Does free will exist?

[Critic]

So I am a compatibilist.

So what is your reply to the consequence argument?

1) No one can change the laws of nature.

2) The laws of nature determine what happens.

Therefore, no one can determine what happens.

Therefore, free will is false

(not determined by physics alone)

But that's a new force in physics, isn't it? In that case, you need to convince the physicists and not the metaphysicians.

Consciousness is the interface between what we want and the chance circumstances which allow us to pursue what we want in real-life situations.

But you can explain "what we want and the chance circumstances which allow us to pursue what we want in real-life situations" just being a third-person observer. You don't need consciousness to explain it, nor does it explain consciousness. So whatever interface there exists between what we what we want and chance circumstances is irrelevant to the fact that we are (for some reason) conscious.

Consciousness is therefore intrinsic to free-will decision making from my perspective, because without seeing and assessing the present circumstances, we can't improvise the responses which will get us what we want, or at least something close to what we want.

A p-zombie knows how to get what he wants. Consciousness doesn't explain anything in that regard.

But why were conscious states evolved at all?  They emerged evolutionarily from chance events to serve the interests of individuals in the above-mentioned ways.  Being emergent, they are caused bottom-up but exercise top-down causation on events to change them in directions that the individual wants.  If reality didn't have the play of chance events, it would not be flexible enough to alter in such ways.  Everything would indeed be determined, but consciousness would have no function.  In a completely determined world, we could have evolved in such a way that unconscious stimuli and responses could have covered all contingencies.

That perspective is really cool, and very thorough in one sense.

But we don't know that evolution evolved consciousness, do we? And consciousness isn't needed to explain the deterministic phenomena that we see. Not in plants. Not in humans.

people can slow their own heart rate with constration and meditation.  We are not at the whims of physics when it comes to choices and free will.

[vulcanlogician]

people can slow their own heart rate with constration and meditation.  We are not at the whims of physics when it comes to choices and free will.

I think you're begging the question a little bit, man.

The determinist wants to ask what caused this person to meditate in the first place. When you look at the causal chain, you'll find events out of the person's control ultimately caused the person to decide to meditate.

Keep in mind, I'm not a fatalist. I don't think a person should believe that they are at the "whim of physics." But what I do think we should gather from the hard determinist view is that it's better look at the causes of particular behaviors rather than the decisions of an agent.

[Dom]

 But what I do think we should gather from the hard determinist view is that it's better look at the causes of particular behaviors rather than the decisions of an agent.

I don't see that as an either/or. One needs to look at both.

[vulcanlogician]

 But what I do think we should gather from the hard determinist view is that it's better look at the causes of particular behaviors rather than the decisions of an agent.

I don't see that as an either/or. One needs to look at both.

But it is either/or if determinism is true. If determinism is true there is no "free choosing." All choices we make are caused by our psychological state (which in turn is caused by our brain state).

However, many philosophers think along the lines you are thinking. They say, even if determinism is true, and there is no free choice, there's still good reason to treat people like free agents, and consider them as such. especially concerning moral responsibility. The theory is called revisionism... I think. I barely understand revisionism. It's complicated. I wanna read up on it at some point. Hopefully I didn't misrepresent it. But I think what I said is the general gist of it.

[Dom]

 But what I do think we should gather from the hard determinist view is that it's better look at the causes of particular behaviors rather than the decisions of an agent.

I don't see that as an either/or. One needs to look at both.

But it is either/or if determinism is true. If determinism is true there is no "free choosing." All choices we make are caused by our psychological state (which in turn is caused by our brain state).

However, many philosophers think along the lines you are thinking. They say, even if determinism is true, and there is no free choice, there's still good reason to treat people like free agents, and consider them as such. especially concerning moral responsibility. The theory is called revisionism... I think. I barely understand revisionism. It's complicated. I wanna read up on it at some point. Hopefully I didn't misrepresent it. But I think what I said is the general gist of it.

I am not a follower of determinism per se. I do believe that a lot of our behavior is pre-determined, neurologically, through learned behaviors, and via DNA. But I do allow for a certain amount of free will (not near as much as most people think) - it is what allows us to adjust to ever changing stimuli. I think split second decisions are predetermined, as well as reactions based on emotions. I also think that a lot of things we consider blameworthy and punishable today are not under the actual control of the individual. But I do think we are a bit more flexible than you do.

