Why is free will still a debate?

[Trinopus]

@Alan_Smithee

. . . The fact that people exposed too anti-free will arguments change their behavior in certain ways is PROOF that they don’t really mean by “free will,” “an ability to make choices unrestrained by physics or the nature and state of my brain.” . . .

And who, exactly, is saying that? I’ve never seen anyone make that claim.

It’s always been acknowledged that there are limits to volition, and brain state is certainly one of those limits. Damaged brains (and other forms of mental illness) clearly limit volition.

This seems to be an exaggerated straw-man attack. Lots of us believe in choice and volition, without the inanity of disbelieving in physics.

[Mangetout]

@protoboard

From what I understand, it’s already been proven that decisions are made in the mind before the person is even aware of it consciously. Why is there still a debate in science and philosophy about whether a magical force of free will exists? I can understand why religious people might still think it exists, but from a scientific point of view I would argue that case is closed - free will does not exist.

If you’re right, it’s still a debate because the people debating haven’t any choice but to debate it.

[Alan_Smithee]

@Trinopus

And who, exactly, is saying that? I’ve never seen anyone make that claim.

It’s always been acknowledged that there are limits to volition, and brain state is certainly one of those limits. Damaged brains (and other forms of mental illness) clearly limit volition.

This seems to be an exaggerated straw-man attack. Lots of us believe in choice and volition, without the inanity of disbelieving in physics.

Of course. We’re called compatibilists.

[Alan_Smithee]

@monstro

In a previous incarnation of this topic, this question was asked repeatedly.

To me, it doesn’t seem that hard to imagine what free will would look like, but we would certainly need to have the right technology to verify it. Like a very sensitive bran scanner that could serve as a lie detector, of sorts.

If we have free will, we should be able to choose our thoughts. Which means we should also choose our feelings. Which means we should be always conscious of our thoughts and feelings. There should be no hidden urges or behind-the-scenes calculations going on. What is in our conscious mind is all there is.

Using our brain technology, we could see how reliable a “witness” we are to our own inner brain processes. In a free will universe, everyone of sound mind would be able to accurately report whatever is going on in their mental processes. There would be no such thing as a “just so” story, and our scanner would comfirm this.

Another thing we could look for:

If there is free will, that means people’s behaviors largely arise from idiosyncratic factors inherent to their character. We shouldn’t be able to predict with high accuracy what individuals conforming to a certain profile will do. Like, in a free will universe, I would not expect the children of abusers to be more predisposed to becoming abusers themselves as adults, since individuals with free will do not act according to external programming or hardwiring. They rise above these influences without any problem, as long as they want to.

I would not expect hypnosis to work in a universe with free will. Because hypnosis involves engaging one’s subconscious and I don’t see how a mind laden with all those hidden urges and hidden decision-making is compatible with free will. I also wouldn’t expect most marketing techniques to work. People would buy products because they’ve intentionally willed themselves to like them, not because the products speak to their biological or psychological compulsions.

Nor would I expect automatic thinking. Most of the decisions we make in life are done automatically. We aren’t usually conscious of changing lanes on the highway, or which foot we step with first when we step off a curb. Again, if we aren’t actually conscious of what we’re doing when we do it, how can we say that we were “free” to make that choice? If I don’t know why I do the things I do, how can I say I exerted the will to do those things? So in a free will universe, I would not expect people to talk about “being in the zone” or “going on automatic.” They would be in control all the time. And our magical brain scanner would confirm this.

The problem is that I don’t think anyone but you defines “free will” this way. No one thinks this world is like the one you describe, and I don’t think anyone ever has. But plenty of people throughout history and alive today (including myself) believe that we have something usefully referred to as “free will.”

Your version of free will isn’t as extreme as most noncompatibilists’, because it is physically possible, but it’s a good example nonetheless of how noncompatibilists create straw man versions of free will to argue against.

