Free will debate continues: Harris crushes Dennett

I don't believe in free will.

There are good reasons for why I feel this way. And given the conditions of the universe at every instant during my lifetime, which encompasses those reasons, it isn't possible for me to believe or feel about free will in any way other than the way I do now. 

That's why I don't believe in free will: I understand that I'm part of a whole, as Einstein put it, called "universe." 

As I blogged about a few weeks ago, philosopher Daniel Dennett took some shots at Sam Harris, author of the excellent "Free Will."

Dennett's specious arguments in favor of his confused view of this subject -- we're sort of free, sort of not, because we feel we are -- were ably refuted by Daniel Miessler. 

Now Sam Harris has done his own refuting of Dennett. Harris' response includes some philosophical geekiness that I didn't find very interesting. But most of his piece is right on. Well worth reading, especially if you consider that you're free to think, do, and feel whatever you want.

To me, this would be a horrible way to exist. Isolated. Cut off from reality. An island unto myself. Fortunately, there's much more reason to deny free will, than to accept it.

Here's some excerpts from Harris' The Marionette's Lament.

Let’s begin by noticing a few things we actually agree about: We agree that human thought and behavior are determined by prior states of the universe and its laws—and that any contributions of indeterminism are completely irrelevant to the question of free will. We also agree that our thoughts and actions in the present influence how we think and act in the future.

We both acknowledge that people can change, acquire skills, and become better equipped to get what they want out of life. We know that there is a difference between a morally healthy person and a psychopath, as well as between one who is motivated and disciplined, and thus able to accomplish his aims, and one who suffers a terminal case of apathy or weakness of will.

We both understand that planning and reasoning guide human behavior in innumerable ways and that an ability to follow plans and to be responsive to reasons is part of what makes us human.

...We agree that given past states of the universe and its laws, we can only do what we in fact do, and not do otherwise. You don’t think this truth has many psychological or moral consequences. In fact, you describe the lawful propagation of certain types of events as a form of “freedom.”

But consider the emergence of this freedom in any specific human being: It is fully determined by genes and the environment (add as much randomness as you like). Imagine the first moment it comes online—in, say, the brain of a four-year-old child. Consider this first, “free” increment of executive control to emerge from the clockwork.

It will emerge precisely to the degree that it does, and when, according to causes that have nothing to do with this person’s freedom. And it will perpetuate its effects on future states of his nervous system in total conformity to natural laws.

In each instant, Austin will make his putt or miss it; and he will try his best or not. Yes, he is “free” to do whatever it is he does based on past states of the universe.

But the same could be said of a chimp or a computer—or, indeed, a line of dominoes. Perhaps such mechanical equivalences don’t bother you, but they might come as a shock to those who think that you have rescued their felt sense of autonomy from the gears of determinism.

...An illusion about mental freedom seems to be very widespread. My argument is that such freedom is incompatible with any form of causation (deterministic or otherwise)—which, as you know, is not a novel view.

But I also argue that it is incompatible with the actual character of our subjective experience. That is why I say that the illusion of free will is itself an illusion—which is another way of saying that if one really pays attention (and this is difficult), the illusion of free will disappears.

...In my book, I argue that an honest look at the causal underpinnings of human behavior, as well as at one’s own moment-to-moment experience, reveals free will to be an illusion. (I would say the same about the conventional sense of “self,” but that requires more discussion, and it is the topic of my next book.)

I also claim that this fact has consequences—good ones, for the most part—and that is another reason it is worth exploring.

Comments

[cc]

If I say I don't believe in free will, I had to say it because I had no choice. But if I say I do believe in free will, I believe I chose to say it.

If free will is delusion and we really have no choice but to do what we do, we can't choose to realize it.

[Willie R]

Do not confuse "choice" and "willingness". They are two separate issues.
"Will" presupposes an entity that is an effective cause for whatever happens. There is no such entity. There is only Reality, which has no stake in any point of view.

You can "choose" what you are having for dinner tonight. You can "choose" what clothes you will put on tomorrow. But there is no possible way you can "will" the choices that are apparent.

[cc]

You can "choose" what you are having for dinner tonight. You can "choose" what clothes you will put on tomorrow. But there is no possible way you can "will" the choices that are apparent.

The distinction between choosing and willing, Willie, is beside the point because the question is whether I have any freedom at all.

[Willie R]

Your point is very well taken, cc. (as always)
The whole free will/choice/freedom issue is akin to an intellectual game of Twister - it is difficult to remain coherent without becoming slightly pedantic. Sooner or later, something that one espouses proves to be contradictory in some way, and down you go. Game over. The we all play again!

[Roger]

Free will, choice and freedom are going to be relative in mind. So, could there be a relative free will? What exactly is the proper definition of free will? I can see how a free will definition could be different from a freedom of choice. This is a fascinating topic.

[Lars Olson]

One thing to consider is a computer program where you give characters inside the program (video game) the ability to reprogram the video game themselves. Do they have free will then? Or are they just given even a bigger illusion of free will since the computer is still predetermined in our universe to try and give them free will even though it is just an illusion? The closest thing to free will you will get is living inside a simulation where you can reprogram the simulation yourself.

Even if this is still just an illusion of free will, it's a better illusion than our free will that we have right now in this universe. So imagine for example in Grand Theft Auto you give the main character the ability to reprogram the game inside the game. He can create his own cities and physics laws. He can change the laws of his nature. He can change the speed of light or the affects of gravity.

This is maybe a really good illusion of total free will even though it may still be a simulation inside a universe that has no free will. Is it possible to simulate or create free will inside a simulation that is part of a universe that has no free will? This is a recursive complex question which probably ends up with some sort of pseudo scientific answer such as "it's partial illusionary free will, not true free will."

Also if free will is not falisfiable then you cannot even discuss the subject scientifically. Also look up Laynes Law because people keep changing the definition of free will and play mind games that way.

[777]

-
Imaging Yourself as real and all other molecules around
you as illusion, practical for your stay
on the planet
For a lot of reasons

Imaging this was all arranged by aliens on a Alpha Centauri spaceship
These guys are much further in science than humanity ever will

They made the holodeck and placed you in it !

Each child? . star trek lover can imaging that without any restriction

So why can't You imaging a much more powerfull force to apply/construct : You
and for a very good reason

COMPLAINTS ?

They are very welcome to The Grand Doer which is YOU, you ignoramus who lost all free will.

From all sides comes help to do away with this ego : the source of your misery but you want to enforce it

You can act but you prefer the long uncertain future
You even can see your former lives but you prefer books and books

So we have free will
and not at all at the same time

777