 |
| Stephen Cave University of Cambridge |
An excellent, recent Atlantic article by Stephen Cave, "There's No Such Thing As Free Will; But we're better off believing in it anyway" explores options...accept it, attack it, hide it, or ignore it.
Accept it
 |
| Francis Galton |
This began the "nature versus nurture" arguments that permeate(d) science and philosophy. However much it is of either, the clear assumption was that "something" determined what our choices could be, not "us".
When cognitive neuroscience manifested, as Cave points out, it revealed "intricate networks of neurons and...broad agreement that these networks are shaped by both genes and environment...and agreement in the scientific community that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and dreams."
As Cave points out, brain chemistry and structure clearly affect our actions, as shown with psychedelics and alcohol and "ordinary adults becoming murderers or pedophiles after developing a brain tumor". He continues, "In principle, we are therefore completely predictable. If we could understand any individual’s brain architecture and chemistry well enough, we could, in theory, predict that individual’s response to any given stimulus with 100 percent accuracy."
Attack it
The "attack it" approach relies on beliefs like the philosopher Immanuel Kant had, that without free will, there would be no universal moral law which would lead to "irrational" behavior. So if "no free will" spreads, will we become morally irresponsible?
 |
| Kathleen Vohs Univ of Minnesota |
Mackenzie, Vohs, and Baumeister (2014) found that a weaker belief in free will led to being less likely to give money to a homeless person, help a classmate or lend someone a cellphone.
However, recent studies by Monroe, et al., (2016) have shown just the opposite - that "free will beliefs do not influence moral judgments".
A major question that has been raised is how long these behaviors demonstrated in lab studies persist, which has not been studied.
Such social science studies, +/-, should be viewed skeptically, as Nosek, et al. (Science - 2015) in "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological studies" found that "97% of original psychology studies had highly significant results (P < .05). Only 36 % of replications had significant results." If someone else can't get the same answer, doing it the same way, it isn't science.
JIC, Michael DiBenedetto forwarded "Truth or lies: A Neuroscientist's Guide to Assessing What's True on the Internet" which gives five key things to look for in research results.
Hide it
 |
| Saul Smilansky Univ of Haifa |
Smilansky advocates "illusionism"- recognizing that "free will" is an illusion, but an illusion that society must defend and control. Determinism, and the scientific facts supporting it, must be confined. Only the initiated should dare to, as he put it to Cave, “look the dark truth in the face” and that “promoting determinism is complacent and dangerous.”
IMHO, in today's massively-interconnected world, hiding the truth forever, is inconceivable.
A study by Sarkissian, et al. (2010) showed that Smilansky's concerns may not be valid. This study on US, Hong Kong, India and Columbia, on free will and moral responsibility showed that in cultures that don't believe in free will, folk retain their moral attitudes, hold themselves responsible for their actions and feel guilty for doing wrong.
An obvious question is whether those moral attitudes manifest in their actions, or are they just reciting their conditioning? The skepticism on psychology studies discussed earlier applies here as well.
Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, who appeared in several blogposts including "The impossibility of 'free will', scientifically and logically" disagrees with Smilansky. “We need our beliefs to track what is true,” Harris told Cave. "Illusions, no matter how well intentioned, will always hold us back."
IMHO, in today's massively-interconnected world, hiding the truth forever, is inconceivable.
A study by Sarkissian, et al. (2010) showed that Smilansky's concerns may not be valid. This study on US, Hong Kong, India and Columbia, on free will and moral responsibility showed that in cultures that don't believe in free will, folk retain their moral attitudes, hold themselves responsible for their actions and feel guilty for doing wrong.
An obvious question is whether those moral attitudes manifest in their actions, or are they just reciting their conditioning? The skepticism on psychology studies discussed earlier applies here as well.
Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, who appeared in several blogposts including "The impossibility of 'free will', scientifically and logically" disagrees with Smilansky. “We need our beliefs to track what is true,” Harris told Cave. "Illusions, no matter how well intentioned, will always hold us back."
 |
| Sam Harris |
If we understand that even the worst criminals are unlucky, Harris continues, “They didn’t pick their genes...their parents...they didn’t make their brains, yet their brains are the source of their intentions and actions.”