[monstro]

@Alan_Smithee

The problem is that I don’t think anyone but you defines “free will” this way. No one thinks this world is like the one you describe, and I don’t think anyone ever has. But plenty of people throughout history and alive today (including myself) believe that we have something usefully referred to as “free will.”

Your version of free will isn’t as extreme as most noncompatibilists’, because it is physically possible, but it’s a good example nonetheless of how noncompatibilists create straw man versions of free will to argue against.

Since you think I’m arguing a straw man, can you explain to me how a world without free will would differ from this one? How would individuals who lack free will behave any differently from individuals who do?

Can you explain to me how it is possible to reconcile free will with a subconscious mind? At the very least, doesn’t acknowledging the existence of the latter give a significant nod to the idea that appearances (free will) could very well be deceiving?

[Mikeisskeptical]

@Alan_Smithee

I think this post nicely encapsulates the debate. I disagree strongly that Dennet and other compatibilists use free will differently than most people. If you ask people what that mean by free will, then yes, they will give you a theory that is different from compatibilism and is in fact not compatible with determinism, quantum mechanics, or chaos theory. But that’ snot necessarily what they actually mean by “free will.” People confuse theory and phenomenon all the time, and that’s what’s going on here.

At one point, if you asked people what they meant by the word “star” they’d have told you that it referred to the lights embedded in the celestial spheres encircling the Earth, or that they were holes in the divine firmament. But proving that neither the celestial spheres nor the firmament exist didn’t disprove the existence of stars in anyone’s mind because that’s not what they actually meant by “star.” What they actually meant was, “those things I see apparently in the night sky, whatever their nature or source may be.”

The fact that people exposed too anti-free will arguments change their behavior in certain ways is PROOF that they don’t really mean by “free will,” “an ability to make choices unrestrained by physics or the nature and state of my brain.” The types of behavior changes people make when exposed to anti-free will arguments only make sense if they are interpreting “free will” to mean the “the ability to make choices that meaningfully affect my future free of external coercion.” They may think this is only possible in a world with souls or other supernatural entities, and explain free will in those terms, but that just means that, like premodern astronomers, they are wrong (even radically wrong) about the theory behind the phenomenon, not about the existence of the phenomenon itself.

Telling people that free will doesn’t exist, even when you use carefully defined philosophical terms and arguments, leads them to draw false conclusions about reality and about the psychology of human beings. They falsely believe that people are less capable of making choices than they are, that behavior is less modifiable than it is, and that the choices we make have less effect on our environment and our selves than they do.

OTOH, telling people that free will doesn’t work the way they thought it did, that our ability to make choices using internal mechanisms free of external coercion is compatible with (and in fact occurs entirely in the context of) chaotically and stochastically deterministic systems, that it isn’t a supernatural suspension of physics, but the natural property of very complex self-influencing physical systems, and that it is both constrained and influenced by the nature of those systems in specific ways, will (I very strongly suspect) lead to fewer false beliefs and more rational behaviors.

In theory, they both mean the same thing. Both sets of philosophical arguments describe the same situation. The debate between compatibilists and non-compatibilists is almost entirely semantic. But it has real consequences because non-compatibilists unintentionally create a straw man version of free will that leads consistently (and demonstrably) to confusion and miscommunication.

Excellent post. For my money determinism is something of a red herring. People often say ‘if the universe is deterministic, you can’t change the future.’ Dennett points out that the future is simply what will happen. It can’t be changed regardless of whether determinism is true. as he would ask, ‘Changed from what to what?’ The compatibilist position is strongly counterintuitive. For anyone who hasn’t already decided that free will is impossible, I would again strongly recommend checking out any of the talks Dennett gives on the subject on YouTube. He does a great job of breaking it down and refuting many common misunderstandings. Even if you are ultimately unconvinced, I don’t think you can be said to have considered the subject fully until you have examined his arguments.

[Alan_Smithee]

@monstro

Since you think I’m arguing a straw man, can you explain to me how a world without free will would differ from this one? How would individuals who lack free will behave any differently from individuals who do?

