Free will is an illusion we're better off without

Well, at long last I've finished Paul Breer's book, The Spontaneous Self: Viable Alternatives to Free Will, which I've been writing about recently. 

I enjoyed it a lot. But then, I'm a big fan of the notion that free will is an illusion that we'd be better off not embracing. In the post I'll explain in my own words some of what struck me most strongly in the book. 

Spontaneity. Breer opened my eyes to a fact that other writers on free will don't emphasize much. If we look upon our thoughts, emotions, and actions as not being produced by our own unfettered free will, the alternative is to recognize that the whole universe, really, has generated the causes and effects which result in our doing or experiencing something.

That's beautiful. It substitutes the loneliness of the isolated free-willing self with the companionship of everything in the natural world, since that world is acting through the person that is us -- as contrasted with the illusion of a non-material soul or self that somehow is part of our being and does the deciding for our mind and body.

This is where Breer's spontaneity in his title comes from. There's no limit to the forces acting upon us. Everything in the cosmos is potentially at our disposal, forming who we are, what we do, and what we experience. Things happen in our life, but there's no one inside our head controlling the happenings. They spring up unbidden, often surprising us (sometimes in pleasant ways, sometimes in unpleasant ways).

Sense of free will remains. However, for most of us, the generally pleasing sense that we are freely willing agents will stay as it is. Or at least, much as it is. Sure, that sense may be diminished by contemplating the illusion of free will through books, videos, blog posts, meditation, and other means.

I agree with Breer, though, that evolution has instilled a sense of free will in us for good reasons (not that evolution uses reason), and that the culture in which we live typically fosters a sense of free will through explicit and implicit means. For example, the legal system in most countries assumes that a criminal of sound mind and body would have been able to not commit a crime if he or she had wanted to.

Free will seems so real because it's an obvious truism that we can only be conscious of conscious contents of consciousness.

Since neuroscience knows that unconscious influences drive most, if not all, of our thoughts, emotions, and actions, those deterministic factors will remain a mystery to us. So this produces a sense of freedom in us, whereas actually what's going on is that we're clueless about why we do or feel something -- even though we love to tell stories to ourselves and others about the motivation for our actions.

Empty rowboat. There's a story that I believe originated in Taoism via Chuang Tzu about a man in a rowboat on a foggy lake.

There is a Zen story about a man who repaints his boat. Once it’s done, he’s so pleased with how it looks that he decides to take it out on the lake, even though it’s a foggy day. As he steers through the fog, another boat slams into his, damaging the new paint job.

The man is furious. Why the hell didn’t the person in the other boat pay attention and watch where he was going? The man turns to yell at the person in the other boat, and finds that there is no other person. It’s just an empty boat, drifting on the lake.

If a man is crossing the river and an empty boat collides with his skiff, even though he is a bad-tempered man he will not become very angry. But if he sees a man in the other boat he will scream and shout and curse at the man to steer clear. If you can empty your own boat crossing the river of the world, no one will oppose you, no one will seek to harm you. Thus is the perfect man – his boat is empty. ~ Chuang-Tzu

I don't think Chuang Tzu is correct about no one opposing or seeking to harm a person with an empty boat, meaning, I assume, a realization that they lack a self or soul capable of free will. However, I like the notion that the person who got angry at a boat, before realizing that no one was controlling the boat, is just as empty of control as the boat drifting without anyone in it.

Happening here. Breer talks quite a bit in his book about how to make no-free-will and a lack of agency a lived experience rather than just an intellectual understanding. Of course, an intellectual understanding is part of our lived experience, so it's important in its own right.

Breer believes, with good reason, that language plays a key role in how both our sense of self and of having free will is created and maintained. After all, in English we say things like "I am writing this blog post," which obviously assumes that somebody referred to as "I" is doing something called "writing."

In other words, a subject -- me -- is considered to be different from the activity I'm engaging in, writing a blog post. So Breer recommends an alternative: "Writing a blog post is happening here," where here refers to the person, the body/mind, known as Brian Hines. 

