Free Will

[Mute]

What do y'all think? Is there such thing as free will in humans? Are we a slave to Karma, or perhaps God; living life and following what is unavoidable? Or is free will a concept, in which you must understand that concept in order to gain access to it.

[VKhaun]

Lets say there was no fate, no karma, and no guiding hand from above.
Do you think that means we are making choices?

Is there even any scientific basis for choice? Doesn't the matter and energy in our brain follow the same laws as everything else? Falling, shifting, and reacting like anything else would ever since we were born? If there is nothing magical about us, isn't a 'choice' just that matter and energy guiding our body and giving the illusion of choice and thought, when really we could think nothing else and do nothing else as surely as any other event in nature?

If you drop a rock, it will fall. If you pour water it will take the path of least resistance. Lightning is less predictable but we all know not to swim or carry an umbrella through a field.The brain is more complicated, but nothing really frees it from the basic forces of our world. Everything going on in there that you think you or your body is 'doing' is really a reaction to something else that happened including your brain and the thoughts created there.

[Draconian]

That post would've been dead-on pre-1930 physics. At the subatomic level, cause = effect and predictability aren't so clear cut. And if things at the foundational level work on probabilities and chance, the systems built upon that foundation - although in many cases appear so damn predictable, are never certain. How the quantum world might impact our minds, I do not know - but by the mere fact that such probability-based actions exist, we must consider them as part of the whole picture.


Anyway, we don't understand exactly what consciousness is yet or how it arises, so hoping to dissect the conscious construct of free-will (or lack thereof) is pretty tough!

[Zavon]

I think the concept of free will is a religious creation and deserves no more thought than the existence of heaven or hell. If our every action is predetermined for us, we are completely unaware of it as we experience what it is to be human. Therefore, it is doubly unworthy of considering.

As for consciousness, I'm not touching that topic with a 10 foot pole. Academics fight like children to even define what it is, much less explain it (well, in Psychology they do).

[ofrm1]

It's important to preface this with the notion that choices made by free will are choices in which the agent was free to have done otherwise.

Three Main Camps:

1) Determinism: Our actions are pre-ordained from previous causes. Principle of Sufficient Reason.

(A sub-camp of determinism, aptly named Soft Determinism argues for a type of free will that is not dependent upon an agent being capable of doing otherwise. Frankfurt Cases.)

2) Anti-Determinism: Free Will is possible through Agent Causation. I.E. First Cause.

3) Compatibilism: (Also known as Libertarian Free Will.) That Free Will and Determinism are not mutually exclusive. This is summed up by the famous quote by A.J. Ayer:

"An agent is free to do otherwise when they would have done otherwise had they wished to do otherwise."

All three have ramifications that one may or may not want to accept due to interfering with common sense intuitions that we have about the way the world operates.

Personally, I'm a hard determinist.

[Andile™]

Damn it. I only realized it was Free Will and not Free Wii after I clicked it. Hate when that happens.

[Norska]

Damn it. I only realized it was Free Will and not Free Wii after I clicked it. Hate when that happens.

Good to know I wasn't the only one.

[Ziel]

As far as free will is a useful concept, I think it exists. Obviously a lot of our reactions to things are pre-determined, but I think there are plenty of split paths in life where our choice is down to "free will".

[Dumah]

Sam Harris actually wrote a great book on the subject (simply titled Free Will). One of its key points is that the environmental, experience and genetic determinism that causes one person to make the "decisions" they do would cause the same decision making process in a different person given the same genes, environment and history. But before people throw their hands up and say "might as well not bother improving if this is who I am," determinism is not tantamount to fatalism.

[Random Havoc]

I used to believe strongly in free will, but as I learned more and more about neurobiology, cognitive psychology, and related fields, my views have evolved substantially. I think in large part our decisions are driven by unconscious processes formed by genetic\socio-cultural\personal biological chemical history. Even to the extent that we do consciously make choices, our menu of options are limited by these unconscious processes.

I differ from those strong determinists like Sam Harris in that I think conscious willing does still play a part, it is just a much more subtle loop that gradually influences the underlying strata that constrains our conscious options. I just don’t see how it would be evolutionarily adaptive if Harris’ description were accurate. I think this subtle loop is what allows for changes and progress to occur.

[Zavon]

^
Behavioral genetics is some very fascinating stuff, but is it really relevant to a discussion of free will? Cases of abuse seriously alter the inherent "biological wiring" of expected expressed traits. So, our side of things may be predetermined, but its a big leap to say all the rest of existence may be?

Not that you said otherwise, I just like what you contributed to the conversation.

Edit: You and Dumah

[Dumah]

I differ from those strong determinists like Sam Harris in that I think conscious willing does still play a part, it is just a much more subtle loop that gradually influences the underlying strata that constrains our conscious options. I just don’t see how it would be evolutionarily adaptive if Harris’ description were accurate. I think this subtle loop is what allows for changes and progress to occur.

