Is free-will an illusion?

@Briancrc,

Briancrc wrote:

I think his work from the early 80's and subsequent studies with different instruments is really interesting stuff. I've heard how philosophers interpret the studies, but wonder what direction the work will take and wonder what the practical outcomes of studies derived from that work might be.

It makes sense to me that the human sense of agency, produced almost constantly by a few areas of the brain working in conjunction, aided survival and reproductive success (through both competition and cooperation), and that the concept of free will can be seen as an ad hoc rationalization.

It also seems likely to me that subconscious processes (which can't be free will) determine to some extent the apparently conscious decisions that we make, and that the sense of agency comes into play in those few seconds after the fact during which we reflexively, retroactively attribute the decision to a conscious process. Blind-sided by the subconscious, so to speak. The subconsciously generated sense of self/agency seems to make this almost inevitable, as far as I can tell. I'm still on the fence about it all, though, to be honest.

And then there's the hypersensitive agency-detecting device (HADD) that we seem to have evolved. Apply that to first-hand sensory perceptions and, voila, a sense of self/agency, which would naturally be projected out to the environment. Next thing you know, we've got gods causing earthquakes.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Briancrc wrote:

Quote:
Free will is not really "ncessary" other than to describe what happens to us when we make a choice, the hesitations...

That explanation is analogous to looking at something mysterious in nature and saying that it must be that way because of God. All critical thinking usually stops at that point.

That's not a correct comparison, because in the case of free will, we actually have many facts supporting its existence, and no facts whatsoever supporting its absence. For God it's the opposite: we have a number of facts pointing to his absence from the world, and very few facts pointing to his presence.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

...because in the case of free will, we actually have many facts supporting its existence...

What facts?

Quote:

we have a number of facts pointing to his absence from the world

Do we? How could we even have this type of evidence? I think it would be more appropriate to say that we do not have evidence to support the existence of these non-physical phenomena. Our inferences get stretched beyond the data leading some to postulate a metaphysical or non-physical system.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

What facts?

I answered that already: our own mental life and intuition... 7 billion people have daily confirmation that they must make constant choices in their lives. Some of these choices are damn hard to do, and people deliberate and hesitate quite a lot on them, proving IMO that it's not just some clockwork doing tic-toc-tic-toc. The experience of remorse is also real and frequent, and it reminds us that we could have done things differently. I still have to find a better explanation than free will for these facts.

Important to stress that psychological facts are true facts. Come to think of it, any fact is psychological as a fact is generally an observation or an idea based on an observation.

Quote:

Do we? How could we even have this type of evidence? I think it would be more appropriate to say that we do not have evidence to support the existence of these non-physical phenomena.

I take the unfairness of the world as evidence that there's no god in it. Agreed that one could reach other conclusions from the same fact.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

7 billion people have daily confirmation that they must make constant choices in their lives. Some of these choices are damn hard to do, and people deliberate and hesitate quite a lot on them, proving IMO that it's not just some clockwork doing tic-toc-tic-toc.

I agree that many people would describe their experiences that way. You will also find that millions of people say that there are ghosts, spirits, alien visits, etc., also based on their experiences. If making a claim is all that is necessary to call something a fact, then I think we have an unhelpful concept.

Quote:

I take the unfairness of the world as evidence that there's no god in it.

I hear you. Tragedies do shake the faith of many. However, they also strengthen the resolve of others.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

And then there's the hypersensitive agency-detecting device (HADD) that we seem to have evolved

The more we don't understand the cause of something, the more we attribute it to free will.

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

I agree that many people would describe their experiences that way. You will also find that millions of people say that there are ghosts, spirits, alien visits, etc., also based on their experiences. If making a claim is all that is necessary to call something a fact, then I think we have an unhelpful concept.

Can we agree hat you and I and folks out there have a sense of agency, a sense of remorse or regret? A sense of pride in their accomplishment? What would be the Darwinian advantage of that, if we had no real agency? Why would nature affect individuals with such sense of agency? What darwinian advantage does a fake, illusionary sense of agency bring?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Can we agree hat you and I and folks out there have a sense of agency, a sense of remorse or regret?A sense of pride in their accomplishment

I do agree.