Doing that all the time would be absurd. My brief conversations with a grocery store clerk wouldn't go so smoothly if, after they ask, "How is your day going?," I said "A fine day is happening here." I'd rather simply say "Fine," or "I'm doing well, how about you?"

It seems to me that the mindfulness exercise of labeling fits well here. If I find myself getting upset at something, a frequent occurrence when I watch a news program about politics, rather than telling myself "I'm irritated," I prefer to mentally say "Irritation" or "Irritation here." 

That serves to reduce my sense of selfhood and free will somewhat. But I have no interest in giving up the use of "I" in ordinary conversation or writing.

Comments

[incompatibalism]

Freethought (sometimes spelled free thought)[1][2][3] is an epistemological viewpoint which holds that beliefs should not be formed on the basis of authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma, and that beliefs should instead be reached by other methods such as logic, reason, and empirical observation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a freethinker is "a person who forms their own ideas and opinions rather than accepting those of other people, especially in religious teaching." In some contemporary thought in particular, free thought is strongly tied with rejection of traditional social or religious belief systems.[3][4] The cognitive application of free thought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of free thought are known as "freethinkers".[3] Modern freethinkers consider free thought to be a natural freedom from all negative and illusive thoughts acquired from society.[5]

The term first came into use in the 17th century in order to refer to people who inquired into the basis of traditional beliefs which were often accepted unquestioningly. Today, freethinking is most closely linked with deism, secularism, humanism, anti-clericalism, and religious critique.[citation needed] The Oxford English Dictionary defines freethinking as, "The free exercise of reason in matters of religious belief, unrestrained by deference to authority; the adoption of the principles of a free-thinker." Freethinkers hold that knowledge should be grounded in facts, scientific inquiry, and logic. The skeptical application of science implies freedom from the intellectually limiting effects of confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, urban myth, prejudice, or sectarianism.

[compatibalism]

Classical compatibilists considered free will nothing more than freedom of action, considering one free of will simply if, had one counterfactually wanted to do otherwise, one could have done otherwise without physical impediment. Contemporary compatibilists instead identify free will as a psychological capacity, such as to direct one's behavior in a way responsive to reason, and there are still further different conceptions of free will, each with their own concerns, sharing only the common feature of not finding the possibility of determinism a threat to the possibility of free will.[7]

[nofreewillnoresponsibility]

If you don’t believe in free will then you can’t criticize Donald Trump or Putin or anyone—they can’t help themselves—they don’t have free will.

[thoughtsarethings]

Thought equals action.

[Noquestion]

I myself "deconstructed" from Christianity and fully embraced rational materialism.

But my skepticism didn't just "turn off" when I deconstructed. As a rational materialist, I still tried to discover the truth about the origins of the universe, the meaning and purpose of life, and see if pure logic could truly lead to sound morality.

As a rational materialist and an atheist, I must accept that the universe and all its energy created itself out of nothing in a single moment for no reason.

Accept that life has no higher meaning or purpose outside of biological reproduction, life is just tiny particles randomly colliding in space.

That love is not a supernatural or transcendent force, but simply a chemical reaction in the brain.

That human life is in no way sacred or divine, and we are not children of God made in His image, but rather we are just barely sentient chimpanzees.

That I have no free will, that the universe is deterministic based on physics, and therefore my free will is an illusion, and I am not a person with agency actively living life but rather a robotic automaton that reacts to stimuli passively experiencing life happening to me.

That there is no such thing as objective "right" or "wrong" and "good" and evil", just a collection of subjective experiential values.

That even things like "men and women" are no longer true or real, and a man can become a woman by simply declaring he is one like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy! LOL

In the end, I discovered that I'm actually just way too skeptical to be an atheist or a rational materialist. I went all the way with worldly wisdom, studied what the great atheistic minds like Sam Harris have come up with, and discovered that the wisdom of the world is truly, truly folly. It is a deeply alienating worldview that asks me to set aside all the parts of my life that are most true and relevant to my experience as a human.

