# What would free will on a human level look like? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 30, 2017, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634 "2017-09-30T09:12:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/21 "2017-09-30T17:13:24Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > . . . What causes the characters in a video game to make the choices they make and behave the way they do? One or more of the following: > > 1. They behave the way they are programmed to do in the current state of the game. > 2. There is a random element involved. > 3. The character is controlled by a human player outside the game, whose choices control (at least to some extent within certain constraints) the actions of the character. > > I think of a world without free will as one which is analogous to a video game in which only 1 and (possibly) 2 apply—a computer simulation that runs by itself. Free will is the analog to 3. The problem with option 3 is the word “outside.” The controller is “outside the game.” With human minds, the controller is inside the game, inescapably part of it. That said, I think it is the correct explanation…with some randomness playing a part, but not with randomness being the only determiner of choices. Our human behavior has an element of randomness; sometimes, we just say, “Oh, heck with it,” and act without deliberation. Also, we’re partly programmed. There are some things we would have the gravest difficulty “choosing” to do. Damn few of us could “choose” to go on a murder spree. Hey, there’s nothing to stop us! Grab a kitchen knife and go berserk. But we’re strongly provided with behavioral disincentives. (Thank goodness!) ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/22 "2017-09-30T17:21:33Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > …That said, I think it is the correct explanation…with some randomness playing a part, but not with randomness being the only determiner of choices. Our human behavior has an element of randomness; sometimes, we just say, “Oh, heck with it,” and act without deliberation… There is good evidence that we make at least some decisions unconsciously, and then _after the decision is made_ we construct an illusion of conscious deliberation controlling the decision. At the very least, that should give us pause - we cannot trust the accuracy of our internal impression of “free” conscious deliberation controlling our choices. There’s a pretty good summary here of the Libet experiment and subsequent research: > **[Neuroscience of free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Libet_experiment)** > > The neuroscience of free will, a part of neurophilosophy, is the study of topics related to free will (volition and sense of agency) using neuroscience and the analysis of how findings from such studies may impact the free will debate. > As medical and scientific technology has advanced, neuroscientists have become able to study the brains of living humans, allowing them to observe the brain's decision-making processes and revealing insights into human agency, moral responsibility, and consciousne... ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/23 "2017-09-30T17:38:29Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > The common notion of free will is the idea that I (as a volitional agent of some kind) _could have done otherwise_ in a re-run of the universe with precisely identical circumstances. This _contra-causal_ free will (aka libertarian free will, nothing to do with political libertarianism) is the kind that does not exist. This is not a question of evidence. It is not an empirical matter, the whole idea is simply nonsense - it could not possibly exist in any conceivable universe, because it’s an incoherent concept Agreed. The fallacy in that construct is the idea that the universe being re-run – in _its_ entirety – would play out in exactly the same way in the absence of the single actor making exactly the same choices. In actuality, the entire-of-universe is composed of a vast array of independent participatory actors each of whom acts with free will, and each of whose behaviors affects all of the others. An interesting thing happens to causality when you cease to think of “everything except the one actor” as a mindless and monolithically rigid thing, and instead think of it, itself, in its entirety, as reactive and responsive. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/24 "2017-09-30T17:51:07Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > …In actuality, the entire-of-universe is composed of a vast array of independent participatory actors each of whom acts with free will, and each of whose behaviors affects all of the others… From what you’ve written here and before, I tend to think that you’re talking about the nature of “self” or “identity”, which to me is not at all synonymous with free will, at least in the usual contra-causal sense of free will. There is, of course, a large compatibilist literature devoted to redefining the term “free will” to mean something else that is _not_ incoherent. It’s largely semantics, although I think it tends to distract from the central point that magical contra-causal free will is nonsense - something that both compatibilists and incompatibilists agree on, but the vast majority of humanity does not accept. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2017, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/25 "2017-09-30T18:23:50Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > There is good evidence that we make at least some decisions unconsciously, and then _after the decision is made_ we construct an illusion of conscious deliberation controlling the decision. . . . Ayup! We’re built really weird! Now, I still think there is such a thing as volition/choice/will…but, my gosh, it’s kludgy! We’re lucky we can get through a day of work without going nuts! ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2017, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/26 "2017-09-30T19:47:36Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Free will isn’t housed in the individual **AHunter3** but in the entire self, of which the individual is just one component. In what way is this sentence not Man Trap Hilter-grade gibberish? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2017, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/27 "2017-09-30T23:25:11Z")
Grin! I think I agree with him, but, yeah, that’s gibberish all right! ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/28 "2017-10-01T12:51:02Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > In what way is this sentence not Man Trap Hilter-grade gibberish? Do you need to see the sentence diagrammed? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/29 "2017-10-01T12:53:27Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > From what you’ve written here and before, I tend to think that you’re talking about the nature of “self” or “identity”, which to me is not at all synonymous with free will, at least in the usual contra-causal sense of free will. Questions of the self are unavoidable in a discussion of free will, because in all the debates about whether it exists or not there are assumptions (usually tacit) about _who or what it is that either does or does not possess_ free will: usually the individual self as conventionally imagined. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/30 "2017-10-01T16:02:02Z")
With no return of the OP, I’m wondering if this isn’t less of an actual discussion and more of a revival of the argument that goes nowhere. You either accept that there is free will, or that there isn’t. Since Occam’s Razor would tend to suggest that we all have Free Will (as such a system would be indistinguishable from what we have now), it would seem to me to be up to the anti-free will people to conclusively prove otherwise. Roundabout, endless discussions of this here (insert Matrix Meme about repeating this thread N number of times and getting very good at it) don’t add value. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/31 "2017-10-01T16:26:47Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > …Since Occam’s Razor would tend to suggest that we all have Free Will (as such a system would be indistinguishable from what we have now), it would seem to me to be up to the anti-free will people to conclusively prove otherwise… If you think this, then you don’t understand the argument against free will at all. There is no observable phenomenon that corresponds to contra-causal free will. We have a strong internal _sense_ that we could have done otherwise in a given situation; but no evidence to support the idea, since we only get to run the universe one time. And the Libet experiments show that we certainly cannot trust our internal intuition about how we make decisions. Just because we _feel_ we are “free” to do anything does not make it so. Moreover, nobody has ever given a coherent account of how magical contra-causal free will is supposed to work. If we _could have done otherwise_ because of reasons, slightly different circumstances - well, that’s just deterministic cause and effect, no free will there. If we _could have done otherwise_ because of chance elements - well, nobody thinks free will inheres in rolling a dice. Logically, what other way is there for any two things to interact other than deterministically (for reasons, cause and effect) or randomly? Just how is it supposed to work? So contra-causal free will is something that (a) is not defined coherently; (b) does not correspond to any objective phenomenon. And you think the burden of proof lies with those who think it does _not_ exist? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/32 "2017-10-01T16:50:30Z")
I’m troubled by the accusations of “magic” and “contra-causal” elements of human volition. I don’t believe in those; I’m not a religionist who thinks there’s a non-material soul that contributes to choices. I believe that, yes, if you were to rewind the tape of history forty minutes, and run it forward again, I might possibly make different decisions. I could have acted differently. I absolutely believe that events would be different in a re-run of time, because of quantum uncertainty. Absolute Newtonian determinism is obsolete. On the other hand, that’s not a big part of why I believe in human choice; it’s a side-issue. Quantum randomness means that events can’t be predicted, but it isn’t what I base my view on. Anyway, I don’t fit your description, so, yes, a fair part of the burden of proof is on you when you use such specific terms. If you say, “Your belief is magical,” you need to be prepared to demonstrate it. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/33 "2017-10-01T16:57:11Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’m troubled by the accusations of “magic” and “contra-causal” elements of human volition. I don’t believe in those; I’m not a religionist who thinks there’s a non-material soul that contributes to choices. > > I believe that, yes, if you were to rewind the tape of history forty minutes, and run it forward again, I might possibly make different decisions. I could have acted differently. > > I absolutely believe that events would be different in a re-run of time, because of quantum uncertainty. Absolute Newtonian determinism is obsolete. On the other hand, that’s not a big part of why I believe in human choice; it’s a side-issue. Quantum randomness means that events can’t be predicted, but it isn’t what I base my view on. > > Anyway, I don’t fit your description, so, yes, a fair part of the burden of proof is on you when you use such specific terms. If you say, “Your belief is magical,” you need to be prepared to demonstrate it. Do you believe that free will inheres in deterministic processes, cause and effect, being constrained to act differently only when there are _reasons_ to act differently? Quantum uncertainty is strictly random. Do you believe that free will inheres in rolling a dice? Then where is free will? If you believe in free will, you’re the one who claims to believe in an unspecified (and apparently magical) process. The burden is certainly not upon me to explain what you mean and how it’s supposed to work. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/34 "2017-10-01T17:02:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I absolutely believe that events would be different in a re-run of time, because of quantum uncertainty. Absolute Newtonian determinism is obsolete. In a many-worlds universe, a rerun of time would have exactly the same results. This is at minimum the sixth thread in which you’ve participated where this fact has been directly explained. In many of those previous threads, this fact was pointed out not just in the thread in general, _but directly to you personally_. We might not live in an MWI world. Very possible. But _if_ we happen to do so, then a “re-run of time” will have the same results. You can remain dogmatically ignorant if you like, but it’d be better if you stopped polluting these threads with your ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/35 "2017-10-01T17:46:58Z")
