Here Is Irony – Arguing that We Have No Free Will

My dad used to say that the only exercise a person needed was from pushing yourself away from the table. Now I am 100 pounds overweight. Thank goodness I have no free will or I might feel guilty for not following my father’s dictum.

‘Free will’ is simply a sloppy way of thinking about how the human decision process occurs.

Because it forces us to consider both what ‘free’ means, and also ‘will’, neither of which have clear, objective physical correlates.

From a psychological perspective, I believe that the decision process is a constant feedback loop between desire and identity. In this case, by “desire”, I mean the “desire to become”, or the impulse to grow (this could be described in many different ways - but I am broadly inclusive enough to consider the drive that causes a seed to grow, and the desire to go to school to be fundamentally the same).

Let me use a very simple example to explain:

A student (this is the person’s current identity - ‘student’) desires to become a doctor, and thus attends school.

This person’s current identity is a product of their desire - since this desire to become (a doctor in this case) led the person to what she is right now - a student.

In the feedback loop, the current identity also leads to future desires. For example, while this student attends college, she learns that she doesn’t really want to become a doctor - after 2 years of medical school - and instead changes her major to philosophy of mind, where she studies questions of free will.

In this example, her desire to become a doctor leads her to become a student which then leads her to alter her desire to become a doctor.

All human decision processes, while more complex than this simple example, can be broken down this way.

Choice is a feedback loop between identity and desire.

We still live in a causal universe, for if we didn’t, we’d be swimming in a sea of non-perceivable chaos.

However, we don’t tend to make the “choices” we think we do, when we do - that is, those choices are generally made long before we actually experience them.

As the Oracle in the second Matrix movie says:

“You’re not here to make a choice, you’re here to understand the choice you’ve already made.”

Which is to say, because decisions are a product of this feedback between desire to become, and identity, our immediate actions are a result of the choice (to become) we made prior to actually experiencing the results of that choice (I chose to become a student - so now I experience the consequences - the homework - of that choice).

Choice is always (100% of the time) about identity/desire.

Having cleared that up, we can move on to whether fault finding, or blame assignation, has any value.
‘
I say that it does not.

Fault finding, and blame assignation, is itself a form of abdication of responsibility, and stems from primal fear.

Let those who would choose to take responsibility (for anything) do so, and let those who do not want it not take it.

But to attempt to coerce or force another to take responsibility - which is what fault finding and blame assignation do - is irrational in the end.

One could make a utilitarian argument for it I suppose - that blame assignation is necessary for civilization, or something along those lines.

But I don’t believe it. At best, its’ a short term strategy for primitive societies.

@ iPan..

“From a psychological perspective, I believe that the decision process is a constant feedback loop between desire and identity.”

By associating the above, are you not simply just linking Free will with Self-reflexivity? and thus the illusion of Free will is substantiated and realised as further expression of illusion of Self and personhood?

For example, an insect or a mouse may have no or little notion and sense of Self and therefore motivations, (will to action), is driven solely by instinct and circumstance?

This is not to say that you have not highlighted a key “existential” phenomenon - that Free will is only “realised” in higher biological intellect and complexity? And that this “existential need” to follow desire and with need to perpetually seek to “define” ourselves to ourselves through actions/choices as well as through the eyes of others is not key to the expression of Free will?

In any case, if we accept the “freedom of will to choose” is subject to the “ability to contemplate choices”, (despite subjugation by the subconscious), then this is still valid reason enough to associate personal responsibility and be held accountable within society, (although technically society is merely a “collective of individuals”)?

My memory regarding the Matrix is a little shaky, yet was not the Oracle introduced purposefully by the “Grand Architect” as random chaos and “fuzzy logic” to get humans to accept their enslavement through struggle, suffering, and I guess by extension, the need for humans to define themselves through such suffering and struggle?

Part of my point is that the framing of human decision processes using the terminology “free will” is itself suspect. When we want to understand why humans do what they do, or how they do it, “free will” is a term with very little information in it - that is, it doesn’t tell us much at all about the very thing it attempts to define. It is “information sparse”.

This is because we need to define both “free” and “will” separately first. Define those components.

If we don’t, then the term “free will” itself does not make any sense.

So, how are we to define “free”, and then after that “will”?

