Is free-will an illusion?

@layman,

The article presented some possible sources of error.

Quote:

It is a fallacy to think that one could establish a metaphysical conclusion from phenomenology alone.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

The article presented some possible sources of error.

Quote:

It is a fallacy to think that one could establish a metaphysical conclusion from phenomenology alone.

You didn't include that in your excerpt, eh? I agree that this is fallacious.

Does it apply to those who DENY that free will exists, on the basis of phenomenology alone, ya figure?

That's certainly not who your author directs it to, is it?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

being "unaware" (consciously) of certain movements (such as finger movements when playing piano in a highly skilled manner), does not mean that they "originated" with something mysterious and unknown called the "subconscious."

Suppose I design some computer software to store a shitload of data, and to perform complex computational tasks. Then I set it to work, and head out to play basketball. Before long I am not the least bit conscious of the fact that the program is still working away, back at my crib.

So what? Does that mean that my conscious will played no part in the computations being done?

Your boy says:

Quote:

It truly is counterintuitive to think that one could exercise free will while at the same time being wholly unaware that they are doing so.

Is he relying on what is supposedly "counter-intuitive" to make his case? If so he must be an advocate of free will, I figure. They will often note that it is "counter-intuitive" to deny free will, ya know?

1 Reply

@layman,

Can you see the article at the links I included? The article doesn't display correctly on my different devices when I try using the hyperlinks included in the posts. I have trouble with PDF links for some reason. If you're interested, I could send it to you if needed.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Yeah, one of those works, at least. I have skimmed the article, but have really read it carefully. What does this guy think? He says:

Quote:

My position is that we often do have direct access to our own mental states (i.e., our higher cognitive processes), but that the way we are aware of such states allows for the possibility of misrepresentation and confabulation

.

"Often" but not always, eh? Whooda thunk.

1 Reply

@layman,

I think he is working from the premise that behavior that is the result of an inner agent is fundamentally a conscious inner agent. If one is unaware of one's behavior, then how was the behavior chosen? He remarks...

Quote:

I share O’Connor’s surprise at the fact that consciousness has not played a larger role in accounts of free will, especially given the obvious importance of conscious awareness

Quote:

It truly is counterintuitive to think that one could exercise free will while at the same time being wholly unaware that they are doing so. An intelligent automaton cannot and should not be the paradigm of a free agent.

This seems to be a valid position. Then the author informs the reader that

Quote:

And after an exhaustive examination of the literature, I have been unable to find any substantial account of the role consciousness plays in libertarian freedom.

You never know how "exhaustive" an examination is, however.

When he turns his attention to introspection he writes...

Quote:

people often infer their own freedom from their introspective phenomenology of freedom. Why is this so? Well one possible answer is that people implicitly believe that we have access to all the causal factors and the causal processes underlying our own decision-making. If people were to believe in such introspective transparency, then it would be appropriate, given the above phenomenology, for them to infer that they are undetermined. For if one introspects no deterministic processes underlying one’s decision making, and one also thinks that if there were a deterministic process one would introspect it, one could infer that there is no deterministic process. This is, I believe, part of the story of why we feel free.

And this fits with most anecdotes that people cite. People will say that when they are not coerced, then they are free to act however they want, without any regard to what they want being a function of what has happened to them in the past (as though past experiences do not matter). He extends the argument, but I'll avoid restating all he wrote.

1 Reply

Quote:

Perspect Psychol Sci
The Unconscious Mind
John A. Bargh and Ezequiel Morsella
John A. Bargh, Department of Psychology, Yale University

Abstract

The unconscious mind is still viewed by many psychological scientists as the shadow of a “real” conscious mind, though there now exists substantial evidence that the unconscious is not identifiably less flexible, complex, controlling, deliberative, or action-oriented than is its counterpart. This “conscious-centric” bias is due in part to the operational definition within cognitive psychology that equates unconscious with subliminal. We review the evidence challenging this restricted view of the unconscious emerging from contemporary social cognition research, which has traditionally defined the unconscious in terms of its unintentional nature; this research has demonstrated the existence of several independent unconscious behavioral guidance systems: perceptual, evaluative, and motivational. From this perspective, it is concluded that in both phylogeny and ontogeny, actions of an unconscious mind precede the arrival of a conscious mind—that action precedes reflection.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440575/

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

He extends the argument, but I'll avoid restating all he wrote.

You certainly don't extend it to the bottom line, eh? I have already done that. Here it is again. Do you deny it?

Quote:

My position is that we often do have direct access to our own mental states (i.e., our higher cognitive processes), but that the way we are aware of such states allows for the possibility of misrepresentation and confabulation

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

From this perspective, it is concluded that in both phylogeny and ontogeny, actions of an unconscious mind precede the arrival of a conscious mind—that action precedes reflection.

It's a tautology which adds nothing to, and explains nothing about, any questions about free will. The "unconscious mind" acts prior to reflection. WHO KNEW!!??? That's precisely why it labelled as "unconscious."

