Why free will is impossible

[Sarkus]

ahh
its like gazing at a star in the sky and assuming it to be still there when in fact it could have gone supernova millions of years ago and is but a shell of its former self?

Hmmm - not sure that adequately encapsulates the issue. Your example is one where you receive all the information available at that time, and the interpretation (existence of star) is correct for that information.

The issue is more like receiving a partial amount of the light from an exploded star and your consciousness telling you it is still whole... but if you had total information you would see that it is an exploded star.

Or in another way it could be seen very much like an optical illusion: your brain/consciousness has all the information it's going to get, but due to the way the brain works it chooses to interpret it in a way that gives conclusions that work at a practical conscious level but don't necessarily match the underlying nature/reality.

and that these erroneous presumptions are in the same category as ascribing free agency to mental or physical events assumed to be initiated by said agency?

No. They are not erroneous presumptions (although your example might be). I hold that "free agency", "free-will" etc exists if we adequately define it so as to ascribe it only to the level of conscious perception, and not try to ascribe it to the underlying nature.
An issue in this debate is that we all accept freedom at the conscious level, but some try to use this conscious perception as support that it therefore exists at the underlying level.

it is then, because we lack the necessary degree of introspection to identify all possible priors that would suffice as an causal explanation, an understanding that our knowledge of all possible factors that can influence us is inadequate and incomplete; we are compelled to maintain that any ascription of free will to these events is necessarily illusory?

I would say it is more that because we (our consciousness) lack the necessary knowledge of the causes that our consciousness compels us to consider a choice/decision as more than illusory.
But when you examine the underlying nature (especially in R0g's scenario of "perfect causation" and zero randomness that is under discussion) there is no scope for "free"... everything acts in accordance to the causes acting on it: only those causes and on nothing else. "Free" requires an uncaused yet directed influence at this micro-level.
So if "free" can not exist at the micro-level, how can it exist at the macro-level if not merely an illusion of our consciousness?

in fact, any claim of free agency can be safely dismissed due to these concerns. ja?

No. My position is that "free agency" in this regard needs to be understood to only be applicable at a conscious level.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, I think this is Sarkus' contention.

You think wrong.

 

[wynn]

RoG's (and others') arguments that "free-will" exists stem from their conscious perception of activity that they define as free-will: the consciousness perceives "choice" to be a conscious activity of selection between alternatives, for example.

That is not my stance.

My (empirical) perception is, usually, that I do not have free will, that I am not a real agent, that my choices do not really seem to make a difference.

But I consider it demoralizing to consider that I am not a real agent.


There are many ways to conceive of human beings.

We can conceive of them as "living matter", and reduce everything about humans to be a matter of molecules and such.

Another view is to consider humans as moral beings, as philosophical beings.

These two views are irreconcilable.

Some people maintain that the moral/philosophical view is the superior one; some people claim the biological/physical one is the superior one.

I would say it is more that because we (our consciousness) lack the necessary knowledge of the causes that our consciousness compels us to consider a choice/decision as more than illusory.
But when you examine the underlying nature (especially in R0g's scenario of "perfect causation" and zero randomness that is under discussion) there is no scope for "free"... everything acts in accordance to the causes acting on it: only those causes and on nothing else. "Free" requires an uncaused yet directed influence at this micro-level.
So if "free" can not exist at the micro-level, how can it exist at the macro-level if not merely an illusion of our consciousness?
No. My position is that "free agency" in this regard needs to be understood to only be applicable at a conscious level.

This is so from the perspective of an empirical reductionist ...

If "axiomatic notions" differ by that much then surely they are no longer axioms but merely assumptions.
And as assumptions they must be argued for if they are to be accepted.

Unfortunately that is just a cop-out. And it smacks of "I have no further argument to offer... but I believe therefore it is."

Since my line of reasoning is that in an axiomatic manner, free will is real, that we are real agents, your acceptance or rejection of an argument is eventually down to your free will.

Of course, one problem here is at what point has an issue been argued for or against to a point where the other party sees it as a matter of an actionable decision, as opposed to a giant leap of faith.


My reasons for advocating that free will is real are moral, not empirical. As such, my stance is unaffected by whatever neuroscience or the other natural sciences may discover or claim.
(Note that this is posted in the Philosophy forum!)

 

[wynn]

You guys really are committed to the belief that if there is causation, there can't be free will, because free means unpredictable. You have bought into the deterministic trap hook, line and sinker. They have made you redefine your words. But that's what usually happens. That's why this topic is in all the intro courses. it's great for debate.

Before you took your philosophy class, you knew the difference between freedom and the lack of it. Do you really think you were just uneducated.