Eventually, I found my way back to the Truth.

And when I returned to Him, sheepish and ashamed, He ran to me and did not reprimand me but scooped me up in His arms and covered me with His love.

[SantMat64]

Practicing mindfulness of feelings, thoughts, and emotions isn't "doing without free will."

I'm currently reading Novice to Master: An Ongoing Lesson in the Extent of My Own Stupidity by Soko Morinaga. Morinaga was a Zen Master who tells of his experiences studying Zen in Japan.

The old-school way of Zen practice makes all other religions look like a joke. 3 hours of sleep a night. Meals are restricted to rice, barley, and a few pickles. Total silence demanded. Many hours of zazen. Every second is devoted to realizing the "truth" of lack of agency.

That's the life of a real Zen monk. Who can live that way? Who would really want to? It's the chasing of an ideal. It's obviously unnatural. Or at least, mindfulness practice is all these things when pursued to the logical extreme that Breer suggests.

[Spence Tepper]

When you are free over forces that once held you prisoner you rightly perceive a sense of freedom.

When you master a skill and now can do many things that you were unable to before, you rightly sense your relative freedom.

Relative free will, it's a hard reality.

[777]

Souls had 99;99999%
some spoiled it
and have to learn Compassion again
Can take some "time", . . like 80 Big Bang periods actually 27 B years
Others take 3 nano second and we are in the middle
I like the concept combined with karma

Rather crazy is at the end when You ask yourself
if it was worth, . . . you can't while drowning in the Love

777

[Spence Tepper]

When thinking is happening thinking labels and rewrites some experience to conveniently defend its thinking. It makes good and bad, usually "I" good and those who think differently "bad".

Brecause thinking steals attention from mindful awareness, thinking doesn't capture everything. It leaves out stuff, sometimes on purpose it forgets, to get to a nice quick conclusion that further erases the need for awareness and experience. But thinking leaves the false impression of completeness and omniscience.

When, instead of thinking, experience and growing awareness are happening, understanding and wisdom develop.

We see each other.

But conclusions are left aside like the clothes lovers toss.

[Ron E.]

We are born via nature and natural processes; we live and survive through natural processes and die via natural processes. Every action, every thought and emotion arise naturally. We have an amazing brain/body organism that has evolved to exist, pass on its genes and die, just like every other plant and creature on this planet – the perfection of nature.

Why then do we concoct beliefs and concepts that attempt to endow us with qualities that do not exist in nature? Why do we try to bestow on ourselves unnecessary notions such as having a separate self with free will and an almost ethereal mind when nature has equipped us with a body and brain that is able to navigate this world without such magical attributes?

Contaminating our inquisitive drive to learn and understand (science?) we seem to have allowed a fantasy world of various thoughts and concepts to usurp our natural perceptions and observations. Maybe because we are riddled with fears and insecurities, we have given ourselves over to ideas that appear on the surface to offer a way out from (what can be for many) a life of pain, suffering and death.

Is it possible to live without depending on beliefs that basically tell us we are more special than the rest of the natural world? I guess only once we have realised who and what we are through accepting our naturalness can this be so. Exercising awareness can show a spotlight on our erroneous ways, but sadly, we have been so exposed to fantastical thinking we have become terribly out of touch with reality.

[William J]

Hi Ron E,
You state every action, thought and emotion arise naturally.
Then WE concoct beliefs and concepts that attempt to endow US with qualities that do not exist in nature?
How do THEY get there?
Is it just the other side of the proverbial coin arising naturally?

Respectfully
William J

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron :

You asked
"Why do we try to bestow on ourselves unnecessary notions such as having a separate self with free will and an almost ethereal mind when nature has equipped us with a body and brain that is able to navigate this world without such magical attributes?"

I think you made a statement, and not so much a question:

"nature has equipped us with a body and brain that is able to navigate this world without such magical attributes."

Says who?