Let’s state the case slightly differently. Suppose we have some kind of “volitional self” that chooses, that makes decisions. We make no assumptions at all about its nature. We can think of it as a brain, an immaterial soul, whatever you like. It’s a black box, we don’t know how it works. But when we observe the decisions made by this “volitional self”, there are only two logical possibilities: at a given moment (i.e. for a given internal configuration of the “self”) the output (the decision) either depends on the input (the circumstances, the reasons), or it doesn’t. (1) If the output depends on the input, that’s another way of saying that it’s deterministic. However complex the reasoning process inside the black box, the “self” is constrained to change its output only if the inputs change. It could make a different “choice” only if there were _reasons_ to make a different choice, only if the inputs were different. It is simply computation. (2) If the output does _not_ depend on the input, then by definition the output is random with respect to the input. It is functionally equivalent to rolling a dice. So we have only two logical alternatives: either the output depends on the input or it does not; either decisions are made for _reasons_, or they are random whims. On careful reflection, neither of these two logical possibilities comports with our intuition of “free will”, the idea that we _could have done otherwise_ in a re-run of the universe. Our intuition that we “choose freely” does not stand up to logical scrutiny, and it does not correspond to any observable phenomenon. It is simply an illusion. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/36 "2017-10-01T17:48:40Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Do you need to see the sentence diagrammed? No, I need to see what definitions you have of “individual” and “self.” ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/37 "2017-10-01T18:02:56Z")
The human brain is a computer. It is very, very different from the computers that we manufacturer, but it still is a large number of components that perform calculations based on the movement of electrical and chemical signals between those components. It takes a number of molecules/ions to cause a neuron to fire, not a single one. It takes a number of neurons firing to cause an action, not a single one. So not only would a time rewind with the exact same conditions always come up with the exact same results, but bundling quantum weirdness into it still won’t change the results because the change in the action of a single molecule or single neuron isn’t enough to change the brain’s decision/behavior. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/38 "2017-10-01T18:13:19Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > No, I need to see what definitions you have of “individual” and “self.” “Individual”: 1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group. 2. a person: “Self”: 1. that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers, thinks, etc. The consciousness that resides within the individual and consists of feelings and thoughts uniquely of the individual (singular); The consciousness that resides in plural numbers of individuals and consists of thoughts and feelings held in common by those individuals (plural) The consciousness that resides wherever the hell it does in fact reside, if, in fact, it resides in places not entirely described already by the above two (superplural) * * * “Self” is actually not well defined. It’s “who we think we are”, it’s the identity that we conscious beings are conscious of, and it is (therefore) the entity of which we speak when we say “I”, as in the statement “I have free will”. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/39 "2017-10-01T18:16:53Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > The human brain is a computer. It is very, very different from the computers that we manufacturer, but it still is a large number of components that perform calculations based on the movement of electrical and chemical signals between those components. It takes a number of molecules/ions to cause a neuron to fire, not a single one. It takes a number of neurons firing to cause an action, not a single one. So not only would a time rewind with the exact same conditions always come up with the exact same results, but bundling quantum weirdness into it still won’t change the results because the change in the action of a single molecule or single neuron isn’t enough to change the brain’s decision/behavior. Doesn’t matter. Rewinding in the sense you are describing has no bearing on the limitations (or lack thereof) of causality as an explanatory. It’s akin to saying “Did you eat ice cream on Friday?” and then asking a second time, “I ask you a second time, did you eat ice cream on Friday?” – it isn’t a second event at all. It’s the same freaking event. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634/40 "2017-10-01T18:19:06Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > If you believe in free will, you’re the one who claims to believe in an unspecified (and apparently magical) process. The burden is certainly not upon me to explain what you mean and how it’s supposed to work. Quite the contrary. If you do not believe that we have free will, the burden is on YOU to prove it. You’re the one who believes in ‘magic’ that makes the world go without individualised choice, which is contrary to all evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-free-will-on-a-human-level-look-like/797634.md?page=3)