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?

[Miles]

I'm saying that is how things actually are, that we don't have freewill.

Ok, but as far as I can tell, your arguments for this is that people tend to have reasons for doing things, tend to think in terms of cause and effect. I don't think that's enough to warrant the conclusion that we don't have free will.

Actually, my argument is very simple: There are only two ways in which an event arises, either it is caused or it is not caused. If it is caused then it is determined (by these causes). If it is not caused then it must pop up randomly---absolutely randomly. Randomness necessarily expresses itself as disorder, a state lacking pattern. In as much as the world and all life, including thought is marked by pattern we can conclude that randomness is not one of its underlying elements. Other than quantum events, I've never heard anyone assert that X happened absolutely randomly. There is a always at least an implied "because." This then leaves cause as the only operative agent. Now, if there is a third agent of some kind, other than cause and randomness, I've yet to see it.

What this comes down to then is that the will[a property of the mind, that sets events into motion ] is not free of cause: something caused the will to do X rather than do Y. If there was no cause behind the will's action then the action must be entirely random, but I've yet to see anyone claim their actions were made at random.

Because like a rock they couldn't have done differently. They HAD to do what they do. Think of it as blaming a child for stabbing another boy, when it was an adult who forcefully put the knife in the child's hand then shoved his hand toward the boy's back. The child had no say in the action, so we don't blame him for the stabbing.

But unlike a rock, the boy is a sentient being, so why wouldn't we blame him for the stabbing? Bearing in mind that you "consider the use of "blame" to only be reasonable when people use it to refer to the actions of sentient beings."

If you think the child was morally responsible for stabbing the boy then, fine, go ahead and blame him. I don't think he is.

Well, it doesn't really imply it at all, but is just another instance of determinism. All I'm saying is that like everything else we do, intent to do is just as determined.

I asked you if 'will' exists in determinism and you said no, but here you are saying 'will' is just another instance of determinism. Shouldn't it be one or the other? Either it doesn't exist in determinism, or it exist as determined 'will.'

My bad. I quoted a philosophical definition wherein I was thinking of "intentionally" in two different ways. A stupid thing to do on my part. In truth, if we take "will" to simply indicate a property of the mind that sets events into motion then the will does exist "in determinism."

[Bust Nak]

Actually, my argument is very simple: There are only two ways in which an event arises, either it is caused or it is not caused. If it is caused then it is determined (by these causes). If it is not caused then it must pop up randomly---absolutely randomly. Randomness necessarily expresses itself as disorder, a state lacking pattern.

Surely this trivially false. What about the law of large numbers? What about the famous double slits experiment that generated an instantly recognizable diffraction pattern?

What this comes down to then is that the will[a property of the mind, that sets events into motion ] is not free of cause: something caused the will to do X rather than do Y. If there was no cause behind the will's action then the action must be entirely random, but I've yet to see anyone claim their actions were made at random.

What if that something that causes the will, is a random quantum event?

[Miles]

Actually, my argument is very simple: There are only two ways in which an event arises, either it is caused or it is not caused. If it is caused then it is determined (by these causes). If it is not caused then it must pop up randomly---absolutely randomly. Randomness necessarily expresses itself as disorder, a state lacking pattern.

Surely this trivially false. What about the law of large numbers? What about the famous double slits experiment that generated an instantly recognizable diffraction pattern?

What about them?

What this comes down to then is that the will[a property of the mind, that sets events into motion ] is not free of cause: something caused the will to do X rather than do Y. If there was no cause behind the will's action then the action must be entirely random, but I've yet to see anyone claim their actions were made at random.

What if that something that causes the will, is a random quantum event?

But they don't. As has been pointed out:

"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

And there have been similar conclusions: quantum events simply don't impinge on the operation of super-atomic operations, particularly as they apply to free will. Moreover. . .

