Personally I've been troubled by the idea of free will since I was twelve. I found it incoherent with determinism, and didn't view randomness as a solution to the problem, but only exacerbating it.
Now I'm afraid I've ended up as a bit of a mystic. guess I would say I'm a Pyrrhonian skeptic about free will (among other things). Certainly I would identify free will as the incompatibilists talk about to be the kind worth caring about, but within the world as we perceive and understand it (a causal, law-bound world), there is not room for a true ability to have done otherwise in the way I care about. But with that said, I believe my view of "reality" is necessarily constrained by the sort of being I am as a human, and so it's inappropriate for me to rule out free will in some unknowable sense simply because I can't understand or perceive it. Possibly it exists, and maybe it's not what we would call free per se, but maybe it nevertheless corresponds to what I think I care about in terms of freedom.
On the other hand, I do have the daily feeling of having free will. Presumably this is illusory, but in some sense so are the qualia we call colors and sounds, yet we find meaning in painting and music. Maybe my feeling of free will is just an extreme form of the excitement one feels with a digital slot machine -- technically the thing is psuedorandom, and the result is determined in advance, yet people (not me, not a gambler) feel a sense of excitement throughout. Some even enjoy it, and they would even if you pinned them down on the psuedorandomness of the event. I think maybe our everyday experience of free will is enough--an irrepressible, meaning-granting illusion, that in terms of its effects, may as well be real.
Not sure how much it tells us about the meaning of life. I can judge things as good or bad without them having free will--AIDS virus is bad for example, yet no free will. Almond paste is good, yet no free will. It could be the same for people. There is still a way to value human activity without free will, but you may need to blame and praise a little differently, maybe being a little more measured or reflective about it. It does make it easier to forgive oneself and others. As to life purpose, maybe one can return to the idea of arete/excellence/thriving, and individualize it. A plant doesn't have free will, but if it grows and thrives in the correct way for that plant, it's been successful. One's own purpose could be analogous, to try to be more fully oneself, to accept and embrace one's idiosyncrasies, etc, in a specific life that works for you. Of course, it's something you can't actually fail at if you fully specify what it means to be you. I don't know if a risk of failure is needed though to have a worthwhile life purpose.
Free will / fatalism / life purpose
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
Robert Sapolsky has a new book out on how to live with the knowledge that we do not have free will.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/1389557919
https://www.worldcat.org/title/1389557919
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
Physics itself does not claim to predict everything. For example, physics can tell you that an Uranium atom can decay, but it can't tell you when.
That's not a mere technicality. Rules of physics are human mathematical models. They apply in limited circumstances. Even if you stay within these limits the predictions are not exact. Experiments in physics are giant simplifications. Outside experimental setups physics is even less useful. Given that physics can't predict how a coin will fall, the idea that it can predict the exact future of the universe is preposterous.
Why would physics preclude free will?
That's not a mere technicality. Rules of physics are human mathematical models. They apply in limited circumstances. Even if you stay within these limits the predictions are not exact. Experiments in physics are giant simplifications. Outside experimental setups physics is even less useful. Given that physics can't predict how a coin will fall, the idea that it can predict the exact future of the universe is preposterous.
Why would physics preclude free will?
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
I haven't read Sapolsky's new book "Determined" yet. It was just released yesterday. But, I have read about half of his "Behavior" after recently watching this interview with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhobcj2K9v4
I would step back a bit on what I posted upthread, due to semantic distinction. I do not believe that humans have Free Will in the sense of an internal biological locus of control, or homunculus in the brain actually running the show, but I also do not believe that the future can be fully determined by information available in the present. In a way, believing in Free Will or Agency is kind of akin to suffering from the delusion that your behavior is less predictable than everybody else's behavior. Or as we used to refer to it in my therapy circle, Being Stuck in the Center of the Universe Chair.
OTOH, what we sometimes mean by Free Will is simply strength of Executive Function, but that is always going to be determined in the moment by factors such as genetics, experience, hormonal influences that day, current environment, etc. There is no different choice that "you" (the imaginary homunculus) might have made given all of the above.For instance, why are most of the members of this forum of similar personality types? Why do those of us who are not INTJ tend to vary from the standard in predictable ways based on our personality types? For instance, those who identify as closer to ENTP tend more towards identifying as semi-ERE and/or polyamorous. IOW, we are all pretty much tropes in the process of unfolding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhobcj2K9v4
I would step back a bit on what I posted upthread, due to semantic distinction. I do not believe that humans have Free Will in the sense of an internal biological locus of control, or homunculus in the brain actually running the show, but I also do not believe that the future can be fully determined by information available in the present. In a way, believing in Free Will or Agency is kind of akin to suffering from the delusion that your behavior is less predictable than everybody else's behavior. Or as we used to refer to it in my therapy circle, Being Stuck in the Center of the Universe Chair.
