, and their choice outcomes would be different each time. Now I’m confident most free willers will concede that their behavior is pretty predictable on the whole, but they would still insist that they could be unpredictable if they really really wanted to! I find that a very lofty assumption. It’s like saying a person can fly if they flap their arms hard enough. Maybe this is possible, but it hasn’t been demonstrated yet. A person acting in a totally unpredictable way hasn’t been demonstrated yet. I refuse to believe in something without any evidence of its existence. > [@](#): > > I do believe we have the ability to choose, in the same way that a car has the ability to go left or to go right; it _can_ turn left or right, but at the exact moment of turning, the factors that make it go left or right are all in the past, and therefore cannot be influenced. It’s not so much that we can’t “choose”; obviously we make choices every day. It’s that the factors that determine our choices are outside of our control, because they are in the past. And yet you think we have free will? If our choices are determined by factors external to us, then how you claim that we make choices _freely_? ---
**Author:** ![lucid-nonsense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/2acd7d/32.png) [@lucid-nonsense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucid-nonsense)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/77 "2016-10-02T22:54:51Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I’m curious what your definition of free will is, by the way. The ability to make choices that are not entirely controlled by fate, God or past events, and that are not random. To be honest, I don’t even see how that’s logically possible, but lots of people seem to believe in it. > [@monstro](#): > > And yet you think we have free will? No, I don’t? I don’t think I said I did, but I guess I haven’t made myself clear. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/78 "2016-10-02T23:09:33Z")
I guess I got confused by what you said. But it’s all good. I’m glad SOMEONE agrees with me (along with **octopus** ). ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/79 "2016-10-02T23:32:55Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > So you’re saying if I did that experiment and I was able to predict your responses with 99.9% accuracy, you still would be convinced that you have free will? Just because my model isn’t absolutely perfect? Or because you think the time lag in your consciousness may be confounding the results? Wow. Predict five minutes in advance and you’ll have something. Predict five milliseconds in advance and you are just seeing the result of a subconscious decision. > [@](#): > > Is there anything that would convince you you don’t possess free will? I’ve already said several times that I don’t know if free will exists or not, but what we do have looks indistinguishable from free will to me. It is just like the fact that I can’t prove that no god created the universe and then vanished, but I’ll live my life as if no such god exists, because the universe is the same in either case. > [@](#): > > Right. But if the croissants are crappy enough, the brain will probably will not present that as an option. Just a few minutes ago I was starving, but when I went into the kitchen, my brain did not present either the toaster or the cat food as lunch options. My brain did not direct my attention to the frozen biscuits either. My brain only presented “salmon kabob” and “corn on the cob” as options. And guess what I ate for lunch? Toaster? No. Cat food? No. Frozen biscuits? No. Or salmon kabob and corn on the cob? Yep. Your subconscious did filtering. If you were really starving and cat food was the only option, your brain would have come up with a different possibility. Yeah you didn’t consciously filter them out, but you didn’t filter out flying to Paris for lunch either. Our brains would be very inefficient if we had to consciously make all these decisions. Do you drive consciously? Didn’t think so. That you don’t consciously stay in lane doesn’t mean that your brain isn’t making the decisions which cause your car to stay in lane. > [@](#): > > I only make decisions based on the information I receive and process. If my brain does not present something as an option to me, it doesn’t matter if that something is sitting right under my nose. It does not exist as an option to me. You thin that your mind sees only the things that your conscious mind is aware of? Really? > [@](#): > > My thoughts are not weighted by any process that I am consciously aware of. The “croissant” thought has a valence that I did not consciously attach to it. So when my brain presents “pancakes” or “croissants” as options, it’s not like I’m going to step out of my brain and say, “Hmm, let’s see. Which one is the best?” No, the evaluation has already been done and I did not consciously do it. I will pick the option based on how it has been presented to me, by my brain. That’s why I said that if you only include consciousness in the free will discussion we don’t have it. But if you and a friend go to a restaurant, and are presented with exactly the same menu, you are likely to choose different things. In fact you will filter out most of the options subconsciously. In fact, people who design menus know that we subconsciously tend to reject the most expensive thing on it - so menus are designed with an expensive option that can be rejected and will thus encourage the choice of the high profit margin second most expensive option. My daughter has a PhD in judgement decision making, and we taught a class together on the application of behavioral economics to engineering. Our brains are considerably less rational about making decisions than you think they are. This does not prove we have free will, not at all, but it does prove that your view that we can explain everything through consciousness isn’t correct. In deciding whether we have free will or not we have to consider all parts of our minds. And our bodies. > [@](#): > > How do you know that your dog isn’t able to monitor its own cognition? Have