Quote:

What would be the Darwinian advantage of that, if we had no real agency?

This question seems to imply that everything that happens in evolution has a purpose, or that there is always a current advantage for the survival of a trait. I think we have seen that is is not the case. When bacteria and viruses (as well as other factors) were dessimating populations it became extremely important for sex to be reinforcing and that we would copulate at every opportunity. That is no longer the case. The population of the human species is no longer in synch with selective pressures. When sugar and salt were difficult to come by it was important that those substances could reinforce behavior and that we would return to where those substances could be found. Now they are ubiquitous in most first world countries and we do not need to be so susceptible to the reinforcing effectiveness of consuming them; yet, we remain so. We have millions of people consuming far more than is needed for survival value. When this happens we attempt to explain why people are food addicts or sex addicts by invoking "lack of willpower" as a cause (among others ). This, of course, is circular, but many circular arguments keep people from thinking constructively.

Quote:

Why would nature affect individuals with such sense of agency? What darwinian advantage does a fake, illusionary sense of agency bring?

I know that theories on this topic exist, but the explanation that has made the most sense to me is that it is very difficult to see the selective effects of past consequences. Freud offered a deterministic account, tying current behavior to past experiences, but without tools to study behavioral phenomena he had to fill in the gaps with mental constructs; which were not helpful. Evolution, as a concept, has only been around for 150 years. Why would it come so late in human thought? The changes are just too slow to recognize. Cultures are constantly evolving. At some point in the history of the species people began to comment and question about events that were proximal to the time of the question. Those comments and questions then likely related to events that were more distal to the time of the inquiries. We set up conditions for people to describe what they have done, what they are doing, and what they are going to do. We forced unconscious behavior to become conscious; despite our nervous systems not having evolved quickly enough to account for the states of our bodies as society has asked for us to describe them.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

I don't buy that "The population of the human species is no longer in synch with selective pressures." We still want to copulate, mind you, because its has survival value (and the darwinianly attached entertaining value). And it is still natural (in part) for us to want and do so. Likewise the sense of agency is natural in us (I dare say) and it must have therefore some adaptive or cognitive or survival value.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I don't buy that "The population of the human species is no longer in synch with selective pressures."

Why? Because the human species is about to go extinct?

Quote:

We still want to copulate, mind you, because its has survival value (and the darwinianly attached entertaining value).

That's sort of my point. And I agree that we're pretty damn happy that it is as reinforcing as it is. Let's look at a different example then. Why do ostriches have wings? What is the current survival value?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

For the ostrich, running faster would be my guess. In any case it's a vestigial organ. Are you saying that human free will is like a vestigial trait, that we just get to have some pale copy of the sense of agency homo erectus had?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

No, I only brought up the example to illustrate that not all traits exist for survival value. I would guess that agency is a side-effect of the evolution of language, which evolved much faster than has the evolution of the species, and because we have been taught to observe and comment on our own behavior. Not being able to account for all of our life's experiences, and therefore not being able to identify reinforcing consequences as influencing the future frequency of our behavior, we fail to attribute our behavior to these conditions.

Our instinctual noises at some point came under operant control and they have been evolving ever since. I think that cultures have created the selective pressures for this to happen.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

For the ostrich, running faster would be my guess. In any case it's a vestigial organ. Are you saying that human free will is like a vestigial trait, that we just get to have some pale copy of the sense of agency homo erectus had?

A calculator has no free will but its useful...and so its the brain !
Hope that helps...

1 Reply

Again, this has probably all been said already, but the notion of arguing against the existence of free will has always seemed self-defeating to me. I've noticed others, much smarter than me, make the same observation.

If YOU are simply an automaton, incapable of thinking, feeling, inferring, etc. in any way other than in exactly the way you end up doing, then why should I listen to YOU if you proclaim that there is no free will.