OTOH, what we sometimes mean by Free Will is simply strength of Executive Function, but that is always going to be determined in the moment by factors such as genetics, experience, hormonal influences that day, current environment, etc. There is no different choice that "you" (the imaginary homunculus) might have made given all of the above.For instance, why are most of the members of this forum of similar personality types? Why do those of us who are not INTJ tend to vary from the standard in predictable ways based on our personality types? For instance, those who identify as closer to ENTP tend more towards identifying as semi-ERE and/or polyamorous. IOW, we are all pretty much tropes in the process of unfolding.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
The universe is determined by factors.. but there is no universal way to factor. In some sense, the imaginary homunculus, the imaginary stable genetic code, the imaginary experience, and the imaginary hormonal influence are all on equal footing as far as where to look for agency or for "yourself". Any boundary set will scramble the origin or destination of messages crossed between the "inside" and "outside". Perhaps agency could be thought of as a relational web of freedom and constraint, which always appear together. That is, "you" or "the universe" are able to "freely" select an element of a set precisely because that set is constrained to a finite or countably infinite number of selections.
So, in some sense, the boundary of "Daylen" is just information flow and of no "substance" or "actual decision making stuff". Though, that would seem to be the case for any boundary drawn inclusive of the environmental membrane and cellular membranes. These surfaces compose to give depth to what ultimately happens but translating that into a here and now story of some arbitrarily small set of agents is rather limited. Yet, seems to be useful for survival or something.
So, in some sense, the boundary of "Daylen" is just information flow and of no "substance" or "actual decision making stuff". Though, that would seem to be the case for any boundary drawn inclusive of the environmental membrane and cellular membranes. These surfaces compose to give depth to what ultimately happens but translating that into a here and now story of some arbitrarily small set of agents is rather limited. Yet, seems to be useful for survival or something.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
@daylen:
Yes, I agree. One of the points that Sapolsky pushes is that dropping (or expanding over series of boundaries) concept of Free Will may result in being less irrationally judgmental in relationship to other humans. For instance, recent reconceptualization of boundary of Schizophrenia being for the most part an interplay of genetics and neurochemistry rendered the previous Freudian-ish conception that it was largely caused by cold maternal behavior ridiculous. Similarly, according to recent articles in the NYT, the new highly effective/extremely expensive drugs to treat Diabetes2/Morbid Obesity are likely to result in similar social effect. One could even imagine that a drug could be concocted to promote frugality (acetylcholine prescribed to pregnant females?)
Yes, I agree. One of the points that Sapolsky pushes is that dropping (or expanding over series of boundaries) concept of Free Will may result in being less irrationally judgmental in relationship to other humans. For instance, recent reconceptualization of boundary of Schizophrenia being for the most part an interplay of genetics and neurochemistry rendered the previous Freudian-ish conception that it was largely caused by cold maternal behavior ridiculous. Similarly, according to recent articles in the NYT, the new highly effective/extremely expensive drugs to treat Diabetes2/Morbid Obesity are likely to result in similar social effect. One could even imagine that a drug could be concocted to promote frugality (acetylcholine prescribed to pregnant females?)
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
A relevant lecture: https://youtu.be/VzbyeU3dK4g?si=k6cgSEdy24WAo1of
As he points out without the presumption of free will the whole judicial system would collapse, as it's based on the assumption a person is in control of their actions. Hence insanity pleas or diminished responsibility are legitimate defences.
As he points out without the presumption of free will the whole judicial system would collapse, as it's based on the assumption a person is in control of their actions. Hence insanity pleas or diminished responsibility are legitimate defences.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
@chenda:
Yes, Sapolsky addresses the judicial bias towards agency.
I am several chapters into the book now. The broad expression of the strong argument he makes:
In fact, I had the thought that since 65% of the children in the U.S. who are still functionally illiterate by age 10 end up in prision or on welfare, somebody who has a job doing grounds-maintenance was likely luckier than some of the kids I tutor, because some of them at age 10+ can't solve a simple story problem in math, because they can't decode the words composing it.
