If Free Will Isn't Real, We Will Have To Invent It.

[BuddyFerris]

...did the quantum event just happen, thereby directing the event independent of the preceding sequence, or did she choose?

It's hard to know. And I think this question is heading for the real intention for the main question about Free Will, which is: does a person carry a form of responsibility for his actions? Or in other words, can justice be applied to a person's choice? But we'd be straying way to far away in this thread if we'd start discussing the issue of punishment for our actions. Anyway, in her case, it is possible that a million small events and experiences contributed to her final decision. There could be small things we don't know about, and not even she knows about. Lets say she saw a cartoon 10 years ago about some little rabbit who had to make a choice between two things, one good and one bad, and she decided to do the right thing, even though it carried some bad results, and this had some inner effect on this girl towards being inclined to take a path where she would suffer, but yet being in some sense the right thing to do. Just because we don't know all the bits and pieces to why a person make the choice, the complexity to why the brain made that decision is far beyond our reach, but yet it is a form of calculated decision.

Have you ever read about neural net technology? ... You know they have made AI program just like that. I heard about some laboratory where the "computer" not only did experiments, but also could come up with it's own new theories, test them, and draw conclusions. (I think I saw an article in a science magazine, but I can't be sure.) I believe that when we can create a machine where the process is based on genetic algorithms, and neural nets, we'll have a new generation of artificial intelligence which would be very difficult to separate from humans. We wouldn't be able to tell if they have a "soul" or not, or if they have "free will" or not.

Hans, my friend. Would I be out of line if I suggested that you've ducked the question? BEFORE responsibility, before just and punishment for actions, before any discussion of what influences there might have been in her life, we still have the question of free will. "...did the quantum event just happen, thereby directing the event independent of the preceding sequence, or did she choose?"

 

We can add inquiry into non-human computational models, and decision-making machine advancements, but have we addressed the question? Did she choose?

[Ouroboros]

We can add inquiry into non-human computational models, and decision-making machine advancements, but have we addressed the question? Did she choose?

Yes, she made a choice. And her choice was made up by her subconscious. It was deducted mostly based on her past experience, and perhaps a little random chance was added to it. Is she responsible for her choice? Yes. Because she is the experience of what makes her. Remove the experiences, and you have lost the person.

[BuddyFerris]

We can add inquiry into non-human computational models, and decision-making machine advancements, but have we addressed the question? Did she choose?

Yes, she made a choice. And her choice was made up by her subconscious. It was deducted mostly based on her past experience, and perhaps a little random chance was added to it. Is she responsible for her choice? Yes. Because she is the experience of what makes her. Remove the experiences, and you have lost the person.

Me thinks thou dost equivocate too much, my friend. Nicely done, though.

 

So she chose. But at a step removed from conscious awareness, the choice was preceded by a subconscious decision? A decision of which she was not aware and to which she did not consciously contribute? Was it then just a calculation based on past events w/a randomization or two thrown in?

 

Following that path then, shall we now relegate the sum of human thought to such a mechanism? The struggles for understanding, the labors of the poets, the passions of the artists, and the abuses of the wicked power hungry.... before you say yes, consider; either they are result of subconscious calculations, or they control those calculations.

 

Either the process paints your life by the numbers, or you create an original work of art. In my opinion, friend, you can't have it both ways.

 

Happy Monday,

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Me thinks thou dost equivocate too much, my friend. Nicely done, though.

Don't think so. The problem is rather that you don't understand me. It's unfortunate, but very common.

 

So she chose. But at a step removed from conscious awareness, the choice was preceded by a subconscious decision? A decision of which she was not aware and to which she did not consciously contribute? Was it then just a calculation based on past events w/a randomization or two thrown in?

Our consciousness is delayed. I saw somewhere that there are experiments proving this. Our conscious mind is delayed by about a quarter of a second, and that the decision is made even before we are aware of it. But hey, what do scientists know? They're usually wrong, since they spend their time just making up stuff and have no proof for it.

 

Following that path then, shall we now relegate the sum of human thought to such a mechanism? The struggles for understanding, the labors of the poets, the passions of the artists, and the abuses of the wicked power hungry.... before you say yes, consider; either they are result of subconscious calculations, or they control those calculations.