Asking myself these questions, led me down the path to realizing that the process we humans actually use in making any decision that leads to action, is driven by two factors: identity (I am) and desire (I become). I’m drawing a line here in the way I use the word “desire” to specifically mean the “desire to become something” - not “wants” or “needs” (although these things are certainly components and/or factors - I merely mean to distinguish between “I want a cheeseburger now” or “I want a joint” and “I wish to become a doctor”, or “I wish to become a NASCAR driver”).

You said something that caught my eye and reminded me of something else, you said:

“This is not to say that you have not highlighted a key “existential” phenomenon - that Free will is only “realised” in higher biological intellect and complexity?”

This is essentially correct, though I currently believe it is more like a gradient, and I still wouldn’t choose to use those two words “free will”.

However, due to their extensive training - and in particular the meditation - I believe that monks of all sorts, and especially the Taoists and Buddhists - achieve this even more so than the rest of humanity.

That is, your point about “higher biological intellect and complexity” also extends to the discipline of these monks.

They have more “free will” (there’s that damn phrase again!) than the rest of us.

As far as blame assignation, fault finding, and liability goes - my point is simply that the majority of society is using a primitive system.

One should not assign responsibility, blame, or liability to others - it is choice for the individual to accept or not. To infer these things to other people without their express consent and voluntary acceptance of it is to me a violation of ethics - no matter what the circumstances are.

This description as “Free” will is rather outmoded perhaps, and the phrase does add unnecessary and questionable baggage in legal and philosophical arguments, (and even in our own minds?)

Perhaps we can settle to replace the phrase with the term “autonomy”, which seems to be less dubious and may be more sound/concrete for usage in legal cases?

“Autonomy” expressed as the right and power of Self-governing, and by extension acceptance of personal responsibility?

we can readily apply the term to future robotics also and even to A.G.I?

What happens when we apply process philosophy to human agency?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

The philosophy of process is a venture in metaphysics, the general theory of reality. Its concern is with what exists in the world and with the terms of reference in which this reality is to be understood and explained. The task of metaphysics is, after all, to provide a cogent and plausible account of the nature of reality at the broadest, most synoptic and comprehensive level. And it is to this mission of enabling us to characterize, describe, clarify and explain the most general features of the real that process philosophy addresses itself in its own characteristic way. The guiding idea of its approach is that natural existence consists in and is best understood in terms of processes rather than things — of modes of change rather than fixed stabilities. For processists, change of every sort — physical, organic, psychological — is the pervasive and predominant feature of the real.

Process philosophy diametrically opposes the view — as old as Parmenides and Zeno and the Atomists of Pre-Socratic Greece — that denies processes or downgrades them in the order of being or of understanding by subordinating them to substantial things. By contrast, process philosophy pivots on the thesis that the processual nature of existence is a fundamental fact with which any adequate metaphysic must come to terms.

Luke 23:24

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know now what they do.” And the soldiers gambled for his clothes by throwing dice.

^typo

Should say, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”

“One could make a utilitarian argument for [fault finding and blame assignation] I suppose - that blame assignation is necessary for civilization, or something along those lines.

But I don’t believe it. At best, its’ a short term strategy for primitive societies.”

I agree that arguing about free will is a bit pointless. It’s a matter of perspective, and obviously taking responsibility for what we want, and encouraging others to do so, is likely to lead to the best futures, the law of unintended consequences notwithstanding.

Does that mean that we should eschew any form of coercion or fault-finding? Not always. I think there IS a utilitarian argument for these things, and it is not necessarily because our society is “primitive”. One can imagine primitive societies where such fault finding is unnecessary, and much more complex and sophisticated societies (such as the one we currently inhabit) where it is. But they are necessary evils, at best, and the kind of societies we should be aiming to build are indeed ones where responsibility-taking is something that just happens, not something that needs coercion or shaming.

“Does that mean that we should eschew any form of coercion or fault-finding?”

Yes.

In your own words:

“It’s a matter of perspective, and obviously taking responsibility for what we want, and encouraging others to do so, is likely to lead to the best futures,”

You do want the best future, right? So do I.

“But they are necessary evils, at best,”

I’m the kind of person that tends to believe that “necessary evils” aren’t necessary at all. That they always lead to slippery slopes that slide into total ruin.

Never cave into the “necessary evil” mode of thinking - that’s what gets us into these problems in the first place.

