The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Free Will - Is it a Thing?
Kaputa
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
This is not the first time this forum has had a discussion on this topic, but I think it's been at least a few years.
So, free will: how do you define it, and does it exist?
My position on the question has for many years been somewhere between a hesitant "it does not" and just not understanding the concept. Free will seems akin to adding a "soul" to a human - a seemingly supernatural force or entity that can't be easily defined, explained, or justified in materialist or physicalist terms. Not that everyone adheres to a conception of the universe as a physical or material phenomenon, but many of those who generally share that worldview do not reject free will, despite rejecting the concept of a soul. So if life is a physical phenomenon, and living things are physical entities, and there are no non-physical/supernatural characteristics of life, what is free will and how could it work? We do not conceive as free will as applying to non-living phenomena such as rocks, fire, or even modern AI. We generally do not see it as applying to atoms and subatomic particles, which is what the human is composed of. I don't think most conceive of single celled organisms or trees as having free will either. If it's just physical stuff occurring, how can human will be anything other a phenomena of chance and determinism, unless we accept a dualistic worldview and add non-physical or supernatural concepts that do not follow the laws of nature observed literally everywhere else?
The only reason I can think of to believe in free will is admittedly a fairly strong one: it sure feels like I'm making choices. On the other hand, when I look back and consider the decisions I made, I can often understand why I made those decisions, which arguably undermines that feeling. Nonetheless, when I do things, it seems like I have a choice in the matter, and it feels like I decide on things with some degree of independence. But I'm not sure that "it feels like" is a strong enough argument to make me add what seems like an additional entity aside from physical nature to my worldview.
I've heard of the "compatibilist" model, which sounds great because I'd love to be able to incorporate free will into my worldview. I should probably read a book or two advocating it to see if it can change my mind, but wikipedia's description and some youtube lecturing I've listened to makes it sound like a way of dodging the question by redefining "free will" to mean something noncontroversial that everyone believes in already.
Another possible approach to the question: "free will" postulates that the will is free from what exactly? From everything?
I'd really love to be able to philosophically justify the idea of free will, since doubting its existence is at times hard to rectify with daily experience (though unlike some I do not believe that free will is necessary for morality to work). So, D&D, what do you think? Is free will compatible with naturalism, physicalism, or materialism? Are the premises of my argument too reductive? Or are we biological machines whose actions represent nothing more than chance guided by determinism?
So, free will: how do you define it, and does it exist?
My position on the question has for many years been somewhere between a hesitant "it does not" and just not understanding the concept. Free will seems akin to adding a "soul" to a human - a seemingly supernatural force or entity that can't be easily defined, explained, or justified in materialist or physicalist terms. Not that everyone adheres to a conception of the universe as a physical or material phenomenon, but many of those who generally share that worldview do not reject free will, despite rejecting the concept of a soul. So if life is a physical phenomenon, and living things are physical entities, and there are no non-physical/supernatural characteristics of life, what is free will and how could it work? We do not conceive as free will as applying to non-living phenomena such as rocks, fire, or even modern AI. We generally do not see it as applying to atoms and subatomic particles, which is what the human is composed of. I don't think most conceive of single celled organisms or trees as having free will either. If it's just physical stuff occurring, how can human will be anything other a phenomena of chance and determinism, unless we accept a dualistic worldview and add non-physical or supernatural concepts that do not follow the laws of nature observed literally everywhere else?
The only reason I can think of to believe in free will is admittedly a fairly strong one: it sure feels like I'm making choices. On the other hand, when I look back and consider the decisions I made, I can often understand why I made those decisions, which arguably undermines that feeling. Nonetheless, when I do things, it seems like I have a choice in the matter, and it feels like I decide on things with some degree of independence. But I'm not sure that "it feels like" is a strong enough argument to make me add what seems like an additional entity aside from physical nature to my worldview.
I've heard of the "compatibilist" model, which sounds great because I'd love to be able to incorporate free will into my worldview. I should probably read a book or two advocating it to see if it can change my mind, but wikipedia's description and some youtube lecturing I've listened to makes it sound like a way of dodging the question by redefining "free will" to mean something noncontroversial that everyone believes in already.
Another possible approach to the question: "free will" postulates that the will is free from what exactly? From everything?
I'd really love to be able to philosophically justify the idea of free will, since doubting its existence is at times hard to rectify with daily experience (though unlike some I do not believe that free will is necessary for morality to work). So, D&D, what do you think? Is free will compatible with naturalism, physicalism, or materialism? Are the premises of my argument too reductive? Or are we biological machines whose actions represent nothing more than chance guided by determinism?
