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.
I retain many things in what you say, but I'll only respond to one.
One of the pitfalls of problem-solving, as you know as a scientist, is to present probabilities as dichotomies. The right question, as you point out, is not whether god exists. The right question is, based on the available evidence, what are the likelihoods that different types of definitions of god can be empirically proven or disproven. My assumption is that the probability of an actual god (with the strictest definition) exists has low probability, but god as you define it in some part (the expression of mass belief) certainly does.
The long term vs short term argument makes a lot of sense. The brain decided before the mind when to flick a wrist, but in the experiment the people had already decided that they were going to flick a wrist at some point, so a conscious decision was made.
The problem with "Does God exist", is the defining of "God". Humans are trying to *conceptualize* something from their limited consciousness, using human brains. Compared to God, which is a "supreme being".
It's easier to ask whether aliens exist.
And if aliens do exist, they could've reached a level of consciousness, where they exist in a dimension which humans cannot perceive. So now, you move 'up' to the God-level consciousness.
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Just because you've never seen an alien, or God, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Cynics are close-minded.
Skeptics are too doubtful. Then there's the other end of the spectrum of naive & gullible ("sheeple"). For me, mindful exploration is the optimal mindset. There's a Russian proverb: Trust, but verify. Have faith, without blind belief.
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.
You say "In those traditions where reasoning alone is the faculty used for exploring its nature...": What are the alternatives of reasoning for exploring nature and the universe, or ourselves? Spirituality? And which traditions follow this pattern?
I do not think I can really answer your intent, however I have made an effort in acknowledgment of your request and thank you for your interest. (My post was not will considered so I will be silent after this.)
There are two kinds of knowledge, one is the art and science of iterating acquired knowledge and the other is the knowledge of experience. Some traditional societies held both of these as two aspects of a thing. For example, a flute no matter how wonderfully made and appreciated (acquired knowledge) had little value until its 'spirit' was liberated via the breath of the one who give it life (player). Then the flute was the vehicle for the player, audience and village to participate in experiential teaching and learning.
Maybe a more direct way of answering is to point out what is missing from the “Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map” and the methodology of its production.
This map is an accurate reflection of the authors world view and those who 'collected' the data. The posing of the polarities and resulting questions, and as mapped in the visual product, could never produce another result. In short the whole exercise is self-fulling. And gives one the illusion that they understand something about the realities of 'other' cultures, when mostly it is simply a restatement of their views.
In order for any study of this type to have value, the producers of the study must have equal respect for the cultures of others. And if it is not there, mostly on the grounds of science, then the whole exercise, even if well intention, is justification for active or benign cultural exclusion.
If the following changes were made in study approach: 1) visual depictions of data was three dimensional, reflecting polarities, complements and blends, 2) the methodology used must include all stakeholders of the study at all stages with equal weight, and 3) the focus was utilizing western means without harming the traditional peoples wishes, ways and means.
Unfortunately bi-polar entrenchment, scientific mindset, is hardly ever open to the logic of inclusion, as compared to the logic of exclusivity ('science'), unless a systemic shock loosens the grip on the mind allowing the possibility of growth in being.
However having said this, no one knows what experience will be genuinely fulfilling on the path of life, good luck.
I like the analogy. You have explained a bit more clearly what I meant by my comment above. All that needs to be added to your model is that the software playing chess doesn't just take into account the game of chess: it takes into account the opposing player in a human way. Strengths, weaknesses, but also the social context. My daughter nearly beat me* the other day because I was being too nice and uncompetitive.
*Not that that would be any great accomplishment...
Glad you like the analogy. Not sure which "my comment above" you mean. Maybe I'm missing something about navigating the web page. Of course there is a LOT more to a human personality than in a chess-playing program, but even something as simple as a chess-playing program has "free will" at least in some of the senses that people use the phrase.
To summarise: The brain's program (software) is a different entity to the physical brain (hardware). Some people focus on the hardware, but I am more interested in software development. My post of Nov 20 might be below depending on whether you have the posts ordered first to most recent or the other way round.
This is exactly the kind of question where you have to be super careful as you can easily cherry-pick and make arguments for basically anything, with potentially profound effects on your approach to the world. I am actually not sure this is not a false dichotomy anyway, but I like how you approach it on different levels, i.e. as a fact or as a principle that we internalise.
I am not following Sam Harris much, but I have to say I understand compassion differently. I would say that at its base is the understanding that we are all fighting the very same battles. A different wording can very easily be used exactly to remove agency and make yourself a victim, or make yourself unable to give boundaries to people around, because meh, it's not their fault, let me just hug them. But there exists compassionate anger, even in Buddhism. You can be compassionate with a narcissist, but not giving strong boundaries will destroy you. It feels to me we have to be very careful here not to melt into this kind of all encompassing love bullshit.
Actually the approach to the world regarding being a victim vs. freedom/responsibility is very related, right? This feels more down to earth and it is definitely more adaptive to choose the latter approach, in general, regarding what experience with the world it implies.