Then we can work with offenders to rehabilitate them, protect society, and reduce future offending, "but only if we accept that the brain, and not some airy-fairy free will, is the source of the deviancy".
Then we can work with offenders to rehabilitate them, protect society, and reduce future offending, "but only if we accept that the brain, and not some airy-fairy free will, is the source of the deviancy".
Harris argues that realizing that no one had "free will", would free us from hatred. Blaming people makes us angry and vengeful, clouding our judgment. “Compare the response to Hurricane Katrina,” Harris suggested, with “the response to the 9/11 act of terrorism.”
 |
| Hurricane Katrina |
Both were similar in scale, but reactions were vastly different.
Nobody wanted revenge on tropical storms or a War On Weather, so responses to Katrina focused on rebuilding and preventing future disasters.
The response to 9/11, Harris argues, was clouded by outrage, vengeance, and the unnecessary loss of more lives. “Hatred is toxic,” Harris told Cave, “and can destabilize individual lives and whole societies. Losing belief in free will undercuts the rationale for ever hating anyone.”
 |
| you know what this is |
The response to 9/11, Harris argues, was clouded by outrage, vengeance, and the unnecessary loss of more lives. “Hatred is toxic,” Harris told Cave, “and can destabilize individual lives and whole societies. Losing belief in free will undercuts the rationale for ever hating anyone.”
Ignore It
 |
| Daniel Dennet |
The "compatabilist" approach, currently led by the philosopher Daniel Dennet, asserts that there is nothing philosophically inconsistent in believing in both "free will" and "determinism" at the same time. Dennet compares his and Harris' positions.
Compatabilism is the view of 59% of philosophers (2009 Philpapers). As the Dalai Lama said "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change", but few philosophers are so willing, even in the face of compelling science.
i would never have been able to convince myself philosophically that there was "no free will". It required deconstructing the "I", the core of the belief, to directly experience it. It was then obvious as there was no one to have free will, nor had there ever been.
A major flaw in the philosophy is the lack of focus on this "I", which neuroscience has shown does not exist as a single, stable entity. my video playlist "Free Will, Control, Predetermination" discusses this.
Does there need to be a free will / determinism dichotomy in philosophy? Just as free will has been proven inconsistent with science, so has determinism. The double slit experiment shows that the present state of a quantum particle may lead to a spectrum of future states, each with a particular likelihood of occurring. Bringing this to the macroscopic level, perfect knowledge of a person's neuroanatomy would not allow determination of their actions perfectly. In the context of nonduality, this understanding seems to provide another level of freedom, surrender, mystery, spontaneity, etc.
ReplyDeleteHi Sean. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics can't be impacted by your "free will", unless you are personally choosing how to collapse all of those wave functions in your body as you choose. There are approximately 7 X 10 to the 27th power or 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in a 150 lb human body.
DeleteAs quantum mechanics only works for sub-atomic particles, the actual number of quantum events in your body is much, much higher than this. your have no ability to be aware of, nor simultaneously arrange over 7 billion, billion, billion events.
Knowing perfectly all of the neuroanatomy and neurochemistry in your own body, so that "you" could exercise "free will" on that is similarly daunting. There are approximately 100 billion neurons and about 50 trillion or so synaptic connections in your body so it would be similarly impossible.
The point of Cave's comment is that if all of that could be known, as it does totally dictate your responses, your behavior could be predicted perfectly. To have personal "free will", you would have to be able to control, manipulate and manage all of that, which you couldn't do.
Also, in order to know and choose between two possibilities with any meaning, you would have to know what their ultimate outcomes would be, as those choices worked their way through space time interacting with countless others, which is similarly unknowable.
As "you" can't know, or control your neurochemistry, neuroanatomy, quantum collapses, future outcomes of decisions, etc., it is all determined without your participation or input. That is what "Determinism" means.
stillness
i have been asked for a more concise version of this explanation as it is a question that is frequently asked.
