The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Baumeister"
 All Comments / On "Baumeister"
    Slate recently featured an article written by Roy F. Baumeister, Do You Really Have Free Will? In it, he claims that human do indeed have free will, something that regular readers will know that I have emphatically argued against. Baumeister doesn't make any supernatural appeals in this article; he does not appeal to some sort...
  • […] No, You Don’t Have Free Will, and This Is Why […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thank you for your response.

    “Perceive” in this context: consciously experience.

    “Yourself” (I didn’t use “yourself” in the part you quoted, but I take you to be asking what I meant by “I”): in this context: the self-aware entity which experiences the particular stream of consciousness that gave rise to this comment

    “choose” in this context: to cause something to occur

    We could spend a large amount of time and energy exploring what these ‘entail’. For purposes of my point, the main thing is that (the first two at least) entail the exact same thing in reference to free will as they entail in reference to rational inference. The third – ‘choice’ – is particular to free will, but its analogue in reference to rationality is to accept a proposition as being true (i.e. to form a belief).

    Yes, the two (free will and rational inference) are not the same, but they have much more in common than you think.

    “your subjective (read: naive) impressions become questionable upon closer examination”

    Yes indeed they do. However the subjective is where each of us lives, and while facts are objective, our beliefs – even rigorously formed, evidence-based beliefs that can successfully be used to predict the outcome of any number of scenarios – are subjective. And to the extent that your (or any) argument invalidates the strong, natural subjective belief in free will that we experience, it also invalidates the strong, natural subjective belief in the validity of human inference that we experience. And you are gravely underestimating how much human rationality owes to that natural subjective perception; in fact, without it there is really not much cause, other than arbitrary ‘happy think’ to put any stock in it.

    To start, the validity of human rationality is a ‘closed house’ in that it is the one thing in the universe that we cannot, even in theory, rationally verify, as a thing cannot verify itself. That could be the end too: once that point is understood, the grim reality – that all of our hard-won empirical, experimental and theoretical scientific knowledge rests on a foundation that is completely unverifiable, and which must just be trusted, completely and blindly – appears.

    But it gets worse. If we step into the closed house, and try to use our rational faculties to provide support for their own validity, we are confronted with very strong evidence that the most impartial, empirical, rational beliefs we might form through painstaking care and examination of the world around us are, like all our beliefs, artifacts of the way our brains are structured at the current point in our evolution. Our trust in our reason, absent the claim of the subjective experience we have when we grasp a rational truth, ends up resting on this ‘just so’ story:

    At just this particular point in the history of life on earth, with billions of years of evolution gone by, and (hopefully) billions of years to come, there has arisen a structure, the human brain, which can not only use the stimulus provided by the world around it to generate behaviors beneficial to survival and reproduction (which we would expect the mechanism of natural selection to do), but to generate objectively true beliefs about matters of not just immediate importance to survival or reproduction, but about black holes, and e^(i*Pi) = -1, and the orbit of Pluto – and yes, in the reductivity of all the events in the universe down to the interactions of quantum scale matter and energy packets. And – even worse – we have to believe this when there is also strong empirical evidence that these very brains, are subject to firm beliefs in all sorts of irrational hooey – demonstrably false beliefs that yet are evolutionarily beneficial enough to have been fixed into the psyche of a significant majority of our species.

    To be clear, I believe that e^(i*Pi) = -1, and that Pluto will be right where our calculations say it will be this time next year, and that there is a huge black hole at the center of the galaxy we are in, and even in the reductivity of reality. I believe all these things because I really do trust the strong subjective claim that basic rational inference presents upon my consciousness. What I do not understand is, if you reject such strong subjective claims as they present themselves to your consciousness, on what do you base your beliefs in these things?

    Finally thanks for the references, but I am familiar with both Sam Harris’s views on free will (which suffer from the same failure to recognize that human rationality sits in the same subjective space as free will does) and with split brain cases (which serve to throw into question validity of our rational faculties as much as they throw anything else into question). As to where free will comes from and how it fits into reductive reality, I do not know. But I do know that there is way too much mystery around our consciousness and how we form our beliefs (including, especially, our cold, empirically supported, rational beliefs) to get anywhere near a conclusion that there is no such thing as free will.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    @Neptunutation:

    Above, you say to back up your claims with evidence but obviously this is just a place where you reign above everyone else and make the same rude comments you advise against. I’ve seen a lot of places like this (with a double standard) on the net which makes blogging completely useless itself.
     
    It's my blog. You (and everyone) need to respect that.

    Saying something is random (because we can’t detect a pattern or cause or predict it with accuracy) is the same thing as giving up on something that can’t be known yet by modern technology.
     
    No, it doesn't work that way. You should do some research into quantum theory. In quantum mechanics, everything reduces to a probability wave function. The way the wave function evolves over time is completely deterministic, but not the precise outcomes which are inherently probabilistic in nature. Again, this isn't a technological limitation, but an inherent physical quality.

    The proof of this is that beyond any doubt, we know everything has a cause and is determined.
     
    We only "know" this in the sense that our best observations seem to indicate such. Nothing we observe in the "macro" world can impinge on the inherent randomness generated by quantum mechanics.

    Besides, even randomness is itself a cause. Whether an electron goes through the right slit or the left is still "caused" by something – that is the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics.


    IF (and this will never happen) quantum processes are truly “random” then the only conclusion is that we do have a degree of free will.
     
    Why? That there is some inherent randomness in the universe doesn't restore any semblance of free will. How "free" is an action if it was determined by an electron going right as opposed to left? We have no more control over the outcome of random zigs and zags than we would if the sequence was perfectly set in stone. That's a key misconception people have.

    Of course, a big problem with the matter of free will is that few people understand what we're talking about.

    This reply is for your information only. You are on moderation, so do not post on it again. Feel free to discuss other topics, however.

    Thanks for enlightening my view. I appreciate the explanation and have amended my view. Post it for everyone to see bro, Im certain other people will find what you wrote useful. Thanks. Glad I know more now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Neptunutation
    Above, you say to back up your claims with evidence but obviously this is just a place where you reign above everyone else and make the same rude comments you advise against. I've seen a lot of places like this (with a double standard) on the net which makes blogging completely useless itself.
    I'm advocating determinism and the illusion of free will. We are automated and everything we've ever discovered concretely about the physical world has a cause. Quantum physics WILL prove to be the same way.
    I'm a mechanic who diagnosis' problems daily. I'm also a philosopher and sociologist. Misdiagnosis and delusion reek havoc on human endeavors everyday countless times.
    Saying something is random (because we can't detect a pattern or cause or predict it with accuracy) is the same thing as giving up on something that can't be known yet by modern technology. Truthfully, saying something is random, is throwing your hands up and saying I don't know. It's the same poor logic that led to mysticism and religion which we should all know here is bogus.
    Electrons do not show up where they want randomly just because we can't find the answer or predict with certainty where they will be. That is just a misdiagnosis that we haven't squared yet. The proof of this is that beyond any doubt, we know everything has a cause and is determined.
    As I said before, either you are determinist and know that with further progress in the quantum studies, we will show how nothing is random or you are contradicting your own statements advocating determinism.
    You can't have it both ways. A correct phrase (if you wish to correct yourself instead of press on) is to say that, "currently, with our best equipment our data is trying to say that quantum processes are random and unpredictable, but this conclusion is contradictory and unreasonable so we'll be eagerly awaiting for more to be revealed."
    Saying things are random is also saying "we don't have the facts in yet, be cause we lack the ability to figure it out"
    IF (and this will never happen) quantum processes are truly "random" then the only conclusion is that we do have a degree of free will. Obviously, we know that is bull crap so the only conclusion is that quantum processes to have causes, can be predicted and are anything but random.

    Above, you say to back up your claims with evidence but obviously this is just a place where you reign above everyone else and make the same rude comments you advise against. I’ve seen a lot of places like this (with a double standard) on the net which makes blogging completely useless itself.

    It’s my blog. You (and everyone) need to respect that.

    Saying something is random (because we can’t detect a pattern or cause or predict it with accuracy) is the same thing as giving up on something that can’t be known yet by modern technology.

    No, it doesn’t work that way. You should do some research into quantum theory. In quantum mechanics, everything reduces to a probability wave function. The way the wave function evolves over time is completely deterministic, but not the precise outcomes which are inherently probabilistic in nature. Again, this isn’t a technological limitation, but an inherent physical quality.

    The proof of this is that beyond any doubt, we know everything has a cause and is determined.

    We only “know” this in the sense that our best observations seem to indicate such. Nothing we observe in the “macro” world can impinge on the inherent randomness generated by quantum mechanics.

    Besides, even randomness is itself a cause. Whether an electron goes through the right slit or the left is still “caused” by something – that is the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics.

    IF (and this will never happen) quantum processes are truly “random” then the only conclusion is that we do have a degree of free will.

    Why? That there is some inherent randomness in the universe doesn’t restore any semblance of free will. How “free” is an action if it was determined by an electron going right as opposed to left? We have no more control over the outcome of random zigs and zags than we would if the sequence was perfectly set in stone. That’s a key misconception people have.

    Of course, a big problem with the matter of free will is that few people understand what we’re talking about.

    This reply is for your information only. You are on moderation, so do not post on it again. Feel free to discuss other topics, however.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neptunutation
    Thanks for enlightening my view. I appreciate the explanation and have amended my view. Post it for everyone to see bro, Im certain other people will find what you wrote useful. Thanks. Glad I know more now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Neptunutation
    How can you be a Harris fan, argue for Determinism and that free will is illusory but then turn around and say that random things make up the physical world?
    I'm not the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. You are the one who shouldn't comment here because your view is hypocritical and contradictory.
    Either everything is determined and automated or it is not. There is no middle ground. If our smallest parts aren't determined then how can we be?
    I'll comment where ever I want too so shove it.

    I’ll comment where ever I want too so shove it.

    Maybe somewhere else, not here. Moderation (not banned only because I’m feeling generous).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Above, you say to back up your claims with evidence but obviously this is just a place where you reign above everyone else and make the same rude comments you advise against. I’ve seen a lot of places like this (with a double standard) on the net which makes blogging completely useless itself.
    I’m advocating determinism and the illusion of free will. We are automated and everything we’ve ever discovered concretely about the physical world has a cause. Quantum physics WILL prove to be the same way.
    I’m a mechanic who diagnosis’ problems daily. I’m also a philosopher and sociologist. Misdiagnosis and delusion reek havoc on human endeavors everyday countless times.
    Saying something is random (because we can’t detect a pattern or cause or predict it with accuracy) is the same thing as giving up on something that can’t be known yet by modern technology. Truthfully, saying something is random, is throwing your hands up and saying I don’t know. It’s the same poor logic that led to mysticism and religion which we should all know here is bogus.
    Electrons do not show up where they want randomly just because we can’t find the answer or predict with certainty where they will be. That is just a misdiagnosis that we haven’t squared yet. The proof of this is that beyond any doubt, we know everything has a cause and is determined.
    As I said before, either you are determinist and know that with further progress in the quantum studies, we will show how nothing is random or you are contradicting your own statements advocating determinism.
    You can’t have it both ways. A correct phrase (if you wish to correct yourself instead of press on) is to say that, “currently, with our best equipment our data is trying to say that quantum processes are random and unpredictable, but this conclusion is contradictory and unreasonable so we’ll be eagerly awaiting for more to be revealed.”
    Saying things are random is also saying “we don’t have the facts in yet, be cause we lack the ability to figure it out”
    IF (and this will never happen) quantum processes are truly “random” then the only conclusion is that we do have a degree of free will. Obviously, we know that is bull crap so the only conclusion is that quantum processes to have causes, can be predicted and are anything but random.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Neptunutation:

    Above, you say to back up your claims with evidence but obviously this is just a place where you reign above everyone else and make the same rude comments you advise against. I’ve seen a lot of places like this (with a double standard) on the net which makes blogging completely useless itself.
     
    It's my blog. You (and everyone) need to respect that.

    Saying something is random (because we can’t detect a pattern or cause or predict it with accuracy) is the same thing as giving up on something that can’t be known yet by modern technology.
     
    No, it doesn't work that way. You should do some research into quantum theory. In quantum mechanics, everything reduces to a probability wave function. The way the wave function evolves over time is completely deterministic, but not the precise outcomes which are inherently probabilistic in nature. Again, this isn't a technological limitation, but an inherent physical quality.

    The proof of this is that beyond any doubt, we know everything has a cause and is determined.
     
    We only "know" this in the sense that our best observations seem to indicate such. Nothing we observe in the "macro" world can impinge on the inherent randomness generated by quantum mechanics.

    Besides, even randomness is itself a cause. Whether an electron goes through the right slit or the left is still "caused" by something – that is the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics.


    IF (and this will never happen) quantum processes are truly “random” then the only conclusion is that we do have a degree of free will.
     
    Why? That there is some inherent randomness in the universe doesn't restore any semblance of free will. How "free" is an action if it was determined by an electron going right as opposed to left? We have no more control over the outcome of random zigs and zags than we would if the sequence was perfectly set in stone. That's a key misconception people have.

    Of course, a big problem with the matter of free will is that few people understand what we're talking about.

    This reply is for your information only. You are on moderation, so do not post on it again. Feel free to discuss other topics, however.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    @Neptunutation:

    Your own personal incredulity is fine and good. You're free to choose not to believe. But, to be frank, you don't know what you're talking about. Please don't bring up this particular matter here again, thanks.

    How can you be a Harris fan, argue for Determinism and that free will is illusory but then turn around and say that random things make up the physical world?
    I’m not the one who doesn’t know what he is talking about. You are the one who shouldn’t comment here because your view is hypocritical and contradictory.
    Either everything is determined and automated or it is not. There is no middle ground. If our smallest parts aren’t determined then how can we be?
    I’ll comment where ever I want too so shove it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Neptunutation:

    I’ll comment where ever I want too so shove it.
     
    Maybe somewhere else, not here. Moderation (not banned only because I'm feeling generous).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Neptunutation
    With respect to your blog and you. I hardly think you can definitive about that. Scientists routinely adjust theories and especially in a brand new field (quantum physics) where speculation fills every corner, finding out tomorrow that electrons do have a predictable course would make perfect since everything else in universe also has a predictable course.
    In this case, yes you're right, currently our scientists say that an 'inherent randomness' lays upon physics BUT, like I said before. The fat lady hasn't sang by a long shot. The definition of random is meaningless like the word miracle. And also to my first point, there are way to many variables present to say that is random when we cant find a pattern. That's bullshit bro. First of all, we still don't know why gravity works or how to exploit electromagnetic force to the fullest. Forget about the strong and weak force. There are way to many uncertainties and unsolved for affecting agents to say that reality is at its core random. That literally sounds exactly like mystics saying bullshit like they can fly or have spoken with the creator of the universe. It is dramatic and immature conclusion that doesn't make sense intuitively or rationally.
    I think you and would agree on much and Im glad you read Sam Harris. It seems like we both agree that freewill is bullshit. I just happen to know that Im entirely automated in every way and so is the universe (whether I can prove it or not)
    To say that its all truly random is like saying that the speed of light is 186,000 mps everywhere in our universe except for in Andromeda where it goes twice as fast. Either youre a determinist in every respect for the whole enchilada or you can start rethinking your freewill convictions. If what youre saying is true 200 years from now, then Id renounce any argument the no freewill exists. You cant have it both ways.
    Its pretty ignorant to believe in randomness. Its simply impossible Jay. Have a good day.

    Your own personal incredulity is fine and good. You’re free to choose not to believe. But, to be frank, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Please don’t bring up this particular matter here again, thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neptunutation
    How can you be a Harris fan, argue for Determinism and that free will is illusory but then turn around and say that random things make up the physical world?
    I'm not the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. You are the one who shouldn't comment here because your view is hypocritical and contradictory.
    Either everything is determined and automated or it is not. There is no middle ground. If our smallest parts aren't determined then how can we be?
    I'll comment where ever I want too so shove it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    @Neptunutation:

    People keep saying quantum physics proves against determinism. THIS IS UNTRUE! Just because WE can’t predict where an electron will be doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
     
    No it really and truly is impossible, as per the physics. It's not a matter of technological limitation, this is a real physical limit.

    Everything has cause and effect.
     
    Indeed. But one of those causes is inherent randomness.

    With respect to your blog and you. I hardly think you can definitive about that. Scientists routinely adjust theories and especially in a brand new field (quantum physics) where speculation fills every corner, finding out tomorrow that electrons do have a predictable course would make perfect since everything else in universe also has a predictable course.
    In this case, yes you’re right, currently our scientists say that an ‘inherent randomness’ lays upon physics BUT, like I said before. The fat lady hasn’t sang by a long shot. The definition of random is meaningless like the word miracle. And also to my first point, there are way to many variables present to say that is random when we cant find a pattern. That’s bullshit bro. First of all, we still don’t know why gravity works or how to exploit electromagnetic force to the fullest. Forget about the strong and weak force. There are way to many uncertainties and unsolved for affecting agents to say that reality is at its core random. That literally sounds exactly like mystics saying bullshit like they can fly or have spoken with the creator of the universe. It is dramatic and immature conclusion that doesn’t make sense intuitively or rationally.
    I think you and would agree on much and Im glad you read Sam Harris. It seems like we both agree that freewill is bullshit. I just happen to know that Im entirely automated in every way and so is the universe (whether I can prove it or not)
    To say that its all truly random is like saying that the speed of light is 186,000 mps everywhere in our universe except for in Andromeda where it goes twice as fast. Either youre a determinist in every respect for the whole enchilada or you can start rethinking your freewill convictions. If what youre saying is true 200 years from now, then Id renounce any argument the no freewill exists. You cant have it both ways.
    Its pretty ignorant to believe in randomness. Its simply impossible Jay. Have a good day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Neptunutation:

    Your own personal incredulity is fine and good. You're free to choose not to believe. But, to be frank, you don't know what you're talking about. Please don't bring up this particular matter here again, thanks.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Meng Hu
    That's a video about Libet experiment and free will.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ4nwTTmcgs

    Unfortunately, there is no subtitle or text accompanying the video (english). I have not grasped everything they've said. If someone here can translate for me, that will be nice. thanks.

    I’m really flabbergasted about this idea popping up in so many people.

