Do you believe in free will?

[Alefroth]

What needs to be proven or disproven? That the laws of physics as we understand them still hold true in the brain? That there is not a magical, invisible, undetectable ghost in the machine? Wouldn't the burden be on the person who comes up with that idea - to prove it?

I still can't tell if you're in favor of free will or not.

[Holman]

What needs to be proven or disproven? That the laws of physics as we understand them still hold true in the brain? That there is not a magical, invisible, undetectable ghost in the machine? Wouldn't the burden be on the person who comes up with that idea - to prove it?

Do the laws of physics as applied to the brain explain what we think we experience as free will? My understanding is that neuroscience is pretty young and (correctly) unwilling to pronounce definitively on what it can't fully explain. And if they don't reliably and certainly explain everything, we're in no position to casually caricature will as a goofy and cartoonish "ghost in the machine."

Since common sense throughout human history has been on the side of free will, it seems like the burden of proof falls on the arguments to reject it.

[Unagi]

What needs to be proven or disproven? That the laws of physics as we understand them still hold true in the brain? That there is not a magical, invisible, undetectable ghost in the machine? Wouldn't the burden be on the person who comes up with that idea - to prove it?

I still can't tell if you're in favor of free will or not.

?

why do you say that?

[Unagi]

Do the laws of physics as applied to the brain explain what we think we experience as free will?

Either the laws of physics (whether or not we fully grasp them all) explain "the experience" or they don't. If they fail to explain the experience, then that experience is a supernatural experience. This is not a realm where "proof" is traditionally provided and it, itself is not evidence of anything other than just an 'idea' that we have free will. Meanwhile science has shown an ever growing understanding of how we are thinking at the physical/chemical level.

If you know the trajectory of a golfball, air conditions, putting green conditions, etc - we know if it's going into the hole. Arguably, if you understood/knew the muscle memory/strength, hand grip, conditions of the ball and club surfaces, etc - you could predict its trajectory before it's produced. And then again - if one understood the brain-chemistry, and some untold number of other inputs, 2 seconds before all of that: you could predict if the golfer was going to step up to the tee and actually decide to take their turn or if they were going to wait another 2 seconds lost in thought, or if they were going to run away, or etc.

There really isn't any reason to suspect that at some moment, your brain stops behaving like every other organ in your body, every other part of the process and just magically comes up with its own trajectory from out of nowhere.


The conversation about: "Okay, so there is no free will, so then what!?" is an entirely other conversation that shouldn't have any bearing on if there is or if there is not free will.

[Jaymann]

What needs to be proven or disproven? That the laws of physics as we understand them still hold true in the brain? That there is not a magical, invisible, undetectable ghost in the machine? Wouldn't the burden be on the person who comes up with that idea - to prove it?

I still can't tell if you're in favor of free will or not.

?

why do you say that?

It's the gut bacteria and parasites talking.

[Unagi]

Since common sense throughout human history has been on the side of free will, it seems like the burden of proof falls on the arguments to reject it.

I reject this - entirely. (with great respect)

Common sense throughout human history has an absolutely SHIT record when it comes to this kind of a thing, and having "free will" is obviously the predominant thought but 1)it's only because it took root when our chemical and physical understanding of our behavior was zippo. and 2) that doesn't mean it is free of the burden of proof. The argument to reject it, is really, at it's core, just the argument that the brain is only a physical object that is pretty damn amazing, but not supernatural.

[RunningMn9]

I have spent a lot of time over the past five years self-analyzing my responses to stimuli. I discovered that so much of my behavior was programmed by trauma and the ways that my four year old brain figured out how to survive.

But now that I know why my brain’s reaction is to do X, it is no longer certain that I will do X. The knowledge of this phenomenon has changed the outcome.

Obviously this doesn’t prove that free will exists (as I know that I can override the more automatic response). I still don’t think it matters as the illusion is of sufficient fidelity as to not matter. But I have a better awareness of how the brain appears (to me) to work, and it’s a lot less free will than I would have said 6 years ago.

But I think it’s more about the brain following familiar pathways that leads to default responses. I still believe that with effort, I can choose to not take that default path though.

[Kraken]

Do the laws of physics as applied to the brain explain what we think we experience as free will?

Either the laws of physics (whether or not we fully grasp them all) explain "the experience" or they don't.