[Alan V]

But what I do think we should gather from the hard determinist view is that it's better look at the causes of particular behaviors rather than the decisions of an agent.

Without realizing it, you are dismissing out of hand a whole range of free will decision-making.  Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that all decisions come from material causes of various sorts: hunger, thirst, discomfort, and various other physical desires.  Does that mean everything is determined?  No it does not, because it fails to address the fact that we have lots of choices involved in satisfying our physical desires.  If I am hungry, I may go out to a restaurant.  But which restaurant?  There is a whole range of considerations we sort through to fulfill even our physically-caused desires.

Of course, I do not even really concede the point that all of our decisions are based on physical needs.  We also have a lot of desires we pursue which are based on little more than social considerations and self-expression.  We are motivated by desires and reasons and not just needs. Nor are we forced into determinism by being compelled to optimize everything. That may be true of some Americans for instance, but certainly not most people.

In fact, if you actually observe how people make decisions, you will see that they have all sorts of contradictory and mutually-exclusive needs and desires which they can't pursue all at once. Prioritizing and strategizing are therefore a big part of free-will decision-making.

Effectively, you have to assume determinism is true in your syllogism to conclude determinism is true, because it certainly is not obvious from observations.

[Alan V]

I think split second decisions are predetermined, as well as reactions based on emotions.

It should be noted that many of our habitual responses were built up by free will decisions we made in the past.  So I don't think you can overlook free will even in such instances.

[Cavebear]

Free Will exists. I just decided that on my own.

Seriously, if I am an organic robot, I am not a very good one. I say "cogito ergo sum" but only sometimes. I walk into a room with a purpose or sometimes not and have to think about why I am there. And I will add that one of the good things about finding yourself in the bathroom is that you have little doubt why you are there.

And therefore, I will posit that there ARE some things that are automatic and beyond conscious thought. But not all. I can choose which set of numbers to evaluate in telephone call data. I can easily choose, staring at a refrigerator of food what to have for dinner. It's not like some non-free-will part of my brain has much great desire between pork or chicken when each is equally available.

I can choose whether or not to swat a fly or step on an ant outside. As there is not particular advantage to me (sometimes I do and sometimes I don't) that is not something that is "built in". I suspect the best evidence of free will is something close to randomness.

And I consider after rather careful free-will thought that the idea of no free will is mostly a religious idea supporting "God commands everything" of the "no sparrow shall fall" concept of omnipotence.

[Alan V]

And I consider after rather careful free-will thought that the idea of no free will is mostly a religious idea supporting "God commands everything"  of the "no sparrow shall fall" concept of omnipotence.

...or the materialist assumption that everything is reducible to physics.  That just assumes that emergence with its top-down causation isn't possible in a material world.

Also, many religious people defend free will as a theodicy for the problem of evil.

So there are both free-will advocates and determinists within both materialist and religious camps.

[Kim]

The phrase, free will is itself, fairly loaded. Free is a statement of undetermined existence while will, suggests a determined existence.



Ever experience anyone with serious OCD issues? That will cause a definite rethink of the word free and the word will. The entire phrase is a trap.

Not to get all Daniel Dennett here but, we humans often appear to allow ourselves the freedom to live a willful existance - undetermined lives in a determined world - and sometimes, quite the reverse.

We are performing monkeys, juggling bananas while trying to eat them.

[Cavebear]

The phrase, free will is itself, fairly loaded. Free is a statement of undetermined existence while will, suggests a determined existence.

 

Ever experience anyone with serious OCD issues?  That will cause a definite rethink of the word free and the word will.  The entire phrase is a trap.

Not to get all Daniel Dennett here but, we humans often appear to allow ourselves the freedom to live a willful existance - undetermined lives in a determined world - and sometimes, quite the reverse.  

We are performing monkeys, juggling bananas while trying to eat them.

I might suggest that you are conflating free will with willful freedom. The former expresses choice in a logical construct while the latter supports an anarchistic way of life.