Regarding the society, proving there is no free will, what would that be even good for? There must be some responsibility and accountability, otherwise the society would fall apart. Funnily enough, tribal societies hold you responsible usually even for stuff you do by accident, Western society tries to make a difference. So the tribal societies act as if you had nothing but free will, you are totally responsible for whatever you do. Switching to the other extreme would make no sense, which makes me think the question is somehow wrongly put, or that the context matters. To me it feels like you would not ask this question if you were not interested in simply removing your own agency or justifying your current position. But otherwise yeah, it is a fun question to ask, scientifically or philosophically.
I really like this idea of boundaries. I think this is really the way. Strong but compassionate boundaries, without ever removing all possibilities or opportunities for change.
We know this can be a way at least since the Buddha. This is not new at all. Moreover, it naturally follows from the Western psychology as well, when you learn what healthy boundaries are about. In a way you cannot end up any other way when you keep walking forward. But the funny part is that strong boundaries are really about you being strongly rooted and grounded in being, fixing your inner insecurities, which then allows for your boundaries to be open, unless someone is attacking them actually. You then interact with the world freely. You change it, it changes you. The relationship that is alive appears. Also very related to working with emotions and emotional intelligence. But yeah, I could spend ages writing about this as I really like this narrative. I try to live it and for the first time I feel like I am true to myself. Took only 10 years, meh :-)
The fact that some part of the brain is active before conscious awareness in that wrist-flick belies the question underlying that of free will—what part of your brain's activity is "you"?
Just because our "conscious" (whatever *that* is) awareness/statement of when we make a decision follows other neuroligical activity—necessarily!—doesn't mean that some other neural system isn't operating freely with the information it has available to it. (Not that I'm claiming it is; we don't know, yet, unless there've been studies on that that I haven't heard of.)
Consciousness, whatever it is, is not a unitary, simplistic phenomenon. All this talk of free will as a single, atomic quality of a brain smacks very much of reductionist thinking.
I tend to agree with you. Which is why I’m kind of agnostic on that question (even if it’s compelling) but very much think it’s not necessary for free will to exist (described as a self-fulfilling meme)
Nice article, I recently read quite a lot about free will as well so I was pleasantly surprised that you wrote about it. Though I am surprised you didn't mention compatibilism and Daniel Dennett in your article as I think they are currently considered the most relevant answers to the question.
Daniel Dennett even responded to Sam Harris, and Sam Harris responded back, which was kinda funny to read.
I think Sam Harris' background is Buddhism in which the self separated from everything else is an illusion so there cannot be a will absolutely free of external influences. But, as you said about free will, the concept of self is still a thing, even though Buddhists don't like concepts, because they are just representations of the real things, they don't deny that concepts exist.
So yeah this whole debate is completely empty because they are not talking about the same thing at all.
I like to answer the question of free will in that way, which is basically Daniel Dennett's argument:
We can deliberate on considerations that our mind generates, but the generation of those considerations and the final decision we make are not free of external influences.
But the important questions, to me, are completely different:
- How can we influence people in the "right" direction?
- How do we take care of people who follow the "wrong" direction?
- And who is going to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong"?
For non-dualist philosophies and religion, right and wrong are 2 parts of a whole and we cannot have one without the other. I like to consider that the concept and the actual thing (or the illusion) are 2 parts of a whole and one cannot be without the other, because it seems to me we can create concepts based on illusions.
This is very interesting. These days I like to think about the compassion axis, which basically separates people into a few groups for me, as much as I don't enjoy categorizing everything and it is not to be used for being judgmental:
- These being consumed by inner insecurity. There seems to be a pandemic of this and it may be at the root of many derives psychological issues. I have spent most of my life being an unhappy member. For these people, any challenge to them is a challenge to their identity and value. Not cool, very unstable.
- These that managed to overcome inner insecurity somehow or just learned everything properly when they were kids. I have been enjoying this for a month or so now and it totally transformed the reality for me.
- The last group consists of people with certain issues really, you cannot fix a psychopath or a narcissist completely as they can hardly really feel what compassion is.
Now regarding right or wrong, I am not really going to judge what you do with your life, because as long as you know compassion, you are not going to harm the world in any subsequent manner. It just naturally orients you towards the whole, towards other people. This is a reoccurring, underlying theme that somehow defines right and wrong on certain level, but also working together to create is just so much more meaningful and adaptive. This is what we are wired/trained to do.
The question is then, what to do with people that just don't manage to get there. Well, the society should incorporate some means of waking this up in you in the educational system IMO. Seems to me like it is often too late to tell an adult, hey, get compassionate! I do believe you always get there as long as you keep trying. Buddhism teaches mostly by experience, but proper guidance is paramount. We tell you this, but it is not a dogma. Go to meditate, experience the world and learn it yourself. And you go and you learn that being compassionate just feels awesome and meaningful. You are never going to feel good from harming yourself and the world...
Really, this is just about this major transformation that a person can go through, because you judge others as you judge yourself, you love others as you love yourself. Buddhism does not even separate compassion into the personal and the one you feel towards others. There is only one thing.
