Is Free Will an Illusion?

[Mr Spinkles]

Free will is an illusion in my opinion. Here's why:

1. In order to have free will, there has to exist a "self" that is seperate and free from the laws of the rest of the universe. There is no such "self", there is only cells and molecules, and a bunch of nuerons that think like a computer and generate the illusion of self--we humans obey the laws of the universe just like everything else. To say that we humans have a "self" would be to say that so do dogs, ants, bacteria, self replicating molecules, and matter. If all those things have a "self" then the word loses its initial meaning and it has no bearing on free will any more.

2. Our will is not free. Every time you make a decision, it's because you're brain weighs your desires and comes up with the best solution (to the best of your brain's limited ability) to acheive these wants. The computation is not "free will" because it is dependent on the information your brain is given, its reasoning abilities and the brain's biochemical state--none of which you have any control over (besides, even non-living calculators do computing). And the desires themselves are not free will, because we cannot choose what to desire. So for example, my brain can compute the best way to get food without spending a lot of money, but I can't choose to WANT or NOT WANT to eat and not spend a lot of money in the first place.....that desire has been programmed into me beforehand. I want to eat, and there's nothing I can do about it.

The more I observe human and animal behavior, and how predictable and patterned it is (though complex) the more I realize that we do not have "free will" any more than animals do. And animals no more have "free will" than do lower organisms, self-replicating molecules, and matter.

Here's another way to think about it: when you make a decision, you either A) logically weigh your wants and come up with the best decision or B) flip a coin and choose at random.

If you choose by the B) method, that's not free will, because you're not choosing...you're just behaving in a random sporadic manner in which random chance dictates what you decide. And hypothetical "self" isn't even involved in the decision making process...it's all up to a coin.

If you make a choice by method A), then you're decision is controlled by your brain's intelligence (it's ability to reason etc) and by what your wants are, NEITHER of which you have control over!

Remember....I'm not saying free will doesn't exist, I'm saying it's an illusion. I never said people feel forced to do anything....they obey the laws of nature "will"ingly. (haha)

 

[Alaric]

I think I agree - but you say that free will both exists but is also an illusion, and you say that humans have no more free will than animals, and these statements don't make much sense. The difference between humans and animals, and the reason why we have a concept called free will at all, is because we don't just blindly follow our desires, but have the ability to imagine ourselves making other choices. An animal will use instinct and experience to create in any circumstance a kind of priority of desires, and act accordingly; for us, it's a lot more complicated because we have the ability of abstract thought, allowing us to imagine ourselves making different choices, without knowing the consequences of those actions. We make one choice, experience the consequences, and imagine what would have happened had we acted differently. Those choices are still based on desires that we don't have control over, however we have so many desires that so often conflict with each other that we need to rely on other criteria to make up our minds.

If I am aware of muliple choices in a given situation, and acknowledge that I am free to choose between them, and know that all of the actions by themselves could satisfy at least some of my desires, but may also have desirable or undesirable consequences of which I am currently unaware, I won't just feel my way, or flip a coin. Then my personality kicks it, along with the memes I currently possess; perhaps I am risk-averse, and decide to investigate further before I make up my mind; perhaps I have the idea lodged in my head that I have the ultimate responsibility for my actions, and so cannot in good conscience act without knowing more. These can of course be compared to primal urges, but I still think it makes a big difference that we are aware of ourselves making the choices, since we then behave differently than we would otherwise have done. And it also seems to follow that some people have more free will than others - as we experience and learn, and acquire memes that affect our decision-making processes, we gain more freedom. Desires and impulsive acts become less important, and the 'ideal you' starts to take over.

So 'free will' does exist in a sense that at least makes it a useful term, even if it was all determined by the laws of cause and effect from the very start. This is also why I think that we can actually have free will even if there existed an omniscient God, because free will and predetermination aren't necessarily in conflict if you think of it this way. Free will isn't then about power, it's about identity.

And kudos to anyone if they understand this! :mrgreen:

 

[Rex]

Well saying we have no self really made me think.