That sounds like cognitive bias to me. People have to believe that they willed themselves into their situation when it serves them to do so. I don't see why change and progress couldn't occur on some level if every minutia of our reality came about because of a chaotic, interrelated blend of cause and effect to the nth degree. Maybe we just pursue what we find aesthetically pleasing for that very reason - chemical response.

A puppet is free so long as it loves its strings.

[Random Havoc]

Maybe we just pursue what we find aesthetically pleasing for that very reason - chemical response.

In the hard determinist view expressed by Harris there is no ‘we’ (I-Me) to pursue anything, ‘we’ is simply a post hoc story, therefore ‘aesthetically pleasing’ has no motive force to drive anything.

I don't see why change and progress couldn't occur on some level if every minutia of our reality came about because of a chaotic, interrelated blend of cause and effect to the nth degree.

With hard determinism ‘chaotic’ and ‘cause and effect’ are antithetical. If what determines our behavior is genetics and socio-cultural environment shaping personal histories then where is the room for change and progress? if clockwork cause and effect determines behavior and consciousness is a post hoc story with no motive power, and since genetics moves at a different timescale, then the behavior produced will mirror the socio-cultural environment, not advance and change it. It will only change on a evolutionary time scale, very slowly. Since we have seen change in socio-cultural environment much faster than evolutionary time scales there must be something else going on.

People have to believe that they willed themselves into their situation when it serves them to do so.

This is much stronger than what I am supposing, I agree that people’s behavior is largely the result of the unconscious processes motivating the behavior, resulting in the positions people find themselves in. What I am suggesting is that conscious willing will subtly change the unconscious processing resulting in different behavioral patterns. This is different than the common conception of free will.

Let me give you an example. I have always preferred vanilla ice cream to any of the other flavor of ice cream. ‘I-Me’ had nothing to do with this preference, it just is the way it is, I like what I like. Now I may be genetically predisposed to prefer the chemical soup of reward produced by the consumption of vanilla over the chemical soup produced by the consumption of other flavors. But I rather think it is the complex association of strange loops of neuronal arrangements that are unconsciously activated when I eat ice cream. You see we were quite poor when I was a small child, ice cream was a rare treat, when we did have it, it was usually vanilla. So I have all of these other association tired up in vanilla ice cream that are unconsciously activated when I consume vanilla ice cream, unconscious neuronal circuits relating to ‘family’ and circuits dealing with ‘treats’ and circuits relating to ‘special’ and so on.

But I could change my preference if I wanted to. How would I do this? I could add additional associations to vanilla ice cream that have negative connotations, if I added enough associations to outweigh the pleasant, and I reinforce them so that they become permanent than the unconscious weighting that is going on to decide my preference will be tipped to so that my conscious preference will be a flavor other than vanilla, especially if at the same time I am making positive neuronal associations to another flavor of ice cream.

Now my preference for the flavor of ice cream is trivial, so I probably would never be inclined to change it. But on more important matters, like the concept of free will, perhaps, I might be more inclined to consciously follow a trail of reasoning that changes my strong naïve beliefs by building neuronal circuits that are unconsciously weighted and eventually outweigh (and therefore have a stronger voice in the congress of the unconscious mind) than those circuits naively built by genetic and the socio-cultural traditional views of free will.

That sounds like cognitive bias to me.

Perhaps it is, but it seems to make more sense to me than the hard determinist’s views expressed by Harris.

[Dumah]

With hard determinism ‘chaotic’ and ‘cause and effect’ are antithetical. If what determines our behavior is genetics and socio-cultural environment shaping personal histories then where is the room for change and progress?

I'll concede that maybe my use of 'chaotic' may not have been the best one. I tend to reserve that for the doe-eyed platitude spouting folks (i.e. everything happens for a reason, or it just wasn't meant to be, God's plan, etc) and their explanations for things they try in vain to make sense of, like god-of-gaps. My argument, however, is that the motive itself was also caused by genetics and/or socio-cultural environment. We've been on a technological skyrocket over the last 300 years. Did we only recently develop the will to advance, or did we just stumble upon the ideal environment to give us the means to do what we would have much earlier?

What I am suggesting is that conscious willing will subtly change the unconscious processing resulting in different behavioral patterns. This is different than the common conception of free will.

And I would suggest that this occurrence is a by-product, be it a response to technology, to one's place in a social hierarchy or to a cause of favorite flavor of ice cream. Your inclination to steer away from vanilla would have to stem from something, be it an article in a tabloid that says vanilla ice cream can cause cancer, or if a gorgeous woman said she has a thing for men who eat rocky road. Both of those would trigger sufficient chemical response in the brain to "choose" differently.

Perhaps it is, but it seems to make more sense to me than the hard determinist’s views expressed by Harris.

