Dispensing with the illusion of Free Will

[Jumbo]

I had this typed out but forgot to include it:

Some lightweight (if ya don't want to wade into real deep stuff at times) but still well-done (well sourced) articles on these and related matters (I try to keep aware and track such material) have been in:

Time--"What Makes Us Good/Evil" (Dec. 2007)

US News (Special Edition)---"Secrets of Your Brain" (2011)

Scientific American---"The Neuroscience of Identity" (March 2012)

Psychology Today---"The Atheist in the Next Pew" (June 2012---more lightweight, and also a fun piece on handling difficult personality types).

[PeterMP]

I had this typed out but forgot to include it:

Some lightweight (if ya don't want to wade into real deep stuff at times) but still well-done (well sourced) articles on these and related matters (I try to keep aware and track such material) have been in:

Time--"What Makes Us Good/Evil" (Dec. 2007)

US News (Special Edition)---"Secrets of Your Brain" (2011)

Scientific American---"The Neuroscience of Identity" (March 2012)

Psychology Today---"The Atheist in the Next Pew" (June 2012---more lightweight, and also a fun piece on handling difficult personality types).

Do you know of anybody that looks at it from purely the biological/scientific perspective today that is concluding that we do have free will in the traditional sense of free will?

[twa]

Can someone that does not accept free will even entertain it's existence fairly?

[Jumbo]

Do you of anybody that looks at from purely the biological/scientific perspective today that is concluding that we do have free will in the traditional sense of free will?

I think some typos and phrasing may have occluded my getting your question right, but we'll see.

And as I proceed, allow me to remind everyone that in my personal philosophy/life and profession, I am a strong proponent of individual (and "group" for that matter) accountability and taking responsibility as a basic position in rather sweeping manner. This may seem conflicted given what follows, but it's not to me. And I find many things have elements appearing conflicted when noted properly.

For me, Peter and many others in my field, and others that both you and I travel in with varying depth, making choices (as I tend to frame the matter of my interest) has a great deal to do with influencing structures that make the "freedom" to do so in some ideal sense, a matter that can vary greatly in inherent individual ability. One obvious and "extreme" example with a more physically apparent base would be mental retardation or TBI. Others, while still of biological components (of course) of varying origins and shaping---including genetic, environmental, experiential re: brain chemistry changes and development---can be much more subtle.

And it varies in circumstantial context---I.E.--I may be able to much more easily choose a type of ice cream against pattern(which still may take real effort, comparatively, for some) than whether to vote for a liberal over a conservative, neither of whom I like one bit. The "programming" requiring over-riding is much stronger in one than the other. To wax more philosophically, if a bit tangentially, for a moment: Does a devout believer in Christ really have "free will" to suddenly decide to "stop believing" to see how it feels for awhile? If someone held a gun to a fervent atheist's head and said "believe that Christ is your savior and I'll let you live" would she be able to just make a choice to do so and it be "sincere?" Can a lifelong homosexual decide to “be” heterosexual (beyond the choice of partner) or vice-versa? Maybe "yes" in some cases of each, but I would expect "no", mostly.

In the abstract, I could say "free will" still exists even in these examples, as a potential or simply an ideal concept. But aside from playing semantics in argument, how pragmatically free is someone whose "programming" is that deep? Another relevant point in all this is the matter that much "programming" itself is not of some conscious, wide-open, and "free" choice. People will thus make a choice in those cases I described that is much more likely congruent to "core-deep" patterns of whatever thoughts and beliefs that are such fundamental parts of their existing identity. And identity, as with all these matters, can be regarded as (but not exclusively as) a totally secular phenomena.

Take the more physical-based act of slam-dunking a basketball--it's an undisputed human capability, but the possibility of it, and the ease/likelihood of it, is not an equal playing field for everyone. Even in that matter, saying "we are all free to dunk basketballs by nature" misses the big picture. It's my experience that many people make many assumptions about some more "unseen" cognitive ability levels and behaviors that lead to failed expectation or standards (with judgement following) than compared to physical ones because they are "unseen" (or too subtle most of the time to most people). They wouldn't expect the 5 foot tall 260 pound dude to dunk that ball. But they'll decide we all have "freedom of choice" as though it's a universal capability of equal content in every aspect for all, other than those with obviously observable limitations. They don't extrapolate from those easily observable exceptions that the next logical and (should be) obvious) step that if there's some limitations they can see, there are likely many they can't.