    How can it be possible that this somehow amazes people or make them think they have discovered something new with this? of course conscious thoughts and feelings cannot be equated with ‘the self’. This is exactly the same fallacy that religious people commit with their believe in a separation between body and soul. The brain is like a computer, conscious thoughts and feelings are the results of its computations, the self is the brain and the self-brain is the thing not being physically coerced to will anything and therefore it is the thing having free will. There is no philosophical discussion there are no social political implications if you just start using definitions that actually make sense in reality. I mean you can just hang on to a definition of free will that requires some made up random generator look at reality and ´proof´ that you cannot find one and then claim free will does not exist because the universe is causal, but I can do the same with any made up word. It is a useless activity to engage in. The real debate on free will,,or the existence of running dolphins for that matter..is one of definition of concepts. You probably would claim walking dolphins do not exist and consider me insane for thinking otherwise. Yet I could easily distort the debate by pointing out that the Miami dolphins actually run a lot. Start out with definitions of ´freedom´ and ´will´ that actually make sense in reality or the whole discussion becomes rubbish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Neptunutation
    People keep saying quantum physics proves against determinism. THIS IS UNTRUE! Just because WE can't predict where an electron will be doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, seeing as everything else is predictable, it would be crazy to say that its all chaos on a small level. It isn't, people are just vain and dramatic. We're not yet technologically advanced enough and have only just barely stumbled upon quantum physics studies. Under unobtainable observation methods, we could watch and predict how everything happens in quantum physics. People just like dramatic words like "Chaos" "random" "unpredictable" because it all caters to mysticism and the stubborn place people love to be in which is "the unknowable." These people are no different than religious people who dont want to know. Thats the difference between enjoying ignorance the way that scientists do (seeking to know more) and the way that mystics do (denying that anymore can be known) (they dont want to know and would rather say its unknowable----bullshit!)
    Columbus thought he was in India for at least a month or two! We study quantum physics for 50 years and everyone is suddenly an expert? LOL Everything has cause and effect. People fall for the same delusional tricks and petty psuedo scientific journalism every time!

    People keep saying quantum physics proves against determinism. THIS IS UNTRUE! Just because WE can’t predict where an electron will be doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

    No it really and truly is impossible, as per the physics. It’s not a matter of technological limitation, this is a real physical limit.

    Everything has cause and effect.

    Indeed. But one of those causes is inherent randomness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neptunutation
    With respect to your blog and you. I hardly think you can definitive about that. Scientists routinely adjust theories and especially in a brand new field (quantum physics) where speculation fills every corner, finding out tomorrow that electrons do have a predictable course would make perfect since everything else in universe also has a predictable course.
    In this case, yes you're right, currently our scientists say that an 'inherent randomness' lays upon physics BUT, like I said before. The fat lady hasn't sang by a long shot. The definition of random is meaningless like the word miracle. And also to my first point, there are way to many variables present to say that is random when we cant find a pattern. That's bullshit bro. First of all, we still don't know why gravity works or how to exploit electromagnetic force to the fullest. Forget about the strong and weak force. There are way to many uncertainties and unsolved for affecting agents to say that reality is at its core random. That literally sounds exactly like mystics saying bullshit like they can fly or have spoken with the creator of the universe. It is dramatic and immature conclusion that doesn't make sense intuitively or rationally.
    I think you and would agree on much and Im glad you read Sam Harris. It seems like we both agree that freewill is bullshit. I just happen to know that Im entirely automated in every way and so is the universe (whether I can prove it or not)
    To say that its all truly random is like saying that the speed of light is 186,000 mps everywhere in our universe except for in Andromeda where it goes twice as fast. Either youre a determinist in every respect for the whole enchilada or you can start rethinking your freewill convictions. If what youre saying is true 200 years from now, then Id renounce any argument the no freewill exists. You cant have it both ways.
    Its pretty ignorant to believe in randomness. Its simply impossible Jay. Have a good day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Lawrence
    I have a basic epistemic problem with this. If all we do is solely determined by “that particle which is our brain”, that includes all that we choose to believe, and that includes belief in the notion that our thoughts have anything to do with our physical brains. Let me unpack that a bit.

    I subjectively perceive myself to have free will. As I type this I very strongly perceive myself to be choosing which letters to make up which words that I am choosing to have appear in this post.

    I also subjectively perceive the statement: “If A = B and A =C, then B = C” to be true. I perceive these two things (that I am in control of what gets typed here, and that elementary rational inference is valid) on basically the same subjective level. The argument here against free will, like all rational argument, is necessarily assuming that rational inference is valid. I read the argument, and the same subjective events in my mind that cause me to believe ‘if A = B and A =C, then B = C’, cause me to be strongly persuaded by this powerful rational argument.

    But when I turn around to discard my perception of my own free will as an irrational illusion, a very basic question arises: why should I trust my subjective impression that rational inference is valid over my subjective impression that I have free will? I can find no rational reason to do so. They are on the same level. If one is an illusion, then there is really no reason to suppose that the other is anything else but illusion. If the existence of free will really does pose an irreconcilable rational contradiction, then what cause to we have to discard our free will and retain our valid rational inferring ability and not vice versa? None that I can see. But of course if the validity of rational inference is an illusion, then it’s lights out for pretty much all human knowledge, including all the evidence and argument that might lead you to believe that your own basic subjective experiences of reality are invalid. In other words, this argument ultimately refutes itself, for it implies that A) the acceptance of any argument is caused – solely caused - by non-rational interactions between matter and energy packets; and B) that we have no reason to trust the strong basic subjective intuition that the inferences which support any argument are valid.

    I subjectively perceive myself to have free will. As I type this I very strongly perceive myself to be choosing which letters to make up which words that I am choosing to have appear in this post

    What do you mean by “perceive?”

    What do you mean by “yourself?”

    What do you mean by “choose?”

    What does any of those things actually mean? What do they entail?

    Perhaps you should look up research on split-brain patients before being so assured in a single higher-order execute function making decisions.

    But when I turn around to discard my perception of my own free will as an irrational illusion, a very basic question arises: why should I trust my subjective impression that rational inference is valid over my subjective impression that I have free will?

    Because your subjective (read: naive) impressions become questionable upon closer examination. (See also: Sam Harris on free will). The two are not actually equivalent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I have a basic epistemic problem with this. If all we do is solely determined by “that particle which is our brain”, that includes all that we choose to believe, and that includes belief in the notion that our thoughts have anything to do with our physical brains. Let me unpack that a bit.

    I subjectively perceive myself to have free will. As I type this I very strongly perceive myself to be choosing which letters to make up which words that I am choosing to have appear in this post.

    I also subjectively perceive the statement: “If A = B and A =C, then B = C” to be true. I perceive these two things (that I am in control of what gets typed here, and that elementary rational inference is valid) on basically the same subjective level. The argument here against free will, like all rational argument, is necessarily assuming that rational inference is valid. I read the argument, and the same subjective events in my mind that cause me to believe ‘if A = B and A =C, then B = C’, cause me to be strongly persuaded by this powerful rational argument.

    But when I turn around to discard my perception of my own free will as an irrational illusion, a very basic question arises: why should I trust my subjective impression that rational inference is valid over my subjective impression that I have free will? I can find no rational reason to do so. They are on the same level. If one is an illusion, then there is really no reason to suppose that the other is anything else but illusion. If the existence of free will really does pose an irreconcilable rational contradiction, then what cause to we have to discard our free will and retain our valid rational inferring ability and not vice versa? None that I can see. But of course if the validity of rational inference is an illusion, then it’s lights out for pretty much all human knowledge, including all the evidence and argument that might lead you to believe that your own basic subjective experiences of reality are invalid. In other words, this argument ultimately refutes itself, for it implies that A) the acceptance of any argument is caused – solely caused – by non-rational interactions between matter and energy packets; and B) that we have no reason to trust the strong basic subjective intuition that the inferences which support any argument are valid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Lawrence:

    I subjectively perceive myself to have free will. As I type this I very strongly perceive myself to be choosing which letters to make up which words that I am choosing to have appear in this post
     
    What do you mean by "perceive?"

    What do you mean by "yourself?"

    What do you mean by "choose?"

    What does any of those things actually mean? What do they entail?

    Perhaps you should look up research on split-brain patients before being so assured in a single higher-order execute function making decisions.


    But when I turn around to discard my perception of my own free will as an irrational illusion, a very basic question arises: why should I trust my subjective impression that rational inference is valid over my subjective impression that I have free will?
     
    Because your subjective (read: naive) impressions become questionable upon closer examination. (See also: Sam Harris on free will). The two are not actually equivalent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    This is the question not actually about free will, but about the existence of the conscience. If my acts and thoughts are effects of the brain wiring, then how can I claim that I exist, and by that I do not mean my physical existence: the feeling of heat in my hands hitting the keys on my laptop, pain in my back, weight of my glasses on my nose -- I mean the psychological processes I experience and I observe, the very act of "experiencing" and "observing".

    The conscious does exist but the “self” “me” “I” does not. This is what Sam Harris’ new book is about. Picture the conscious as a cylindrical mirror. Its always rolling and reflecting our emotions, thoughts and motives but those are just reflections on the mirror rolling in and leaving just as fast. they are illusory. They are NOT the mirror. The mirror is just the mirror when it’s not reflecting self, emotions, thoughts etc… This is what true meditation is, practicing “not reflecting” all that crap but to actually pay attention “free from thought” to conscious.
    I hope this helps. I agree that this is all really about consciousness. Our lack of Free Will is just the most obvious observation in trying to meditate. I think its important and requires no idiotic presumptions about the universe being created or us having souls. We just need to practice paying attention to our conscious rather than being in religion. I’m atheist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    From the standpoint of Quantum physics, the Universe is actually not deterministic.

    People keep saying quantum physics proves against determinism. THIS IS UNTRUE! Just because WE can’t predict where an electron will be doesn’t mean it’s impossible. In fact, seeing as everything else is predictable, it would be crazy to say that its all chaos on a small level. It isn’t, people are just vain and dramatic. We’re not yet technologically advanced enough and have only just barely stumbled upon quantum physics studies. Under unobtainable observation methods, we could watch and predict how everything happens in quantum physics. People just like dramatic words like “Chaos” “random” “unpredictable” because it all caters to mysticism and the stubborn place people love to be in which is “the unknowable.” These people are no different than religious people who dont want to know. Thats the difference between enjoying ignorance the way that scientists do (seeking to know more) and the way that mystics do (denying that anymore can be known) (they dont want to know and would rather say its unknowable—-bullshit!)
    Columbus thought he was in India for at least a month or two! We study quantum physics for 50 years and everyone is suddenly an expert? LOL Everything has cause and effect. People fall for the same delusional tricks and petty psuedo scientific journalism every time!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Neptunutation:

    People keep saying quantum physics proves against determinism. THIS IS UNTRUE! Just because WE can’t predict where an electron will be doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
     
    No it really and truly is impossible, as per the physics. It's not a matter of technological limitation, this is a real physical limit.

    Everything has cause and effect.
     
    Indeed. But one of those causes is inherent randomness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Neptunutation
    The fact that we even have a word called discipline, begs the fact that we live in a Deterministic universe. That word would not exist. Many phrase, ideas, and institutions give our determinism away; like the phrase "I just couldn't help myself." Why did you think you ever could?
    To someone still believing they have freewill I'd say consider two things; (both I've borrowed from Sam Harris) You have about as much control over the next thing you think as the next thing I write. Where does freedom fit into that? Also, are you free to do things that don't occur to you to do? And if you "decide" upon two alternatives, to look back and say that you could have chosen differently is to simply state that "I would have "chosen" differently IF I had chosen differently." Really, you had no choice at all. Only what can happen, will happen. I strongly believe that we're ENTIRELY automated. Not only does our heredity and environment dictate us but the above lessons in consciousness that I mentioned seal our automation totally. Thoughts arise unannounced, uninvited and force us to do things before we even consider doing them. People who argue for Free will either can't reliably understand the human condition or have some axe to grind that would dull if people knew they were automated.
    My acceptance of my own automation has been exceedingly helpful in becoming sober after years of alcoholism. I have a peace of mind and an understanding of my brain that no religious zealot can enjoy free of delusion.
    The funny part is that you can use determinism as a way around step 3 in recovery models. As an atheist and Sam Harris fanatic, this was important to me. I don't have to foolishly try "giving my will and life over to the care of god" when I see I have no will anyway!

    Beautifully put!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Handle
    This is uncharacteristically sloppy work by Baumeister.

    The obvious analogy to human decision making is a computer running a program making calls to a sensor. All the Sci-Fi talk about AI and the singularity should make this analogy more obvious in common parlance, let alone philosophical investigation. Even a lego-mindstorms device can do squirrel-like things and receive data about it's surroundings, interpret and process it, and make complicated decisions on that basis about what actions to take next. But we live in the age of Siri, self-driving cars, ultra-smart / ultra-complex search engines, big-data handlers, and ultra-sophisticated Bayesian prior-updaters that learn about the world in a progressive manner, adjusting and refining their models and notions of causality as time goes by and more evidence is received.

    Is google's server farm and like applications complex enough to rise to 'free will'? Why not? They handle tasks in microseconds that no human could possibly accomplish. Describing the civil war in terms of carbon atoms is no different than describing interstate traffic consisting solely of automatically-driving cars in terms of silicon atoms. What distinguishes a program from genetic predispositions and neurological biochemical processes?

    My intuition is that 'most people's opinion' (a horrible authority, but the one to which Baumeister himself makes appeal) would reject any of these complex decision-making computers as having 'free will' - so most of what Baumeister wrote seems utterly besides the point.

    Sentience, Consciousness, and Self-Awareness, seem more along the lines of what most people would need to be willing to adjudge a computation system as having 'free-will like' properties. Self-re-programming, or at least Bayesian updating, is also a must.

    But, what I really think ordinary people are getting at when they talk about free will is the feeling of grappling with a hard decision, especially trying to summon the discipline and willpower to deny indulging in a detrimental temptation. We have this grappling experience with results that do not seem to be deterministic and, again, to an ordinary person, if that experience is not part of a process where we are exercising 'free will', then what is it? Or, how would you explain it to them. Does it have a good evo-psych story?

    The fact that we even have a word called discipline, begs the fact that we live in a Deterministic universe. That word would not exist. Many phrase, ideas, and institutions give our determinism away; like the phrase “I just couldn’t help myself.” Why did you think you ever could?
    To someone still believing they have freewill I’d say consider two things; (both I’ve borrowed from Sam Harris) You have about as much control over the next thing you think as the next thing I write. Where does freedom fit into that? Also, are you free to do things that don’t occur to you to do? And if you “decide” upon two alternatives, to look back and say that you could have chosen differently is to simply state that “I would have “chosen” differently IF I had chosen differently.” Really, you had no choice at all. Only what can happen, will happen. I strongly believe that we’re ENTIRELY automated. Not only does our heredity and environment dictate us but the above lessons in consciousness that I mentioned seal our automation totally. Thoughts arise unannounced, uninvited and force us to do things before we even consider doing them. People who argue for Free will either can’t reliably understand the human condition or have some axe to grind that would dull if people knew they were automated.
    My acceptance of my own automation has been exceedingly helpful in becoming sober after years of alcoholism. I have a peace of mind and an understanding of my brain that no religious zealot can enjoy free of delusion.
    The funny part is that you can use determinism as a way around step 3 in recovery models. As an atheist and Sam Harris fanatic, this was important to me. I don’t have to foolishly try “giving my will and life over to the care of god” when I see I have no will anyway!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Neptunutation:

    Beautifully put!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] For those interested you can read Jayman’s Blog featured here. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Handle
    This is uncharacteristically sloppy work by Baumeister.

    The obvious analogy to human decision making is a computer running a program making calls to a sensor. All the Sci-Fi talk about AI and the singularity should make this analogy more obvious in common parlance, let alone philosophical investigation. Even a lego-mindstorms device can do squirrel-like things and receive data about it's surroundings, interpret and process it, and make complicated decisions on that basis about what actions to take next. But we live in the age of Siri, self-driving cars, ultra-smart / ultra-complex search engines, big-data handlers, and ultra-sophisticated Bayesian prior-updaters that learn about the world in a progressive manner, adjusting and refining their models and notions of causality as time goes by and more evidence is received.

    Is google's server farm and like applications complex enough to rise to 'free will'? Why not? They handle tasks in microseconds that no human could possibly accomplish. Describing the civil war in terms of carbon atoms is no different than describing interstate traffic consisting solely of automatically-driving cars in terms of silicon atoms. What distinguishes a program from genetic predispositions and neurological biochemical processes?

    My intuition is that 'most people's opinion' (a horrible authority, but the one to which Baumeister himself makes appeal) would reject any of these complex decision-making computers as having 'free will' - so most of what Baumeister wrote seems utterly besides the point.

    Sentience, Consciousness, and Self-Awareness, seem more along the lines of what most people would need to be willing to adjudge a computation system as having 'free-will like' properties. Self-re-programming, or at least Bayesian updating, is also a must.

    But, what I really think ordinary people are getting at when they talk about free will is the feeling of grappling with a hard decision, especially trying to summon the discipline and willpower to deny indulging in a detrimental temptation. We have this grappling experience with results that do not seem to be deterministic and, again, to an ordinary person, if that experience is not part of a process where we are exercising 'free will', then what is it? Or, how would you explain it to them. Does it have a good evo-psych story?

    I would explain it to “them” (the Ordinary) thusly: maybe we have a built-in mechanism that causes us as human beings to believe our actions are “free” – or as you’ve stated that “grappling with a decision” is evidence of free-will, or for that matter invoking willpower is an example of free will. The more interesting question is, why do we have such a mechanism? Why must we believe that our choices are, in fact, choices? Dogs and cats and other perfectly good mammals don’t have such a mechanism . . . or (yikes!) do they??!? Someone below speculated it had to do with procreation . . . perhaps we’d lose motivation to procreate if we didn’t think we had a lot of choice about it. Which is funny, since when it comes to rational choice, procreation is one of those things we often have the least rational control over.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] that gay is just as good as straight; that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle; that I have free will; that importing one-quarter of the population of Guyana has been good for the U.S.A., and for […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Democritus said, roughly, that the cosmos is the product of chance and necessity. Insofar as present actions are the product of chance, that present action is not ultimately “free,” because it is accidental and accidents are the very opposite of free choice. Insofar as present actions are the product of necessity, the present action is not ultimately “free,” because it is wholly the product of a past process over which one has no control. To be “free” in this ultimate sense would require, at the least, the ability to go back into the past and change the processes which lead to the present action. Besides the impossibility of doing so, even this might not be enough, because the process leading to the actor’s journey into the past would be the product of the actor’s own past, which product is the product of chance and/or necessity. I am not even sure that God could be free in this sense.

    But I’m not sure that the concept of “free” under examination here either (a) makes sense; or (b) bears much relationship to the ordinary uses of “free.” Take a typical situation where we use the word “free” in something like this context. Suppose one wishes to know whether a person had a “free choice” to spend his or her limited resources on a television set or a washer. Suppose that person chooses to purchase the washer. Now the sorts of cases in which people would tend to say that he or she does not are, e.g., someone compelled the person to purchase the washer, or the person could not function without the washer, or the person had to purchase the washer or bear the wrath of Social Services, etc. In all these cases, a claim by the actor that he or she did what she did because of the past state of the universe would rightly be considered frivolous. The issue is not whether the actor’s choice was ultimately constrained or not, but whether it was constrained in particular ways.