Just to be clear, "cognitive bias" wasn't an accusation directed at you, but a response to your "decision driver" point.

[Mute]

Bare with me, because I want to understand you're theory you are trying to portray.

Let me give you an example. I have always preferred vanilla ice cream to any of the other flavor of ice cream. ‘I-Me’ had nothing to do with this preference, it just is the way it is, I like what I like. Now I may be genetically predisposed to prefer the chemical soup of reward produced by the consumption of vanilla over the chemical soup produced by the consumption of other flavors. But I rather think it is the complex association of strange loops of neuronal arrangements that are unconsciously activated when I eat ice cream. You see we were quite poor when I was a small child, ice cream was a rare treat, when we did have it, it was usually vanilla. So I have all of these other association tired up in vanilla ice cream that are unconsciously activated when I consume vanilla ice cream, unconscious neuronal circuits relating to ‘family’ and circuits dealing with ‘treats’ and circuits relating to ‘special’ and so on.

But I could change my preference if I wanted to. How would I do this? I could add additional associations to vanilla ice cream that have negative connotations, if I added enough associations to outweigh the pleasant, and I reinforce them so that they become permanent than the unconscious weighting that is going on to decide my preference will be tipped to so that my conscious preference will be a flavor other than vanilla, especially if at the same time I am making positive neuronal associations to another flavor of ice cream.

I find this interesting because I would agree that there is a partial truth, however I have a couple of problems with what you said.
1st, i don't know what you would say the traditional view of free will are. 2nd, I think that example would actually bat for the idea that there is such thing as a more traditional view of free will; if we're on the same page.
The very fact that we could reason with ourselves to overcome a stance on something, to me, gives considerable weight to the idea that we have free will. Sure, we can't (yet) go straight to the source of our brain that inadvertently releases the chemical that makes you desire vanilla when you think ice cream. But someone like you who knows about that process, can chose to override a function that, without a second thought would run rampant "because you like what you like."


EDIT: hahah, and now that I'm re reading,

What I am suggesting is that conscious willing will subtly change the unconscious processing resulting in different behavioral patterns. This is different than the common conception of free will

however, I'd argue it still is free will, but perhaps a revised idea of what the common conception is.

[Random Havoc]

We've been on a technological skyrocket over the last 300 years. Did we only recently develop the will to advance, or did we just stumble upon the ideal environment to give us the means to do what we would have much earlier?

Well, to answer this metaphorically, you have heard Newton's quote 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' It took some time for the giants to be born and grow in order for us to see further with their aid.

Less metaphorically, what is in the conscious part of our mind is constrained by the unconscious substrate, which in turn subtly expands what is in the unconscious, which is available to consciousness, which is constrained by the unconscious substrate, which expands...etc. This of course took time. Where as if it is a closed system where behavior is only driven by the unconscious programed by genetics and socio-cultural environment I see no way for the environment to have changed, except by the slow evolutionary process.

Your inclination to steer away from vanilla would have to stem from something, be it an article in a tabloid that says vanilla ice cream can cause cancer, or if a gorgeous woman said she has a thing for men who eat rocky road. Both of those would trigger sufficient chemical response in the brain to "choose" differently.

These are both ways to alter the pattern of neuronal circuit association that a unconscious process could use in weighted election of preference (although it probably wouldn't be enough on its own to 'throw' the election), but it seems kinda random. I think the conscious process of recombining and evaluating neuron patterns (aka thoughts), rejecting some and willfully choosing others, is evolution's solution for a nonrandom example of this process of altering the neural patterns used by the unconscious substrate to decide preferences, beliefs, attitudes, etc.

[Random Havoc]

1st, i don't know what you would say the traditional view of free will are. 2nd, I think that example would actually bat for the idea that there is such thing as a more traditional view of free will;

Unless you are a dualist, the conscious mind must be filtered through unconscious mental framework. The traditional view of free will is that the conscious mind perceives reality as it is, we have a conscious thought and as a direct result of this, an action results in reality.

This can’t be true, numerous studies show that not only are we not aware of all the information that is used in making a decision, we are often wrong about the information we do have. Unconscious processes determine what information is available to the conscious mind (information is highly edited before being presented to consciousness), and attitudes and beliefs (like my preference for vanilla) are largely the result of unconscious processes, and we make shit up to explain things all the time. The mental scaffolding that undergirds the conscious mind (however it works ) must be, by definition, unconscious.

Therefore if the conscious mind has any efficacy at all, it must be through unconscious mechanisms, which is different than the traditional view of free will.

It is my contention that evolution, which abhors wasted energy, would not develop consciousness, unless it had some advantage. The hard determinist’s opinion that it is just a happy ‘by product’ doesn’t really fly, it must take huge amount of resources to maintain the mental scaffolding (the underlying unconscious mechanisms) used to produce the illusion. My contention is that conscious mental processes (conscious willing) is the mechanism for modifying the unconscious substrate that does most of the work, which is a very different idea of free will.