So yeah, this is naturally salient to me, because it is involved in my personal process these days, but I see the very same thing in Buddhism, then in Christianity there is the notion of agapic love, but the point is, you must learn to be compassionate with yourself. I don't care about anything else you do with your life, what you fill the drawers with, but this is important. Please, start now. If you have no idea what to do and you do not feel good, start with a good psychotherapist. That would have saved me quite a few years.
For someone who doesn't like categorizing I think you have done a pretty good job in your post and I agree with your categories. I also agree with your conclusion: an important task in our lives is to learn how to be nice to ourselves. If we can learn that then we are more likely to be nice to others and to have compassion.
FYI: I have to confess to having a brain that puts EVERYTHING into categories. I think the important thing is to keep an open mind, to be aware of confirmation bias and so to be comfortable with recategorizing things, or better still creating new categories if your world model doesn't seem to work (i.e it seems to be clashing with reality).
My working day for 20+ years has been filled with assessing where 20-30 different people are at at that point in their lives and helping to guide their choice of what to do with their problem(s). So I would hope that I have gradually got better at that task over time.
> I think the important thing is to keep an open mind, to be aware of confirmation bias and so to be comfortable with recategorizing things, or better still creating new categories if your world model doesn't seem to work (i.e it seems to be clashing with reality).
There is not much to add and I agree. Saying I don't enjoy categorizing everything was a short version for "I know our brains are made to categorize, build schemas and stereotypes, assign meaning, but that is not the full story, ever." On the other hand, it does not mean stereotypes and schemas are not handy. They are totally useful and should not be broken just because they are stereotypes and schemas. It is as you say, you need to spot the moment when they do not work much and reframe and align.
FYI: I confess that I also love putting everything into categories. Works even better when I am alone. Could be the Default Mode Network. When together with people, I can fortunately switch easily into noticing the unique. Not really anything special, but I find it quite enjoyable after all :-)
I kinda skimmed the article, because it seemed more like a mental masturbation. Armchair philosophy, with scientific research to validate some points. My main question was: What's the concept to transcend the duality of "Free will, or not?"… and personal responsibility is the answer. (Of course, then there's each person's degree of Learned Helplessness vs. Optimism, which determines how much responsibility they're willing to apply)
Yes! You are not "just a machine"; you are a programmable machine --- I think people often don't understand the huge implications of that. I would say the essential "you" is the software the programmable machine is running. A further thought: determinism (even without randomness or quantum mechanical uncertainty) doesn't imply predictability. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever does not exist. So in that sense the behaviour of some programs is unpredictable.
This is the most intense, numerous and thoughtful response to any of your writings that I've noted? Tomas, do you agree with that? You probably follow that count more than me.
What about the jurists in the Rittenhouse acquittal? Was that free will or the result of conditioning?
I'm not sure about quantity, but for sure density!
I have purposefully not paid attention to Rittenhouse. I don't have yet a proper mental framework to think about it and there's too much partisanship. I will enter the fray when/if I have something seriously valuable to add.
Just thought it important to highlight your comment. The analogy that comes to mind is of an old motor mower. Tomas keeps pulling the cord and the engine turns over a couple of times but doesn't fire. This time he got a lot closer to ignition! I have some thoughts on how to improve the chances of the engine really getting going properly and will post them
A couple of things. First, I noticed that your Maslow needs hierarchy omits the apex condition. In the latter years of his life Maslow revised the hierarchy to take into account his most recent thinking and research. It has been largely ignored by most psychologists because the new apex condition clashed with their beliefs.
Second, the camp that argues against "free will" is committed to the ontology of materialism, which requires absolute determinism. Probably one of the most depressing philosophies ever conceived when applied to human beings. I would suggest that if in fact belief in free will allows choices in behavior different from belief in determinism, that expansion of choice in and of itself undermines the notion that human behavior is an expression of simple determinism. I agree that behavior can't be free in the sense of being independent of antecedents. However, I prefer to think of behavior as being the product of statistical determinism, which is based on the idea that human behavior and the variables affecting it are so complex that given any set of antecedent circumstances there is a high probability that there are several possible outcomes. The highest probability outcome is what we often call the path of least resistance. It is the outcome most often exhibited and might be thought of as habitual or reflexive behavior. However, given a little reflection and intent not to make a habitual choice other possibilities arise. Perhaps this is what divides those who subscribe to free will and those that deny it. In any event, it is a complicated discussion.
Third, I would mention that scientist and philosopher Bernardo Kastrup has a small 100+ page book (Rationalist Spirituality) in which he addresses both the notions of free will and God that is well worth taking the time to read. Regards.
Neuroscience is probably not the lowest level at which we should analyze the issue of free will. I find the opinions of physicists like Brian Greene more appealing. Sabine Hossenfelder's video is also great https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY
A lot of it makes sense, although I am not sure I agree with it though.
The points about quantum physics and chaos make sense, for example, but my shallow understanding of physics from my two MSc doesn't include an exclusion of another layer that we don't understand.
