Good Jerry Coyne piece about free will (the lack thereof)

I'm a big fan of writings that debunk free will. (Just can't help myself.)

Here's a good piece by Jerry Coyne that appeared on his Evolution is True blog: "Dawkins and Krauss on free will." It makes the same points that I've made in my own writings about free will, albeit in a clearer fashion. 

Here's an excerpt. But you really should read the entire post. 

If you don’t believe in libertarian free will, then the concept of moral responsibility becomes problematic, though the problem of responsibility itself is not problematic. What changes is how we reward and, especially, punish people.

Think about it: if people really couldn’t have chosen otherwise, and had to behave as they did, then doesn’t that have any implications for how we deal with bad behavior? After all, the law already takes this into account, somewhat exculpating people if they’re deemed mentally incapacitated or unable to tell the difference between right and wrong.  But all of us are like that, and even if we do know the difference between “right” and “wrong”, we can still act in only one way at a given moment, so that knowledge is irrelevant when determining punishment.

I’ve already discussed what reforms should be made to the penal system under determinism (see here, for instance), and that is not just “something to be discussed by philosophers”. It involves real effects on the lives of men and women, and on society at large. And it leads to more humane treatment of prisoners, treatment that can be based on science (e.g., “What forms of ‘punishment’ are best for deterring others, keeping people away from others until they’re reformed, and how can we best reform them?”)

Further, it can make a difference in your own behavior. In my case, I no longer beat myself up over decisions in my past that, I once felt, I could have made differently.  I couldn’t. Such recriminations are not only mentally sapping, but scientifically untenable.

Comments

[777]

Charan explained this better :

When you go down as a first step in creation your free will is perfect

You do a few actions more and y'r already somewhat limited like with chess

Now we ( and yes criminals ) have no more

but the only thing of value is your conscience

The French say : "Petit Voix" > The little voice.

Adi Granth Jap Ji says it so well :
Paraphrasing now:

How then to be True ?
Answer: "His Will , INGRAINED in You, Thou follow "

This is the tiny piece of information where we still have some free will

Buddha warned specifically about not modifying this "petit voix"

Hitler did when General von Stauffenberg's wife dared to tell him
about what she had seen on the railway station
He just walked away and she was banned

How dared she enter his 'private zone'

Trump has the same attitude concerning the climate

Now, Is a cannibal responsible for eating humans

Yes : He is responsible for actions that brought him in the education system
of parents cannibals

Is Trump responsible, . . Yes . .

Although we have a capacity to revive our Soul which is All Powerful
we cannot

The Great tool to disrupt this system of Gordian knots is Love

Again : GIVING Love, . . not the TAKING so called love

A little drop has more power than a hydrogene bomb

How to be moved to Love : Meditation helps

We are God Incognito

Complaints
OK , the culprit is inside of you
Better praise Him for this fantastic scheme to accumulate LOVE

[777]

google
ssri school schootings copilot

Ssri medication takes this petit voix away
Total destruction of empathy, even towards family, children, themselves

77

[Appreciative Reader]

Thanks, Brian. Enjoyed reading that article you linked to.

.

I’d like to post my thoughts on two aspects of what that essay says :

First, the part about how this might impact, for instance, our prisons and how we treat criminals :

That makes a great deal of sense to me, now, when I read this. Far more sense than when I’d read what you, Brian, had written about how determinism impacts (or should impact) prison systems. And no, let me hasten to add, this is no criticism of your writing, you’d written the exact same thing, and just as lucidly. It is that I myself hadn’t been able to fully appreciate what you’d been saying at that time.

In fact, I remember, at one time in a blog article long back (or it might be in an email, I’m not sure which), you’d likened human beings to typhoons. In the sense that both are extremely complex. Both are difficult to actually predict (too many variables for us to handle). And yet, both are ultimately predictable in theory, that is, both are deterministic.

At the time when you’d said it, I’d found your comparison extravagant and over the top.

You know, I think I find myself nodding my head now, in agreement with you’d said then. I think I do get, now, where you were coming from back then, when you’d said that. Truly, there isn’t all that much of a difference. What difference there is, is quantitative, not qualitative. The difference is simply one of degree. It’s just that we, humans, are immeasurably more complex than any old typhoon.

And that *was* a very apt analogy, the typhoon thing. In fact, the very extravagance of that analogy works to bring home the true state of affairs.

Let me express my gratitude to you here, Brian, for all the trouble you’ve taken to write on this subject, at different times. This particular aspect of the situation was so much beyond me, back when I’d first encountered this idea in your writings, that it had actually been incomprehensible to me. But I do see it, now, clearly.