Can you explain to me how it is possible to reconcile free will with a subconscious mind? At the very least, doesn’t acknowledging the existence of the latter give a significant nod to the idea that appearances (free will) could very well be deceiving?

Sure. I think free will is another word for agency. A world without concious beings would lack free will. So would a world in which our consciousness was merely along for the ride, but had no effect whatsoever on our actions. It’s hard to imagine how the latter world would come to be, but it’s possible to imagine it as an existing state of affairs. It’s even possible to argue that consciousnesses in such a world would be likely to develop an illusion of control that would lead them to believe in free will even when none existed. It would be very difficult for those beings to discover their error, which makes it possible that we do, in fact, live in such a world, but I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that that is the case, and it’s not the most parsimonious theory of reality in my opinion. Experiments such as the one referred to in the OP would certainly be evidence that we do live in that world and that free will is an illusion if they were robust and showed a universal aspect of human thinking. (It would still be possible to argue that our unconscious mind has free will, as Skald and others have done, but I doubt they would feel the need to make that argument in the face of strong evidence that our consciousness is really just a powerless passenger; it would negate Skald’s [and my] sense that both his conscious and unconscious mind are “him” if they are truly separate in that way.)

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@monstro

Most of the decisions we make in life are done automatically. We aren’t usually conscious of changing lanes on the highway, or which foot we step with first when we step off a curb. Again, if we aren’t actually conscious of what we’re doing when we do it, how can we say that we were “free” to make that choice? If I don’t know why I do the things I do, how can I say I exerted the will to do those things? So in a free will universe, I would not expect people to talk about “being in the zone” or “going on automatic.” They would be in control all the time.

I don’t follow you at all. The whole reason you lead with “Most” there is because sometimes our decisions aren’t automatic. The whole reason you say we aren’t “usually” conscious of changing lanes or stepping off with one foot instead of the other is because sometimes we are “actually conscious of what we’re doing when we do it”: when next I get up and walk around, I’ll think first and move my feet as I consciously intend rather than doing so automatically as usual; it’s easy.

You posit a world where I’d be in control all the time, and say that’d be a free-will universe – and I can just as easily imagine a world where I’m in control none of the time, with no free will. What’s a world where I’m in control some of the time?

[John_DiFool]

@monstro

Nor would I expect automatic thinking. Most of the decisions we make in life are done automatically. We aren’t usually conscious of changing lanes on the highway, or which foot we step with first when we step off a curb. Again, if we aren’t actually conscious of what we’re doing when we do it, how can we say that we were “free” to make that choice? If I don’t know why I do the things I do, how can I say I exerted the will to do those things? So in a free will universe, I would not expect people to talk about “being in the zone” or “going on automatic.” They would be in control all the time. And our magical brain scanner would confirm this.

I am of two minds here. My first point is that people, in general, do seem to be behave in rote, predictable, if not mindless ways. Be it yo-yo dieting, not being able to overcome serious depression, can’t get and stay on the wagon and stop drinking/doing drugs/sleeping around, or even more mundane (and innumerable) things, it seems on the surface that most people aren’t exercising their wills all too often if at all.

Yet we do have those who do seem to manage to make said changes, and make them stick-are able to transcend their programming. Maybe we do have free will, but most just kind of go along with what others say (if not their brains); that someone did give into temptation of one sort or another and took the “easy” way out, isn’t proof of anything in this regard. Maybe it takes a ton of mental training (a la a Buddhist monk or such) to overcome all of that mindless conditioning and to truly become free. As yet another Devo song says, “Freedom of choice is what you got-freedom from choice is what you want”…

[monstro]

@Alan_Smithee

Sure. I think free will is another word for agency.

What does the “free” come in?

My cat has agency. So does a baby. Yet we, the typical Western-thinking layman, generally assume that cats and babies don’t have free will like grown human beings do. How does our agency differ from theirs?

