How is free will possible without a soul?

[Anatta]

If thoughts/emotional patterns/personality are encoded chemically, how is free will possible? That is, how can a consciousness produced by a chemical pattern alter this very pattern voluntarily and autonomously, while at the same time being determined by it?

This seems to be little different than the cartoonish idea of someone performing brain surgery on themselves with a shaving mirror. Even if the patient/surgeon possesses the necessary medical knowledge and is able to access the brain, how can she retain voluntary control during the act if the act itself is directly affecting the physical locus of her voluntary control?

How is this limitation supposedly transcended during personal acts of "free will"? How can consciousness produced by physical matter directly alter the arrangement of this matter, unless the locus of control is outside of the physical arrangement being altered? In other words, how is free will possible without a soul separate from and independent of the physical body?

In practical terms, I am deeply bothered by the moronic idea, (held by a majority of today's American psychologists), that a patient has to "want to" get better. How can you require that a suicidal person "decide" that they want to live, before they can be helped? If they could do that through a spontaneous act of free will, wouldn't they no longer be suicidal?

The same sleight of hand seems to be at work in all "mindfulness" therapies, where it is suggested that a person can somehow separate themselves from their unhealthy thought process sufficiently to examine it critically along with its flaws. Doesn't this examination also happen by way of thought, which is affected by the same distortions/flaws/disease as the thought being examined? Doesn't this lead to infinite regress? Or is this meant to suggest that the individual is comprised of something other than their chemically-encoded thoughts? What would this be?

If your answer is to dismiss the issue and replace it with some mouth-agape aporia along the lines of "some things are unknowable" or "it's a mystery" or "because God", please be aware that you probably have not made the effort to sufficiently think this question through.

 

[Skwim]

You make a good point; although, as a hard determinist I can't invision any scenario where freewill would exist, even in a god.

 

[LuisDantas]

If thoughts/emotional patterns/personality are encoded chemically, how is free will possible? That is, how can a consciousness produced by a chemical pattern alter this very pattern voluntarily and autonomously, while at the same time being determined by it?

I don't like to use the concept of Free Will because I find it very problematic and lacking a clear meaning, but yours is a very interesting question.

To the best of my understanding you are asking why we have the capability of perceiving choices and feeling responsible for them, as opposed to simply doing things in whichever way seems to be more reasonable without much considering choices.

This seems to be little different than the cartoonish idea of someone performing brain surgery on themselves with a shaving mirror. Even if the patient/surgeon possesses the necessary medical knowledge and is able to access the brain, how can she retain voluntary control during the act if the act itself is directly affecting the physical locus of her voluntary control?

To a considerable extent we do not; we are indeed conditioned to a large degree. But we also obviously have the capability to perceive reality (however imperfectly); to conceive and anticipate the likely consequences of our interactions with it (ditto); and to choose - or think that we are choosing, anyway - based on those perceptions and anticipations.

So it all comes down to how come abstract though is possible? That is indeed something of a mystery, IMO.

How is this limitation supposedly transcended during personal acts of "free will"? How can consciousness produced by physical matter directly alter the arrangement of this matter, unless the locus of control is outside of the physical arrangement being altered? In other words, how is free will possible without a soul separate from and independent of the physical body?

In practical terms, I am deeply bothered by the moronic idea, (held by a majority of today's American psychologists), that a patient has to "want to" get better. How can you require that a suicidal person "decide" that they want to live, before they can be helped? If they could do that through a spontaneous act of free will, wouldn't they no longer be suicidal?

I hear you. That is yet another reason why I avoid the idea of Free Will. Or, for that matter, of a Soul.

However, I have recently concluded that we do have a degree of choice. It is however deeply conditioned by circunstances, including and perhaps most of all the biological and social circunstances.

Suicidal tendencies and most psychological pathologies, specifically, seem to me to be all but completely determined by environmental factors, despite the popularity of alternate views. Behavioral psychology is generally wiser than most other lines in this respect.

Basically, most psychopathologies are a lack of skillfull learning. People literally do not know better than to feel ill. Quite on the contrary to that abhorrent yet popular perspective, I believe that psychopathologies generally can be solved by mostly anyone except the person proper. But there is a price to be paid; it takes real dedication (or all-out love, expressed openly and directly) and quite a bit of time and often also of wisdom to actually get results.

