Free will? It may be just the brain tricking itself

[Aupmanyav]

May 02 2016 : The Times of India (Delhi) From: The Indipendent - Andrew Griffin

"Free will might be an illusion created by our brain, scientists might have proved. Humans are convinced that they make conscious choices as they live their lives. But instead it may be that the brain just convinces itself that it made a free choice from the available options after the decision is made.

The idea was tested out by tricking subjects into believing they had made a choice before the consequences of that choice could actually be seen.In the test, people were made to believe they had taken a decision using free will - even though that was impossible.

The idea that human beings trick themselves into believing in free will was laid out in a paper by psychologists Dan Wegner and Thalia Wheatley nearly 20 years ago.They proposed that the feeling of wanting to do something was real, but there may be no connection between the feeling and actually doing it. The new study builds on that work and says that the brain rewrites history when it makes its choices, changing our memories so that we believe we wanted to do something before it happened.

The idea of free will may have arisen because it is a useful thing to have, giving people a feeling of control over their lives and allowing for people to be punished for wrongdoing. But that same feeling can go awry, the scientists wrote in the Scientific American magazine. It may be important for people to feel they are in control of their lives, for instance, but distortions in that same process might make people feel that they have control over external processes like the weather."

 

[Terese]

How bizarre!

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not think there is anything bizarre in it. It is the progress of science. It is not just in Abrahamic religions only, we have the same problem in Hinduism also - as to who is the doer, "karta". Some people will say that a person is responsible for his/her actions, others will say it all depends on what God wants to happen. That is why Krishna said in BhagawadGita that no one kills and no one is killed. Perhaps with a background of Abrahamic religions, Terese finds it bizarre - I take it as a subject valid for discussion. I do not think it violates any forum rule. However, I see that Terese likes my post (or perhaps she is just in the habit of giving me likes. Thanks, Terese.)

 

[Terese]

I do not think there is anything bizarre in it. It is the progress of science. It is not just in Abrahamic religions only, we have the same problem in Hinduism also - as to who is the doer, "karta". Some people will say that a person is responsible for his/her actions, others will say it all depends on what God wants to happen. That is why Krishna said in BhagawadGita that no one kills and no one is killed. Perhaps with a background of Abrahamic religions, Terese finds it bizarre - I take it as a subject valid for discussion. I do not think it violates any forum rule.

That would be lovely. And yes, it is/or was bizarre because I always thought my thoughts are mine alone. I'll have to make some room for Lord Krishna *grabs broom*

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now, now, is it not what I said?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Check Gita 18.60 and 18.61.

Ultimately, our thought process and decisions are due to the way we are pre-wired and therefore, there never really is a choice, though it seems like there is one. That is, the apparent free-will is really an illusion.

Also, look up determinism.

 

[निताइ dasa]

May 02 2016 : The Times of India (Delhi) From: The Indipendent - Andrew Griffin

"Free will might be an illusion created by our brain, scientists might have proved. Humans are convinced that they make conscious choices as they live their lives. But instead it may be that the brain just convinces itself that it made a free choice from the available options after the decision is made.

The idea was tested out by tricking subjects into believing they had made a choice before the consequences of that choice could actually be seen.In the test, people were made to believe they had taken a decision using free will - even though that was impossible.

The idea that human beings trick themselves into believing in free will was laid out in a paper by psychologists Dan Wegner and Thalia Wheatley nearly 20 years ago.They proposed that the feeling of wanting to do something was real, but there may be no connection between the feeling and actually doing it. The new study builds on that work and says that the brain rewrites history when it makes its choices, changing our memories so that we believe we wanted to do something before it happened.

The idea of free will may have arisen because it is a useful thing to have, giving people a feeling of control over their lives and allowing for people to be punished for wrongdoing. But that same feeling can go awry, the scientists wrote in the Scientific American magazine. It may be important for people to feel they are in control of their lives, for instance, but distortions in that same process might make people feel that they have control over external processes like the weather."

haha the old free will vs determinism debate. You guys don't know how long philosophers have argued about this

I would argue that we have free-will but it is severely restricted (i.e we are predisposed towards certain choices), but we still have the option to choose (certain things, i.e moral decisions). Only then can the Law of Karma function (otherwise we are being punished needlessly, if we didn't choose it). My Gurudev actually answered similar question:

Question: Then a mere thought in brain , a small action or making a choice are all pre programmed happens for a purpose. But we also hear that humans have free will too. Kindly comment relating both.

Answer by Gurudeva:

"Yes, everything we do or think of is destined and pre-arranged due to our past karma. But simultaneously due to the free will given to us by Lord Gauranga, we have the power to change the destiny and what we do and think and to destroy the kuta, bija, aprarabdha and even our prarabdha (mature karmic fruits) at any point of time by the power of devotional service. So we can change our destiny by Bhakti Yoga which is primarily the chanting of the Holy Names of Nityananda, Gauranga and the Hare Krishna Mahamantra.

