Why Free Will does not Exist

[corynski]

So you also didn't choose or decide what the content of your post would be? It's amazing, then, that your post mentions Marvin Minsky and a particular book he wrote. It sounds like the content of your post was rather purposeful.

But you're saying it was all just a big coincidence that your post mentions Minsky and his book on this thread about free will?

The number of inexplicable coincidences on this single thread are just mind-boggling. Eventually someone may try to explain them.

Very difficult to put into words, I grant you. Yes I chose, but I had no choice what to choose, it was simply the result of all the previous 'choices' that I've made. And no it wasn't a coincidence to mention Minsky, but again it was the result of all my prior choices. Sorry I can't be more articulate, but it's not something I've tried to explain before. I'll see if I can explain it better.........

 

[corynski]

So something "causes" you to become angry. You have no choice then except to react to that anger. Will the anger you feel cause your actions? Or can you decide not to let the anger cause your actions? Can you resist the urge to act on your anger?

No, the anger I feel will not 'cause' my actions, as my response will be result of much more than the current thoughts I have, it will be the result of my lifetime of experiences leading up to this moment. And when I 'decide' something it will be the only possible decision based on all of my prior life and previous decisions. I seem to be saying that nothing is decided in the moment, that decisions are products of all our past experiences.

 

[Nous]

So you didn't decide or choose the content of your post?

I did in the Humean sense

In the post of yours that I responded to, you asked "how could any decision be made . . ." And seemingly the rest of that sentence could be summarized as "in the context of the thesis of determinism or in the context of "quantum randomness". Is that an accurate restatement of what you asked?

If so, then please explain how you decided or chose the content of your post "in the Humean sense".

BTW, do you maintain that the thesis of determinism has not been refuted by the scientific evidence? If so, please see this thread: Solve the Riddle of Compatibilism, Win Big Prize In the OP, the thesis of determinism is defined (see especially the SEP definition), and in post #19 the evidence is cited showing that the postulates of local realism have been experimentally refuted. As the papers explain, the postulate of "realism" is just that quanta have properties in definite states prior to (in the absence of) a measurement. Obviously if the postulate of realism is not true of quanta, then the thesis of determinism cannot be true of the world. Right?

I don't regard 'stultifying' as the test.

I have indeed reflected on such matters. Determinism is no bar to reflection.

As for truth-value, that's part of our worldview as humans, and if it's a mirage, it's a useful one, since insight into the actual processes of determinism is inaccessible to us anyway, hence can't aid our understanding of the present or the future. No surprise, then, if we've evolved other ways to respond to the various challenges of reality.

The fact that the denial of having free will is self-stultifying is deduced from the fact that the entity that lacks the ability to choose between (a) or (b) is unable to choose (a) and reject (b) even when (a) states a true proposition about having free will and (b) states a falsehood about having free will.

 

[Nous]

I had no choice what to choose

How did you determine that that is a true statement?

 

[corynski]

How did you determine that that is a true statement?

I think what I'm saying is that a choice is made not just with consciousness, nor just at the present moment. So much more goes into our decisions than just our conscious thoughts. Our sentient consciousness acts as a kind of overseer, and perhaps has the power of negating any larger decision.
I'm trying to think of a good example...... I've had the experience of trying to decide between two things to do, then suddenly electing another alternative that I'd not been consciously debating. It was as if my entire being made the final decision, not just my consciousness.

 

[Nakosis]

No, the anger I feel will not 'cause' my actions, as my response will be result of much more than the current thoughts I have, it will be the result of my lifetime of experiences leading up to this moment.

This part is not determinism. It's just saying there was a cause for your choice.

And when I 'decide' something it will be the only possible decision based on all of my prior life and previous decisions.

This is the assumption of determinism. That you cannot resist the effect of any of these prior causes.

I seem to be saying that nothing is decided in the moment, that decisions are products of all our past experiences.

Well, you do make a decision. Determinism only assumes the decision that you do make was the only decision you could make in that particular situation.

Like saying the 8 ball could decide whether or not to go into the pocket regardless of how it was hit.

You however, as opposed to the 8 ball, possess knowledge and experience and the ability to control the motion, to a specific degree, of your body.

Events that happen in the past no longer exist. They no longer exert actual influence. They are now only memories, thought, ideas that you possess. You have to a greater or lesser degree, it varies with the individual, control over them.

While you can't control the event which cause you to feel anger in the first place. You can control your thoughts and desires. You can choose to think "happy" thought. Relive a happy or pleasant experience. These choices will negate the influence of anger on your actions.