By your own account, you are incapable of reaching that conclusion by any type of independent, detached observation or reasoning. You are forced, by circumstances outside of yourself and beyond your control, to say that.

Not too persuasive. Traditionally, we don't give much stock to coerced confessions obtained after severe torture, etc., know what I'm sayin?

2 Replies

@layman,

Automaton proponents make good defense lawyers, if they're smart enough to learn the trade, an ability which, I suppose would disqualify them for membership in the automaton society.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

If YOU are simply an automaton, incapable of thinking, feeling, inferring, etc. in any way other than in exactly the way you end up doing, then why should I listen to YOU if you proclaim that there is no free will

The assumption of determinism does not mean that the scientist views people as automata (although I've heard Jerry Coyne facetiously refer to people as meat robots); it also does not mean that people are incapable of thinking; and it does not mean that a person does not have feelings. Deterministic accounts of behavior do say that thinking and feeling are not the origins of behavior; not that these activities do not happen.

Quote:

By your own account, you are incapable of reaching that conclusion by any type of independent, detached observation or reasoning.

It is true that conclusions would be the result by past experiences.

Quote:

You are forced, by circumstances outside of yourself and beyond your control, to say that

While behavior can be coerced it is clear that we largely do things for reasons other than coercion. People influence each other all the time. A mother smiles and makes playful noises with her baby which results in cooing and laughing of her baby. The baby's cooing and laughing results in the mother smiling and making playful noises. We arbitrarily assign which was the cause and which was the effect. When we arbitrarily segment the event to a point in time that we can discriminate, then we confidently say one was the cause of the other. But when we broaden the history of consequences the clarity of the picture goes away. Samuel Buttler once said, "A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg." It is not a question of which came first; but which acted upon the other.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

A mother smiles and makes playful noises with her baby which results in cooing and laughing of her baby.

I think I understand, and pretty much agree with, what you say in this post. I'm not sure that what you say is particularly relevant to the question I raised, however. Does a mother have "no choice" but to make playful noises, etc? Is that a predetermined necessity, determined by "fate" billions of years ago? One mother makes playful noises, another beats the living crap out her baby for crying too much and disturbing her. No choice there?

But, still, that's not even the point. If you argue against free will, you implicitly include yourself. If you have no choice about what you say, and are simply complying with your pre-programming, then there is no reason for me to think you are saying anything "genuine." You have no choice but to say it. A stilted reading of a cue card by some performer does not convince me that there is anything substantial in the words he says. He's just reading something he may not even comprehend.

1 Reply

The free will vs. determinism debate has been going on for countless centuries, and will continue for countless centuries in the future, I suspect. Why? Because no one has any way of "proving" either side of the issue.

It's a matter of philosophy; of fundamental assumptions (which can never be disproven or proven within the "system" assuming it).

Take the case of math test where I miss an easy question, such as 5 + 5 = ?, and I put 11. Upon reflection I know that is the wrong answer, so why did I give it to begin with? I was tired? I was inattentive? I misread one of the 5's because it looked like a 6 to me at the time, maybe?

In theory I could have concentrated more, been more attentive, been more assiduous in reading and interpreting the numbers, etc. But I wasn't/didn't. Did I have no "choice" in the matter. Was it determined that I would give that inaccurate answer before I was even born?

Or could I have not been so hasty? If I had no "choice" in the matter, then I might just as well being an inanimate object, like a rock. It ends kicked around and ends up wherever it ends up without the slightest ability to control its own fate.

Some may be more and some less able to perform well on written tests, due in large part to varying degrees of ability control and direct their thought patterns to the subject at hand. But if I can direct and control what I concentrate and focus on, then it is a matter of will, not happenstance. Which is it, will or happenstance?

0 Replies

We should keep in mind what has oft been said before.
Our entire legal system relies on the concept of free will.
So, tell it to the judge.

1 Reply

@neologist,

There's an informal fallacy called "appeal to common practice."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know