Does free will exist?

[Parson]

J.D. I am frustrated that you put that video up. It is entirely too interesting and thought provoking. I am "wasting time" instead of doing my work.

But.... I don't really have a choice.

Okay, Thanks, I too agree but for different reasons that free will does not ultimately exist. But that the concept helps us to act in moral and ethical ways. I wish I really had time to think and dig at what he is saying. I feel as though he is putting together a paper wall. It looks impressive but it is easily penetrated. --- But I don't have time to deal with it.

 

[Ursa major]

Apart from the rather extreme example JD mentions, I'm not sure that there ever could be a true "I" all the way down, if only because the brain supports massive parallelism. To use the simple examples Moonbat mentions, it would take a we to cope consciously with digestion, breathing, dribbling the ball all at the same time. And yet that's just a small fraction of what anyone dribbling a ball is doing, all at the same time.


Regarding the assertion that none of our decisions are made by our conscious selves, I'm not sure that's true. Suppose you were buying a house and had written down a list of suitable criteria (number of bedrooms; near to/far from a busy road; near a good school; off street parking/garage; sea view; close to/far from a station; that sort of thing). While your subconscious might affect what was on the list - although these things don't tend to be spur of the moment choices, particularly where a couple, or a whole family, is involved in drawing the list up - I think the conscious mind would be completely on board with the result. Then comes the disappointment that goes with meeting those criteria using the budget you have. But let's assume there's a house that meets them all, and another house that "feels right".

If you were to choose the latter, rather than pick the most suitable house, I wouldn't call that rational thinking (whether the I was the conscious I or some subconscious process), but "going with a hunch" or, to be rather less kind, wishful thinking. You might, later, say that you were happier in that house than you would have been in the suitable one, but as with all such decisions in real time, that's no more than an opinion (as there's no way to make a true comparison**). If you chose the suitable house, it seems to me that that is both rational and the result of a rational, conscious process.


Some of us are anal enough (not that I'm saying that the relevant decisions are made that far away from my conscious self ) to make lists when we buy things: cars, cash ISAs***, houses, audio equipment, PCs, peripherals....

However, I do concede that even I am probably driven by my subconscious's decision making for much of what I (decide to) do. I simply do not believe (and my subconscious - which as Moonbat points out, is still me, agrees with me, though probably complexly) that's the case all of the time.


** - Unless the "suitable" house was, say, hit by a juggernaut or a meteor.

*** - Tax-free savings accounts.

 

[HareBrain]

I too agree but for different reasons that free will does not ultimately exist. But that the concept helps us to act in moral and ethical ways.

This is a valid point. Sam Harris says something similar later in the video, not about free will so much as the concept that one person might be deemed more valuable than another -- his point there is that although some viewpoints might rationally judge one person more or less valuable than another, it greatly benefits society for people to believe that we are all of equal worth.

Apart from the rather extreme example JD mentions, I'm not sure that there ever could be a true "I" all the way down, if only because the brain supports massive parallelism. To use the simple examples Moonbat mentions, it would take a we to cope consciously with digestion, breathing, dribbling the ball all at the same time. And yet that's just a small fraction of what anyone dribbling a ball is doing, all at the same time.

The "I" JD referred to is the ego, the observer that controls nothing but believes it controls everything. It is the constructed sense of self. Although it rationally acknowledges that the body does the work of digestion, moving muscles etc, it nevertheless has the overriding sense that all those functions are part of it and, if not actually controlled by the will, then delegated by the will to subconscious processes. But because it secretly knows it doesn't really exist, the ego strives ever harder to coinvince itself that it does, and that it is all-important, and that it WILL NOT DIE, somehow.

If you chose the suitable house, it seems to me that that is both rational and the result of a rational, conscious process.

But that choice might well depend on how you perceive yourself, or want to perceive yourself, as a maker of rational decisions or not. And where does that self-image come from?

 

[Ursa major]

The "I" JD referred to is the ego, the observer that controls nothing but believes it controls everything. It is the constructed sense of self. Although it rationally acknowledges that the body does the work of digestion, moving muscles etc, it nevertheless has the overriding sense that all those functions are part of it and, if not actually controlled by the will, then delegated by the will to subconscious processes. But because it secretly knows it doesn't really exist, the ego strives ever harder to coinvince itself that it does, and that it is all-important, and that it WILL NOT DIE, somehow.