Part of Buddhism is right thoughts, right action. It assume that you at least have the ability to control your thoughts. And, your thoughts control your actions.

 

[Skwim]

From what I can find, the question has still not be proven with definitive research.

What question are you referring to?

There are clearly some situations where there is an illusion of free will as the first reference below illustrates. But the second reference makes a good argument that free will does in fact exist in some situations.

Free Will Is Not an Illusion

This is a terrible argument! He totally fails to understand the issue, which means his argument isn't worth bothering with. At least it isn't to me.

.

 

[Nous]

I think what I'm saying is that a choice is made not just with consciousness, nor just at the present moment. So much more goes into our decisions than just our conscious thoughts. Our sentient consciousness acts as a kind of overseer, and perhaps has the power of negating any larger decision.

I agree with all of this. There are endless factors that influence our ordinary decisions. But that isn't a denial of the ability to choose--indeed, just the opposite: it is first and foremost an affirmation of the ability to choose between available options. It is an affirmation of the undeniable distinction between voluntary and involuntary bodily movements. I can foretell that (ceteris paribus), with near certainty, by the 5th of next month I will go to my online account at my ISP and click the buttons to pay my bill for internet service. I can foretell that because it is a voluntary, willful act. I can't foretell my involuntary bodily movements in such a way.

 

[blü 2]

you asked "how could any decision be made . . ." And seemingly the rest of that sentence could be summarized as "in the context of the thesis of determinism or in the context of "quantum randomness". Is that an accurate restatement of what you asked?

Yes. If there isn't cause&effect and there isn't randomness, what else is there? What third way could a sentient being employ to (in this case) reach a decision?

If so, then please explain how you decided or chose the content of your post "in the Humean sense".

I wrote according to my desires, regardless of whether those desires were generated by hard or quantum-fuzzied (random-fuzzied) determinism or not. (My own view is that they were because there's no other way they could have been generated.)

BTW, do you maintain that the thesis of determinism has not been refuted by the scientific evidence?

Hard determinism is out, on our present understanding. I'm not aware of any overthrow of fuzzy determinism.

Refuted in favor of anything in particular, by the way?

If so, please see this thread: Solve the Riddle of Compatibilism, Win Big Prize In the OP, the thesis of determinism is defined (see especially the SEP definition), and in post #19 the evidence is cited showing that the postulates of local realism have been experimentally refuted. As the papers explain, the postulate of "realism" is just that quanta have properties in definite states prior to (in the absence of) a measurement. Obviously if the postulate of realism is not true of quanta, then the thesis of determinism cannot be true of the world. Right?

Why would that stop fuzzy determinism being true of the macro world? After all, at the quantum scale you can have superposition, and hyper-c unentanglement, and all sorts of things that don't happen over breakfast.

I remember your previous thread on compatibleism. I think I expressed the view that I wasn't ultimately a compatibilist (though in practice I can happily act like a Humean), rather an all-out (fuzzy) determinist ─ but that the latter didn't psychologically worry me, since I have a strong sense that my decisions came from my self, from my own will.

 

[corynski]

This part is not determinism. It's just saying there was a cause for your choice.



This is the assumption of determinism. That you cannot resist the effect of any of these prior causes.



Well, you do make a decision. Determinism only assumes the decision that you do make was the only decision you could make in that particular situation.

Like saying the 8 ball could decide whether or not to go into the pocket regardless of how it was hit.

You however, as opposed to the 8 ball, possess knowledge and experience and the ability to control the motion, to a specific degree, of your body.

Events that happen in the past no longer exist. They no longer exert actual influence. They are now only memories, thought, ideas that you possess. You have to a greater or lesser degree, it varies with the individual, control over them.

While you can't control the event which cause you to feel anger in the first place. You can control your thoughts and desires. You can choose to think "happy" thought. Relive a happy or pleasant experience. These choices will negate the influence of anger on your actions.

Part of Buddhism is right thoughts, right action. It assume that you at least have the ability to control your thoughts. And, your thoughts control your actions.

It's that last idea that I would quibble with. I'm not sure that my consciousness does have the ability to control my thoughts. I have tried and it doesn't always work as expected. Superficially it seems that it does, but does it really? Reminds me of an old quotation of Schopenhauer, as Einstein paraphrased it, that "a human can very well do what he wants, but cannot will what he wants." I've been imagining consciousness as a product of all our experiences, and thus including much more than just conscious awareness.

