Free Will vs. Determinism

[doodle]

Since we have addressed other big topics like climate change and religion, I thought that it might be interesting to tackle the issue of free will vs determinism. While this is a debate that has been going on for millennia, new scientific tools are allowing us to peer deeper into the nature of consciousness and according to some, it appears that the evidence is shifting to support the determinist side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Sam Harris (Phd in cognitive neuroscience)  recently wrote a book entitled "Free Will" which I have not read, but I have watched a number of his lectures regarding the topic and he makes a pretty convincing case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk

Harris says the idea of free will is incoherent and "cannot be mapped on to any conceivable reality". Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the concept that we might be.[66] According to Harris, science "reveals you to be a biochemical puppet."[67] People's thoughts and intentions, Harris says, "emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control." Every choice we make is made as a result of preceding causes. These choices we make are determined by those causes, and are therefore not really choices at all. Harris also draws a distinction between conscious and unconscious reactions to the world. Even without free will, consciousness has an important role to play in the choices we make. Harris argues that this realization about the human mind does not undermine morality or diminish the importance of social and political freedom, but it can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris#Free_will

I currently side with the determinist camp, but I'm open to change my mind. Anyone care to weigh in on the topic?

[Benko]

1. "Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the concept that we might be."

Of course the vast majority of people are not free.  99+% of everyone's actions are the result of psychological programming installed by parents/society.  One of the benefits of "working on one's self" is to gain freedom from this programming (if you are sucessful). This is a herculean (though very worthwhile) task.

2. One has to be careful because if one says that all is predetermined, some people will interpret that to mean that they can put in no effort and lay in bed all day and whatever benefits are supposed to happen to them will still happen.  Thus determinism can be an excuse for lazyness. 

Someone wise (Ramana Maharshi an Indian, as in the country, sage) once said:

If something is not meant to happen, it will not happen despite your best efforts to make it happen.

That I would agree is one proper way to understand predestination.  The opposite side of the coin I would argue could be phrased as:

If you want something, put in effort, and if it was meant to happen, it will.  Some things will still  come to you if you lay in bed, but you can't count on it.

3.  You've heard the term non-duality?  i.e. not this or that.  Reality is paradoxical.

Reality (and consciousness) cannot be understood intellectually.  That there are actually things beyond the mind is a super difficult one since we are very clever people with highly developed minds and we think we can intellectually understand everything. 

[moda0306]

While I'm more and more convinced that determinism is correct, I think having the HB'ist uber-individualist/freedom mindset is the most healthy one to employ in one's mind (though, of course, if determinism is correct, everyone is going to do what they're going to do.

So I'm really torn on this.  It's odd to say simultaneously that you believe we are slaves to the physics/chemistry of our brain and its motivations, yet simultaneously advocate perhaps one of the most freedom/choice-centric personal philosophies that exists.  Although, if everything is determined, that doesn't mean that effects don't have causes where they wouldn't otherwise have happened but for that cause... so whether it's predetermined or not, thinking of things like HB advocates will be a more reliable course to happiness. 

Odd how that works... a potentially huge lie ending up being the best driving force to personal happiness.

[Pointedstick]

I think it makes more sense to view this topic on a sliding scale rather than in terms of absolutes. If we have absolute 100% free will, how do we account for psychological conditioning, cultural pressures, biochemical realities, etc? But if free will is an illusion and determinism is correct, how can we square that with the fact they we obviously do make conscious decisions?

The way I like to look at it is that the various forces of determinism control which choices we see as available to us, and within that limitation, we have relatively free will to choose from among them.

To illustrate, people born into extreme poverty are raised in very specific environmental and psychological worlds that limit their perceived choices. It's not that they literally don't have the same options as anyone else, but that everything they've been exposed to convince them that they don't by shaping the landscape of their minds. Their free will has been much more severely constrained than a person who was raised in abundance, safety, and opportunity.

I think it's also true that, through enormous effort, we can expand the range of those deterministic choices. But it's really hard, and most people don't do it.

[doodle]

Causality is a fundamental principle in science, does human action break this "law"? Are there actions that humans make that fall outside of a causal chain, or is the chain just so complicated that tracing the nexus between one event and another is presently impossible thus giving rise to the illusion of choice?

[moda0306]

If people act purely on emotion, they are combining chemicals in the brain to its ability to signal the body to take certain actions.  This is not choice, even if you end up justifying it as such later to someone when they ask you "why did you do that?"