Do these author pretend that ALL actions are unconscious? Obviously not. They say:

Quote:

These would seem to be of high functional value, especially as default behavioral tendencies when the conscious mind, as is its wont, travels away from the present environment into the past or the future. It is nice to know that the unconscious is minding the store when the owner is absent.

So this so-called "unconscious mind" has an "owner" called the "conscious mind," eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Reading this last post from you one would guess mind is made of vacuum with a conscious owner...I mean what else can one conlude from your wisdom pearls rigbt ?

1 Reply

The day an ant can read I will believe in free will... Cool

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Reading this last post from you one...

I was quoting the authors whose paper FBM spammed, eh?

What in the hell does a reading ant have to do with free will? I'll believe in free will when I see a man fly to the moon on his own power, too, eh?

0 Replies

This thread is becoming a bit silly. Confusing the issue of free will with the issue of the conscious vs unconscious is muddling the water. If I drive a car from point A to point B, I don't need to think consciously about all the moves I need to do for the car to move there, yet I am conscious all the time and if something unexpected happen, say a kid crosses the street in front of me, I'll still try and avoid him consciously. (and will do so in a split second, mind you... So a choice can be made in less than one second)

If our subconscious self was running the show, forcing us to do stuff which we recognise as conscious choices only post factum, don't you think there would be many more accidents? The fact that we succeed in many things that we do implies that our thinking apparatus is not that broken.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

I'm not sure about this, Ollie. In fact I think it would be the other way around:

Quote:

If our subconscious self was running the show, forcing us to do stuff which we recognise as conscious choices only post factum, don't you think there would be many more accidents?

But I do agree with this:

Quote:

Confusing the issue of free will with the issue of the conscious vs unconscious is muddling the water.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Say that you're sitting down, with your eyes closed (indoors, outdoors, where ever) and you suddenly open them.

In one sense you will "see" everything within your range of vision. In another, you won't, because you can't focus your attention on "everything" at once. It might be a long time before you "notice" a bird on the branch of a somewhat distant tree, for example (if you notice it at all).

But since it is all within your field of vision, you might be "called upon" to pay particular attention to a given item. Your "subconscious" might immediately direct you to pay attention to a poisonous snake in the "corner of your eye," for example.

But not necessarily. It might depend on the circumstances. If you were walking down a forest path, your subconscious might "see" the snake first, because you have generally "instructed it" to be on the lookout for potential danger and to avoid potential harm. You might just veer away from the direction of the snake and keep on going, without consciously processing the fact that you even saw it.

1 Reply

Some of these spammed articles talk about hypnosis, and then obeying post-hypnotic instructions, such as crawling on your hands and knees as soon as you "awake."

But some people can't be hypnotized. A professional hypnotist tried to hypnotize me once, but he couldn't do it. Why not?

I think it's because, even with hypnosis, there's a "choice" involved. Some people are more willing to turn control over to the hypnotist than others. I was not willing to do that.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I don't need to think consciously about all the moves I need to do for the car to move there, yet I am conscious all the time and if something unexpected happen, say a kid crosses the street in front of me, I'll still try and avoid him consciously.

I agree with you, Olivier. One can drive a normal route, be thinking of something unrelated to driving, and then when refocusing attention on driving, be somewhat surprised at the distance travelled. With something coming in front of your vehicle, turning to avoid it has been built up through your experiential history. As a novice driver you were given rules about how to operate the vehicle, but consequences very quickly took over. If you didn't avoid a rock or a hole, then the sound and feeling of hitting those objects taught you that it was important to avoid them. Curbs, tree branches, things that fell off other vehicles, are things to avoid and you avoid most of them so your vehicle doesn't get damaged and you don't get injured. This type of learning has been classified under negative reinforcement (negative being a mathematical term for describing removing or avoiding something unpleasant).

But why wouldn't consciousness matter in the discussion of free will? The rules and reasons we give ourselves is something that happens quite a bit.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

you might be "called upon" to pay particular attention to a given item. Your "subconscious" might immediately direct you to pay attention to a poisonous snake in the "corner of your eye," for example

I think one is called upon, but I would say that the environment calls upon the person, ensuring that he "sees" and "hears" certain portions and responds accordingly. At times there are contingencies of survival at work, but at all times there are contingencies of reinforcement and punishment. We could learn to not touch a hot stove by touching one, but a parent's repeated yelling or hand-slapping for approaching the stove does the trick until language has developed to the point that saying, "If you touch that you're going to get hurt" works. Either way, rules or experience, the direction went from the environment to the person.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

I think one is called upon, but I would say that the environment calls upon the person

Let's saying I'm looking at a red ball. Do I see it that way because the ball is red?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Do I see it that way because the ball is red?

At least two things seem to be happening. Upon the eyes orienting at the object, a wavelength of light reaches your eye. If you label the object "red" then that has come about because a verbal community taught you to use that word in the presence of objects with that wavelength of light.

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know