 

[Skwim]

​

Can the necessity required by determinism be proven with regard to human action?

Yes it can. Take a look at the video, which explains why. In essence, It's the only logical operative mechanism behind our actions. If there was a better one we'd here about it. Free will certainly doesn't qualify because it's operation has never been explained. At best it's merely a label. A label suggesting "I could have done differently if I had wanted to." but lacking any explanation as to how this could have come about.

Causality is not a problem for free will.

If you honestly believe this then you don't understand the issue.

You make a choice based on what you want to accomplish. Your choices are caused by whatever the current state of affairs are in the world. The question is whether you can make a choice amongst the available choices that exist?

Problem is, choosing doesn't exist under the causality of determinism. Choice is an illusion.

Determinism says you can only react in a necessary way. So all the forces acting upon you, the current state of the universe, your own wants/desires. Do these necessitate your actions, or can you make choice between alternative actions caused by these forces.

No such thing as choice so, yes, they do necessitate your actions.

Determinism see human action in the same light as a cue ball hitting the 8 ball. The 8 ball has no choice except to react as necessitated by the forces acting on it.

Yup.

Does a human being have the ability to resist the "natural" forces acting upon them?

If by "natural forces" you mean the inevitable causality of determinism, then Nope.

If you are hungry, can you resist that urge and choose not to eat? If you are sleepy, can you resist the urge to sleep. This ability to resist the natural forces acting on it is something the 8 ball does not possess.

Well there are a lot of things we humans can do that an 8 ball can't, and if I understand your framework here, any resistance you made was because you could do no differently. The chain of cause/effect events leading up to the moment of resisting determined that you had to resist. You could do no differently.

This ability to resist natural forces certainly makes it feel like we have a choice whether to react to them or not.

And that's part of the illusion. There is no such ability other than what the previous events leading up to the resisting made you do.

.

 

[corynski]

I agree with all of this. There are endless factors that influence our ordinary decisions. But that isn't a denial of the ability to choose--indeed, just the opposite: it is first and foremost an affirmation of the ability to choose between available options. It is an affirmation of the undeniable distinction between voluntary and involuntary bodily movements. I can foretell that (ceteris paribus), with near certainty, by the 5th of next month I will go to my online account at my ISP and click the buttons to pay my bill for internet service. I can foretell that because it is a voluntary, willful act. I can't foretell my involuntary bodily movements in such a way.

I'm not saying we don't choose, but I think it is more than a consciousness in that moment that makes such a decision. I see my current consciousness is a kind of overseer, that has a final power to stop or allow something. But it's not a conscious thing, it's a process, governed by mind as a continuous process.

 

[Skwim]

So something "causes" you to become angry. You have no choice then except to react to that anger. Will the anger you feel cause your actions? Or can you decide not to let the anger cause your actions?

Whatever the outcome, your feelings or your "decision," depends on the nature of those previous casual events leading up to the moment of action.

Can you resist the urge to act on your anger?

Only if the previous casual events make you.

.

 

[Nakosis]

It's that last idea that I would quibble with. I'm not sure that my consciousness does have the ability to control my thoughts. I have tried and it doesn't always work as expected. Superficially it seems that it does, but does it really? Reminds me of an old quotation of Schopenhauer, as Einstein paraphrased it, that "a human can very well do what he wants, but cannot will what he wants." I've been imagining consciousness as a product of all our experiences, and thus including much more than just conscious awareness.

Meditation seems to be able to teach one to control their thoughts. Mainly to not think. If we can choose not to have conscious thought it would seem we can control them. It takes effort though. It's not something that is normal.

Maybe it only seems this way but it seems I can step aside of the process of thinking and observe the thoughts as they go by.

As such I no longer identify with my thoughts. They seem capable of occurring independent of my conscious observance. I also seem to be capable of acting independent of those thoughts.

However is see many who get angry and the anger is who they are. They can't exist independent of those thoughts of anger.

So in most cases, I think you are right. However I believe because of my own experience there are exceptions.

 

[Nakosis]

Whatever the outcome, your feelings or your "decision," depends on the nature of those previous casual events leading up to the moment of action.

Those previous event no longer have any physical existence. Since they no longer exist they cannot actually exert any causality.

What remains is all in your head. Thoughts, memories. So other than the current state of affairs the only causality of a decision is that of your own mind.

Only if the previous casual events make you.
.

Since the previous causal events no longer exist, they can't cause anything.