"Even if quantum forces were discovered to exert influence over neuronal activity, this still doesn't necessarily prove free will, in great part because of the slippery definition of "free will." The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics does not rule out determinism -- rather than a strict "A then B" view of causality, it simply creates a more complex picture of causality in which future possibilities and probabilities are naturally constrained and "calculated." This might be thought of as rolling dice to determine your future action. It may be probabilistic, but it isn't freely chosen in the normal sense of the word."
source

What it's saying is that even if quantum randomness does have an effect on the neural activity of our brain it still doesn't save free will. The will would not only be at the mercy of determinism but randomness as well.

[Bust Nak]

What about them?

They contradict your claim and demonstrate that randomness can express itself as order, a state with a distinct pattern.

But they don't. As has been pointed out:

"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

And there have been similar conclusions: quantum events simply don't impinge on the operation of super-atomic operations, particularly as they apply to free will.

That's just a criticism of the hypothesis. Others disagree. The debate has not been settled on this matter. Just read the following paragraph to the one you quoted.

"Since the 90s, however, numerous counter-observations to the "warm, wet and noisy" argument have been found to exist at normal temperatures, in-vitro, or inside living organism (i.e. photosynthesis, bird navigation)."

Moreover. . .

"Even if quantum forces were discovered to exert influence over neuronal activity, this still doesn't necessarily prove free will, in great part because of the slippery definition of "free will." The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics does not rule out determinism -- rather than a strict "A then B" view of causality, it simply creates a more complex picture of causality in which future possibilities and probabilities are naturally constrained and "calculated." This might be thought of as rolling dice to determine your future action. It may be probabilistic, but it isn't freely chosen in the normal sense of the word."
source

What it's saying is that even if quantum randomness does have an effect on the neural activity of our brain it still doesn't save free will. The will would not only be at the mercy of determinism but randomness as well.

That is only if you define free will as something that is neither deterministic nor probabilistic.

[FinalEnigma]

I'm saying that is how things actually are, that we don't have freewill.

Ok, but as far as I can tell, your arguments for this is that people tend to have reasons for doing things, tend to think in terms of cause and effect. I don't think that's enough to warrant the conclusion that we don't have free will.

Actually, my argument is very simple: There are only two ways in which an event arises, either it is caused or it is not caused. If it is caused then it is determined (by these causes). If it is not caused then it must pop up randomly---absolutely randomly. Randomness necessarily expresses itself as disorder, a state lacking pattern. In as much as the world and all life, including thought is marked by pattern we can conclude that randomness is not one of its underlying elements.

Nice argument! I enjoy the thinking here.

However, I think you are not entirely accurate. You said "Randomness necessarily expresses itself as disorder" This isn't strictly true. If it were, then it wouldn't be random. Theoretically, if I created a program to output random characters, there is a chance that it would produce Shakespeare's Hamlet, which is not disordered.

My issue is with the word necessarily. Randomness generally produces disorder, but not always. If it always did, then games like poker would be impossible, because you could never get a good hand!

Further, I would argue that ordered systems can use elements of contained randomness.
For example, in computer games, randomness is used quite widely (can you tell I'm a software engineer?). Often when, say, throwing a fireball at a bad guy, the damage dealt is calculated randomly - within a range.
Say you have two closely matched characters fighting one another, and they just keep throwing fireballs at one another. One character is just a bit stronger than the other.
Because of the random factor, which character will win is not predetermined - but it's not entirely random either. The slightly stronger character will win more often, despite the existence of a random factor.

It is possible for a system to exist in which randomness is implemented, but is not the sole determining factor.

Your argument utilizes a false dilemma. Absolute randomness and absolute order are not the only two possibilities.

[Miles]

I'm saying that is how things actually are, that we don't have freewill.

Ok, but as far as I can tell, your arguments for this is that people tend to have reasons for doing things, tend to think in terms of cause and effect. I don't think that's enough to warrant the conclusion that we don't have free will.