Where the question really lies is when reason enters the picture.  If we were all HB'ites, we'd let the two interplay perfectly, or at least optimally given the information/time we have.  But we're all flawed, and regardless of our success in using logic correctly, we often use it because the decision in front of us, no matter how small, gives us more emotional pleasure by using a logical approach.  If I purchase a car, I'm going to actually feel emotionally better about it if I use a logical approach.  I would feel ill-at-ease if I went into a Ferrari dealer and bought the car that gave me the best thrill of a drive.

So I think it's arguable that if the use of logic as an ACTION-course tool is just emotion in disguise based on our experiences in the past.  It might be perfectly correct, but we feel pride when we use it, and fear if we're not using it, even if we're SUPER logical.

So like I said... more and more I'm warming to the fact that we don't control anything.  We are either acting strictly on emotional drivers, or convincing ourselves that we are being logical, which even though we might be, it's really emotion driving our will to be logical, and what is ultimately going to make our decision for us.

[Mountaineer]

As my university advanced math professor frequently said, "the answer is obvious".   

Is the fundamental question "do we have free will?", or "why do we have (or not have) free will?", or "what is the source of free will (if we have it) and why do you think that?", etc.  A long series of "whys" until the root is exposed - then many will still not agree with the answer.  Besides that, are we talking only what can be observed?  The metaphysical?  Something else?  Who is qualified to make the assessment?  Why?  This thread may end up more complicated than the "global warming, global cooling, climate change" discussion. 

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

There is an interesting chapter in Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained which suggests that decisions are made for us before we make them, but that the illusion that we made the decision persists. I'll just sweep that under the rug and get on with my life...

[MediumTex]

If you show me 1,000 babies born in the ghetto to single moms who are drug addicts, I can tell you what the general arc of most of those babies' lives will be, even though they may think they are exercising free will every step of the way.

[doodle]

I think it makes more sense to view this topic on a sliding scale rather than in terms of absolutes. If we have absolute 100% free will, how do we account for psychological conditioning, cultural pressures, biochemical realities, etc? But if free will is an illusion and determinism is correct, how can we square that with the fact they we obviously do make conscious decisions?

The way I like to look at it is that the various forces of determinism control which choices we see as available to us, and within that limitation, we have relatively free will to choose from among them.

To illustrate, people born into extreme poverty are raised in very specific environmental and psychological worlds that limit their perceived choices. It's not that they literally don't have the same options as anyone else, but that everything they've been exposed to convince them that they don't by shaping the landscape of their minds. Their free will has been much more severely constrained than a person who was raised in abundance, safety, and opportunity.

Can you choose an option that you are not aware of? Could you choose to take a vacation to a city that you didn't even know existed?

There is an interesting chapter in Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained which suggests that decisions are made for us before we make them, but that the illusion that we made the decision persists. I'll just sweep that under the rug and get on with my life...

This question has far reaching implications about how we deal with every social issue. I don't think it can be swept under the rug.

I think this discussion hinges around the issue of causality. It appears that everything in our universe functions in a causal manner. Action -> reaction that proceeds in a predictable way. Is there any evidence of things happening without a cause? Even the seemingly random swirls of smoke from the end of a cigarette are subject to causation. If human behavior isn't, then to what can we attribute this to?

[doodle]

Someone wise (Ramana Maharshi an Indian, as in the country, sage) once said:

If something is not meant to happen, it will not happen despite your best efforts to make it happen.

That I would agree is one proper way to understand predestination.  The opposite side of the coin I would argue could be phrased as:

If you want something, put in effort, and if it was meant to happen, it will.  Some things will still  come to you if you lay in bed, but you can't count on it.

I think there is a distinction between "fate" or "predestination" and determinism. Fate seems to suggest that something will happen no matter what...almost as if the universe or Gods had a hand in making something so. Determinism I view more like the process of a rock bouncing down a hill. It's final resting place has a causal chain, but it isn't fated to be so no matter what by some universal plan.

[Benko]

Even the seemingly random swirls of smoke from the end of a cigarette are subject to causation

Really? what do you base this on?

I think this discussion hinges around the issue of causality

Why?  What do you mean by that? 
How does the fact that A causes B have anything to do with predestination vs free will?

It appears that everything in our universe functions in a causal manner.

Really?  What makes you say that?

You wish that were the case, but many things either have no cause, or everything causes everything* either way you will not be intellectually satisfied.

*wording taken loosely from I am That.