A world without concious beings would lack free will.

What is consciousness and what is its proof?

So would a world in which our consciousness was merely along for the ride, but had no effect whatsoever on our actions. It’s hard to imagine how the latter world would come to be, but it’s possible to imagine it as an existing state of affairs.

I agree. So how does a world with “active” consciousness (that is to say, one controlling an individual’s thought and feelings and thus actions) differ from a world with a “passive” consciousness that is just going along for the ride?

How can an individual know whether their consciousness is active or passive?

Neuroscience has provided tools that allow us to test this in an objection manner, and the evidence indicates that no, our consciousness really does seem to be going along for the ride. I recommend reading David Eagleman’s Incognito to see examples of this.

It’s even possible to argue that consciousnesses in such a world would be likely to develop an illusion of control that would lead them to believe in free will even when none existed. It would be very difficult for those beings to discover their error, which makes it possible that we do, in fact, live in such a world, but I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that that is the case…

There is plenty of evidence in neuroscience.

, and it’s not the most parsimonious theory of reality in my opinion.

I don’t see anything wrong with not going with the most parsimonious theory when there is enough evidence to refute it. It is more parsimonious to believe that the Moon and the Sun are the same size, that they both orbit the Earth, and that the Moon doesn’t rotate at all. But it is kind of crazy to assume that is what reality is given how limited our vantage points are. Indeed, once brave individuals started questioning what their eyes were telling them, that’s when they discovered the truth. I see no reason why the notion free will shouldn’t be viewed just another untested theory that serves little practical utility.

Experiments such as the one referred to in the OP would certainly be evidence that we do live in that world and that free will is an illusion if they were robust and showed a universal aspect of human thinking.

I don’t know what you mean by “universal aspect of human thinking.” But it seems to me that the entire field of psychology is founded upon the idea that there are universal aspects of human thinking.

(It would still be possible to argue that our unconscious mind has free will, as Skald and others have done, but I doubt they would feel the need to make that argument in the face of strong evidence that our consciousness is really just a powerless passenger; it would negate Skald’s [and my] sense that both his conscious and unconscious mind are “him” if they are truly separate in that way.)

If the subconscious mind is by definition hidden from an individual, how can one claim to know its will? Let alone how “free” its will is.

[Trinopus]

@monstro

Since you think I’m arguing a straw man, can you explain to me how a world without free will would differ from this one? How would individuals who lack free will behave any differently from individuals who do?

In a world without any kind of human volition, we would be merely insects, acting on instinctive tropisms. There would be no evolutionary benefit in spending large amounts of energy on a large, conscious mind if that mind served no purpose.

Can you explain to me how it is possible to reconcile free will with a subconscious mind? At the very least, doesn’t acknowledging the existence of the latter give a significant nod to the idea that appearances (free will) could very well be deceiving?

The unconscious mind is part of the decision-making process. If there were no free will, the entire decision-making process would be unconscious. The fact that part of it is unconscious reduces the role of deliberate conscious human volition. Our will is definitely limited in part by physical constraints.

Humans are notoriously poor at decision-making, risk-assessment, and cost-benefit evaluation. Our minds are messy, with lots of emotional crap getting in the way.

No one here is arguing for a perfected godlike miraculous angelic “awakened consciousness” in terms of free will. We’re just saying that we, as humans, make decisions on a day-to-day basis that are not determined by pre-existing physical states.

[Trinopus]

@monstro

. . . If the subconscious mind is by definition hidden from an individual, how can one claim to know its will? . . .

The unconscious “leaks.” Ideas pop out of it, and become known to us.

Have you never made a “Freudian slip?” The rest of us have!

[Robert163]

@Trinopus

The unconscious “leaks.” Ideas pop out of it, and become known to us.

Have you never made a “Freudian slip?” The rest of us have!

Hey…

could you respond to this question on the other thread. Thanks.

