There is an argument that free will doesn’t exist because there is an unbroken chain of causality we are riding on that dates back to the beginning of time. Meaning that every time you fart, scratch your nose, blink, or make lifechanging decisions there is a pre existing reason. These reasons might be anything from the sensory enviornment you were in the past minute, the hormone levels in your bloodstream at the time, hormones you were exposed to as a baby, or how you were parented growing up. No thought you have is really original and is more like a domino affect of neurons firing off in reaction to what you have experienced. What are your thoughts on this?
Nope, I don’t.
Doesn’t really matter, though. We certainly have the illusion of free will, we behave as if it exists, so it doesn’t actually matter in a practical sense.
It is fun to think about!
I have no choice but to believe in it.
You could become convinced your perception of it is an illusion and not reality as it actually is, then you would have no choice not to believe it.
In my opinion humans are biological machines reacting to stimulus based on previous experience.
If we could theoretically perfectly map the brain and understand it, we could predict what a person would do in response to a specific stimulus.
At least that is how I have come to understand my existence.
Doesn’t mean I am off the hook for my poor decisions either. I still have to make the decision, even if theoretically we already knew what I would do.
Yeah, this is pretty much exactly how I feel about it. The universe is nothing but dead matter being pushed around by blind force, and any sense of agency is just an emergent phenomenon that exists as an illusion in the brain without having any actual bearing on reality. If you perfectly understood all of the forces and matter involved, you could perfectly predict what any given human (or anything system at all) would do.
That said, I also believe that it’s a completely useless idea when you’re trying to navigate through life, so I mostly just keep it in the back of my head like some half-forgotten piece of trivia and spend most of my time pretending to be in control like everyone else. Cheers!
Me too. The illusion of choice is what makes life interesting I suppose.
This is my favorite take on this topic. I also feel this way and its hard to get people to look at it this way I’ve noticed. People tend to loop back to “If theres no free will why do anything?” Or “If there is no free will why should murderers be punished?” Just because theres possibly no free will doesnt mean we should change the way we live our lives.
It’s a good question, though people tend to treat it as a thought-terminating cliché rather than exploring the implications. Why should murderers be punished, actually? Enacting punishment is an external incentive, a stimulus, supposedly structured to make the cost to the potential murderer higher than the benefit they hope to get by killing. Belief in punishment, therefore, is consistent with the non-free will position. But if there’s no free will, then why not instead try to “solve” murder, and not have murderers anymore, by discovering the root causes that drive people to murder, and mitigating them? We’d all be better off!
On the other hand, free will implies that the mechanism of punishment may or may not be punishing to the murderer. We don’t know what they feel in response to stimulus; they have free will! Like in the story of Br’er Rabbit, trying to determine a foolproof method of punishment that’s hateful to the murderer is an exercise in futility, since we can’t know their mind.
The question is meaningless, the answer doesn’t affect reality, unless you propose an external mind that is controlling or at least influencing our decisions.
Even with the external mind it’d be irrelevant. As long as we have no way of knowing the future or being able to predict it, having or not having free will is observed in exactly the same way.
If there were some external mind, one might at least speculate about its reasons. Which would probably be futile since it would influence those considerations too. Hm. Yeah.
There’s no evidence for free will. Every physical process involved in the function of our bodies and brains has so far proven to be deterministic in every way we can verify. That doesn’t mean you can’t have an original thought though, it just means that any original thought you have was necessarily going to happen and couldn’t possibly have happened any other way. It’s fate.
Even if the universe is nondeterministic like quantum physics suggests you still don’t have free will because your thoughts and feelings are still ruled by physical processes even when they are random.
But you don’t need physics to dispute free will. Schopenhauer already said that you may do what you want. But you cannot will what you want. Einstein used that realisation to not take everything too seriously even when people act infuriating.
your thoughts and feelings are still ruled by physical processes
citation needed
For real though, they have even identified the hormone responsible for the “this was my idea” feeling. But I’m too lazy to google it.
/me gestures in the general direction of the model of particle physics (and neuroscience)
In a deterministic reality, where all things are due and subject to causation, there can be no free will. If we did not live in a causal reality, we’d never be able to make accurate predictions or models.
“Randomness” is not free will either. If you’re not in complete control of your influences, then you can not be said to have free will. Randomness does nothing to help the argument for free will.
With that said. Regardless of the existence of free will, what does exists is your awareness of what it’s like to be you. To be in the circumstances that currently govern your life. And in that awareness exists the boundless capacity for compassion. Once you understand that no one is in control of their lives, that all things are causal, it allows you to be less judgmental.
"If a man is crossing a river and an empty boat collides with his own skiff, he will not become angry. He will simply guide his boat around it.
But if he sees a person in the boat, he will shout at the other to steer clear. If the shout is not heard, and the boats collide, he will curse the other person.
Yet, if the boat were empty, he would not be angry."
— Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi)
I wrote a simple explanation of determinism in a blog post earlier this year (there’s an audio version available as well.) https://mrfunkedude.wordpress.com/2024/12/03/following-the-strings/
It’s dangerous to tell people that they have no free will.
Those who do not want to think critically will just convince themselves that the world is falling apart and that they can’t do anything about it because it’s all predetermined any way.