And arising out of this premise, it is indeed very clear that this would have significant implications on many practical areas as well, like the essay says, including how prisons are organized and run. And, more broadly, how the whole penal system is set up.

I think I’ll go revisit some of the stuff I’ve read on free will, including stuff you yourself have written, with this perspective (your typhoon analogy, and how apt it now appears to me now) still fresh in my mind.

.

And second, the personal, psychological aspect that he discusses, especially the part where he says : In my case, I no longer beat myself up over decisions in my past that, I once felt, I could have made differently. I couldn’t. Such recriminations are not only mentally sapping, but scientifically untenable.”

In this, I’m afraid, he doesn’t seem to make much sense. At least that is how it appears to me.

Here’s what I mean : Say, for the sake of argument, that determinism doesn’t hold, and that you COULD indeed have acted differently at some point in the past. What difference would that make? The past, after all, is past. Unless you have access to a time machine, it’s over and done with. Even if you could have acted differently at some point in the past, the fact is you cannot change your past now, in the present. Therefore, I would say, it is irrelevant whether you could have acted differently back at some point in time.

Following the same reasoning, and following that very same psychology (that he’s using in the part that I’ve quoted), merely realizing that you cannot change the past NOW, that is enough for one to see that there is no need to wallow in regret over the past, that there is reason for and no point in beating oneself up over past decisions. There is, so far as I can see, absolutely no need to go one step further, like Jerry Coyne does, and talk about whether one could have changed the past back in the past. Because that past is, in any case, well and truly past.

In fact, as far as beating oneself up over past decisions, I would go so far as to say, following that line of thought, that determinism actually appears to me to be something of a non sequitur. It may be true, but in this sense it is irrelevant.

.

You know, this reminds me of something. When something bad happens, theists, people who believe implicitly in fate, God’s will, all that, sometimes say : “Bad as this is, difficult thought this circumstance for you/me, this was God’s will”. Or else : “Bad as this is, difficult though this circumstance is for you/me, this is the result of inscrutable Karma”. Or else : “Bad as this is, difficult thought this circumstance is for you/me, this is how the planets lie and the stars dictate.” They seem to find some comfort in that thought.

When hearing such sentiments, my reaction has often been : So bloody what? Let’s forget for the moment the plausibility (or otherwise) of what you say. Let’s assume for now that you’re right. Let’s assume what happened is indeed God’s will, or the result of Karma, or the result of the planetary positions. So bloody what? In what way does saying that comfort me/you? If whatever circumstance I/you find myself/yourself in is bad, or difficult, or even merely inconvenient, well then it is what it is. How does knowing that this was God’s will in any way comfort me/you? How does knowing that this was the result of my/your past Karma comfort me/you in any way? How does knowing that planetary positions caused this, how does that in any way comfort me/you?

You follow my meaning? I’m not going into an investigation of truth-values now, at this point ; and nor am I, at this point, moving into how this might impact one’s future actions : I’m simply saying, all of this is irrelevant, as far as drawing comfort from it NOW, at this point.

Following that same reasoning, following that same psychology, following that same train of thought : When he says in that essay that determinism reigns and that you could not have acted differently in the past : That’s when my reaction is (without at this point going into an investigation of the truth-value of all of this, I’m not contesting that at all) : So what? How does that in any way matter? As long as today, now, I cannot change something that had happened in the past, surely it is irrelevant (from this purely psychological perspective) whether I could indeed have acted differently in the past? In either case, it is EQUALLY pointless to wallow in regret, isn’t it? Things are what they are, and life is what it is. We just make the best we can with the cards we’ve been dealt, right? Do the best in the present with how we find the present, right?

It seems to me that “Determinism means that you couldn’t have acted differently in the past” is just as pointless, from a purely psychological perspective, from the perspective of “drawing comfort”, as “God has willed what happened” or “What happened followed from Karma” or “The planets dictated that this is how things would turn out”. All equally irrelevant.

Of course, this is purely my personal take. If Jerry Coyne seems to find some kind of closure, if he finds some kind of equanimity that he had not found before, if he himself draws some kind of comfort, by the fact the determinism implies that he could not have acted differently in the past, well then terrific. Whatever works for him! Only, I personally seem to draw a (psychological) blank there.

[Appreciative Reader]

Thanks, Brian. Enjoyed reading that article you linked to.

I’d like to post my thoughts on two aspects of what that essay says :

First, the part about how this might impact, for instance, our prisons and how we treat criminals :

That makes a great deal of sense to me, now, when I read this. Far more sense than when I’d read what you, Brian, had written about how determinism impacts (or should impact) prison systems. And no, let me hasten to add, this is no criticism of your writing, you’d written the exact same thing, and just as lucidly. It is that I myself hadn’t been able to fully appreciate what you’d been saying at that time.