[monstro]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I don’t follow you at all. The whole reason you lead with “Most” there is because sometimes our decisions aren’t automatic. The whole reason you say we aren’t “usually” conscious of changing lanes or stepping off with one foot instead of the other is because sometimes we are “actually conscious of what we’re doing when we do it”: when next I get up and walk around, I’ll think first and move my feet as I consciously intend rather than doing so automatically as usual; it’s easy.

Yes, there are some decisions that we have awareness of. Like just a couple of hours ago, I had to decide which take-out I was going to pick up. I wrangled with three choices and finally decided on one.

But I don’t really know why I made the choice I did. It definitely seems that I “wrangled” over the decision-making, but let’s stop for a moment and consider the three choices I had in front of me. Why just three, when I have my pick of hundreds of restaurants? Well, I’m not feeling cravings for all the possible food items out there. Like pizza. I love pizza. But it wasn’t one of the options I deliberated over.

At no time did I did deliberate over whether pizza would be in the final deliberation. At least, I have no recollection that this happened. So I can conclude that the absence of pizza in my mental scroll down list was not my conscious choice on my part. It was a hidden decision. For all intents and purposes, it was done automatically.

I infer from this that I didn’t consciously choose the three options I ended up with. It feels like I did, but it seems to me for me to know that I made a conscious decision, I’d have to explain why I came up with the three choices I came up with. And I don’t know why. They just appeared in my mind. I don’t even know why I decided on three options, and not five or two. All I really know is that there was one moment I didn’t know what I was going to eat for dinner, and another moment when the decision had been made.

I can say that I decided on Bojangles and not feel like a lying phony. And I can say that I voluntarily chose Bojangles (that is, it was not an ego-dystonic decision). But I cannot say that my selection of Bojangles is evidence of my free will. I believe I came to this decision almost entirely without any conscious input. (I say “almost” just to err on the safe side).

You posit a world where I’d be in control all the time, and say that’d be a free-will universe – and I can just as easily imagine a world where I’m in control none of the time, with no free will. What’s a world where I’m in control some of the time?

Constrained will? Volition? Agency? Some other word that hasn’t been invented yet? Why use a load term like “free will” when there are so many less problematic and assumption-laden words out there?

[monstro]

@Trinopus

The unconscious “leaks.” Ideas pop out of it, and become known to us.

What is this supposed to show, though?

I have all kinds of ideas popping into my head. I don’t consciously control these ideas. I don’t consciously generate them. They are just ideas streaming across my consciousness. Eliciting more ideas, provoking more feelings. And because they are ego-syntonic, I accept them as being noninstrusive, as belonging to me. But my consciousness can’t claim to be their author.

Do you think free will is being able to select which of these ideas you’re going to “stick” with and act on? Because I don’t think I have this ability. For me, my ideas just seem to stick all on their own. I don’t will them or not will them to stick. They just do.

Have you never made a “Freudian slip?” The rest of us have!

I am not aware of ever making a Freudian slip. But I know that if I ever made one, I wouldn’t be using it as evidence that I possess free will. Such a thing would be a testament to how little control I have over my thoughts. Not proof of control.

[monstro]

@Trinopus

In a world without any kind of human volition, we would be merely insects, acting on instinctive tropisms. There would be no evolutionary benefit in spending large amounts of energy on a large, conscious mind if that mind served no purpose.

Who is saying the conscious mind serves no purpose?

Perhaps consciousness evolved as a byproduct of intelligence. An awareness of self may help to foster self-preservation and empathy. Perhaps an individual needs some type of consciousness to process higher emotions. Maybe some of us aren’t actually conscious but we think we are, kind of like how people with Anton-Babinski syndrome think they can see when they cannot. How would we know who is fooling themselves and everyone else?

What is the purpose of a subconsious mind if we have free will?

And why do humans possess this ability, but not the animals they are related to? How do we know that cats (or insects or alligators) lack consciousness and thus free will? Is it just because they don’t communicate in our language that we believe this?

[Trinopus]

@monstro

What is this supposed to show, though?