Actually, my argument is very simple: There are only two ways in which an event arises, either it is caused or it is not caused. If it is caused then it is determined (by these causes). If it is not caused then it must pop up randomly---absolutely randomly. Randomness necessarily expresses itself as disorder, a state lacking pattern. In as much as the world and all life, including thought is marked by pattern we can conclude that randomness is not one of its underlying elements.

Nice argument! I enjoy the thinking here.

However, I think you are not entirely accurate. You said "Randomness necessarily expresses itself as disorder" This isn't strictly true. If it were, then it wouldn't be random. Theoretically, if I created a program to output random characters, there is a chance that it would produce Shakespeare's Hamlet, which is not disordered.

Good point!

My issue is with the word necessarily. Randomness generally produces disorder, but not always. If it always did, then games like poker would be impossible, because you could never get a good hand!

Not at all. The way the cards fall is determined by their position in the deck, among other determining factors.

Further, I would argue that ordered systems can use elements of contained randomness.
For example, in computer games, randomness is used quite widely (can you tell I'm a software engineer?). Often when, say, throwing a fireball at a bad guy, the damage dealt is calculated randomly - within a range.
Say you have two closely matched characters fighting one another, and they just keep throwing fireballs at one another. One character is just a bit stronger than the other.

While I'm not at all familiar with how such computer operations work, I know they are not absolutely random (a particular operation having an innate chance of being equally on or off, a 1 or a 0 ).

Because of the random factor, which character will win is not predetermined - but it's not entirely random either. The slightly stronger character will win more often, despite the existence of a random factor.

The stronger character will win, or lose, because it's been programmed (determined) to, under circumstances X. And those circumstances are determined.

It is possible for a system to exist in which randomness is implemented. . . .

Only if it employs quantum randomness in its decision making operation. Short of this, it does not. (Random number generators not utilizing quantum randomness do operate deterministically.)

Your argument utilizes a false dilemma. Absolute randomness and absolute order are not the only two possibilities.

Taking your "absolute order" to mean determined, what is this other possibility?

[FinalEnigma]

Further, I would argue that ordered systems can use elements of contained randomness.
For example, in computer games, randomness is used quite widely (can you tell I'm a software engineer?). Often when, say, throwing a fireball at a bad guy, the damage dealt is calculated randomly - within a range.
Say you have two closely matched characters fighting one another, and they just keep throwing fireballs at one another. One character is just a bit stronger than the other.

While I'm not at all familiar with how such computer operations work, I know they are not absolutely random (a particular operation having an innate chance of being equally on or off, a 1 or a 0 ).

That's true of course, and props for knowing that, but it's irrelevant. the pseudorandom numbers have an algorithm imposed on them in order to make them fit within the damage range of the fireball. Apologies for the codespeak...

I can generate a pseudorandom number with the function "rand()". Say I want to make the fireball do 50-150 damage. I would simply take the 'rand()' and apply this algorithm (you don't have to follow the algorithm).

Damage = rand() %100 + 51;

That will take that random number, perform an operation on it such that the result would be somewhere between 50 and 150.

Now assume for the sake of argument that I can generate ACTUALLY random numbers with a function reallyRand(). I can perform the EXACT SAME algorithm.

Damage = reallyRand() %100 + 51;

NO MATTER WHAT number reallyRand() gives me, my equation will produce a number randomly somewhere between 50 and 150.

Now, if the stronger wizard has 1250 health, and the weaker wizard has 1100 health, the stronger one will PROBABLY win, but it is not predetermined - it would depend on the random numbers generated. Through this system, I would be using actual randomness to produce an outcome which is not completely random, but not completely predetermined, either.

Because of the random factor, which character will win is not predetermined - but it's not entirely random either. The slightly stronger character will win more often, despite the existence of a random factor.

The stronger character will win, or lose, because it's been programmed (determined) to, under circumstances X. And those circumstances are determined.

To an extent, yes. the winner is the guy with health left. but which guy that is will be determined by actual controlled randomness.

Your argument utilizes a false dilemma. Absolute randomness and absolute order are not the only two possibilities.

Taking your "absolute order" to mean determined, what is this other possibility?

