Is free will illusory?

[calamity]

I recently had a discussion with a fellow atheist about Sam Harris' book Free Will and I was taken aback by just how hostile my colleague was to the idea that Free Will might be an illusion. I have come to believe that we do live in a deterministic universe and it seems to me the the benefits of thinking this way far out weigh the feelings of desperation my friend so afraid of.

With this in mind I am curious how others feel about this subject.
I welcome people of all creeds to chime in.

If you are an atheist, is this an idea that you have concerned yourself with? Do you find evidence in support of Free Will?

If you are a believer of some shade, do you feel that the loss of free will threatens your belief system or is there some way to reconcile the two? Remember I am asking a hypothetical here, if you suddenly found out beyond any shadow of a doubt that free will is an illusion would you still maintain your faith? On that note is free will something you take on faith?


For anyone, if society as a whole were to adopt this philosophy what benefits do you think we would enjoy? What negative consequences? (ie how would it impact our daily lives? Our system of laws?)

I am not attempting to start a religious debate here, I hope we can talk about free will on its own terms.

I am always interested in trying to fathom what makes us tick. It's not so simple to really understand that, especially as a hobby, obviously. We’re all different and no one really knows what makes one person a brain surgeon and another a serial killer.

Free will is a subject that even has the experts baffled. And, what makes someone go haywire is even less understood. However, they have managed to whittle it down to a few details. The primary mechanisms are genetics, impulse control and upbringing. Have the wrong combination, and one becomes a psychopath. The right combination, and one can be president (there may not even be much difference between the two, it seems).

What triggers bad behavior may be environmental…but, nobody knows for sure. What allows one person to resist temptation to strangle someone who made them mad, while another shoots a random stranger for fun on the spur of the moment, while yet a third plots out a kidnapping, rape and murder of their neighbor is, as yet, still completely unknown.

We know a few things:
Overachievers , the highly successful businessmen, politicians or psychopathic criminals (those who manage to repeatedly break the law without ever being caught) apparently all have exceptional impulse control coupled with a lack of empathy for others or fear of being caught—they don’t care who they hurt, have nerves of steel and an ability to delay gratification. They are also almost always thrill-seekers, people who cannot be happy without taking risk.

Most of us are nowhere near that extreme. Some of us are risk averse, others risk motivated. But, almost all of us are empathetic, few of us would hurt others for no reason. However, everyone has his limits when it comes to impulse control.

One reason alcohol is so dangerous is that it lowers our inhibition, reduces our impulse control while increasing our willingness to take risks…and, given enough of it, makes us less empathetic at that moment. A drunk person just doesn’t give a crap---once they drink they definitely lack free will, and their drive to take that first drink is probably not freely chosen either.

Anyway. The subject to me is fascinating because it really drives home how little we are in control.

 

[Mach]

There is zero evidence that free will is exists. Every test inexorably brings us closer to confirming a deterministic universe. If you have something claiming otherwise I would love to see it, though.

It's self-evident, you accept it even as you claim that some may believe in free will or believe there is no free will. That admits there is choice, the underlying premise that you appear to miss is that we do indeed have the free will to choose (in the general sense) our actions and thoughts, what we think about, whether we play golf or go fishing or eat, or not. You also make a second issue is that you believe determinism is the opposite, or requires that free will be false if the universe is deterministic. It doesn't. Sure we all are operating in a manner that can be described in physics and chemistry, etc. But which matter/energy is determining my actions...matter/energy 1000000 light year away? No. As it turns out, it's primarily the matter/energy in my skull case. If the universe is deterministic, it can also be the case that the concept of free will is with regards to how my brain matter determines it's output, as differentiate by some planet 10000 light years away. Or my brain matter operating deterministically vs my mailbox's matter operating deterministically. If you can admit that different local regions of matter/energy can be less dependent on outside matter/energy, and form complex systems that appear to work in some systematic way (our bodies, brains, nervous system, etc.), then it's trivial to understand that this deterministic meat bag chooses its actions, and still follows the laws of the universe.