Kaputa on
+3
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But more importantly, we are not soulless causal automatons, pointless meat machines grinding out the inevitable, destined to do only that which we we're caused to until the end of time.
Without choice there is no responsibility. We are free, or we are nothing.
It does preclude that. There is no "changing opinion" except by the unavoidable causal chains that began at the moment of creation.
The change was inevitable. Opinion is false, you only can think what you do think, and if you think differently later than you do now, it has nothing to do with you or anyone else, ever. It's just how things are destined to be
I was being purposefully flippant with my initial post, but I will share my actual thoughts on the subject.
I find the concept of predestination distasteful because I have seen it used by evangelical Christians both as an excuse for participating in abhorrent behavior, and refusing to take action against abhorrent behavior.
But even if viewed through a secular lens, I believe that predestination is a too-small step away from sliding into feelings of powerlessness and nihilism. What is the point of doing anything if we aren't able to decide for ourselves? Why bother fighting and struggling, when the outcome has already been decided?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I've seen the concept of free will used to justify a ton of mistreatment and justify not taking action against suffering because it is a person's own fault.
I'm not sure how believing in no free will or believing in free will would change how one lives.
My take on it is more of a general plan for "humanity" rather than each individual person born.
Having said that, we're free to choose to accept or deny that plan. The greatest gift God gave us is the choice to believe in him or not. To me that's the base definition of free will.
On the other hand, it's clearly not completely free as we can see the impact that hormones and chemicals or lack thereof have on our decision making process. And I am as of yet unaware of any scientific explanation for an internal force in our decision-making process that is separate from the billions of inputs that we take in at any given moment. But I have to believe that such an internal force exists, and it is what I consider the soul.
Or rather, I suppose, I choose to believe that.
I think our ability to make certain decisions can be very much affected by physical things, and as far as I'm aware there is evidence to support this: addiction, hunger, brain chemicals, various stuff has all been shown to affect decision-making in a variety of ways.
However, I think consciousness throws a bit of a wrench into a purely deterministic view of things. As a very rough example, suppose I am asked to choose a number from the set {1} while a random number generator chooses from the set {1, 2, 3, 4}. Even though we all know what number I am going to choose, the fact that I experience the "choice" is more relevant than the possible outcomes. Or something something.
Ostensibly, Free Will is simply the notion we've given to a process of decision making we take for granted.
The divide between free will and determinism is pretty much a false one, as what we're really talking about is the degree of complexity involved.
Human cognition is fundamentally rooted in the brain: the various kinds of processing it is capable of, the presence and levels of various neurochemicals, etc. This is further augmented by context and experience, forming pathways of response and manners of thinking that are what we consider to be our behavior, personality, etc.
But ultimately, all this is just a boiled down, simplified view of how human cognition works. It doesn't even begin to capture the level of complexity involved even if it gives us a broad direction of where to look in order to begin in order to learn how it works. And this hasn't even accounted for self-awareness, which adds another layer of understanding and set of tools at our disposal for making choices. Or Empathy and Sympathy, which just increases the complexity involved.
Even Shorter version: Human cognition is a complex, interconnected set of systems that all work together to create what is "us." Free will is what we call the decision making process for "us." While ultimately deterministic, the level of systems at play results in something that isn't just A leads to B leads to C, but something incredibly nuanced and detailed that we all too often take for granted (and tends to freak us out when we conceive of the deterministic factors involved in it)
This is mainly because we then start assigning an increasing degree of control over to the determining factors, while subsequently ignoring our own ability to process and work with those factors (again: taking our capabilities for granted). It is, perhaps, a cultural issue: We either see ourselves as completely free and independent, or completely under the control of outside factors, when the reality is something much more interconnected and, perhaps, even symbiotic.
I'm sort of reminded of Babylon 5 and the Minbari outlook on life: "We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
all this means to me is that we're benighted fools. I think what we experience must be overshadowed by what is.
For me at least, it would only matter if I stopped caring about justice. Imagine an existence where we subject each other to punishment for things we could never have prevented ourselves from doing, meted out by others who are forced to deliver unjust misery to the innocent, and no one can ever escape it or even know it's done?
Injustice unrealized is still unjust.