We can not model human behavior well at all, and we don't understand brains at all. I don't think you can say that, because at an atomic level things appear to be deterministic, at every point of emerging complexity that determinism is maintained.
But I'm probably wrong here. I just don't know where.
You quote a study that found people who believe less in free will then exhibit more immoral behaviour. An original creator (God) who loves us would create a exactly this, free will through an idea that he originally created and the agency (use) of which was and is in keeping with his perfect morality. Then the lie: "Did he really say..." putting a chink in trust and appealing to a desire to be God ourselves but instead seeking to destroy us...reducing agency and lowering the barrier to behaving immorally. The combination of bad experiences (or tumors) we all have is in a post-perfect world after we succumb to the original sin "you can be God".
I'm not convinced by the 3 arguments on free will itself, i.e I do not see the need for the conclusion to have to summon it into existence.
1. From your article, I understand: If basic needs aren't met, we want those -> our decisions are not free.
To which I say: most people I know *do* have their basic needs met and are making decisions on the rich set of options like "what hobby to pursue" or "who to invite to game night". I.e. the premise for this argument seems not to hold for many choices I make. On a global scale, I'm surely priviliged with my biological needs stably met, so I might be missing nuance here.
2. Then I understand: we have cognitive biases, thus no free will.
But when I am making a conscious and reflected decision, I try to quantify and overcome those, using rational thought more than instinct, especially for high stakes decisions (life partner, university major, career). Despite the mentioned powerful unconscious incentives: I make active choices not to give in to gaming or YouTube-binging urges. How is that not a free choice by my "higher brain"? (https://web.archive.org/web/20230101113702/https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/thinking-ladder.html)
3. In a setting devoid of real life meaning and stimulus, with a low stakes choice of "when to tap a finger", there is brain activity before we report that we made the call (which even looks to be a methodological issue, as you have linked to).
How is that relevant to important real choices where I make a (mental or even written) pro-contra-list and then choose my favorite option based on weighted importance of factors? There's hopefully lots of brain activity there before I reach a conclusion :).
Let me know if I'm misrepresenting the 3 arguments here or mising the point - that is certainly not my intention.
Very interesting. We can see the belief in free will as Pascal's wager.
Pascal's wager was conceived on shaky foundations, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean we can't use his concept in a more solid way.
Applied to free will, it would be as follows: we don't know what we don't know about the universe. It's possible that the sum of what we know is infinitesimal compared to what there is to know.
So if we admit, for example, that with our current knowledge, there's a 90% chance that free will doesn't exist, Pascal's wager of free will would be as follows:
- If you don't believe in free will and you're right, you haven't won anything special, because as you pointed out in the article, this belief harms people rather than helps them.
- If you don't believe in free will and you're wrong, you've lost *a lot* of capacity, potentiality, joie de vivre for some, and what makes life worth living.
- If you believe in free will and you're wrong, at least you'll have experienced a pleasant illusion that makes life more enjoyable.
- If you believe in free will and you're right, then you have a better chance of realizing your potential as a human being.
Really, there's no reason not to believe in free will, unless you really place truth above all else, like Kant (which I can understand).
But putting truth above all else must also make you realize that we don't know what we don't know, and that it's possible that this 90% chance that free will doesn't exist will turn into 10% in the centuries to come, with the new knowledge about how the universe works that we'll learn.
It wouldn't be the first time in history that our beliefs have been proven wrong.
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.
Thanks Bob. Very interesting.
I retain many things in what you say, but I'll only respond to one.
One of the pitfalls of problem-solving, as you know as a scientist, is to present probabilities as dichotomies. The right question, as you point out, is not whether god exists. The right question is, based on the available evidence, what are the likelihoods that different types of definitions of god can be empirically proven or disproven. My assumption is that the probability of an actual god (with the strictest definition) exists has low probability, but god as you define it in some part (the expression of mass belief) certainly does.
The long term vs short term argument makes a lot of sense. The brain decided before the mind when to flick a wrist, but in the experiment the people had already decided that they were going to flick a wrist at some point, so a conscious decision was made.
The problem with "Does God exist", is the defining of "God". Humans are trying to *conceptualize* something from their limited consciousness, using human brains. Compared to God, which is a "supreme being".
It's easier to ask whether aliens exist.
And if aliens do exist, they could've reached a level of consciousness, where they exist in a dimension which humans cannot perceive. So now, you move 'up' to the God-level consciousness.
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Just because you've never seen an alien, or God, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Cynics are close-minded.
Skeptics are too doubtful. Then there's the other end of the spectrum of naive & gullible ("sheeple"). For me, mindful exploration is the optimal mindset. There's a Russian proverb: Trust, but verify. Have faith, without blind belief.
Indeed, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It does inform it, though, depending on their relationship.
The problem with God is that it retracts to infalsifiability.
Before science, many claims were made about God, very evident for example in the Bible. Eg God created the world in 6 days.
Then science has systematically proven these claims wrong.
