Why Free Will is an illusion

[Miles]

Interest in free will has usually centered around the affirmation and/or a denunciation of it. Some very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of these discussions, many well thought out and others not so much. Whatever the case, there's been a frequent problem with some of the terms involved, most often those concerning "free will" and "will."

As I see it, free will is important to many because without it would mean each of is nothing more than an automaton, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If I have no freedom of choice how can I be blamed for what I do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Any exception to free will is commonly seen as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't what the issue of free will is about at all. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think a decent working definition of "free will" is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished.

Those who most disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused then we could not have done differently, therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic level: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice," "choosing,"chosen," or any other form of the word.


There are only two ways in which actions can take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate anyway; completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that negate any randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless the causes leading to the event had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, the will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

Of course this means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. If you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .

Any disagreements?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by Miles]

There's no reason given to actually support the idea that you can't have praise or blame with hard determinism.
There's no reason to call hard determinism 'an anathema of personal freedom'.
There's no reason to define free will in incompatibilist terms.
Illusions are illusions - does that mean illusions don't exist?

[Miles]

There's no reason given to actually support the idea that you can't have praise or blame with hard determinism.

Well, I suppose one could, but as I pointed out it would be hollow praise and blame.

There's no reason to call hard determinism 'an anathema of personal freedom'.

That depends on what you mean by personal freedom.

There's no reason to define free will in incompatibilist terms.

Agreed

Illusions are illusions - does that mean illusions don't exist?

No. Just like peanuts are peanuts doesn't mean peanuts don't exist.

[Divine Insight]

Any disagreements?

Yes.

I specifically disagree with the following in a major way:

The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate.

I assert that this is absolutely incorrect.

The idea that since quantum effects only effect quantum phenomena at the quantum level this means that they can have no effect on how we think is clearly a misguided notion.

We may be macro biological objects. But our brains function specifically using electromagnetic fields, currents, and interactions. The very synapses within our brain operate on the molecular and atomic level even when the interactions are chemical reactions as opposed to pure electromagnetic waves or electron flow.

Electrons and photons are indeed quantum particles, and that is what our brain uses to process thought. Therefore even though we have the outward appearance of being huge macroscopic biological animals that, at first glance appears to be very far removed from the quantum world, in truth, our brains are very intimately connected with the quantum world and our thought processes occur almost exclusively on the quantum level.

Therefore not only will quantum randomness play a roll in our thinking, but so will quantum entanglement.

So human thought processes are very much quantum events.

And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate anyway; completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

No, it would be silly to suggest that we operate completely randomly. Nor does anything I said above remotely suggest that this should be the case. Clearly our brains and thought processes not only take place in the quantum world, but they are also clearly reliant upon the macro structure of the brain as well.

So our thought processes are both quantum and classical (or macro).

Within our brains we have a foot clearly planted in both of these worlds so to speak.

So our thought processes are a combination of randomness tempered by the macro ability to organize thoughts as cause and effect.

This is why we can have brain new creative thoughts that we never had before. What we do with those thoughts may indeed be "determined" but how our macro brain has decided to move forward with new thoughts. But that may not be carved in stone either.

~~~~~

I don't want to get into anything too technical here, but if you've ever worked with electronic logic gates you may know that it's possible for some gates to take on a randomly alternating state. When this happens the 'choice' of what final state to settle on can be either random or decided by previous logical programming.

Moreover, the previous logical program can even be "written" in such a way as to allow the randomly changing gates to play a role in whether or not their final state will be "Chosen" by the program, or allowed to be "Chosen" by the randomly changing state.

~~~~~~

In short, we may very well have free will, and it is the combination of the macro world and quantum world that provides us with this wonderful feature.

We are the "programmers" of our own brains in a sense. Of course, external input plays a very large role in programming our brains too. In fact, some people are far more "programmed" than others by their external world.