 

[ZapFinch42]

It's self-evident, you accept it even as you claim that some may believe in free will or believe there is no free will. That admits there is choice, the underlying premise that you appear to miss is that we do indeed have the free will to choose (in the general sense) our actions and thoughts, what we think about, whether we play golf or go fishing or eat, or not. You also make a second issue is that you believe determinism is the opposite, or requires that free will be false if the universe is deterministic. It doesn't. Sure we all are operating in a manner that can be described in physics and chemistry, etc. But which matter/energy is determining my actions...matter/energy 1000000 light year away? No. As it turns out, it's primarily the matter/energy in my skull case. If the universe is deterministic, it can also be the case that the concept of free will is with regards to how my brain matter determines it's output, as differentiate by some planet 10000 light years away. Or my brain matter operating deterministically vs my mailbox's matter operating deterministically. If you can admit that different local regions of matter/energy can be less dependent on outside matter/energy, and form complex systems that appear to work in some systematic way (our bodies, brains, nervous system, etc.), then it's trivial to understand that this deterministic meat bag chooses its actions, and still follows the laws of the universe.

I have read this eight times now and still have no clue what you are trying to say. Might you rephrase it so I can formulate a response?

I am NOT admitting a choice anywhere in my statements. Your "choices" are forced on you as a result of the sum total circumstances and events of your existence.

 

[ZapFinch42]

Like which tests are you referring to?

are you asking which data hints at a deterministic universe or which test I would want you to show me?

 

[Mach]

Might you rephrase it so I can formulate a response?.

Only if you admit that I have the choice to rephrase it, or not. I mean, why would you ask, if I didn't have a choice? ...

To outright deny free-will is that absurd.

 

[BmanMcfly]

are you asking which data hints at a deterministic universe or which test I would want you to show me?

You said the tests are showing results against free will, I just wanted to make sure that we are talking about the same tests before I comment, or perhaps these are some tests with which I'm unfamiliar.

As for the universe, is deterministic within a range of possibilities... That's what the modern science shows, but I'm still interested in those tests, because if it's the experiments I expect, then there have been expansions on those tests.

 

[ZapFinch42]

Only if you admit that I have the choice to rephrase it, or not. I mean, why would you ask, if I didn't have a choice? ...

To outright deny free-will is that absurd.

I outright deny free will.
I find it absurd to interpret the universe any other way.

 

[RGacky3]

You said the tests are showing results against free will, I just wanted to make sure that we are talking about the same tests before I comment, or perhaps these are some tests with which I'm unfamiliar.

As for the universe, is deterministic within a range of possibilities... That's what the modern science shows, but I'm still interested in those tests, because if it's the experiments I expect, then there have been expansions on those tests.

How is it within a range of posibilites? If it's deterministic then there is only ONE possible outcome for every physical event gievn a certain set of circumstances.

 

[BmanMcfly]

How is it within a range of posibilites? If it's deterministic then there is only ONE possible outcome for every physical event gievn a certain set of circumstances.

It's mostly deterministic; as in there are rules that are followed; gravity, etc... But since at the core building blocks of the universe are potentials, when it comes to the actuality there is an element of randomness.

I would posit, and there is experimental evidence to that effect, that free will is that small choice in how you will respond and take meaning from the "deterministic" aspects of life. Which could ultimately change the direction of your otherwise predetermined life.

 

[RGacky3]

It's mostly deterministic; as in there are rules that are followed; gravity, etc... But since at the core building blocks of the universe are potentials, when it comes to the actuality there is an element of randomness.

It's not mostly deterministic it IS deterministic, if you drop a rock it will ALWAYS fall, and given teh same conditions it will ALWAYS fall at the same rate ... no if ands or buts.

At a micro-level it's indeterministic but it still follows the laws of nature 100% if not oen couldn't make exteremly accurate predictions in the quantum field ... which they can.

I would posit, and there is experimental evidence to that effect, that free will is that small choice in how you will respond and take meaning from the "deterministic" aspects of life. Which could ultimately change the direction of your otherwise predetermined life.

What is "you?" Is it your brain? If so isn't your brain just made up of matter? If so how is that matter significantly different than all other matter in that it follows 100% the laws of nature?

 

[BmanMcfly]

It's not mostly deterministic it IS deterministic, if you drop a rock it will ALWAYS fall, and given teh same conditions it will ALWAYS fall at the same rate ... no if ands or buts.

Yes, mostly deterministic, but it's final resting place is less predictable, it might land and stop, it might bounce one way or a different way...

At a micro-level it's indeterministic but it still follows the laws of nature 100% if not oen couldn't make exteremly accurate predictions in the quantum field ... which they can.

Yes, they can predict the probability of where it's likely to wind up, but where it will actually wind up is still partly an element of chance.

What is "you?" Is it your brain? If so isn't your brain just made up of matter? If so how is that matter significantly different than all other matter in that it follows 100% the laws of nature?

That's a good question, one that would require a definition for what consciousness is really. the common belief being that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of neural activity...

