I think Sam Harris can answer your question much better.
RE: There Is No Such Thing As Free Will
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There Is No Such Thing As Free Will
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
I agree that "our neural physiology is going to give rise to every next thought and intention that shows up". This guy is cleverly pointing out important causal structures underlying agency and volition. He does not, however, discuss the quality of the causal structure, implicitly assuming a simple causal deterministic nature for it.
Also, I agree that "if I can predict what you're going to do before you're aware of what you're going to do, then the basis for free will seems to go out the window". However, for this to be really persuasive as a definitive objection to free will, it had be true for any conceivable action or thought. Many of our states of mind may run on some kind of autopilot, mainly for efficiency and evolutionary reasons, but that is not the same as saying that there is no room for different possibilities when a conscious process of consideration is undertaken by a subject.
Sam Harris illustrates his point by talking about the Libet experiment (or some version of it), which pertains to predicting an extremely simple action with only two possibilities by construction. While it is a groundbreaking experiment into the complex interplay between neural network configurations and mind states, it can't be taken, in such a simple form, as a strong statement against any form of free will. Furthermore, you should be aware of the many philosophers who provide good reasons for dismissing Libet's experiment as evidence against free will, namely Daniel Dennett, criticizing not only the conceptual interpretation of the results, but also the experimental setup. Only an ability to fully reproduce a deterministic causal chain between neurological processes and mind states would constitute convincing evidence. I'm not saying that there is no deterministic causal chain; I'm just saying we're not in a position to affirm that there is.
I didn't watch the movie till the end. I'd like to read what YOUR thoughts, not Sam Harris. And please, don't insist on the idea that we, as physical objects, and subject to causal influences stemming from interactions between our constituent systems and between ourselves and our surroundings. My question is about the causal modality of these interactions, not whether they exist or not. I'm 100% with you in that respect. Now, does this causation have to be in the form of causal determinism?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is room for all kinds of possibilities. The question is how you label some as solely yours and not just a by-product of something else?
Taking into consideration the basic fabric of human perception, I believe it is. If a cup of warm coffee for example can have such a statistical significance in perceiving someone else more "warm" then consider how marketing guys use the same tricks or how the power of suggestion plays out in dating.
Even basic psychological tricks in regards how to deal with family, friends, bad situations, demonstrate how volatile our minds are and how they all bounded by causal determinism. Sure, nothing is 100% but it is rather evident that causal determinism is the rule and not the exception. We use very simple patterns in our daily lives because we are very susceptible to symbolism. Uniforms are a very good example. Height. Skin Color..etc
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Regarding the first part of your comment, I'm not sure what you mean by "solely yours" and how it pertains to the softer concept of free will which I provided as context for my questions. We do not exist in a vacuum, and I thought we had already got over that issue. Being subject to stimuli, both intrinsic and extrinsic, and weighting those in the process of decision making does not entail neither causal determinism nor ultimate lack of room for choice. Perhaps we might discuss further on the details of how choices are made, but let's not come back to the fact that they are constrained by a number of causal relations, as I believe anything is from a physical perspective.
As for the examples of marketing and psychology tricks which are used, sometimes to a great degree of success, to manipulate people, these do not constitute evidence for causal determinism for the simple reason that you cannot deterministically predict the effect a given trick will have on a given person. The success of these methods is statistical in nature, which is to say that, when applied to a large group of people, an appreciable percentage will respond in the intended way. This is much more similar to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics than to the causal determinism of classical physics. Causal determinism can't be "the rule" if the effect obeys to a statistical distribution and not a single, deterministic response.
I believe you might argue that each individual's biological set up and personal history will be different and thus will develop a different response to the manipulation attempt. And I would totally agree with you. But this observation adds nothing to the question of whether a given person which is subjected to some kind of mind trick is bound to answer in just one very well defined way or rather has a set of options which are available to him or her. This is the key to distinguish between causal determinism and stochastic determinism: given all the constraints, are there several options for the system to evolve into, or just one?
Regarding our proclivity for discerning patters, I believe its origin is twofold. On one hand, there is a clear evolutionary advantage for one to be able to quickly recognize in the environment potential sources of nourishment or danger, and in a next step to generalize from common features among these things to predict whether a new element in the environment is likely to constitute an opportunity or a threat. This mechanism gave rise to concepts of categorization, but also of prejudice. Then, when pattern recognition evolved to more abstract concepts, we essentially started Mathematics, which is above everything else the study of patterns. As a tool, Mathematics has shown us that there are high level regularities in the way the universe works, reinforcing our tendency to lean on pattern recognition as an especially useful and powerful tool to navigate the world.