DeleteTo believe that we had conscious "free will" and control at a quantum level, we would have to be continuously aware, every microsecond, of every atom in our finger nail and be deciding exactly what it would do. At the same time, we would have to be making the same decisions for every atom in our left ear, right knee, and tip of our nose, etc. Then the next microsecond, do it again, and again, and again...it's just not possible.
stillness
Hi Gary,
DeleteTotally agree.
I would like to add, quantum theory argument is often brought up in support of existence of free will. I understand how it might counter the idea of strict determinism of the Existence, but it can't prove free will. Even if macro-level events, like human thought and behaviors could be affected by sub atomic quantum states (which is very questionable), then it would just mean that these events are affected or caused by quantum states. So there is still no place for free will here, just broader causation of the events.
@nonexistent, if you agree that the brain has any effect on human thought and behavior (which I assume you do since this is the basis of Gary's work) then you must agree that human thought and behaviors are affected by sub atomic quantum states. Thats like saying you doubt water molecules have an effect the erosion of a river bank. The water molecules make up the river which erodes the river bank. Similarly subatomic quantum states affect sub atomic particles which make up the atoms which make up the brain which affects human thought and behaviors.
DeleteI would agree that it is unfathomable that "I" would be able to control the quantum level actions taking place in the body. But the claim that "perfect knowledge of a person's neuroanatomy would not allow determination of their actions perfectly" still has merit. There is a conflict between classical cause-and-effect determinism that would posit the prediction of future states and our modern understanding of quantum mechanics. I would not claim that "I" through my free will am determining the outcome of these wave function collapses but SOMETHING is. I think this does leave room for mystery. I would not suggest a free will and an "I" within the brain that is in control but there are things we still don't understand.
Yes, this is reasonable I think. But the question was not about strict determinism, but "free will" in common understanding. As you said, the human "I" has nothing to do with it, the "free will" that we perceive is only a consequence of some other events that we know almost nothing about.
DeleteHi Brian,
DeleteYes, that is the key point..."SOMETHING" is determining the outcome of these wave functions, but it isn't "us".
As Albert Einstein famously said "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper."
Einstein also said "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But there is no doubt in my mind that the lion belongs with it even if he cannot reveal himself to the eye all at once because of his huge dimension."
That was the big understanding that arose when the page turned after the "I" fell away. "my life" was running better w/o "me" in it. i had never had free will or control because there was no one there to have it. That same "SOMETHING" was running it far better than i could ever have imagined with powers and intelligence and connections far beyond "mine".
stillness
Great post. I really like the closing, which is not triumphant or full of conviction, but is instead a recognition that argument won't resolve this, only inquiry. The key to it really is the deconstruction of the "I". Then the science makes one slap the forehead in obvious validation. With the science, maybe peeps will be encouraged to do the inquiry, whether they can help it or not :)
ReplyDeleteHi Unknown,
DeleteYes, that is the critical "point". If you are "predetermined" to be drawn to self-inquiry, and to practice diligently, and let go of your attachments, stories, and fears, you need to get on with it.
stillness
So if there's no free will then I have no obligation to try and improve my self and my life?
DeleteHi Saif,
DeleteThat's correct, since you have no free will or control, nor does anyone else, you have no obligation to "try and improve my self and my life", simply because there is no one, no Saif, no others, to have it.
If you do the self-inquiry, you will find as i did that there is no "I" there, which the neuroscience confirms, which makes the entire debate meaningless and the understanding obvious.
That doesn't mean that your life may not improve, or go exactly the opposite of the way "you" wanted it to go, as it will be totally out of your control. The big surprise for "me" was that "my life" was running so much better without "me" in it, particularly as nothing that i wanted to have happen, happened.
What did happen, serendipitously and out of my control, was so much more wonderful and exciting than what "i" had planned, that it was easy to just let go and completely surrender to whatever manifested. It was clear that whatever was running "my life" was much better at it than i was and had connections, knowledge and powers far beyond mine.
stillness
Nice review of free will Gary.
ReplyDeleteIt's become clear to me that the neuroscience clearly demonstrating there's no free will shatters the paradigm of a "me", which essentially is why it is so disconcerting to many. The science thrusts us, willingly or not, into the reality that there is just nature in action, no "me". I am moved and determined by the forces of nature just as much as the hornet, the deer or the tree.