When that happens, God is withdrawn to its domain of infalsiability, until a new piece of science pushes Them back further.
So you can't prove God doesn't exist, the same way as you can't prove anything else doesn't exist: leprechauns, unicorns, or spaghetti monsters.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means that the probability of its existence is at the same level as any other infalsifiable claim.
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.
I like what you wrote here.
You say "In those traditions where reasoning alone is the faculty used for exploring its nature...": What are the alternatives of reasoning for exploring nature and the universe, or ourselves? Spirituality? And which traditions follow this pattern?
I do not think I can really answer your intent, however I have made an effort in acknowledgment of your request and thank you for your interest. (My post was not will considered so I will be silent after this.)
There are two kinds of knowledge, one is the art and science of iterating acquired knowledge and the other is the knowledge of experience. Some traditional societies held both of these as two aspects of a thing. For example, a flute no matter how wonderfully made and appreciated (acquired knowledge) had little value until its 'spirit' was liberated via the breath of the one who give it life (player). Then the flute was the vehicle for the player, audience and village to participate in experiential teaching and learning.
Maybe a more direct way of answering is to point out what is missing from the “Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map” and the methodology of its production.
This map is an accurate reflection of the authors world view and those who 'collected' the data. The posing of the polarities and resulting questions, and as mapped in the visual product, could never produce another result. In short the whole exercise is self-fulling. And gives one the illusion that they understand something about the realities of 'other' cultures, when mostly it is simply a restatement of their views.
In order for any study of this type to have value, the producers of the study must have equal respect for the cultures of others. And if it is not there, mostly on the grounds of science, then the whole exercise, even if well intention, is justification for active or benign cultural exclusion.
If the following changes were made in study approach: 1) visual depictions of data was three dimensional, reflecting polarities, complements and blends, 2) the methodology used must include all stakeholders of the study at all stages with equal weight, and 3) the focus was utilizing western means without harming the traditional peoples wishes, ways and means.
Unfortunately bi-polar entrenchment, scientific mindset, is hardly ever open to the logic of inclusion, as compared to the logic of exclusivity ('science'), unless a systemic shock loosens the grip on the mind allowing the possibility of growth in being.
However having said this, no one knows what experience will be genuinely fulfilling on the path of life, good luck.
What is meant by saying "you have free will"? An important implication of that
statement is that _you_ choose, so _you_ are responsible for the consequences.
But who is this "you"? "You" is obviously not your brain, which operates
according to the laws of physics, which (aside from random and quantum effects)
are deterministic and do not allow choice. Incidentally, I think it is
unreasonable to think that "you" are a collection of random and quantum effects
because "you" would then have no consistent coherent personality.
I think it is very helpful to consider the analogy of a chess-playing
computer-program --- NOT a "chess playing computer" --- that is confusing the
hand and arm of a human player (which makes the moves) with the source of the
choice of move.
A chess-playing computer-program is not a physical object, although copies of
it exist on physical objects; it is "software" not "hardware".
A chess program considers its choices and arrives at a decision. The decision
is not determined by the computer; on the contrary, the software tells the
computer what to do.
The software is responsible for its choices; its choice is not forced by
the situation in its world (the chess board). In that sense, the software has
"free will", even though its effects in the physical world are produced in a
completely "mechanical" way.
There is surely nothing paradoxical or controversial about that (in the case of
a chess playing computer program). So why all the fuss in the case of a choice
making human?
The analogy can be extended. The choice made by the software is determined by
what the software is. It may be "bad" software that generally loses its chess
games, or "good" software, that generally wins.
If the software is rather sophisticated, it may learn to be "better" software
by understanding that its choices in earlier games were "bad".
The software makes choices based on its own subjective judgements: it looks
several moves ahead, but then it rates the resulting positions based on
heuristic rules --- which essentially are judgements of whether a position is
good or bad (based on piece counts, piece positions, threats and so on). The
judgements may be good or bad, depending on whether the rules are good or bad.
I like the analogy. You have explained a bit more clearly what I meant by my comment above. All that needs to be added to your model is that the software playing chess doesn't just take into account the game of chess: it takes into account the opposing player in a human way. Strengths, weaknesses, but also the social context. My daughter nearly beat me* the other day because I was being too nice and uncompetitive.
*Not that that would be any great accomplishment...
Glad you like the analogy. Not sure which "my comment above" you mean. Maybe I'm missing something about navigating the web page. Of course there is a LOT more to a human personality than in a chess-playing program, but even something as simple as a chess-playing program has "free will" at least in some of the senses that people use the phrase.
To summarise: The brain's program (software) is a different entity to the physical brain (hardware). Some people focus on the hardware, but I am more interested in software development. My post of Nov 20 might be below depending on whether you have the posts ordered first to most recent or the other way round.
An interesting article, thank you.
This is exactly the kind of question where you have to be super careful as you can easily cherry-pick and make arguments for basically anything, with potentially profound effects on your approach to the world. I am actually not sure this is not a false dichotomy anyway, but I like how you approach it on different levels, i.e. as a fact or as a principle that we internalise.