However, when we look at the near-death experience and out of body experiences reported, we get into the idea of non-locality of mind. You could argue that this is just brain induced, however, some of these cases involve people with no measurable brain activity, and when you add that often when the people are brought back there have been numerous cases where the people will describe what was going on, even though they could not have seen it from their bodies perspective.

So, while this is one of the great unanswered questions, it would seem that consciousness is not "part" of the brain, but rather the brain seemingly acts as an interface between the mind and the body.

 

[RGacky3]

Yes, mostly deterministic, but it's final resting place is less predictable, it might land and stop, it might bounce one way or a different way...

No .... How it bounces, if it stops and what direction it bounces are ALL deterministic, they are all determined by the material, the materials reaction to the floor, the wind, the air pressure, and so on, it's all deterministic.

Yes, they can predict the probability of where it's likely to wind up, but where it will actually wind up is still partly an element of chance.

No it isn't, it's still determined by the laws of nature, we just don't have the tools to determine it. Nowerdays we can predict hurricanes and the such, before we couldn't they didn't come at random, they were still determined by the laws of nature, we just didn't have the tools to predict them.

That's a good question, one that would require a definition for what consciousness is really. the common belief being that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of neural activity...

However, when we look at the near-death experience and out of body experiences reported, we get into the idea of non-locality of mind. You could argue that this is just brain induced, however, some of these cases involve people with no measurable brain activity, and when you add that often when the people are brought back there have been numerous cases where the people will describe what was going on, even though they could not have seen it from their bodies perspective.

So, while this is one of the great unanswered questions, it would seem that consciousness is not "part" of the brain, but rather the brain seemingly acts as an interface between the mind and the body.

Just because you can't measure it doesn't mean it's there, also it could be false memories created, Near death experiences are not fully evidence (not yet) of duelism, perhaps in the future they can show it more clearly.

 

[Mach]

I outright deny free will.
I find it absurd to interpret the universe any other way.

Please differentiate the following:
1. A person with brain damage that can't reason, but does respond to stimuli like food, will walk if guided, etc.
vs
Someone who appears to choose where to walk to, what food to eat, etc

Now, if you believe there is NO logical difference between the two, I call that absurd. If you believe there is a difference, but that neither is free will, then that's semantics. Whatever you label the latter example, that's what we're calling free will. That you believe determinism necessitates this obvious fact of reality false, is inappropriate, unless you can demonstrate for us how that claim is true. My choices are certainly determined by a broad range of my genetic characteristics, my current environment, my stored thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc. Choices I make are determined by the matter/energy that is me (largely, not entirely as we're all part of the same overall universe). That is, do you think I have more to do with my choices or a star 1000 light years away? Free will means a consciousness largely decides on choices of thought and action, in a healthy individual. It doesn't mean "non-deterministic".

 

[Indeed]

I recently had a discussion with a fellow atheist about Sam Harris' book Free Will and I was taken aback by just how hostile my colleague was to the idea that Free Will might be an illusion. I have come to believe that we do live in a deterministic universe and it seems to me the the benefits of thinking this way far out weigh the feelings of desperation my friend so afraid of.

With this in mind I am curious how others feel about this subject.
I welcome people of all creeds to chime in.

If you are an atheist, is this an idea that you have concerned yourself with? Do you find evidence in support of Free Will?

If you are a believer of some shade, do you feel that the loss of free will threatens your belief system or is there some way to reconcile the two? Remember I am asking a hypothetical here, if you suddenly found out beyond any shadow of a doubt that free will is an illusion would you still maintain your faith? On that note is free will something you take on faith?


For anyone, if society as a whole were to adopt this philosophy what benefits do you think we would enjoy? What negative consequences? (ie how would it impact our daily lives? Our system of laws?)

I am not attempting to start a religious debate here, I hope we can talk about free will on its own terms.

In my mind, free will is not an illusion because not everyone reacts to situations solely based on logic and reasoning. And even if they did, many people reach different conclusions using different logic. True, that many of our decisions logical or not come from how we developed and our experience and from DNA. In either case, I'll live just the same.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Gravity has nothing to do with this topic. You have no argument.

Not much difference between gravity and chemical reactions as far as their cause - both occur out of natural laws, not decisions made by humans. Until such time as you can prove otherwise, YOU have no argument.

 

[MoSurveyor]

It would be except that people are more than just the physical makeup of the body.

When you can p[rove that get back to me - I won't hold my breath.

 

[MoSurveyor]

There's a clear difference between living and dead, but because materialistically they are the same, they are treated as the same.