The other possibility which I propose is a clear cut, cause and effect, determined(if you like) system, which utilizes randomness in some of it's elements, thereby ensuring that it is not entirely random, but merely probabilistic.

[Miles]

Further, I would argue that ordered systems can use elements of contained randomness.
For example, in computer games, randomness is used quite widely (can you tell I'm a software engineer?). Often when, say, throwing a fireball at a bad guy, the damage dealt is calculated randomly - within a range.
Say you have two closely matched characters fighting one another, and they just keep throwing fireballs at one another. One character is just a bit stronger than the other.

While I'm not at all familiar with how such computer operations work, I know they are not absolutely random (a particular operation having an innate chance of being equally on or off, a 1 or a 0 ).

That's true of course, and props for knowing that, but it's irrelevant. the pseudorandom numbers have an algorithm imposed on them in order to make them fit within the damage range of the fireball. Apologies for the codespeak...

I can generate a pseudorandom number with the function "rand()". Say I want to make the fireball do 50-150 damage. I would simply take the 'rand()' and apply this algorithm (you don't have to follow the algorithm).

Damage = rand() %100 + 51;

That will take that random number, perform an operation on it such that the result would be somewhere between 50 and 150.

Now assume for the sake of argument that I can generate ACTUALLY random numbers with a function reallyRand(). I can perform the EXACT SAME algorithm.

Damage = reallyRand() %100 + 51;

NO MATTER WHAT number reallyRand() gives me, my equation will produce a number randomly somewhere between 50 and 150.

Now, if the stronger wizard has 1250 health, and the weaker wizard has 1100 health, the stronger one will PROBABLY win, but it is not predetermined - it would depend on the random numbers generated. Through this system, I would be using actual randomness to produce an outcome which is not completely random, but not completely predetermined, either.

Unless a random number is the result of quantum randomness, its is determined. While determinism may figure into the causal mix, ultimately the outcome will be at the mercy of the random component.

Your argument utilizes a false dilemma. Absolute randomness and absolute order are not the only two possibilities.

Taking your "absolute order" to mean determined, what is this other possibility?

The other possibility which I propose is a clear cut, cause and effect, determined(if you like) system, which utilizes randomness in some of it's elements, thereby ensuring that it is not entirely random, but merely probabilistic.

Regardless of its deterministic component, introducing any amount of absolute randomness, no matter how small, renders the out come random.

It's sort of like two people deciding an issue by using the odd-and-even finger showdown. No matter how many fingers a person decides to show, the outcome is always dependent on what the other person shows.

[FinalEnigma]

Further, I would argue that ordered systems can use elements of contained randomness.
For example, in computer games, randomness is used quite widely (can you tell I'm a software engineer?). Often when, say, throwing a fireball at a bad guy, the damage dealt is calculated randomly - within a range.
Say you have two closely matched characters fighting one another, and they just keep throwing fireballs at one another. One character is just a bit stronger than the other.

While I'm not at all familiar with how such computer operations work, I know they are not absolutely random (a particular operation having an innate chance of being equally on or off, a 1 or a 0 ).

That's true of course, and props for knowing that, but it's irrelevant. the pseudorandom numbers have an algorithm imposed on them in order to make them fit within the damage range of the fireball. Apologies for the codespeak...

I can generate a pseudorandom number with the function "rand()". Say I want to make the fireball do 50-150 damage. I would simply take the 'rand()' and apply this algorithm (you don't have to follow the algorithm).

Damage = rand() %100 + 51;

That will take that random number, perform an operation on it such that the result would be somewhere between 50 and 150.

Now assume for the sake of argument that I can generate ACTUALLY random numbers with a function reallyRand(). I can perform the EXACT SAME algorithm.

Damage = reallyRand() %100 + 51;

NO MATTER WHAT number reallyRand() gives me, my equation will produce a number randomly somewhere between 50 and 150.