I have actually concluded that we exist on the personal space gifted to us by others, and that most psychological hardships are little more than a lack of the proper amounts of wisdom and space to deal confortably with our situations.

The same sleight of hand seems to be at work in all "mindfulness" therapies, where it is suggested that a person can somehow separate themselves from their unhealthy thought process sufficiently to examine it critically along with its flaws. Doesn't this examination also happen by way of thought, which is affected by the same distortions/flaws/disease as the thought being examined? Doesn't this lead to infinite regress? Or is this meant to suggest that the individual is comprised of something other than their chemically-encoded thoughts? What would this be?

The way I see it, the purpose is to be objectively, clearly aware of the actual situation and the available choices.

Little can be done without those prerequisites, yet they can be difficult to achieve when one feels troubled.

If your answer is to dismiss the issue and replace it with some mouth-agape aporia along the lines of "some things are unknowable" or "it's a mystery" or "because God", please be aware that you probably have not made the effort to sufficiently think this question through.

I agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

- What do you mean by "free will"?
- What do you mean by "soul"?
- What is it about a soul that would exempt it from determinism or materialism?

 

[Sunstone]

If by "will" you mean the consciousness, then I think a limited form of "free will" might be possible. That is, it seems the consciousness can act as an inhibitor of actions. In effect, it can say "no" to doing something. In that limited sense, there might be free will without reference to a soul.

Studies have shown that the decision to act is in many instances -- and perhaps in all instances -- decided by the brain before we become consciously aware of having decided to act. But the consciousness seems able to interfere with that decision. It seems able to countermand it. And that might be the whole and entire extent to which we have free will -- as an inhibitor of actions.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If by "will" you mean the consciousness, then I think a limited form of "free will" might be possible. That is, it seems the consciousness can act as an inhibitor of actions. In effect, it can say "no" to doing something. In that limited sense, there might be free will without reference to a soul.

Studies have shown that the decision to act is in many instances -- and perhaps in all instances -- decided by the brain before we become consciously aware of having decided to act. But the consciousness seems able to interfere with that decision. It seems able to countermand it. And that might be the whole and entire extent to which we have free will -- as an inhibitor of actions.

I really tried not to post this response, but I couldn't help it.

 

[Anatta]

I don't like to use the concept of Free Will because I find it very problematic and lacking a clear meaning, but yours is a very interesting question.

I suspect the concept may be entirely fictional, and a rather primitive explanation of last resort, like the stars being holes in the firmament which allow sprinkles of rain onto a flat earth. What terrifies me is that this concept is central to our entire way of life, and persists unexamined, despite being so shaky.

Basically, most psychopathologies are a lack of skillfull learning. People literally do not know better than to feel ill. Quite on the contrary to that abhorrent yet popular perspective, I believe that psychopathologies generally can be solved by mostly anyone except the person proper. But there is a price to be paid; it takes real dedication (or all-out love, expressed openly and directly) and quite a bit of time and often also of wisdom to actually get results.

I have actually concluded that we exist on the personal space gifted to us by others, and that most psychological hardships are little more than a lack of the proper amounts of wisdom and space to deal comfortably with our situations.

I am inclined to think that psychopathologies are a result of the individual's inability to accept the dominant ideological system, while lacking an alternative conceptual framework to engage with. So, stuck with what doesn't work and unable to spontaneously generate new concepts, the patient lacks the resources to "know better than to feel ill", as you say.

I also like your appeal to the collective nature of psychopathology and to dealing with it, because I suspect that new, more useful concepts for handling reality (perhaps this is the same as "wisdom") can only be created by humans collectively. Absent a magical explanation like a soul, individually we seem to be mostly engines for pattern replication, and new patterns only arise through radical necessity and conflict, when the existing concepts clash and prove inadequate, inconsistencies are revealed, and new ideas have to be developed and employed to account for the inconsistencies. This would do two things - it would render us about as intelligent as ants until we approach a problem collectively, and it would mean that we, quite literally "exist on the personal space gifted to us by others" - others being the collective thinking subject of society which supplies us with the concepts we use to see ourselves as autonomous individuals, for better or worse.

The way I see it, the purpose is to be objectively, clearly aware of the actual situation and the available choices.