you asked him? Mirror test. > [@](#): > > We deny animals free will because they don’t speak, pure and simple. Their behavior is just as apparently random as ours, and yet we think they’re furry and scaly robots with inferior intellect. For no good reason at all. I don’t know if we deny that porpoises and chimps have free will any more. Very primitive animals is another story. Where the dividing line is not clear. > [@](#): > > My cat does the exact same thing. He jumps up on my dresser and knocks objects onto the floor. Sometimes I think he does this to wake me up, but sometimes I think he’s just bored. One time, the little bastard knocked over my mirror, shattering glass everywhere. I was pissed for the rest of the day, but I am guessing my cat did not intend for that to happen. Does he look at you before he does this? My grandson knocking things off the tray while reaching for a bottle or something is different from deliberately dropping something. > [@](#): > > So you’re saying that sociopaths are true agents of free will? They have the ability to act however they want, without any respect to the morality lessons and shaming the rest of us are corralled by? Sigh. Sociopaths don’t make conscious decisions to do wrong, not in the same context that we do. They are an example of the subconscious and possibly brain abnormalities affecting their decisions. If you think that all decisions are made consciously, you should think that they could be argued out of their bad behavior. If on the other hand you think that they act that way because that is how they are, you don’t lock them up to punish them, but to keep the rest of us safe from them. You can give them ethics training, you can put them in Sunday School, it won’t do any good. Maybe you can scare some of them into behaving, but I doubt it. > [@](#): > > That’s an interesting take, if I’m understanding you correctly. You seem to be agreeing with me, though, that non-sociopaths are hindered in ways that the sociopaths are not. Which would then argue that the mentally ill have more “free will” than the non-mentally ill. Is that what you’re saying? That’s one way of looking at it. Living in society is not about maximizing free will, but rather in making choices which fit into society, which are proper in terms of society. And these choices change. Racist terms that were mainstream 60 years ago are inappropriate today, and slang terms that got Lenny Bruce in trouble 50 years ago are fine today. People who choose to walk in public naked get in trouble in a lot of places - filtering that choice out works for most of us. > [@](#): > > If your “internal ethical system” is the one that judges which options are wrong and this “internal ethical system” primarily results from deep-seated associations that you have no conscious authorship of, there is no way for you to know that you are freely selecting anything. If the “croissants” idea is laden down with the “EW GROSS!” tag the moment it is presented to you and there is no way to change this tag unless your brain presents you with a counter tag, why would you ever select it? Yeah, we don’t have free conscious choice about many things. I have quite a few eww gross foods (like beets) which I’d only try under extreme circumstances. I’m assuming croissants are eww gross forever in your example. Even lobster could pale if you had it often enough, though I’ve never been fortunate enough to test this theory. > [@](#): > > If all the options you’re presented with except one have a “EW GROSS!!!” tag attached to it, did you make a free choice? Or did you carry out a program? A free choice in the context of your whole mind. If you had two choices and then chose one, would that then not be free assuming there is free will for the second.) That is the same here. Don’t you ever just know what you are going to order, or what you are going to buy? Same thing. > [@](#): > > Hmm, that’s also interesting. I would argue that even though people act like we all have free will, deep down we know this is bullshit. If your four-month old grandson were to start acting completely erratically, I doubt you would be saying, “Hey, he’s just making free choices, man!” I’m guessing you would want him checked out by a doctor. Because even though you’re arguing against me, I think you get what I’m saying. If a person acted as if he had free will, his behavior wouldn’t be predictable at all. He’d behave as if driven by no apparent motivation. No normally functioning living creature does this. Even if we have free will, we have been genetically and socially programmed to limit our choices. My great grandfather would probably get violently sick at the thought of eating the BLT I had for lunch today. Is it hard for you to accept that evolution has improved the efficiency of our decision making by filtering out choices as early as possible. We can’t choose to hold our breaths until we die - it is physiologically impossible. Is not being able to make equally stupid decisions any harder to accept? A person who makes a decision in 1/10th of a second by having bad choices prefiltered is like to survive longer than someone who takes five seconds to react. BTW the weights I discussed earlier are a common way for computers to analyze data. Almost all these heuristics turn out to be things that evolution has already come up with. Weights are used at the very lowest levels of our brain, why not at higher levels? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244/80 "2016-10-02T23:56:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve already said several times that I don’t know if free will exists or not, but what we do have looks indistinguishable from free will to me. Yeah; as I’ve said in other threads, it sure _feels_ like I’m making choices. Basic introspection convinces me that I have either free will or the illusion thereof. (And that may be my answer to the OP’s question of “when do you make your first choice”: as soon as you’re an “I” with the self-consciousness necessary to introspect.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-how-and-when-do-you-make-your-first-choice/767244.md?page=5)