I love Sam Harris' example of Katrina vs 911, how nature could resolve its problems so much more effectively under this new paradigm.
Kind regards
Guillaume
Hi Guillaume,
DeleteYes, as the "I/me/my" is the core of "free will", its unveiling as just a phantom created by a piece of software which needs updating, is a major shift in one's fundamental understanding. In a discussion on FB yesterday, this arose from "nowhere":
"There is an "I" program running, along with a lot of other programs, and the "I" program believes it is in control of the other programs and can tell them what to do. However, it turns out that the System Administrator just put that "i'm in charge" code in the "I" program so it stayed interested in what was happening, not to give it control. The other programs continue to do what they have always been doing and run paying little/no attention to the "I" program as its output has a very low signal/noise ratio, it is always after the fact, and nothing it says ever comes out the way it says it will."
you also touch on a very important aspect of "no free will" which Sam Harris did a nice job on, that we will treat others better when we understand that they don't have any free will either.
stillness
Hi Gary,
ReplyDeletethank you again for knocking the bottom out of my bucket last year. Permit me to add another heading to your list of philosophical postures on free will:
Affirm it
See the preface to Part V of Spinoza's Ethics, "Of the Power of the Understanding, or of Human Freedom"
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ethics_(Spinoza)/Part_5
best wishes,
Patrick
Hi Patrick,
DeleteGreat that your bucket has no bottom. That is one of the great Zen metaphors, even used by Bassui in his self-inquiry classic from 14th century Japan, "Dharma Talk On One Mind", a very important text in my journey:
"Your long-held conceptions and notions will perish, after absolute questioning, in the way that every drop of water vanishes from a tub broken open at the bottom, and perfect enlightenment will follow like flowers suddenly blooming on withered trees."
Hadn't seen the Spinoza piece, but it is a powerful one. Spinoza was, as you no doubt know, "Einstein's philosopher", and there is little in his work that isn't perhaps the best that philosophy has to offer. Thanks for the share.
stillness
gary
Thanks for this article Gary.
ReplyDeleteSam Harris seems to be the most logical and useful in this area compared to the other philosophers. It's interesting that he's also well researched and educated about there not being a "self", something many philosophers don't want to touch.
I've seen some people react negatively when given demonstrations/arguments that there is no free will. The "negative" reaction, whether it's in mood or behavior, is coming from an individual that still has a selfing network running and is now responding to these new ideas as threats. It's amazing to watch people armor themselves against an idea.
I've always been extremely skeptical of pseudo claims that quantam mechanics is somehow giving individuals free will, and I'm glad you're addressing that in these comments.
Keep the blogs posts coming Gary, I'm making my way through all of your old posts and it's getting hard to think of a new question that hasn't been asked!
-from her to her
Hi Beau,
DeleteGreat that you found it so useful. As you point out, it is a very emotional issue with many folk, as i've seen over the years of talking about it. Nothing sparks so much anger, fear, and hostility as challenging the belief in "free will". After one talk @ SAND in San Rafael four or five years ago, i was told that "someone is going to kill you".
Yes, it was good that the quantum mechanics question got asked, as that is a big misconception, not for the scientists, but for those who know some of the science but haven't had a chance to work through it in detail.
A great comment that you can't find "a new question that hasn't been asked". If you do find an area that you feel needs some coverage, don't hesitate to contact me.
stillness, from Her to Her
Also agree on Sam Harris, who is a real anomaly as he has both a Ph.D. from UCLA in cognitive neuroscience and strong philosophy background with a B.A. from Stanford. he also spent a lot of time in India studying meditation with Buddhist and Hindu masters and was raised a Quaker with a secular background. i don't agree w/everything he says, but he is the best of the bunch.
DeleteHello gary! I love your blog here.:)
ReplyDeleteBut I must ask you have you read or seen any youtube videos from Tom Campbell? I believe that his notion that free will exist but not in the common way we might necessarily perecive it. What is your taken on this?
Hi Unknown,
DeleteYes, i've heard of Tom Campbell. i wrote a blogpost "Is the physical world a virtual reality simulation???" @ http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2014/12/is-physical-world-virtual-reality.html on him and his work.