Now, if the stronger wizard has 1250 health, and the weaker wizard has 1100 health, the stronger one will PROBABLY win, but it is not predetermined - it would depend on the random numbers generated. Through this system, I would be using actual randomness to produce an outcome which is not completely random, but not completely predetermined, either.

Unless a random number is the result of quantum randomness, its is determined. While determinism may figure into the causal mix, ultimately the outcome will be at the mercy of the random component.

Your argument utilizes a false dilemma. Absolute randomness and absolute order are not the only two possibilities.

Taking your "absolute order" to mean determined, what is this other possibility?

The other possibility which I propose is a clear cut, cause and effect, determined(if you like) system, which utilizes randomness in some of it's elements, thereby ensuring that it is not entirely random, but merely probabilistic.

Regardless of its deterministic component, introducing any amount of absolute randomness, no matter how small, renders the out come random.

I'm not certain where precisely our line of disagreement is here. I'm thinking it may be a semantic matter.

I would not say that the outcome of my proposed wizard battle is entirely random, even though it uses randomness in the fireball damage. It is uncertain which wizard will win, but we can estimate the probability.

Looking back at proposal I was initially responding to, I suspect it is here:

You argued that a given event either has a cause, or is completely random.

Actually, my argument is very simple: There are only two ways in which an event arises, either it is caused or it is not caused. If it is caused then it is determined (by these causes). If it is not caused then it must pop up randomly---absolutely randomly.

I believe you are lumping in my probabilistic state with one of your other states.
I perceive the possible ways by which an even can happen(say the stronger wizard winning the dual) I perceive to be

1) random, where all or a majority of all things are determined by randomness. There is no predictable way to determine who the victorious wizard will be.

2) wholly determined, where everything is deterministic and randomness has no play. We can guarantee that the stronger wizard will win.

or

3) probabilistic, where a some things are determined by direct cause and effect chains, but with some elements of randomness. We can determine that there is a greater probability that the stronger wizard will win (something like 63%, if I'm imagining the probabilities correctly), because even though some elements are determined (stronger wizard has more health), and some are random(fireball damage within the range), the end result is a mixture of both.

[Miles]

.

Sorry for cutting to the chase here, but I'm having one heck of a time properly configuring all the dialog in proper {quote} {/quote} form.

I'm not certain where precisely our line of disagreement is here. I'm thinking it may be a semantic matter.

I would not say that the outcome of my proposed wizard battle is entirely random, even though it uses randomness in the fireball damage. It is uncertain which wizard will win, but we can estimate the probability.

Looking back at proposal I was initially responding to, I suspect it is here:

You argued that a given event either has a cause, or is completely random.

Actually, my argument is very simple: There are only two ways in which an event arises, either it is caused or it is not caused. If it is caused then it is determined (by these causes). If it is not caused then it must pop up randomly---absolutely randomly.

I believe you are lumping in my probabilistic state with one of your other states.
I perceive the possible ways by which an even can happen(say the stronger wizard winning the dual) I perceive to be

1) random, where all or a majority of all things are determined by randomness. There is no predictable way to determine who the victorious wizard will be.

2) wholly determined, where everything is deterministic and randomness has no play. We can guarantee that the stronger wizard will win.

or

3) probabilistic, where a some things are determined by direct cause and effect chains, but with some elements of randomness. We can determine that there is a greater probability that the stronger wizard will win (something like 63%, if I'm imagining the probabilities correctly), because even though some elements are determined (stronger wizard has more health), and some are random(fireball damage within the range), the end result is a mixture of both.

But we aren't dealing with probability, such as the chance X will occur before Y occurs. We're dealing with the why of the probability. In determinism the operational engine of the "why" is cause/effect and the probability is 1, a certainty.

Where absolute randomness is inserted into the equation the operational engine of the "why" is the fickle nature of quantum mechanics, which expresses itself as absolute uncertainty. And it's for this reason that no probability can be assigned to the stronger wizard. So in the end we're still left with only the two modes of operation.

In any case, this is why the subject of the OP, free will, is an illusion.