The brain is an electrochemical system whose physical properties can be described. We don't fully understand it but we keep learning more; it's possible that we will one day understand neuroscience in great detail. Thought and subjective experience are emergent properties within that system, but we don't know how those qualities arise from or affect the wetware that generates them. Given what physics knows about quantum uncertainty, I would not expect the mind-brain interface to ever be explained by a reductionist approach. Inherent randomness isn't supernatural. It just is.

[Blackhawk]

There is something other than scientific laws (as understood by humanity) and the supernatural - there are the aspects of science that we have yet to fully grasp. Yeah, we know quite a bit about the processes in play here, but while science can understand the interplay of the cellular-level electromagnetic fields, we still don't understand how that translates to consciousness, which is where free will - or the lack thereof - likely resides. There are multiple competing theories on what consciousness is and how it comes about, and beyond that most neuroscientists mumble and try to change the subject.

Yeah, if you know every factor of the die roll you'll be able to tell what it's going to land on before it leaves your hand, but we don't know every factor that applies to the d20s that are our minds.

The best we can do in regards to free will at this point is irresponsible partially-informed declarations, or common sense, or just acknowledge that it's currently a question of philosophy rather than science.

[Alefroth]

What needs to be proven or disproven? That the laws of physics as we understand them still hold true in the brain? That there is not a magical, invisible, undetectable ghost in the machine? Wouldn't the burden be on the person who comes up with that idea - to prove it?

I still can't tell if you're in favor of free will or not.

?

why do you say that?

You said this

Personally, I think it’s clearly true there isn’t, but I get why it’s disturbing.

but then you seem to have made arguments for free will.

Are you saying the laws of physics dictates there is free will or isn't?

[Unagi]

What needs to be proven or disproven? That the laws of physics as we understand them still hold true in the brain? That there is not a magical, invisible, undetectable ghost in the machine? Wouldn't the burden be on the person who comes up with that idea - to prove it?

I still can't tell if you're in favor of free will or not.

?

why do you say that?

You said this

Personally, I think it’s clearly true there isn’t, but I get why it’s disturbing.

but then you seem to have made arguments for free will.

Are you saying the laws of physics dictates there is free will or isn't?

Well, damn - do I suck at communicating (to be taken rhetorically, please )? I mean - I said "I think it's clearly true there isn't [free will]", but I still managed to be unclear?

I'm honestly interested in where I went wrong in my message - where is it you think I was making an argument FOR free will? please show me - as I don't want to make that mistake again.


To be clear: I am saying that the laws of physics (nature) are all that is happening, and that there is no "free will" - we are all like golfballs, just on a trajectory from events in the past - and intersections with other events in the present.

[Unagi]

There is something other than scientific laws (as understood by humanity) and the supernatural - there are the aspects of science that we have yet to fully grasp.

"as understood by humanity" is doing all the work in that sentence.


Can we agree that we can take it out and change the sentence to: "There is nothing other than scientific laws (known and unknown) and the supernatural (if that exists)?

[RunningMn9]

Can we agree that we can take it out and change the sentence to: "There is nothing other than scientific laws (known and unknown) and the supernatural (if that exists)?

I'm not sure we can agree on that, can we?

Not everything in nature is governed by scientific law, is it? That's the crux of this discussion, no? The physical world is certainly governed by physical laws, but if free will exists then there is something other than scientific law at work, that doesn't need to be supernatural.

[Blackhawk]

There is something other than scientific laws (as understood by humanity) and the supernatural - there are the aspects of science that we have yet to fully grasp.

"as understood by humanity" is doing all the work in that sentence.


Can we agree that we can take it out and change the sentence to: "There is nothing other than scientific laws (known and unknown) and the supernatural (if that exists)?

If you like - it's pretty much the same statement, although mine left room for us misunderstanding some of those laws, usually because a new discovery tweaks our understanding, or because of error. The laws are predefined by nature itself, but our understanding grows, which means that it changes.

And, to get this out of the way, I'll happily stand by a statement that the supernatural does not exist. If something exists, it's natural. The "supernatural" is various combinations of human psychology, fallible senses, fallible memory, and an urge to categorize what we don't understand. With time, everything supernatural is either explained with new science, explained as a known natural phenomenon, or disproven (with the obvious exception of concepts of pure imagination, which fall into the 'psychology' category.) And I say this as someone who, until 15 years ago, fully embraced the supernatural.