If they "control" those calculations, it means control based on previous knowledge. Previous knowledge is based on previous experience. So you still end up with the exact same system. You only try to push the answer into a black box where you don't have to argue or reason for how it works.

 

Either the process paints your life by the numbers, or you create an original work of art. In my opinion, friend, you can't have it both ways.

Art is numbers. Numbers is art. Math is beautiful. Beauty is mathematical. Besides, you don't answer anything by saying: "all is done in magical box."

 

A persons preference (to beauty and art) is to a large extent based on genetic predisposition and experience.

 

A person who makes a choice, or love something, or find something beautiful, is so because she is a human, and natural being, which are based on all these natural "mechanics." The mechanics are extremely complex, but still based on natural processes. I don't believe a person makes her decision in some spirit, or soul. I don't believe the process of knowledge and experience is a supernatural phenomenon. I don't believe the brain is just a transmitter and somewhere in another universe our soul sits as some remote control sending and receiving the information from our brain and makes the decisions based on that. And even if it was so, that "soul" would have to make decisions based on either: previous experience and/or just a random choice. So in the end, a separate or dualistic view of soul and matter, doesn't solve the mechanics of the process of making a decision.

 

---

 

I'm a bit disappointed. I thought you started to understand, but now it seems you're back into the old religious dualistic track again. Sad to see. Well, that's what religion does to you. It blinds you from other views, and the only response I get is accusations of "false arguments." There isn't a problem of equivocation because it is all the same. We are nature. We are not separate. There isn't any "spirit" world where our disembodied "free will" somehow hovers in the "spiritual air," timeless, space less, and without processes. It's ridiculous. Experience is temporal, and within a temporal world it's required to have some form of "media" within the process can exist. Put it in this world or some fairy land, it's the same, and have the same requirements. Push the idea of a free will away from this world, and into the next, and you still must have the same fundamental principles guiding that world, and you have not gained any explanation for what a "mind" or "free will" is. The problem will always come back, and the answers will always be similar to what I've suggested.

[BuddyFerris]

The problem is rather that you don't understand me. It's unfortunate, but very common.

Perhaps so, but unintentional, my friend. It seems to me at my end that I do understand, and that at your end to you, I don't. Dang.

Our consciousness is delayed. I saw somewhere that there are experiments proving this. Our conscious mind is delayed by about a quarter of a second, and that the decision is made even before we are aware of it. But hey, what do scientists know? They're usually wrong, since they spend their time just making up stuff and have no proof for it.

 

If they "control" those calculations, it means control based on previous knowledge. Previous knowledge is based on previous experience. So you still end up with the exact same system. You only try to push the answer into a black box where you don't have to argue or reason for how it works.

 

Art is numbers. Numbers is art. Math is beautiful. Beauty is mathematical. Besides, you don't answer anything by saying: "all is done in magical box."

 

A persons preference (to beauty and art) is to a large extent based on genetic predisposition and experience.

 

A person who makes a choice, or love something, or find something beautiful, is so because she is a human, and natural being, which are based on all these natural "mechanics." The mechanics are extremely complex, but still based on natural processes. I don't believe a person makes her decision in some spirit, or soul. I don't believe the process of knowledge and experience is a supernatural phenomenon. I don't believe the brain is just a transmitter and somewhere in another universe our soul sits as some remote control sending and receiving the information from our brain and makes the decisions based on that. And even if it was so, that "soul" would have to make decisions based on either: previous experience and/or just a random choice. So in the end, a separate or dualistic view of soul and matter, doesn't solve the mechanics of the process of making a decision.

So if I do understand your view, a person 'chooses' as a complex function of experiences. That 'choice' is perhaps made prior to our conscious awareness of it (by a quarter second?). The choice is a calculable result of complex factors of current mood, prior experiences, peripheral information resident in current awareness, etc. OK so far?

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps so, but unintentional, my friend. It seems to me at my end that I do understand, and that at your end to you, I don't. Dang.

The problem is that we're transferring ideas using language. Language is limited in how it can express ideas. That's one of the main differences (if you want one) between us humans, and machines. Machines are exact in what they "learn" and can transfer it exactly and correctly in 99.999999% of the time. While we can't. Human language tends to only a fraction of what we intend, and on top of that, we have different schema for interpreting the words. I use a word, and your mental image of that word will not be the same as mine. If there's any miracles in place, it's rather the mystery of that we can understand each other at all under the circumstances.