In fact, I remember, at one time in a blog article long back (or it might be in an email, I’m not sure which), you’d likened human beings to typhoons. In the sense that both are extremely complex. Both are difficult to actually predict (too many variables for us to handle). And yet, both are ultimately predictable in theory, that is, both are deterministic.

At the time when you’d said it, I’d found your comparison extravagant and over the top.

You know, I think I find myself nodding my head now, in agreement with you’d said then. I think I do get, now, where you were coming from back then, when you’d said that. Truly, there isn’t all that much of a difference. What difference there is, is quantitative, not qualitative. The difference is simply one of degree. It’s just that we, humans, are immeasurably more complex than any old typhoon.

And that *was* a very apt analogy, the typhoon thing. In fact, the very extravagance of that analogy works to bring home the true state of affairs.

Let me express my gratitude to you here, Brian, for all the trouble you’ve taken to write on this subject, at different times. This particular aspect of the situation was so much beyond me, back when I’d first encountered this idea in your writings, that it had actually been incomprehensible to me. But I do see it, now, clearly.

And arising out of this premise, it is indeed very clear that this would have significant implications on many practical areas as well, like the essay says, including how prisons are organized and run. And, more broadly, how the whole penal system is set up.

I think I’ll go revisit some of the stuff I’ve read on free will, including stuff you yourself have written, with this perspective (your typhoon analogy, and how apt it now appears to me now) still fresh in my mind.

And second, the personal, psychological aspect that he discusses, especially the part where he says : In my case, I no longer beat myself up over decisions in my past that, I once felt, I could have made differently. I couldn’t. Such recriminations are not only mentally sapping, but scientifically untenable.”

In this, I’m afraid, he doesn’t seem to make much sense. At least that is how it appears to me.

Here’s what I mean : Say, for the sake of argument, that determinism doesn’t hold, and that you COULD indeed have acted differently at some point in the past. What difference would that make? The past, after all, is past. Unless you have access to a time machine, it’s over and done with. Even if you could have acted differently at some point in the past, the fact is you cannot change your past now, in the present. Therefore, I would say, it is irrelevant whether you could have acted differently back at some point in time.

Following the same reasoning, and following that very same psychology (that he’s using in the part that I’ve quoted), merely realizing that you cannot change the past NOW, that is enough for one to see that there is no need to wallow in regret over the past, that there is reason for and no point in beating oneself up over past decisions. There is, so far as I can see, absolutely no need to go one step further, like Jerry Coyne does, and talk about whether one could have changed the past back in the past. Because that past is, in any case, well and truly past.

In fact, as far as beating oneself up over past decisions, I would go so far as to say, following that line of thought, that determinism actually appears to me to be something of a non sequitur. It may be true, but in this sense it is irrelevant.

You know, this reminds me of something. When something bad happens, theists, people who believe implicitly in fate, God’s will, all that, sometimes say : “Bad as this is, difficult thought this circumstance for you/me, this was God’s will”. Or else : “Bad as this is, difficult though this circumstance is for you/me, this is the result of inscrutable Karma”. Or else : “Bad as this is, difficult thought this circumstance is for you/me, this is how the planets lie and the stars dictate.” They seem to find some comfort in that thought.

When hearing such sentiments, my reaction has often been : So bloody what? Let’s forget for the moment the plausibility (or otherwise) of what you say. Let’s assume for now that you’re right. Let’s assume what happened is indeed God’s will, or the result of Karma, or the result of the planetary positions. So bloody what? In what way does saying that comfort me/you? If whatever circumstance I/you find myself/yourself in is bad, or difficult, or even merely inconvenient, well then it is what it is. How does knowing that this was God’s will in any way comfort me/you? How does knowing that this was the result of my/your past Karma comfort me/you in any way? How does knowing that planetary positions caused this, how does that in any way comfort me/you?

You follow my meaning? I’m not going into an investigation of truth-values now, at this point ; and nor am I, at this point, moving into how this might impact one’s future actions : I’m simply saying, all of this is irrelevant, as far as drawing comfort from it NOW, at this point.

Following that same reasoning, following that same psychology, following that same train of thought : When he says in that essay that determinism reigns and that you could not have acted differently in the past : That’s when my reaction is (without at this point going into an investigation of the truth-value of all of this, I’m not contesting that at all) : So what? How does that in any way matter? As long as today, now, I cannot change something that had happened in the past, surely it is irrelevant (from this purely psychological perspective) whether I could indeed have acted differently in the past? In either case, it is EQUALLY pointless to wallow in regret, isn’t it? Things are what they are, and life is what it is. We just make the best we can with the cards we’ve been dealt, right? Do the best in the present with how we find the present, right?