[doodle]

Even the seemingly random swirls of smoke from the end of a cigarette are subject to causation

Really? what do you base this on?

Does the cigarette smoke decide on its own which direction it is going to go, or is its direction caused by moving air currents?

I think this discussion hinges around the issue of causality

Why?  What do you mean by that? 
How does the fact that A causes B have anything to do with predestination vs free will?

Free will means that your actions have no causes...that they are independent of any causal chain.

It appears that everything in our universe functions in a causal manner.

Really?  What makes you say that?

You wish that were the case, but many things either have no cause, or everything causes everything* either way you will not be intellectually satisfied.

*wording taken loosely from I am That.

Can you give an example of something that happens without a cause? I'm having trouble thinking of anything.... 

[MediumTex]

Can you give an example of something that happens without a cause? I'm having trouble thinking of anything.... 

How about when God came into existence?  If there were a cause, that would suggest God was not omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal, which we know he is because that is his nature.

Even if God doesn't actually exist, the human thought process that created him proceeded from the premise that there could be an effect without a cause.

[doodle]

Can you give an example of something that happens without a cause? I'm having trouble thinking of anything.... 

How about when God came into existence?  If there were a cause, that would suggest God was not omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal, which we know he is because that is his nature.

Even if God doesn't actually exist, the human thought process that created him proceeded from the premise that there could be an effect without a cause.

1. The big bang is certainly an issue (and not even a proven fact) However, I was referring to the universe as it exists presently.

2. Are you saying that in a predetermined world humans couldn't conceive of things that contradicted the laws of nature and therefore that is an argument for free will? Just seeing if I am understanding where you are going with this.

[MachineGhost]

I currently side with the determinist camp, but I'm open to change my mind. Anyone care to weigh in on the topic?

Typical objectivist-reductionist we're-nothing-but-chemicals viewpoint.  Try metaphysics for a broader concept of what consciousness really is.  Your ego is not all you, even if you conflate your self with it day-to-day.

Determinism is just how your genetically imprinted brain circuitry and neuro-behavior is formed at any given moment.  No one is stopping you from making different choices than the default "feels good", even if it is hard.  We're not total slaves to our programming, hence free will to choose.

[dualstow]

There is an interesting chapter in Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained which suggests that decisions are made for us before we make them, but that the illusion that we made the decision persists. I'll just sweep that under the rug and get on with my life...

This question has far reaching implications about how we deal with every social issue. I don't think it can be swept under the rug.

I think this discussion hinges around the issue of causality.
...

I simply mean this: Let's assume that everything is determined by mechanisms beyond our control even if we have the illusion of free will. Should we stop putting murderers in jail because causality made them do it? I don't think so. Everything is based on the idea that free will exists, and I think it's sensible to keep it that way. To quote Libertarian666, there are no other viable options.

Now you've got me thinking about Minority Report.

[sixdollars]

At any point in time, you use all information in your brain's knowledge bank to make a decision.  Since you have options, it can seem like you have free will, but aren't you pretty much wired to choose one answer over the other?  Unless you are in a parallel universe where you were presented with different information, why would you ever make a different decision?  If we could hypothetically go back in time and replay a person's life under the exact same circumstances over and over again, would he/she ever do anything different?  I don't think so, why would he/she?

Let's say hypothetically that we could go back in time and re-witness history.  If nothing new were introduced into the system, would you expect it to change? If so, why?

I've always thought that life was an awful lot like watching a movie.  The way the movie is recorded is not going to change regardless of how many times you rerun it - it is already recorded and has been released that way, you can't control that - but that doesn't make the movie any less enjoyable to watch and experience (as long as the plot isn't terrible).  I think that life is a lot like that.  Life isn't any less enjoyable even if what is happening is already pretty much destined to happen.  We don't know the future either way, it's still a fun journey, and it feels particularly real and exhilarating for these reasons. 

I almost think the answer doesn't really matter, either way, but it's still certainly interesting to ponder.  Ideas are fun.

[MediumTex]

Are you saying that in a predetermined world humans couldn't conceive of things that contradicted the laws of nature and therefore that is an argument for free will? Just seeing if I am understanding where you are going with this.

If I were predetermined to be that dude who was always conceiving of things that contradicted the laws of nature, that might just be part of a predetermined world.

In general, I would expect a predetermined world to have lots of people wandering around in it imagining that they were exercising free will.  It would be an illusion, of course, but it could be very realistic.

