“Free will exists in the ties that bind us into a society“ - the author is obviously right. But why all the doubting of free will in the first place? When you stuff the entire chocolate cake in your mouth in the first place, 1) nobody made you do it, 2) it wasn’t determined at the time of the Big Bang: you (a composite of interlocking decision making processes, some conscious, some unconscious, BUT ALL FREE) wanted it enough to do it.
I suppose the issue is that, in a naturalistic view, you could (theoretically) break everything down to molecules that behave predictably. If you than say that giant collections of such molecules (people) can ‘fool’ those predictions, there has to be ‘something’ that allows them to do it. (But as you note, (un)consciousness is largely a mystery, so that may be a possible route.)
Chemist here: molecules do not behave predictably (as it pertains to this discussion). According to the current state of science we are not living in a deterministic universe. Uncertainty and unpredictability are fundamental parts of reality.
People who are trying to disbelieve free will are looking for a way out of the punishing regime the mind puts us through. I sympathise, but recommend beer
Thanks, Johnnie. As a biologist, I’m one level above molecules most of the time ;). When you say they don’t behave predictably, do you mean in terms of what we can measure/observe, or intrinsically?
Intrinsically, I think. When we say a certain amount of liquid has a certain temperature, we are talking about a property of the total system, an average “speed” across an extremely high number of molecules. Any individual molecule may have a different volume.
If the molecules are large they vibrate and spin in a myriad ways. Predictable? Certainly not.
As I have said elsewhere: I have never seen a compelling argument for doubting free will. But many people equate free will with conscious decisions and that is a serious mistake
I sort of like when the ideas from Kahneman/Tversky’s systems thinking gets plugged into the conversation about free will. Like, our minds have defaults that can be overridden under certain circumstances, and I wonder how parallel that is to the argument here—like, could determinism be our default, and free will an override?
And another facet I feel gets left out of the free will conversation is the interactivity between humans and the more-than-human world—or maybe the acknowledgement of humans in context. When using the concept of “form of life” here, in that all beings can be classified by a form of life with certain capacities and limitations, it seems to me that determinism is often used as merely a different way of describing that a human being will always act like a human being, just as my dog will always act like a dog. Is that the same thing as determinism? (Honest question)
I guess in a world in which there are infinite variations in the interactions happening between the different forms (forms of life AND non life) and forces, a world in which there is mostly uncertainty and change, the idea of true determinism doesn’t seem like it would fully account for how a being could move within that web.
I dunno, these thoughts are half baked, so imagine I’m articulating them at 2a at a party instead of in the comments section of a well-thought-out article.
What a wonderful comment. (If those are the parties you frequent, I'd like an invite...)
For me, this is very much about what is theoretical vs practical. Even if it is theoretically possible to predict absolutely everything, practically, that seems unfeasible, whether it's because of time, resources, cognitive bandwidth, whatever. So, practically (great thought on Kahneman!) it is probably useful to have a more practical system that assumes free will of others, even if it might not be theoretically/objectively 'real'.
Ohh I love the meta point about the usefulness of believing in the free will of others, independent of whether it is capital T True. I’ve never thought of that! I tend to be a bit of a functionalist about so many other beliefs, so this idea suits me fine. Stealing.
Great piece. I’m very drawn to the idea that the notion of free human will greases the wheels of society and that dismantling it is akin to dismantling a currency. Because it undeniably does keep things humming between us all. But a shared misguided belief is even more dangerous than an individual misguided belief, so I see a lot of value in uncovering the extent of our so-called will.
I agree. Though I think most people prefer the illusion (which says nothing about whether this is good or bad). Actually, now that I think about it, I'd be very curious to see whether the (extent of) belief in free will correlates with more individualistic cultures.
Free will doesn't exist. Your neurons have to fire before "you" can do anything. Your brain knows what you're going to do before you do. The "you" you "know" is merely software while your brain is the hardware. Brain tumors, accidents, trauma etc can and do alter people's personalities.
Objectively, I agree ;). Libet's experiments and Phineas Gage for the win.
Free will, I'd say, 'exists' as a story (excuse? justification?) for our behaviors. A post-hoc rationalization, perhaps. Barring brain tumors etc, we still hold people accountable for their actions, and that's one of the unspoken assumptions that mediate our interactions.
Perhaps. And we should with the understanding that many variables lie behind those behaviors. Eg, the punishment should fit the crime. I really liked Sam Harris's book on the subject:
I’d like to think I have free will but I know I’d choose the blue pill every time.
The red one is too much reality.
I think humanity’s “escapes” are all blue pill driven. Like religion and all the rest. It’s a way to control the masses and like you said to “promote order.”
“Free will exists in the ties that bind us into a society“ - the author is obviously right. But why all the doubting of free will in the first place? When you stuff the entire chocolate cake in your mouth in the first place, 1) nobody made you do it, 2) it wasn’t determined at the time of the Big Bang: you (a composite of interlocking decision making processes, some conscious, some unconscious, BUT ALL FREE) wanted it enough to do it.
Thanks, Johnnie.