B/c you would think if we are all made out of the same things they everything including bacteria and molecules would have a self, but you are forgetting the brain and nervous system.

And we make those decisions yes but it has nothing to do with the best system.

Some people can look at their pay check and say umm I can pay my bills (which you should do) or nah I'm going to go out and blow it on alchohol, drugs, casino (whatever is not good) and they sometimes do, thus showing their will to do whatever they choose.

If we take the definition of self also:

The total, essential, or particular being of a person; the individual: “An actor's instrument is the self” (Joan Juliet Buck).
The essential qualities distinguishing one person from another; individuality: “He would walk a little first along the southern walls, shed his European self, fully enter this world” (Howard Kaplan).
One's consciousness of one's own being or identity; the ego: “For some of us, the self's natural doubts are given in mesmerizing amplification by way of critics' negative assessments of our writing” (Joyce Carol Oates).
One's own interests, welfare, or advantage: thinking of self alone.
Immunology. That which the immune system identifies as belonging to the body: tissues no longer recognized as self.

Then of course bacteria, molecules have no self b/c they have none of this.

Wow my brain is just going rampid right now, let me try and collect my thoughts more b/c its just pouring out and I am all over the place.

haha

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think I agree - but you say that free will both exists but is also an illusion, and you say that humans have no more free will than animals, and these statements don't make much sense. The difference between humans and animals, and the reason why we have a concept called free will at all, is because we don't just blindly follow our desires, but have the ability to imagine ourselves making other choices. An animal will use instinct and experience to create in any circumstance a kind of priority of desires, and act accordingly; for us, it's a lot more complicated because we have the ability of abstract thought, allowing us to imagine ourselves making different choices, without knowing the consequences of those actions. We make one choice, experience the consequences, and imagine what would have happened had we acted differently. Those choices are still based on desires that we don't have control over, however we have so many desires that so often conflict with each other that we need to rely on other criteria to make up our minds.

A movie isn't "real" but it does exist. Illusions do exist. I think free will "exists" as an illusion inside our minds that makes us feel like we have free will.

If you believe an advanced intellect is what constitutes free will and therefore no other life forms have free will, we run into all sorts of problems. For example, chessplaying A.I. can contemplate potential choices and anticipate moves far in advance...does it have free will? And exactly how intelligent does one have to be to have free will, where do you draw the line? At what point in evolution did we cross the barrier from no free will to free will? Do children have free will? There are examples of some animals who are as intelligent as children as old as 7....do those animals have free will? Perhaps super intelligent aliens would say that we don't have free will, because we don't have the mental capacity (as they do) for free will...

If I am aware of muliple choices in a given situation, and acknowledge that I am free to choose between them, and know that all of the actions by themselves could satisfy at least some of my desires, but may also have desirable or undesirable consequences of which I am currently unaware, I won't just feel my way, or flip a coin. Then my personality kicks it, along with the memes I currently possess; perhaps I am risk-averse, and decide to investigate further before I make up my mind; perhaps I have the idea lodged in my head that I have the ultimate responsibility for my actions, and so cannot in good conscience act without knowing more. These can of course be compared to primal urges, but I still think it makes a big difference that we are aware of ourselves making the choices, since we then behave differently than we would otherwise have done. And it also seems to follow that some people have more free will than others - as we experience and learn, and acquire memes that affect our decision-making processes, we gain more freedom. Desires and impulsive acts become less important, and the 'ideal you' starts to take over.

So 'free will' does exist in a sense that at least makes it a useful term, even if it was all determined by the laws of cause and effect from the very start. This is also why I think that we can actually have free will even if there existed an omniscient God, because free will and predetermination aren't necessarily in conflict if you think of it this way. Free will isn't then about power, it's about identity.

So...it makes sense to for you to say that free will exists, but only as a "useful term".....but it doesn't make sense for me to say that free will exists but only as an experience that is ultimately an illusion...