Stating we all have "free will" with any unspoken idea that we are all equally free to make any choice available in any situation (with making a choice being the only way to exercise free will in true fashion) ignores very pertinent factors like what forces might be/are involved, our level of awareness of them (very relevant), the context (circumstance) and our inherent individual ability to "over-ride" any of that to what degree. So no mater how I frame it, "free will" does not exist in some absolute and unvarying state in human reality.

Kinda complicated. :pfft: Maybe it's just me.

Can someone that does not accept free will even entertain it's existence fairly?

I often think few people entertain much of anything fairly if they don’t immediately like the cut of its jib. :evilg:

It depends on the person in my book. It requires serious mental competence and commitment (willingness) to suspend an equally strong commitment to a vital belief enough to really internalize seriously conflicting concepts with effective levels of objective and fair evaluation, assuming other required mental capabilities for "best" results exist.

As stated above, my position currently is that there will be a sliding scale of success in such efforts, and on anything of similar nature. I never see it as done at "100% success" vs. someone (theoretically) of equal competency in all other relevant areas of addressing the matter, yet without that particular encumbrance. Simply, having to step outside a long-held bias or thinking pattern is always work, and the bigger/deeper the bias and importance of the issue, and the less (and specific) self-awareness of these influences at play, the harder the task (often the work is not even seriously attempted even in important matters IME).

Back to waxing philosophically (but not blaming these thoughts on anyone in history or in current times ), I take absolutes as philosophical constructs that give humans boundaries of ideals or possibilities for what is our existing at points within a sliding scale (or along a continuum if you prefer) in reality as we as a specie perceive it to date.

Most of us, regardless of metaphysical orientation, and who aren't of some serious mental deficiency, would say murdering an innocent child (and I don't mean a fetus here) is an absolute wrong ethically/morally. But there are times we (enough of us to matter as a society) allow it and okay it (and I do mean "murder"), both from secular and religious viewpoints. We justify it.

I think the constructs of determinism and free will are best used to represent at least two forms of philosophical extremes on a scale that in reality has many points that lie between them where most (if not all) humans exist. They're concepts not existent in absolute manifestation. Some degree of determinism exists and some degree of free will exists.

With human behavior, I'd contend that people are far more subject to their "programming" (as Madison Ave, militaries, political parties, religions, and many other institutions tend to demonstrate or outright utilize) to react to that than they are to choose to respond to challenging input with detached and measured consideration. Are they "free" to do so? At this point, I'd say "most are to varying degree, but not everyone" and for almost anyone not "all the time or about all matters."

While we have to continue to hold people accountable for behaviors as socially dictated (and both secularism and religion are part of society), I think that based on our collective past we will inevitably continue to evolve our constructs of these matters as our understandings and our language to describe them advance. If those of a religion believe they already have a complete and true answer as their faith so informs them, I understand and respect their position (if presented in a non-******* fashion) even if I don't agree with it. If someone representing the secular or scientific community claimed to have a complete and true answer at this point, I would be extremely skeptical at best and not be as prone to give the same type of respect (though I'd still be polite if it was presented in non-******* fashion) accorded to the believer, as to me it's a different type of demand that's needed to be met.

[Thiebear]

Free Will from what exactly again:

God - It's explicitly given, so if the writings are correct we have, and if incorrect it was nobody eles'e to give 'back' anyway.

The Universe's gravitational pull - you are correct

Something you've watched on the science channel between wormholes and population zero. - choices matter.

[techboy]

I think the contradiction you are seeing comes from you seeing concepts in question as objective, absolute things.