[Unagi]

Can we agree that we can take it out and change the sentence to: "There is nothing other than scientific laws (known and unknown) and the supernatural (if that exists)?

I'm not sure we can agree on that, can we?

Not everything in nature is governed by scientific law, is it? That's the crux of this discussion, no? The physical world is certainly governed by physical laws, but if free will exists then there is something other than scientific law at work, that doesn't need to be supernatural.

It's good to get these things ironed out before any conversations can take place.


Maybe it's just semantics, but traditionally our world can be divided into only the Natural and the Supernatural. That which can be explained and understood (or that we expect will be eventually)... and then the ideas (like God, your Soul, miracles) that cannot, will not, never will be defined and understood (the Supernatural; that which is beyond nature). That (IMO, and a great number of philospher-scientist) is just the definition of the two words.

[Unagi]

And, to get this out of the way, I'll happily stand by a statement that the supernatural does not exist.

So, if you are willing to stand by that statement, I don't know where you fit "free will" into the natural process of brain chemistry. If it's defined by a law and follows the rules of physics (understood or not), then it's a ball rolling down a hill - not "free will".

[Blackhawk]

Maybe it's just semantics, but traditionally our world can be divided into only the Natural and the Supernatural. That which can be explained and understood (or that we expect will be eventually)... and then the ideas (like God, your Soul, miracles) that cannot, will not, never will be defined and understood (the Supernatural; that which is beyond nature). That (IMO, and a great number of philospher-scientist) is just the definition of the two words.

And the definition I've always worked with is that the natural is those things that exist as defined by natural laws, while the supernatural (literally, "beyond nature") is that which exists independently of natural laws. And I'm still willing to say that nothing exists outside of nature/natural laws. That doesn't mean that all phenomenon we can't define scientifically right now, today, are false. There have been plenty of 'supernatural' phenomena that have come to be understood (to one degree or another) and accepted by science. Just look at some of the healing powers of prayer, magic, and shamanism (many of which can be understood as functions of the placebo effect - and in some cases, the practitioners of these 'secrets' were fully aware of this, and 'put on a show' in order to more effectively create that effect.)

And, to get this out of the way, I'll happily stand by a statement that the supernatural does not exist.

So, if you are willing to stand by that statement, I don't know where you fit "free will" into the natural process of brain chemistry.

Because it isn't something we can prove or disprove, and unlike concepts like 'God' and 'soul', there is some basis for believing that it may exist.

We cannot prove that free will does or does not exist. It may. It may not. I choose to live my life as if it does, because it seems likely, because the social implications of it not existing are wildly problematic (we - collectively - are not 'mature' enough to function without the idea of free will), and because, unlike 'god', there are big blank spots in our understanding of the aspect of our brains (consciousness) that most closely relates to the answer. If it turns out that it does not, then great - we have a better understanding of ourselves and our universe.

If it's defined by a law and follows the rules of physics (understood or not), then it's a ball rolling down a hill - not "free will".

There seems to be a lot of assumptions here about how rules we do know apply to systems we do not know. We do not know how chemistry results in, and functions with, consciousness, or how physics (which laws of physics, and in what combination?) apply to consciousness. We can't. We don't know what consciousness is. Trying to make black-and-white statements about something so complex with so many holes in our understanding isn't.

So my position remains: ' Determinism' is a strong motivator, but not the only factor in our decisions. Many people don't bother to fight against that motivator - they just go with the flow and follow their urges and instincts. For unimportant decisions, most of us do. But you can still choose (free will) to act in opposition of your instincts. You can overcome your past, your traumas, your obsessions, and your weaknesses. You can overcome your impulsiveness and problematic emotional responses.

[Holman]

To be clear: I am saying that the laws of physics (nature) are all that is happening, and that there is no "free will" - we are all like golfballs, just on a trajectory from events in the past - and intersections with other events in the present.

I think physicists today would be quick to point out that the laws of physics involve things way more complicated than the Newtonian movement of golfballs.

If we can't yet fully explain quantum physics or the behavior of dark matter, we can be forgiven for doubting that our current understanding of natural laws can fully explain the experience of consciousness.