As you see from the photos, sinful actions or paapa result in either prarabdha (immediately suffering and instantly manifest reaction for the sin) and/or apraarabdha (unmanifested reaction which will fructify later on in this life or previous lives into the corresponding suffering) or it may lead to both which is also common.

Apraabdha again leads to either of the below two reactions or both at a later stage (after a few hours, months or years or in the next life or lives) : praaradha (delayed suffering for the original sinful action paapa) and/or kuta (spontaneous inclination to commit sinful activities with no other cause).

Kuta (propensity to sin) leads to the strengthening and full formation of Bija (sinful desire) which in turns again leads to sinful actions or paapa and this vikarma cycle goes on perpetually life after life."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mods, I agree, it might be violating some forum rule because it was just C&P and no comment from my side. I posted it just as a starter. The discussion will continue as Nitai says in his post (first line of the post above).

 

[RebornHindu]

Namaste!

You said a test was done right? Do you happen to know what controls they used for the test? The negative and positive control groups? I find it interesting and want to read about it or if you just happen to know. (Biology degree major) >.<

 

[Vinayaka]

If given the choice between what a western psychologist has to say versus a Hindu Guru, I think I'll take my chances within my own paradigm, thanks. But others are free to go think about it and discuss it all you want.

 

[Nous]

The idea was tested out by tricking subjects into believing they had made a choice before the consequences of that choice could actually be seen.In the test, people were made to believe they had taken a decision using free will - even though that was impossible.

Isn't it possible for people to be tricked into believing that they caused some effect (when they didn't actually cause it), yet for them to still possess the ability to act willfully?

(I hope that isn't an illegal question on a DIR.)

 

[Raahim]

Interesting statement, do you by chance have a link to more detailed sources?

 

[George-ananda]

The idea was tested out by tricking subjects into believing they had made a choice before the consequences of that choice could actually be seen.In the test, people were made to believe they had taken a decision using free will - even though that was impossible.

I don't understand this experiment??? Maybe an example might help me see where this is going.

I think we have free will relative to our plane of operation. But ultimately it's all Brahman's script and our core is that Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For a start, I bring to the attention of the members this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approaches
and particularly this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Experimental_psychology

and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#In_Hindu_philosophy, I get this:

"Therefore we see at once that there cannot be any such thing as free-will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is molded by conditions of time, space and causality. ... To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe; it cannot be found here." - Swami Vivekananda

 

[idav]

May 02 2016 : The Times of India (Delhi) From: The Indipendent - Andrew Griffin

"Free will might be an illusion created by our brain, scientists might have proved. Humans are convinced that they make conscious choices as they live their lives. But instead it may be that the brain just convinces itself that it made a free choice from the available options after the decision is made.

The idea was tested out by tricking subjects into believing they had made a choice before the consequences of that choice could actually be seen.In the test, people were made to believe they had taken a decision using free will - even though that was impossible.

The idea that human beings trick themselves into believing in free will was laid out in a paper by psychologists Dan Wegner and Thalia Wheatley nearly 20 years ago.They proposed that the feeling of wanting to do something was real, but there may be no connection between the feeling and actually doing it. The new study builds on that work and says that the brain rewrites history when it makes its choices, changing our memories so that we believe we wanted to do something before it happened.

The idea of free will may have arisen because it is a useful thing to have, giving people a feeling of control over their lives and allowing for people to be punished for wrongdoing. But that same feeling can go awry, the scientists wrote in the Scientific American magazine. It may be important for people to feel they are in control of their lives, for instance, but distortions in that same process might make people feel that they have control over external processes like the weather."

I've seen tests like what your alluding to and I remain unconvinced that it has anything to do with free will. The brain being in charge isn't really surprising and I know there are plenty of things the brain does we are not aware of. The problem with the brain, or the solution rather is in the fact that the brain uses redundancy and simultaneous connections to accomplish things and this is where free will has potential. Similar to how computer scientists are using quantum computing to do simultaneous processing that have equal possibilities of acutalizing, the brain works much the same way without even having to be quantum. To put the problem quite simply, if the brain doesn't have free will then science will need to show which of the millions of connections we actually listen to when we choose a new car for example. There is no way for the brain to prefer any set of connections when they all run at once with redundancy that is off the charts. With all that it is no wonder we think the brain is actually choosing because the lengths it goes through for even the simplest of decisions.

 

[sayak83]

May 02 2016 : The Times of India (Delhi) From: The Indipendent - Andrew Griffin

"Free will might be an illusion created by our brain, scientists might have proved. Humans are convinced that they make conscious choices as they live their lives. But instead it may be that the brain just convinces itself that it made a free choice from the available options after the decision is made.