I suppose the issue is that, in a naturalistic view, you could (theoretically) break everything down to molecules that behave predictably. If you than say that giant collections of such molecules (people) can ‘fool’ those predictions, there has to be ‘something’ that allows them to do it. (But as you note, (un)consciousness is largely a mystery, so that may be a possible route.)
Chemist here: molecules do not behave predictably (as it pertains to this discussion). According to the current state of science we are not living in a deterministic universe. Uncertainty and unpredictability are fundamental parts of reality.
People who are trying to disbelieve free will are looking for a way out of the punishing regime the mind puts us through. I sympathise, but recommend beer
Thanks, Johnnie. As a biologist, I’m one level above molecules most of the time ;). When you say they don’t behave predictably, do you mean in terms of what we can measure/observe, or intrinsically?
Intrinsically, I think. When we say a certain amount of liquid has a certain temperature, we are talking about a property of the total system, an average “speed” across an extremely high number of molecules. Any individual molecule may have a different volume.
If the molecules are large they vibrate and spin in a myriad ways. Predictable? Certainly not.
As I have said elsewhere: I have never seen a compelling argument for doubting free will. But many people equate free will with conscious decisions and that is a serious mistake
Thanks, Johnnie! I’ll have to chew on this a little.
I meant ‘any individual molecule may have a different speed (not volume)
I sort of like when the ideas from Kahneman/Tversky’s systems thinking gets plugged into the conversation about free will. Like, our minds have defaults that can be overridden under certain circumstances, and I wonder how parallel that is to the argument here—like, could determinism be our default, and free will an override?
And another facet I feel gets left out of the free will conversation is the interactivity between humans and the more-than-human world—or maybe the acknowledgement of humans in context. When using the concept of “form of life” here, in that all beings can be classified by a form of life with certain capacities and limitations, it seems to me that determinism is often used as merely a different way of describing that a human being will always act like a human being, just as my dog will always act like a dog. Is that the same thing as determinism? (Honest question)
I guess in a world in which there are infinite variations in the interactions happening between the different forms (forms of life AND non life) and forces, a world in which there is mostly uncertainty and change, the idea of true determinism doesn’t seem like it would fully account for how a being could move within that web.
I dunno, these thoughts are half baked, so imagine I’m articulating them at 2a at a party instead of in the comments section of a well-thought-out article.
What a wonderful comment. (If those are the parties you frequent, I'd like an invite...)
For me, this is very much about what is theoretical vs practical. Even if it is theoretically possible to predict absolutely everything, practically, that seems unfeasible, whether it's because of time, resources, cognitive bandwidth, whatever. So, practically (great thought on Kahneman!) it is probably useful to have a more practical system that assumes free will of others, even if it might not be theoretically/objectively 'real'.
Ohh I love the meta point about the usefulness of believing in the free will of others, independent of whether it is capital T True. I’ve never thought of that! I tend to be a bit of a functionalist about so many other beliefs, so this idea suits me fine. Stealing.
Omg, you got there in the footnotes! I save those for a second pass because they’re like a little treat.
Great piece. I’m very drawn to the idea that the notion of free human will greases the wheels of society and that dismantling it is akin to dismantling a currency. Because it undeniably does keep things humming between us all. But a shared misguided belief is even more dangerous than an individual misguided belief, so I see a lot of value in uncovering the extent of our so-called will.
And thank you for the shoutout!!
Thanks, Rose.
I agree. Though I think most people prefer the illusion (which says nothing about whether this is good or bad). Actually, now that I think about it, I'd be very curious to see whether the (extent of) belief in free will correlates with more individualistic cultures.
Free will doesn't exist. Your neurons have to fire before "you" can do anything. Your brain knows what you're going to do before you do. The "you" you "know" is merely software while your brain is the hardware. Brain tumors, accidents, trauma etc can and do alter people's personalities.
Your brain‘s neurons have free will. Good enough for me (my neurons & the rest of me)
Yeah, no.
Objectively, I agree ;). Libet's experiments and Phineas Gage for the win.
Free will, I'd say, 'exists' as a story (excuse? justification?) for our behaviors. A post-hoc rationalization, perhaps. Barring brain tumors etc, we still hold people accountable for their actions, and that's one of the unspoken assumptions that mediate our interactions.
Perhaps. And we should with the understanding that many variables lie behind those behaviors. Eg, the punishment should fit the crime. I really liked Sam Harris's book on the subject:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Will_(book)
Absolutely.
(It’s been a while since I read Free Will, so I might have to pick it up again.)
Same😊
I’d like to think I have free will but I know I’d choose the blue pill every time.
The red one is too much reality.
I think humanity’s “escapes” are all blue pill driven. Like religion and all the rest. It’s a way to control the masses and like you said to “promote order.”
I’m with you on that. I doubt that human minds can handle raw, unfiltered reality. There’s a reason those blue pills are so popular.
I deal with raw unfiltered reality every day 🤷♀️ I'm a realist. It wasn't by choice, it's just how my brain works.
Ah, but how would you know? Your brain filters everything that comes in before it bubbles into conscious awareness.... :)
Science.
Touché!
😁🤗🤣