It seems to me that “Determinism means that you couldn’t have acted differently in the past” is just as pointless, from a purely psychological perspective, from the perspective of “drawing comfort”, as “God has willed what happened” or “What happened followed from Karma” or “The planets dictated that this is how things would turn out”. All equally irrelevant.

Of course, this is purely my personal take. If Jerry Coyne seems to find some kind of closure, if he finds some kind of equanimity that he had not found before, if he himself draws some kind of comfort, by the fact the determinism implies that he could not have acted differently in the past, well then terrific. Whatever works for him! Only, I personally seem to draw a (psychological) blank there.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Brian

You wrote

"Think about it: if people really couldn’t have chosen otherwise, and had to behave as they did, then doesn’t that have any implications for how we deal with bad behavior?"

It shouldn't. Our response must be to change behavior so that the crime is not committed again. The word" punishment " also has behavioral definition with its own effects. It is not the only means to change behavior. Generally it is the least effective means in situations where there is little visible accountability. Other, often better alternatives exist.

That has nothing to do with free will. It is a matter of assuring public safety with the least amount of intervention (least disruptive) necessary to get the job done.

[Dungeness]

Buddha warned specifically about not modifying this "petit voix"
Hitler did when General von Stauffenberg's wife dared to tell him
about what she had seen on the railway station. He just walked away
and she was banned

Hi 777, I'm intrigued. Can you clarify or cite a reference for the
v. Stauffenberg railway incident... and how the petit voix got
lost in translation between ear and brain?

[RsSceptic]

determinism versus free will

HARD DETERMINISM:
All events are caused by PAST events, such that nothing other than what does occur, could occur.

LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL:
The belief that SOME HUMAN ACTIONS are FREELY CHOSEN

You cannot rationally hold BOTH views.

"FREE" is defined in the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.

The Principle of Alternate Possibilities states:
An ACTION if FREE - ONLY IF the person COULD HAVE done otherwise.

If the person COULD NOT have done otherwise (hard determinism)
then there is no free will.

If the person COULD HAVE done otherwise, then there is free will
and hard determinism is not true.

However, they cannot BOTH be true.

either the person COULD HAVE or COULD NOT HAVE done otherwise

they cannot BOTH be true

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

[Spence Tepper]

Hi RsSceptic:

So long as we limited biological bodies cannot perceive and understand all the antecedent events that have caused the present, nor those antecedents that caused the triggers around us that we react to, nor even the events of our own past, nor the subconscious conditioning and reactions within our own mind, we are left with nothing but a perception of limited choices.

It is a biological mechanism to help us proceed with a level of conscious awareness as we move inevitably in the direction our conditioning generates.

Therefore both are real and necessary.

[777]

I'm a big fan of writings that debunk free will. (Just can't help myself.)

Start with the concept that an Almighty Being has no limits

For instance The Mauj it's called
He might easily stop this big bang stuff
for a better one tomorrow

His only motivation is Love

777

[Dungeness]

He might easily stop this big bang stuff for a better one tomorrow.
His only motivation is Love.

"Ah, Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire!
Would not we shatter it to bits-and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!"
** Fitzgerald's translation of Omar Khayyam

If only we were more conspiratorial...

[Joe]

777...this is it exactly:

"When you go down as a first step in creation your free will is perfect

"You do a few actions more and y'r already somewhat limited like with chess

"Now we ( and yes criminals ) have no more

"but the only thing of value is your conscience

"The French say : "Petit Voix" > The little voice.

"Adi Granth Jap Ji says it so well :
"Paraphrasing now:

"How then to be True ?
"Answer: "His Will , INGRAINED in You, Thou follow "

"This is the tiny piece of information where we still have some free will

"Buddha warned specifically about not modifying this "petit voix"

"Hitler did when General von Stauffenberg's wife dared to tell him
"about what she had seen on the railway station
"He just walked away and she was banned."

Cheers.

[manjit]

I find this to be another very revealing blog post.

It opens with the line "I'm a big fan of writings that debunk free will. "

It should be noted that the term "debunk" does not only not exist within scientific terminology, but that it is actually an indicator of a deeply unscientific attitude and approach to a subject, ie. it is the very antithesis of the spirit of scientific inquiry. The term debunk, rather, reveals an ideological & dogmatic mindset that has already closed itself off to open-minded scientific investigation. In my opinion, a similar tendency can be found throughout Brian's posts which masquerade under the pretence of scientific open-mindedness, but really the reflect closed-minded dogmatism and ideology of scientism.