[vulcanlogician]

I am not a follower of determinism per se. I do believe that a lot of our behavior is pre-determined, neurologically, through learned behaviors, and via DNA. But I do allow for a certain amount of free will (not near as much as most people think) - it is what allows us to adjust to ever changing stimuli. I think split second decisions are predetermined, as well as reactions based on emotions. I also think that a lot of things we consider blameworthy and punishable today are not under the actual control of the individual. But I do think we are a bit more flexible than you do.

So, think about snap decisions and how they are separate from premeditated ones. To me, a snap decision is like a reflex. Stimulus/response. A calculated decision (to me) is fundamentally the same. It's just like a reflex, only the process is drawn out more, and involves some internal stimulus response in the brain. But even so, there is no agent that can cause the stimulus response to work out any other way than the laws of physics says it should work out.

Effectively, you have to assume determinism is true in your syllogism to conclude determinism is true, because it certainly is not obvious from observations.

In my syllogism you have to assume 2 things are true:

1) No one can change the laws of nature.
2) The laws of nature determine what happens.

Which one is false?

We may have to bring out big fancy words like "incompatibilism" so that terms like "determinism" don't confuse us. A libertarian free willist, for example, thinks the consequence argument is valid, just like the determinist does. My reasoning isn't circular if I think that determinism means that there is no free will. Because I don't think determinism is compatible with free will. ie. If everything is just atoms obeying the laws of nature, how do our choices enter into it.

...or the materialist assumption that everything is reducible to physics.  That just assumes that emergence with its top-down causation isn't possible in a material world.

Dude... you like Closer to Truth I'll bet. I do. Seems like it'd be up your alley too. Lemmie find a ten minute video that features physicists who believe in emergent causation. Most don't, but it's interesting that some physicists agree with you.

I still don't see how emergent causation can exist. I think what confuses people is that there are better explanations of things at the "macro-level." Traffic patterns for instance are better explained by traffic lights, and impossible to figure out by studying quarks, for instance. But that's just the thing. That's explanatory power, and has no relevance to causality. Even reductionists know that there are interactions at the macro level. But each of the parts at the macro level is causally explicable by physical states and the laws of nature.

[Alan V]

The phrase, free will is itself, fairly loaded. Free is a statement of undetermined existence while will, suggests a determined existence.

Ever experience anyone with serious OCD issues?  That will cause a definite rethink of the word free and the word will.  The entire phrase is a trap.

You make a good point that "free will" is ambiguously named, and that the name itself adds to the confusion surrounding it.

According to Google, "free will" is defined as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

While free will is certainly about our will, it's not really so much about our freedom.  We still have free will even if we only have two bad choices, we just don't have much freedom to speak of in that instance. I suppose we should say there are degrees of free will, which vary with the circumstances under consideration.

[Kim]

The phrase, free will is itself, fairly loaded. Free is a statement of undetermined existence while will, suggests a determined existence.

 

Ever experience anyone with serious OCD issues?  That will cause a definite rethink of the word free and the word will.  The entire phrase is a trap.

Not to get all Daniel Dennett here but, we humans often appear to allow ourselves the freedom to live a willful existance - undetermined lives in a determined world - and sometimes, quite the reverse.  

We are performing monkeys, juggling bananas while trying to eat them.

I might suggest that you are conflating free will with willful freedom.  The former expresses choice in a logical construct while the latter supports an anarchistic way of life.

I see your point but, I wasn't meaning to conflate.  But hey, I bolded a couple of things that might make my point even more ambiguous.  

[Cavebear]

If free will doesn't exist, aren't all our discussions here pre-determined? So what would be the point of continuuing them?

If someone changes from theistic to atheist, what happened? Did that person's genes change somehow?

Or did God Do It?

Am I an atheist because God decided I should be?

It gets weirder after that...

[Cavebear]

And doesn't the argument against "Free Will" mean that the poll results are pre-determined? If so, why reply to it as some have?

Wouldn't the choice of "Free Will" mean that you couldn't say you did?

[Alan V]

So, think about snap decisions and how they are separate from premeditated ones. To me, a snap decision is like a reflex. Stimulus/response. A calculated decision (to me) is fundamentally the same. It's just like a reflex, only the process is drawn out more, and involves some internal stimulus response in the brain. But even so, there is no agent that can cause the stimulus response to work out any other way than the laws of physics says it should work out.