You have no proof of that. :lamo

The more scientists "drill down" to find the line between animate and inanimate, the more blurred the line becomes.

 

[MoSurveyor]

It's self-evident, you accept it even as you claim that some may believe in free will or believe there is no free will. That admits there is choice, the underlying premise that you appear to miss is that we do indeed have the free will to choose (in the general sense) our actions and thoughts, what we think about, whether we play golf or go fishing or eat, or not. You also make a second issue is that you believe determinism is the opposite, or requires that free will be false if the universe is deterministic. It doesn't. Sure we all are operating in a manner that can be described in physics and chemistry, etc. But which matter/energy is determining my actions...matter/energy 1000000 light year away? No. As it turns out, it's primarily the matter/energy in my skull case. If the universe is deterministic, it can also be the case that the concept of free will is with regards to how my brain matter determines it's output, as differentiate by some planet 10000 light years away. Or my brain matter operating deterministically vs my mailbox's matter operating deterministically.

Rubbish. Consciousnesses is a "trailing moment" - existing after the fact, not in "real time". It's nothing more than an illusory by-product of our organic event recorder, which is a biochemical survival mechanism. People remember facts put together in a story line better than they remember individual, unrelated facts.

If you can admit that different local regions of matter/energy can be less dependent on outside matter/energy, and form complex systems that appear to work in some systematic way (our bodies, brains, nervous system, etc.), then it's trivial to understand that this deterministic meat bag chooses its actions, and still follows the laws of the universe.

The ball doesn't "choose" to drop once it leaves the table top, copper doesn't "choose" to oxidize under normal atmospheric conditions, and we don't "choose" our actions.

 

[BmanMcfly]

No .... How it bounces, if it stops and what direction it bounces are ALL deterministic, they are all determined by the material, the materials reaction to the floor, the wind, the air pressure, and so on, it's all deterministic.

Yes, but there's a difference between an inanimate object and a living being.

No it isn't, it's still determined by the laws of nature, we just don't have the tools to determine it. Nowerdays we can predict hurricanes and the such, before we couldn't they didn't come at random, they were still determined by the laws of nature, we just didn't have the tools to predict them.

you can't neglect the uncertainty principal.

Just because you can't measure it doesn't mean it's there, also it could be false memories created, Near death experiences are not fully evidence (not yet) of duelism, perhaps in the future they can show it more clearly.

It's not a dualism, while that seems to be the argument, a dualistic universe would require some sort of measurable transfer of energy, or the relationship would defy known laws of physics.

You are right though, that the NDE, on its own is not proof that there is life after death. However, people have had no discernable brain activity coming back to life and recounting information that would require a separation of the body from the source of perception. It's mostly just anecdotal evidence, but there are a number of articles published in reputable journals.

 

[BmanMcfly]

No it isn't because that "decision" is a result of mechanical and natural activities in the brain all casued by the laws of nature and causality.

Again, there is the wave - particle duality of matter that's also a part of the equation, that duality where the matter exists in the form of a waveform until it is observed. In that manner a decision is the observation that forces the wave of potentialities coalesce into a solid decision.

Yeah that study doesn't really convince me 100% against free will, my oposition fo free will is philosophical. But that doesn't show anything FOR free will. his change of mind was still done through mental activity which are 100% caused by physical phenomenon, otherwise new energy is being inserted into the universe EVERY time a decision is made. but that isn't the case, the last second command to change ones mind, caused imput into the brian changing the physical brain state which caused a different decision.

You missed the point, the brain activity showed one outcome when the ultimate decision was the opposite outcome.

The first study I need to look at because I'm extremely skeptical about that.
Also what does quantum SQUID have to do with anything?
THe random number generators is more than free will thing, what your proposing is a kind of telekenysis or something, I need to see the studies.

That device proves that quantum effects occur within macro objects, which means that the entire universe follows these quantum rules.

But that isn't (even if it were true) agency ... it's still materialism.

No, but it does speak to the non-locality of consciousness.

But if our brains work that way why doesn't the rest of matter? Or brain is just carbon and electrical waves and so on.

That goes back to the difference between living and "dead" matter.

No that's nonsense, virtually the same upbringing is not the same upbringning, and they don't have EXACTLY the same genetics, and at everypoint in their lives they are getting different sense data.

It's the closest you're going to get.

 

[BmanMcfly]

When you can p[rove that get back to me - I won't hold my breath.

Tell me what it would take to prove that for you?