Here's a good analogy I read: if you dropped a rock and it fell to the ground, and the rock could speak, it would tell you it freely chose to fall.

It's the same thing with the self/identity. Our feeling of self is an illusion created by our nervous system (and it's probably a beneficial illusion I agree). In fact, if you shut down certain parts of the brain (or just get high) you lose this illusion and feel "at one with the universe" and lose your sense of identity and orientation.

 

[Alaric]

No, I agree that you can say that free will exists as an experience, because that's what I mean - animals do not experience that. There is no separation between stimuli and response in animals. I'm still deterministic in the way you mean, but the fact that we are able to reflect on our actions gives ourselves something extra that changes the way we act. Think of the difference the meme 'You have responsibility for your actions' makes on someone. Suddenly, it's not enough just to act according to how you feel or even believe; suddenly you are required to make an effort in understanding the consequences of your actions. As soon as you are aware of this responsibility, you can choose (unless temporarily insane) whether or not to take the time to think about your actions. And therefore, people can be held accountable for their actions. Everyone is different, of course - I'm not under the impression that everyone has an equal possibility to be good - but as long as the meme is able to be understood, their is responsibility, which follows from our experience of free will (experience is, I think, better than 'illusion').

Perhaps we should separate the idea of free will from 'absolute freedom' or such. We have free will in the same way we have a self, and we have love; saying that it's just a peculiar consequence of the way our brains are configured doesn't mean that identity and love and free will suddenly disappear, it just allows us a better understanding of them.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Alaric, if I may contest,

I think the term 'abstract reasoning' which we humans hold so dear, could in fact be a glorified synonym for 'evolved instinct'. I think that most animals have the same components to their brains as humans, some of them just simply not being as well developed (duh!). After all, our brains and thought processes had to have developed along the same rules as the rest of our bodies, by theory of evolution. I only bring this up because I have observed traits in certain animals which suggest deeper thinking. I'm not by any means saying that we humans should be watching our jobs as rulers of the animal kingdom, but we need to acknowledge that there are indeed some smart animals out there, and that as far as animal intelligence in general goes, science really doesn't know a whole lot. (yet) That said, one really needs to analyze their own behavior, and wonder just how much could be explained as instinctual.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Rex,

Some people can look at their pay check and say umm I can pay my bills (which you should do) or nah I'm going to go out and blow it on alchohol, drugs, casino (whatever is not good) and they sometimes do, thus showing their will to do whatever they choose.

On the surface, this does seem to be a cut and dry choice: to pay the bills, or not to pay the bills? However, I believe that you need to look a little deeper-- what is going on inside of the brain during this situation? Personally, it all comes down to memes for me (see Mr. Spinkles' thread--'Is religion a Virus?'). All thoughts are memes, and they are constantly interacting with each other. In addition, we are constantly picking up new memes to throw into the fray. We cannot control which memes we pick up, neither can we control how those memes will affect each other inside of our heads. Those two areas are managed by the basic workings of our brains, which are also uncontrollable. When it comes time to make a decision, it is the memes who get to work. The simplest explanation for your example would be whether or not the memes for 'lets go party' outweighed the memes for 'responsibility'. At the end of the day, we cannot control how our memes react and affect each other, thereby producing our opinion on an issue. Therefore I do not believe in free will.

 

[Alaric]

But Ceridwen, have you ever tried to suspend your free will? For example, by just suspending all thought and doing exactly what you think you want at the moment? You can't! To do so would be to suspend all belief in self, and kind of 'merge with the cosmos' and forget all notion of self, because it is exactly the sense of self that makes you feel free. Of course, we are not aware of all the myriad of things that cause us to behave in the way we do, but one of those causes is the 'self', the mind's creation that gives me an identity with past experiences and memories that include something identifiably me behaving a certain way and receiving such-and-such consequences. All this is technically happening without 'me' guiding it, but causes me to stop up and think before acting (usually), and gives me some influence on where I end up. Most animals don't have this at all - they cannot identify themselves in a mirror, for example. Neither can two-year-olds, so they wouldn't have any free will either.