    Suppose it is true that a person reacts to a given stimulus — making what we would call a “choice” — before he or she is even conscious of making that choice. Then suppose that the human mechanism that makes the choice “reports” the stimulus and the choice to the consciousness, which becomes conscious of having made the choice. Assuming that the conscious mind always tracks the choice which the human mechanism has already made, there is no problem is saying that the conscious mind has made a free choice. Processes which lead to the same outcome are functionally identical. If the human mechanism and the conscious mind always arrive at the same action, then the conscious mind’s “decision” is a necessary condition of that action. That is to say, if the conscious decision does not occur, neither does the action. What is important in the quotidian use of “free will” is not cause — it is necessitation. And in that sense, what we consciously will is willed freely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] No, You Don’t Have Free Will, and This is Why – I make a detailed case against the existence of free will, which is a nonsensical concept in any rational analysis. I denounce even the latest and best attempts to restore some watered-down version of it. I note that since all actions have causes, human behavior is no less the result of physical processes than any other event in the universe – physical processes which include genes, environmental impacts, and random chance. Behavior is always the result of these forces, and arguments otherwise are merely obsfuctionary quasi-to-fully religious attempts to confuse the matter. I note the irony in the fact that inability of some to let go of the idea of free will is itself explained by its nonexistence (i.e., we can’t escape the physical reality laid out by the structure of our brains, regardless of exactly how our brains got that way). […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Despite your long nitpickings in my opinion you fail at your attempt to refute the case for free will of Baumeister. That people have a brain made of stuff, organized in a certain way, which might even lead to predictable patterns of behavior does not in any way goes against the definition of free will being ‘making choices about what to do in the absence of external coercion’. Your genetic makeup and the brain-structure it leads to is not external coercion, it is what you are. If you are a psychopath by nature you and your genes are still responsible for your actions, not anybody else. ´Sorry dude, you were born evil and now you get the chair, though luck´.

    ´“Free will”, in any meaningful sense, would mean that behavior would be unpredictable, at least statistically, from physical laws and knowledge of the individual, including genetics.´ ~ jayman

    To me this seems like you are looking for uncaused causation, for a mystical dice to be thrown every time somebody makes a decision (or some kind of substitute for a soul). This is clearly not possible in reality and therefore an irrational definition of the concept of free will specifically designed to fit with the conclusion it is supposed to support…or does it, how can I be responsible for my actions if my decisions have been caused by an internal improbability generator?, surely the next time I will act differently in the same circumstances and so will the next guy….then it would be more just to average out the responsibility between everybody else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Meng Hu
    That's a video about Libet experiment and free will.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ4nwTTmcgs

    Unfortunately, there is no subtitle or text accompanying the video (english). I have not grasped everything they've said. If someone here can translate for me, that will be nice. thanks.

    Thanks, great find!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • That’s a video about Libet experiment and free will.

    Unfortunately, there is no subtitle or text accompanying the video (english). I have not grasped everything they’ve said. If someone here can translate for me, that will be nice. thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Meng Hu:

    Thanks, great find!

    , @Anonymous
    I'm really flabbergasted about this idea popping up in so many people.

    How can it be possible that this somehow amazes people or make them think they have discovered something new with this? of course conscious thoughts and feelings cannot be equated with 'the self'. This is exactly the same fallacy that religious people commit with their believe in a separation between body and soul. The brain is like a computer, conscious thoughts and feelings are the results of its computations, the self is the brain and the self-brain is the thing not being physically coerced to will anything and therefore it is the thing having free will. There is no philosophical discussion there are no social political implications if you just start using definitions that actually make sense in reality. I mean you can just hang on to a definition of free will that requires some made up random generator look at reality and ´proof´ that you cannot find one and then claim free will does not exist because the universe is causal, but I can do the same with any made up word. It is a useless activity to engage in. The real debate on free will,,or the existence of running dolphins for that matter..is one of definition of concepts. You probably would claim walking dolphins do not exist and consider me insane for thinking otherwise. Yet I could easily distort the debate by pointing out that the Miami dolphins actually run a lot. Start out with definitions of ´freedom´ and ´will´ that actually make sense in reality or the whole discussion becomes rubbish.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] this video (from here) featuring behavioral geneticist Nancy Segal (as previously seen in my post No, You Don’t Have Free Will, and This is Why). Pay close attention to the tests the twins had to […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] 6. No, You Don’t Have Free Will, and This is Why – I make a detailed case against the existence of free will, which is a nonsensical concept in any rational analysis. I denounce even best latest attempts to restore some watered-down version of it. I note that since all actions have causes, human behavior is no less the result of physical processes than any other event in the universe – physical processes which include genes, environmental impacts, and random chance. Behavior is always the result of these forces, and arguments otherwise are merely obsfuctionary quasi-to-fully religious attempts to confuse the matter. I note the irony in the fact that inability of some to let go of the idea of free will is itself explained by its nonexistence (i.e., we can’t escape the physical reality laid out by the structure of our brains, regardless of exactly how our brains got that way). […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    The comment: “If culture is so successful, why don’t other species use it?”, which the author of this post seems to accept at face value, shows a blatant lack of understanding of (now relatively old) advances in studying social animals, including primates and birds. Other animals do use culture. Besides the studies of tool use, passed down through learning (which has not been replicated not just in primates, but in many species of birds, and some cepahlopods), a lot of recent work in ornithology has uncovered more and more sophisticated levels of social intelligence and cultural knowledge being passed down. For example, some social bird species are able to pass down knowledge of how to identify predators and threats, to birds who have never seen those predators. Some of the much earlier studies on chimpanzees found that disconnected populations living in the same area would pass down methods of locating, preparing, and eating various foods, and the separate groups would have this food culture persist through generations–in some cases ignoring the other viable food sources. It goes beyond just learned behavior, and often involves complex social structures. For example, many species have complex family structures that involve teaching the younger generation how to raise children by having them help raise the next generation, before they move off to form a family structure of their own. A lot of studies have examined what is happening in these processes and found that there is a lot of specific knowledge that is being passed on through these structures.

    Over the past 30-or-so years we’ve consistently broken down many of the previous lines that were drawn distinguishing non-human animals from animals. Culture, i.e. knowledge passed down through generations, now lies within the category of things that have long been established to exist within numerous species.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The conclusion ” don’t there a free will” is exactly those who Sisyphean said about ”general people conclusion”, myself include, if the semantic abstract symbology of FREE will, specially in the West is practically the same that liberty, as synonimous… ”We are slaves” (ooooooh, my world broken..):
    If the supposed inexistence of free will theory is not mean ”we are slaves” (as Sisyphean said) what tha’ hell this text want prove???

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The essential problem here found in a word or expression FREE WILL. First, is necessary conceptualize specifically the adjective ”free” to this semantic context. All or most of abstract adjectives are very internally variable (always, as spectra). What the level of free the free will have or to be??
    I agree with Jayman if we desire to search the objective and direct semantic relation between free and will, indeed depend to context (we are free compared than the forces of universe? compared than social mobility? compared than the politically correct?). Like i said above, when you do not have control of your own body or action, the role of genetics run free because don’t exist the marriage between desire and action, action happens when you to be consciously act, but there a degree of conscience. Dogs know that they have a uncontrolable desire to make sexual relations during the ”chronological procreation period”?
    The drugs cause mutations (fixed or not, depend of constancy of self abuse) in a brain mechanisms to satisfaction or gratification. There a degrees of self control, self conscience and action (even when you to be seeing impulsive). Reflexive Thinking is not a free will but is a first component that can take away to (higher degree of) free will (this, is limited by your genes).
    To say ”don’t have free will” is equally wrong than ”yes, have a total free will”.
    The effect of stronger drugs is the same that the higher psychosis attack or somnambulism. When your body to do something who you don’t know. Excessive Alcohol also. You dancing in the table and do a streep tease in the last night and only these morning knowing the shame.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When a non-human individual faces with a hypotetically danger situation ”it” will use ALWAYS its same biological weapons. When a human faces with a hipotetically blablabla… ”he” will have more than one biological weapons, the key of success of human specie, individualized adaptive potentiality.
    ”No free will” could to be as ” immediate drug effect on a human behavior”, when happen the mismatch of thinking and action, when we are dreaming we do not have choice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    I prefer my will be remunerated, rather than free.

    As we become comfortable with the idea, OBEY free will, may explain our delusion.

    When telemarketers call me these days, I let them get started, then I interrupt with,
    “I never ordered any phone sex call.” They say, “No, this is not a phone sex call.”
    I reply, “Well isn’t your company paying you, to screw consumers over the phone?”
    They say something in their own defense and I continue,
    “Whether or not you can admit it to yourself, you are phucking consumers;
    using them, and the phone, to get excited about achieving your sales target erections.”
    They get smart-ass, and I hang up.

    Impotent rage, expresses itself. Free choice is not nearly free will.

    A panhandler approached me the other day asking for money.
    I replied to his sob story with one of my own.

    “My willingness to pay anyone for a sob story has passed away. :-( :-((
    But, for your $1.00 donation, I will ask Universal Consciousness to enlighten your outlook,
    ease up on your learning curve, and increase your sense of humor.”

    The panhandler gave me a $1.00 donation, laughed and walked away.

    I called after him, “Thank you, for providing this opportunity for our generosity.”

    Enjoy the Holidays.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] September 2013 – No, You Don’t Have Free Will and this is Why […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] What if it’s not their fault? The myth of free will. Sam Harris on free will No, You Don’t Have Free Will, and This is Why […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The problem is that the debate is taking place between two collectives who share the same false metaphysics. So the conception of “free will” doesn’t get past the physical act. But the debate is between those who desire the absolute freedom to physically act and those that demand we are mechanically derived. Yet, with a shared false metaphysics (free will can’t transcend the physical act) fully entrenched, the debate leads to the exact same spot over and over and goes nowhere. Ever. True free will (the God-ordained kind) is best experienced. Many people will not experience it. Many people will not experience both the Absoluteness and the fleeting, temporary and seemingly random sense of “alleviation” that proves free will exists. Can you say, “This is what ‘free will’ feels like.” Can there be better evidence? What?Though many a white liberal are just ideologically obtuse. And so they have no “free will” that is not either mechanically derived or bound to be thwarted before Absoluteness. So again, neither has “free will” due to ideological adherence to a false metaphysics. So be it. Self-inflicted ideology is still “free will” in your own stunted way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Tregon says: • Website
    @Tregon
    Jayman: Nothing in the universe “goes beyond” the laws of physics,

    If physics means "that-which-constitutes-and-governs-the-universe" and universe means "all-that-is", that seems tautological and something anyone could say, including a theist. If it's not tautological, how can you be certain it's right, i.e. that there isn't something outside the universe (in the currently accepted sense) that influences it? I wonder, though, in what sense mathematics goes beyond, or logically precedes, the laws of physics. As far as humans are concerned: being aware of pi or sqrt(2) or the infinitude of the primes isn't something that, in any direct sense, comes thru the senses or thru matter. Even if Tegmark is right and all mathematical objects physically exist somewhere in some sense (I don't agree), that isn't how human beings are aware of them. Our brains work because of the laws of physics, but they grant us something beyond matter that isn't obviously derivable from physics-as-phenomenon. In fact, physics-as-subject is beyond physics-as-phenomenon.

    and nothing about human brains or behavior “goes beyond” the “laws” of even neuroscience.

    Yes, but there is something very mundane but very mysterious in, or of, the brain: consciousness and its role in cognition and behaviour. Is it causal or simply epiphenomenal, for example? Scientifically speaking, consciousness doesn't seem necessary and doesn't seem possible to explain. It may never be possible to explain scientifically or to confirm objectively, rather than from the inside. If it's a product of (a particular sub-set of possible) material brain-states, why don't the brain-states suffice on their own? Do they suffice on their own in some people or could they suffice, if modelled electronically or mechanically? And if consciousness is simply epiphenomenal, is being conscious of being conscious etc an illusion? It doesn't seem to be, but how is a brain-state aware of itself or aware of its own (non-material) product? N.B. I am a strict materialist and don't believe in the supernatural.

    Jayman: One thing I wonder, as someone interested in linguistics: Your prose is v. good, so have you studied English usage or do you simply write well by instinct? Are you related to any professional writers?

    The replies below may be TL;DR but I had no choice. (& I can’t see a way to reply to your reply.)

    That would then make the problem one of semantics, yes? Specifically, what do we mean by “universe” and something that is “outside” of it?

    I’d claim that the semantics govern whether one can reasonably state, within science, that ‘Nothing in the universe “goes beyond” the laws of physics.’ If it’s a tautology, one can reasonably state that but it’s redundant. If it’s not a tautology, one is being papal rather than scientific.

    Our brains work because of the laws of physics, but they grant us something beyond matter that isn’t obviously derivable from physics-as-phenomenon.

    ***

    Brains do? What evidence is there of that?

    The evidence is mathematics. We are aware of pi or sqrt(2) by extra-sensory, extra-material intuition, because mathematics logically precedes physics. Logic governs matter, not vice versa. Or rather: inter-relating entities, of any kind, necessarily behave in “logical” ways. Maths is a symbolic system designed to model that inter-relation or bring it to the surface. So when humans use maths, their brains are in a sense going beyond physics, or accessing something more fundamental than physics.

    Yes, but there is something very mundane but very mysterious in, or of, the brain: consciousness and its role in cognition and behaviour. Is it causal or simply epiphenomenal, for example? Scientifically speaking, consciousness doesn’t seem necessary and doesn’t seem possible to explain.

    ****

    Since we have it, and since evolution apparently went to a lot of trouble for us to have it, yeah, I would say it seems necessary.

    Evolution gave us blood. Blood is red. Is the redness important? No. Evolution gave us brains. Brains are conscious. Is the consciousness important? Not proven. Of course, humans think it is, but humans also think they have free will (an illusion) and personal identity (another illusion). OK, I myself think consciousness is important, but I’d be amused if it turned out not to be, because I like counter-intuitive results and that would be the biggest of all.

    I think science has been making great strides towards explaining consciousness.

    I don’t agree. Science has made great strides towards explaining the brain, but that isn’t the same thing.

    If it’s a product of (a particular sub-set of possible) material brain-states, why don’t the brain-states suffice on their own?

    ***

    Why don’t you think brain states suffice on their own?

    Because they’re accompanied by consciousness, which, as you say above, suggests (but does not prove) that it’s important. But I cannot see why the mechanism has to run with consciousness. No-one can: we merely experience that being the case and conclude that it’s necessarily the case.

    It doesn’t seem to be, but how is a brain-state aware of itself or aware of its own (non-material) product?

    ***

    Well, what is “awareness”? What “non-material” product would this be?

    Scientifically, “awareness” is receipt-and-processing within the brain of information from a source that is usually external to the brain. So the brain is aware of, e.g., blood-chemistry. To be aware in a higher sense is to receive-and-process and then be conscious of the result, i.e. the product of the brain-state. You can define and investigate the brain-state, but you can’t define “consciousness”: you can only experience it. And it isn’t experienced as material or as something objective. Either we know consciousness from the inside or we infer it from behaviour. So knowledge of it is either subjective or inferential, i.e. it’s never scientifically rigorous.

    I think this is a problem neuroscientists and those that work with artificial intelligence have been working hard on.

    Yes, but making no progress on. I’m not being anti-science: consciousness is perhaps the most important problem of all and I’d like science to explain it. Perhaps I shouldn’t. I certainly have serious doubts about what brain-science will allow the state and others to do. Electricity is a wonderful thing, but it is a horrific tool for torturers. The most disturbing passage in Nineteen Eighty-Four is something related to brain-science:

    Two soft pads, which felt slightly moist, clamped themselves against Winston’s temples. He quailed. There was pain coming, a new kind of pain. O’Brien laid a hand reassuringly, almost kindly, on his.

    “This time it will not hurt,” he said. “Keep your eyes fixed on mine.”

    At this moment there was a devastating explosion, or what seemed like an explosion, though it was not certain whether there was any noise. There was undoubtedly a blinding flash of light. Winston was not hurt, only prostrated. Although he had already been lying on his back when the thing happened, he had a curious feeling that he had been knocked into that position. A terrific painless blow had flattened him out. Also something had happened inside his head. As his eyes regained their focus he remembered who he was, and where he was, and recognized the face that was gazing into his own; but somewhere or other there was a large patch of emptiness, as though a piece had been taken out of his brain.

    “It will not last,” said O’Brien. “Look me in the eyes… Just now I held up the fingers of my hand to you. You saw five fingers. Do you remember that?”

    “Yes.”

    O’Brien held up the fingers of his left hand, with the thumb concealed.

    “There are five fingers there. Do you see five fingers?”

    “Yes.”

    And he did see them, for a fleeting instant, before the scenery of his mind changed. He saw five fingers, and there was no deformity. Then everything was normal again, and the old fear, the hatred, and the bewilderment came crowding back again. But there had been a moment – he did not know how long, thirty seconds, perhaps – of luminous certainty, when each new suggestion of O’Brien’s had filled up a patch of emptiness and become absolute truth, and when two and two could have been three as easily as five, if that were what was needed. It had faded before O’Brien had dropped his hand; but though he could not recapture it, he could remember it, as one remembers a vivid experience at some period of one’s life when one was in effect a different person. (Op. cit., Part 3, ch. 2)

    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jayman
    Then your definition of free will is different from what I, and I think also most people, consider as “free will”. So you are discussing whether free will suiting your own definition exists; but “free will, as I understand it, does not exist” is not the same as “free will, as commonly understood by people, does not exist”.

    Free will does not mean unpredictable. If someone will offer me one million dollars, there will be nothing unpredictable in my choice, but still I won’t accept it as an argument that I have no free will, just because my choices are sometimes limited, and sometimes can be predicted. And of course by “predictable” you cannot mean “predictable after you know exact brain structure”, as “brain” is “me”, my thoughts are brain processes, my decision is brain process too, so in essence this means “your decision is predictable after I know your decision”. This is hardly an argument worth consideration.

    As about experience, because saying that there is such and such brain states, changes in neuron wiring, describing electrical impulses have nothing to do with what _I_ actually experience. There is no way of describing my experience by simply stating physical properties of the brain during my experience. This describes physical aspect, but not what is happening to me;

    BTW, this was not defense of Socrates, some other dialogue. In which Socrates says something in the pattern of >> it’s absurd to answer the question “why Socrates sits in jail” by saying “Socrates has bones and muscles, and they are in such position as to enable him sitting in jail”.<<

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    But in fact I could adhere the the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) and still see how free will could occur. What if we live in a 'choose your own adventure' system where each person's choices are reflected as quantum variables that send him or her into the universe of his or her choosing?