I don't know about you, but I (the conscious me) have never considered that I am in any way in charge of digesting my food. I've got Biology A and O levels, but I don't think that has equipped me to even start controlling my digestion. And how many people can, through will alone, regurgitate stuff without drinking salt water or putting their fingers down their throat. (I know some people can, but I expect it takes rather a lot of training, and all they're doing is reversing the direction of peristalsis in one very short length of the very long digestive tract.) And the world is full of people who don't believe their 'I' will survive the rest of them; and quite a few of them worry about it (sometimes at great length, if you've ever had to listen to them ).

Personally, I also believe the conscious self is an emergent feature, which is why there's a small possibility that you might, one day, see a conscious AI (just before they kill you ), but that doesn't mean that only "explainer", "rationaliser", or "tomorrow the world" functions have emerged. Just like the guys who can regurgitate at will, I believe the conscious self can affect the world around, albeit with the aid of the subconscious mind. (I wonder if one example of this is my conscious correcting of all the typos with which my subconscious mind litters my posts.)

But that choice might well depend on how you perceive yourself, or want to perceive yourself, as a maker of rational decisions or not. And where does that self-image come from?

If I state, at the beginning of my search, that I want a four-bedroomed detached house, away from the main road, in a given school's catchment area, within ten minutes of a railway station (on foot) and then, months later, choose just such a house, I don't think my self-perception comes into it. I will have made a conscious choice based on earlier criteria. (If I end up buying a two-bedroomed bungalow at a major road junction next to a sink school and twenty minutes drive from a train station whose service runs to three trains a week, then yes, something other than 'I' - although still the whole me - has likely chosen for me.)

 

[HareBrain]

Can any decision be called conscious if all the thoughts that comprise the process arise from the unconscious?

I would like someone to give me an example of a thought they have consciously chosen to think.

 

[hopewrites]

does choosing to unthink count?


wait before I ask that, could someone explain the I/Ego thing a little better to me? because I dont think I have one of those...

 

[HareBrain]

does choosing to unthink count?

How does that choice arise? How does it start? What is the process?

wait before I ask that, could someone explain the I/Ego thing a little better to me? because I dont think I have one of those...

It's merely the identity, an awareness of yourself as a separate personality. If you've ever reflected on your own thoughts or behaviour or memories as a (to some extent) self-contained being who exists as the same person through time, then you do. It's the mental avatar you use in the real world, to interact with other mental avatars (ie people).

 

[Moonbat]

HB, I would like you to picture, in your mind's eye, an Orange Penguin.

Now, if I'm right, you read the sentence, thought consciously, 'ok I'll humour the partially insane Moonbat and picture an Orange Penguin' then you thought about one enough to picture it in your mind's eye. Does that count?

But it comes down to the point I made before that although the very start of the thought process, which could be as small as a single neuron firing, being too small and fleeting for the conscious mind to notice and so it is only recognised as a thought when thousands (if not factors of 10 more) of neurons fire in sucession/unity to create a significantly large enough 'thought' to be recognised as such.

The I as an emergent property of intelligence is the sum (or more than) of its parts, so can any single part be recognised by it, I would doubt it, but I still think that the thought/descision belongs to the brain that creates it and although it happens beneath the consciousness it can't be dismissed as not being controlled.

 

[Ursa major]

Given that we cannot remove the mind from its environment, I doubt we could ever say that any given decision originated in either our conscious or subconscious minds. In many (the vast majority?) of cases, there will have been some external stimulus. Perhaps not an obvious one, or one that occurred immediately** before that decision, but it will have contributed to the result. (For example, your question prompted this response.) The need to find a house may have been prompted by being laid off, resulting in a need to move area to obtain another job.



** - For example, someone may have asked you what the name of a former colleague was, but the name only emerges days later.

 

[j d worthington]

The question of conscious/subconscious (which is a term that is, so far as I understand, no longer used professionally; they prefer "unconscious", to avoid the idea of physical levels in the mind/brain) is a dubious one itself. What we call the "conscious" mind is simply those portions of the ever-ongoing thought processes which momentarily are strong enough to "call our attention" to them, but are themselves largely made up of a myriad of "unconscious" thoughts, motivations, reactions, etc.

It is like an engine which is constantly running; the bulk of the time, the noise it makes becomes simply unnoticeable; but when one of a series of sets of circumstances combine to produce an unusual sound, it may call attention to itself simply by that fact....

 

[Ursa major]

I'm glad you mentioned the unconscious, JD, because it reminds me of a description of one aspect of the learning process, i.e. the Four Stages of Competence (which I may have mentioned before, somewhere ).