Yes, Sapolsky addresses the judicial bias towards agency.
I am several chapters into the book now. The broad expression of the strong argument he makes:
Even if all the experiments in which your brain prepares to move your greedy hand before your gluttonous self forms the intent to raid the cookie jar are put aside:We are nothing more or less than the cumulative biological and environmental luck, over which we had no control, that has brought us to any moment.
There was a passage in the book that spoke to me quite directly, because I am currently spending much of my time tutoring math (a topic with a reasonably straight-forward 'ladder') to students from age 5 who are still learning to count to young adults who are learning calculus; some of whom can afford $40/hr for my 1-on-1 private services and some for whom the gubbermint pays me $18/hr to tutor in small groups because they have fallen far behind on this "ladder", while also studying some technical topics in grad classes myself with an aging brain. In this passage, Sapolsky has the reader imagine a typical happy college graduation ceremony, with proud parents, etc. Then he quick flips the reader's perspective to the custodian who is cleaning up the trash after the ceremony. And he makes the point that every single factor that separates one of the successful graduates from the guy picking up the trash is a matter of luck. Any time you want to point out an exception to the rule, you are simply recognizing that you are missing a factor.You wish to do something, intend to do it, and then successfully do so. But no matter how fervent, even desperate, you are, you can't successfully wish to wish for a different intent.
In fact, I had the thought that since 65% of the children in the U.S. who are still functionally illiterate by age 10 end up in prision or on welfare, somebody who has a job doing grounds-maintenance was likely luckier than some of the kids I tutor, because some of them at age 10+ can't solve a simple story problem in math, because they can't decode the words composing it.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
Saposlky's book is excellent, I started it as well, recommended
-
suomalainen
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
I didn't watch the lecture, but this argument has never made any sense to me. It's like arguing that criminals don't have free will, therefore the justice system shouldn't be the way it is ... as if the people making up the justice system (from voters to cops and judges and prosecutors) had free will. But if criminals "shouldn't" be held liable for their (criminal) behavior because they don't have free will, then the justice system "shouldn't" be held liable for its (criminal) treatment of criminals, so why are we even talking about it?
... because we don't have free will either and so we can do nothing else but talk about it. Turtles all the way down.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
I think the point is that presumption of free will sits at the heart of the judicial process, but it is considered some people don't have it e.g. the certified insane.
But yes you could expand the argument and say that the absence of free will compelles us to believe in free will and act as if it's exists. For some reason this reminds me of the 'grandfather paradox', one of those mind benders which drive one crazy.
But yes you could expand the argument and say that the absence of free will compelles us to believe in free will and act as if it's exists. For some reason this reminds me of the 'grandfather paradox', one of those mind benders which drive one crazy.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
@suo:
Sapolsky sort of gets around this by simply noting how things have changed in the justice system and how they likely will continue to change as we better come to understand various mechanisms. You can take the moral "should" out of it with a statement that could be made by an intelligent alien species intermittently observing human behavior along the lines of "This factor and this factor and this factor have resulted in the reduction of "to be drawn and quartered in the public square" as judicial punishment meted by 99.9% since our last observation in 1423." So, putting aside the likelihood of global economic collapse due to climate change/resource depletion in the 21st century, an intelligent totally amoral-by-our-terms (considering whether human meat would be tasty for export to its planet) alien would likely wager that the U.S. judicial system might look more like the current Nordic system in another 50 years. IOW, human beings collectively do seem to have the cognitive bandwidth necessary to integrate updated knowledge of mechanism into that which we refer to as "moral" structure. For simple example, few of us past age 3 or 4 hit the coffee table and say "Bad coffee table" when we bump our shin on it, because we know that is a waste of moral energy. We are genetically primed to find pleasure in acts of retribution, but we are also genetically primed to comprehend the cost of useless or counter-productive action. Eventually the "slope" of our brain can come to favor the second and this will be reflected in our behavior. Something like that...even Sapolsky cops that it is dead hard to think this way given our innate predilections, acculturation, etc.