Little can be done without those prerequisites, yet they can be difficult to achieve when one feels troubled.

This is where I continue to have trouble - if my mind is constructed by social formations, then these formations will determine how I view the situation and available choices. What if the existing social formations are themselves lacking, and create minds which can only perceive some choices to the exclusion of others, because the conceptual/ideological system lacks the concepts to handle them. This leaves me with an automatic "monkey mind" which obliviously churns the same crap over and over, and can fool itself into thinking that this is progress.

 

[Anatta]

If by "will" you mean the consciousness, then I think a limited form of "free will" might be possible. That is, it seems the consciousness can act as an inhibitor of actions. In effect, it can say "no" to doing something. In that limited sense, there might be free will without reference to a soul.

Studies have shown that the decision to act is in many instances -- and perhaps in all instances -- decided by the brain before we become consciously aware of having decided to act. But the consciousness seems able to interfere with that decision. It seems able to countermand it. And that might be the whole and entire extent to which we have free will -- as an inhibitor of actions.

I've heard of this view before, most notably while watching a YouTube lecture by Slavoj Zizek.

This is very interesting, because it would mean that our conscious thoughts are largely in the business of producing justifications which form a consistent story out of activity which may be largely "thoughtless" in the first place, determined by basic drives or ideological group-think which keeps being replicated but never examined. If this is true, then it would make sense that stopping the automaton is the sole available act of free will, because to continue means to remain automatic.

 

[Anatta]

- What do you mean by "free will"?

Autonomy in thought and action.

- What do you mean by "soul"?

A locus/source of autonomous activity external to the physical body, and unaffected by it.

- What is it about a soul that would exempt it from determinism or materialism?

What is it about a Smurf that makes it blue? I am not an authority on the fantastical and imaginary, I'm just bothered by how often and how easily these are invoked in order to cover up obvious inconsistencies in thinking.

 

[Willamena]

If by "will" you mean the consciousness, then I think a limited form of "free will" might be possible. That is, it seems the consciousness can act as an inhibitor of actions. In effect, it can say "no" to doing something. In that limited sense, there might be free will without reference to a soul.

Studies have shown that the decision to act is in many instances -- and perhaps in all instances -- decided by the brain before we become consciously aware of having decided to act. But the consciousness seems able to interfere with that decision. It seems able to countermand it. And that might be the whole and entire extent to which we have free will -- as an inhibitor of actions.

How is the "interference" that we become aware of having done any different from the "decision" that we become aware of having made?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I too hold a materialistic and deterministic world view, which defeats the essence of free will.

In that sense, "choosing to get better" is a touch nonsensical, but I am intrigued by the extension of this thinking into therapy in that I'm not sure how a lack of free will necessarily subtracts from it. To a certain degree (I will admit my understanding is limited, though I have had brief experiences with certain "mind tools") these are about reprogramming the existing machinery, not a call to find some soul or element of oneself apart from one's thought processes. Largely, it is the call for a period of objective assessment of thought patterns, and conditioning oneself to use whatever clarity results from this to move towards a more positive/useful frame of mind. I don't think this kind of intervention and behavioural rewiring is an expression of free will, or at least not how I understand the term.

 

[Sunstone]

How is the "interference" that we become aware of having done any different from the "decision" that we become aware of having made?

The "interference" is made consciously. The "decision" is made unconsciously.

 

[Anatta]

misanthropic_clown, you are illustrating my point perfectly.

To a certain degree (I will admit my understanding is limited, though I have had brief experiences with certain "mind tools") these are about reprogramming the existing machinery, not a call to find some soul or element of oneself apart from one's thought processes.

If your view is materialistic/deterministic, then you understand that you are the machinery, and no part of you exists separately from it or its resulting thought process. Who is it, then, that can undertake the task of "reprogramming" this machinery?

Largely, it is the call for a period of objective assessment of thought patterns, and conditioning oneself to use whatever clarity results from this to move towards a more positive/useful frame of mind. I don't think this kind of intervention and behavioural rewiring is an expression of free will, or at least not how I understand the term.

