Free will. Who could be against this seemingly wonderful notion? The opposite idea seems to be a depressing downer: Unfree determinism.
After I'd read the first part of Sam Harris' new book, "Free Will," I shared my enthusiasm with my wife about giving up the belief that I can freely decide what I think, feel, or do. She wasn't nearly as enthused, perhaps because of her lengthy experience as a psychotherapist.
"But wouldn't people then use I've got no free will as an excuse for doing whatever they want? And wouldn't this take away people's motivation to change, to improve themselves, to pursue difficult undertakings?"
I had a ready response.
"Anyone who reads Harris' book will simply have more information dumped into their brain, an additional experience that will combine with all the other influences which currently determine their brain states. How they change as a result can't be predicted. Giving up a belief in free will might be highly positive for them, rather than negative."
Here's some quotes that illustrate how Harris approached this subject.
Speaking from personal experience, I think that losing the sense of free will has only improved my ethics -- by increasing my feelings of compassion and forgiveness, and diminishing my sense of entitlement to the fruits of my own good luck.
...Losing a belief in free will has not made me fatalistic -- in fact, it has increased my feelings of freedom. My hopes, fears, and neuroses seem less personal and indelible. There is no telling how much I might change in the future... A creative change of inputs to the system -- learning new skills, forming new relationships, adopting new habits of attention -- may radically transform one's life.
Absolutely.
If who we are and what we do is up to us, we're confined in an exceedingly small cage of individualistic selfhood. We can only move in directions that are apparent to our conscious free will. Fortunately, this isn't the truth known to modern neuroscience and psychology.
Psychologist Shimon Edelman discusses how the illusions of free will and selfhood are being replaced by the scientific truths of determinism and extended "virtual" selves. Here's how he puts it in a book that nicely complements Harris', The Happiness of Pursuit.
Insofar as the extended system -- the effective and narrative Selves planted in the great web of cause and effect -- can reach deep into geographical and social space, the computational need for such focusing of behavioral feedback is pressing. By taking responsibility for the processing and use of this information, the phenomenal Self gives rise to another useful illusion: that of free will.
In the West, it has been known since at least the time of Voltaire and Hume that the concept of uncaused cause, which is a prerequisite for free will, is logically incoherent: if my "free" decision to do a particular deed arises absolutely independently of any of the existing circumstances, including my own prior actions and states of mind, then in no sense can it be considered free, or, indeed, mine.
...I do not obey a code of conduct that is implicit in the web of cause and effect; rather I am part of the web. The ultimate reach of this web is universal -- and within the boundaries of physical law the universe is, of course, free.
...The bottom line, then, is this: the Self, along with all of its perceived and remembered attributes -- anything and everything that is included in the feeling of being you -- is a product of the brain's virtual reality engine. This virtual Self is computed and put in charge of the situation purely for reasons of good governance, that is, efficient and purposeful control of the brain's life support system -- your body.
So here's another reason why my wife doesn't have to worry much about people giving up their belief in free will and turning into irresponsible there's no reason to do anything couch potatoes: evolution has led to a virtual/illusory sense of self being front and center within human consciousness.
Even if I intellectually know that I have no free will, it sure seems like I'm able to choose what words I'm going to type in the next moment. (Yet as every writer knows, what's going to be written isn't known until the words appear on paper or a computer screen.)
The inward feeling of free will isn't much of a problem. What's culturally destructive is how this illusory feeling gets translated into social policies which assume that individual human beings are capable of freely deciding their thoughts and actions.
Harris talks about how our justice system is founded on this assumption.
Retribution becomes the main goal, rather than rehabilitation and prevention of future crimes. Often it will be necessary to lock people up to keep them from committing additional offenses. However, there's no scientifically defensible reason to believe that a criminal freely chose his/her unlawful act.
Would we punish hurricanes or earthquakes, if this were possible, berating them for the destruction they bring to humans? Or if ways to prevent these natural occurrences could be found, wouldn't we simply implement them without considering that a malevolent motivation lies behind 150 mph winds or 8.0 Richter Scale shakings?
Harris writes:
Viewing human beings as natural phenomena need not damage our system of criminal justice. If we could incarcerate earthquakes and hurricanes for their crimes, we would build prisons for them as well. We fight emerging epidemics -- and even the occasional wild animal -- without attributing free will to them. Clearly, we can respond intelligently to the threat posed by dangerous people without lying to ourselves about the ultimate origins of human behavior.
Then there's sin (or the Eastern version, bad karma).
Sin can't exist without free will, which is why earthquakes, hurricanes, and rattlesnakes don't have to spend time in a confession booth. A belief in sin or freely willed bad karma has decidedly destructive consequences, as Harris notes.