(Just a note: I'm a pretty thoroughgoing materialist, and I agree that there are no supernatural explanations for these things. It's just that nature itself is far more complicated that we currently understand. It's possibly even more complicated than we *can* understand.)

[RunningMn9]

So my position remains: ' Determinism' is a strong motivator, but not the only factor in our decisions. Many people don't bother to fight against that motivator - they just go with the flow and follow their urges and instincts. For unimportant decisions, most of us do. But you can still choose (free will) to act in opposition of your instincts. You can overcome your past, your traumas, your obsessions, and your weaknesses. You can overcome your impulsiveness and problematic emotional responses.

Would like to co-sign this. My wiring / experience / trauma is a very powerful input to the system. I am not forced to do what it says.

[Unagi]

To be clear: I am saying that the laws of physics (nature) are all that is happening, and that there is no "free will" - we are all like golfballs, just on a trajectory from events in the past - and intersections with other events in the present.

I think physicists today would be quick to point out that the laws of physics involve things way more complicated than the Newtonian movement of golfballs.

If we can't yet fully explain quantum physics or the behavior of dark matter, we can be forgiven for doubting that our current understanding of natural laws can fully explain the experience of consciousness.

(Just a note: I'm a pretty thoroughgoing materialist, and I agree that there are no supernatural explanations for these things. It's just that nature itself is far more complicated that we currently understand. It's possibly even more complicated than we *can* understand.)

Which is fine. But even the proposed randomness lurking inside the quantum world (devoid of the supernatural), would still not result in free-will, as by definition - no one is in control of "random" (RNGesus aside).

The golfball analogy is only to point out that we understand that physics, so of course we know why the golfball curves back and eventually goes into the whole (curvature of the green) and it's not magic. The analogy admits to the fact that anything we are talking about is more complex.

Likewise, (leaving the analogy behind) even if we never actually understand the entire science (I strongly believe that eventually we will) behind "thought and choice", etc - that by the nature of everything else in nature - it will have it's own underlying trajectories that could be understood, etc.

[Holman]

Likewise, (leaving the analogy behind) even if we never actually understand the entire science (I strongly believe that eventually we will) behind "thought and choice", etc - that by the nature of everything else in nature - it will have it's own underlying trajectories that could be understood, etc.

It's funny that you use the word "believe" there. What is it about a material universe whose existence is (so far) inexplicable that makes you believe that we will eventually understand everything?

And by "we" I mean our thick bundles of cranial neurons that evolved to pursue survival at a Newtonian/Darwinian level and now seem to be more or less stymied by anything below the bare surface of perceived (by those very same bundles of neurons) reality.

[Unagi]

So my position remains: ' Determinism' is a strong motivator, but not the only factor in our decisions. Many people don't bother to fight against that motivator - they just go with the flow and follow their urges and instincts. For unimportant decisions, most of us do. But you can still choose (free will) to act in opposition of your instincts. You can overcome your past, your traumas, your obsessions, and your weaknesses. You can overcome your impulsiveness and problematic emotional responses.

Would like to co-sign this. My wiring / experience / trauma is a very powerful input to the system. I am not forced to do what it says.

This is all still part of the underlying predictable trajectory I'm speaking of. Don't get me wrong - no one will ever take away what each of us all experience as 'personal will'. That's how it feels.

Let's just dumb this example down to a husband who always ordered vanilla ice-cream when he and his wife went out for ice-cream. He knew it was kinda lame and he does think of getting some of the other flavors from time to time, but he just really liked vanilla. One night, his wife points out this predictability in a way that really gets under his skin. He doesn't want to be "so boring" in the way she decribed it, so he orders something else that night and every other night going forward ,getting vanilla occasionally to throw her off this "new him" too.

In life, these things wont be as concrete as that example... but your wiring, experience, trauma, and then advice from others, witnessing other peoples mistakes, a full stomach, being cut off on the way home by a car with no license plate... all of this contributes to the moment you make some 'final choice' - and of course you will not be only forced to follow those obvious inputs like 'past trauma' - because you also have hundreds of more subtle inputs like, 'a child who needs you' and perhaps 'that new recipe your friend mentioned'.... what ever it may be. It all makes up what you are at that exact moment.