    I'm not insisting on this but I can't prove it false either. I don't think it is true, but I haven't got the tools to answer definitively one way or the other. If you can answer questions like this, you must graduate from this blog and seek your glory!

    .

    But Many Worlds is still incompatible with free will, because it’s not “you” deciding, just each iteration taking its path. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    Jayman,

    I find it very difficult to debate with you because when you become vested in an argument, you tend to weaken your scientific mindset. By scientific mindset, I mean being able to keep the distinction clear between what you have proved to be true and what you theorize but have not reached yet by definitive proof. Those who have plowed through lots of difficult physics and math problem sets have a better ability to keep this distinction clear.

    (I discovered this when debating with your germ theory of gayness. It is an intriguing idea but the boundary between what is thus far shown and what we don't yet know based on positive evidence was not kept clear.)

    With respect to 'quantum unknowns' I am merely saying that we don't know where quantum variability comes from. It is an unknown. Nobody has ever been able to explain it. If you can, a Nobel will surely be yours.

    It seems like the statement you are totally unwilling to make is 'I don't know.' I have no problem admitting that.

    I am not insisting on free will and don't claim to prove it. I merely note that there is this unknown source of variability. If quantum variability is not unknown to you shouldn't be here arguing on a blog. Publish and get your Nobel like a champ!

    The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is a mere theory which was created precisely because it restores determinism (and your relying on it is therefore begging the question), but it has not an iota of positive evidence for it. From the perspective of simplicity (i.e. a 'beautiful theory') it is a mess (MWI is far as you can get from Occams Razor) and the main reason people like it is because it restores determinism.

    You say about MWI, "Some thinkers on the matter will try as they might to deny this, but this is the only possible solution to the observed quantum phenomena." Not true at all. MWI is not the leading theory, not even close and it is not even in second place. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the leading theory (although there is nothing close to agreement here) and it is open to nondeterminism.
    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

    As a scientist, I prefer the Copenhagen Interpretation because it just accepts what the data says and then stops. It is the most honest theory to me because it merely goes as far as we have observed and avoids speculation.

    Quantum variability is a big problem if you want to foreclose on free will. One could easily argue that quantum variations are intrusions into our realm from a so-called spirit world, or you could say that quantum effects are themselves are a manifestation of our choices.

    I am not making this argument. I am just saying that I see no way to prove these things false. There are these quantum variables everywhere and nobody I know of can say what they are or can explain them beyond probabilities. If you can, get thee off this blog and claim thy prize money!

    I wouldn’t assert a position, especially in the strong form, if I didn’t believe I had a good reason to do so. As always, that reason would be the evidence.

    I am not insisting on free will and don’t claim to prove it.

    So it seems that you, broadly, agree with my post, largely for the reasons I state. What we are discussing here then goes beyond the scope of this post. Which is fine. And on that.

    MWI is not the leading theory, not even close and it is not even in second place. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the leading theory (although there is nothing close to agreement here) and it is open to nondeterminism.

    The Copenhagen explanation is complete rubbish. The problem is that is an attempt to reconcile quantum phenomena with our naive belief about how the universe should work. Needless to say, trying to assert that the Copenhagen interpretation is true merely because it’s the most popular with physicists is an appeal to authority.

    From the perspective of simplicity (i.e. a ‘beautiful theory’) it is a mess (MWI is far as you can get from Occams Razor)

    Actually, the reverse is true. The Copenhagen view asserts all sorts of of its own extraneous propositions, such as wave function collapse, physical laws being inconsistent on different scales, and a central ontological role of conscious observers, all of which are unverified and contradict what we understand about physics.

    At the same time, Many Worlds merely asserts that we take what we see at face value; it perfectly explains what we see, and doesn’t lead to insert a bunch if fudge factors to explain the results.

    What is simpler, the Copenhagen with its many new entities we need to accept or Many Worlds with no such propositions at all? The extra universes naturally follow from what we see, so it’s hardly an unnecessary multiplication of entities. In any case, see this excellent description of the situation:

    Q: Which is a better approach to quantum mechanics: Copenhagen or Many Worlds? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

    Your view on accepting what the data says and leaving it there apparently greatly differs from mine. :)

    Also, check out Max Tegmark’s work on the matter.

    One could easily argue that quantum variations are intrusions into our realm from a so-called spirit world

    We could say this, but there is no evidence for such. That’s Matrix territory at that point, and hence of little utility here.

    The status on the existence free will is clear. The problem lies not with what we know, but what people are willing to accept. The latter isn’t really my concern when assessing the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    From the standpoint of Quantum physics, the Universe is actually not deterministic.

    But in fact I could adhere the the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) and still see how free will could occur. What if we live in a ‘choose your own adventure’ system where each person’s choices are reflected as quantum variables that send him or her into the universe of his or her choosing?

    I’m not insisting on this but I can’t prove it false either. I don’t think it is true, but I haven’t got the tools to answer definitively one way or the other. If you can answer questions like this, you must graduate from this blog and seek your glory!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Dan.

    But Many Worlds is still incompatible with free will, because it's not "you" deciding, just each iteration taking its path. :)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    Hi Jayman

    Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately I'm now more confused than ever about exactly what it is you're asserting when you say humans don't have free will.

    You say "all animals with brains can direct their actions". And, to me, if free will means anything, it means the ability to direct your actions. I thought you were claiming that, for every apparently volitional act of every brain-endowed animal, there are always causally sufficient antecedent conditions. Hence the appearance that the animal is directing its actions is an illusion.

    If you have a moment, could you please watch this reasonably short video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rZfSTpjGl8

    In it, John Searle explains why he thinks free will is philosophically problematic. I've previously assumed that you're rejecting free will in Searle's terms. But now it seems as if you're accepting free will in those terms, but rejecting it at a higher, more subtle level which I haven't yet quite grasped.

    “However, if you take determinism to mean all events occur thanks to causal factors (which operate probablistically), then sure, then yes, free will would be in conflict with this. Since that is actually the case, then there is no free will.”

    The problem is that there are the quantum variables, and nobody I know of can say why they turn out the way they do beyond probabilities. If you have probabilistic variables then you haven’t got strict causality. The number of possibilities in any instant is literally infinite.

    Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series had fun with the fact that odd things can happen (albeit with extremely low probability) such as a whale or a pot of petunias appearing in the clouds over the surface of a planet. What is the cause? I can’t say. If you can, Jayman, please get that Nobel! We all love it when our favorite bloggers make a name for themselves off the Internet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    From the standpoint of Quantum physics, the Universe is actually not deterministic.

    Jayman,

    I find it very difficult to debate with you because when you become vested in an argument, you tend to weaken your scientific mindset. By scientific mindset, I mean being able to keep the distinction clear between what you have proved to be true and what you theorize but have not reached yet by definitive proof. Those who have plowed through lots of difficult physics and math problem sets have a better ability to keep this distinction clear.

    (I discovered this when debating with your germ theory of gayness. It is an intriguing idea but the boundary between what is thus far shown and what we don’t yet know based on positive evidence was not kept clear.)

    With respect to ‘quantum unknowns’ I am merely saying that we don’t know where quantum variability comes from. It is an unknown. Nobody has ever been able to explain it. If you can, a Nobel will surely be yours.

    It seems like the statement you are totally unwilling to make is ‘I don’t know.’ I have no problem admitting that.

    I am not insisting on free will and don’t claim to prove it. I merely note that there is this unknown source of variability. If quantum variability is not unknown to you shouldn’t be here arguing on a blog. Publish and get your Nobel like a champ!

    The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is a mere theory which was created precisely because it restores determinism (and your relying on it is therefore begging the question), but it has not an iota of positive evidence for it. From the perspective of simplicity (i.e. a ‘beautiful theory’) it is a mess (MWI is far as you can get from Occams Razor) and the main reason people like it is because it restores determinism.

    You say about MWI, “Some thinkers on the matter will try as they might to deny this, but this is the only possible solution to the observed quantum phenomena.” Not true at all. MWI is not the leading theory, not even close and it is not even in second place. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the leading theory (although there is nothing close to agreement here) and it is open to nondeterminism.

    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

    As a scientist, I prefer the Copenhagen Interpretation because it just accepts what the data says and then stops. It is the most honest theory to me because it merely goes as far as we have observed and avoids speculation.

    Quantum variability is a big problem if you want to foreclose on free will. One could easily argue that quantum variations are intrusions into our realm from a so-called spirit world, or you could say that quantum effects are themselves are a manifestation of our choices.

    I am not making this argument. I am just saying that I see no way to prove these things false. There are these quantum variables everywhere and nobody I know of can say what they are or can explain them beyond probabilities. If you can, get thee off this blog and claim thy prize money!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Dan:

    I wouldn't assert a position, especially in the strong form, if I didn't believe I had a good reason to do so. As always, that reason would be the evidence.


    I am not insisting on free will and don’t claim to prove it.
     
    So it seems that you, broadly, agree with my post, largely for the reasons I state. What we are discussing here then goes beyond the scope of this post. Which is fine. And on that.

    MWI is not the leading theory, not even close and it is not even in second place. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the leading theory (although there is nothing close to agreement here) and it is open to nondeterminism.
     
    The Copenhagen explanation is complete rubbish. The problem is that is an attempt to reconcile quantum phenomena with our naive belief about how the universe should work. Needless to say, trying to assert that the Copenhagen interpretation is true merely because it's the most popular with physicists is an appeal to authority.

    From the perspective of simplicity (i.e. a ‘beautiful theory’) it is a mess (MWI is far as you can get from Occams Razor)
     
    Actually, the reverse is true. The Copenhagen view asserts all sorts of of its own extraneous propositions, such as wave function collapse, physical laws being inconsistent on different scales, and a central ontological role of conscious observers, all of which are unverified and contradict what we understand about physics.

    At the same time, Many Worlds merely asserts that we take what we see at face value; it perfectly explains what we see, and doesn't lead to insert a bunch if fudge factors to explain the results.

    What is simpler, the Copenhagen with its many new entities we need to accept or Many Worlds with no such propositions at all? The extra universes naturally follow from what we see, so it's hardly an unnecessary multiplication of entities. In any case, see this excellent description of the situation:

    Q: Which is a better approach to quantum mechanics: Copenhagen or Many Worlds? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

    Your view on accepting what the data says and leaving it there apparently greatly differs from mine. :)

    Also, check out Max Tegmark's work on the matter.


    One could easily argue that quantum variations are intrusions into our realm from a so-called spirit world
     
    We could say this, but there is no evidence for such. That's Matrix territory at that point, and hence of little utility here.

    The status on the existence free will is clear. The problem lies not with what we know, but what people are willing to accept. The latter isn't really my concern when assessing the truth.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    Agreed

    Our current understanding of causation at the subatomic level doesn't fit with free will. But our understanding is incomplete. And if it turns out the physics does permit something like conscious volition to exist, four billion years of natural selection will almost certainly have found and exploited that possibility.

    I agree with the HBD community that our conscious attributes have been subject to heavy genetic selection. But that at least suggests that our conscious attributes might have real causal power. If they're epiphenomenal, and they can't actually "do" anything, why would they be subject to such heavy selection? That's not a decisive argument, but it is suggestive.

    I also see Searle's point, that you can't actually live in the real world acting as if you don't have free will. Because choosing to act as if you don't have free will has all the apparent attributes of free will. The philosopher who refuses to choose an entree at the restaurant because he's a determinist seems every bit as volitional as the other members of the dinner party who choose the steak or the fish.

    If I read Jayman's blog post and decide everyone's voting choices are predetermined, that new awareness might make me decide not to bother voting next time. But my decision to abstain would then appear to be a choice, a conscious response to the persuasiveness of his arguments.

    At the everyday level of human interaction, we don't have AS MUCH free choice as we sometimes assume. We're subject to unconscious biases and invisible appetites - the stuff of neuroeconomics. But the point is, at least some of us can become conscious of our unconscious biases, and choose to modify our behaviour. So that attack on free will isn't decisive.

    It's that subatomic level, of "billiard ball" causation, which looks to be incompatible with free will. And if it finally is incompatible, free will really is an illusion.

    Our current understanding of causation at the subatomic level doesn’t fit with free will. But our understanding is incomplete. And if it turns out the physics does permit something like conscious volition to exist, four billion years of natural selection will almost certainly have found and exploited that possibility.

    You’re getting a bit lost in the notion. Conscious volition does exist, and the non-existence of free will doesn’t factor into that. The fact that behavior follows a semi-deterministic course doesn’t mean the process, what we call “conscious volition” is not important.

    The rest of your comment stems from that misunderstanding. Complex and sophisticated doesn’t mean “not determined”.

    I also see Searle’s point, that you can’t actually live in the real world acting as if you don’t have free will. Because choosing to act as if you don’t have free will has all the apparent attributes of free will.

    Why did you make that choice (or for that matter, any choice)? That’s the crux of the issue.

    If I read Jayman’s blog post and decide everyone’s voting choices are predetermined, that new awareness might make me decide not to bother voting next time.

    Even if they are “predetermined” (which they are not strictly), what predetermines them? Input still matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    I am also not sure what Jayman exactly means by "free will does not exist". Also, I think Jayman is refusing to accept that providing all the data about what is happening in my brain when I experience something, still does not equals what _I_ experience as _experiencing_. Second, there is a problem of semantics. If we go back to layman definition, then surely when I am presented a choice between getting thirty lashes or a portion of ice cream, i will choose ice cream, and still I would consider myself as exercising my free will. That I have preferences, some of them even preventing me from making some choices, still does not mean I am not "free", since those preferences constitute part of what is "me".

    That my choices result from my brain structure, my genes etc means nothing, since "me" is exactly my brain structure; _I_ was created by genes. There is no _I_ besides my brain, at least for materialist.

    Now, if you would create a definition of "free will" which would contradict layman feeling of what "free will" is, then you are discussing against a strawman. So, Jayman, what is your definition of "free will" and what would mean, to you, that someone has a "free will" ?

    o:

    I am also not sure what Jayman exactly means by “free will does not exist”. Also, I think Jayman is refusing to accept that providing all the data about what is happening in my brain when I experience something, still does not equals what _I_ experience as _experiencing_.

    Why?

    Notice there is a little bit of weaseling here. Specifically, what do you mean by “providing all the data about what is happening in my brain when I experience something?”

    If we go back to layman definition, then surely when I am presented a choice between getting thirty lashes or a portion of ice cream, i will choose ice cream, and still I would consider myself as exercising my free will. That I have preferences, some of them even preventing me from making some choices, still does not mean I am not “free”, since those preferences constitute part of what is “me”.

    This is Baumeister’s argument. I don’t think it’s useful to try to define free will as “free from coercion”. More specifically, there’s the issue of “suppressing impulses” which itself is operationally useless from any consideration of free will. As Sisphyean notes, even the most coldly and deeply contemplated rational decision follows a predictable pattern, to say that the ability to suppress impulse equals free will is foolhardy.

    Now, if you would create a definition of “free will” which would contradict layman feeling of what “free will” is, then you are discussing against a strawman. So, Jayman, what is your definition of “free will” and what would mean, to you, that someone has a “free will” ?

    “Free will”, in any meaningful sense, would mean that behavior would be unpredictable, at least statistically, from physical laws and knowledge of the individual, including genetics. Since that’s clearly not the case (even people we describe as “unpredictable” operate rather predictably), free will simply does not exist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    Hi Jayman

    Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately I'm now more confused than ever about exactly what it is you're asserting when you say humans don't have free will.

    You say "all animals with brains can direct their actions". And, to me, if free will means anything, it means the ability to direct your actions. I thought you were claiming that, for every apparently volitional act of every brain-endowed animal, there are always causally sufficient antecedent conditions. Hence the appearance that the animal is directing its actions is an illusion.

    If you have a moment, could you please watch this reasonably short video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rZfSTpjGl8

    In it, John Searle explains why he thinks free will is philosophically problematic. I've previously assumed that you're rejecting free will in Searle's terms. But now it seems as if you're accepting free will in those terms, but rejecting it at a higher, more subtle level which I haven't yet quite grasped.

    Searle does indeed give a fairly good description of the problem (with a few errors).

    I’d go as far as to say that science has largely (though not entirely) rendered philosophy obsolete. I say not entirely because there are philosophers like Nick Bostrom who do perform work that’s still relevant today – but even this is only worth anything because it’s possible to evaluate his arguments mathematically.

    One place where Searle gets it wrong is that he paints free will existing in some dichotomy with determinism, when that’s not the problem (well, depending on how you define determinism). For one, the universe isn’t deterministic in the sense that all events follow one pre-ordained plan from beginning to end. The universe is random thanks to quantum mechanics. However, if you take determinism to mean all events occur thanks to causal factors (which operate probablistically), then sure, then yes, free will would be in conflict with this. Since that is actually the case, then there is no free will.

    I thought you were claiming that, for every apparently volitional act of every brain-endowed animal, there are always causally sufficient antecedent conditions. Hence the appearance that the animal is directing its actions is an illusion.

    Hence, this is the case.

    However, a lot of people think of free will in terms you do:

    You say “all animals with brains can direct their actions”. And, to me, if free will means anything, it means the ability to direct your actions.

    This is indeed what a lot of people think, including what Baumeister apparently believes. However, it’s not a useful definition, because this is a given.

    As well, more importantly, as I argue here, the ability “to direct your actions” occurs within a tightly bounded parameter space, thanks to the structure of your brain, a structure which is heavily specified by genetics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    I don't think you proved your point, not nearly. Your (really long) post here is merely a mass of descriptions of certain phenomena and definitions. And in a way it verges on word salad because there is no linkage between many of the items you listed here.

    I agree with your basis thesis, which, if I may restate, is this: humans see themselves are logical creatures of free will, but in truth they are all operating as tools of their genetic code, operating at the behest of biological imperatives, reproduction, tribal/cultural units acting on behalf of their reproductive instincts, on behalf of the unity and cohesion of their tribes/cultures, etc.

    But you did not prove it. Not even close.

    I am not sure you can prove it. We don't have enough distance from the problem. There are not enough tools of abstraction available to us to help us handle the problem.

    The best approach to abstracting out the problem might be to observe some of the common phenomena that exist in our own culture and show us they are examples of how humans act outside of rationality. And I think that is a major part of your thesis, although you did not explicate it much: the idea that humans do not operate in the realm of rationality much of the time.

    Back to the idea of some of our cultural phenomena and how we can look at that and show how humans are not really individuals but instead just cogs in a cultural machine. Ah, that is part of your thesis, too. And really part of the problem with your post above is your lack of brevity and ability to sufficiently distill your points into short and succinct phrases.

    Truth be told, what you are trying to say in your post is akin to something that a 16 year old male be say, something like "People are all phony. Society is phony."