I am not following Sam Harris much, but I have to say I understand compassion differently. I would say that at its base is the understanding that we are all fighting the very same battles. A different wording can very easily be used exactly to remove agency and make yourself a victim, or make yourself unable to give boundaries to people around, because meh, it's not their fault, let me just hug them. But there exists compassionate anger, even in Buddhism. You can be compassionate with a narcissist, but not giving strong boundaries will destroy you. It feels to me we have to be very careful here not to melt into this kind of all encompassing love bullshit.
Actually the approach to the world regarding being a victim vs. freedom/responsibility is very related, right? This feels more down to earth and it is definitely more adaptive to choose the latter approach, in general, regarding what experience with the world it implies.
Regarding the society, proving there is no free will, what would that be even good for? There must be some responsibility and accountability, otherwise the society would fall apart. Funnily enough, tribal societies hold you responsible usually even for stuff you do by accident, Western society tries to make a difference. So the tribal societies act as if you had nothing but free will, you are totally responsible for whatever you do. Switching to the other extreme would make no sense, which makes me think the question is somehow wrongly put, or that the context matters. To me it feels like you would not ask this question if you were not interested in simply removing your own agency or justifying your current position. But otherwise yeah, it is a fun question to ask, scientifically or philosophically.
I really like this idea of boundaries. I think this is really the way. Strong but compassionate boundaries, without ever removing all possibilities or opportunities for change.
We know this can be a way at least since the Buddha. This is not new at all. Moreover, it naturally follows from the Western psychology as well, when you learn what healthy boundaries are about. In a way you cannot end up any other way when you keep walking forward. But the funny part is that strong boundaries are really about you being strongly rooted and grounded in being, fixing your inner insecurities, which then allows for your boundaries to be open, unless someone is attacking them actually. You then interact with the world freely. You change it, it changes you. The relationship that is alive appears. Also very related to working with emotions and emotional intelligence. But yeah, I could spend ages writing about this as I really like this narrative. I try to live it and for the first time I feel like I am true to myself. Took only 10 years, meh :-)
The fact that some part of the brain is active before conscious awareness in that wrist-flick belies the question underlying that of free will—what part of your brain's activity is "you"?
Just because our "conscious" (whatever *that* is) awareness/statement of when we make a decision follows other neuroligical activity—necessarily!—doesn't mean that some other neural system isn't operating freely with the information it has available to it. (Not that I'm claiming it is; we don't know, yet, unless there've been studies on that that I haven't heard of.)
Consciousness, whatever it is, is not a unitary, simplistic phenomenon. All this talk of free will as a single, atomic quality of a brain smacks very much of reductionist thinking.
But I love your conclusion. :-)
I tend to agree with you. Which is why I’m kind of agnostic on that question (even if it’s compelling) but very much think it’s not necessary for free will to exist (described as a self-fulfilling meme)
Nice article, I recently read quite a lot about free will as well so I was pleasantly surprised that you wrote about it. Though I am surprised you didn't mention compatibilism and Daniel Dennett in your article as I think they are currently considered the most relevant answers to the question.
Daniel Dennett even responded to Sam Harris, and Sam Harris responded back, which was kinda funny to read.
I think Sam Harris' background is Buddhism in which the self separated from everything else is an illusion so there cannot be a will absolutely free of external influences. But, as you said about free will, the concept of self is still a thing, even though Buddhists don't like concepts, because they are just representations of the real things, they don't deny that concepts exist.
So yeah this whole debate is completely empty because they are not talking about the same thing at all.
I like to answer the question of free will in that way, which is basically Daniel Dennett's argument:
We can deliberate on considerations that our mind generates, but the generation of those considerations and the final decision we make are not free of external influences.
But the important questions, to me, are completely different:
- How can we influence people in the "right" direction?
- How do we take care of people who follow the "wrong" direction?
- And who is going to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong"?
For non-dualist philosophies and religion, right and wrong are 2 parts of a whole and we cannot have one without the other. I like to consider that the concept and the actual thing (or the illusion) are 2 parts of a whole and one cannot be without the other, because it seems to me we can create concepts based on illusions.
This is very interesting. These days I like to think about the compassion axis, which basically separates people into a few groups for me, as much as I don't enjoy categorizing everything and it is not to be used for being judgmental:
- These being consumed by inner insecurity. There seems to be a pandemic of this and it may be at the root of many derives psychological issues. I have spent most of my life being an unhappy member. For these people, any challenge to them is a challenge to their identity and value. Not cool, very unstable.
- These that managed to overcome inner insecurity somehow or just learned everything properly when they were kids. I have been enjoying this for a month or so now and it totally transformed the reality for me.
- The last group consists of people with certain issues really, you cannot fix a psychopath or a narcissist completely as they can hardly really feel what compassion is.
Now regarding right or wrong, I am not really going to judge what you do with your life, because as long as you know compassion, you are not going to harm the world in any subsequent manner. It just naturally orients you towards the whole, towards other people. This is a reoccurring, underlying theme that somehow defines right and wrong on certain level, but also working together to create is just so much more meaningful and adaptive. This is what we are wired/trained to do.