 

[Jayhawker30]

If our minds don't work deterministically, then are they a function of chaos?

 

[RGacky3]

Yes, but there's a difference between an inanimate object and a living being.

On an Atomic Level .... No there isn't. Just like there is no Atomic difference between iron atoms in a computer and iron atoms in a sword.

you can't neglect the uncertainty principal.

No, but the uncertainty principles applies equally to animate and inanimate Objects.

It's not a dualism, while that seems to be the argument, a dualistic universe would require some sort of measurable transfer of energy, or the relationship would defy known laws of physics.

You are right though, that the NDE, on its own is not proof that there is life after death. However, people have had no discernable brain activity coming back to life and recounting information that would require a separation of the body from the source of perception. It's mostly just anecdotal evidence, but there are a number of articles published in reputable journals.

Fair enough, but that would require dualism.

Again, there is the wave - particle duality of matter that's also a part of the equation, that duality where the matter exists in the form of a waveform until it is observed. In that manner a decision is the observation that forces the wave of potentialities coalesce into a solid decision.

That is an interpretation of the data, not a part of the data, also it's not animate observation only, it can also be just any neutonian measuring Device.

You missed the point, the brain activity showed one outcome when the ultimate decision was the opposite outcome.

The brain Activity showed one outcome UP TO A POINT, after which the brain made another outcome .... that doesn't show any more that humans have free will than does rapidly changing weather patterns show free will of weather ....

That device proves that quantum effects occur within macro objects, which means that the entire universe follows these quantum rules.

Ic .... but that's telekenysis .... right? Also those studies are by no means conclusive.

That goes back to the difference between living and "dead" matter.

Well ... what is the difference? On a metaphysical or actual physical Level ??? Other than the difference between iron in a knife and iron in a computer?

 

[BmanMcfly]

On an Atomic Level .... No there isn't. Just like there is no Atomic difference between iron atoms in a computer and iron atoms in a sword.

You're right, there is no discernable difference between a living and dead atom.

There's a difference at some level, even if the only difference is that an atom of iron will slowly decay due to entropy, yet the atoms of a living cell organize and become more complex... or extropy.

No, but the uncertainty principles applies equally to animate and inanimate Objects.

Yes, an example is the thought process. You can focus on a single idea, and the more you focus on the "position" of the thought process the less you can focus on the direction of the train of thought. Or vice versa.
Try it...

Fair enough, but that would require dualism.

If the two (body and, for lack of a better term, soul) are two separate entities, then yes, but that's not a supportable position.

I would argue instead that they are part of the same thing, a monism, where it is life itself that creates this material existence... not HUMAN life, but equally from the human, the animal, the plant, even down to the most basic of single celled organisms, this idealist interpretation is supportable.

That is an interpretation of the data, not a part of the data, also it's not animate observation only, it can also be just any neutonian measuring Device.

But is it the device creating the collapse, or is it the observation of the collected results?

The delayed choice experiment suggests that it is the latter.

The brain Activity showed one outcome UP TO A POINT, after which the brain made another outcome .... that doesn't show any more that humans have free will than does rapidly changing weather patterns show free will of weather ....

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, since frankly, looking for other examples, there seems to be numerous studies that point either way.

Ic .... but that's telekenysis .... right? Also those studies are by no means conclusive.

Whatever you want to call it, it's a weak, but real and statistically significant effect.

Einstein saw the same effect at the atomic level, and he called it "spooky action at a distance". He wanted to abandon quantum physics for a time because he did not want to believe that these effects were actually occurring.

The effects are for all intents proven, and that does not discount the fakery and hoaxes making obnoxious claims, behind it there is a reality, that a portion of the world's leading quantum physicists will agree. Though they will insist on a different interpretation.

Well ... what is the difference? On a metaphysical or actual physical Level ??? Other than the difference between iron in a knife and iron in a computer?

Let's go from the start, for a universe of quantum mechanics, if there is no observer, there is no material universe. So, I would say that consciousness / awareness (whatever mechanism is at play to generate quantum collapse), is the difference.

Also, when you consider that energy is not created or destroyed, just converted, the energy must recycle.
Finally, everything in the universe decays and goes towards energy levels. Life on the other hand on an evolutionary scale tends towards complexity, and so you could call life a force of extropy in the universe.

 

[gunner]

If our minds don't work deterministically, then are they a function of chaos?

Determinism (hard determinism) is not the suggestion that our mind, determines our action. Rather, it is the suggestion all actions (that includes nature/natural) are deterministic then we have little influence

Paul