Hard determinists say that consciousness is just a story told post hoc and ‘I-Me’, ‘Self’ and free will doesn’t exist, my question would be; to whom is the story told, and if the story is post hoc and has no motive force, why is the story being told?

[Random Havoc]

Since it seems like no one wants to joust, I will do it myself!

I have repeatedly said that I do not see any way for the socio-cultural environment to change if behavior is merely programmed by genetic\ socio-cultural environment, that behavior will merely reflect what is in the environment not change or advance it, but I have forgotten about a proposed mechanism that could offer an explanation.

That of course is memes, the cultural equivalent of genes. Memes could alter the socio-cultural environment without recourse to my proposed conscious willing. It seems with this additional argument my ‘conscious willing of the gaps’ suffers a setback.

I am not sure that it totally refutes my supposition, I think there is still plenty of evidence that conscious processes alter neural patterns that unconscious processes use to determine preferences, beliefs, and behaviors, but it does offer some food for thought (which after conscious consideration may alter my unconscious process and change an underlying belief )

[Dumah]

Well, I sure know how it feels to be in need of a sparring buddy there, cowpoke. I am a little on the drunk side right now and am willing to argue just about anything.

Anyway, sec need a refill...

Anyway, you keep bringing up growth and advancement as a species. What if that, in and of itself is written into our programming to strive for. Once the innovations of yesterday have become mainstream, a baseline if you will, the incessant desire for (at this point) almost seven billion souls to branch out to achieve the next thing that catches on. There may be some very potentially innovative female babies in China being euthanized because their parents already had a kid (are you reading this between rectal poundings, hacking gold farming prison camp inmates?), and their potential talent will never squirm their way through "chance," that may or may not have been determined, into maturity. These shoulders of giants are really just a necessary step, and nothing to be revered. Growth is inevitable, just the direction of it is considered unpalatable to some.

For instance, I hate pro sports, I hate the stranglehold it has on the American male's nuts. But it delivers apparently what most guys are keen to receiving. Vicarious athleticism, the ability to spout statistics and figures, and the occasional female who pretends she's interested to garner social acceptance from the guys. I would personally rather see mainstream development in the form of the exchange we are having now. That's right, Random, I think folks like you should be paid to advance the philosophical mindset of mankind to foster an age of growth, rather than the "rushing yards and turnovers" statistics we proudly spout off now - and I type this with sincere honesty. However, doesn't mankind's condition sort of speak for itself? Given the rate that the underachievers are breeding opposed to people who can carve out a living and propel mankind towards enlightenment, doesn't that serve as a pretty strong indication of our final destination as a species? Maybe as a public, we deserve to be fooled by the republicrats.

Anyway, back to your point... I am still not convinced that we have seen any phenomenon to suggest that we are capable of advancement other than taking what someone else had done and making it a little bit better, or making something a little different by thinking outside of the box. If you think that incremental growth constitutes "free will," then okay. But we're either destined to outgrow ourselves and die off, or develop to find other worlds upon which stupid people can fuck, or neuter society to a sustainable number as stated in the previous paragraph. I just hope that the buddhists aren't right, and I won't be around to see it at some point.

[Random Havoc]

^^Everything you said would be true whether or not conscious willing modifies the neural patterns of our unconscious mind.

[Dumah]

Well then I guess that's just the stage of growth and development that my conscious "I-me" willing has made it to on this matter. Maybe once my existentialist concept of contentment with what I perceive has been overtaken by a thirst of further knowledge, I will see us as more than a self-replicating bio program running its course a little better each time.

[Random Havoc]

You should be arguing that since everything runs through the unconscious mind before it gets to the conscious mind (highly edited) the unconscious mind hardly needs any help from the conscious mind to modify neural patterns...gesh, do I have to do everything myself?!?

[Dumah]

You can't do everything yourself, because you need a second poster between your points as to not make you appear either clinically insane or simply pontificating - neither of which has ever gone over well on the Catacombs.

Anyway, the conscious mind is hardly free either. Take some time to meditate on absolutely nothing, and tell me how many random thoughts rapaciously entered into your attention.

[Random Havoc]

Well, random thoughts do arise from the unconscious mind, because that is what minds do, but more directed thoughts arise upon direction from the conscious mind, with a sperious thought here and there inbetween the directed thoughts, which the conscious mind chooses to ignore (most of the time) and cracks the whip on the unconscious getting it back on task.

[Zavon]

I for one would like to know what this "unconscious mind" is in the first place. If you simply are referring to neurological processes that occur outside of our awareness (e.g. consolidation of memory, salience, etc.) then you may as well be talking about farts as well-- they too are generated outside our awareness.