BRUTE wrote:brute hasn't read the article, but if free will does not exist, how could humans choose to believe in it?
Because the "choice" is the necessary outcome of a causal chain governed--like our brains and brain states--by immutable laws of physics over which no human has influence. In other words, it's not really a choice, just like every other choice.
Spartan_Warrior also hasn't read the article or most of this thread yet (but he may because it seems relevant to his interests). But he must say it warms his heart to see Ego making arguments for determinism. In this I believe I can point to myself as a causal influence in the chain of physical events that led Ego to make such arguments? I believe he was not so inclined when I first came here.
Indeed, it does not appear possible for free will (and therefore responsibility, blame, etc) to be anything but an illusion as long as reality is comprised only of physical events, which are governed by causality and physical laws by which one event necessarily entails another.
The illusion of free will is probably related to the consciousness/ego (
) which evolved to allow humans (and possibly/probably other creatures) to evaluate potential outcomes of different actions and imagine potential futures. Doing so necessarily leads to the illusion that these other outcomes are actually possible--that is, that there are alternate timelines in which we can and do take these alternate actions. In actuality, there is only one possible outcome that has been predetermined by the experiences, events, and previous brain states that led to the present decision.
"Free will" IMO has quite a clear definition in the public conscience--that a person can "choose" his behaviors, thoughts, et cetera in a way that is essentially free of any coercion or predestination.
For a person to make a choice, there must be some "choosing mechanism" within that person that allows him to make those choices. Where is that "choosing mechanism"? It can be either physical or non-physical.
If the "choosing mechanism" is non-physical--e.g. spiritual, etc.--then how does causality work between that non-physical substance and the physical world of your brain, body, and surroundings? Moreover, how do you scientifically justify this? What evidence is there for non-physical material interacting with physical material?
If the mechanism by which we make choices is indeed physical, e.g. our brain, how is it not governed by predictable causal chains like every other physical substance? If it is, then where does free will exist in this causal chain?
Even if there is a break in physical causality (for instance, quantum chance appears to permit non-deterministic outcomes), can humans be said to exert a "choice" on the outcome of those non-causal events? The examples we have of non-deterministic systems and non-causal relations imply that the opposite of determinism is not freedom or choice, but randomness. If your brain is a stochastic model rather than deterministic, that merely means it is "unpredictable due to the influence of a random variable". How do you exert freedom over a random system/variable any more than over a deterministic one? How do random variables entail freedom?
Yes, the lack of free will is an uncomfortable truth. The fact that we humans are essentially no different from all the other particles swirling around us is an uncomfortable truth. That the lack of free will makes concepts like responsibility and blame essentially incoherent (at least objectively) is something we should confront and deal with. (IMO, doing so would benefit the human race and the world. IMO, such a realization may well be some phase of evolution that will occur as we divest the vestigial portions of the ego that were necessary in our tribal/individualistic past.)
But the fact that it's uncomfortable and leads to cognitive dissonance with many of our other instinctive and cultural beliefs is hardly a sufficient argument against the reality of determinism.
(ETA: Okay, now I read The Atlantic article. It is good. Doesn't change anything I said, but perhaps says it better. FTR, I agree with Harris about the benefits of accepting determinism for society and individuals, particularly with regard to its limiting of anger/hatred. I've used my understanding of determinism as a cognitive tool to help me forgive myself and others. On the other hand, the negative outcomes Vohs found are interesting. I feel less qualified saying whether I've exhibited any of those, but probably I do to some extent--certainly I match the whole apathy toward one's job aspect, but I don't know if I'd blame determinism for that!
)