    Many teenage males, usually somewhat well-read teenage males, go into this brief and cynical phrase where they denounce society as a sham, as phony. That is part of what you are saying here, except you dress it up. But I agree with you. Perhaps that teenage phase is the better perspective: People are phonies, society is phony. We all act like and believe we are all rational actors, operating in free will, but in reality, at a high scale of abstraction, we are all just ants, a form of primate ant, all scrabbling for social status, reproducing, competing for scarce goods, fulfilling our biological imperatives.

    Again, to prove it up, you need to be so abstract, so logical, so precise, and you would need to pick apart much of the "things" that make up our lives and society.

    And another problem: you are going to have to break through the barriers, the thought-pens that are placed on our minds via cultural conditioning, the left vs right camp that we are forced into by this culture of ours. You would have to do, to have that freedom to pick apart, to tease apart the aspects of our lives and cultures, and turn each piece of our society in front of you and analyze it. I think you have the abstractional ability to do that.

    You have also chosen a political/philosophical camp, and you are bound by its dictates.

    @unperson102:

    Certain people, perhaps most, can’t be convinced that free will does not exist. This, ironically, is because of the non-existence of free will (see Staffan’s comments). I expect objecting comments to continue.

    I don’t think you proved your point, not nearly.

    With all due respect, I don’t think you understand what my point is.

    I agree with your basis thesis, which, if I may restate, is this: humans see themselves are logical creatures of free will, but in truth they are all operating as tools of their genetic code, operating at the behest of biological imperatives, reproduction, tribal/cultural units acting on behalf of their reproductive instincts, on behalf of the unity and cohesion of their tribes/cultures, etc.

    But you did not prove it. Not even close.

    I am not sure you can prove it. We don’t have enough distance from the problem. There are not enough tools of abstraction available to us to help us handle the problem.

    The best approach to abstracting out the problem might be to observe some of the common phenomena that exist in our own culture and show us they are examples of how humans act outside of rationality. And I think that is a major part of your thesis, although you did not explicate it much: the idea that humans do not operate in the realm of rationality much of the time.

    The non-existence of free will doesn’t necessarily involve irrational behavior. Even the most “rational” human beings carry on their behavior and thinking without realizing that they only think that way because it’s in their mental constitution to do so. See my posts on HBD and atheism. “Rational” thinking is itself something that only occurs to people who are so minded. I am merely fortunate in that regard.

    Back to the idea of some of our cultural phenomena and how we can look at that and show how humans are not really individuals but instead just cogs in a cultural machine. Ah, that is part of your thesis, too.

    Not really. People are indeed individuals. Even identical twins are individuals.

    Many teenage males, usually somewhat well-read teenage males, go into this brief and cynical phrase where they denounce society as a sham, as phony.

    J.D. Salinger much?

    The rest of your comment is not relevant to my post. But thanks for the insight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    I am also not sure what Jayman exactly means by "free will does not exist". Also, I think Jayman is refusing to accept that providing all the data about what is happening in my brain when I experience something, still does not equals what _I_ experience as _experiencing_. Second, there is a problem of semantics. If we go back to layman definition, then surely when I am presented a choice between getting thirty lashes or a portion of ice cream, i will choose ice cream, and still I would consider myself as exercising my free will. That I have preferences, some of them even preventing me from making some choices, still does not mean I am not "free", since those preferences constitute part of what is "me".

    That my choices result from my brain structure, my genes etc means nothing, since "me" is exactly my brain structure; _I_ was created by genes. There is no _I_ besides my brain, at least for materialist.

    Now, if you would create a definition of "free will" which would contradict layman feeling of what "free will" is, then you are discussing against a strawman. So, Jayman, what is your definition of "free will" and what would mean, to you, that someone has a "free will" ?

    Agreed

    Our current understanding of causation at the subatomic level doesn’t fit with free will. But our understanding is incomplete. And if it turns out the physics does permit something like conscious volition to exist, four billion years of natural selection will almost certainly have found and exploited that possibility.

    I agree with the HBD community that our conscious attributes have been subject to heavy genetic selection. But that at least suggests that our conscious attributes might have real causal power. If they’re epiphenomenal, and they can’t actually “do” anything, why would they be subject to such heavy selection? That’s not a decisive argument, but it is suggestive.

    I also see Searle’s point, that you can’t actually live in the real world acting as if you don’t have free will. Because choosing to act as if you don’t have free will has all the apparent attributes of free will. The philosopher who refuses to choose an entree at the restaurant because he’s a determinist seems every bit as volitional as the other members of the dinner party who choose the steak or the fish.

    If I read Jayman’s blog post and decide everyone’s voting choices are predetermined, that new awareness might make me decide not to bother voting next time. But my decision to abstain would then appear to be a choice, a conscious response to the persuasiveness of his arguments.

    At the everyday level of human interaction, we don’t have AS MUCH free choice as we sometimes assume. We’re subject to unconscious biases and invisible appetites – the stuff of neuroeconomics. But the point is, at least some of us can become conscious of our unconscious biases, and choose to modify our behaviour. So that attack on free will isn’t decisive.

    It’s that subatomic level, of “billiard ball” causation, which looks to be incompatible with free will. And if it finally is incompatible, free will really is an illusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @georgesdelatour:

    Our current understanding of causation at the subatomic level doesn’t fit with free will. But our understanding is incomplete. And if it turns out the physics does permit something like conscious volition to exist, four billion years of natural selection will almost certainly have found and exploited that possibility.
     
    You're getting a bit lost in the notion. Conscious volition does exist, and the non-existence of free will doesn't factor into that. The fact that behavior follows a semi-deterministic course doesn't mean the process, what we call "conscious volition" is not important.

    The rest of your comment stems from that misunderstanding. Complex and sophisticated doesn't mean "not determined".


    I also see Searle’s point, that you can’t actually live in the real world acting as if you don’t have free will. Because choosing to act as if you don’t have free will has all the apparent attributes of free will.
     
    Why did you make that choice (or for that matter, any choice)? That's the crux of the issue.

    If I read Jayman’s blog post and decide everyone’s voting choices are predetermined, that new awareness might make me decide not to bother voting next time.
     
    Even if they are "predetermined" (which they are not strictly), what predetermines them? Input still matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    I don’t think you proved your point, not nearly. Your (really long) post here is merely a mass of descriptions of certain phenomena and definitions. And in a way it verges on word salad because there is no linkage between many of the items you listed here.

    I agree with your basis thesis, which, if I may restate, is this: humans see themselves are logical creatures of free will, but in truth they are all operating as tools of their genetic code, operating at the behest of biological imperatives, reproduction, tribal/cultural units acting on behalf of their reproductive instincts, on behalf of the unity and cohesion of their tribes/cultures, etc.

    But you did not prove it. Not even close.

    I am not sure you can prove it. We don’t have enough distance from the problem. There are not enough tools of abstraction available to us to help us handle the problem.

    The best approach to abstracting out the problem might be to observe some of the common phenomena that exist in our own culture and show us they are examples of how humans act outside of rationality. And I think that is a major part of your thesis, although you did not explicate it much: the idea that humans do not operate in the realm of rationality much of the time.

    Back to the idea of some of our cultural phenomena and how we can look at that and show how humans are not really individuals but instead just cogs in a cultural machine. Ah, that is part of your thesis, too. And really part of the problem with your post above is your lack of brevity and ability to sufficiently distill your points into short and succinct phrases.

    Truth be told, what you are trying to say in your post is akin to something that a 16 year old male be say, something like “People are all phony. Society is phony.”

    Many teenage males, usually somewhat well-read teenage males, go into this brief and cynical phrase where they denounce society as a sham, as phony. That is part of what you are saying here, except you dress it up. But I agree with you. Perhaps that teenage phase is the better perspective: People are phonies, society is phony. We all act like and believe we are all rational actors, operating in free will, but in reality, at a high scale of abstraction, we are all just ants, a form of primate ant, all scrabbling for social status, reproducing, competing for scarce goods, fulfilling our biological imperatives.

    Again, to prove it up, you need to be so abstract, so logical, so precise, and you would need to pick apart much of the “things” that make up our lives and society.

    And another problem: you are going to have to break through the barriers, the thought-pens that are placed on our minds via cultural conditioning, the left vs right camp that we are forced into by this culture of ours. You would have to do, to have that freedom to pick apart, to tease apart the aspects of our lives and cultures, and turn each piece of our society in front of you and analyze it. I think you have the abstractional ability to do that.

    You have also chosen a political/philosophical camp, and you are bound by its dictates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @unperson102:

    Certain people, perhaps most, can't be convinced that free will does not exist. This, ironically, is because of the non-existence of free will (see Staffan's comments). I expect objecting comments to continue.


    I don’t think you proved your point, not nearly.
     
    With all due respect, I don't think you understand what my point is.

    I agree with your basis thesis, which, if I may restate, is this: humans see themselves are logical creatures of free will, but in truth they are all operating as tools of their genetic code, operating at the behest of biological imperatives, reproduction, tribal/cultural units acting on behalf of their reproductive instincts, on behalf of the unity and cohesion of their tribes/cultures, etc.

    But you did not prove it. Not even close.

    I am not sure you can prove it. We don’t have enough distance from the problem. There are not enough tools of abstraction available to us to help us handle the problem.

    The best approach to abstracting out the problem might be to observe some of the common phenomena that exist in our own culture and show us they are examples of how humans act outside of rationality. And I think that is a major part of your thesis, although you did not explicate it much: the idea that humans do not operate in the realm of rationality much of the time.
     

    The non-existence of free will doesn't necessarily involve irrational behavior. Even the most "rational" human beings carry on their behavior and thinking without realizing that they only think that way because it's in their mental constitution to do so. See my posts on HBD and atheism. "Rational" thinking is itself something that only occurs to people who are so minded. I am merely fortunate in that regard.

    Back to the idea of some of our cultural phenomena and how we can look at that and show how humans are not really individuals but instead just cogs in a cultural machine. Ah, that is part of your thesis, too.
     
    Not really. People are indeed individuals. Even identical twins are individuals.

    Many teenage males, usually somewhat well-read teenage males, go into this brief and cynical phrase where they denounce society as a sham, as phony.
     
    J.D. Salinger much?

    The rest of your comment is not relevant to my post. But thanks for the insight.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I am also not sure what Jayman exactly means by “free will does not exist”. Also, I think Jayman is refusing to accept that providing all the data about what is happening in my brain when I experience something, still does not equals what _I_ experience as _experiencing_. Second, there is a problem of semantics. If we go back to layman definition, then surely when I am presented a choice between getting thirty lashes or a portion of ice cream, i will choose ice cream, and still I would consider myself as exercising my free will. That I have preferences, some of them even preventing me from making some choices, still does not mean I am not “free”, since those preferences constitute part of what is “me”.

    That my choices result from my brain structure, my genes etc means nothing, since “me” is exactly my brain structure; _I_ was created by genes. There is no _I_ besides my brain, at least for materialist.

    Now, if you would create a definition of “free will” which would contradict layman feeling of what “free will” is, then you are discussing against a strawman. So, Jayman, what is your definition of “free will” and what would mean, to you, that someone has a “free will” ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @georgesdelatour
    Agreed

    Our current understanding of causation at the subatomic level doesn't fit with free will. But our understanding is incomplete. And if it turns out the physics does permit something like conscious volition to exist, four billion years of natural selection will almost certainly have found and exploited that possibility.

    I agree with the HBD community that our conscious attributes have been subject to heavy genetic selection. But that at least suggests that our conscious attributes might have real causal power. If they're epiphenomenal, and they can't actually "do" anything, why would they be subject to such heavy selection? That's not a decisive argument, but it is suggestive.

    I also see Searle's point, that you can't actually live in the real world acting as if you don't have free will. Because choosing to act as if you don't have free will has all the apparent attributes of free will. The philosopher who refuses to choose an entree at the restaurant because he's a determinist seems every bit as volitional as the other members of the dinner party who choose the steak or the fish.

    If I read Jayman's blog post and decide everyone's voting choices are predetermined, that new awareness might make me decide not to bother voting next time. But my decision to abstain would then appear to be a choice, a conscious response to the persuasiveness of his arguments.

    At the everyday level of human interaction, we don't have AS MUCH free choice as we sometimes assume. We're subject to unconscious biases and invisible appetites - the stuff of neuroeconomics. But the point is, at least some of us can become conscious of our unconscious biases, and choose to modify our behaviour. So that attack on free will isn't decisive.

    It's that subatomic level, of "billiard ball" causation, which looks to be incompatible with free will. And if it finally is incompatible, free will really is an illusion.

    , @JayMan
    @szopeno:

    I am also not sure what Jayman exactly means by “free will does not exist”. Also, I think Jayman is refusing to accept that providing all the data about what is happening in my brain when I experience something, still does not equals what _I_ experience as _experiencing_.
     
    Why?

    Notice there is a little bit of weaseling here. Specifically, what do you mean by "providing all the data about what is happening in my brain when I experience something?"


    If we go back to layman definition, then surely when I am presented a choice between getting thirty lashes or a portion of ice cream, i will choose ice cream, and still I would consider myself as exercising my free will. That I have preferences, some of them even preventing me from making some choices, still does not mean I am not “free”, since those preferences constitute part of what is “me”.
     
    This is Baumeister's argument. I don't think it's useful to try to define free will as "free from coercion". More specifically, there's the issue of "suppressing impulses" which itself is operationally useless from any consideration of free will. As Sisphyean notes, even the most coldly and deeply contemplated rational decision follows a predictable pattern, to say that the ability to suppress impulse equals free will is foolhardy.

    Now, if you would create a definition of “free will” which would contradict layman feeling of what “free will” is, then you are discussing against a strawman. So, Jayman, what is your definition of “free will” and what would mean, to you, that someone has a “free will” ?
     
    "Free will", in any meaningful sense, would mean that behavior would be unpredictable, at least statistically, from physical laws and knowledge of the individual, including genetics. Since that's clearly not the case (even people we describe as "unpredictable" operate rather predictably), free will simply does not exist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Hi Jayman

    Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately I’m now more confused than ever about exactly what it is you’re asserting when you say humans don’t have free will.

    You say “all animals with brains can direct their actions”. And, to me, if free will means anything, it means the ability to direct your actions. I thought you were claiming that, for every apparently volitional act of every brain-endowed animal, there are always causally sufficient antecedent conditions. Hence the appearance that the animal is directing its actions is an illusion.

    If you have a moment, could you please watch this reasonably short video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rZfSTpjGl8

    In it, John Searle explains why he thinks free will is philosophically problematic. I’ve previously assumed that you’re rejecting free will in Searle’s terms. But now it seems as if you’re accepting free will in those terms, but rejecting it at a higher, more subtle level which I haven’t yet quite grasped.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @georgesdelatour:

    Searle does indeed give a fairly good description of the problem (with a few errors).

    I'd go as far as to say that science has largely (though not entirely) rendered philosophy obsolete. I say not entirely because there are philosophers like Nick Bostrom who do perform work that's still relevant today – but even this is only worth anything because it's possible to evaluate his arguments mathematically.

    One place where Searle gets it wrong is that he paints free will existing in some dichotomy with determinism, when that's not the problem (well, depending on how you define determinism). For one, the universe isn't deterministic in the sense that all events follow one pre-ordained plan from beginning to end. The universe is random thanks to quantum mechanics. However, if you take determinism to mean all events occur thanks to causal factors (which operate probablistically), then sure, then yes, free will would be in conflict with this. Since that is actually the case, then there is no free will.


    I thought you were claiming that, for every apparently volitional act of every brain-endowed animal, there are always causally sufficient antecedent conditions. Hence the appearance that the animal is directing its actions is an illusion.
     
    Hence, this is the case.

    However, a lot of people think of free will in terms you do:


    You say “all animals with brains can direct their actions”. And, to me, if free will means anything, it means the ability to direct your actions.
     
    This is indeed what a lot of people think, including what Baumeister apparently believes. However, it's not a useful definition, because this is a given.

    As well, more importantly, as I argue here, the ability "to direct your actions" occurs within a tightly bounded parameter space, thanks to the structure of your brain, a structure which is heavily specified by genetics.

    , @Dan
    "However, if you take determinism to mean all events occur thanks to causal factors (which operate probablistically), then sure, then yes, free will would be in conflict with this. Since that is actually the case, then there is no free will."

    The problem is that there are the quantum variables, and nobody I know of can say why they turn out the way they do beyond probabilities. If you have probabilistic variables then you haven't got strict causality. The number of possibilities in any instant is literally infinite.

    Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series had fun with the fact that odd things can happen (albeit with extremely low probability) such as a whale or a pot of petunias appearing in the clouds over the surface of a planet. What is the cause? I can't say. If you can, Jayman, please get that Nobel! We all love it when our favorite bloggers make a name for themselves off the Internet.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Tregon
    Jayman: Nothing in the universe “goes beyond” the laws of physics,

    If physics means "that-which-constitutes-and-governs-the-universe" and universe means "all-that-is", that seems tautological and something anyone could say, including a theist. If it's not tautological, how can you be certain it's right, i.e. that there isn't something outside the universe (in the currently accepted sense) that influences it? I wonder, though, in what sense mathematics goes beyond, or logically precedes, the laws of physics. As far as humans are concerned: being aware of pi or sqrt(2) or the infinitude of the primes isn't something that, in any direct sense, comes thru the senses or thru matter. Even if Tegmark is right and all mathematical objects physically exist somewhere in some sense (I don't agree), that isn't how human beings are aware of them. Our brains work because of the laws of physics, but they grant us something beyond matter that isn't obviously derivable from physics-as-phenomenon. In fact, physics-as-subject is beyond physics-as-phenomenon.

    and nothing about human brains or behavior “goes beyond” the “laws” of even neuroscience.

    Yes, but there is something very mundane but very mysterious in, or of, the brain: consciousness and its role in cognition and behaviour. Is it causal or simply epiphenomenal, for example? Scientifically speaking, consciousness doesn't seem necessary and doesn't seem possible to explain. It may never be possible to explain scientifically or to confirm objectively, rather than from the inside. If it's a product of (a particular sub-set of possible) material brain-states, why don't the brain-states suffice on their own? Do they suffice on their own in some people or could they suffice, if modelled electronically or mechanically? And if consciousness is simply epiphenomenal, is being conscious of being conscious etc an illusion? It doesn't seem to be, but how is a brain-state aware of itself or aware of its own (non-material) product? N.B. I am a strict materialist and don't believe in the supernatural.

    @Magistra Mundi:

    Jayman: Nothing in the universe “goes beyond” the laws of physics,

    If physics means “that-which-constitutes-and-governs-the-universe” and universe means “all-that-is”, that seems tautological and something anyone could say, including a theist. If it’s not tautological, how can you be certain it’s right, i.e. that there isn’t something outside the universe (in the currently accepted sense) that influences it?