Didn't the problem seem a little contrived?

Not at all.
I believe that how a person reasons about free will translates into how they will understand their lives and how they will go about their lives.

For example, we can reasonably assume that a battered wife who believes her free will is an illusion will more likely stay with her abusive husband than one who believes her choice is real and relevant.

Run-of-the-mill people might not use fancy philosophical language, but instead concepts such as "believe in yourself" and "self-confidence" (or lack thereof) to express their ideas about (the realness of) free will.
These concepts can be analyzed in philosophical terms. Sometimes, such an analysis is necessary for purposes of accuracy (in entirely personal matters).

 

[Pandaemoni]

We can conceive of them as "living matter", and reduce everything about humans to be a matter of molecules and such.

Another view is to consider humans as moral beings, as philosophical beings.

These two views are irreconcilable.

I don't see why they would be irreconcilable. The notion that the universe or other actor, through evolution, self-generated a species of sentient beings capable of philosophical reflection is not much different than the notion that, in an unfeeling physicalist universe, inorganic machines could be developed that gain sentience and are capable of philosophical reflection.

I have no intuition for or against the possibility of such an advanced AI ever existing.

Since my line of reasoning is that in an axiomatic manner, free will is real, that we are real agents, your acceptance or rejection of an argument is eventually down to your free will.

What are the axioms by which you arrived at this conclusion? Are you certain that they are self-evidently true and their truth not itself subject to debate?

 

[Pandaemoni]

For example, we can reasonably assume that a battered wife who believes her free will is an illusion will more likely stay with her abusive husband than one who believes her choice is real and relevant.

I think that is wrong. A lack of belief in free will is not in any sense a variety of "fatalism." If a paramecium is attacked by another microorganism, it recoils from the attack. It does so not because it has free will, but because a rudimentary program running within the cell tells it to. *If* humans lack free will, then we have a more complex behavioral program, but there is clearly a part of it that directs us to avoid pain and abuse, just as it does for the paramecium. (Though that is only one part of such a "human program" and so might not be the "subroutine" that ultimately prevails when she analyzes her situation.)

A woman who leaves her abusive husband is less likely to be abused further, whether she has free will or not. That she might not leave despite that obvious fact, seems to suggest that she is operating on something other than conscious and thoughtful free will (which makes sense given the social nature of our species and what we know of life in hunter gatherer societies in which we evolved). The variety of cognitive biases we all share (including that hypothetical wife) suggests that we really do have strange algorithms that interfere with our ability to properly analyze situations and make "choices," even when the choice that is best for us and for our children seems trivially obvious.

 

[Sarkus]

That is not my stance.

My (empirical) perception is, usually, that I do not have free will, that I am not a real agent, that my choices do not really seem to make a difference.

Then we are talking very much different versions of "free will" - as my (empirical) perception is that we DO have free will. It is only when one examines the layer beneath that perception - which is not the layer our conscious selves live at - that we see free-will to be illusory.

But I consider it demoralizing to consider that I am not a real agent.

Then your argument is from consequence?

There are many ways to conceive of human beings.

We can conceive of them as "living matter", and reduce everything about humans to be a matter of molecules and such.

Another view is to consider humans as moral beings, as philosophical beings.

These two views are irreconcilable.

So what if they are (not that I necessarily agree them to be)?

Some people maintain that the moral/philosophical view is the superior one; some people claim the biological/physical one is the superior one.

They are different aspects of the same... one from the view of the conscious, one from the layer beneath.

The issue is in trying to say that because we perceive (consciously) activity to be X that X must hold true for everything beneath that layer.
For example, are molecules philosophical or moral? Or is philosophy and morality merely created by our consciousness as a descriptor for patterns of activity, but that they speak nothing for the underlying nature?

This is so from the perspective of an empirical reductionist ...

Now you're just arguing from labels rather than the points raised. Do you not have a counter to the points... or will you just point out where you percieve the perspective to be from?

Since my line of reasoning is that in an axiomatic manner, free will is real, that we are real agents, your acceptance or rejection of an argument is eventually down to your free will.

Sure - if that is your position - then the question is how that can be reconciled with those who do not hold to that axiom - or even hold that axiom to be incorrect?
To merely hold to an axiom as your argument is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you la la la".

My reasons for advocating that free will is real are moral, not empirical. As such, my stance is unaffected by whatever neuroscience or the other natural sciences may discover or claim.
(Note that this is posted in the Philosophy forum!)

[/quote]For Pete's sake!! No one is saying that free-will is not real! A mirage still exists, does it not?
As for arguing a point of logic / science on grounds of morality is just baffling... and smacks of appeal to consequence or merely personal incredulity, regardless of where the thread may be posted.