So for example, if I injected a dog with some chemical that screwed with his brain and caused him to feel hungry all of the time, he would just eat himself to death. A human might too, but not unknowingly - they would be able to see the consequences of the sudden unending pangs of hunger, consequences which are hopefully at odds with the ideal 'self' that he had developed, and try to control himself. Whether he does so or not is dependent on many things, but if he possesses the meme 'I have responsibility unto myself', then he will have the option of taking a step back and investigating the consequences of his actions, which are then thrown into the ring will all his other desires, fears, thoughts, experiences etc, and the strongest one at the time wins.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ceridwen never said we don't feel like we experience free will--of course we do. We experience lots of things in our mind, not all of which are "real" in the outside world.

The meme 'I have responsibility unto myself' itself still doesn't come from our free will...like all memes, 'it' gets inside us and makes us act in ways 'it' wants.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Lol, yes Alaric, we actually do agree, I think.

With your example of the dog, I agree that the dog would be more prone to just eat himself, whereas the human would probably try and seek out alternatives...and then eat himself if none were found. Like you also mentioned, I agree that this has to do with the level of understanding. The dog has no idea what is happening to him, but the human does. If the human did not understand, ie, if the human was a small child, etc., would they then be more prone to respond like the dog?

This difference in response is without a doubt caused by an intelligence gap between the human and dog, but the point here is, I believe that dogs have the ability to think ahead just like humans. If you were to subject the dog to numerous periods of time when he would feel immense hunger, and then stop it before he ate himself, (thereby somehwat explaining the problem to him), I think it is possible that the dog would be able to eventually anticipate his problem, and instinctually come up with the best mode for survival.

 

[true blood]

ya know...I'm thinking you'd fit in perfectly if you lived in north korea
-those that feel free will is an illusion

 

[Ceridwen018]

true blood,

Haha, that was clever!...wait, no it wasn't...

We're not talking about democracy vs. dictatorship, or everyone's right to equality, here. We're talking about the basic concept of free will on a personal level. "To be, or not to be? That is the question."

 

[Alaric]

If the human did not understand, ie, if the human was a small child, etc., would they then be more prone to respond like the dog?

Yes - if the human had no reason to doubt their feeling of hunger, they may well just keep eating, assuming that the feeling would just stop eventually. The more information you have, the more you learn to understand the extent of your ignorance, and the less faith you have in things, the more free you are, in effect. It's just scary - I think people who look for religion or strong leaders or whatever are just trying to rid themselves of the burden of the self and want to go back to the animal state of blind cause-effect. They're always looking for laws so that if this happens, they do that, without having to worry about thinking at all.

...I think it is possible that the dog would be able to eventually anticipate his problem, and instinctually come up with the best mode for survival.

I don't think it can do both, but I think if the dog ignored its hunger, it would be to pursue another desire that eventually grew more powerful than the hunger while it was doing nothing but feeding. It can't envision itself in the future experiencing negative consequences of overeating.

The meme 'I have responsibility unto myself' itself still doesn't come from our free will...like all memes, 'it' gets inside us and makes us act in ways 'it' wants.

It doesn't come from our free will, it gives us free will! In a way, I think there is no 'it' (i.e. memes) vs 'us' - they are the same thing, we are the memes we currently use. Whether a computer is a Mac or a PC depends on the operating system, not the hardware (as far as I know). The hardware just decides the limits of the processing of the software.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Free will is an illusion in my opinion. Here's why:

1. In order to have free will, there has to exist a "self" that is seperate and free from the laws of the rest of the universe. There is no such "self", there is only cells and molecules, and a bunch of nuerons that think like a computer and generate the illusion of self--we humans obey the laws of the universe just like everything else. To say that we humans have a "self" would be to say that so do dogs, ants, bacteria, self replicating molecules, and matter. If all those things have a "self" then the word loses its initial meaning and it has no bearing on free will any more.