No, I think the contradiction I am seeing comes from Sam Harris seeing the "concepts in question" as objective. In his own words:

I was not suggesting that science can give us an evolutionary or neurobiological account of what people do in the name of “morality.” Nor was I merely saying that science can help us get what we want out of life. Both of these would have been quite banal claims to make (unless one happens to doubt the truth of evolution or the mind’s dependency on the brain). Rather I was suggesting that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want—and, perforce, what other people should do and want in order to live the best lives possible. My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind.

Emphasis mine. Notice, please, that he compares questions of right and wrong to Physics, i.e. math, which is as objective and absolute as we can possibly get.

Notice further that he claims that science can tell us what we "should" do.

Harris is claiming that there are objective morals and duties, and that science can get us there which is an unsupportable claim for many reasons, as I discuss briefly here (post 255), but I digress...

Anyway, as I already mentioned, "ought" implies "can".

If a doctor comes upon a terrible car accident, and though able (and trained) to take actions that will save the life of a victim of that accident, instead chooses to continue on his way so that he can make his tee time, we can say that this is wrong. He ought to have saved that person's life.

If I come upon the same accident, and don't save the person's life because I do not have the medical training to do so, it seems very difficult to argue that I have done wrong. "Ought" implies "can".

And yet, on Harris' view, free will is an illusion, and I agree that on naturalism, which is Harris' approach, this conclusion is inescapable. This, however, eliminates the "can". Again in his own words:

Whether criminals like Hayes and Komisarjevsky can be trusted to honestly report their feelings and intentions is not the point: whatever their conscious motives, these men cannot know why they are as they are. Nor can we account for why we are not like them. As sickening as I find their behavior, I have to admit that if I were to trade places with one of these men, atom for atom, I would be him: There is no extra part of me that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimize other people. Even if you believe that every human being harbors an immortal soul, the problem of responsibility remains: I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath. If I had truly been in Komisarjevsky’s shoes on July 23, 2007—that is, if I had his genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state—I would have acted exactly as he did. There is simply no intellectually respectable position from which to deny this. The role of luck, therefore, appears decisive.

On Harris' view, immoral behavior is the inevitable result of a particular arrangement of atoms in the brain, a purely naturalistic and inescapable result, just like a tornado is the inevitable result of a particular arrangement of atoms. Would you condemn the tornado that kills 5 people in a town in Texas as a murderer?

He actually cites this as an advantage to rejecting the "illusion" of free will, that we can have compassion for criminals, that we should have compassion for criminals, just as he thinks that we should destroy the Taliban and we should profile Muslims at the airport.

The moral certainty (again I am reminded of the incredible similarity between fundies of the atheist and religious variety, which is all the more amusing because they can't recognize it and it makes them mad to suggest it ) of objective moral values and duties (as objective as 2+2=4!) provides him the stable platform he requires to denounce moral relativism and religion and female circumcision and Islam, and promote his particular worldview, and profiling, and a war on Islam, but his rejection of free will completely undercuts all of that, and he doesn't seem to notice.

Kind of how certain posters reject the "illusion" of free will and oppose moral relativism.

[Henry]

People may inherently believe as they wish. A scientifically correct understanding will win out sooner or later.

I have no dog in the science vs. religion fight. If anything I side with science far more often in such matters.

However, after watching a half an hour of that video I did not see someone coming to the scientifically correct understanding of anything. What I saw was someone's weak attempt to use science and a basis for supporting philosophy. Understanding how the brain works does not give him special insight as to why it works, no matter how many times he claims it does.

And he says 'this is the undisputed truth' far too often to be taken seriously. Any philosopher who says that as often as he did should be greeted with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[PeterMP]

Take the more physical-based act of slam-dunking a basketball--it's an undisputed human capability, but the possibility of it, and the ease/likelihood of it, is not an equal playing field for everyone. Even in that matter, saying "we are all free to dunk basketballs by nature" misses the big picture.

Okay, but some of us clearly CAN dunk a basketball. I'd be curious to see a link from somebody taking the biological/scientific stand point that free will, in a traditional sense, is even possible.