The question is then, what to do with people that just don't manage to get there. Well, the society should incorporate some means of waking this up in you in the educational system IMO. Seems to me like it is often too late to tell an adult, hey, get compassionate! I do believe you always get there as long as you keep trying. Buddhism teaches mostly by experience, but proper guidance is paramount. We tell you this, but it is not a dogma. Go to meditate, experience the world and learn it yourself. And you go and you learn that being compassionate just feels awesome and meaningful. You are never going to feel good from harming yourself and the world...
Really, this is just about this major transformation that a person can go through, because you judge others as you judge yourself, you love others as you love yourself. Buddhism does not even separate compassion into the personal and the one you feel towards others. There is only one thing.
So yeah, this is naturally salient to me, because it is involved in my personal process these days, but I see the very same thing in Buddhism, then in Christianity there is the notion of agapic love, but the point is, you must learn to be compassionate with yourself. I don't care about anything else you do with your life, what you fill the drawers with, but this is important. Please, start now. If you have no idea what to do and you do not feel good, start with a good psychotherapist. That would have saved me quite a few years.
For someone who doesn't like categorizing I think you have done a pretty good job in your post and I agree with your categories. I also agree with your conclusion: an important task in our lives is to learn how to be nice to ourselves. If we can learn that then we are more likely to be nice to others and to have compassion.
FYI: I have to confess to having a brain that puts EVERYTHING into categories. I think the important thing is to keep an open mind, to be aware of confirmation bias and so to be comfortable with recategorizing things, or better still creating new categories if your world model doesn't seem to work (i.e it seems to be clashing with reality).
My working day for 20+ years has been filled with assessing where 20-30 different people are at at that point in their lives and helping to guide their choice of what to do with their problem(s). So I would hope that I have gradually got better at that task over time.
> I think the important thing is to keep an open mind, to be aware of confirmation bias and so to be comfortable with recategorizing things, or better still creating new categories if your world model doesn't seem to work (i.e it seems to be clashing with reality).
There is not much to add and I agree. Saying I don't enjoy categorizing everything was a short version for "I know our brains are made to categorize, build schemas and stereotypes, assign meaning, but that is not the full story, ever." On the other hand, it does not mean stereotypes and schemas are not handy. They are totally useful and should not be broken just because they are stereotypes and schemas. It is as you say, you need to spot the moment when they do not work much and reframe and align.
FYI: I confess that I also love putting everything into categories. Works even better when I am alone. Could be the Default Mode Network. When together with people, I can fortunately switch easily into noticing the unique. Not really anything special, but I find it quite enjoyable after all :-)
Hi Tomas,
Really interesting article.
My take on this has been to focus on what I call 'personal responsibility'. Keeping it present works towards looking after myself and others.
It is a concept well explained in a book I often recommend called 'Hilbilly elegy'. You will find interesting.
I kinda skimmed the article, because it seemed more like a mental masturbation. Armchair philosophy, with scientific research to validate some points. My main question was: What's the concept to transcend the duality of "Free will, or not?"… and personal responsibility is the answer. (Of course, then there's each person's degree of Learned Helplessness vs. Optimism, which determines how much responsibility they're willing to apply)
Genial Tomás!
I great short story about this is Ted Chiang's "what's expected about us" in the Exhalation collection. Great read.
I started Stories of your life and others. Not done yet. It's nice. Looks like I should have started with Exhalation!
Yes! You are not "just a machine"; you are a programmable machine --- I think people often don't understand the huge implications of that. I would say the essential "you" is the software the programmable machine is running. A further thought: determinism (even without randomness or quantum mechanical uncertainty) doesn't imply predictability. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever does not exist. So in that sense the behaviour of some programs is unpredictable.
This is the most intense, numerous and thoughtful response to any of your writings that I've noted? Tomas, do you agree with that? You probably follow that count more than me.
What about the jurists in the Rittenhouse acquittal? Was that free will or the result of conditioning?
I'm not sure about quantity, but for sure density!
I have purposefully not paid attention to Rittenhouse. I don't have yet a proper mental framework to think about it and there's too much partisanship. I will enter the fray when/if I have something seriously valuable to add.
Just thought it important to highlight your comment. The analogy that comes to mind is of an old motor mower. Tomas keeps pulling the cord and the engine turns over a couple of times but doesn't fire. This time he got a lot closer to ignition! I have some thoughts on how to improve the chances of the engine really getting going properly and will post them
Hi Tomas,
A couple of things. First, I noticed that your Maslow needs hierarchy omits the apex condition. In the latter years of his life Maslow revised the hierarchy to take into account his most recent thinking and research. It has been largely ignored by most psychologists because the new apex condition clashed with their beliefs.
