Free will.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

I've often seen it argued that people get what they deserve because they choose certain paths, options etc. How, if at all, would stories such as this influence the debate?

[Christoff]

Hey Tim,

I've personally wrestled with this whole Free Will concept a lot.

Mark Twain in his brilliant book "What is Man?" supports the viewpoint that Free Will is basically an illusion, that we don't have it. We "make choices" based on our past (upbringing, education, exposure to other people, etc) - if we had different pasts, we would "make" different "choices". According to Twain, these "choices" aren't choices at all - we can't "decide" any other way than we do.

To add to the article you linked to, following the work the brilliant V.S. Ramachandran and Patricia Churchland (neuro-scientists) have been doing, it's becoming more and more obvious that even our "personalities" are largely formed by our brains' physical functioning. With that, traits like monogamy/promisquity, religiosity/atheism, liberalism/concervatism - all these fascets of one's outlook on the world can be changed - radically - when the brain is altered (like in a car crash, after a stroke, with medication, etc)

I hesitate to say that we don't have ANY free will at all, but it becomes more and more clear to me that we have a lot less of it than we'd hope to admit.

[Brad]

Great subject, Tim! And of course thoroughly relevant here, because of the relationship of free will to religious claims about "God's purpose," apologist theodicy arguments, etc.

I hesitate to say that we don't have ANY free will at all, but it becomes more and more clear to me that we have a lot less of it than we'd hope to admit.

This is a really hard (because it's so counter-intuitive), but ultimately really rewarding and useful subject, IMHO. For a number of years I thought exactly as you do now, Christoff. But in the past couple of years I've alighted on the view - not that I'd claim it's absolutely right or anything - that:
1) we will inevitably and unfailingly think and act as individuals as though we have free will simply as a result of the structure and function of the evolved brains that produce our consciousness, but,
2) we'd do well to learn, for intellectual and public policy purposes, to fully appreciate the fact that actual free will among human beings and all other creatures is essentially an illusion (produced also, needless to say, by that organ in our skulls).
This understanding would vastly enhance our compassion and humility in all sorts of situations and would also lead to far wiser social policies. Of course, whether or not this occurs on either individual or social levels will not be due to our will / choices!

Thanks for the Twain reference. I didn't know of it and can't wait to read it!

Couple of last thoughts:
I've mentioned the Reasonable Doubts podcast a couple of times here, which I think is a wonderful show. Along with Scott and Emery's podcasts, it's the one other program I try NEVER to miss.
The fellows at RD did, altogether I think, four programs on "Free Willy vs. The Determinator," starting with podcast #29.
Can't recommend highly enough.

Also, on a macro / social level, the work of Jared Diamond, starting with "Guns, Germs, and Steel" wonderfully illustrates aspects of determinism on the broadest social / historical scale. Admittedly, I've read only extracts of Diamond's books and watched a couple of DVDs on same which were produced by the BBC or National Geographic or some outfit like that. But it's good stuff...

[mitchellmckain]

I've often seen it argued that people get what they deserve because they choose certain paths, options etc. How, if at all, would stories such as this influence the debate?

That is not free will. Free will has nothing to do with controlling the world or future events but only means that you are responsible for your own choices. Furthermore, free will is not some universally equal attribute equal either. It is as quantitative and as fragile as life itself. Indeed free will IS life and life is free will. Free will can not only be destroyed just as life can be destroyed but it is also something that is highly dependent upon awareness. You cannot make choices that you are not aware of. This doesn't completely abrogate us of responsibility however because awareness is a reponsibility to. However there is no doubt that there are things that can take both awareness and control of our actions away from us.

No your example has nothing to do with free will, but rather only speaks against the most simple minded childish interpretations.

Hey Tim,

I've personally wrestled with this whole Free Will concept a lot.