There are people out there not as loud as Harris and that are respected in the scientific community that are saying essentially the same thing.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=free-will-and-the-brain-michael-gazzaniga-interview&page=2

Cook: You talk about “abandoning” the idea of free will. Can you explain what you mean by this, and how you came to this conclusion?

Gazzaniga: As I see it, this is the way to think about it: If you were a Martian landing on Earth today and were gathering information how humans work, the idea of free will as commonly understood in folk psychology would not come up. The Martian would learn humans had learned about physics and chemistry and causation in the standard sense. They would be astonished to see the amount of information that has accumulated about how cells work, how brains work and would conclude, “OK, they are getting it. Just like cells are complex wonderful machines, so are brains. They work in cool ways even though there is this strong tug on them to think there is some little guy in their head calling the shots. There is not.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full

"Whereas philosophers have discussed for centuries the apparent lack of a causal component for free will, many biologists still seem to be remarkably at ease with this notion of free will; and furthermore, our judicial system is based on such a belief. It is the author’s contention that a belief in free will is nothing other than a continuing belief in vitalism—something biologists proudly believe they discarded well over 100 years ago"

I don't hear anybody from the scientific side saying, 'Hey, you guys are jumping the gun. We don't know all of the answers yet.'

I see people that pretty blandly state that the system is complex, shows emergent properties, and possibly has quantam mechanical component, but that doesn't get you to what we normally consider free will.

Quantum mechanical models, while not purely deterministic in nature, are stochastic probabilistic models and that certainly does not fit the traditional sense of free will.

Do you know of anybody out there on the scientific side that is pushing back against the likes of Harris and even Gazzaniga w/ respect to free will?

**EDIT**

Doing a little digging this person makes a good argument:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/E149.full

"A scientific model for free will is impossible

Konrad Hinsen1

- Author Affiliations

Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, 45071 Orléans, France; and Synchrotron SOLEIL, Saint Aubin, 91192 Gif-sur-Yvette, France

In his reply (1) to the letter by Anckarsäter (2) commenting on his original article (3), Anthony Cashmore expresses the view that a belief in free will would require at least a molecular model as a justification. However, such a model cannot exist, as I will explain in the following.

The behavior of an agent possessing free will is by definition unpredictable. In contrast to stochastic phenomena, it is not even possible to predict all observable statistical properties of the behavior of such an agent. A molecular model for free will, or in fact any scientific model for free will, would thus have to contain some property labeled as unpredictable.

However, the scientific method that we apply today, which is based on the formulation of hypotheses that are then tested by observation and experiment, cannot accommodate unpredictability. The statement that “property X is unpredictable” cannot be tested by observation and is thus not a scientific hypothesis. Moreover, even if property X itself is observable, its supposed unpredictability makes it impossible to formulate scientific hypotheses about it. As a consequence, free will cannot be integrated into any scientific model.

The only way in which the scientific method could resolve the question of the existence of free will is by showing its nonexistence. This would require a scientific model that permits a complete prediction of human behavior, or at least of all its observable statistical properties. However, as Anckarsäter pointed out (2), we are very far from having such a model.

Cashmore goes on to claim that in the absence of a good reason to believe in free will, we should believe in its nonexistence. A pragmatically minded person would counter that, in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, we should trust our perception, which tells us that we do have free will. However, neither point of view can claim science as its justification. For a believer in the scientific method, the only coherent point of view is agnosticism about the existence of free will. "

[PeterMP]

People may inherently believe as they wish. A scientifically correct understanding will win out sooner or later?

Ahh one step forward and two steps back.

Unless we have seriously majorly under estimated the system and our understanding of it, neuroscience WILL BE silent on the exsistance of a soul and free will.

Just as science IS silent on the idea of directed evolution.

[Jumbo]

Do you know of anybody out there on the scientific side that is pushing back against the likes of Harris and even Gazzaniga w/ respect to free will?