That brain and body, according to science, has not yet been fully explored.

We still can't duplicate a functioning brain or body in the lab. And the reason is, simply, we don't understand all of it yet.

Many atheists here repeat very old and entirely false arguments that have been disproven repeatedly. Yet, like a favored and loved set of beliefs, they cling to them without any true reason.

One of these false beliefs is that what we are is limited only to what science currently knows.

Science is exploring the unknown, and that can't exist if all that exists is what is already known.

Therefore drawing a conclusion like "You are only this, there is no soul or God" can only be a personal belief. We don't know so much. And if we did, if it really was a completed whole of scientific knowledge, there would be no additional need for science.

Science is all about a process of learning to observe and learn, but thinking is all about drawing conclusions about what we already know. Until we start conjecturing about things we really have no exposure to, like soul and God.

We certainly have exposure to our own mind, and we can see that we weigh alternatives and make choices carefully, often having to make a choice based on very little. Sometimes it's just what we feel like today, and that changes, when we start looking at ourselves. And understanding more about ourselves, we make choices more aligned to our true values, and less about justifying selfish behavior.

Well, we don't really know enough to draw conclusions about things that science hasn't actually investigated with any rigor or in any depth. God and Soul may indeed exist, and they may turn out to be aspects of this physical creation, or not. We don't know...My favorite three words.

Now, shouldn't a good, rational Atheist adopt those same three words?

I think Atheism could make a much stronger argument against religion by not arguing against religion, but arguing for open minded investigation, and an understanding that some very wonderful, mysterious things do exist, but these may end up being a bit different when we really get to know them.

The Humanist view within Atheism argues for the mysterious power of human potential.
No effort to take that away can lead anyone anywhere.

[um]

@ William

Is gathering food at the local supermarket, "the proverbial other side of the coin" of gathering food in nature?

Is driving, a car, going by plain, using a bicycle, "the proverbial other side of the coin" of walking?

In general:
Is culture, "the proverbial other side of the coin" of nature?

[Ron E.]

Both Spence and William J. make the mistake of assuming there to be a ‘We’ – the plural of a ‘me’ or ‘I’; something that can affect our thoughts and emotions. Beliefs and concepts simply arise from the network of information the brain has accrued. This information is basically the mind, nothing more, and it is this mind’s store of data that arises as and when life situations require it. No ‘me’ or ‘we’ needed. Of course, this information is extended with new experiences to draw upon – unless, the old data is so ingrained that the new data cannot take root.

Science will continue to explore and make discoveries in the physical world – which of course includes cognitive discoveries – and meanwhile, nature, not science, determines our lives – the air we breathe, the water we drink the food etc. etc. and will continue to rule over us from cradle to grave.

Terms such as atheist, deist, believer, non-believer, self, soul and so on, are merely thought constructs that are designed to put people into boxes. But nature has no boxes, it is free of such categories. It is only through the processes of thought that separate (or appear to separate) people from their obviously interconnected natures.

We humans actually do know, but we do like a bit of mystery to cling to. We only need to give our minds a break from the continuous stream of info to be with ourselves and the (natural) world around us and know ourselves in relationship with it all. Though this would mean letting the field of ‘super’ natural thinking drop away.

[William J]

Hey um,
Yes, yes and yes in general all arising...
William J

[William J]

Hey um,
Yes, yes and yes in general all arising...
William J

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron
You wrote
"Beliefs and concepts simply arise from the network of information the brain has accrued. This information is basically the mind, nothing more.."

Not at all...

You must have missed the scientific concept of the ensemble, where a combination of many forces produces a novel and unpredictable outcome.

In physics, this is exemplified in the three body problem.

The human brain is all that to several powers of interacting magnitude.

That's relative free will. It's invention, and heightened perception. Producing novel results without any precident.