Mark Twain in his brilliant book "What is Man?" supports the viewpoint that Free Will is basically an illusion, that we don't have it. We "make choices" based on our past (upbringing, education, exposure to other people, etc) - if we had different pasts, we would "make" different "choices". According to Twain, these "choices" aren't choices at all - we can't "decide" any other way than we do.

To add to the article you linked to, following the work the brilliant V.S. Ramachandran and Patricia Churchland (neuro-scientists) have been doing, it's becoming more and more obvious that even our "personalities" are largely formed by our brains' physical functioning. With that, traits like monogamy/promisquity, religiosity/atheism, liberalism/concervatism - all these fascets of one's outlook on the world can be changed - radically - when the brain is altered (like in a car crash, after a stroke, with medication, etc)

I hesitate to say that we don't have ANY free will at all, but it becomes more and more clear to me that we have a lot less of it than we'd hope to admit.

And my response to Twain is that in his case, he may very well be right that he himself has no free will of any substance. Not only is free will dependent upon awareness but just like perception itself, it also very much depends upon belief. If you believe that you have no choice then however that belief may have occurred, your belief is certainly restricting your choices. I would certainly tend to believe that in such a case you have already made your choice in what you choose believe, but I would not rule out the possibility that in some people's case their beliefs may not in fact be a matter of choice. The way that some people desperately cling to certain beliefs ignoring all the contrary evidence does suggest to me that there may be psychological compulsions of some kind involved.

You see the question is how this idea of free will is used. If it is used to say that people deserve whatever happens to them, or anything even remotely like that, then that is pure nonsense. But if it is merely used to say that we do have SOME responsibility for deciding what kind of world we live in and more importly for what kind of people we are, that is different. We are only responsible for the choices we actually make, but because our choices are not all the same and our choices are not the only factors in what happens, we should not make the mistake of thinking this means people are always or completely responsible for the results.


P.S. I know that this idea that life is quantitative seems strange to those who think that things are either alive or dead, but actually its a natural conclusion to come to when one takes the possibility of abiogenesis seriously. If life comes from non-life by natural physical processes then one would expect that the difference between life and non-life, rather than being a black and white quality, is rather something that can be achieved to greater and greater degrees. Indeed, I think that is not a matter of achievement but of limitness progress like the expansion of human awareness of the universe. As we see farther and deeper into the nature of reality the range of our choices also expands, but our awarness of choices is far more than just a matter of an awareness of technical knowledge about how things can be accomplished, for it is far more important, as even Einstein understood, to know ourselves and thus the whats, whys and shoulds of how to use that technical know-how in deciding what kind of world we want to live in.

[NH Baritone]

Just to be clear, this discussion refers to contra-causal free will, not to the experience of choosing freely.

The human brain has evolved to manufacture several intense experiences that are objectively irrelevant: We see colors in lightwave frequencies, detect different textures in essentially similar fabrics, and find facial patterns in random light & shadows. Similarly, the sensation of choice offers some clear evolutionary advantages for a critter who's smart enough to analyze options and learn from experience.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Thanks for the replies everybody; I think Mitch didn’t get what I was trying to say this time, but that’s most likely my fault. Hearing people tell me my English is good, but because my preference is sign I’m not confident that what I’m trying to get at comes out.

Christoff – yes, that’s pretty close to where I am on this.

[Lawrence]

I recently read a journal article about blindsight. That is a condition where the person does not know what they are seeing. For example, a woman with a right brain lesion but fully functioning vision (physiologically) was shown a picture of a house bisected lengthwise. Otherwise identical, the left side of the house was on fire while the right side was not. The woman reported both sides of the house to be identical (remember the right brain receives information from the left visual field). She said she did not see the fire and was annoyed after several permutations that the test was pointless. However, when she was presented with two pictures, one of which should the half-burning half not house and one showing a normal house she unerringly chose the non-burning house. This would seem to imply that the decision, that theoretically would determine something as important as living conditions, was not made by the part of the brain we call "I". While having no idea the house was on fire there was an unconscious decision made that determined her choice. Based on good reasoning to boot.