The idea was tested out by tricking subjects into believing they had made a choice before the consequences of that choice could actually be seen.In the test, people were made to believe they had taken a decision using free will - even though that was impossible.

The idea that human beings trick themselves into believing in free will was laid out in a paper by psychologists Dan Wegner and Thalia Wheatley nearly 20 years ago.They proposed that the feeling of wanting to do something was real, but there may be no connection between the feeling and actually doing it. The new study builds on that work and says that the brain rewrites history when it makes its choices, changing our memories so that we believe we wanted to do something before it happened.

The idea of free will may have arisen because it is a useful thing to have, giving people a feeling of control over their lives and allowing for people to be punished for wrongdoing. But that same feeling can go awry, the scientists wrote in the Scientific American magazine. It may be important for people to feel they are in control of their lives, for instance, but distortions in that same process might make people feel that they have control over external processes like the weather."

Link please?

 

[Aupmanyav]

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/...-will-It-may-be-just-the-brain-02052016013042
(However, I had copied and pasted the whole of the article. Don't know when they will remove the link)

To put the problem quite simply, if the brain doesn't have free will then science will need to show which of the millions of connections we actually listen to when we choose a new car for example.

Without going into workings of brain, at last we choose one (after much thinking) shows that brain analytics is what works and nothing like free-will. Of course, there is something like 'love at first sight' which disables analytics.

 

[George-ananda]

Before we argue about Free Will maybe we need the definition of what 'Free Will' is supposed to mean. I weigh all the advantages and disadvantages of going to Restaurant 'A' or Restaurant 'B'. I decide Restaurant 'B' will better suit my whim. At an everyday level, that is all I need to know that I do have Free Will.

As I said earlier we have free will relative to our plane of operation which is all that matters in our everyday experience. But ultimately it is Brahman alone that has free will (and our core is that Brahman).

 

[Shantanu]

Is this finding consistent with the suggestion that our thoughts are not somatic in origin (not gene-directed) but come from guna consciousness arising from the consciousness energy that permeates the mind. As such our bodies are not exerting free will but are responding to external stimulus into the mind from consciousness. The thoughts that come to the mind can vary from a guna triad mix of rajasic, tamasic and sattvic characteristics which make us individually who we are. This is why we feel we wanted to do something before it actually happened and why we feel we knew this thing was going to happen.

If this is accepted, we are just pawns in the world stage of existence. The guna consciousness inputs into our minds can be overridden by God planting the thoughts directly into our minds. There is a yoga that one can do to ascertain which thoughts are from guna consciousness and which thoughts come from God. I truly believe that this explains the workings of the mind so that free will is only free will in the sense that we individually decide on what inputs of thoughts into the mind that we must act on.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Before we argue about Free Will maybe we need the definition of what 'Free Will' is supposed to mean. I weigh all the advantages and disadvantages of going to Restaurant 'A' or Restaurant 'B'. I decide Restaurant 'B' will better suit my whim. At an everyday level, that is all I need to know that I do have Free Will.

As I said earlier we have free will relative to our plane of operation which is all that matters in our everyday experience. But ultimately it is Brahman alone that has free will (and our core is that Brahman).

This I think is the biggest problem in the debate. Both sides define free will so differently that its impossible to come to a common ground. If we define "free will" as the ability to choose without a predisposition, then that is clearly wrong, because we do tend towards certain choices due to our context. If we define "free will" is possible with some predisposition, then where do we draw the line from Will being free (under its dispositions) to being completely restricted by them?

For example, according to my body, I may be predisposed to make particular choices, but that mean that there exists no choice in the first place? Is it possible that I may make a decision that goes against my predisposition? I mean, materialists will say that everything is simply a series of collisions of atoms and chemical reactions and thus will itself is an illusion.

I personally believe, that science as it is today (a naturalistic and empirical methodology) can never solve or even begin to investigate the solutions to this issue. I mean heck, we don't even have a consistent definition of what consciousness (and hence will) is. Consciousness cannot be measured empirically, and therefore is irreducible by the scientific method (presently). Since we cannot approach this problem in an inductive way (i.e break it down to its constituent parts and analyse), we are forced to look at it from a deductive position (i.e look at the bigger picture and analyse general trends etc.), which is what psychologists do. However even this method of investigation cannot be thoroughly controlled as we are dealing with human beings, and having control variables will often lead to ethical issues. This is often by such studies shown I think lead to so many varied results.

There is also interesting moral implications to this issue. If we conclude that "free will" is totally an illusion, then don't we lose moral responsibility for our actions? A killer may argue that they were predisposed to "murder" in the first place, therefore why should he/she be punished for something he/she could not control?

I personally think the answer lies somewhere in between the two positions (i.e we have will, but it is heavily influences by external factors. Still we can resist these factors).