One of the main claims of Buddhism is the claim that you can indeed take back your own role as master programmer of your own brain.

~~~~~~

In any case, I don't really want to go off on a tangent offering philosophies where free will is real. I just wanted to point out that I totally disagree with your claim that humans are isolated from the quantum world because we are "macro objects".

That's simply not the case at all. Our brains are as intimately connected with the quantum world as anything can be. Our brains run entirely on the behavior of subatomic quantum particles, (i.e. Photons and Electrons). Even molecular ions in chemical reactions in our brains can exhibit quantum properties.

So we are not removed from the quantum world at all. We are basically immersed in it to a point where we couldn't escape it if we wanted to.

So your macro classical approach to the human brain and human thinking fails, IMHO, because you simply haven't recognized the major role that quantum mechanics plays in the human thought process.

So that's my disagreement with your thesis.

Your entire thesis rests upon a false premise that the quantum world can't play a role in human choices.

[Jashwell]

There's no reason given to actually support the idea that you can't have praise or blame with hard determinism.

Well, I suppose one could, but as I pointed out it would be hollow praise and blame.

So you claimed. You didn't give reason, or at least explanation beyond a tautology.

Illusions are illusions - does that mean illusions don't exist?

No. Just like peanuts are peanuts doesn't mean peanuts don't exist.

So what's the significance in stating "free will is an illusion"? How does it have any meaning as a statement beyond the statements "pain is an illusion", "feelings are illusions", etc? Why would anyone else consider 'illusion' to be the right word for free will? (especially given so many wouldn't call feelings illusions)

[ttruscott]

...

It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else.

...

Any disagreements?

1. I define FREE as free from all coercion and constraints that make the outcome of our non-free choice inevitable...the result is forced, not really chosen which I believe is what you mean by a 'prior event' which destroys free will.

2. An influence is anything that is considered by a person when making a choice which does NOT force, coerce or constrain their decision.

3. A person choosing from a place of no other experience or previous events FORCING their choice or CONSTRAINING them to not choose an available option would have free will even though they might choose to accept or reject various influences in making their decision.

In other words, to have a free will, a person would not have to be free from all prior events but only that these events either had no effect on the choice and were mere influences free from all coercive ability to force the decision.

[Miles]

Any disagreements?

Yes.

I specifically disagree with the following in a major way:

The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate.

I assert that this is absolutely incorrect.

The idea that since quantum effects only effect quantum phenomena at the quantum level this means that they can have no effect on how we think is clearly a misguided notion.

We may be macro biological objects. But our brains function specifically using electromagnetic fields, currents, and interactions. The very synapses within our brain operate on the molecular and atomic level even when the interactions are chemical reactions as opposed to pure electromagnetic waves or electron flow.

Electrons and photons are indeed quantum particles, and that is what our brain uses to process thought. Therefore even though we have the outward appearance of being huge macroscopic biological animals that, at first glance appears to be very far removed from the quantum world, in truth, our brains are very intimately connected with the quantum world and our thought processes occur almost exclusively on the quantum level.

Therefore not only will quantum randomness play a roll in our thinking, but so will quantum entanglement.

So human thought processes are very much quantum events.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source
Even if they did affect neural processing, it would be so random in nature as to be structure-less. And to suggest these random events would produce coherent thoughts is absurd. They would be no more organized than the stars in the sky.

No, it would be silly to suggest that we operate completely randomly. Nor does anything I said above remotely suggest that this should be the case. Clearly our brains and thought processes not only take place in the quantum world, but they are also clearly reliant upon the macro structure of the brain as well.

Then you're going to have to explain how these random events organize themselves into coherent structures. And whatever this organizer is it will be working deterministicly.

In short, we may very well have free will, and it is the combination of the macro world and quantum world that provides us with this wonderful feature.

Then this will would be at the mercy of cause/effect determinism and absolute randomness, which hardly makes it free.

Your entire thesis rests upon a false premise that the quantum world can't play a role in human choices.

And if the quantum world does play a role it hardly makes the will free. It would be directing the will just as much as determinism. In fact, it would simply be another form of determinism; one that acted randomly rather than causally.

[Miles]

[quote="Miles"

]

There's no reason given to actually support the idea that you can't have praise or blame with hard determinism.

Well, I suppose one could, but as I pointed out it would be hollow praise and blame.