Yes, but stimulus-response is not the only way the human brain works.  Each neuron is like a battery in that it generates its own energy.  In other words, the brain has its own supply of free energy by which it works.  It can therefore generate its own information and that information can change the body's behaviors.

In my syllogism you have to assume 2 things are true:

1) No one can change the laws of nature.
2) The laws of nature determine what happens.

Which one is false?

The second one.  You have a limited understanding of the laws of nature, if random events allow the self-organization and evolution of life and consciousness.

Dude... you like Closer to Truth I'll bet. I do. Seems like it'd be up your alley too. Lemmie find a ten minute video that features physicists who believe in emergent causation. Most don't, but it's interesting that some physicists agree with you.

I still don't see how emergent causation can exist. I think what confuses people is that there are better explanations of things at the "macro-level." Traffic patterns for instance are better explained by traffic lights, and impossible to figure out by studying quarks, for instance. But that's just the thing. That's explanatory power, and has no relevance to causality. Even reductionists know that there are interactions at the macro level. But each of the parts at the macro level is causally explicable by physical states and the laws of nature.

You may be surprised to know that my discussion points are entirely mainstream at this point.  The question of whether consciousness is emergent or determined is cutting-edge stuff.

[Cavebear]

So, think about snap decisions and how they are separate from premeditated ones. To me, a snap decision is like a reflex. Stimulus/response. A calculated decision (to me) is fundamentally the same. It's just like a reflex, only the process is drawn out more, and involves some internal stimulus response in the brain. But even so, there is no agent that can cause the stimulus response to work out any other way than the laws of physics says it should work out.

Yes, but stimulus-response is not the only way the human brain works.  Each neuron is like a battery in that it generates its own energy.  In other words, the brain has its own supply of free energy by which it works.  It can therefore generate its own information and that information can change the body's behaviors.

In my syllogism you have to assume 2 things are true:

1) No one can change the laws of nature.
2) The laws of nature determine what happens.

Which one is false?

The second one.  You have a limited understanding of the laws of nature, if random events allow the self-organization and evolution of life and consciousness.

Dude... you like Closer to Truth I'll bet. I do. Seems like it'd be up your alley too. Lemmie find a ten minute video that features physicists who believe in emergent causation. Most don't, but it's interesting that some physicists agree with you.

I still don't see how emergent causation can exist. I think what confuses people is that there are better explanations of things at the "macro-level." Traffic patterns for instance are better explained by traffic lights, and impossible to figure out by studying quarks, for instance. But that's just the thing. That's explanatory power, and has no relevance to causality. Even reductionists know that there are interactions at the macro level. But each of the parts at the macro level is causally explicable by physical states and the laws of nature.

You may be surprised to know that my discussion points are entirely mainstream at this point.  The question of whether consciousness is emergent or determined is cutting-edge stuff.

Can you support that claim about "mainstream"? And if you can, remember that the Earth was once mainstream flat...

[Kim]

Can you support that claim about "mainstream"?    And if you can, remember that the Earth was once mainstream flat...

Thank you for that mainstream flat earth comment ... this shit usually ends up destroying my will to live so, levity is a necessity.

Here's a recent thingy. Granted it's "opinion" but, it is within the ongoing discussion.

****
On a personal note, this is all just philosophical regurgitation for me.

I'd much rather sit & watch a beautiful sunset with a cup of wine. Living life for it's own sake, is far more important to me than intellectualized barf.

[Dom]

Ok, I am going to drop all terminology and categories and simply recount some self-observation.

I just scratched my head. I didn't think about it, it just happened, I see it as a physical reflex. This is the deepest, or lowest, level of what determines my actions, and I think that everyone can agree that this was not an action of "free will", but a pre-determined action based on a physical sensation.

Then I see a doe with kid walk past my window. I get the warm fuzzies, that little baby is just too cute and I want to cuddle and protect it. This is an instinct, triggering serotonin among other chemicals in me. My response to this sight is predetermined - but it does not apply to everyone. Some may feel the impulse to shoot mother and baby. I see that as level two, a physical, instinctual response that is additionally influenced by our chemical balance. Mothering and hunting are both human drives.