    That would then make the problem one of semantics, yes? Specifically, what do we mean by “universe” and something that is “outside” of it?

    I wonder, though, in what sense mathematics goes beyond, or logically precedes, the laws of physics. As far as humans are concerned: being aware of pi or sqrt(2) or the infinitude of the primes isn’t something that, in any direct sense, comes thru the senses or thru matter.

    Well, look at it like this:

    Our brains work because of the laws of physics, but they grant us something beyond matter that isn’t obviously derivable from physics-as-phenomenon.

    Brains do? What evidence is there of that?

    Yes, but there is something very mundane but very mysterious in, or of, the brain: consciousness and its role in cognition and behaviour. Is it causal or simply epiphenomenal, for example? Scientifically speaking, consciousness doesn’t seem necessary and doesn’t seem possible to explain.

    Since we have it, and since evolution apparently went to a lot of trouble for us to have it, yeah, I would say it seems necessary. I think science has been making great strides towards explaining consciousness.

    If it’s a product of (a particular sub-set of possible) material brain-states, why don’t the brain-states suffice on their own?

    Why don’t you think brain states suffice on their own?

    It doesn’t seem to be, but how is a brain-state aware of itself or aware of its own (non-material) product?

    Well, what is “awareness”? What “non-material” product would this be? I think this is a problem neuroscientists and those that work with artificial intelligence have been working hard on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    Your argument is not fundamentally about HBD vs the Blank Slate. It's about the contradiction inherent in the mind-body problem.

    According to physics as we presently understand it, there's simply no way human intentionality can cause atoms to change course. It's a good argument, which I for one can't refute.

    I'd just say one thing for the other side. Subjectively, certain things feel more free and others less so. A glutton pigging out on a donut has a very different inner experience from a hunger striker being force fed donuts by his prison staff. The glutton still feels free to stop eating the donut while the hunger striker does not.

    In evolutionary terms, acquiring that consciousness, with its concomitant sense of self-determination and intentionality, has been very expensive. It goes against Darwinian theory for us to acquire such intentional feelings, at such massive evolutionary cost, if the intentions are mere epiphenomena which can't actually do anything.

    Your argument is not fundamentally about HBD vs the Blank Slate.

    I wouldn’t quite say that.

    It’s about the contradiction inherent in the mind-body problem.

    According to physics as we presently understand it, there’s simply no way human intentionality can cause atoms to change course. It’s a good argument, which I for one can’t refute.

    The mind-body problem is a problem of human understanding, not a physical paradox. First of all, what is “human intentionality”? You must answer that question before declaring that it’s impossible that it can affect the physical world.

    I’d just say one thing for the other side. Subjectively, certain things feel more free and others less so. A glutton pigging out on a donut has a very different inner experience from a hunger striker being force fed donuts by his prison staff. The glutton still feels free to stop eating the donut while the hunger striker does not.

    Just to be clear, discussions on free will has nothing to do with “free from external coercion”. That’s not what I’m talking about.

    In evolutionary terms, acquiring that consciousness, with its concomitant sense of self-determination and intentionality, has been very expensive.

    Why? All animals with brains can direct their actions. The human issue is merely one of sophistication.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mac
    Mr Jayman, have you read "Identically Different: Why You Can Change Your Genes"? Tim Spector - using fascinating case studies of identical twins - draws gems from his exhaustive research project that has spanned twenty years to show how even real-life ‘clones’ with the same upbringing turn out in reality to be very different.

    Based on cutting-edge discoveries that are pushing the frontiers of our knowledge of genetics, he shows us that – contrary to recent scientific teaching – nothing is completely hard-wired or pre-ordained. Conceptually, he argues, we are not just skin and bones controlled by our genes but minds and bodies made of plastic. This plastic is dynamic – slowly changing shape and evolving, driven by many processes we still cannot comprehend. Many of the subtle differences between us appear now to be due to chance or fate, but as science rapidly evolves and explains current mysteries we will be able to become more active participants in this human moulding process. Then we can really begin to understand why we are who we are and what makes each of us so unique and quintessentially human.

    Mr Jayman, have you read “Identically Different: Why You Can Change Your Genes”? Tim Spector – using fascinating case studies of identical twins – draws gems from his exhaustive research project that has spanned twenty years to show how even real-life ‘clones’ with the same upbringing turn out in reality to be very different.

    No, but I’ve read Judith Harris’s No Two Alike which is about the same topic and approaches the matter with extensive evidence and offers a hypothesis that may explain the results.

    Based on cutting-edge discoveries that are pushing the frontiers of our knowledge of genetics, he shows us that – contrary to recent scientific teaching – nothing is completely hard-wired or pre-ordained. Conceptually, he argues, we are not just skin and bones controlled by our genes but minds and bodies made of plastic.

    That’s mostly a bunch of squishy nonsense. Yes, there are indeed brain functions that are “hard-wired”. But that genes and environment interact in complicated ways to produce the final product is clear.

    Many of the subtle differences between us appear now to be due to chance or fate, but as science rapidly evolves and explains current mysteries we will be able to become more active participants in this human moulding process.

    Perhaps. Much of the differences between identical twins – perhaps the vast majority – stems from developmental noise. In other words, chance, in fact.

    Then we can really begin to understand why we are who we are and what makes each of us so unique and quintessentially human.

    Indeed, in time. Thanks for the book suggestion! :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Your argument is not fundamentally about HBD vs the Blank Slate. It’s about the contradiction inherent in the mind-body problem.

    According to physics as we presently understand it, there’s simply no way human intentionality can cause atoms to change course. It’s a good argument, which I for one can’t refute.

    I’d just say one thing for the other side. Subjectively, certain things feel more free and others less so. A glutton pigging out on a donut has a very different inner experience from a hunger striker being force fed donuts by his prison staff. The glutton still feels free to stop eating the donut while the hunger striker does not.

    In evolutionary terms, acquiring that consciousness, with its concomitant sense of self-determination and intentionality, has been very expensive. It goes against Darwinian theory for us to acquire such intentional feelings, at such massive evolutionary cost, if the intentions are mere epiphenomena which can’t actually do anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @georgesdelatour:

    Your argument is not fundamentally about HBD vs the Blank Slate.
     
    I wouldn't quite say that.

    It’s about the contradiction inherent in the mind-body problem.

    According to physics as we presently understand it, there’s simply no way human intentionality can cause atoms to change course. It’s a good argument, which I for one can’t refute.
     

    The mind-body problem is a problem of human understanding, not a physical paradox. First of all, what is "human intentionality"? You must answer that question before declaring that it's impossible that it can affect the physical world.

    I’d just say one thing for the other side. Subjectively, certain things feel more free and others less so. A glutton pigging out on a donut has a very different inner experience from a hunger striker being force fed donuts by his prison staff. The glutton still feels free to stop eating the donut while the hunger striker does not.
     
    Just to be clear, discussions on free will has nothing to do with "free from external coercion". That's not what I'm talking about.

    In evolutionary terms, acquiring that consciousness, with its concomitant sense of self-determination and intentionality, has been very expensive.
     
    Why? All animals with brains can direct their actions. The human issue is merely one of sophistication.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Jayman: Nothing in the universe “goes beyond” the laws of physics,

    If physics means “that-which-constitutes-and-governs-the-universe” and universe means “all-that-is”, that seems tautological and something anyone could say, including a theist. If it’s not tautological, how can you be certain it’s right, i.e. that there isn’t something outside the universe (in the currently accepted sense) that influences it? I wonder, though, in what sense mathematics goes beyond, or logically precedes, the laws of physics. As far as humans are concerned: being aware of pi or sqrt(2) or the infinitude of the primes isn’t something that, in any direct sense, comes thru the senses or thru matter. Even if Tegmark is right and all mathematical objects physically exist somewhere in some sense (I don’t agree), that isn’t how human beings are aware of them. Our brains work because of the laws of physics, but they grant us something beyond matter that isn’t obviously derivable from physics-as-phenomenon. In fact, physics-as-subject is beyond physics-as-phenomenon.

    and nothing about human brains or behavior “goes beyond” the “laws” of even neuroscience.

    Yes, but there is something very mundane but very mysterious in, or of, the brain: consciousness and its role in cognition and behaviour. Is it causal or simply epiphenomenal, for example? Scientifically speaking, consciousness doesn’t seem necessary and doesn’t seem possible to explain. It may never be possible to explain scientifically or to confirm objectively, rather than from the inside. If it’s a product of (a particular sub-set of possible) material brain-states, why don’t the brain-states suffice on their own? Do they suffice on their own in some people or could they suffice, if modelled electronically or mechanically? And if consciousness is simply epiphenomenal, is being conscious of being conscious etc an illusion? It doesn’t seem to be, but how is a brain-state aware of itself or aware of its own (non-material) product? N.B. I am a strict materialist and don’t believe in the supernatural.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Magistra Mundi:

    Jayman: Nothing in the universe “goes beyond” the laws of physics,

    If physics means “that-which-constitutes-and-governs-the-universe” and universe means “all-that-is”, that seems tautological and something anyone could say, including a theist. If it’s not tautological, how can you be certain it’s right, i.e. that there isn’t something outside the universe (in the currently accepted sense) that influences it?
     

    That would then make the problem one of semantics, yes? Specifically, what do we mean by "universe" and something that is "outside" of it?

    I wonder, though, in what sense mathematics goes beyond, or logically precedes, the laws of physics. As far as humans are concerned: being aware of pi or sqrt(2) or the infinitude of the primes isn’t something that, in any direct sense, comes thru the senses or thru matter.

     

    Well, look at it like this:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X4x6hUX4wPU/Ug4WmNVn-AI/AAAAAAAAAVM/zjhBwKskwok/s1600/purity.png

    Our brains work because of the laws of physics, but they grant us something beyond matter that isn’t obviously derivable from physics-as-phenomenon.
     
    Brains do? What evidence is there of that?

    Yes, but there is something very mundane but very mysterious in, or of, the brain: consciousness and its role in cognition and behaviour. Is it causal or simply epiphenomenal, for example? Scientifically speaking, consciousness doesn’t seem necessary and doesn’t seem possible to explain.

     

    Since we have it, and since evolution apparently went to a lot of trouble for us to have it, yeah, I would say it seems necessary. I think science has been making great strides towards explaining consciousness.

    If it’s a product of (a particular sub-set of possible) material brain-states, why don’t the brain-states suffice on their own?
     
    Why don't you think brain states suffice on their own?

    It doesn’t seem to be, but how is a brain-state aware of itself or aware of its own (non-material) product?
     
    Well, what is "awareness"? What "non-material" product would this be? I think this is a problem neuroscientists and those that work with artificial intelligence have been working hard on.
    , @Tregon
    Jayman: One thing I wonder, as someone interested in linguistics: Your prose is v. good, so have you studied English usage or do you simply write well by instinct? Are you related to any professional writers?

    The replies below may be TL;DR but I had no choice. (& I can't see a way to reply to your reply.)

    That would then make the problem one of semantics, yes? Specifically, what do we mean by “universe” and something that is “outside” of it?

    I'd claim that the semantics govern whether one can reasonably state, within science, that 'Nothing in the universe “goes beyond” the laws of physics.' If it's a tautology, one can reasonably state that but it's redundant. If it's not a tautology, one is being papal rather than scientific.

    Our brains work because of the laws of physics, but they grant us something beyond matter that isn’t obviously derivable from physics-as-phenomenon.

    ***

    Brains do? What evidence is there of that?

    The evidence is mathematics. We are aware of pi or sqrt(2) by extra-sensory, extra-material intuition, because mathematics logically precedes physics. Logic governs matter, not vice versa. Or rather: inter-relating entities, of any kind, necessarily behave in "logical" ways. Maths is a symbolic system designed to model that inter-relation or bring it to the surface. So when humans use maths, their brains are in a sense going beyond physics, or accessing something more fundamental than physics.

    Yes, but there is something very mundane but very mysterious in, or of, the brain: consciousness and its role in cognition and behaviour. Is it causal or simply epiphenomenal, for example? Scientifically speaking, consciousness doesn’t seem necessary and doesn’t seem possible to explain.

    ****

    Since we have it, and since evolution apparently went to a lot of trouble for us to have it, yeah, I would say it seems necessary.

    Evolution gave us blood. Blood is red. Is the redness important? No. Evolution gave us brains. Brains are conscious. Is the consciousness important? Not proven. Of course, humans think it is, but humans also think they have free will (an illusion) and personal identity (another illusion). OK, I myself think consciousness is important, but I'd be amused if it turned out not to be, because I like counter-intuitive results and that would be the biggest of all.

    I think science has been making great strides towards explaining consciousness.

    I don't agree. Science has made great strides towards explaining the brain, but that isn't the same thing.

    If it’s a product of (a particular sub-set of possible) material brain-states, why don’t the brain-states suffice on their own?

    ***

    Why don’t you think brain states suffice on their own?

    Because they're accompanied by consciousness, which, as you say above, suggests (but does not prove) that it's important. But I cannot see why the mechanism has to run with consciousness. No-one can: we merely experience that being the case and conclude that it's necessarily the case.

    It doesn’t seem to be, but how is a brain-state aware of itself or aware of its own (non-material) product?

    ***

    Well, what is “awareness”? What “non-material” product would this be?

    Scientifically, "awareness" is receipt-and-processing within the brain of information from a source that is usually external to the brain. So the brain is aware of, e.g., blood-chemistry. To be aware in a higher sense is to receive-and-process and then be conscious of the result, i.e. the product of the brain-state. You can define and investigate the brain-state, but you can't define "consciousness": you can only experience it. And it isn't experienced as material or as something objective. Either we know consciousness from the inside or we infer it from behaviour. So knowledge of it is either subjective or inferential, i.e. it's never scientifically rigorous.

    I think this is a problem neuroscientists and those that work with artificial intelligence have been working hard on.

    Yes, but making no progress on. I'm not being anti-science: consciousness is perhaps the most important problem of all and I'd like science to explain it. Perhaps I shouldn't. I certainly have serious doubts about what brain-science will allow the state and others to do. Electricity is a wonderful thing, but it is a horrific tool for torturers. The most disturbing passage in Nineteen Eighty-Four is something related to brain-science:

    Two soft pads, which felt slightly moist, clamped themselves against Winston’s temples. He quailed. There was pain coming, a new kind of pain. O’Brien laid a hand reassuringly, almost kindly, on his.

    “This time it will not hurt,” he said. “Keep your eyes fixed on mine.”

    At this moment there was a devastating explosion, or what seemed like an explosion, though it was not certain whether there was any noise. There was undoubtedly a blinding flash of light. Winston was not hurt, only prostrated. Although he had already been lying on his back when the thing happened, he had a curious feeling that he had been knocked into that position. A terrific painless blow had flattened him out. Also something had happened inside his head. As his eyes regained their focus he remembered who he was, and where he was, and recognized the face that was gazing into his own; but somewhere or other there was a large patch of emptiness, as though a piece had been taken out of his brain.

    “It will not last,” said O’Brien. “Look me in the eyes… Just now I held up the fingers of my hand to you. You saw five fingers. Do you remember that?”

    “Yes.”

    O’Brien held up the fingers of his left hand, with the thumb concealed.

    “There are five fingers there. Do you see five fingers?”

    “Yes.”

    And he did see them, for a fleeting instant, before the scenery of his mind changed. He saw five fingers, and there was no deformity. Then everything was normal again, and the old fear, the hatred, and the bewilderment came crowding back again. But there had been a moment – he did not know how long, thirty seconds, perhaps – of luminous certainty, when each new suggestion of O’Brien’s had filled up a patch of emptiness and become absolute truth, and when two and two could have been three as easily as five, if that were what was needed. It had faded before O’Brien had dropped his hand; but though he could not recapture it, he could remember it, as one remembers a vivid experience at some period of one’s life when one was in effect a different person. (Op. cit., Part 3, ch. 2)

    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Mr Jayman, have you read “Identically Different: Why You Can Change Your Genes”? Tim Spector – using fascinating case studies of identical twins – draws gems from his exhaustive research project that has spanned twenty years to show how even real-life ‘clones’ with the same upbringing turn out in reality to be very different.

    Based on cutting-edge discoveries that are pushing the frontiers of our knowledge of genetics, he shows us that – contrary to recent scientific teaching – nothing is completely hard-wired or pre-ordained. Conceptually, he argues, we are not just skin and bones controlled by our genes but minds and bodies made of plastic. This plastic is dynamic – slowly changing shape and evolving, driven by many processes we still cannot comprehend. Many of the subtle differences between us appear now to be due to chance or fate, but as science rapidly evolves and explains current mysteries we will be able to become more active participants in this human moulding process. Then we can really begin to understand why we are who we are and what makes each of us so unique and quintessentially human.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Mac:

    Mr Jayman, have you read “Identically Different: Why You Can Change Your Genes”? Tim Spector – using fascinating case studies of identical twins – draws gems from his exhaustive research project that has spanned twenty years to show how even real-life ‘clones’ with the same upbringing turn out in reality to be very different.
     
    No, but I've read Judith Harris's No Two Alike which is about the same topic and approaches the matter with extensive evidence and offers a hypothesis that may explain the results.

    Based on cutting-edge discoveries that are pushing the frontiers of our knowledge of genetics, he shows us that – contrary to recent scientific teaching – nothing is completely hard-wired or pre-ordained. Conceptually, he argues, we are not just skin and bones controlled by our genes but minds and bodies made of plastic.
     
    That's mostly a bunch of squishy nonsense. Yes, there are indeed brain functions that are "hard-wired". But that genes and environment interact in complicated ways to produce the final product is clear.

    Many of the subtle differences between us appear now to be due to chance or fate, but as science rapidly evolves and explains current mysteries we will be able to become more active participants in this human moulding process.
     
    Perhaps. Much of the differences between identical twins – perhaps the vast majority – stems from developmental noise. In other words, chance, in fact.

    Then we can really begin to understand why we are who we are and what makes each of us so unique and quintessentially human.
     
    Indeed, in time. Thanks for the book suggestion! :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anthony
    I've always thought that if I were a judge, and a defendant tried to convince me that because he didn't have free will, he shouldn't be held responsible for his crimes, that I'd reply "Since I, too, lack free will, I have no choice but to find you guilty and sentence you to ..."

    In most contexts you’d be justified in doing so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rome's Creature
    Well, if the grotesquely obese cannot help being so, then I suppose I cannot help but deride them.

    "Fat-shaming on autopilot."

    Sounds like my epitaph.

    I’ve always thought that if I were a judge, and a defendant tried to convince me that because he didn’t have free will, he shouldn’t be held responsible for his crimes, that I’d reply “Since I, too, lack free will, I have no choice but to find you guilty and sentence you to …”

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Anthony:

    In most contexts you'd be justified in doing so.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    @Jayman -- I did study Quantum at Cornell, while studying Applied and Engineering Physics, so I'm not entirely out of my depth. Pray tell, what is your educational background re physics?