But even so, I don't think the argument that "we're determined but it looks free so don't stress about it" lands significant blows. I mean, if you're right, even the argument is all you could ever have thought. The realization that you can't stop shrugging off the implications precisely because of the nature of the thing you're ignoring... that's a horrifying concept to me.
A) Compatibilism
Mostly (B)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I mean
Let me put it this way
At the level human cognition functions at, determinism can best be summed up with the classic phrase: "There but for the grace of God go I"
Because holding them responsible is one of the ways to shape behavior.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Because that's the only thing that works.
Determinism interacting with Human Cognition is not some sort of buck-passing thing. We're all self-aware entities! We can process and understand the forces that shape us and in turn adapt!
We are not immune to determinism, but we can utilize it in a conscious manner.
Well, you can't avoid it or decide whether or not you're going to. Whatever you do is the only thing you could have done, and concepts like "shaping behavior" or "the only thing that works" are false constructions.
There is no shaping, there is no thing that works vs thing that doesn't. There is only the determined path, everywhere, forever and always and it doesn't matter what you or anyone think about it because you aren't thinking.
You aren't even you - there's no such thing. "You" is an arbitrary distinction in a vast sea of causality that you can't disconnect from or be responsible for. Also it doesn't matter what I say about it because you still think you're you and none of that can be changed because every 'change' is already predetermined and inevitable.
So many things are basically using your intelligence to trick your brain into working the way you want it to.
What is a will without context? What's anything without context? What would a free will even look like, choice untarnished by experience, reality or emotions? What is a brain without biochemicals? What is reality without physics?
The question boils down to "what if I made my choice because of X instead of making it for no reason.
How? All the things we do in the course of "utilizing" our knowledge are already determined things that we could never have avoided doing anyway.
If determinism is real, every experience of decision or action is like the first astronomers gazing into the stars... our resolution is just trash, so we have no idea that dot is a billion billion suns. We have no idea that our thought is just a billion billion causes, and with a good enough instrument we can walk back to the beginning of time, and predict all eternity forever, because it's all decided already.
See: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
One Section of Brain: THIS THING IS DANGEROUS
Gestalt Self: No it... it really isn't
One Section of Brain: BUT IT IS. ANXIETY. PRODUCE ANXIETY.
Gestalt Self: God-dammit. I will show you this is not dangerous. [Purposefully engages with the non-threat]
One Section of Brain: SOMEHOW SAFE? SAFE? HOW?
The determined path? Is this a religious belief of yours? I'm not a physicist but I'm very certain this isn't a thing in science, and the idea of a completely determined universe with a fixed future is old and debunked.
I would agree that if God is real and He chose all our paths since the beginning of creation and then punishes or rewards us for actions He determined that is indeed a grim reality.
The idea that existence is physical only is hard to square with the very notion of experience at all. There's plenty of philosophy of mind that wrestles with this. If you dismiss experience as a mere epiphenomenon of fully physical brain activity then you're probably already committed against free will. (I don't think compatabilism really supports the kind of "free will" you are fishing for.) Free Will is also a mostly uninteresting concept if you aren't incorporating the experience of yourself and others "willing", so you really need a worldview broader than pure materialistic determinism to accomodate the notion in my view. That doesn't necessarily mean invoking "spirits" or "souls", but it does mean taking experience itself more seriously, as well as how frequently we actually use ideas about experience to explain people's behavior even in deterministic terms.
Or maybe we are! The possible unpleasantness of the concept has no bearing on its truth value.
It's because of the fact that there are many systems of cognition at work that make up the self, all of which are influenced by and process deterministic factors to make subsequent decisions. It's the interaction of these systems that we describe when we talk about "Free will"
Just like the earlier example where one part of the brain is processing a harmless thing as a threat for whatever reason in the past, utilizing the other systems of cognition you can recognize that it actually isn't, despite whatever personal experience determined it to be a threat, and in that recognition can purposefully go against that part of the brain that signals it to be a danger, thus (with repeated effort) eventually reprogram your brain to no longer consider it a threat.
The anxiety response was itself a deterministic system acting itself out. But it's not the only system that's at work. It's because we're not just one system but instead many interconnected systems that, while individually deterministic work together to create something much more nuanced, giving rise to the phenomenon we know as Free Will.
I'm expanding on the idea of determinism as it looks to me. Personally, I don't believe that determinism as it relates to humanity is the only thing going on, and that we are individuals, and that we can make true choices rather than merely being caused to do things by factors we can't clearly identify yet.