 

[Sarkus]

Not at all.
I believe that how a person reasons about free will translates into how they will understand their lives and how they will go about their lives.

What we understand about free-will or not is irrelevant to the practical implications, which are the same whether free-will is real or illusory. In each case we either act according to our "real" free-will, or we act according to the illusion of free-will.

But in both cases our conscious perception is one of free-will... and thus we act according to it... the same thing in either case.

For example, we can reasonably assume that a battered wife who believes her free will is an illusion will more likely stay with her abusive husband than one who believes her choice is real and relevant.

No, we can't reasonably assume that.

I believe my free-will is an illusion - and I assure you that I would act according to my perception of free-will, whether it is illusory or real.
To think any differently would be to fundamentally misunderstand the position being taken when one says "free will is an illusion".

Saying "free will is an illusion" is NOT saying that free will does not exist, merely that what we perceive as "free-will" is not the reality of it.
A mirage is an illusion. The mirage exists... but what we might perceive (e.g. water) is not the reality.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

I am not, however, sanguine enough to believe there will be any new and substantial discoveries on that point in our lifetimes (though I hope otherwise).

Until then man as free agent vs. man as organic robot remains a moot question.

Sadly, even if true, it can probably never be proven that we *lack* free will, because it requires proving a negative. Even if the workings of the brain are ever understood in full and the organ is shown to be wholly subject in every way to deterministic processes, believers would simply say the locus of free will exist externally from the brain (in a "soul." "mind" or other metaphysical construct).

Sarkus is right about one thing. This is a word game. We are dealing with a conceptual problem. It's about getting our concepts straight. It is a philosophical problem and they aren't solved by experimental results/postulation and testing/the scientific method. You may have noted that the whole thing has come down to this. "We are caused, so we are determined to do what we do, so we are predetermined, so we have no real choices" vs "We are beings that have the power to examine what is causing us to act and deciding whether we want to be influenced by those causes, and that is freedom from those causes." To which the response is always "But that was caused too" to which the reply is always"I know it's all caused, but what matters is whether it caused by an unreflective mechanism or a deliberative choice which takes those causes into account to shape the future in the direction it desires."

Another way to say the question is whether "cause" really means "restriction" or is it freedom neutral?

There aren't any tests for these questions. You just have to figure out whether your argument has been "caused" by conceptual confusion. For example equating "caused" with "predetermined" or "predictable" and "compelled" or "free" with "unpredictable".

In a way, we have two unverifiable hypotheses. Therefore everyone is safe in not changing their minds. And they have what they feel is a fun hammer to beat each other over the head with.

It's like the Gestalt duck/rabbit.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

As to all this "illusion" talk, think about what an illusion is. It is a misperception of reality based upon corrupted information. (I made that up). Think of a mirage. We can explain why we were fooled because we know what makes us see it the way we do. And we know if we remove those conditions/change our information pathway/change our perspective we can eliminate the circumstances which create the illusion and view our object more accurately.

So what is the corrupting/misleading information pathway that causes us to falsely perceive our deliberative processes and choices as performed and doable without interference, when they are really compelled by something (what? a "cause"?). Aren't we well aware of what causes us to do things? How is that fooling us?

 

[Sarkus]

As to all this "illusion" talk, think about what an illusion is. It is a misperception of reality based upon corrupted information. (I made that up).

"Corrupted" information? It is not corrupt, it is merely a perception... a subjective viewpoint.
The illusion is not in the information we DO receive at a conscious level but more likely in the papering over of what we do NOT receive.

Think of a mirage. We can explain why we were fooled because we know what makes us see it the way we do. And we know if we remove those conditions/change our information pathway/change our perspective we can eliminate the circumstances which create the illusion and view our object more accurately.

With a mirage, we may understand that it is not water on the road but a mirage, yet we still see it as water... we can not change the way we visualise it. There is scope to alter our view-point though.
However, when it is our very consciousness that is creating the illusion, it is not really applicable to think about how we can alter it... as "we" are that same consciousness. If it is part and parcel of being conscious, then we can not alter that perception without becoming non-conscious - a p-Zombie, if you will.

So what is the corrupting/misleading information pathway that causes us to falsely perceive our deliberative processes and choices as performed and doable without interference, when they are really compelled by something (what? a "cause"?). Aren't we well aware of what causes us to do things? How is that fooling us?