I guess, to boil it down - I'm saying that if you act "in opposition to your instincts" - that doesn't mean that you still aren't acting as a result of other inputs.

Why is it that, in order to overcome one's impulsive and problematic emotional responses, one needs free-will? Why can't one overcome emotional responses by hearing about others that have done it and how they did it. Or simply by finally acquiring enough input to realize that the results of "problematic emotional responses" are to be avoided and you 'red flag' them and it feels like "overcoming your impulses" ?

You may bump your head a lot when you first get on board a submarine. You will overcome your instincts to walk through a doorway without ducking eventually, but it's not like you had no free-will before you were bumping your head and by lowering your head - you are finaly expressing free will. What used to work for you has started to fail you, and you see what others are doing to avoid it - you adjust. Obviously, this is a very crude example, but I think it's illustrative.

[Jaymann]

I guess, to boil it down - I'm saying that if you act "in opposition to your instincts" - that doesn't mean that you still aren't acting as a result of other inputs.

This is what I was thinking while reading the responses. Making a "conscious decision" to do something does not change the dynamic.

[Unagi]

Likewise, (leaving the analogy behind) even if we never actually understand the entire science (I strongly believe that eventually we will) behind "thought and choice", etc - that by the nature of everything else in nature - it will have it's own underlying trajectories that could be understood, etc.

It's funny that you use the word "believe" there. What is it about a material universe whose existence is (so far) inexplicable that makes you believe that we will eventually understand everything?

And by "we" I mean our thick bundles of cranial neurons that evolved to pursue survival at a Newtonian/Darwinian level and now seem to be more or less stymied by anything below the bare surface of perceived (by those very same bundles of neurons) reality.

I'm not sure I'm following you.
Did I say we will eventually understand "everything"?

First, the heart of the sentence was "even if we never actually understand the entire science behind "thought and choice". So the sentence is written with that assumption - not the aside I placed in parenthesis. Isn't that how that whole paranthetical thing works? The point of that sentence was: We don't know of anything in the entire physical world that has "free will" vs the laws of physics, so why should we expect our brains to be different.

But to my parenthetical, I'm not sure what you are saying there either... Before I go on, you do realize I was saying that I felt we will eventually understand our "thick bundles of cranial neurons" and not that we will understand everything about the entire material universe - right?

[Holman]

Likewise, (leaving the analogy behind) even if we never actually understand the entire science (I strongly believe that eventually we will) behind "thought and choice", etc - that by the nature of everything else in nature - it will have it's own underlying trajectories that could be understood, etc.

It's funny that you use the word "believe" there. What is it about a material universe whose existence is (so far) inexplicable that makes you believe that we will eventually understand everything?

And by "we" I mean our thick bundles of cranial neurons that evolved to pursue survival at a Newtonian/Darwinian level and now seem to be more or less stymied by anything below the bare surface of perceived (by those very same bundles of neurons) reality.

I'm not sure I'm following you.
Did I say we will eventually understand "everything"?

First, the heart of the sentence was "even if we never actually understand the entire science behind "thought and choice". So the sentence is written with that assumption - not the aside I placed in parenthesis. Isn't that how that whole paranthetical thing works? The point of that sentence was: We don't know of anything in the entire physical world that has "free will" vs the laws of physics, so why should we expect our brains to be different.

But to my parenthetical, I'm not sure what you are saying there either... Before I go on, you do realize I was saying that I felt we will eventually understand our "thick bundles of cranial neurons" and not that we will understand everything about the entire material universe - right?

Grammar aside, my basic point is that our current understanding of the laws of nature is insufficient to explain the human experience of consciousness. It may be (in a materialist understanding of reality to which I am sympathetic) that we are actually incapable of understanding those laws of nature.

After all, a universe not designed for us has no reason to accommodate or satisfy us.

[Unagi]

my basic point is that our current understanding of the laws of nature is insufficient to explain the human experience of consciousness. It may be (in a materialist understanding of reality to which I am sympathetic) that we are actually incapable of understanding those laws of nature.

After all, a universe not designed for us has no reason to accommodate or satisfy us.

Ok
An interesting video on
"Can Brain Alone Explain Consciousness?"


My opinion is like that of John Rawls here (possibly yours as well?).