 

So if I do understand your view, a person 'chooses' as a complex function of experiences. That 'choice' is perhaps made prior to our conscious awareness of it (by a quarter second?). The choice is a calculable result of complex factors of current mood, prior experiences, peripheral information resident in current awareness, etc. OK so far?

Buddy

Yes. Okay so far.

[chefranden]

Back when I lived in Eau Claire I had this experience many times. I'd would set out in my car to go someplace like the grocery store, my parents, church... But I'd end up at work instead, and I'd be like, "Holy shit you dumb ass, how did you get here?" It was very like my car took me there as far as my consciousness was concerned. While I was ruminating about whatever was wrong in my life, my car drove itself to work. Somehow the car got to work without an accident or getting stopped by the police for inattentive driving or running a stop sign. I know it must have been the car because conscious I was completely and undelightfully surprised at my new location.

 

I've argued before that consciousness is a very small part of what the brain or body/mind does. Increasingly studies like this show that consciousness is perhaps the last part of the brain to know about decisions and actions decided. The conscious bit rarely if ever notices what is reported to it as coming from elsewhere than itself.

 

So I have to ask, how the hell did I drive to work without killing anyone? Was an angel driving? I might have explained it that way at one time. IMHO consciousness is an adjunct to what the body/mind does. Consciousness is probably not the primary decider, but it almost always takes the credit for the decisions made. Somehow the brain took care of the decisions needed in the drive to work without informing my consciousness that was busy on other things.

 

Consciousness doesn't like the idea of being determined even by the processes of its own meat. Consciousness, especially in the left brain, wants to be in charge. But I doubt it is very often if at all. When the right brain of a split brain patient is shown an instruction with out the left brain's knowledge the person will carry out the instruction, but when asked why the left brain makes up an excuse of why it decided to do that action. Pinker P43 Pinker says, "The spooky part is that we have no reason to think that the baloney generator in the patient's left hemisphere is behaving any differently from ours as we make sense of the inclinations emanation from the rest of our brains."

 

I guess that in the main decisions are made elsewhere and then given the illusion of free will afterward. However, as the OP indicates the illusion* of freewill may be necessary for honest dealing.

 

Edit: I want to amend this idea of illusion to "projection" of freewill, because I don't want to create the illusion, that there is nothing there. Putting lines in a drawing in certain ways gives the illusion of perspective, but that does not mean that there is nothing there. The lines are there and the process in which the brain determines that this is perspective is there. One line in a perspective drawing is not actually farther away than any other line, but together with the brain processes of depth perception the experience of farther away can be evoked.

 

When this happens, even though the process and the lines can be analyzed, the consciousness is mainly aware of the experience without at the same time being directly aware of steps needed to produce the experience. This unawareness does not mean there is no experience. Nevertheless, there is no experience without the process. The experience depends upon a certain state of the universe including the the brain's state. The experience can't exist apart from these states. The experience could be said to be determined from them.

[Iden]

I just read somwhere that absence of free will is not necessarily the same as fatalism: http://www.naturalism.org/fatalism.htm

[Snafutopia]

Ah isn't this site great? This kind of topic just gives me warm feelings all over. Think I'll just leave off for a bit and let it stew in the brain, much like Il Pope here.

 

Sounds good to me. Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we shall cogitate . But for now, Doritos, ergo sum!

[BuddyFerris]

I just read somewhere that absence of free will is not necessarily the same as fatalism: http://www.naturalism.org/fatalism.htm

Hello, Iden. Welcome, and thanks for the reference. The issue of fatalism that you raise is a good one; if I have no 'choice' in the matter, why cross the street? And if I cross the street, why bother to look both ways? Fatalism is flawed and perhaps obviously so to the thoughtful observer.

 

Fatalism isn't a philosophical position one might choose like socialism or Marxism. It's the inevitable conclusion, I think, of other similarly narrow ideas. The absence of choice leads to fatalism, perhaps. As the author you cite says, "...no rational person believes in fatalism." He's probably right. We don't. Our experience insists we have a participatory roll in our own decision making.

