What do we do while deciding if free will exists?

[robvalue]

If there is no free will, no one is making any choices, not even the people "judging" others for making those choices. So there is no moral dilemma. It would only be a problem if some people had free will and were judging others who didn't have it.

But since there's a good chance this is not true, you can only lose by assuming it is true. If it turns out there is no free will, then all the clever tactics to try and avoid it were just what you would have done anyway. But if it isn't true, you've handed over the keys to your brain.

Ironically, this is like a Pascal's wager that actually works.

[FreeTony]

I've written before as to why it is impossible to test whether free will exists, and that there isn't even a good definition of it. Just some vague feeling that our brain gives us about the ability to make decisions.

Even if you think free will exists, you must still realise that decisions made are based on numerous factors, such as:

Upbringing
Genetics
Situation
Past experience
Empathy


All this makes the "free will" part realtively minor, if indeed it exists at all.

[robvalue]

I agree. I think "free will" is a useless phrase, it is about as slippery as they come.

[AFTT47]

I would especially like to see determinism applied to our so-called justice system. It's largely based on punishment/revenge and is IMO, unenlightened and outdated. It should be based on restitution to the victim, rehabilitation and when necessary, removing dangerous people from society until they are deemed safe. There needs to be deterrence too but that shouldn't take the form of tossing a non-violent person in a prison cell and deliberately making them miserable. Where's the benefit in that?

[Quatermass]

It's ironic because trying to arrive at a decision as to whether free-will exists or not is not an act of free-will (free will meaning action without cause).

[Whateverist]

I've been putting some thought, and actually doing some reading on the idea of free will.  It's existence is one thing.  I'm leaning towards it not being a thing, and probably consciousness being an illusion as well.  But it's mostly guesswork for now, which is all that's relevant.

The problem is the implications of that uncertainty. 

How one would behave in a world where people are responsible for their actions, and one where they aren't are totally different.  

In a world where they are, we're free to judge and despise them.  Feel superiority, etc.. And it's all fine, because we chose to be who we are, and they chose to be who they are.  

In it's absence, however, that's the equivalent of yelling at the weather.  We don't believe a tornado is a jerk.  Instead we'd focus on getting a desirable outcome.  Things would be dealt with in a very logical way, as we attempted to dissuade/modify behaviors to get them to fall in line with whatever it is we want.

Or perhaps judging/despising/feeling superiority is the answer that evolution came up with that is more effective at getting the desired results than becoming aware of free will being an illusion, and acting accordingly based on that understanding?

Key point:  
When you have a concept that defines how you should live, and you don't know the true nature of that concept, how do you go forward?  Does it matter to people that their belief/non-belief in free will has a decent chance of being a fallacy upon which so much of their live's decisions are built? 

The part I've bolded is more a description of your local weather than it is an account of what 'you' have been doing in a world without freewill.

To answer the OP I'd say while the illusion of deciding about free will plays out, you'll just go on doing what you did before and what you'll do afterword.  You'll go on making choices within the parameters set by your upbringing, environment and personal quirks, just the way you always have.  "Free" will go on meaning unconstrained by external forces.  And your "will" will most likely go on being as complex and overlapping as it will always was, in which what your best judgment would choose does not always win.  What the heart wants isn't always what you think you should want.

[henryp]

I think the notion of Free Will is slippery, because it probably doesn't exist.  Reading up on some neuroscience stuff, what they talk about as free will has a crazy amounts of similarities to the idea of God.  In that it's an explanation that can't exist based on the known laws of physics that allows us to arrive at a conclusion we want, but doesn't really logically follow. 

A weird phenomenon with the human mind seems to be our ability to semantic our way into believing whatever it is we want to believe, and much less so on the if A then B type logic/honest introspection.     

If, hypothetically, we are Artificial Intelligence brought about by evolution, perhaps there is some benefit to our believing we aren't just mindless robots, and are in fact conscious individuals with free will.  Or the chosen people of a God.  This would probably venture off into a psychological/sociological tangent about the benefits of thinking highly of oneself.

For me, it is odd how quickly it is dismissed with "who cares" though.  People not only asserting that they would behave the same, but that I would as well.  I wouldn't.  The determinism would dictate the change, but it would in fact be a change from my current state.  It seems to me that's what one would expect when you change the value of variables in an equation.  You get a different answer.

[robvalue]

Well, at the moment science seems to point towards determinism combined with quantum randomness. If it turns out that randomness isn't random at all, I guess we're pretty much done. But calling the overall result of a bunch of random variables a "choice" seems pretty dumb anyway.

I have wondered whether the study of deterministic behaviour could have bad consequences, in the situation where we think we've shown everything is deterministic but we make a mistake. Some people may not react well to that "conclusion". But then I doubt many people would believe it even if science thought they had proved it. Consciousness and the illusion of choice seem too compelling. I've long since abandoned the idea that I'm making any actual decisions, but I continue to try not to really believe that. Or something. It's complicated.

[Pizza]

It should be noted that randomness/indeterminism is not free will.

[Quatermass]

The subject of free will and human nature has been the focus of much of my academic career. I've travelled to many strange parts of the world and seen many strange things in order to try and find an answer.

So far as I know, there doesn't appear to be any evidence for free-will.

Free will, in this case, means action without cause. But everything seems to be caused by something. I reject the idea, however, that it's all determined since the beginning of time - that seems like metaphysical nonsense.

Human beings are responding organisms (like all others). We respond to stimuli. If you get stung by a plant, your brain memorises the configuration of that plant and when you see it again, you won't touch it. You'll even warn others not to touch it. But without the stimuli of being stung in the first place, you can't manifest the reaction of warning others not to touch it - you have no basis to do so. This is the very basic form upon which stimuli/reaction take place.

But there are a few things that will trip you up when studying it. The most common is that if a human being encounters the same stimuli twice, it may not manifest the same reaction twice.

If you slap someone in the face (stimuli) they may say 'Ow, what was that for?' (reaction). If you slap them in the face again (identical stimuli) they may slap you back (different reaction). This isn't a certainty, though. They may, for example, hit you back the first time if they had received certain stimuli in the past (i.e. being taught to fight back) or they may not slap you back a second time (i.e. being taught to turn the other cheek).

This also raises the issue of free choice. That doesn't exist either. The choices you make are all based on your frame of reference, this frame of reference is based on stimuli you will have received over the course of your life from myriad sources (parents, TV, religion, magazines, books, friends, school, radio, being burned, being stung, the list is infinite).

I once asked a tribal elder of Terena Tribe that if he could choose anything - anything - that he could possibly dream of, what would it be? He said that he would choose a better medicine man (laughter ensued).

I once also asked a man in Downtown L.A. the same question. He said he'd choose to have a million bucks.

What do these both have in common? They both chose things from within their known frame of reference. The Tribal Elder is completely unable to choose to own a BMW, or a million bucks, or a $40,000 executive position at Google because he has no concept of these things and, therefore, they are outside of his frame of reference. His choices, therefore, cannot be free choices, they are determined by his known frame of reference. The same is true of the man from downtown L.A. and the same is true for you.