Sapolsky sort of gets around this by simply noting how things have changed in the justice system and how they likely will continue to change as we better come to understand various mechanisms. You can take the moral "should" out of it with a statement that could be made by an intelligent alien species intermittently observing human behavior along the lines of "This factor and this factor and this factor have resulted in the reduction of "to be drawn and quartered in the public square" as judicial punishment meted by 99.9% since our last observation in 1423." So, putting aside the likelihood of global economic collapse due to climate change/resource depletion in the 21st century, an intelligent totally amoral-by-our-terms (considering whether human meat would be tasty for export to its planet) alien would likely wager that the U.S. judicial system might look more like the current Nordic system in another 50 years. IOW, human beings collectively do seem to have the cognitive bandwidth necessary to integrate updated knowledge of mechanism into that which we refer to as "moral" structure. For simple example, few of us past age 3 or 4 hit the coffee table and say "Bad coffee table" when we bump our shin on it, because we know that is a waste of moral energy. We are genetically primed to find pleasure in acts of retribution, but we are also genetically primed to comprehend the cost of useless or counter-productive action. Eventually the "slope" of our brain can come to favor the second and this will be reflected in our behavior. Something like that...even Sapolsky cops that it is dead hard to think this way given our innate predilections, acculturation, etc.
-
suomalainen
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
@7: Well, my understanding is that this argument is raised in ethics, so that's where the "should" enters. "No free will means it's unethical to punish people for their behavior so we shouldn't do it." My point is that if you accept determinism, then introducing morality as optionality is logically inconsistent. You can't have it both ways. I think the rest of what you wrote is just an evolution of mechanics and not a "collapse" or other ground-moving change away from any sort of punishment/deterrence/removal system. Perhaps the methods have / will become more nuanced as power is spread among more people than when "justice" was a mere extension of a single human's power decisions, but the urge to control / punish / etc. will likely be manifested forever.
@chenda: I don't think "free will sits at the heart of the judicial process". You can explain it as: we're just monkeys who generally speaking frown on certain behaviors and throw rocks at other monkeys who do stuff we don't like. Whatever is the "majority" position (by numbers or by brute strength or whatever the social dynamic is for the species) is what is "right" or "moral" or "legal" and is what is enforced. Deviants are shunned, excluded, caged or killed. I don't think any other social species are ascribed "free will", yet they have their own "justice systems" as well.
@chenda: I don't think "free will sits at the heart of the judicial process". You can explain it as: we're just monkeys who generally speaking frown on certain behaviors and throw rocks at other monkeys who do stuff we don't like. Whatever is the "majority" position (by numbers or by brute strength or whatever the social dynamic is for the species) is what is "right" or "moral" or "legal" and is what is enforced. Deviants are shunned, excluded, caged or killed. I don't think any other social species are ascribed "free will", yet they have their own "justice systems" as well.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
Even assuming that criminals don't have free will, one would say that they are dangerous and hurt people and are unable to stop themselves. Therefore, we maybe want to hurt them back so that others will be influenced by fear of the punishment and will not commit those same crimes. Or to hope that the punishment will convince the criminals not to reoffend.
Literally the exact same reasons one would have punishments if free will does exist (which I believe it does).
Regardless of whether free will exists, our behaviors are influenced by the world around us and therefore punishment is still a functional idea.
The whole thing feels like a vapid argument in line with current political thinking about crime and punishment, not like an argument rooted in solid logic.
Literally the exact same reasons one would have punishments if free will does exist (which I believe it does).
Regardless of whether free will exists, our behaviors are influenced by the world around us and therefore punishment is still a functional idea.
The whole thing feels like a vapid argument in line with current political thinking about crime and punishment, not like an argument rooted in solid logic.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
To be clear I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that metaphysical arguments about free will should or will be used as legitimate defences in court. That would be absurd.
It's just a point of note that the assumption of free will is at the heart of the judicial system, and 'not guilty by virtue of insanity' verdicts recognise that it some cases it is not considered to exist in some people.
It's just a point of note that the assumption of free will is at the heart of the judicial system, and 'not guilty by virtue of insanity' verdicts recognise that it some cases it is not considered to exist in some people.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
Not guilty by virtue of insanity is not a metaphysical defense, it's an epistemological defense. The transgressor is incapable of full knowledge of the behavior they engaged in as a metaphysical and ethical being.chenda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 10:29 amTo be clear I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that metaphysical arguments about free will should or will be used as legitimate defences in court. That would be absurd.
It's just a point of note that the assumption of free will is at the heart of the judicial system, and 'not guilty by virtue of insanity' verdicts recognise that it some cases it is not considered to exist in some people.
People believe in prohibiting behavior for different reasons and can incidentally/coincidentally be in agreement as to its enforcement. I believe murder should be prohibited on both metaphysical (created in the image of God) and epistemological and ethical (thou shalt not murder) grounds. Some want murder prohibited just because it increases their chances of living to see another day and could give a rat's ass about philosophical implications.