So you claimed. You didn't give reason, or at least explanation beyond a tautology.

If an entity has no choice in what it does, is it rational to praise it or blame it? Like I said, it's like praising or blaming a rock for where it lies.

Illusions are illusions - does that mean illusions don't exist?

No. Just like peanuts are peanuts doesn't mean peanuts don't exist.

So what's the significance in stating "free will is an illusion"?

It's significance lies in its truth, a truth almost everyone denies. Personally, I don't see living an illusion as at all admirable.

How does it have any meaning as a statement beyond the statements "pain is an illusion", "feelings are illusions", etc?

????

Why would anyone else consider 'illusion' to be the right word for free will? (especially given so many wouldn't call feelings illusions)

Because it fits the definition.

"A thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses."



Please excuse the strange formatting here, I'm still not use to the mechanics.

[Miles]

...

It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else.

...

Any disagreements?

1. I define FREE as free from all coercion and constraints that make the outcome of our non-free choice inevitable...the result is forced, not really chosen which I believe is what you mean by a 'prior event' which destroys free will.

2. An influence is anything that is considered by a person when making a choice which does NOT force, coerce or constrain their decision.

3. A person choosing from a place of no other experience or previous events FORCING their choice or CONSTRAINING them to not choose an available option would have free will even though they might choose to accept or reject various influences in making their decision.

In other words, to have a free will, a person would not have to be free from all prior events but only that these events either had no effect on the choice and were mere influences free from all coercive ability to force the decision.

Okay. But it isn't the definition the determinism v. free will issue is concerned with.

[Divine Insight]

Even if they did affect neural processing, it would be so random in nature as to be structure-less. And to suggest these random events would produce coherent thoughts is absurd. They would be no more organized than the stars in the sky.

I didn't suggest that these quantum events would produce coherent thoughts. Nor would that be necessary. I also don't agree with your assumption that everything associated with the quantum world is necessarily "random". It could be correlated on levels that we don't yet fully understand.

In fact, in the very same source you linked to for you objections by Max Tegmark, I suggest you look more deeply into the works of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

You're assumption that the quantum effects would need to produce entire complex and coherent thoughts has no merit. This is an assumption that you appear to be making on your own without justification.

Then you're going to have to explain how these random events organize themselves into coherent structures. And whatever this organizer is it will be working deterministicly.

This is not a problem for me because it is indeed the macro structure of the brain that provides this function. Where we would disagree on this point is not how to explain this, but rather on whether or not it would need to be deterministic based entirely on the macro structure of the brain. If not, then "Free Will" has been vindicated.

Also, in truth, if we were going to go into this deeply we would need to first determine what we even mean by "Will". And then what we mean by "Free". Free from what? Absolute classical determinism? I would argue that our will is indeed free from absolute classical determinism.

But the question of precisely what it is that even has a "will" is another topic entirely.

I would hold on that topic that in a purely materialistic existence the very concept of "will" is meaningless to begin with. Asking whether or not the will is free already assumes that a will exists.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that the will exists. I'm just saying that a will could not exist in a purely materialistic existence to begin with. So that's a whole other debate topic.

Then this will would be at the mercy of cause/effect determinism and absolute randomness, which hardly makes it free.

You are assuming a premise of a purely materialistic existence to begin with.

I think you need to keep in mind that the premises that you chose to accept at the onset can indeed influence what you will then determine to be "rational" when drawing conclusions.

So your assumed premises may be guiding your conclusion far more than you might realize.

And if the quantum world does play a role it hardly makes the will free. It would be directing the will just as much as determinism. In fact, it would simply be another form of determinism; one that acted randomly rather than causally.

And that brings us full circle right back to the very question I posed a moment ago. "What do you even mean by FREE?". Free from what?

If quantum effects can "Free" our choices from classical determinism, then we already have "Free Will" relative to classical determinism. If you now want to object and say, "But that would then be determined by quantum effects", all you would be doing is moving the goal post from your original claim of determinism.

~~~~~

I would suggest that before you even attempt to tackle the concept of "Free" will, you should first have a very well-defined concept of what you even mean by "Will" in the first place. Specifically to ask, "What exactly is it that has a will?".

If you can't answer that question clearly and concisely, then going further to ask whether the will is "free" or not would be a quite ill-defined endeavor.