 

The author's attempt to describe and give meaning to a choice-less existence is interesting, but never quite overcomes the problematic question of independent choice/action.

 

Back when I lived in Eau Claire I had this experience many times. I'd would set out in my car to go someplace like the grocery store, my parents, church... But I'd end up at work instead, and I'd be like, "Holy shit you dumb ass, how did you get here?" It was very like my car took me there as far as my consciousness was concerned. While I was ruminating about whatever was wrong in my life, my car drove itself to work. Somehow the car got to work without an accident or getting stopped by the police for inattentive driving or running a stop sign. I know it must have been the car because conscious I was completely and undelightfully surprised at my new location.

 

I've argued before that consciousness is a very small part of what the brain or body/mind does. Increasingly studies like this show that consciousness is perhaps the last part of the brain to know about decisions and actions decided. The conscious bit rarely if ever notices what is reported to it as coming from elsewhere than itself. ....

 

This is a large addition to the consideration of free will. Chef rightly points out that much of the activity in which we engage is not consciously monitored. Our heartbeats without our worrying about it (involuntary actions), I type without thinking about the location of the keys (trained actions), and apparently we drive to work (sometimes) without much thought as to whether it's a workday or not (trained sequential actions, perhaps).

 

Chef goes on to say, "I guess that in the main decisions are made elsewhere and then given the illusion of free will afterward. However, as the OP indicates the illusion* of freewill may be necessary for honest dealing."

 

I'll gladly concede decision making for those things about which decisions have already been made. The route to work is already chosen as are the driving operations needed to get there; even the habit is in place from hundreds of repetitions. The fact that it occurs inadvertently seems to me to be more the absence of a decision rather than the absence of free will. We get in the car, habit takes over. If we'd been paying attention, we'd have chosen otherwise.

 

To me, the relevant question is not whether we can describe our existence in terms that exclude choice; we may in fact be able to. Some may choose to do so.

 

As HanSolo has noted, the issue of responsibility follows close on the heels of choice. In the absence of choice, responsibility for individual actions disappears. Fortunately, our experience informs us, I think; we choose to act or not, we choose to speak out or not, we choose to rein in our habitual routines or not. And we consider ourselves responsible for the choices, do we not?

 

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

As HanSolo has noted, the issue of responsibility follows close on the heels of choice. In the absence of choice, responsibility for individual actions disappears. Fortunately, our experience informs us, I think; we choose to act or not, we choose to speak out or not, we choose to rein in our habitual routines or not. And we consider ourselves responsible for the choices, do we not?

Here's a question for you Buddy, do animals have free will?

[Legion]

Interestingly enough I am about to finish a book written by the philosopher John Searle entitled Mind. And therein he briefly treats this subject of free will. However at the end of his considerations he leaves the subject unresolved. And I am inclined to leave it there as well.

 

Searle points out that free will is a problem because we have two completely irreconcilable convictions. On the one hand we are convinced that any natural event has antecedently sufficient causes. In Searle’s words, “The sufficient causes of an event are those that, in a particular context, are sufficient to determine that the event will occur.” When we ask “why?” about events in the world we fully expect to find causes that were sufficient to determine the events.

 

On the other hand however, we are also convinced that we are constantly presented with alternatives and that we freely choose between them. And in fact, we cannot escape this subjective experience by any effort. That is, in theory we may deny that free will exists but we are not thereby absolved from making decisions.

 

I share these two convictions, yet they do seem to be irreconcilable at the moment. I cannot abandon one in favor of the other. So it seems I am left embracing them both which, leads to some inner conflict and inconsistency.

 

“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself; I am large; I contain multitudes.” - Walt Whitman

[Ouroboros]

LR, well said.

[Legion]

LR, well said.

Thank you kind sir. Good to see you again my friend.

[Ouroboros]

Thank you kind sir. Good to see you again my friend.

Likewise. Unfortunately I didn't have time to read the other book. Too many books, too little time. One reason I'd like to live 900 years. It would give me some time to read it all. I only have read a little about Searle and his position, but it looks like his view is similar to mine. Or maybe I should say my view is similar to his?