2. Our will is not free. Every time you make a decision, it's because you're brain weighs your desires and comes up with the best solution (to the best of your brain's limited ability) to acheive these wants. The computation is not "free will" because it is dependent on the information your brain is given, its reasoning abilities and the brain's biochemical state--none of which you have any control over (besides, even non-living calculators do computing). And the desires themselves are not free will, because we cannot choose what to desire. So for example, my brain can compute the best way to get food without spending a lot of money, but I can't choose to WANT or NOT WANT to eat and not spend a lot of money in the first place.....that desire has been programmed into me beforehand. I want to eat, and there's nothing I can do about it.

The more I observe human and animal behavior, and how predictable and patterned it is (though complex) the more I realize that we do not have "free will" any more than animals do. And animals no more have "free will" than do lower organisms, self-replicating molecules, and matter.

Here's another way to think about it: when you make a decision, you either A) logically weigh your wants and come up with the best decision or B) flip a coin and choose at random.

If you choose by the B) method, that's not free will, because you're not choosing...you're just behaving in a random sporadic manner in which random chance dictates what you decide. And hypothetical "self" isn't even involved in the decision making process...it's all up to a coin.

If you make a choice by method A), then you're decision is controlled by your brain's intelligence (it's ability to reason etc) and by what your wants are, NEITHER of which you have control over!

Remember....I'm not saying free will doesn't exist, I'm saying it's an illusion. I never said people feel forced to do anything....they obey the laws of nature "will"ingly. (haha)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The meme 'I have responsibility unto myself' itself still doesn't come from our free will...like all memes, 'it' gets inside us and makes us act in ways 'it' wants.

It doesn't come from our free will, it gives us free will! In a way, I think there is no 'it' (i.e. memes) vs 'us' - they are the same thing, we are the memes we currently use. Whether a computer is a Mac or a PC depends on the operating system, not the hardware (as far as I know). The hardware just decides the limits of the processing of the software.

Good point Alaric. But a computer does not have free will, because it must do what it is programmed to do. The computer, of course, wants to do what it is programmed to do. But it cannot program itself, and therefore a computer has no choice but to 'want' to do exactly what it is programmed to do. We have no choice as to what memes constitute 'us' (we can't program ourselves) and therefore we want to do only what we have been programmed to want to do.

Even if what constitutes 'us' is our programming itself (we are the memes), that still doesn't enable free will--first of all, a meme can't choose what meme it wants to be, it merely wants and does things on the basis of what it IS, and it can't decide what it IS. Secondly, if 'we' are the memes, and even if 'we' could enable free will, we are not enabling free will for 'us' (the memes)--instead, we are enabling free will for this whole new being that we are only a part of. A meme can't confer free will on itself of course, because a meme can't 'choose' what it is in the first place--it just follows directives based on its programming, as do computer programs.

 

[Alaric]

But what about a 'get more programming' meme? I participate here, and read, and see movies and so on, in a constant quest for new memes that will improve my life (that is, help the survival of my most powerful self-memes... *theme from twilight zone*). Like I've said, I agree with you about absolute free will - I'm just saying there is some free will associated with the memes that give me self-identity and allow me to recognise the fact that my beliefs and actions have direct consequences on my own well-being. I'm not at the mercy of my current memes if some of those memes require me to constantly revise what I do and what I believe in. That's as much free will as we can likely have, but it is more than, or at least very different to, what animals have. I can't take credit for not going on killing ramages, because I have no inclination to do that sort of thing right now, but if I did, I have collected enough memes up to this point that will hopefully stop me ever getting to that point.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Mmmm, Alaric, excellent point...I hadn't thought about that.

Basically, I interpret what you're saying as 'if this theory of meme's is true, why are we not all the same/have the potential to all be the same', aka, what gives us a unique identity.

Well, we certainly all grow up in different housholds, and are exposed to different memes in different orders and strengths...also, perhaps we have genetic tendencies? Well, be that true or not, out intelligence is certainly genetic, therefore making the patterns by which we interpret and process information/memes genetic. Hence, perhaps one is more likely to reject one meme over another compared to someone else simply because their brain works differently and reacts differently to that particular meme.