How can a dysfunctional thought pattern objectively assess itself, without the dysfunction finding its way into the assessment and affecting it? Wouldn't you have to split yourself into two selves, one sick and one healthy, with the healthy one watching and assessing or analyzing the sick one? This seems absurd to me, but the currently prevalent, positivist model of psychology demands that the addict must rationally want to leave his addiction, the suicidal person must want to live, and the depressed person must want to feel better. But the depressed person doesn't know better than to feel depressed, because he cannot see "objectively" beyond his depression. His depression is not a choice his "soul" or "true self" can undo, because it knows better or can see more clearly.

 

[Anatta]

How is the "interference" that we become aware of having done any different from the "decision" that we become aware of having made?

I think he is talking about a radical disruption in processing, like throwing a wrench on the tracks of what feels like your own rational thought. If this act actually hinges on any of the rational thought which forms your self-narrative, then you're still running on the tracks, you haven't disrupted anything. It's like you have to disengage from the self and all of its conceptual supports to achieve true freedom. A movie character stepping off the screen, and acting "out of script" but also without reacting to the script, because that would also be pre-determined. A radical FULL STOP in thinking, acting, and being.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

misanthropic_clown, you are illustrating my point perfectly.

...thanks?

If your view is materialistic/deterministic, then you understand that you are the machinery, and no part of you exists separately from it or its resulting thought process. Who is it, then, that can undertake the task of "reprogramming" this machinery?

It can reprogram itself (granted, not the case in every instance), initiated by novel input. This can be entirely self determined or via an external intervention. Let's do an illustration. Let's say I abuse drugs, brought on by negative emotional patterns. One day, drug abuse causes me to do something I regret. I associate this regret with drug abuse. When the urge arises to abuse drugs again, the regret causes me to take an objective (or should I say... more objectivish) assessment of the situation and choose not to abuse drugs where I might have before. This is entirely autonomous reprogramming, though brought about by an external event. Just because someone is in a cycle, doesn't mean that cycle cannot be interrupted. And that interruption doesn't necessarily call for an external event, but a novel iteration of a thought process.

How can a dysfunctional thought pattern objectively assess itself, without the dysfunction finding its way into the assessment and affecting it? Wouldn't you have to split yourself into two selves, one sick and one healthy, with the healthy one watching and assessing or analyzing the sick one? This seems absurd to me, but the currently prevalent, positivist model of psychology demands that the addict must rationally want to leave his addiction, the suicidal person must want to live, and the depressed person must want to feel better. But the depressed person doesn't know better than to feel depressed, because he cannot see "objectively" beyond his depression. His depression is not a choice his "soul" or "true self" can undo, because it knows better or can see more clearly.

There is a certain point at which a person's thinking is likely to become too dysfunctonal to assess itself effectively, but I don't think having any degree of dysfunction necessarily prevents self-assessment full stop. I don't think it requires the formation of two "selves". It's like running a diagnostic check on yourself. You can do that physically on your own body without having to split into two people. I'm not sure why the mind would be necessarily different.

Of course, in terms of mood we can also look at physical factors - poor mental health can be an emergent property of inherent physiological factors that no amount of psychological therapy will resolve. That's certainly a limitation of the model as you describe it. But that doesn't mean the kind of therapy we are talking about doesn't have utility in other cases.

 

[Anatta]

It can reprogram itself (granted, not the case in every instance), initiated by novel input. This can be entirely self determined or via an external intervention.

How can novel input be self-determined? The very word "input" suggests something coming in from the outside. It seems to me that you're reflexively positing a supernatural "self" outside the body, which is sending "novel input" into the physical brain. You seem to be splitting the self here just as I suggested. Look closely.

I agree immediately with the external intervention. I think this is the only real possibility for psychological change.

Let's do an illustration. Let's say I abuse drugs, brought on by negative emotional patterns. One day, drug abuse causes me to do something I regret. I associate this regret with drug abuse. When the urge arises to abuse drugs again, the regret causes me to take an objective (or should I say... more objectivish) assessment of the situation and choose not to abuse drugs where I might have before. This is entirely autonomous reprogramming, though brought about by an external event. Just because someone is in a cycle, doesn't mean that cycle cannot be interrupted. And that interruption doesn't necessarily call for an external event, but a novel iteration of a thought process.