[Legion]

Unfortunately I didn't have time to read the other book. Too many books, too little time. One reason I'd like to live 900 years. It would give me some time to read it all.

No problem Hans. I know you’ll get to it when you get to it.

 

I only have read a little about Searle and his position, but it looks like his view is similar to mine. Or maybe I should say my view is similar to his?

Do I agree with you

or do you agree with me?

I don’t mind the order

As long as we agree.

[Ouroboros]

Do I agree with you

or do you agree with me?

I don’t mind the order

As long as we agree.

I don't know? Do I? Complicated. I can't make up my mind. Especially since I lost my free will to determinism...

[BuddyFerris]

Interestingly enough I am about to finish a book written by the philosopher John Searle entitled Mind. And therein he briefly treats this subject of free will. However at the end of his considerations he leaves the subject unresolved. And I am inclined to leave it there as well.

 

Searle points out that free will is a problem because we have two completely irreconcilable convictions. On the one hand we are convinced that any natural event has antecedently sufficient causes. ... On the other hand however, we are also convinced that we are constantly presented with alternatives and that we freely choose between them. ...

 

I share these two convictions, yet they do seem to be irreconcilable at the moment. I cannot abandon one in favor of the other. ...

Thoughtful comments, friend, and appreciated. While your thoughts are well expressed and comfortably accessible, the question springs up anyway; are the described convictions genuinely held? How might we know?

 

One of the common observations of philosophers through history is the differentiation between those who lived what they claimed was true and those who did not. We might claim to hold two mutually exclusive convictions ... but life may force us to choose to live according to one or the other. What we say and what we do reflect two different things, do they not? Espousing both is easy. Living both is perhaps not.

 

Buddy

[Legion]

Hey Buddy, it’s been a while since I’ve seen you here. I hope life is treating you well.

 

We might claim to hold two mutually exclusive convictions ... but life may force us to choose to live according to one or the other.

I’m not sure what you may be trying to imply here. I don’t see that either of these beliefs forces me into any kind of behavior.

[BuddyFerris]

Hey Buddy, it’s been a while since I’ve seen you here. I hope life is treating you well.

 

We might claim to hold two mutually exclusive convictions ... but life may force us to choose to live according to one or the other.

I’m not sure what you may be trying to imply here. I don’t see that either of these beliefs forces me into any kind of behavior.

Life's been fascinatingly full, Legion, and thanks. It's good to hear from you again. It has quite been a while.

 

In the context of the thread, I guess, the question on my mind is the existence of free will or perhaps its essentiality.

 

Searle's offered thoughts as you've described them for us are an approximate equivalent of being preferentially color blind to traffic lights. 'The light is lit and I have to go so I'll go.'. In the moment, the color is considered irrelevant. Perhaps acceptable, but when we're less pressed, we might acknowledge the red light.

 

That's sort of how I read your, "That is, in theory we may deny that free will exists but we are not thereby absolved from making decisions." We must exercise our will, even if we say to ourselves that perhaps we're not free. We're each aware, perhaps, that in the absence of some freedom to do so, we don't really make decisions. Why describe it as though we did?

 

That's how I get to the legitimacy of convictions. If you don't do it, then perhaps what we have is an intellectual preference. Maybe I'm straining at the definition of 'conviction'.

 

Your observation, "I don’t see that either of these beliefs forces me...." is reasonable if what you hold is perhaps intellectual indecision. A conviction, on the other hand, would be a bit more compelling in my opinion.

 

If two competing (and exclusive) concepts are both endorsed in one mind, I suggest that it is choice that holds them both apart.

 

HanSolo has suggested that we haven't any external view on the process we labor so hard to describe; rather, we're a part of it and should be happy there. An easy acquiescence, perhaps, allowing our perception of decision-making to be a somewhat illusory drama. This seems to me to be the only really acceptable position for those for whom the machine/existence bond is absolute.

 

Exercise your will freely, though, and you've chosen. Resolvable?

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo has suggested that we haven't any external view on the process we labor so hard to describe; rather, we're a part of it and should be happy there. An easy acquiescence, perhaps, allowing our perception of decision-making to be a somewhat illusory drama. This seems to me to be the only really acceptable position for those for whom the machine/existence bond is absolute.

That's pretty good. I think you're understanding my position quite well.