I believe free will is at heart an ethical issue. I have metaphysical and epistemological agency to kill someone - my being can accomplish through the knowledge I have to do it. But my free will is restrained from doing so because of my ethical nature which is a good thing or I'd already be executed or living my life out in the can depending on which state I lived in at the time I offed a motherfucker and his entire extended family and network of friends for being a stupid prick.
And for people who believe in free will, why can't they stop doing the things they want to stop doing and start doing the things they want to start doing when they possess the agency to amend their behavior? I think Solzhenitsyn answered the question when he stated the line between good and evil runs down everyman's heart ie we are metaphysical creatures who despite having knowledge of what is right are ethically incapable of consistently doing it.
-
suomalainen
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
I think we're talking past each other. You seem focused on individual application, while I'm focused on the system. Agree that within the system, there is a range of "culpability" and as a society we have chosen a cut-off point after which someone is not culpable for their crimes (young kids, development disabilities, "insanity"). No disagreement there. My point is more systemic in that choosing that point of culpability is just a reflection of our species. That point could easily slide one way or the other to @7's point. But that doesn't mean it's an assumption (whether ex ante or ex post) of "free will" that exists at the heart of the judicial system. It's just that we've (arbitrarily?) drawn lines around what/who is "worth punishing". Free will is not required. I punish my dog for shitting on the rug. I don't consider my dog to have free will.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
Interestingly until the 18th century there are many recorded cases of animals been on trial for crimes - literally put in the dock. Those found guilty could be executed or punished in other ways.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
The US Constitution was influenced by many intellectual strains and traditions including British Common Law, John Locke empiricism, Montesquieu, biblical Christianity but probably the most profound influence was the natural law tradition which states there are laws made known to man in the general revelation of the universe (including our own hearts/consciousness) to which we must comport. So agency is at the center of judicial law - we are responsible for our actions and there is a universal ethical standard. Personally, I do not believe that we have free will but I do believe that we have agency and therefore are ultimately responsible for our actions. I do not look at the debate as an "either or" but a "both and." But I'm Medieval that way.
With regard to animals, I do not believe they have free will but I do believe that any creature, great or fucking small, who purposely shits on my walkway should have their anal cavity plugged in order that they choke to death on their own excrement and then dragged throughout the animal kingdom in order to teach a lesson to all animals who find targeted defecation a source of entertainment. I guess I'm Medieval that way too.
With regard to animals, I do not believe they have free will but I do believe that any creature, great or fucking small, who purposely shits on my walkway should have their anal cavity plugged in order that they choke to death on their own excrement and then dragged throughout the animal kingdom in order to teach a lesson to all animals who find targeted defecation a source of entertainment. I guess I'm Medieval that way too.
Re: Free will / fatalism / life purpose
Yes, and Sapolsky cops to this. IOW, he clearly recognizes that he is simultaneously arguing "No angels" while contributing his take on "How many angels fit on head of pin?", and his only excuse is "F8ck this is hard for me too." IMO, the book is actually 3 books in 1, and the one book where he is mostly addressing concerns such as "Won't losing belief in free will cause humans to run amok?" is the weakest and ,perhaps necessarily, most riddled with subjectivity/politics. The second book of the 3-books-in-1 included is a collection of primers meant to get the educated lay reader somewhat up to date on topics such as chaos theory, emergent complexity, and quantum indeterminacy, in order to dispel the notion that any of these offer a means by which human will could be rendered free, The third book of the 3-books-in-1 would consist of the chapters and passages where he brings forward recent research in his own fields of neuroscience and primate studies and how these relate to the concept of "free will." I found this "third book" to be the most interesting and convincing*. For those who prefer to cut to the chase, this article on the molecular biology of memory storage is key:suo wrote:My point is that if you accept determinism, then introducing morality as optionality is logically inconsistent. You can't have it both ways.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1067020
*However, I fully recognize that my brain was likely for a variety of reasons already more primed to be convinced
Neo-pantheist-librarian types are more likely to hold the perspective that locus of control is diffused throughout the field like branching bibliographies twisting with anticipation.I found myself humming "This Little Light of Mine" as I contemplated which positive emotional states I would associate with belief in various placements of locus of control. I think both Sapolaky and Harari have noted that maybe the positive emotional/cognitive state that could be associated with moving beyond belief in Free Will would maybe be something akin to "Curiousity absent Hubris."