Now a friend calls me - she needs help regarding her dealings with her ex. I have no reflexive response, and if there is a release of chemicals, it is so slight it's undetectable to me. We end up talking for half an hour, pondering various solutions to her issue. We end up agreeing on the best path for her.

This last situation, please tell me how that is not a free will interaction. It is not a level one or two action.

[Cavebear]

Ok, I am going to drop all terminology and categories and simply recount some self-observation.

I just scratched my head. I didn't think about it, it just happened, I see it as a physical reflex. This is the deepest, or lowest, level of what determines my actions, and I think that everyone can agree that this was not an action of "free will", but a pre-determined action based on a physical sensation.

Then I see a doe with kid walk past my window. I get the warm fuzzies, that little baby is just too cute and I want to cuddle and protect it. This is an instinct, triggering serotonin among other chemicals in me. My response to this sight is predetermined - but it does not apply to everyone. Some may feel the impulse to shoot mother and baby. I see that as level two, a physical, instinctual response that is additionally influenced by our chemical balance. Mothering and hunting are both human drives.

Now a friend calls me - she needs help regarding her dealings with her ex. I have no reflexive response, and if there is a release of chemicals, it is so slight it's undetectable to me. We end up talking for half an hour, pondering various solutions to her issue. We end up agreeing on the best path for her.

This last situation, please tell me how that is not a free will interaction. It is not a level one or two action.

I sometimes itch. Sometimes I scratch that itch. I wonder at what point the desire to scratch that itch transverses the point of free will or not free will?

Which sounds silly but is not really. There is SOME point at which choice is made to scratch or not and an actual DECISION is made.

And a further idea; if there is no free will, why are there brains to function beyond simple existence?

[vulcanlogician]

Ok, I am going to drop all terminology and categories and simply recount some self-observation.

I just scratched my head. I didn't think about it, it just happened, I see it as a physical reflex. This is the deepest, or lowest, level of what determines my actions, and I think that everyone can agree that this was not an action of "free will", but a pre-determined action based on a physical sensation.

Then I see a doe with kid walk past my window. I get the warm fuzzies, that little baby is just too cute and I want to cuddle and protect it. This is an instinct, triggering serotonin among other chemicals in me. My response to this sight is predetermined - but it does not apply to everyone. Some may feel the impulse to shoot mother and baby. I see that as level two, a physical, instinctual response that is additionally influenced by our chemical balance. Mothering and hunting are both human drives.

Now a friend calls me - she needs help regarding her dealings with her ex. I have no reflexive response, and if there is a release of chemicals, it is so slight it's undetectable to me. We end up talking for half an hour, pondering various solutions to her issue. We end up agreeing on the best path for her.

This last situation, please tell me how that is not a free will interaction. It is not a level one or two action.

So, yes, there is a difference in character between the head scratching behavior and the "helping a friend" behavior.

In the latter case, you expended much cognitive energy that wasn't expended in the former case. The hard determinist doesn't say that cognitive activity is a myth. Cognitive activity happens. It's just that, it happens due to the laws of nature. We don't control it. It controls us. And it, in turn, is controlled by the laws of nature.

Look at it this way: the determinist isn't saying "You don't choose."

The determinist says: "You choose what you do because of causes external to yourself."

For instance, you decided to help a friend through a crisis. That has more to do with your particular values, says the determinist than it does a completely spontaneous decision to do so.

Where did you get those values? You were raised with them?-- that is out of your control. You learned them in elementary school?-- what school you went to was out of your control. Life experiences that taught you compassion?-- again, out of your control. When you look at any decision you make, you can always ask what caused you to make that decision. And when you examine the causal chain, says the hard determinist, you'll always trace things back to something outside the agent's control.

We DO make choices. But what choices we make are determined (wholly) by prior states and events. That's the hard determinist position.

Plenty of people do not have a disposition to sit down with a friend and help them through a problem with their ex. Why not? Maybe, they were brought up to feel uncomfortable about that sort of thing, perhaps. But, see, that's out of their control. But if you asked THEM, they might say, "I felt uncomfortable, so I CHOSE not to."

[vulcanlogician]

You may be surprised to know that my discussion points are entirely mainstream at this point.  The question of whether consciousness is emergent or determined is cutting-edge stuff.

