Why do people fear that free will might not exist?

Post Reply New Topic

I can accept the fact that a lucky few folk have "free will" in terms of their being able to easily rise above their circumstances and captain their lives with aplomb. but most of us are chained to our karma and stuck in place. in terms of "free will," "your mileage may vary." a totally un-addled brain is MANDATORY, however.

I agree with your interpretation.
I don't think free will is a binary: that you either are able to control everything you do (because of free will) or nothing (because of lack of free will). I think there would only be such a sharp binary if the Ego/Master Node was all there was. But with compartmentalization, subconscious compartments can subvert the plans of the conscious controller. We are expected to exert conscious control and "fight back" when a mental sub-compartment is trying to subvert the master plan.

We have free will to the extent that we are able to exert this conscious control. All people over a certain age are expected to be able to exert this control but I think the law in many countries recognizes that there are some types of mental illness and some types of brain damage that can destroy this ability to exert conscious control.

https://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Disabilities/031215Traumatic.html



It looks like we have conscious free will in the Master Node of our brain (good term) and we are expected to use it to exert control over the other parts which "minds of their own" even though they are also our brain. But if free will was an absolute, there wouldn't be subsections of our brain generating ideas for cruel/stupid/dangerous/illegal/irresponsible things to do. We're like a dog walker with 5 unruly dogs straining at the leash. We are expected to not let go of the leash. But the law of many countries recognizes that the leash can be cut by certain types of damage. However, just saying "I'm getting annoyed with trying to hold all these dogs in one place so I'll just let go". That gets you jail time.

To further abuse that analogy, some people have to keep dobermans leashed and this is a tough job that people who merely keep poodles leashed can't appreciate. Nonetheless, they must stay leashed. That much is in control.

Neuroscience experiments explain that our brains are aware of what we do AFTER we do it.

Therefore "conscious control" is an illusion.

Libet found that the unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision by the subject to flick his wrist began approximately half a second before the subject consciously felt that he had decided to move.[19][20] Libet's findings suggest that decisions made by a subject are first being made on a subconscious level and only afterward being translated into a "conscious decision", and that the subject's belief that it occurred at the behest of his will was only due to his retrospective perspective on the event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

That is an excellent wiki.

If it's all true (and I suspect it is) it's in line with Videodrome's post about compartmentalization. But I sure don't think it removes criminal responsibility. Half a second is a delay but it's such a short delay that it gives plenty of time to "abort the mission". Your fingers may start curling into a fist (pertinent to the experiments which were about finger movements) but it takes more than half a second to swing that fist and connect with somebody's face. There is time for a conscious override of the action the unconscious has started.

It does imply that it's not a good idea to have your finger on the trigger unless you are prepared to shoot, since your finger might take that shot on its' own. But the whole business of getting your finger on the trigger in the first place and aiming takes some time (far more than half a second when that gun is holstered) so the criminal responsibility for shooting somebody is still there. (If my time estimates are wrong, Dox47 will tell me )

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up this belief? To this date, there really is no such evidence that free will, which is defined as the ability to make decisions about thoughts and actions(including speech) free of any constraints, actually exists. Unfortunately for you, there is plenty of evidence from statistics and neurobiology indicating that constraints CAN be imposed on peoples moral judgement and decision making process. Like the effects of psychotropic drugs. A good example of a drug that has been shown to completely suppress free will is Phencylidine/PCP/Angeldust.

I find it strange that people still argue over this question in a meta-physical way, and also I don't see why religion figures.

If you are a religious absolutist, then you are either determinist, or believe in free will. So where is the consistency?

To me the religious aspect is not important.

Our existence and biology is subject to chaos, so if free will exist, then it is only is relative sense from 'self' that exist in the frontal lobe that makes 'choices'. That is not really free will. However that is not completely pre-predetermined either.

This is a huge question of mine. I don't like the idea of determinism, but I'm an atheist and materialist. There is NOTHING in the sciences that can account for free will. Science can't yet tell me how to construct a conscious brain which I can then analyze to determine if it indeed can freely choose. Christian people use the theory of the soul to explain their position of free will. For them Free Will is something given to man by their magical creator being. I'm not terribly familiar with other religious traditions so I won't comment on them.

I invented a philosophical thought experiment a while ago to explore this question.