The model you've presented would be great, if it was ever observed to work in real life. You can google "addiction recovery statistics" yourself. Most addicts suffer tons of regret, caused by loss of employment, housing, relationships, health, and family support. And most addicts (at least in the US) inevitably relapse, over and over, for decades, as their quality of life dwindles. Why don't these people (and there are millions of them) learn from the negative reinforcement, as you've suggested? And if the "novel iteration of a thought process" doesn't even require an external event, why do we have addicts at all?

You seem to be suggesting that people can think their way out of addiction if they just pay attention or think hard enough. They can't.

Along with your model, you've also provided the likely reason for its failure. I wonder if you noticed this:

Let's say I abuse drugs, brought on by negative emotional patterns.

The reason statistics don't bear out your theory is because no amount of negative reinforcement in the form of personal cost will impact the underlying, emotional cause of addiction - it has to be addressed directly and resolved, in order for the addict to be cured. This almost never happens for anyone who's addicted, especially when your therapist is accusing you of not trying hard enough to get better. You started off with the correct premise here, but somehow drew a conclusion which does not follow...

There is a certain point at which a person's thinking is likely to become too dysfunctional to assess itself effectively, but I don't think having any degree of dysfunction necessarily prevents self-assessment full stop.

I think you may be contradicting yourself here.

I don't think it requires the formation of two "selves". It's like running a diagnostic check on yourself. You can do that physically on your own body without having to split into two people. I'm not sure why the mind would be necessarily different.

Once again, if it is you running a "diagnostic check" on your own thoughts, aren't you using your own thoughts to do that? So the diagnostic device is running a check on itself? How will it detect if it is faulty or miscalibrated? How can it then correctly and reliably complete the self-diagnostic?

Of course, in terms of mood we can also look at physical factors - poor mental health can be an emergent property of inherent physiological factors that no amount of psychological therapy will resolve. That's certainly a limitation of the model as you describe it. But that doesn't mean the kind of therapy we are talking about doesn't have utility in other cases.

There is scarce statistical data that it helps in any cases. People who are told that they must want to get better can't usually figure out how to want that bad enough, so they end up getting worse. This failure is then blamed on the patient being not committed enough, not strong enough, not smart or good enough. In other words, like a priest, the therapist condemns the soul for its moral failure.

 

[George-ananda]

How is free will possible without a soul?

I agree that if there is no soul then it is just atoms and molecules following natural laws so free-will would be only an illusion.

But I think patients can use will to make themselves better. I have come to believe that we are not just physical but also possess subtle bodies (astral, mental, causal) composed of matter beyond our physical three-dimensional and vibratory levels.

 

[Anatta]

If by "will" you mean the consciousness, then I think a limited form of "free will" might be possible. That is, it seems the consciousness can act as an inhibitor of actions. In effect, it can say "no" to doing something. In that limited sense, there might be free will without reference to a soul.

Studies have shown that the decision to act is in many instances -- and perhaps in all instances -- decided by the brain before we become consciously aware of having decided to act. But the consciousness seems able to interfere with that decision. It seems able to countermand it. And that might be the whole and entire extent to which we have free will -- as an inhibitor of actions.

Here is Zizek, talking about this very thing (starts at 19:10):

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

The entire lecture offers interesting insights on the concept of free will and the function of modern Buddhism in capitalist society. If you can manage to get through Zizek's sniffling and manic rambling, it's well worth it.

 

[jimniki]

For those who believe in the hypothesis of the BB, (irrespective of how it was created), do you believe that the universe as it stands today was already predetermined from ground zero or evolved the way it did via "natural" processes of matter/energy interacting with itself.

Eg, is there such a thing as a true random event?
Eg, we cannot predict the exact location of an electron's next move, but just because "we" can't, doesn't mean that it isn't already predetermined by the instant the BB happened.

If there really isn't any free will by anything or anyone, how can we be held morally responsible by god for our predetermined actions?

 

[LuisDantas]

For those who believe in the hypothesis of the BB, (irrespective of how it was created), do you believe that the universe as it stands today was already predetermined from ground zero or evolved the way it did via "natural" processes of matter/energy interacting with itself.

Eg, is there such a thing as a true random event?
Eg, we cannot predict the exact location of an electron's next move, but just because "we" can't, doesn't mean that it isn't already predetermined by the instant the BB happened.

If there really isn't any free will by anything or anyone, how can we be held morally responsible by god for our predetermined actions?

We can't, of course. The concept of such a God is indeed strange.