Now patterns come in all sizes and shapes; and while the trajectory of a projectile, for example, seems to always follow a parabola in a completely deterministic fashion, the trajectory of an electron follows a completely different pattern (rigorously, it isn't even well defined for most of the time). Again, the existence of patterns is not evidence of causal determinism; different kinds of patterns may arise from different kinds of causal structures. I do not object to the existence of patterns in human psychology and behavior; I just doubt that these constitute proof of determinism.
Given a well defined set of preexisting conditions, can a given person respond in different ways or not? This is the question that we are faced with, and neither Libet's experiments nor marketing tricks indicate clearly that no set of options is available.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
same applies to everything else really. Remember. You can't prove a negative aka that free will does not exist. You first need to provide evidence that it does. I think it is impossible for the very reason you yourself mentioned.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree that you cannot prove a negative, nor should you have to. And, in a strict sense, you cannot prove a positive as well (I assume we are talking about empirical phenomena, and not a priori statements). You can only put hypotheses to test, refuting them (i.e., disproving them) if observations are inconsistent with it or strengthening them otherwise.
The main line of your argument against free will relies on the assumption that causal determinism is at the core of human psychology and behavior, which would make free will totally unfeasible. Now, I can't put this more clearly: I am not arguing that there is free will; I'm questioning the solidity of your argument against free will by shedding doubt on your premise regarding causal determinism. I propose that not only there is no overwhelming evidence for causal determinism to underlie our choices, but also that several observations actually conform more to a probabilistic description rather than a deterministic one.
We feel like we have free will. I believe this is motivation enough for testing the hypothesis that we do have some degree of free will. Also, I'm saying that the known laws of physics do not forbid a certain degree of free will to exist, while a substantial part of your argument proposes that physical laws do forbid it. Herein lies our disagreement, because it actually seems that we agree in many aspects of the discussion. What I've been trying to do is to illustrate how causal structures different from the deterministic one are embedded at the fundamental aspects of reality, and until we clearly understand the connection between neural states and mind states, it is highly questionable to use determinism to rule out free will.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think part of the disagreement (at least) is that you have some more faith in humans to be their own devices whereas believe that we follow instinctive patterns. Sure we might be getting unique variations but the underlying mechanisms are very much deterministic. You are arguing more that every woman feels her hair differently (which is true) whereas I argue that they almost always do when they are interested in men. I argue for the mechanisms, what makes humans, human. You argue for the end result (which I agree is always unique but insignificant)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Personally, I do feel inclined to believe that there is a certain measure of free will in human agency and volition. In fact, both these terms would be utterly meaningless otherwise, but this is not the reason why I have this inclination.
Another important distinction that you seem to miss is that possessing free will is not the same thing as exercising it. You can find an overwhelming number of instances of people not exercising free will and simply letting their evolutionary autopilot mechanisms to do the job for them. Breathing is a fairly simple and universal example of something people do aside from any exertion of free will; they just do it. But while this list may be huge, it certainly does not entail that we do not have the ability to exercise free will. It even might be true that women almost always touch their hair when they are interested in men (I'm not sure about this, I've never seen any study pointing to it); it might be true that we act upon instinctual impulses a lot of the time; still, for free will to be null, it had to be true also that, when people do this, there was no way they could have done anything else, and this is where there is no compelling evidence whatsoever.
I'm not arguing for the end result; actually, I've been insisting on the nature of the causal mechanisms from the first comment I posted. You argue that determinism rules every event which concerns human agency, while I argue that this is largely an unsettled question, with the complexity of available data conforming more to probabilistic models than deterministic ones. Again, I restate my case: an argument against free will based on causal determinism is not a solid argument; it is not even an original one, being around since the ancient Greek philosophers; and determinism is not even a hard fact of reality, but at most an emergent feature of the fundamental probabilistic nature of reality relevant only to a subset of systems which are very large or very stable as compared to atomic scales.
Mental processes, which are very likely to arise from the complex activity going on in neural networks, may reasonably fall either side of this dichotomy between determinism and non-determinism, owing precisely to the intermediate dimensions of the system and phenomena which serve as its physical basis. Again, until we properly understand the connection between physiology and psychology, the question of free will is an open question.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I gave the example with the hair to draw a parallel. I believe I can do the same for every single action a human partakes with the environment. Much like breathing which is rather straight forward, I believe our mental faculties work much the same way — they are just not that obvious.
I think we have exhausted the topic. I also believe it has to do more with biology rather than philosophy. Anws. Let's agree to disagree.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit