Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bob's avatar

You didn't answer the second question from your own perspective! Such a thoughtful article though.

You concluded that free will doesn't exist, and asked us to believe in it anyway, since wishing free will into existence was possible - so, the argument should really be that you can predict "short term" decisions, but not longer term ones. This is exactly how things work in physics of the universe and math as well: local extrapolation is possible, but longer term is not. In particular, it is hard to predict what _effect_ such decisions (believing in free will, becoming more educated, decisions that go good/bad) will have on future decisions. In particular, I believe sleeping also changes the brain (neural connections, etc.) in ways that are difficult to predict - hence some randomness. So, you've convinced me short term free will probably does not exist: it's too late. Longer term free will could exist, in the sense that desiring a change could, by adaptation of the brain, cause it to happen. You know, if you truly desire it. Which would be a choice.

Arguably, that is how prayer works as well.

Which brings us back to: does God exist. As a mathematician and someone who believes in the scientific method, I believe the "logically correct answer" is agnosticism, since science can't prove or disprove God exists (proving God exists is obviously impossible: how could mere humans know what makes a being a God? But proving God does not exist is also impossible, because it requires one to have the knowledge of a God. So, if God or Gods do not exist, the only ones who can be certain of such a fact are Gods themselves - hence why many humans essentially view themselves as Gods - maybe Egyptian pharaohs back in the day had a point). Interestingly, the hitch hiker's guide series has a great take on this topic (God does not exist: God says you must have faith, but this one invention obviously is a gift from God, so not believing in God is foolish. Therefore, since faith is no longer required, God can no longer exist.) So does the D & D world (power of a God depends on their followers belief in them: without followers, there isn't faith in the God. Without the faith of people in the world, a God can obviously do nothing in a world in which they cannot actively intervene, for it would prevent the world's inhabitants from truly being "alive". Indeed, most religions correctly note that one can only experience the presence of God through either the actions of others, or experiencing an individual "oneness" with God that _has been experienced similarly by followers before us_. So it's all based on what "feels" like God.) I am a Christian scientist, by the way, and my choice to believe in God/Jesus has a lot to do with the type of life I have lived and the type of life I want to live, which is why this article resonates so well with me.

At the end of the day, these are fantastic philosophical questions, whose consideration will... you guessed it... shape the brain in ways that we cannot fully understand. And thus, will impact one's choices... at least, in the longer term... in ways that are utterly unpredictable. Science cannot explain everything - and accepting that again has mighty ramifications on the choices and beliefs a person might have.

Expand full comment
will's avatar

Free will has been a bug a boo item for many thousands of years. In those traditions were reasoning alone is the faculty used for exploring its nature, the question “does free will exist” is nothing more than a 'black hole', where the only truth is emptiness. Many ancient traditions understood correctly what 'free will' is, while science no matter the number of disciplines involved simply cannot escape the limits of its (science) origins. Free will is a 'gift' so to speak, and from where and why are not relevant. It is the capacity to see and choose a path of creative (transcendent) outcome. Be it convenient, or otherwise, your choosing the early model of Maslow's Hierarchy is part of the general issue of not seeing the whole for want of its parts. The model to be used to address the question replaces “Self-Actualization” with “Cognitive Needs”, “Aesthetic Needs”, “Self Actualization”, and “Transcendence”. It should be evident that the lower levels of 'choice', in the hierarchy, are mostly mechanical, in the sense of being an animal. The higher one goes in the hierarchy the greater the 'need' for diminishing the part of “I need” to responsible (holistic) outcomes. The 'imprinting' process of human growth from birth to maturity is full of 'first time' events of learning; and then 'cognitively' using the means and outcome of these 'first time' events over and over with variation. So yes, a lot of the decision making scientist focus on it nothing more than a 'repeat'. The whole manner of looking and testing for this 'free will' misses the point; free will is a complex hierarchical process involving all the aspects of cognition, intuition, beliefs, values with the possibility of a transcendent outcome. And yes choices made at this level, after the first, become repeat decisions. If one's view of knowledge is that it is not limited, not closed, then one needs a decision 'apparatus' that is also open.

Expand full comment
44 more comments...

No posts