[Legion]

Buddy I don’t know what the resolution is. I don’t believe that free will is an illusion. For instance, on any given morning I am perfectly free to choose what to wear that day or what to eat for breakfast. Yet at the same time we can examine decisions themselves and ask, “Why did this person choose the way they did?” And we expect answers to exist. Perhaps if we understood a person and their circumstances deeply enough we might even know what decisions they might face and even how they will choose, far in advance of their making the decision.

 

I suspect that you are worried about what happens to the notion of responsibility if we declare that free will is illusory. Let us say that a guy robs a bank. To my mind there can be no doubt that at once he is both responsible for making that decision and that there are reasons why he chose to do so. And I am fairly sure that judges take such reasons into account and deem them mitigating or aggravating as the case may be. But no matter the reasons why, from my perspective he is still responsible for robbing the bank.

 

Hans and I are friends but this doesn’t mean that we always agree. I happen to suspect that organisms are not machines. But I also suspect that I lack the ability to argue my stance on this with any sort of rigor at the moment. I am hoping that after a few more years of study I will be in a better position to do so.

[BuddyFerris]

Here's a question for you Buddy, do animals have free will?

Of course they do. That's how you wind up with a jackass in the white house, a weasel in congress, a maggot in the IL governor's mansion, and a rat on the house appropriations committee, all of whom serve at the pleasure of the lemmings who put them in office.

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy I don’t know what the resolution is.

Neither do I, Legion, at least not from a materialist's viewpoint.

I don’t believe that free will is an illusion. For instance, on any given morning I am perfectly free to choose what to wear that day or what to eat for breakfast. Yet at the same time we can examine decisions themselves and ask, “Why did this person choose the way they did?” And we expect answers to exist. Perhaps if we understood a person and their circumstances deeply enough we might even know what decisions they might face and even how they will choose, far in advance of their making the decision.

Another here has said that we cannot by any mental gymnastics dissuade ourselves from the conviction that we choose freely. An unresolvable dilemma to some; I'm inclined to think it's indicative, a credible data point.

I suspect that you are worried about what happens to the notion of responsibility if we declare that free will is illusory. Let us say that a guy robs a bank. To my mind there can be no doubt that at once he is both responsible for making that decision and that there are reasons why he chose to do so. And I am fairly sure that judges take such reasons into account and deem them mitigating or aggravating as the case may be. But no matter the reasons why, from my perspective he is still responsible for robbing the bank.

Interestingly, we know fairly well what happens as responsibility is removed from the equation. While you and I and the judge might agree, the fellow who smashed my daughter's car window yesterday morning so he could steal whatever she might have in the car had little or no concern about being held responsible. Among the many factors defining the inner city where she lives and works is the observable and quantifiable shortfall in the community's ability to hold responsible those who stray from the societal norms. As the shortfall continues, the societal norms are changed. For example, being a drug dealer is an appealing and acceptable choice of careers in some circles.

 

Extending into the broader community, our categorization of various behavioral issues as disease (alcoholism, drug addiction) has begun to erode our ability to hold those who commit crimes while suffering from such diseases responsible. There are both beneficial and troubling elements of the changing views.

 

Such influences easily extend across generational and cultural boundaries as MTV has proved. As the world's most pervasive representative of American culture, MTV is credited with changing both the world's perception of America and worldviews among the under 30 cohort. Such influence erodes much of what I consider foundational. Issues of respect, justice, fairness, and responsibility come immediately to mind as being continually affected.

 

Having gotten all that off my chest, I doubt that a commonly held position supporting the absence of free will is likely. I'd be worried if anyone actually figured out how to begin living as though there were none, though. It seems to me, that would be a radical departure from humanity as we know it.

 

Hans and I are friends but this doesn’t mean that we always agree. I happen to suspect that organisms are not machines. But I also suspect that I lack the ability to argue my stance on this with any sort of rigor at the moment. I am hoping that after a few more years of study I will be in a better position to do so.

 

Hans will probably agree with your, " I happen to suspect that organisms are not machines." As do I, and I'll go further to allow that such existence apart from the machine aspect is probably natural in every sense.

Buddy

[Legion]

Let me ask you Buddy. Do you think anything happens without causes?