Simply put, these are:

1. Unconscious incompetence, where one does know how to do something but is unaware or unconcerned that learning one or more new skills can sort things out.
2. Conscious incompetence, where one is aware of the lack of skill, and so can set out to learn it (or them).
3. Conscious competence, where one has to consciously apply the skill.
4. Unconscious competence, where one is able to apply the skill "without thinking about it", i.e. the conscious mind is not involved in every aspect of the skill, only in directing its use when necessary.

This seems to fit in very well with JD's observation about the involvement of the conscious mind only when this is seen to be important or necessary.

 

[hopewrites]

How does that choice arise? How does it start? What is the process?

I'll get to that, but I want to be sure I understand your question in full before I apply the answer that came to mind. Which the more I think on it, the easier I see how you could/would deflect my answer... maybe.

It's merely the identity, an awareness of yourself as a separate personality. If you've ever reflected on your own thoughts or behaviour or memories as a (to some extent) self-contained being who exists as the same person through time, then you do. It's the mental avatar you use in the real world, to interact with other mental avatars (ie people).

while I reflect often, the being who reflects is not always the same. I have multiple avatars that interact with others, and rotate through them as situation demands. Sort of like, multiple personality without the disorder, because we know of each other and (for the most) part try to work together. But no one amongst us is prominent or in permanent control. Which is why I said I dont think I have one an I/ego as it has been described here.

 

[HareBrain]

I started to try to respond to several of then above points, but I've concluded that it only makes sense to have this kind of discussion in a pub beer garden.

 

[Moonbat]

Are you inviting us all out for a beer then HB?

 

[HareBrain]

Absolutely. There's nothing like a pint of tepid suds and a pointless discussion on speculative topics on a warm summer's evening in a country pub garden, spitfires flying overhead, nightingales tuning up, the waft of rosebay and willowherb from the freshly opened packet of posh crisps ...

 

[Moonbat]

I just read through the last page of this thread and I thought I'd keep it alive..

Being that I am in Olympics mode I considered the whole idea around false starts.
As far as I know, a false start is when a sprinter (as only they have blocks) puts pressure on the block sooner than it is considered humanly possible to react to the starter's gun. It has been said that a twitch can set them off, but let's look at the reaction time setup.

From Wikipeadia

In track and field spints the sport's governing body, the IAAF, has a rule that if the athlete moves within 0.10 seconds after the gun has fired the athlete has false started.This figure is based on tests that show the human brain cannot hear and process the information from the start sound in under 0.10 seconds

The gun is fired, and (somewhat unfairly) the speed of sound will reach each of the sprinter's ears at a different time (I wonder if they have put things in place to stop this, like speakers behind each sprinter?) but then it is considered that it takes 0.1 seconds for the sprinter to react, this includes hearing the sound, processing the information and sending a response to the muscles. How does this sit with Dr Sam Harris' notion of people making a descision before they are aware of it? Could it be shown that the reaction is faster than 0.1 seconds, but it is only when the brain is aware of it that they move?
I wonder if this kind of reflex action can be thought of as conscious at all?
If the sprinter moves too soon, could they argue that it wasn't them (the I/ego) that chose to move, it wasn't their choice or a result of them exercising their free will?

 

[HareBrain]

A sprinter is trained to respond to the gun. It isn't a conscious decision, any more than flinching when you hear a loud noise.

The 0.1 seconds would be the time it takes for the brain to register the noise, and for the muscles to react to the resulting impulse.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Free will, or pre-will?

It sounds like just another example of health&safety/rules&regulations greysuits making life easier for themselves at the expense of those who are actually doing something with their lives, and trying to justify their own fat salaries by making like they're doing something useful ...

 

[Ursa major]

The gun is fired, and (somewhat unfairly) the speed of sound will reach each of the sprinter's ears at a different time (I wonder if they have put things in place to stop this, like speakers behind each sprinter?)

Such speakers are used, so I imagine major events - the Olympics, world championships, major meetings - would probably use them.

Given that the TV coverage of individual 100m races are inevitably dominated by the sprinters wandering about, trying the blocks, etc., you'll have plenty of opportunities to check this out for yourself over the next few weeks.


Or, by "sound will reach each of the sprinter's ears at a different time" were you wondering that, say, the left ear might get a... er... head start over the right ear?

 

[Morbius]

Free will? No, I don't think so. Not in the popular meaning of that term. The traditional wide spread belief in individual freedom & dignity is appealing but upside down.

I think B.F. Skinner had it right and consider him the greatest psychologist of the 20th century. It's not that there's a body with an autonomous person inside, but a body that IS a person that displays a complex repertoire of behavior.

All human behavior can be traced back to controlling relations with the environment.