Despite our attachment to the notion of free will, most of us know that disorders of the brain can trump the best intentions of the mind. This shift in understanding represents progress toward a deeper, more consistent, and more compassionate view of our common humanity -- and we should note that this is progress away from religious metaphysics.
Few concepts have offered greater scope for human cruelty than the idea of an immortal soul that stands independent of all material influences, ranging from genes to economic systems. Within a religious framework, a belief in free will supports the notion of sin -- which seems to justify not only harsh punishment in this life but eternal punishment in the next.
And yet, ironically, one of the fears attending our progress in science is that a more complete understanding of ourselves wil dehumanize us.
No, truth can't be dehumanizing. Which includes the truth, free will does not exist.
"Speaking from personal experience, I think"
Oh so your still the thinker then with "your" experience ?...paradox of pardoxs Sammy my boy
Posted by: Dogribb | March 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM
IMO, free will is entirely a Christian religious concept. Wasn't it only developed to explain why mankind is evil (we used free will to eat apples)? If you don't believe the garden of eden myth, then you don't need free will. Just go do the dishes and be happy.
Posted by: Ultra Monk | March 10, 2012 at 02:29 PM
Free will is a rhetorical consideration only. No matter what side of the theoretical division you might tend to fall on, decisions and choices are constantly being made by all living organisms with a developed nervous system.
My father was a certified lunatic. I watched him get transported away in a straight jacket many times in the late 1950's and early 1960's. He died in prison, where either he said to himself "fuck this", and jumped to his death; or - someone said "fuck you" and gave him a boost over the railing. The inmate population was even more silent than dear old Dad.
I promised myself that I would never get married and have children, what with the bad genes that my offspring would chance to inherit.
And then, some woman came into my life and imposed her "will" upon me. Long story short: my three sons range in age from 23 to 31.
Reality is characterized by a rigorous inevitability that has nothing whatever to do with choices, decisions, motivations, beliefs, and other cortical effluvia.
Posted by: Willie R | March 10, 2012 at 06:09 PM
Are our actions predetermined or is there some random component (free will) such that our actions cannot be predicted given perfect knowledge of the state of the universe before hand?
Let's assume a deterministic universe. Then one could trace all events back via there cause and effect chain to a single initial starting point (big bang perhaps?). The state of this starting point would determine the entire future of the universe, however this state must necessarily be random, otherwise it would not be the initial state. Effectively this initial random state is free will.
As the universe moves through time deterministicly unfolding, then it is not a stretch to say that it is an expression of the original act of free will. In fact when we consider that our actions are only apparent after they occur (meaning you can't predict them 100% before hand) then this 'act of free will' is still being revealed. So our actions are both free will and determined.
An aside - I think we really have to define what free will means. The best definition I can come up with right now is the subjective feeling of conscious action. In any case to say that free will doesn't exist and is illusory is to redefine free will.
Ps. Stumbled across this blog a week or two ago, really enjoyable to read.
Posted by: Geo | March 15, 2012 at 08:13 AM
Geo, you seem to assume that the a random quantum event is equivalent to free will. But if there is no conscious intention involved, how can this be called "will"? If neurons fire in my brain randomly, where is my freedom? Sure seems like a better word for that would be "crazy."
Harris, and other neuroscientists I've read, would disagree that a subjective feeling of conscious action is genuine free will. We have lots of subjective feelings that don't reflect objective reality.
Yesterday I discovered that after I was convinced there was no way to get an end clip off of a dishwasher rail that had fallen off. The repairman popped it off in about 10 seconds. Fortunately, the repair visit was covered under warranty. I felt I knew the truth about something, and I was wrong. Same likely is the case with our feeling of free will.
To me, the best definition is something like: given that every brain cell of mine is in the same state, could I have made a different decision? Where would that ability come from? It'd have to be non-physical, because every inner (brain state) and outer (environmental) state would be exactly the same as when I made my original decision.
Glad you're enjoying my blog. I enjoy pondering these Big Questions. Not sure if I'll ever find sure answers, but the search is pleasurable.
Posted by: Brian Hines | March 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Yea I agree. It funny, one of the things I tell people trying to get over a traumatic experience (or the associated guilt) is that if we were to wind back the universe things would play out exactly the same way.
I guess what I was cryptically trying to say is I don't see any difference between free will and determinism. I think the universe is deterministic, but unable to be predicted. The end point in my thinking is that the current state of the universe is the only possible one :)
Anyway, at the moment I have a whole bag of answers to the big questions that seem to make sense to me. But it is not satisfying! I think I'm not seeking enlightenment, but the feeling of revelation and the thrill of something new hehe.
Posted by: geo | March 15, 2012 at 07:52 PM