Out of courtesy, the short answer is "not really" in pushback via science-based refutations or aggressive challenges---but I'd tend to put that on my lack of being up to date in depth on this specific "free will" angle. If you have the stomach for more Jumbo stream-of-consciousnesses meandering, sign your waivers and proceed. :pfft: The coffee is soooo good and it's going to be a very packed day so I need to stretch here a bit---I already did my physical warm up (the weather's been gorgeous out here--the surf was awesome this morning). :cool:

As I indicated, Harris is not that well regarded by most folks in my preferred circles, but much (certainly not all) of that may be presentation. Pushing back on Gazzaniga, though, is no country for old men. :pfft: I am very impressed. But I really haven't been focused on the "v Free Will" ride in any depth (by my standard) lately, either re: his writings or anyone else's specifically targeting that topic. I haven't read his book from last year on free will, for instance. I have read other books of his on cognitive neuroscience his work with the CIT dude (Perry?) on cerebral communication properties and functional lateralization studies and other writings. BTW, I also recommend Louis Cozolino's books on neuroscience and psychology for anyone (psych prof at Pepperdine w/degrees in clinical psych, philosophy, and theology---from Harvard/UCLA and NY SU I think).

What I was writing was just (obviously) broad and rambling overviews I personally (and others obviously) developed as a result from we do find in more depth as our information on cognition and behaviors and related biology and development increases.

But I get you better on this now, and off the top of my head (which is where 95% of what I post comes from and epxlains a lot :pfft:), the "push back" on those ideas we're discussing are (that I think of right now) are from the professionals in these fields who are Christians and come at it from either classic philosophical arguments or more "matter of faith" arguments. I will try to find some specific, more sciency pushbacks in the next few days if able.

Per the hoop, my analogies are often lacking, and I not only know this but have been told often enough, and yet I still love analogies so much I use them. And I can't dunk. And it's not because of my race! :mad:

I was going to respond to your thoughts on what those fields aren't saying about free will/God/etc. but went back to re-read and see your edit where it seems you removed those comments (and I'm running out of time again) and much new material. While I have no "feeling of need" to completely discard or "100% invalidate" free will in the classic Christian usage or traditional philosophical forms, I do see what you're saying as some are seeming to find it "time" to do so.

It's too "deep" a construct in important ways to us (belief in Christianity or not) for me to be in any hurry to make some definitive rejection of it, nor is it my sense yet we have done the work needed to make that a powerfully provable claim. Obviously, there are guys working at this who are well beyond me in the matter, and what they say should carry appropriate weight---enough to consider such carefully at least. I guess I better read up more when I find time (that list is long and prioritization is a *****).

Without being able to quote people directly, my simple personal take among the circles I travel in, I seem to "hear" that it's a still a matter in which challenges and defenses of valid nature are well in play, though it's often a more science-y approach v a more philosophical/theological approach as I believe you are noting and wondering about. Rejecting free will as we are discussing it is not any kind of goal for any non-Christian professional I know---they just want to find out how our heads work and deal with whatever their research indicates. I routinely assume there are a few (out of the many) who do their work under questionable agendas of course, I just rarely see or hear of any actually happening.

Ooops these were the comments I thought you'd edited but they were in your other post:

Unless we have seriously majorly under estimated the system and our understanding of it, neuroscience WILL BE silent on the exsistance of a soul and free will.

Just as science IS silent on the idea of directed evolution.

May try to reply more later, amigo. Or may get back out of the tailgate for awhile and catch up on my reading in any of a dozen matters, fun and work. But it seems to me that science as an institution would stay out of that as you suggest, though scientists may opine on it as individual humans with positions on it and use their professional understandings to support their contentions, just as most folk do when they can.

For some reason, I am reminded of my thoughts of someone sufficiently skilled in classical logical argument or debate can sure make the unskilled person look foolish (or "wrong') in many situations without regard as to which side of a standard position they take. I lack such a skill level, but do admire such proficiency.

Final add-on and back to work---

Cashmore <edit> However, neither point of view can claim science as its justification. For a believer in the scientific method, the only coherent point of view is agnosticism about the existence of free will. "

Keeping in mind my views in what I previously wrote, the underlined part of that quote, is more where I am at as a "bottom line", and at this time.