And what about this: cn we be born with memes? Or at least a stronger potential for one meme over another? For instance, I consider myself to be highly inquisitive-- however that does not seem like the kind of meme you would just pick up like any other.

 

[Alaric]

Inquisitiveness is not a meme, just a trait - a meme would be the idea that inquisitiveness did this and that or was good or bad, or a song about inquisitiveness - although I suppose these things could in turn make you more inquisitive. But I definately think that we have the propensity to accept some memes over others; not just by who we are, but also the situation we find themselves in (or our childhoods). I have noticed with myself that I have copied certain other people's ways of laughing, or ways of responding to questions, etc - but I am constantly bombarded with tons of different people's ways of laughing and behaving. What made me copy those few ones in particular? They must have just appealed to me somehow - they seemed to correspond well with the person I thought I was or wanted to be. I'm half Danish, half New Zealander, and have lived about equally in both countries, so the way I behave is quite different to those around me, from little things like facial expressions in certain situations to whole ways of thinking. But I also am aware of these things, and have some control over them. The memes I have built myself from up to this point does probably restrict the memes I accept now, though.

This whole idea about memes, self-awareness and free will is still pretty fuzzy to me, but I think it really is a step in the right direction. Also in telling why some people think and behave so differently to others. The person who learns which memes counter which other memes will rule the world! Being able to identify precisely which memes are the foundations on which all his other memes rest, which you then destroy, leaving him vulnerable to all yours. Like when Buddhist or Christian missionaries preached to the poor and the social outcasts - first they identify the basic beliefs (like hinduism), expose weaknesses in the meme, then replace them with memes that are much more appealing to their audience's situation, creating a horde of loyal acolytes. The really good ones work for a whole society; I think there are many memes that people need to agree on in a society in order for it to make a democracy work, for example - you can't have people thinking in terms of social castes. And getting people to behave well to others requires the meme that they have responsibility for their own actions, meaning they suddenly realise that they have to independently compare the compatibility of their own memes with the generally accepted ones of society.

Anyway, the point was that an identity memeplex develops, that gives you a self-identity, and a recognition of responsibility for your own actions and consequently the free will that we experience. We start out with the hardware (equipped with an instinctive drive to copy memes), which in the unique circumstances we find ourselves in acquires memes that best suit it, and develops an idea of 'self' as a kind of anchor point for these memes. This 'self' memeplex has to deal with the emotional drives of the body (needs for food, love, respect etc), and acquires other memes to help it do this (learn to share, be nice to grown-ups, don't talk to strangers). It experiences consequences for actions taken, and has to constantly revaluate and upgrade the memes in use to keep fulfilling the basic drives (not believing in Santa is painful, but is a weak meme and makes the others laugh at me). We still have wars between memes and drives (like people's weight problems - they are infected with the memes that obesity is bad and unhealthy, and they lose respect from others, but other drives tell them to eat). Memes also tend to get ranked, and other memes are judged by how well they fit the main meme. I don't know whether it should be classified differently, but I think there are certain memes that must be present to feel 'free' - I also think some people have more free will than others, but this I'm not sure of; perhaps it has something to do with how many different types of people you have the opportunity to compare yourself with (more viable choices of behaviour = more freedom). Any ideas?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Alaric-- What you're saying here makes sense, I just don't consider it "free will".

The fact that we can sort through memes and 'upgrade' ourselves is nice, and it does help one feel like more than a mere robot that has the exact same programming and acts the exact same way all the time. But it still doesn't change the fact that we do what we are programmed to do--even if what we are programmed to do is sift through memes and find the 'best' ones.

 

[Ceridwen018]

We need to realize that we're all comprehending this within our human limitations. I mean, there's no real alternative, but we are certainly not 'robotic' in any way, though it may seem so when explained to us. It is all so complex-- there are unlimited possibilites and combinations. Everyone can be absolutely unique and still fit into this system.