Imagine two universes, a and b. The universes began with identical initial conditions such that at any time t in the age of universe a, and universe b, the two universes are indistinguishable. Let's say the a is our universe. I exist in universe a. However, because universe b is identical I have a counterpart in universe b. My counterpart was born from my parents' counterparts. My counterpart has identical experiences to me. His culture is identical. His entire history is identical such that, even down to the smallest most minute detail one cannot tell the two universes apart. Now imaging that at time t in the age of each of these universes I (and simultaneously my counterpart) experience some stimulus. The question then arises in my mind, is there any chance whatever that I and my counterpart will respond differently? The implications of reacting differently should immediately be obvious, the two universes would immediately diverge -- they would not remain identical.

A person's thoughts, and responses are deterministic. I don't mean 'pre-written'. I don't believe there is an consciousness who wrote a script I am following. However, nobody can alter that course. Many people naively refute determinism by arguing they can think whatever I want which they feel proves they are free. But our thoughts and mental states are influenced and perhaps even deterministically directed by outside influence. If I lived in Morocco I might choose couscous with dinner. Culture, experiences, language, genetics and external stimuli all influence my current mental state.

I have a sort of version two of the above thought experiment. Instead of two universes, imagine I could create a computer program which modeled your brain. I start the program the moment you are conceived and the program evolves through time to have a set of experiences identical to yourself. The model is so good it and you always have the same mental state. Now if you (Yes. You, aspie) are at a party. Your computer model is also aspie of course, wouldn't the computer model act exactly as you do when you do (e.g. try to find an excuse to leave the party)?

The only thing anyone has to draw upon is one's own experiences, current mental state, and current stimuli. It's somewhat like a mathematical function. Here are the inputs, now compute the output. However in the case of humans, the function is itself is constantly being modified as we experience new things. This is largely why we can respond in different ways to things - experiences rewrite our "behavior/response" function.

All the more reason to adjust our concept of justice accordingly rather than to pretend free will exists.

I had free will but now I have to pay for it.

Why are people afraid of the reality of free will? Because having free will means that they are responsible for the choices they make. Denying the ability to choose means that people are also denying responsibility for the choices they make.

It seems to have some relationship to the "Peter Pan Syndrome", wherein people refuse to grow up and become responsible adults (as if it was possible). People should grow up and be responsible for themselves.

Yeah and my conscience doesn't take credit anymore!

Yes, I have met several people who were unwilling to own up to their ideas, opinions and actions. They float through life with nary a ripple in their wake. Appearing to desire a willing stooge on whom they could blame it all, you can identify these folks by their constant employment of wiggly, weasle words: "I absolutely believe that I might someday, explore the possibility of perhaps, maybe, improving my self image." Wow; don't rush into it too quickly, there, cowboy!

I can spot free-will 'fraidy-cats all the time. Good for them. That means there is more determination leeway for me!

Fnord, show us some scientific EVIDENCE that free will actually exists and is not a mental illusion!

You've always been such a proud skeptic, but now it's your town to be scrutinized. You speak of the "reality of free will" as if it has been scientifically demonstrated. The burden of proof rests on whomever is making the positive claim. I am not afraid of the "reality" of free will. That is another strawman. You are attributing emotional motivations which you cannot verify towards those who are skeptical of the claim that free will is an established fact.

Moreover, anecdotes about ones ability to make conscious decisions are not admissible as evidence since there are other explanations that cannot be ruled out.

taking consequences into account is part of decision-making. it's all part of what has been predetermined since the big bang.

+ 1

As a Christian, the idea that we are subject to basal factors we cannot control means we have no choice. It's mind-bending to understand that decisions are made before we are consciously aware of them, but still, we somehow have the ability to choose contrary to our basal nature.

Maybe, if we ever fully understand how the human mind/thought/consciousness works, this will make sense, but to say we have no free will lends to the idea of doing whatever you desire and say nobody is responsible for their choices.

Animals do as they are conditioned. They do not "reason." If a dog does what it knows is wrong, it's only concern is being caught and punished. A well-conditioned dog will behave when not being observed.

Humans also do as they are conditioned, but you can "reason" with a human to get them to do what you desire if you convince them with your argument. In that sense, humans have the power to choose to NOT do what their conditioning demands of them.