Second, the camp that argues against "free will" is committed to the ontology of materialism, which requires absolute determinism. Probably one of the most depressing philosophies ever conceived when applied to human beings. I would suggest that if in fact belief in free will allows choices in behavior different from belief in determinism, that expansion of choice in and of itself undermines the notion that human behavior is an expression of simple determinism. I agree that behavior can't be free in the sense of being independent of antecedents. However, I prefer to think of behavior as being the product of statistical determinism, which is based on the idea that human behavior and the variables affecting it are so complex that given any set of antecedent circumstances there is a high probability that there are several possible outcomes. The highest probability outcome is what we often call the path of least resistance. It is the outcome most often exhibited and might be thought of as habitual or reflexive behavior. However, given a little reflection and intent not to make a habitual choice other possibilities arise. Perhaps this is what divides those who subscribe to free will and those that deny it. In any event, it is a complicated discussion.
Third, I would mention that scientist and philosopher Bernardo Kastrup has a small 100+ page book (Rationalist Spirituality) in which he addresses both the notions of free will and God that is well worth taking the time to read. Regards.
You're the 4th to recommend Kastrup. He's going up on the list of things to read!
The Nam-Shub of Thomas Pueyo
I haven't read Snow Crash. But it's on my night stand pile. I'll take that as a compliment!
It is. Enjoy the book, it’s a classic getting some long overdue attention since Mark went Meta.
Neuroscience is probably not the lowest level at which we should analyze the issue of free will. I find the opinions of physicists like Brian Greene more appealing. Sabine Hossenfelder's video is also great https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY
Thanks Adam. Very interesting video.
A lot of it makes sense, although I am not sure I agree with it though.
The points about quantum physics and chaos make sense, for example, but my shallow understanding of physics from my two MSc doesn't include an exclusion of another layer that we don't understand.
We can not model human behavior well at all, and we don't understand brains at all. I don't think you can say that, because at an atomic level things appear to be deterministic, at every point of emerging complexity that determinism is maintained.
But I'm probably wrong here. I just don't know where.
You quote a study that found people who believe less in free will then exhibit more immoral behaviour. An original creator (God) who loves us would create a exactly this, free will through an idea that he originally created and the agency (use) of which was and is in keeping with his perfect morality. Then the lie: "Did he really say..." putting a chink in trust and appealing to a desire to be God ourselves but instead seeking to destroy us...reducing agency and lowering the barrier to behaving immorally. The combination of bad experiences (or tumors) we all have is in a post-perfect world after we succumb to the original sin "you can be God".
I'm not convinced by the 3 arguments on free will itself, i.e I do not see the need for the conclusion to have to summon it into existence.
1. From your article, I understand: If basic needs aren't met, we want those -> our decisions are not free.
To which I say: most people I know *do* have their basic needs met and are making decisions on the rich set of options like "what hobby to pursue" or "who to invite to game night". I.e. the premise for this argument seems not to hold for many choices I make. On a global scale, I'm surely priviliged with my biological needs stably met, so I might be missing nuance here.
2. Then I understand: we have cognitive biases, thus no free will.
But when I am making a conscious and reflected decision, I try to quantify and overcome those, using rational thought more than instinct, especially for high stakes decisions (life partner, university major, career). Despite the mentioned powerful unconscious incentives: I make active choices not to give in to gaming or YouTube-binging urges. How is that not a free choice by my "higher brain"? (https://web.archive.org/web/20230101113702/https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/thinking-ladder.html)
3. In a setting devoid of real life meaning and stimulus, with a low stakes choice of "when to tap a finger", there is brain activity before we report that we made the call (which even looks to be a methodological issue, as you have linked to).
How is that relevant to important real choices where I make a (mental or even written) pro-contra-list and then choose my favorite option based on weighted importance of factors? There's hopefully lots of brain activity there before I reach a conclusion :).
Let me know if I'm misrepresenting the 3 arguments here or mising the point - that is certainly not my intention.
Very interesting. We can see the belief in free will as Pascal's wager.
Pascal's wager was conceived on shaky foundations, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean we can't use his concept in a more solid way.
Applied to free will, it would be as follows: we don't know what we don't know about the universe. It's possible that the sum of what we know is infinitesimal compared to what there is to know.
So if we admit, for example, that with our current knowledge, there's a 90% chance that free will doesn't exist, Pascal's wager of free will would be as follows:
- If you don't believe in free will and you're right, you haven't won anything special, because as you pointed out in the article, this belief harms people rather than helps them.
- If you don't believe in free will and you're wrong, you've lost *a lot* of capacity, potentiality, joie de vivre for some, and what makes life worth living.
- If you believe in free will and you're wrong, at least you'll have experienced a pleasant illusion that makes life more enjoyable.
- If you believe in free will and you're right, then you have a better chance of realizing your potential as a human being.
Really, there's no reason not to believe in free will, unless you really place truth above all else, like Kant (which I can understand).
But putting truth above all else must also make you realize that we don't know what we don't know, and that it's possible that this 90% chance that free will doesn't exist will turn into 10% in the centuries to come, with the new knowledge about how the universe works that we'll learn.
It wouldn't be the first time in history that our beliefs have been proven wrong.