It's metaphysics dude. We'll never solve the issue unless physics comes in and solves the issue for us. All we can do is name what seems most reasonable to us, given what we know. Contemporary physics may have something to add, but I would say that cutting edge physics has advanced this discussion more than a few centimeters.

Also, I want to remind you that (while I'm arguing the determinist/incompatablist position here) I don't think one answer is the most obvious. There are good arguments on all sides. I just happen to see hard determinism as the most compelling.

What most free willists (libertarians and compatablists) are going to fixate on is how properly basic the sensation that we are free agents is. And that is a good point. After all, the determinist wants to argue that we should treat as illusory something that appears very, very real to us. Can we really use physics to justify a claim that so defies our intuitions? After all, isn't physics itself (ultimately) based on empiricism (trusting our basic senses). The free willist wants to say that physics hasn't conclusively disproved the intuition that we are free, and it needs to do that before the free willist abandons so basic an intuition.

Science is based on observations. Observations can't be made without sensory input. But the feeling that we are in control of our own actions is just as basic as sensory input. And just as hard to deny. So, the free willist argues, it is on the same epistemic ground as the senses.

[Dom]

Ok, I am going to drop all terminology and categories and simply recount some self-observation.

I just scratched my head. I didn't think about it, it just happened, I see it as a physical reflex. This is the deepest, or lowest, level of what determines my actions, and I think that everyone can agree that this was not an action of "free will", but a pre-determined action based on a physical sensation.

Then I see a doe with kid walk past my window. I get the warm fuzzies, that little baby is just too cute and I want to cuddle and protect it. This is an instinct, triggering serotonin among other chemicals in me. My response to this sight is predetermined - but it does not apply to everyone. Some may feel the impulse to shoot mother and baby. I see that as level two, a physical, instinctual response that is additionally influenced by our chemical balance. Mothering and hunting are both human drives.

Now a friend calls me - she needs help regarding her dealings with her ex. I have no reflexive response, and if there is a release of chemicals, it is so slight it's undetectable to me. We end up talking for half an hour, pondering various solutions to her issue. We end up agreeing on the best path for her.

This last situation, please tell me how that is not a free will interaction. It is not a level one or two action.

So, yes, there is a difference in character between the head scratching behavior and the "helping a friend" behavior.

In the latter case, you expended much cognitive energy that wasn't expended in the former case. The hard determinist doesn't say that cognitive activity is a myth. Cognitive activity happens. It's just that, it happens due to the laws of nature. We don't control it. It controls us. And it, in turn, is controlled by the laws of nature.

Look at it this way: the determinist isn't saying "You don't choose."

The determinist says: "You choose what you do because of causes external to yourself."

For instance, you decided to help a friend through a crisis. That has more to do with your particular values, says the determinist than it does a completely spontaneous decision to do so.

Where did you get those values? You were raised with them?-- that is out of your control. You learned them in elementary school?-- what school you went to was out of your control. Life experiences that taught you compassion?-- again, out of your control. When you look at any decision you make, you can always ask what caused you to make that decision. And when you examine the causal chain, says the hard determinist, you'll always trace things back to something outside the agent's control.

We DO make choices. But what choices we make are determined (wholly) by prior states and events. That's the hard determinist position.

Plenty of people do not have a disposition to sit down with a friend and help them through a problem with their ex. Why not? Maybe, they were brought up to feel uncomfortable about that sort of thing, perhaps. But, see, that's out of their control. But if you asked THEM, they might say, "I felt uncomfortable, so I CHOSE not to."

Well, we can split hairs over the term "external" versus "internal", but I won't. 

So your reply relies entirely on "nurture" actually, and not nature. I think it's a mix of nature and nurture, and the small space where these do not provide answers, is what I call free will.

[Alan V]

You may be surprised to know that my discussion points are entirely mainstream at this point.  The question of whether consciousness is emergent or determined is cutting-edge stuff.

Can you support that claim about "mainstream"?  

Discussions of emergence versus determinism are mainstream in the context of consciousness studies.  I am specifically referring to all of the books I have read on the subject in the last several years, many of which I summarized in the Consciousness discussion.  Here, for instance, is a link to a summary of a book I posted there which reviews some of the major theories:

Reduction and Emergence In Science and Philosophy