In regard to how a materialistic view intersects with one's belief in free will:

Materialism means that all causes are linked backwards in a chain of causes to one first cause at the start of universe (to just put it cleanly).

Free-will would be its own 'first cause', and it would not be compatible with materialism.

[waitingtoconnect]

I used to believe in free will and then TFG was elected president.

[RunningMn9]

I feel like we are confusing "reasons" with a lack of free will. Like if I am hungry and I choose to eat a can of soup, and I am limited to eating the cans of soup I have in my house, and I happen to eat the one that is in the front of the cabinet because it was closest, does that mean I didn't have free will? Because my decision was influenced by the current state of my environment?

[Blackhawk]

I guess, to boil it down - I'm saying that if you act "in opposition to your instincts" - that doesn't mean that you still aren't acting as a result of other inputs.

This is what I was thinking while reading the responses. Making a "conscious decision" to do something does not change the dynamic.

Everything we do is affected by our established motivating factors, absolutely. The question is how much control those factors have. When we have contradictory motivators, which one wins? I'm hungry (instinct), and I really want chocolate cake (instinct), but I know that it's bad for me and should have an apple instead (reason), plus I'm on a diet and shouldn't eat anything else tonight to begin with (reason.)

All of those are factors that are competing for our action. It's unlikely that we're going to go gnaw on gravel (there is no motivator there), but of the others? What determines which choice we make? The determinist answer seems to be that it is purely a ranking system that decides which of those factors/combinations of factors is the strongest that time. Free will says otherwise - that we can look at the options and choose, and that we can make different choices different times.

At the end of the day, determinism (no free will) and free will aren't science. They're philosophy. And they're not binary - there are also incompatibilism and compatibilism. I can talk about which philosophy I agree with - and I can acknowledge that others feel differently. But we don't have the science to say for certain that person one is right, and person two is wrong.

[Kraken]

It's unlikely that we're going to go gnaw on gravel (there is no motivator there), but of the others? What determines which choice we make?

Probably our gut bacteria.

[Blackhawk]

Shh... don't let them know that you know. That's how you end up gnawing gravel.

[Kraken]

I was being flippant, but our gut microbiome has a direct line to our brains. Bacteria get a vote on whether we feel like Mexican or Chinese food tonight.

The gut closely connects with the central nervous system through dynamic bidirectional communication along the gut-brain axis. The connection between gut environment and brain may affect host mood and behaviors.

[Jaymann]

Gut check!

[Victoria Raverna]

Free will is real or not, we'll still have to treat it like it is real, right?

So what is the point of thinking of if it is real or not?

[The Meal]

Free will is real or not, we'll still have to treat it like it is real, right?

So what is the point of thinking of if it is real or not?

Also, what would a proof one way or the other look like?

[Isgrimnur]

Approve my grant application and we'll find out.

[Holman]

I was being flippant, but our gut microbiome has a direct line to our brains. Bacteria get a vote on whether we feel like Mexican or Chinese food tonight.

The gut closely connects with the central nervous system through dynamic bidirectional communication along the gut-brain axis. The connection between gut environment and brain may affect host mood and behaviors.

Over the years I've heard the (oversimplified, obvs) claim that "actually your gut biome controls you."

But, in layman's terms, what is it about the gut microbiome that can be said to affect (what we think of as) free will in a way more consequential than, e.g. a dry throat encouraging you to seek liquids or sore legs encouraging you to sit down and rest?

Maybe it affects my immediate preference for Mexican or Chinese, but it doesn't force resistance when (for example) I know my dining partners strongly prefer the opposite of my gut-vote, right? So how powerful is it?

[Jaymann]

I find it interesting how much language accepts the role of gut (bacteria) as given:

You don't have the guts to shoot me.
A gutty performance.
A gut feeling.

[Holman]

I find it interesting how much language accepts the role of gut (bacteria) as given:

You don't have the guts to shoot me.
A gutty performance.
A gut feeling.

I hate your guts.

(j/k!)

[Alefroth]

I'm honestly interested in where I went wrong in my message - where is it you think I was making an argument FOR free will? please show me - as I don't want to make that mistake again.

It was mostly this one. I had no idea how to parse this. Your subsequent responses have been pretty clear.

Um, ok.

The brain* behind these fingers that are typing right now wanted to message the brain* behind the eyes that are reading this that both brains have no free will.