    In any case, a background in physics should not be necessary for our discussion.

    Thank you for bringing up the double slit experiment because that is perfect for our discussion. Or the single slit for that matter. There is a probabilistic function for a photons that go through the slit which leads to the funny illumination pattern on the screen that we all recognize.

    However, a single photon does not exhibit a probability in the end. The single photon winds up at a single point. The probability is merely predictive. Probabilities are not real. The result is real and it is singular, with a final probability of 1 at one point at zeros everywhere else.

    Similarly suppose I have a decision to make, either 'A' or 'not A'. Even if my initial state is known down to the subatom particle level, sometimes my decision will be 'A' and sometimes it will be 'not A' for quantum reasons.

    One cannot say that my decision was caused entirely by my initial condition, because it was able to go either way. There was another factor, a Quantum unknown (or unknows). The proof is not possible without a closed system.

    You may try if you like to claim what you want to about the quantum impact, but all that an honest physicist can honestly say about it is that it is unknown. A good scientist is willing to acknowledge the boundaries of what he knows.

    No disrespect, but most people who learn about quantum mechanics don’t learn about its implications. :)

    One cannot say that my decision was caused entirely by my initial condition, because it was able to go either way.

    You’re stuck thinking like a classicist here; that the every event must have one fixed and guaranteed outcome. It doesn’t work that way, and there’s no reason a priori to assume that it need work that way. The reality of the world shows that events inherently have a range of possible outcomes, that’s to the inherently probabilistic nature of the particles which comprise the universe.

    Hence, yes, your decision was indeed caused by your initial conditions, within the range of possibilities as bounded by those initial conditions. You decision was also caused by the state the particles so happen to take. The inherent roll of the subatomic dice.

    Similarly suppose I have a decision to make, either ‘A’ or ‘not A’. Even if my initial state is known down to the subatom particle level, sometimes my decision will be ‘A’ and sometimes it will be ‘not A’ for quantum reasons.

    Indeed.

    And it will be both A and “not A” until the outcomes of larger systems force a “determination.” Schrodinger’s Cat?

    However, a single photon does not exhibit a probability in the end. The single photon winds up at a single point. The probability is merely predictive. Probabilities are not real. The result is real and it is singular, with a final probability of 1 at one point at zeros everywhere else.

    No. The interference pattern will still appear even when single particles are shot, one at a time. Sure, the photon/electron does appear at a final point, but each particle appears to travel through both slits simultaneously. What’s the probability then?

    One cannot say that my decision was caused entirely by my initial condition, because it was able to go either way. There was another factor, a Quantum unknown (or unknows)…

    You may try if you like to claim what you want to about the quantum impact, but all that an honest physicist can honestly say about it is that it is unknown. A good scientist is willing to acknowledge the boundaries of what he knows.

    You’re actually playing this game yourself here. First of all, where did these “quantum unknowns” come from? You seem to be invoking Einstein’s “hidden variables” theory, which has never been verified. Again, there is no reason to believe a priori that the universe requires some form of determinism.

    Look, the whole reason we see something being “A” vs “not A” is because our world is the one where “A” or “not A” occurred. This is the “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some thinkers on the matter will try as they might to deny this, but this is the only possible solution to the observed quantum phenomena. It’s not really hard to see why, so long as you let go of necessary classical determinism before hand.

    The reason for existence of the many worlds is that each represents the configuration of matter with particular quantum outcomes. What we perceive as the passage of time is the “flow” from one quantum state to the next. All the quantum states “exist” simultaneously. We appear to experience “one” discrete history because history, as we know it, follows the path of the “agreed upon” states the particles that comprise our moment of reference have taken.

    However, coming back from the nature of quantum mechanics, this discussion is besides the point. There is still no free will even in a random universe, because then the decision you make are the result of the “paths” the particles which comprise you so happen to take. In short, random events “decide” your actions, not “you”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    From the standpoint of Quantum physics, the Universe is actually not deterministic.

    @Jayman — I did study Quantum at Cornell, while studying Applied and Engineering Physics, so I’m not entirely out of my depth. Pray tell, what is your educational background re physics?

    In any case, a background in physics should not be necessary for our discussion.

    Thank you for bringing up the double slit experiment because that is perfect for our discussion. Or the single slit for that matter. There is a probabilistic function for a photons that go through the slit which leads to the funny illumination pattern on the screen that we all recognize.

    However, a single photon does not exhibit a probability in the end. The single photon winds up at a single point. The probability is merely predictive. Probabilities are not real. The result is real and it is singular, with a final probability of 1 at one point at zeros everywhere else.

    Similarly suppose I have a decision to make, either ‘A’ or ‘not A’. Even if my initial state is known down to the subatom particle level, sometimes my decision will be ‘A’ and sometimes it will be ‘not A’ for quantum reasons.

    One cannot say that my decision was caused entirely by my initial condition, because it was able to go either way. There was another factor, a Quantum unknown (or unknows). The proof is not possible without a closed system.

    You may try if you like to claim what you want to about the quantum impact, but all that an honest physicist can honestly say about it is that it is unknown. A good scientist is willing to acknowledge the boundaries of what he knows.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Dan:

    No disrespect, but most people who learn about quantum mechanics don't learn about its implications. :)


    One cannot say that my decision was caused entirely by my initial condition, because it was able to go either way.
     
    You're stuck thinking like a classicist here; that the every event must have one fixed and guaranteed outcome. It doesn't work that way, and there's no reason a priori to assume that it need work that way. The reality of the world shows that events inherently have a range of possible outcomes, that's to the inherently probabilistic nature of the particles which comprise the universe.

    Hence, yes, your decision was indeed caused by your initial conditions, within the range of possibilities as bounded by those initial conditions. You decision was also caused by the state the particles so happen to take. The inherent roll of the subatomic dice.


    Similarly suppose I have a decision to make, either ‘A’ or ‘not A’. Even if my initial state is known down to the subatom particle level, sometimes my decision will be ‘A’ and sometimes it will be ‘not A’ for quantum reasons.
     
    Indeed.

    And it will be both A and "not A" until the outcomes of larger systems force a "determination." Schrodinger's Cat?


    However, a single photon does not exhibit a probability in the end. The single photon winds up at a single point. The probability is merely predictive. Probabilities are not real. The result is real and it is singular, with a final probability of 1 at one point at zeros everywhere else.
     
    No. The interference pattern will still appear even when single particles are shot, one at a time. Sure, the photon/electron does appear at a final point, but each particle appears to travel through both slits simultaneously. What's the probability then?

    One cannot say that my decision was caused entirely by my initial condition, because it was able to go either way. There was another factor, a Quantum unknown (or unknows)...

    You may try if you like to claim what you want to about the quantum impact, but all that an honest physicist can honestly say about it is that it is unknown. A good scientist is willing to acknowledge the boundaries of what he knows.
     

    You're actually playing this game yourself here. First of all, where did these "quantum unknowns" come from? You seem to be invoking Einstein's "hidden variables" theory, which has never been verified. Again, there is no reason to believe a priori that the universe requires some form of determinism.

    Look, the whole reason we see something being "A" vs "not A" is because our world is the one where "A" or "not A" occurred. This is the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some thinkers on the matter will try as they might to deny this, but this is the only possible solution to the observed quantum phenomena. It's not really hard to see why, so long as you let go of necessary classical determinism before hand.

    The reason for existence of the many worlds is that each represents the configuration of matter with particular quantum outcomes. What we perceive as the passage of time is the "flow" from one quantum state to the next. All the quantum states "exist" simultaneously. We appear to experience "one" discrete history because history, as we know it, follows the path of the "agreed upon" states the particles that comprise our moment of reference have taken.

    However, coming back from the nature of quantum mechanics, this discussion is besides the point. There is still no free will even in a random universe, because then the decision you make are the result of the "paths" the particles which comprise you so happen to take. In short, random events "decide" your actions, not "you".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jayman, you should read “Defense of Socrates”. You have just invoked the exact answer which was ridiculed by Socrates. The explanation does not really capture “experiencing” feeling “I” have. The explanation that the experience changes my brain structures does not really explains what an experience is for me.

    BTW, what is your definition of “free will”? Because it seems absurd if that definition would not suit to what common people think, when they say they have “free will”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] No, You Don’t Have Free Will, and This is Why – best post from jayman. ever. (to date! (~_^) ) a response to this. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    "all actions have causes"

    We can't strictly say that. The 'proof' that we don't have free will is premised on the precondition that given all of our present state, a specific outcome is predetermined. But that is just not so. The initial state for us emphatically does not dictate a particular outcome.

    If a particular outcome occurred or a particular decision was made by a person, we cannot say that is because of our initial state, that outcome had to occur. In fact you could start with exactly the same initial state all the way down to the subatomic scale and get a completely different outcome. How can you say the initial conditions 'caused' A to occur when the same initial conditions could have 'caused' B to occur?

    "It’s just that the “effects” of those causes are inherently probabilistic."

    Probabilistic 'effects' are not effects in the real world until, as you say, an outcome is agreed upon. But then the final answer is either one or the other. The probability is not the answer. It is just a middle part of the calculation, like the square root of negative one. Imaginary numbers are useful in the mathematical realm but the imaginary part must drop out to get an answer we can work with.

    Similarly, it is not correct to say the outcome is a probability.

    You’re going to argue with quantum mechanics? Good luck. ;)

    The ‘proof’ that we don’t have free will is premised on the precondition that given all of our present state, a specific outcome is predetermined. But that is just not so.

    No. As I explained, the non-existence of free will is indeed predicated that all actions have causes, but it has nothing to do with there being one “pre-determined” outcome. In fact, as per quantum mechanics, there are many possible (infinitely many, in fact) outcomes for any given event, each of which having some probability of happening (some more than others).

    In fact you could start with exactly the same initial state all the way down to the subatomic scale and get a completely different outcome.

    The is the meat and guts of the quantum implications here, yes.

    “It’s just that the “effects” of those causes are inherently probabilistic.”

    Probabilistic ‘effects’ are not effects in the real world until, as you say, an outcome is agreed upon. But then the final answer is either one or the other.

    Umm, double slit experiment?

    The probability is not the answer. It is just a middle part of the calculation, like the square root of negative one. Imaginary numbers are useful in the mathematical realm but the imaginary part must drop out to get an answer we can work with.

    (For the record, not a very good example. Imaginary numbers (which are poorly named) are just as “real” as real numbers. It’s just that they weren’t considered in our number system until a use for them (solving quadratic equations) was discovered. See here.)

    Similarly, it is not correct to say the outcome is a probability.

    It is correct for the reasons explained above. I’m not talking about measurement imprecision driven probability (which would be borne out of our ignorance of the initial conditions), I’m talking about true probability, the kind that would emerge even if we had perfect knowledge of the initial conditions of a system.

    As I explained above, even with quantum randomness, free will still does not exist, because a somewhat random universe merely shift the cause of decisions from being the result of strictly set initial conditions to being the result of random events – both of which are equally beyond our “control”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    From the standpoint of Quantum physics, the Universe is actually not deterministic.

    “all actions have causes”

    We can’t strictly say that. The ‘proof’ that we don’t have free will is premised on the precondition that given all of our present state, a specific outcome is predetermined. But that is just not so. The initial state for us emphatically does not dictate a particular outcome.

    If a particular outcome occurred or a particular decision was made by a person, we cannot say that is because of our initial state, that outcome had to occur. In fact you could start with exactly the same initial state all the way down to the subatomic scale and get a completely different outcome. How can you say the initial conditions ’caused’ A to occur when the same initial conditions could have ’caused’ B to occur?

    “It’s just that the “effects” of those causes are inherently probabilistic.”

    Probabilistic ‘effects’ are not effects in the real world until, as you say, an outcome is agreed upon. But then the final answer is either one or the other. The probability is not the answer. It is just a middle part of the calculation, like the square root of negative one. Imaginary numbers are useful in the mathematical realm but the imaginary part must drop out to get an answer we can work with.

    Similarly, it is not correct to say the outcome is a probability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Dan:

    You're going to argue with quantum mechanics? Good luck. ;)


    The ‘proof’ that we don’t have free will is premised on the precondition that given all of our present state, a specific outcome is predetermined. But that is just not so.
     
    No. As I explained, the non-existence of free will is indeed predicated that all actions have causes, but it has nothing to do with there being one "pre-determined" outcome. In fact, as per quantum mechanics, there are many possible (infinitely many, in fact) outcomes for any given event, each of which having some probability of happening (some more than others).

    In fact you could start with exactly the same initial state all the way down to the subatomic scale and get a completely different outcome.
     
    The is the meat and guts of the quantum implications here, yes.

    “It’s just that the “effects” of those causes are inherently probabilistic.”

    Probabilistic ‘effects’ are not effects in the real world until, as you say, an outcome is agreed upon. But then the final answer is either one or the other.
     

    Umm, double slit experiment?

    The probability is not the answer. It is just a middle part of the calculation, like the square root of negative one. Imaginary numbers are useful in the mathematical realm but the imaginary part must drop out to get an answer we can work with.
     
    (For the record, not a very good example. Imaginary numbers (which are poorly named) are just as "real" as real numbers. It's just that they weren't considered in our number system until a use for them (solving quadratic equations) was discovered. See here.)

    Similarly, it is not correct to say the outcome is a probability.
     
    It is correct for the reasons explained above. I'm not talking about measurement imprecision driven probability (which would be borne out of our ignorance of the initial conditions), I'm talking about true probability, the kind that would emerge even if we had perfect knowledge of the initial conditions of a system.

    As I explained above, even with quantum randomness, free will still does not exist, because a somewhat random universe merely shift the cause of decisions from being the result of strictly set initial conditions to being the result of random events – both of which are equally beyond our "control".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    I counted 16 instances in your post of the word 'cause' in one form or another, not including 'because'. You agreed that the universe is not deterministic. That is just another way of saying that the Universe is not strictly causative. And yet strict causation is the axiom upon which the above argument is built.

    If the axiom isn't true, there is a slight problem with the proof.

    I counted 16 instances in your post of the word ’cause’ in one form or another, not including ‘because’. You agreed that the universe is not deterministic. That is just another way of saying that the Universe is not strictly causative.

    No, all actions have causes. It’s just that the “effects” of those causes are inherently probabilistic. That is, for a given event, there is a range of possible outcomes. Because of the interdependency of the “outcomes” of these events that occurs in large systems, we witness only one of those outcomes for a given event. (This is essentially a statistical consequence
    ; because the random events that occur at quantum scales have consequences for larger collections of particles upstream, such large systems must “agree” on an outcome. Hence, what we observe.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    From the standpoint of Quantum physics, the Universe is actually not deterministic.

    I counted 16 instances in your post of the word ’cause’ in one form or another, not including ‘because’. You agreed that the universe is not deterministic. That is just another way of saying that the Universe is not strictly causative. And yet strict causation is the axiom upon which the above argument is built.

    If the axiom isn’t true, there is a slight problem with the proof.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Dan:

    I counted 16 instances in your post of the word ’cause’ in one form or another, not including ‘because’. You agreed that the universe is not deterministic. That is just another way of saying that the Universe is not strictly causative.
     
    No, all actions have causes. It's just that the "effects" of those causes are inherently probabilistic. That is, for a given event, there is a range of possible outcomes. Because of the interdependency of the "outcomes" of these events that occurs in large systems, we witness only one of those outcomes for a given event. (This is essentially a statistical consequence
    ; because the random events that occur at quantum scales have consequences for larger collections of particles upstream, such large systems must "agree" on an outcome. Hence, what we observe.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    From the standpoint of Quantum physics, the Universe is actually not deterministic.

    Jayman, I don’t think determinism means what you think it means.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    This is the question not actually about free will, but about the existence of the conscience. If my acts and thoughts are effects of the brain wiring, then how can I claim that I exist, and by that I do not mean my physical existence: the feeling of heat in my hands hitting the keys on my laptop, pain in my back, weight of my glasses on my nose -- I mean the psychological processes I experience and I observe, the very act of "experiencing" and "observing".

    o:

    Well, what does it mean to “experience” or “observe”? What do it mean to have sensation? These are actions registering in your brain that set off a cascade of activity that produces “you”. I invoke Steven Pinker a lot, and his book The Blank Slate, but it really is good reading to understand the concept. Particularly, there’s a section where he talks about the modular mind, especially studies of people with “split brains”, that really shines a light on the matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This is the question not actually about free will, but about the existence of the conscience. If my acts and thoughts are effects of the brain wiring, then how can I claim that I exist, and by that I do not mean my physical existence: the feeling of heat in my hands hitting the keys on my laptop, pain in my back, weight of my glasses on my nose — I mean the psychological processes I experience and I observe, the very act of “experiencing” and “observing”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @szopeno:

    Well, what does it mean to "experience" or "observe"? What do it mean to have sensation? These are actions registering in your brain that set off a cascade of activity that produces "you". I invoke Steven Pinker a lot, and his book The Blank Slate, but it really is good reading to understand the concept. Particularly, there's a section where he talks about the modular mind, especially studies of people with "split brains", that really shines a light on the matter.

    , @Neptunutation
    The conscious does exist but the "self" "me" "I" does not. This is what Sam Harris' new book is about. Picture the conscious as a cylindrical mirror. Its always rolling and reflecting our emotions, thoughts and motives but those are just reflections on the mirror rolling in and leaving just as fast. they are illusory. They are NOT the mirror. The mirror is just the mirror when it's not reflecting self, emotions, thoughts etc... This is what true meditation is, practicing "not reflecting" all that crap but to actually pay attention "free from thought" to conscious.
    I hope this helps. I agree that this is all really about consciousness. Our lack of Free Will is just the most obvious observation in trying to meditate. I think its important and requires no idiotic presumptions about the universe being created or us having souls. We just need to practice paying attention to our conscious rather than being in religion. I'm atheist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dan
    From the standpoint of Quantum physics, the Universe is actually not deterministic.

    Indeed. That has nothing to do with the existence of free will, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • From the standpoint of Quantum physics, the Universe is actually not deterministic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Dan:

    Indeed. That has nothing to do with the existence of free will, however.

    , @Dan
    Jayman, I don't think determinism means what you think it means.
    , @Dan
    I counted 16 instances in your post of the word 'cause' in one form or another, not including 'because'. You agreed that the universe is not deterministic. That is just another way of saying that the Universe is not strictly causative. And yet strict causation is the axiom upon which the above argument is built.

    If the axiom isn't true, there is a slight problem with the proof.

    , @Dan
    "all actions have causes"

    We can't strictly say that. The 'proof' that we don't have free will is premised on the precondition that given all of our present state, a specific outcome is predetermined. But that is just not so. The initial state for us emphatically does not dictate a particular outcome.