It's a shame to see people looking at the world through a linear set of blinkers that can only add and subtract what they see, thinking falsely, they are being scientific, or natural, or classic, when Newton, in the invention of Calculus understood that the world was far more complex and interactive. Add quantum mechanics and the quaint notions of "natural" are just parochial excuses for one's own opinions and bad habits. That word describes nothing.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron
You wrote
"Beliefs and concepts simply arise from the network of information the brain has accrued. This information is basically the mind, nothing more.."

That would seem, simple enough. But maybe too simple. 1+1 usually doesn't equal 2 in the real world, mostly because we over simplify that first 1 as the same as the second 1 and have no idea the two can interact. But in a network they do.

The scientific concept of the ensemble, where a combination of many forces produces a novel and unpredictable outcome that simply could not be forecasted nor calculated makes the point that nothing here is merely the sum of its parts. Free will arises all the time with growing consciousness.

Those parts aren't descrete parts. They are interacting with loose boundaries that can act more like waves. And waves in synch can magnify or subtract from one another in ways that are too complex to predict, producing novel outcomes. Welcome invention, creativity and the free that is created by and creates these

In physics, this is exemplified in the three body problem.

The human brain is all that to several powers of interacting magnitude.

That's relative free will. It's invention, and heightened perception. Producing novel results without any precident. Raising new possibilities into your mind no one else could have imagined. And giving you a freedom of Action no one else could possibly understand.

People looking at the world through a linear set of blinkers that can only add and subtract what they see, thinking falsely, they are being scientific, or natural, or classical or whatever, oversimplify things. Even the author of classical physics, Newton, in the invention of Calculus understood that the world was far more complex and interactive. Add quantum mechanics and the quaint notions of "natural" are just parochial excuses for one's own opinions and bad habits.

The thinking brain can't understand the depth of reality. But we have within us the means to experience its miraculous and novel nature consciously.

[Brian Lange]

Hello, Brian. This is another Brian. I've enjoyed reading your commentaries. I had a thought about your reaction to the part of the Chuang Tzu rowboat story where the author says that no one will oppose or seek to harm the man who has "emptied his boat." I am not saying you are wrong and that Chuang Tzu is right. But. Possibly Chuang Tzu is expressing a thought that can't be judged by our usual logical process. Certainly we can reasonably imagine an "unawakened" person opposing or seeking to harm this "perfect" man. But perhaps from the perspective of the perfect man, there is no experience of opposition or threat of harm. What I have seen repeatedly in my reading of zen is that until someone has experienced awakening, we simply can't know what it is like. Is this perfection truly possible? Have people experienced it and found a way to live permanently in this state? My intuition, which is certainly subject to error, is that some people have, and that, like Chuang Tzu says later in the story,

flow like Tao, unseen,
He will go about like Life itself
With no name and no home.
Simple is he, without distinction.
To all appearances he is a fool.
His steps leave no trace. He has no power.
He achieves nothing, has no reputation.
Since he judges no one
No one judges him.
Such is the perfect man:
His boat is empty.

My intuition that such people exist is due to accounts by writers such as Hubert Benoit, who near the end of one of his books on zen, implies briefly and with almost maddening lack of detail, that he had a "vivid realization" that left him permanently changed. He also emphasized that someone who has done the necessary amount of "inner work" that precedes such a realization becomes, to an outside observer, completely ordinary. Nothing special.

Thanks.

[Brian Hines]

Brian, thanks for your cogent comment. I agree that enlightenment, whatever it is, is very difficult to describe. Well, that's like experience itself, of all kinds. Just try trying to describe the taste of a strawberry, which I just had for breakfast. Yes, it's sweet, but "sweet" doesn't capture the taste. Only tasting can, and we can never be sure that our taste is the same as someone else's. Same with enlightenment, I suspect.

I'm also a great fan of Hubert Benoit. I've read The Supreme Doctrine so many times, almost the whole book is highlighted. Have had the book for over fifty years, since my college days. I appreciate your mention that Benoit had written some other books. I just ordered one of them used. Sounds much the same as The Supreme Doctrine but at least I'll have a fresh book to highlight.