So you're "well aware" of the vast number of interactions that go on inside your brain, between the cells of your skin and other organs, of air brushing past your skin? Of every photon of light striking you?
So you are still patently arguing from a position of conscious perception, rather than the underlying nature.
The only things you are "aware" of, by definition, would be those you are conscious of... you can not be aware of, by definition, those things you are not conscious of.
And what is it that I am arguing is creating the illusion... that's right - that same conscious self, because it is at best aware of a few macro-level "causes" (it is raining so I choose not to go out etc) rather than aware of every interaction of every molecule, atom, quark etc that goes on inside and outside our bodies.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

I see the table, not the atoms. I move the table, not the atoms.

 

[Sarkus]

You do see the atoms, just not individually. And you do move the atoms.
But you consciously perceive the table, not the (individual) atoms.

Yet you still stick to your position not stemming from conscious perception?

 

[wynn]

What we understand about free-will or not is irrelevant to the practical implications, which are the same whether free-will is real or illusory. In each case we either act according to our "real" free-will, or we act according to the illusion of free-will.

But in both cases our conscious perception is one of free-will... and thus we act according to it... the same thing in either case.

I disagree. Humans are not robots and our philosophy of life ("philosophy" here meant in the broadest sense) is relevant to us. We cannot ignore our meta-reasoning.

If a person believes that ultimately, "they" don't really exist as persons, this will affect how they think, feel, speak and go about their daily lives.

No, we can't reasonably assume that.

I believe my free-will is an illusion - and I assure you that I would act according to my perception of free-will, whether it is illusory or real.
To think any differently would be to fundamentally misunderstand the position being taken when one says "free will is an illusion".

Saying "free will is an illusion" is NOT saying that free will does not exist, merely that what we perceive as "free-will" is not the reality of it.
A mirage is an illusion. The mirage exists... but what we might perceive (e.g. water) is not the reality.

I understand that (we've been over this before), but I think that aside from armchair philosophers, people generally cannot be functional with that kind of mental gymnastics.

One cannot say "Ultimately, 'I' don't really exist, 'I' am merely a mirage" and then go about their daily life as if nothing happened.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

With a mirage, we may understand that it is not water on the road but a mirage, yet we still see it as water... we can not change the way we visualise it.

Of course we can. When I understand what it is, I can see the clouds reflecting on the air layers. Perception is active, not passive. Our brains postulate concepts to explain what we see. Sometimes we are wrong, but we can usually test our perceptions to verify our postulations.

Why do you think reflection or consciousness is something I can't examine? Heck, our brains have different parts with different jobs. And I bet at the highest levels it gets very flexible. We know it can self-evaluate, then evaluate it's evaluation and so forth. That is the way reflection and self-appraisal work

 

[Regular0ldguy]

We cannot ignore our meta-reasoning.

If a person believes that ultimately, "they" don't really exist as persons, this will affect how they think, feel, speak and go about their daily lives.

Heck, I think most people do that all the time. Especially philosophers and religious folks. We compartmentalize like a son of a gun. It's called a lack of integrity. (No integration of the parts). Our brains aren't perfectly internally consistent logical entities. We have mixed emotions, mixed feelings, conflicting goals, and conflicting beliefs. I also doubt that it is purely a top down hierarchy like the military. We have different parts that do different things, and quite independently. And I'm even talking about conscious things.

Look at Perry Smith (in Truman Capote's In Cold Blood) as an extreme example, he treated the victims with respect and compassion, being truly concerned about their comfort and well being right up until he shot them in the face with a shotgun.

And before anyone responds: glass houses.

 

[wynn]

Since my line of reasoning is that in an axiomatic manner, free will is real, that we are real agents, your acceptance or rejection of an argument is eventually down to your free will.

What are the axioms by which you arrived at this conclusion? Are you certain that they are self-evidently true and their truth not itself subject to debate?

People can debate all kinds of things ... The existence of debate does't prove or disprove anything.

 

[wynn]

Heck, I think most people do that all the time. Especially philosophers and religious folks. We compartmentalize like a son of a gun. It's called a lack of integrity. (No integration of the parts).
/.../
And before anyone responds: glass houses.

But this lack of integrity is also perceived as something undesirable, lowly, unworthy, lack of integrity is not praised as something to strive for.

This suggests that integrity is something we naturally strive for.

 

[wynn]

As for arguing a point of logic / science on grounds of morality is just baffling... and smacks of appeal to consequence or merely personal incredulity, regardless of where the thread may be posted.

Those who minimize the importance of morality are ... bound to waste their time, to say the least.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

But this lack of integrity is also perceived as something undesirable, lowly, unworthy, lack of integrity is not praised as something to strive for.

This suggests that integrity is something we naturally strive for.

I certainly think it's better to have integrity on the cognitive level, I self consciously try to make that happen. (Of course I am compelled to do that by causes. -- See? Doesn't that sound dumb? Clearly that is confusing levels of concepts.)