As for the article itself, again it is quite revealing. Brian suggests it is "debunking" free will. Yet a close analysis of the article itself shows it does nothing remotely of the sort. Rather, it is an entirely science-free piece of unsophisticated philosophising speculating on the philosophical implications of no free-will. There is no lack of irony that the author of the piece criticises proponents of free-will, declaring them to be be philosophers with no basis for their beliefs in actual scientific data.

Indeed.

[D.r]

I spent countless hours reading books and pouring over internet articles and hearing interviews with people talking about consciousness and the paranormal. If anybody researches into this area sufficiently they won't walk away believing that there is no free will and that consciousness is an exclusively emergent property of the brain. But you have to do the research. Reading pop-psychology or pop-science books by atheists and materialists will not help but rather bias your mind and predispose you to the materialistic nonsense that Brian peddles.

[Jim Sutherland]

D.r. Writes,....”Reading pop-psychology or pop-science books by atheists and materialists will not help but rather bias your mind and predispose you to the materialistic nonsense that Brian peddles.”

Me: at least Brian is honest, and open, about his Atheist beliefs.

Unlike Dr. David Lane, Ph.D. who is a Double Agent, i.e. Vocal Neural Surfer among Athests and Materialists, as may be accessed on the Internet from his many published Books and Audios, as well as his RSS site that from, and embarressed to share why he now hides his new found attitude about Gurinder Singh and RSSB.

Dr. Lane is a Satsangi wearing Atheist clothing and masks, while hiding behind his Atheist Wife’s skirt.

But Brian Hines is virtually an unknown, outside of RSSB readers. Most other groups have never heard of him, unlike the famous Boy Surfer, who adopted Charan Singh when he was 17 and begged him to initiate him until Master Charan finally caved in and initiated him, most likely, impressed with his writting abilities, thinking he might use him for the betterment and education of Seekers in RSSB Publications.

I trust Charan knew what he was doing, and is very proud of Dr. Lane’s Books and Publications.

Time will tell,....when Lane finally takes off his Atheist clothing and mask , and shares his full confession of returning to the Path, either because of Charan’s Bulldozer dragging him back,..
Or,.....Gurinder’s Sant Mat 2,3 and 4 pretty much agreeing with what Dr. Lane really is aligned with, which coinsides much more closely with Lane’s Atheist/Material beliefs.

Jim Sutherland

[Brojn]

Wtf is wrong with you Jim really. Lane never said hes atheist and his wife is also initiated. Jim you need a chill 💊. Jim aka the greatest gossip girl around.

[Jim Sutherland]

To Brjn from Jim,

Are you his Spokesman? Have you read all of his Books and and posts on his SS site, or the Exsatsang Support Yahoo site he used to post his support of other Athests like Dr. Susan Blackmore and many, many others?

Or, have you even read his Anti-Sant Mat Book,....”The Guru Has No Turban”?

http://www.integralworld.net/lane11.html

You won’t find that book being sold in RSSB Books.

How do you know his wife is initiated? By Whom? David? Her Books have more of an Atheist flavor than a Spiritual flavor, from what I have read. If I was a Seeker, neither f them have ever wrtten any thing that would compell me to seek initiation from ANY Guru.

Jm Sutherland

[Spencer Tepper]

Jim, brother.
Give David Lane a rest.
Each of us can make up our own mind, if we find some compelling need to criticize.

Don't you know that today Judas sits right in Jesus ' lap?

And the book of Job and Ecclesiastes have the finest arguments for Atheism ever written, and often borrowed?

[Jim Sutherland]

Spencer, Brother, Master Charan told us that Critics are our best friends.

I am not David's critic. As he is not the critic of Sant Thakar Singh, who brought me to Light & Sound, or all the other Gurus David Lane has personally criticized, and is famous for, among the Cult Busters.

David and I have different a history together than you and he has.

David has made a Business out of criticizing Gurus. He even once posted his “Scumbag Guru List.”

He also corraborated with other Sant Mat dissenters, in private, sharing with them inside information not exactly friendly to hs own Guru and RSSB.

Its difficult to forget all of his past propaganda and shenanigans.

For another instance, some one posted this on the Internet awhile back, saying he corraborated with David Lane to get this negative information anout RSSB and other stuff that makes RSSB appear to look less than a Spiritual Sach Khand on earth!

http://rssbdata.comeze.com

Jim Sutherland

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jim

You wrote
"Its difficult to forget all of his past propaganda and shenanigans."

Please do your best.

You have no connection to him anymore. Be grateful for that.

Your bro

Spence