After the cue ball hits the 8 ball. The cue ball is no longer acting upon the 8 ball.

Someone could come along, pick up the 8 ball before it goes into the pocket and place it anywhere. The cue ball no longer has any causality over the position of the 8 ball.

There's no necessity for events in the past to have causality over future events.

 

[sun rise]

What question are you referring to?


This is a terrible argument! He totally fails to understand the issue, which means his argument isn't worth bothering with. At least it isn't to me.

.

The question of whether or not free will exists and in what situations.

As to your second point, I'm paying attention to scientific research as I noted. I don't value the opinion of philosophers very highly.

 

[Willamena]

Despite all the previous discussions about free will here on RF, I feel the video below, which I just stumbled across, is still worth taking a look at.

A succinct six minute video explaining why free will does not exist. ​

Presentation ends at the 6:00 mark

.​

I love his presentation, he presents the argument and then the criticisms. It's a well done video and a good essay. I approve.

 

[Nous]

What third way could a sentient being employ to (in this case) reach a decision?

How you did decide to enact your desires regarding the content of your post? Perhaps that is the answer you're seeking.

Hard determinism is out, on our present understanding.

Is the following "out"?

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.​

What other sort of determinism do you claim there is? Quote a definition for whatever you are referring to as "fuzzy determinism". If it's something other than the thesis the SEP has defined, then why call it "determinism"?

Refuted in favor of anything in particular, by the way?

The opposite of the realism postulate would be non-realism--quanta do not possess properties in definite states prior to (in the absence of) a measurement.

Why would that stop fuzzy determinism being true of the macro world?

I don't know what "fuzzy determinism" means. Has any scholar expounded upon it?

Are you asking for further explanation as to why the experimental violation of the realism postulate refutes the thesis of determinism (defined above)?

I remember your previous thread on compatibleism. I think I expressed the view that I wasn't ultimately a compatibilist (though in practice I can happily act like a Humean), rather an all-out (fuzzy) determinist ─ but that the latter didn't psychologically worry me, since I have a strong sense that my decisions came from my self, from my own will.

I think there is greater clarity in such discussions when theses are debated on their merits (e.g., making deductions from the evidence), rather than identifying oneself as a belief (e.g., "I'm a determinist").

How do you explain the series of events that @Skwim described in the OP, where he first had a feeling that a video he watch would be worthwhile to share with others at RF, then a link to that very video is found in an OP he started on the topic? If the topic of the OP and the link to the video were not the product of his willful choosing, then the whole series of events is a huge coincidence that needs explaining.

 

[blü 2]

How you did decide to enact your desires regarding the content of your post? Perhaps that is the answer you're seeking.

I fear not. I decided on what I wrote as seemed best to me, but behind the scenes and out of my sight, that was deterministic.

Quote a definition for whatever you are referring to as "fuzzy determinism".

I'm using 'strict determinism' to refer to strict sequences of cause&effect which would in principle give rise to perfect predictions of the future if we only had the means to marshal the data and project them.

And I'm using my own phrase, 'fuzzy determinism' as short-hand for 'quantum-fuzzied determinism' meaning chains of cause&effect disrupted by phenomena randomly generated at the quantum level, which would not, even in principle, give rise to perfect predictions of the future even if we had the means to marshal the data and project them.

Are you asking for further explanation as to why the experimental violation of the realism postulate refutes the thesis of determinism (defined above)?

If you want to discuss it further, I'm not avoiding discussion, but I don't see why effects at the quantum level would worry a fuzzy determinist like me.

How do you explain the series of events that @Skwim described in the OP, where he first had a feeling that a video he watch would be worthwhile to share with others at RF, then a link to that very video is found in an OP he started on the topic? If the topic of the OP and the link to the video were not the product of his willful choosing, then the whole series of events is a huge coincidence that needs explaining.

But wilful choosing occurs deterministically. Events can be caused or they can be random (and fuzzy determinism, in my phrase, accepts both). And as far as I can see, that's all. If not by cause&effect, and / or randomness, how else could wilful choosing occur? What's the third way?

 

[Skwim]

Those previous event no longer have any physical existence. Since they no longer exist they cannot actually exert any causality.

Take the event of a hammer hitting your thumb. Skip ahead two minutes. The hammer hitting event no longer exists but it's aftermath, a swelling thumb does. I'll let you figure out the rest.

What remains is all in your head. Thoughts, memories. So other than the current state of affairs the only causality of a decision is that of your own mind.

Tell that to your swelling thumb.

.