Others take advantage of the idea of a predetermined future as a license to do whatever they please. Any terrible thing they do is not a problem to them because their actions were already predetermined, they couldn’t help it because they were destined to do these things … at least that is what they tell everyone.
I believe there is a middle ground … our biology, our environment, our genetics and the universe as a whole runs like a mechanical clock with predetermined movements … but we are provided with enough options at every movement or critical point to determine our future.
We will never be able to change how our universe works but we can choose how we can exist in that universe.
Is the opposite of dangerous. Being informed helps people make better decisions, and on a macro scale it helps society progress by not basing the collecting decisions on erroneous or untruths ideologies. The example you gave is theoretically possible and it may have happened once a century but, the reality is that people that does not believe the religious belief of free-will, do not behave like that.
Doesn’t matter either way.
I agree. But then I am a pragmatist, which tends to make people extremely mad
Is there a tl;dr for that?
Sure:
It appears, then, that the rule for attaining the third grade of clearness of apprehension is as follows: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.
– C. S. Peirce
I don’t see why that would make anyone angry, but I also can’t understand what the hell it actually means. “The third grade of clearness of apprehension”? “Might conceivably”?
Well, understandable. It’s one line out of a book, out of context. What he means is that no metaphysical nonsense actually matters, if it doesn’t have real-world consequences. I.e. someone can claim Russell’s Teapot actually exists, and rest of us can just ignore them because it’s untestable and inconsequential.
This has made very many philosophers very angry, but I don’t expect anyone who’s not interested in philosophy to care.
Ah I gotcha. That’s an actual tl;dr. Makes sense to me and I agree.
As I hear it described, it doesn’t even make logical sense. A thing is either random, or deterministic. People talk about decisions being motivated by something, but also somehow independent of all exterior things.
People will come back that that lets you off the hook for your misdeeds, but that’s only the case if you believe in retribution for it’s own sake. A version of incapacitation and rehabilitation could make sense against something as devoid of “free will” as a bridge or building, and deterrence only needs the target to be capable of strategy.
To answer the question a slightly different way, in light of the post text: How random the universe is will come down to fundamental physics. The simplest way of interpreting the current state of the art is that the universe is deterministic but branching.
Free will is real and it’s an illusion at the same time.
Our actions are reactions. And we are very limited in our execution of will by the most basic physical boundaries. For example I cannot fly, no matter how much I will it to be so.
We have free will to control the actions of the biological apparatus which is our body, to an extent, though even those are limited by circumstances and consequences.
Overall we have limited free will, or free will “lite”
We are particles governed by physical laws, so no
i have yet to see any evidence thatethere is anything that overcomes the deterministic nature of the universe. the rare bit of chaos we get from quantum mechanics is washed away by the law of large numbers.
By and large, I agree with you: I cannot see how free will fits into a deterministic universe. I still want to make some points for the case that there is some form of free will.
Think about scratching your nose right now, and decide whether or not to do it. It’s banal, but I can’t help being convinced by that simple act that I do have some form of choice. I can’t fathom how someone, even given a perfect model of every cell in my body, could predict whether or not I will scratch my nose within the next minute.
This brings up the second point: We don’t need to invoke quantum mechanics to get large-scale uncertainty. It’s enough to assume that our mind is a complex, chaotic system. In that case, minute changes in initial conditions or input stimuli can massively change the state of our mind only a short time later. This allows for our mind to be deterministic but functionally impossible to predict (if immeasurably small changes in conditions can cascade to large changes in outcome).
I seem to remember reading that what we interpret as free will is usually our mind justifying our actions after the fact, which would fit well with the “chaotic but deterministic” theory.
Ican’t fathom how someone, even given a perfect model of every cell in my body, could predict whether or not I will scratch my nose within the next minute.
so your argument is just personal incredulity?
The issue is not about choice. It is about control. Your next action is purely dependant on the current state of your brain and the stimuli around you. Where is the part that isn’t controlled by this system? How did you cause your brain to be exactly how it is right this moment? Was it not a cause of your previous brain state and the stimuli in the previous moment? How can you shown it’s not turtles all the way down?
The chaos comment is not really relevant. Chaos isn’t choice, I only brought it up to show that at the level of our brains and the interactions we have there isn’t anything random. A world rewound would produce the same outcome.
I think you’re missing my point: I opened by saying that I definitely believe the world is deterministic. I then went on to problematise the extremely unpredictable nature of the human mind. To the point where an immeasurable amount of historical input goes into determining what number I will say if you ask me to think of one.
Then, I used the argument of a chaotic system to reconcile the determinism of the universe with the apparent impossibility of predicting another persons next thought. A highly chaotic system can be deterministic but still remain functionally unpredictable.
Finally, I floated the idea that what we interpret as free will is in fact our mind justifying the outcome of a highly chaotic process after the fact. I seem to remember there was some research on split-brain patients regarding this.
I’m a compatiblist. I don’t think a deterministic universe precludes free will. Of course there are reasons for everything we do. If free will was only the freedom to make bad or random decisions, what’s the point? That’s a lot of free but not a lot will.
It doesn’t matter.