The idea that the “necessary evil” mode of thinking is what gets us into problems and should therefore be rejected is a common one, and would be more convincing if there wasn’t just as much evidence that failure to take tough decisions, including decisions that cause others to suffer, hasn’t also led to problems.

So this isn’t about caving in. This is about trying to figure out what is mostly like to bring about the kind of futures we actual want, such as those currently being discussed in response to Dick Pelletier’s latest. And from this perspective, the idea that “necessary evils” ALWAYS lead to slippery slopes that slide into total ruin strikes me as rather unhelpful, not least (but also not only) because it is false.

@Peter

I’m a fairly adamant follower of Kant’s Categorical Imperative (perhaps with some minor divergences, or clarifications - we have come a long way since then - but for the most part anyway…..)

This would put our arguments at odds…....

iPan, you can be an adamant follower of Mickey Mouse if you want, but actions still have consequences, and failure to take hard decisions also has consequences - generally negative ones. This is why I prefer to discourage naïve, simplistic thinking about these issues, irrespective of who your favourite philosopher might be.

Kant is not a naive, simplistic thinker, and neither am I.

Consequences.

Soon, our ability to model (simulate) the consequences of any action will be incredible - computing will allow us to simulate everything we do and it’s causal chain in near real time, just before we do those things.

However, my point is that in my experience, the pragmatism of “necessary evil” inherently comes with diminishing returns when it’s effects are seen over a longer period of time.

In other words, it’s a short term strategy, for immediate gain. Over longer periods of time, the Categorical Imperative is better.

To me, this is clearly evidenced in Game Theory experiments, like the Prisoners Dilemma.

Short term payoffs, which is what all “necessary evil” type policies fall under - are less positive in the long run.

Therefore, sticking to our principles, and universal values, even when they appear to cost us in the short term - is always a better idea than selling out, even briefly.

@Peter

The important point is not whether moral relativism leads to corruption, which is fairly obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a second - the Golden Rule is still more or less (we can allow for some slight adaptation of it based on research) true, no matter how you slice it or dice it.

No, the interesting question is, “Which values?”

We need to identify Universal Values.

I have discovered one:

Autonomy.

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

Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- “self” + νόμος nomos, “law”, hence when combined understood to mean “one who gives oneself their own law”) is a concept found in moral, political and bioethical philosophy. Within these contexts, it is the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision. In moral and political philosophy, autonomy is often used as the basis for determining moral responsibility for one’s actions. One of the best known philosophical theories of autonomy was developed by Kant. In medicine, respect for the autonomy of patients is an important goal of deontology, though it can conflict with a competing ethical principle, namely beneficence. Autonomy is also used to refer to the self-government of the people.

@iPan

This is an important issue and therefore worth exploring with curiosity and open-mindedness. My previous comment was not the most respectful one I’ve ever written, I’ll admit, but was in part motivated by my frustration at the implicit “you don’t know what you’re talking about” on the basis of a simple reference to Kant. I prefer discussing actual arguments (and I note that the categorical imperative appears nowhere, at least not explicitly, in the arguments you’ve come up with since).

So to the arguments then.

David Deutsch has come to exactly the opposite conclusion about the evolution of predictability, and I’m inclined to find his version more convincing. The same AIs that you claim will allow us to predict the consequences of our actions will also be able to intervene in ways that make them more unpredictable than ever. Popper (the poverty of historicism) and Soros (with his, much underrated in my view, theory of reflexivity) have explained this type of point well. Add chaos theory (sensitive dependence on initial conditions) and the MWI, and we seem to be pretty much stuck with unpredictability.

Thankfully, unpredictability is not total. Of course you are right about consequentialist laws of diminishing returns, and there is something to be said for sticking to your principles, for sure. But my experience tells me that the best way to achieve good outcomes is to define them in advance, try to build consensus runs them, and in the mean time take whatever actions seem most likely to achieve it.

By the way we’ve discussed autonomy before; the counterpart is connection. I don’t mind trying to identify “universal values”, just as long as we bear in mind that choosing them is a matter of preference and consensus-building, not an issue of right and wrong. Consequences, on the other hand, are a matter of fact, not of choice: once you have decided the action you will take, the universe then pretty much decides on the consequence. So if you want to achieve something specific (even of it is, for example, to propagate the idea of autonomy as a universal value), then you need to respect the universe’s laws of cause and effect.