[mitchellmckain]

I think Mitch didn’t get what I was trying to say this time, but that’s most likely my fault.

So... here are a few questions for you. Do you really think that that this belief that "people get what they deserve because they choose certain paths" is a widely held belief? Do you think that this belief has merits that warrant serious debate? It seems to me that there are far more important counter-example to the belief you stated.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

I think Mitch didn’t get what I was trying to say this time, but that’s most likely my fault.

So... here are a few questions for you. Do you really think that that this belief that "people get what they deserve because they choose certain paths" is a widely held belief?

Yes, for example, we now have a nasty right-wing government who seem to excel in the politics of blame, backed up by a majority of voters. They say things like 'people are poor because they choose to be poor.'

Do you think that this belief has merits that warrant serious debate?

Maybe not, but I think it's in need of serious rebuttal, perhaps, as it's rather in your face. I was interested in how biological changes to the brain and other influences can completely change your attitude and decision-making. It seems that things are more outside our control than some would have us believe.

It seems to me that there are far more important counter-example to the belief you stated.

Perhaps you're right.

[Brad]

Tim,
Regarding fruits and nuts in the government, as an American I can only say that after November 2 of this year, you'll probably be able to take some solace in the fact that you reside in the UK. All indications are that things are about to get even stranger here in the colonies.

FWIW, I think your written communications here are entirely excellent and perfectly understandable.

Everyone,
About determinism again, one line of thought that has helped me to consider this subject, FWIW, is to start at my own beginning. I considered the enormous degree to which my own life circumstances were essentially determined when I was a zygote - that is, on the day of my conception. I thought of all the traits and circumstances that were either made inevitable or at minimum highly probable right then and how many possibilities were either foreclosed or made extraordinarily improbable on that day - a day when I was a speck observable only by a microscope, and even before my gender (not to mention sexual orientation) became a part of who I am!
Very profound aspects of my life-long health, of who my parents would be, where I would grow up, etc. were all determined with no input from me whatsoever on that one single day when I was, shall we say, entirely in the dark.

Then I considered the possibility of the different courses my life would have taken had I been a zygote, say,
- produced through the rape of a teenage girl by a soldier in the Sudan
- produced through the union of a beautiful, loving, wise and well-educated woman, the spouse of an equally loving and wise wealthy techno-industrialist living in Stockholm
- produced in the wife of a rice farmer in rural Vietnam.

With that start, I was much better able to conceptualize the great funnel of events, each and every one the result of another great funnel of events, that brought the person that turned out to be me eventually to this moment, typing these words on a laptop in a chair given me by my parents in a house I can't sell in Pennsylvania, and feeling like I need to get going...



P.S.
Consider how the thought experiment outlined above might be useful in increasing compassion and feelings of fellow-humanhood. Contrast with the general Christian concept that everything is "God's plan" - that we all "deserve" what we get, whether good or great suffering.
Now I've really got to get going!

[yjoeyh]

Just to be clear, this discussion refers to contra-causal free will, not to the experience of choosing freely.

The human brain has evolved to manufacture several intense experiences that are objectively irrelevant: We see colors in lightwave frequencies, detect different textures in essentially similar fabrics, and find facial patterns in random light & shadows. Similarly, the sensation of choice offers some clear evolutionary advantages for a critter who's smart enough to analyze options and learn from experience.

This all may be true, but it does not really address the issue of contra-causal free will at all. Even if the illusion itself is highly useful and beneficial, then there could be no rational basis to declare it illusory to start with. It basically just becomes a circular argument.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Thanks, Brad, I appreciate it. I vaguely remember a story about somebody who was struck by lightening through the telephone and suffered some sort of brain trauma. He became a different person and changed his religious beliefs.

[Brad]

Yes, much of this matter, it seems to me, is all about THE BRAIN!
I'm sure a number of examples like the one you cite, Tim, must be compiled somewhere and maybe even in readable form for the lay person, but I'm not sure where. Anyone know?