There are some interesting aspects of Tom Campbell's model, but much of it is just incorrect, including the "free will" part, and much of his discussion on entropy and quantum mechanics.
There was a sincere attempt by other scientists to validate his resume, but it wasn't possible to confirm he had worked any of those places. Similarly, when i wrote that post, no other scientists were willing, or had been contacted, to confirm his work, which is the fundamental part of the scientific process.
he has gotten a lot of attention, but there are many questions.
stillness
gary
Great Article Gary. If we do live in a pre-determined universe / world. What is the point of our pre-determined existence? Is it to just experience and observe? Is our pre-determined life trajectory a product of Karma. Do we have no free -will even in choosing our attitude in any circumstances? Or is our attitude also predetermined, even if we do appear to choose our attitude (stoicism) If we free ourselves of our behavioural conditioning are things still predetermined? If our 'I' is destroyed through awakening, is there a greater will (divine Will) is this will also predetermined, or is their free will, when the little I is freed of the limited confines of the conditioned self? Lots of questions here :-) Thanks Gary.
ReplyDeleteHi Unknown,
Deletemy ongoing experience, given all of the many serendipities of infinitesimal probability and great value that manifest every day, and the precognitions that occur, it is clear that "something" is running things that is far more intelligent, omnipresent, and interconnected than i am. i have found that "my life" runs better w/o "me" in it.
Given our current cosmological research, we know that there is an all pervasive field, called the Higgs field, that can manifest matter as described in the blogpost "How 'consciousness' creates matter...the God particle" @ http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-consciousness-creates-matterthe-god.html.
As it is clear that everything in this Field (which is everything) is evolving, it follows that whatever is running things is also evolving, so it then follows that "we" are evolutionary-sensing-experiencing manifestations of the field to allow it to evolve through these "bodies", and all forms and objects.
i have no sense of having any "free will" at any level, simply because there is no one to have it.
Trust this is useful.
stillness
One concern is that, though the research and the experience of a few shows the impossibility of free will, the vast majority of human beings still believe in free will. I think one of the traps of "neoadvaita" is the premature leap to claiming "there is no free will"/"there is no doer" without concretely embodying this fact. The mouth proclaims that there is no self while the mind is the host of a parasitic ego. I wonder what to make of the Intelligence that seems to reinforce the idea of multiple, discrete operators.
ReplyDeleteHi Sean M.,
DeleteGood comments.
As the recent video "Are 'we' just outdated, buggy programs?" @ https://youtu.be/dnfNn4I6Zbg discusses, the "I" is just a program that (Cosmic) Intelligence inserted into our OS about 75,000 years ago.
At the time, as our species was growing in number and we needed to coordinate more complex activities with different assignments, we needed to assign different tasks to different folk, so we created a symbolic, subject/doing/object language. With that capability, we swept our four other humanoid competitors away, and we were able to dominate the planet, for "good" or "ill".
None of this really "needed" the subroutine of "free will", but it apparently seemed like "a good idea at the time" to install some feeling/sense of "ownership" to drive the overall effort forward. Those of our species who didn't have it so strongly didn't do as well as those who did.
Now it is apparent that the "I" program, and its subroutine of "free will" are desperately in need of a major upgrade. With the increasing evidence of there being no "free will", which the Intelligence is causing to manifest, along with the understanding around the "I" itself being a big problem, this is happening. This is, on an evolutionary time scale, occurring very rapidly, so it seems like Intelligence is doing an "uninstall", albeit like MSFT, not well written or timely.
Trust this is useful.
stillness
gary
Gary, does this debate have anything to do with nature/nurture or is the point that there just isn't any free will whether we're influenced by either nature or nurture?
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous,
DeleteYes, that is the point, "there just isn't any free will", whether we like it or not and whether it is both nature and nurture, or mostly one or the other, we're not in control of what is going on and we have no real choices.
So just let go of that outdated belief and enjoy the dance that "something else", with powers, intelligence and knowledge far beyond ours is performing for Her evolution.
stillness
I can give a very concise summary of why there is no free will - you can't float your boat until the tide comes in.
ReplyDelete