Implications of not having free will

[The Grand Nudger]

Could just continue to call it incarceration (if we didn't want to do anything with our newfound knowledge of mans hard determinism - like exploit it in order to rehabilitate).

[Mudhammam]

Do you think it can be seen as suggestive, as theists would probably argue, that properties of mind, or our concepts such as "truth" and "morality," have a metaphysical basis that is more fundamental in the grand scheme of things, i.e. the structure of reality, the fabric of the cosmos, the cement of the universe? Or is that, as some say (I think rightly), a meaningless question?

I apologise for being slow, I'm going to have to try and clarify your question...
Do you mean - do I think that a deterministic universe suggests that products of the human mind are more fundamentally real than physical objects?

If that was the question, I wouldn't say that products of the mind like morality were more fundamental than the more obvious aspects of reality that you can pick up and hold in your hand; I would say they were equally as real because they are part of the same system.

This does of course then lead me to have to accept that a man who has conversations with his left shoe is experiencing no less real a form of reality than myself... hmmmm. I guess Stephen Hawking's goldfish bowl analogy could be relevant here:

"A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measure's sponsor explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would have a distorted view of reality. But how do we know we have the true, undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous lens? The goldfish's picture of reality is different from ours, but can we be sure it is less real?"

I won't go on until you reassure me that I'm answering the right question anyhow!

Sorry for not being clear. What I mean is, given the idea that the future of the Universe was predetermined, in the sense that the results of the world we experience were implicit in nature's laws, from the very beginning, could it ever be logical to infer, given "mind" and it's associative concepts such as "intelligence," "truth," "good," "evil," teleology, such that human beings are parts in a whole that was initiated to achieve some ends? I tend to think it vacuous to confuse the whole of predetermined events with purposes and intelligentsia borne out of them (such as us), and then to conclude that purpose and intelligence must have been present, even virtually, in the fundamental constituents of existence; or as Samuel Taylor Coleridge said: “Assume the existence of God,---and then the harmony and fitness of the physical creation may be shown to correspond with and support such an assumption;---but to set about proving the existence of God by such means is a mere circle, a delusion." Yet if I was inclined to be a deist I would probably consider this realization of predeterminism to at least make inference of something like a supreme unity of mind and matter a logical speculation. Just curious about your thoughts on this; if you find that such a fact eliminates "chance" from the oft-referred mantra "chance and necessity," and if beings were predetermined to contemplate something like a supreme mind or being, if that lends any credit or force to teleological arguments.

[Anomalocaris]

.

But before I go on about that, first a question: how do you define free will, I'm not sure I know what the word means

The ability to, at a single point in time, choose between more than one action.

How could you possibly determine whether you genuinely have this ability, or have only an ex post illusion of having had this ability? Without the ability to go rewind time, You can never test whether you really were capable of making a decision different from that which you imgined you freely chose from different options of your own will.

When you mention quantum flucturation, it seem to me you are also confusion unpredicatble will with free will. Just because it is impossible to predict a will, how does that make it free? You are still bound to make a decision, unpredictable as it might be, based on nothing you could influence. You still did not chose your decision. It was chosen, unpredictably by you or anyone else, for you.

[JuliaL]

How could you possibly determine whether you genuinely have this ability, or have only an ex post illusion of having had this ability? Without the ability to go rewind time, You can never test whether you really were capable of making a decision different from that which you imgined you freely chose from different options of your own will.

Exactly
I have confused or irritated people by claiming that this is the best of all possible worlds because at this exact moment, there are no other possible worlds. Of course it is then also the worst of all possible worlds, but my audiences have never pointed that out.

[Spacedog]

Very late reply sorry!

given the idea that the future of the Universe was predetermined, in the sense that the results of the world we experience were implicit in nature's laws, from the very beginning, could it ever be logical to infer, given "mind" and it's associative concepts such as "intelligence," "truth," "good," "evil," teleology, such that human beings are parts in a whole that was initiated to achieve some ends?

I certainly see no reason to logically conclude that there is some grand design, but I wouldn't be brash enough to discount the possibility. Still somehow it does not sit with me well. It's applying human traits to something I've always thought obvious to be amoral and unthinking.

Understanding evolution is important. A whole load of stuff happens for no good reason. Bad mutations are a hell of a lot more common than good ones. Entire lineages 100's of 1000's of years in the making get wiped out in the blink of an eye. Humans do not sit at the top of the evolutionary tree, it does not have a goal or purpose. If the universe is predetermined then I think evolution still shows that it doesn't have a plan. I'd be far more inclined to believe things are happening out of blind necessity.

I've posted a link to a lecture by Dan Dennett, where he uses a computer program which simulated evolution from a set of very simple laws. A very interesting way of looking at reality, but none the less I fail to understand how he concludes increased complexity can lead to true ability to choose. I'd be interested in getting a second opinion on his conclusions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrCZYDm5D8M


We're stepping on very subjective ground here, but I would like to mention my preferred alternative to a grand design.

The alternative to a grand design I would give is infinity. Infinity would explain determinism in the sense that time and any finality are an illusion we experience in our goldfish bowl. The strange thing about infinity is that we can measure a part of it, say 5 hours, 5 meters, 5kg, but overall that measurement has no real meaning. In this way we could exist between infinities. This could be seen as reflected by entropy.

The law of entropy states that, locally, complexity can increase while overall it is decreasing; I think this says a lot about the universe as a whole. My physics knowledge is amateur at best, but I can't help but notice the recurring theme of balance. I'm pretty sure I've heard it said in documentaries that the universe is believed overall to equal nothing.

Hopefully my thoughts make some sense to other people! My point is that an alternative to a design is an endless flowering of eventualities. The world I see fits much better with this interpretation, but again this is hugely speculative.

That something can only play out one way would not necessarily imply a design, I'd sooner believe it was a symptom of it's being.

Oh and as Ricky Gervais said; "If God made the world then he gave HIV to babies"!

I tend to think it vacuous to confuse the whole of predetermined events with purposes and intelligentsia borne out of them (such as us) and then to conclude that purpose and intelligence must have been present, even virtually, in the fundamental constituents of existence

I think the emergence of purposes and intelligentsia from evolution is as much a part of predetermined events as the emergence of molecules from atoms, but yes, to assume this means they existed prior to humans (or other thinking life) makes no real sense. In the same way as molecules from atoms are, they are born of a steady increase in local complexity.

[professor]

Spacedog, I had to read these pages because I am curious how anyone could think they are not free to do what they want.
Then I see the problem - the need of a mental enema to purge the evolutionary crap out of a brain.
Ever play chess? Or checkers? Or drive a car?
You have myriad choices. You are the chooser.
What else could you be?

[IATIA]

If what I've just said is true, then that means the future is predetermined.

Only if the universe is fully deterministic with no random qualities whatsoever.

Driving, should you go left or right? If you hit a pothole that leans the car to the left, you might choose left. If, of course, the universe is fully deterministic, you were destined to hit the pothole anyway. Any randomness would make your 'free will' somewhat unpredictable. This does not make 'free will' any more free however.

---

Spacedog, I had to read these pages because I am curious how anyone could think they are not free to do what they want.
Then I see the problem - the need of a mental enema to purge the evolutionary crap out of a brain.
Ever play chess? Or checkers? Or drive a car?
You have myriad choices. You are the chooser.
What else could you be?

No thought whatsoever was put into your resonse other than "goddidiit". Unless you have some other information that we are not aware of? "I think, therefore I am" is not any better than "goddidit". As you believe that you have a 'soul' that creates your awareness separate from the chemical and electrical actions of the brain, I cannot see how you could possibly examine 'free will' objectively. Objective examination is not in the vocabulary of a theist by nature of their beliefs.

---

The most serious issue by far is that criminals couldn't be convicted because their guilt was predetermined by variables they couldn't control

That is a common notion, but the same forces that control the criminal also control the courts. They could not do otherwise either.

---

The real question is whether or not the accepted knowledge of no free will would change anything.