Yjoey,
Please explain your view further regarding where circular arguments are present in this subject area.

[JustJim]

Everyone,
About determinism again, one line of thought that has helped me to consider this subject, FWIW, is to start at my own beginning. I considered the enormous degree to which my own life circumstances were essentially determined when I was a zygote - that is, on the day of my conception. I thought of all the traits and circumstances that were either made inevitable or at minimum highly probable right then and how many possibilities were either foreclosed or made extraordinarily improbable on that day - a day when I was a speck observable only by a microscope, and even before my gender (not to mention sexual orientation) became a part of who I am!
Very profound aspects of my life-long health, of who my parents would be, where I would grow up, etc. were all determined with no input from me whatsoever on that one single day when I was, shall we say, entirely in the dark.

Then I considered the possibility of the different courses my life would have taken had I been a zygote, say,
- produced through the rape of a teenage girl by a soldier in the Sudan
- produced through the union of a beautiful, loving, wise and well-educated woman, the spouse of an equally loving and wise wealthy techno-industrialist living in Stockholm
- produced in the wife of a rice farmer in rural Vietnam.

With that start, I was much better able to conceptualize the great funnel of events, each and every one the result of another great funnel of events, that brought the person that turned out to be me eventually to this moment, typing these words on a laptop in a chair given me by my parents in a house I can't sell in Pennsylvania, and feeling like I need to get going...



P.S.
Consider how the thought experiment outlined above might be useful in increasing compassion and feelings of fellow-humanhood. Contrast with the general Christian concept that everything is "God's plan" - that we all "deserve" what we get, whether good or great suffering.
Now I've really got to get going!

Wow, Brad.... I mean.... just f*cking WOW....

Jim

[NH Baritone]

Just to be clear, this discussion refers to contra-causal free will, not to the experience of choosing freely.

The human brain has evolved to manufacture several intense experiences that are objectively irrelevant: We see colors in lightwave frequencies, detect different textures in essentially similar fabrics, and find facial patterns in random light & shadows. Similarly, the sensation of choice offers some clear evolutionary advantages for a critter who's smart enough to analyze options and learn from experience.

This all may be true, but it does not really address the issue of contra-causal free will at all. Even if the illusion itself is highly useful and beneficial, then there could be no rational basis to declare it illusory to start with. It basically just becomes a circular argument.

The accusation of circularity is simply not valid, because the absence of free will is largely a conclusion drawn from evidence, not an argument of logic.

Here's an example: Your vision of RED is an illusion created by the way your eyes & brain interpret a relatively narrow band of light wave frequencies. In contrast, animals that see only in black-&-white see the same light waves as gray, and it is impossible for them to distinguish between the RED frequency light waves and GREEN frequency light waves. They don't have the neurological mechanisms to distinguish the two, and so to them, the relevancy of color doesn't exist.

The mechanisms to create the illusion of conscious choice also dwell within human neurology. This neurology has been shaped by genetic inheritance and environmental experience, and there is no corresponding known natural mechanism to allow anything else to influence that neurological framework.

Several studies have backed this up. It has been shown through functional MRIs and EEGs that individuals actually choose between options several moments before the moment where they consciously believe they have chosen. In other words, while you believe you have made a conscious, free-will choice, the choice occurs unconsciously and at a consistent, measurable time prior to the sensation of choice. Conscious sensations of choice are, quite literally, an afterthought.

There is additional evidence found in the personality changes that occur following brain injuries or strokes. Depending on the area of the brain that has been damaged, there are often corresponding changes in habits & choices. Were there a non-neurological mechanism for choice, it would necessarily be unaffected by neurological change, and these individuals would remain consistent in their personality and manifestations of will. The lack of this consistency indicates that there is no consistent, non-neurological basis for choice, and thus no rational basis to believe in contra-causal free will.