That the unconscious is not wholly isolated from the conscious.

. . . I am not aware of ever making a Freudian slip. But I know that if I ever made one, I wouldn’t be using it as evidence that I possess free will. Such a thing would be a testament to how little control I have over my thoughts. Not proof of control.

I didn’t use it to defend free will. I simply corrected an error you made about the nature of the unconscious.

I actually agree that unconscious motivations are detrimental to the idea of “free will.” They influence our decisions and undermine our rational control over our decisions.

Remember, I’m not arguing that free will is absolute. I don’t know anyone who believes that, especially anyone who has ever lost his temper.

[Trinopus]

@monstro

Who is saying the conscious mind serves no purpose? . . .

I’m saying that if all actions are predetermined, the conscious mind would have no purpose. If we can’t “choose” then why have a ton of processing power dedicated to the illusion of choice? How does that make our actions any better than just instinctive tropisms, for a fraction of the energy cost?

Perhaps consciousness evolved as a byproduct of intelligence.

Begs the question: what use is intelligence if all our actions are predetermined?

An awareness of self may help to foster self-preservation and empathy.

What are the points to self-preservation and empathy if everything we do is pre-determined?

Perhaps an individual needs some type of consciousness to process higher emotions. . . .

And again: why have higher emotions if we’re predetermined in all our actions? Huge waste of neurons that could be calculating other animals’ predetermined actions. Except we’re predetermined not to… It’s absurd.

(I may be in error thinking that you are defending absolute Newtonian predetermination. But you’ve done nothing in this thread but attack: you’ve never actually stated your beliefs! I don’t know what your opinion is!)

[monstro]

Triponus, I am not arguing that all actions are predetermined, so I’m afraid I cannot debate those points with you.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@monstro

You posit a world where I’d be in control all the time, and say that’d be a free-will universe – and I can just as easily imagine a world where I’m in control none of the time, with no free will. What’s a world where I’m in control some of the time?

Constrained will? Volition? Agency? Some other word that hasn’t been invented yet? Why use a load term like “free will” when there are so many less problematic and assumption-laden words out there?

I dunno. I mean, take “freedom of movement”. I can picture a guy who effectively has none of it; imagine him manacled hand and foot in a prison cell, say.

And I can just as easily imagine someone who can move about his prison cell – but that’s it. And I can likewise imagine someone under house arrest; he can’t leave his home, but he can stay in bed all morning if he pleases, or head down to the kitchen and fix himself breakfast, or spend the day in front of the TV, or whatever.

And I can imagine a guy who can hasn’t been arrested or anything, but got the classic admonition about, y’know, “Don’t Leave Town” or "Don’t Leave The State" or whatever. And I can imagine a guy who can leave the town or the state, but can’t leave the country. And I can imagine who can leave the country easy as moving around in it – but for whom some other countries are off-limits.

And I can imagine someone who can go to any country he likes – with one exception. And I can imagine someone who can go to any country he likes, and any city therein.

I figure you’d say that first guy has no freedom of movement – and that the last guy has full freedom of movement – and (a) the rest are somewhere along a continuum, and (b) we don’t really have a term for “is free to move about the country, but not to leave it”. And then we’d get into a weird discussion about how even the last guy isn’t really free to go where he pleases (since I don’t feel like letting him enter my house), and even the first guy ain’t bereft of freedom (since he can, I dunno, keep his back off the wall easy as lean back against it).

And then we’d get into a weirder discussion about how, look, we’ve put men on the moon, so does a guy who can go anywhere on Earth truly have freedom of movement? And what about a guy who’s completely immobilized below the neck, but is free to move his head to the left or the right; does he have some freedom of movement?

But maybe I should stop guessing and start asking: would you say a guy who’s free to move around the country, but not out of it, has freedom of movement? Would you say a guy who’s free to move around the state has some freedom of movement? How about a guy who’s pretty much free to go where he pleases, except not Peru?