The question then becomes if I think that I am exercising free will even though everything is predetermined, what is the relevance of the predetermination?  It's sort of like if a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

All I really want is the feeling of free will.  If I am actually a bit of human brain material created in a lab that is sitting under a heat lamp on Xenu's home planet and I am just part of an elaborate simulation of an earth that was destroyed long ago, I really don't care as long as the simulation maintains its coherence and the lines defining my existence remain clear.

The threat posed by nihilism can strike from any direction at any time.  You have to be mindful of that.  I think that only owning each moment can really keep that at bay, and that's coming from someone who has probably wasted years of precious time ruminating on the past and future like I had a computer virus in my brain.

[sixdollars]

All I really want is the feeling of free will.  If I am actually a bit of human brain material created in a lab that is sitting under a heat lamp on Xenu's home planet and I am just part of an elaborate simulation of an earth that was destroyed long ago, I really don't care as long as the simulation maintains its coherence and the lines defining my existence remain clear.

I very much agree with this line of thinking as well

[MediumTex]

All I really want is the feeling of free will.  If I am actually a bit of human brain material created in a lab that is sitting under a heat lamp on Xenu's home planet and I am just part of an elaborate simulation of an earth that was destroyed long ago, I really don't care as long as the simulation maintains its coherence and the lines defining my existence remain clear.

I very much agree with this line of thinking as well

This idea is actually part of our reality when it comes to human beings and Earth.  Even with our technology, we interact with our habitat in countless ways that would be impossible away from the Earth.  For example, our moods, our sleep patterns, and our interactions with others are all driven by the Earth's position in relation to the Sun and the Moon.  If you take people way from the Earth in significant numbers I think that there would be many reports of depression, alienation and illness that would have varying degrees of connection to being away from our natural habitat.  I don't think that it would be possible to replicate it on spacecraft like they do in the movies.

In other words, as a species we may be predetermined to only inhabit planet Earth, even though we may believe that we have the free will to travel to the stars.

In my example above, free will is played out in terms of perceptions of the future, but it may be that much of free will is simply the desire and ability to make future plans according to your own design, rather than just moving through life without following some kind of blueprint.  In other words, the key part of free will may be the planning you do based on your free will-oriented designs, as opposed to the implementation of the planning, and this is important because it causes perceptions of free will to be more abstract, which can make it harder to confirm whether free will actually exists.

For example, let's say there is a kid in the ghetto who made elaborate plans for escaping from the ghetto, and he always had a fresh five year plan in his pocket to help him achieve his plans, but he unfortunately never did anything listed in his plans.  Even though the kid never escaped from the ghetto, the kid might still believe that he has free will because he was able to define a future for himself according to his values and desires, even though his predetermined life was actually playing out more or less the way you would have thought based upon the conditions he was born into.

[MachineGhost]

All I really want is the feeling of free will.  If I am actually a bit of human brain material created in a lab that is sitting under a heat lamp on Xenu's home planet and I am just part of an elaborate simulation of an earth that was destroyed long ago, I really don't care as long as the simulation maintains its coherence and the lines defining my existence remain clear.

Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?

[Takes a bite of steak]

Cypher: Ignorance is bliss.

[dualstow]

There is an interesting chapter in Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained which suggests that decisions are made for us before we make them, but that the illusion that we made the decision persists. I'll just sweep that under the rug and get on with my life...

All I really want is the feeling of free will.

You say tomato...

No, I totally agree. And I think we do have that, and finding out about determinism doesn't put a dent in it anymore than the Dead Sea Scrolls could put a dent in Christianity.

[sixdollars]

All I really want is the feeling of free will.  If I am actually a bit of human brain material created in a lab that is sitting under a heat lamp on Xenu's home planet and I am just part of an elaborate simulation of an earth that was destroyed long ago, I really don't care as long as the simulation maintains its coherence and the lines defining my existence remain clear.

Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?

[Takes a bite of steak]

Cypher: Ignorance is bliss.

Surprised you didn't link to the clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM

[MediumTex]

There is an interesting chapter in Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained which suggests that decisions are made for us before we make them, but that the illusion that we made the decision persists. I'll just sweep that under the rug and get on with my life...

All I really want is the feeling of free will.

You say tomato...

No, I totally agree. And I think we do have that, and finding out about determinism doesn't put a dent in it anymore than the Dead Sea Scrolls could put a dent in Christianity.

And how would someone ever know if their free will was real free will, or just simulated free will....and the next question would be why it matters.