[Prosperity]

I didn't watch the video, and won't because there is really nothing new that can be added to this topic. Unless the video demonstrates mind control technology, and even that would not show that free will does not exist, but that it can be subverted. Now, I guess Alexey claims that there is no evidence of free will, but that takes a VERY narrow view of evidence. Every choice you make is evidence of your own free will. And yes, I know that sounds circular, but some propositions can't be proven from external empricism. Take "I think therefore I am" how could you prove you exist with some external experiments? First you would have to prove that there is a You to show there is even a world outside yourself. Does that mean each individual has no evidence of his own existence? No. We can use our own intuition as evidence for ourselves.

Aside from that, prediction does not mean determination. If I predict you to do something that doesn't mean you didn't choose to do it. There are a number of thought experiments that show that proposition is true. What this means is that empericism, can't be used to support or negate the idea of free will. Free will is simply on of the axioms that we believe through intuition. No, it can't be disprove as a hypothesis but so what? Science is not the only way to know things, or to have justification for believing things. I love science, and I value empirical evidence for what it is, but just because it can answer a lot of questions and is a good tool does not mean that it is THE single tool that we use to answer every question.

I think this comes down to a epidemiological fetish people have. That is, the insistence that every proposition be supported through empirical study, and to believe in the fewest number of beliefs that can't be proven as possible. (some beliefs like Cause and Effect and the Principle of Non-Contradiction, can't be proven through science or a-priori reasoning). But what makes that sort of epistemology better than one that incorporates some intuition? Are we supposed to toss out beautiful beliefs like Free Will out of some imaginary duty to minimize our non-scientific beliefs? Hooey.

[PeterMP]

May try to reply more later, amigo. Or may get back out of the tailgate for awhile and catch up on my reading in any of a dozen matters, fun and work. But it seems to me that science as an institution would stay out of that as you suggest, though scientists may opine on it as individual humans with positions on it and use their professional understandings to support their contentions, just as most folk do when they can.

I will take this to mean that we generally agree. I would agree from a scientific stand point that agnostocism is the reasonable place to be.

However, for various reasons, I choose to believe in free will. I do expect that neurosciences will continue to chip away at our understanding of how we make decisions. I expect in the end, we will end up with a complex, chaotic, and stochastic system that can be well modelled using chaotic, stochastic, probabilistic models and that can be manipulated by man, if he so chooses, quite like evolution and any number of other biological processes.

I suspect that some will claim that believing in a god and free will in that system is clinging to a god of the gaps and doing so is unfullfilling.

Interestingly, as I've learned (as a person and as a part of society), the smaller the gaps get, the more mysterious I find them. The more we know, the more that I'm amazed it appears there are some things we will never have real deterministic answers for.

I find it odd how originally much of science originated by people wanting to understand how God set up the natural and physical world to work. That Mendell studying how traits are related in peas was a good thing in terms of understanding and believing God, but somehow now some want to claim we've passed some sort of threshhold and the results are suppossed to negatively affect beliefs in God.

I also find it interesting to think about maybe God DOES play dice with the universe because he controls the dice and the roller and can used fixed dice when the needs arises. That the supernatural (God and the soul) is in the stochastic component that we can only model probabilistically, which means all possibilities (including the super natural) can not be elminated.

Why don't electrons have deterministic locations in time and space?

Maybe God wants to stay partly hidden (this seems obvious to me, if we accept there is a very powerful god, because otherwise we could all be born with 'This being is sponsored by God' in the relevant language on our foreheads). Maybe that having probabilistic physical and then natural processes are a way to allow us to grow as a species, but never be able to address his existence in a scientific manner.

That in the end, do we have faith matters. Do we have the will to make the leap to believe what we all want to believe deep inside?

Of course, maybe its the way the partially quantum based, stochastic, and chatoic parts of my brain have arranged that are producing this emergent behavior.

If it is, I don't really have a choice so fighting it seems like a moot point.

[GoSkins561]

I can't find the illusion in this video.

]

I didn't either..