If we don't have it the the answer is that it definitely won't

Learning changes things. Raccoons that have a desire to cross busy roads will not have the same breeding opportunities as raccoons that avoid the roads. Galapagos animals had no fear of man in the early days. Man was not recognized as food or a threat.

If we accepted no free will, then as a collective species, that would change our interaction with ourselves and the world. I have no fucking idea what the changes would be, but there would be something. I think there is a strong chance that a belief in a deity or not may be genetic.

---

Do you mean - do I think that a deterministic universe suggests that products of the human mind are more fundamentally real than physical objects?

The only 'reality' would be the mind. One's awareness of anything is what the brain has perceived then translated into thought, vision, sound, taste, hot, cold, etc.. We really can know nothing outside our individual minds. You can convince me that my toes 'hurt' when something heavy is dropped on them and I can 'see' my toes, but there is no way to prove that I even have a body.

[Pyrrho]

I realise there's a similar thread to this but I wanted to narrow things down to the implications of not having free will, which I honesty find disconcerting. However, if you feel you can provide evidence against my argument for it not existing do feel free, I think I'd prefer to believe I had it!

To start with I will briefly explain why I do not believe we have free will.

Imagine there's a worm crawling across the floor - you shine a torch at it; it's eyes detect the light stimuli which triggers a chain of electro-chemical reactions in it's neural cells, and it moves away from the torch. This automatic response was the only way the worm could have reacted, the result of the chemical structure of it's brain (or ganglia) and the environmental stimuli it was receiving.
Now take a mouse - while it's brain is immeasurably more complex than the worms, it's actions should work is the same way, but with many more possible outcomes.
Seeing as we are animals too, it is only logical to conclude that human free will is purely an illusion of the seemingly infinite number of possible linear responses we can produce. We do make a choice based on our genetics and past experiences, but the choice we make is the only one we could have made given our brains current chemical structure and the environmental stimuli we received.

Sorry if that's unnecessarily long-winded, I could just say free will is impossible in a deterministic universe.

So the important bit is the implications. If what I've just said is true, then that means the future is predetermined. I had to write this post. If I move my finger left then right, I feel like I chose to do that but actually it was the only thing I could have done. I can't choose to stop smoking or to smoke more because it was all decided 14 billion years ago when a quantum fluctuation caused a bubble of space time to start expanding. We're essentially just along for a ride and powerless to change the route we're taking, and I find that odd to say the least.

Is there any other conclusion that can be drawn given the premise?


I've thought about apparent quantum randomness, but:
1. I don't think quantum events really are random(?), they're a superposition of every possible event until they're observed and they become part of the dimension that you and I called home at least up to the point that I posted this thread;

and 2. Even if they were random, our reality is built on the probabilities arising from the quantum world and is therefore effectively deterministic for humans anyway.

My knowledge of quantum physics is very limited so correct me if I'm wrong here!

The biggest problem is that you have not said what, exactly, you mean by "free will." People often throw that phrase around without bothering to define it, and they assume that everyone knows what is meant. However, there are very different ideas about free will. See:

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

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

From past experience with other forums, I know many people will not click on anything or read anything of any length, so I will give a very short idea of what I am referring to.

You seem to have the idea that "free will" means that determinism is false. However, in a court of law, there is no metaphysical concern when they ask if someone did something of their own free will. They mean to be asking whether someone did something in accordance with their own wishes, as opposed to being coerced by someone or some thing. There is generally no concern about the issue of how they came to want whatever it is that they want. If I take a drink of water as I type this message, I do so of my own free will, in this sense. Or in other words, I drink because I want to, and I want to because I am thirsty and believe that drinking water will help quench my thirst. The causes, if any, of those states is irrelevant to the fact that I wanted to drink and no one forced me to do so. So, I have free will in that sense, regardless of whether my actions were ultimately caused by (determined by) previous states of affairs.

Whether my desires have antecedent causes or not is irrelevant to me acting in accordance with my desires.

Now, if you want something more complete, you should read the articles at the links above. If you want more detail, you can read these as well:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/