    If a particular outcome occurred or a particular decision was made by a person, we cannot say that is because of our initial state, that outcome had to occur. In fact you could start with exactly the same initial state all the way down to the subatomic scale and get a completely different outcome. How can you say the initial conditions 'caused' A to occur when the same initial conditions could have 'caused' B to occur?

    "It’s just that the “effects” of those causes are inherently probabilistic."

    Probabilistic 'effects' are not effects in the real world until, as you say, an outcome is agreed upon. But then the final answer is either one or the other. The probability is not the answer. It is just a middle part of the calculation, like the square root of negative one. Imaginary numbers are useful in the mathematical realm but the imaginary part must drop out to get an answer we can work with.

    Similarly, it is not correct to say the outcome is a probability.

    , @Dan
    @Jayman -- I did study Quantum at Cornell, while studying Applied and Engineering Physics, so I'm not entirely out of my depth. Pray tell, what is your educational background re physics?

    In any case, a background in physics should not be necessary for our discussion.

    Thank you for bringing up the double slit experiment because that is perfect for our discussion. Or the single slit for that matter. There is a probabilistic function for a photons that go through the slit which leads to the funny illumination pattern on the screen that we all recognize.

    However, a single photon does not exhibit a probability in the end. The single photon winds up at a single point. The probability is merely predictive. Probabilities are not real. The result is real and it is singular, with a final probability of 1 at one point at zeros everywhere else.

    Similarly suppose I have a decision to make, either 'A' or 'not A'. Even if my initial state is known down to the subatom particle level, sometimes my decision will be 'A' and sometimes it will be 'not A' for quantum reasons.

    One cannot say that my decision was caused entirely by my initial condition, because it was able to go either way. There was another factor, a Quantum unknown (or unknows). The proof is not possible without a closed system.

    You may try if you like to claim what you want to about the quantum impact, but all that an honest physicist can honestly say about it is that it is unknown. A good scientist is willing to acknowledge the boundaries of what he knows.

    , @Dan
    Jayman,

    I find it very difficult to debate with you because when you become vested in an argument, you tend to weaken your scientific mindset. By scientific mindset, I mean being able to keep the distinction clear between what you have proved to be true and what you theorize but have not reached yet by definitive proof. Those who have plowed through lots of difficult physics and math problem sets have a better ability to keep this distinction clear.

    (I discovered this when debating with your germ theory of gayness. It is an intriguing idea but the boundary between what is thus far shown and what we don't yet know based on positive evidence was not kept clear.)

    With respect to 'quantum unknowns' I am merely saying that we don't know where quantum variability comes from. It is an unknown. Nobody has ever been able to explain it. If you can, a Nobel will surely be yours.

    It seems like the statement you are totally unwilling to make is 'I don't know.' I have no problem admitting that.

    I am not insisting on free will and don't claim to prove it. I merely note that there is this unknown source of variability. If quantum variability is not unknown to you shouldn't be here arguing on a blog. Publish and get your Nobel like a champ!

    The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is a mere theory which was created precisely because it restores determinism (and your relying on it is therefore begging the question), but it has not an iota of positive evidence for it. From the perspective of simplicity (i.e. a 'beautiful theory') it is a mess (MWI is far as you can get from Occams Razor) and the main reason people like it is because it restores determinism.

    You say about MWI, "Some thinkers on the matter will try as they might to deny this, but this is the only possible solution to the observed quantum phenomena." Not true at all. MWI is not the leading theory, not even close and it is not even in second place. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the leading theory (although there is nothing close to agreement here) and it is open to nondeterminism.
    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

    As a scientist, I prefer the Copenhagen Interpretation because it just accepts what the data says and then stops. It is the most honest theory to me because it merely goes as far as we have observed and avoids speculation.

    Quantum variability is a big problem if you want to foreclose on free will. One could easily argue that quantum variations are intrusions into our realm from a so-called spirit world, or you could say that quantum effects are themselves are a manifestation of our choices.

    I am not making this argument. I am just saying that I see no way to prove these things false. There are these quantum variables everywhere and nobody I know of can say what they are or can explain them beyond probabilities. If you can, get thee off this blog and claim thy prize money!

    , @Dan
    But in fact I could adhere the the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) and still see how free will could occur. What if we live in a 'choose your own adventure' system where each person's choices are reflected as quantum variables that send him or her into the universe of his or her choosing?

    I'm not insisting on this but I can't prove it false either. I don't think it is true, but I haven't got the tools to answer definitively one way or the other. If you can answer questions like this, you must graduate from this blog and seek your glory!

    , @Neptunutation
    People keep saying quantum physics proves against determinism. THIS IS UNTRUE! Just because WE can't predict where an electron will be doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, seeing as everything else is predictable, it would be crazy to say that its all chaos on a small level. It isn't, people are just vain and dramatic. We're not yet technologically advanced enough and have only just barely stumbled upon quantum physics studies. Under unobtainable observation methods, we could watch and predict how everything happens in quantum physics. People just like dramatic words like "Chaos" "random" "unpredictable" because it all caters to mysticism and the stubborn place people love to be in which is "the unknowable." These people are no different than religious people who dont want to know. Thats the difference between enjoying ignorance the way that scientists do (seeking to know more) and the way that mystics do (denying that anymore can be known) (they dont want to know and would rather say its unknowable----bullshit!)
    Columbus thought he was in India for at least a month or two! We study quantum physics for 50 years and everyone is suddenly an expert? LOL Everything has cause and effect. People fall for the same delusional tricks and petty psuedo scientific journalism every time!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I suppose I’ve worn out my welcome (sorry, Jayman, couldn’t help it) so here is Samuel Johnson on the subject:

    http://www.samueljohnson.com/freewill.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Roy Baumeister argues that we do indeed have free will. JayMan disagrees. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Handle
    This is uncharacteristically sloppy work by Baumeister.

    The obvious analogy to human decision making is a computer running a program making calls to a sensor. All the Sci-Fi talk about AI and the singularity should make this analogy more obvious in common parlance, let alone philosophical investigation. Even a lego-mindstorms device can do squirrel-like things and receive data about it's surroundings, interpret and process it, and make complicated decisions on that basis about what actions to take next. But we live in the age of Siri, self-driving cars, ultra-smart / ultra-complex search engines, big-data handlers, and ultra-sophisticated Bayesian prior-updaters that learn about the world in a progressive manner, adjusting and refining their models and notions of causality as time goes by and more evidence is received.

    Is google's server farm and like applications complex enough to rise to 'free will'? Why not? They handle tasks in microseconds that no human could possibly accomplish. Describing the civil war in terms of carbon atoms is no different than describing interstate traffic consisting solely of automatically-driving cars in terms of silicon atoms. What distinguishes a program from genetic predispositions and neurological biochemical processes?

    My intuition is that 'most people's opinion' (a horrible authority, but the one to which Baumeister himself makes appeal) would reject any of these complex decision-making computers as having 'free will' - so most of what Baumeister wrote seems utterly besides the point.

    Sentience, Consciousness, and Self-Awareness, seem more along the lines of what most people would need to be willing to adjudge a computation system as having 'free-will like' properties. Self-re-programming, or at least Bayesian updating, is also a must.

    But, what I really think ordinary people are getting at when they talk about free will is the feeling of grappling with a hard decision, especially trying to summon the discipline and willpower to deny indulging in a detrimental temptation. We have this grappling experience with results that do not seem to be deterministic and, again, to an ordinary person, if that experience is not part of a process where we are exercising 'free will', then what is it? Or, how would you explain it to them. Does it have a good evo-psych story?

    “I can resist anything except temptation.” Oscar Wilde

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Orthodox
    I'd like to see some twin studies with one twin raised by Jesuits, the other by crack dealers.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The problem is that the human brain is built to think in terms of agency and free will. We think, “now I will go out in the shed and fix my bicycle” rather than “all the causative circumstances in my current situation will have the consequence of me fixing my bicycle.” Our wiring and our general situation forces us to think as if we had free will. We always make decisions under the assumption that we get to make them, rather than that there is one inevitable outcome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    Nothing in the universe “goes beyond” the laws of physics, and nothing about human brains or behavior “goes beyond” the “laws” of even neuroscience. It’s merely difficult to express descriptions of certain activities in terms of our commonly used wording of these basal laws.

    Well, now, you are making me change my mind. The laws of physics are laws of probability. Thus chance plays a very large role, even in human decisions. Maybe if we were placed in the same situation twice -- I'm talking about those really big decisions, like what am I going to do with the rest of my life -- we would decide differently. As long as it felt like a decision you could say it was free. In physical systems we talk about "degrees of freedom." Maybe something similar applies to human behavior.

    The laws of physics are laws of probability. Thus chance plays a very large role, even in human decisions.

    Even for the most sophisticated and profound choices, how “free” are they when the outcome of these choices can be predicted (at least statistically) by behavioral genetics?

    Precisely. And I think you may be digging your own grave here. The degree of uncertainty is the degree of freedom.

    Luke, you’re falling victim to the idea that free will exists in some sort of mutually exclusive dichotomy with determinism, such that if events in the universe could be shown to be not perfectly deterministic (which they aren’t), then free will must exist.

    However, it doesn’t work that way. I’ll quote Steven Pinker to give you an idea:

    Defensive scientists sometimes try to deflect the charge of determinism by pointing out that behavior is never perfectly predictable but always probabilistic, even in the dreams of the hardest-headed materialists. … Even identical twins reared together, who share all of their genes and most of their environment, are not identical in personality and behavior, just highly similar. Perhaps the brain amplifies random events at the molecular or quantum level.

    The less-than-perfect predictability of behavior certainly gives the lie to the cliche that the sciences of human nature are “deterministic” in the mathematical sense. But it doesn’t succeed in allaying the fear that science is eroding the concept of free will and personal responsibility. It is cold comfort to be told that a man’s genes (or his brain or his evolutionary history) made him 99 percent likely to kill his landlady as opposed to 100 percent. Sure, the behavior was not strictly preordained, but why should the 1 percent chance of his having done otherwise suddenly make the guy “responsible”? In fact, there is no probability value that, by itself, ushers responsibility back in. One can always think that there is a 50 percent chance some molecules in Raskolnikov’s brain {178} went thisaway, compelling him to commit the murder, and a 50 percent chance they went thataway, compelling him not to. We still have nothing like free will, and no concept of responsibility that promises to reduce harmful acts. Hume noted the dilemma inherent in equating the problem of moral responsibility with the problem of whether behavior has a physical cause: either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the result of random events, in which case we are not responsible for them.

    (pp. 177-178)

    Quantum randomness doesn’t mean that the uncertainty inherent to the physical world is the freedom that living beings have to decide; you decisions still come down to the luck of the subatomic draw.

    As long as it felt like a decision you could say it was free.

    Not in any meaningful sense. You should research split-brain patients. That you think you are making a free decision, with all the thought that goes into it, is all part of the process – a process which is largely invisible to you.

    Final remark: this is not a scientific issue. It is beyond science. Or, if you prefer, undecidable.

    Well, I don’t think anything is “beyond” science. It’s all merely a matter if we can answer the question with the tools we have available.

    There are plenty of things beyond science. The phenomenon of consciousness itself for example. Or if that is too abstract, take physical pain, which is about as concrete as you can get in the world of subjective experience. We can never prove that other people’s pain is real.

    Give it time.

    We can never prove that the other mind is conscious like our own. This is straight out of Popper. And then of course there is Hume’s paradox over the principle of induction, upon which all science rests. You cannot establish the principle of induction without appealing to it in the first place. It is a matter of faith.

    I recently had this discussion over at one of my other posts. Yes, induction, and hence all science, is based on an article of faith. It is however a faithful belief that has proved to be incredibly useful. Since no one has cooked up a better system, I’ll stick with that. :)

    In this case, as long as you’re going on that article of faith, free will simply does not and cannot exist. ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Edit for clarity: “Science deals with the objective world, which is the world about which two or more subjective minds have simultaneous access.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Final remark: this is not a scientific issue. It is beyond science. Or, if you prefer, undecidable. There are plenty of things beyond science. The phenomenon of consciousness itself for example. Or if that is too abstract, take physical pain, which is about as concrete as you can get in the world of subjective experience. We can never prove that other people’s pain is real. Science deals with the objective world, which is the world about which two or more subjective minds can agree. We can never prove that the other mind is conscious like our own. This is straight out of Popper. And then of course there is Hume’s paradox over the principle of induction, upon which all science rests. You cannot establish the principle of induction without appealing to it in the first place. It is a matter of faith.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Even for the most sophisticated and profound choices, how “free” are they when the outcome of these choices can be predicted (at least statistically) by behavioral genetics?

    Precisely. And I think you may be digging your own grave here. The degree of uncertainty is the degree of freedom. Which is why the conundrum of free will will never go away. You are liable to change your mind about it several times over the course of your life. Which one of your opinions can you say will be true? Only the current one, for now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nothing in the universe “goes beyond” the laws of physics, and nothing about human brains or behavior “goes beyond” the “laws” of even neuroscience. It’s merely difficult to express descriptions of certain activities in terms of our commonly used wording of these basal laws.

    Well, now, you are making me change my mind. The laws of physics are laws of probability. Thus chance plays a very large role, even in human decisions. Maybe if we were placed in the same situation twice — I’m talking about those really big decisions, like what am I going to do with the rest of my life — we would decide differently. As long as it felt like a decision you could say it was free. In physical systems we talk about “degrees of freedom.” Maybe something similar applies to human behavior.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Luke Lea:

    The laws of physics are laws of probability. Thus chance plays a very large role, even in human decisions.
     

    Even for the most sophisticated and profound choices, how “free” are they when the outcome of these choices can be predicted (at least statistically) by behavioral genetics?

    Precisely. And I think you may be digging your own grave here. The degree of uncertainty is the degree of freedom.
     

    Luke, you're falling victim to the idea that free will exists in some sort of mutually exclusive dichotomy with determinism, such that if events in the universe could be shown to be not perfectly deterministic (which they aren't), then free will must exist.

    However, it doesn't work that way. I'll quote Steven Pinker to give you an idea:


    Defensive scientists sometimes try to deflect the charge of determinism by pointing out that behavior is never perfectly predictable but always probabilistic, even in the dreams of the hardest-headed materialists. ... Even identical twins reared together, who share all of their genes and most of their environment, are not identical in personality and behavior, just highly similar. Perhaps the brain amplifies random events at the molecular or quantum level.
    ...
    The less-than-perfect predictability of behavior certainly gives the lie to the cliche that the sciences of human nature are “deterministic” in the mathematical sense. But it doesn't succeed in allaying the fear that science is eroding the concept of free will and personal responsibility. It is cold comfort to be told that a man's genes (or his brain or his evolutionary history) made him 99 percent likely to kill his landlady as opposed to 100 percent. Sure, the behavior was not strictly preordained, but why should the 1 percent chance of his having done otherwise suddenly make the guy “responsible”? In fact, there is no probability value that, by itself, ushers responsibility back in. One can always think that there is a 50 percent chance some molecules in Raskolnikov's brain {178} went thisaway, compelling him to commit the murder, and a 50 percent chance they went thataway, compelling him not to. We still have nothing like free will, and no concept of responsibility that promises to reduce harmful acts. Hume noted the dilemma inherent in equating the problem of moral responsibility with the problem of whether behavior has a physical cause: either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the result of random events, in which case we are not responsible for them.
     
    (pp. 177-178)

    Quantum randomness doesn't mean that the uncertainty inherent to the physical world is the freedom that living beings have to decide; you decisions still come down to the luck of the subatomic draw.


    As long as it felt like a decision you could say it was free.
     
    Not in any meaningful sense. You should research split-brain patients. That you think you are making a free decision, with all the thought that goes into it, is all part of the process – a process which is largely invisible to you.

    Final remark: this is not a scientific issue. It is beyond science. Or, if you prefer, undecidable.
     
    Well, I don't think anything is "beyond" science. It's all merely a matter if we can answer the question with the tools we have available.

    There are plenty of things beyond science. The phenomenon of consciousness itself for example. Or if that is too abstract, take physical pain, which is about as concrete as you can get in the world of subjective experience. We can never prove that other people’s pain is real.
     
    Give it time.

    We can never prove that the other mind is conscious like our own. This is straight out of Popper. And then of course there is Hume’s paradox over the principle of induction, upon which all science rests. You cannot establish the principle of induction without appealing to it in the first place. It is a matter of faith.

     

    I recently had this discussion over at one of my other posts. Yes, induction, and hence all science, is based on an article of faith. It is however a faithful belief that has proved to be incredibly useful. Since no one has cooked up a better system, I'll stick with that. :)

    In this case, as long as you're going on that article of faith, free will simply does not and cannot exist. ;)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Haven’t read the article yet but would like to give you my considered view as a 72 year old man: I think we (most of us) have free will going forward but looking back over my life I get the feeling that all the big decisions in my life, the ones I really struggled with, were in fact preordained given my personality and experience and the opportunities before me, at least as I perceived them.

    OTH, you could argue that people with extremely short-term time horizons don’t really have free will. If you can’t respond to incentives or the likely consequences of your action, especially where criminality is concerned, in what sense are you free? You still should be locked up though. In fact that might be precisely why you should be locked up.

    Now I’ll read your post!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sisyphean
    "and even those of us who might just possibly have one or two neurons that can string together a logical thought — even most of us run on autopilot most of the time, too."

    Oh and as an aside, I'd be careful with thinking that being smarter and more logical makes a person less predicable, more free. I've noticed this belief to be quite common amongst intelligent folk... You might even say it's predictable. Yes, I have a terrible habit of burning nearly every bridge I come to.

    ~S

    :
    No, my man, you’re quite right. Smarter people are more sophisticated and more nuanced. But they’re NOT any more “free”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sisyphean
    I think the basic problem here is a that people think that if they don't have 'free will' then they are slaves. They feel free, they want to be free and therefore they must be free. They then set about coming up with whatever mental acrobatics are necessary to explain why they are in fact free. It is of course absurd but it flows naturally from the reality that we are hard wired to think in certain ways, that we have neural heuristics aplenty working furiously to make sense of input, casting it all in the best possible light for our own survival. My guess is that the reason people widely believe in free will is because this particular delusion makes them feel good about themselves, possibly aiding procreation in some way. Would you wants to make more little Billy's and Suzie's if they're just mechanistic robots? (Maybe this isn't the right place to ask this question but you get my point.)

    I have a guilty pleasure where I see how long it takes in conversation before I can start predicting a person's innermost feelings about things which I will then occasionally blurt out to see what they'll do. Generally it's not very long. Most people are so mundane, so simplistic in their thinking that with a combination of their emotional demeanor and how they approach conversation with another person, I can get the gist of who they are in moments. The fact that anyone can learn cold reading (though not everyone can become great at it) should point people to the fact that the human herd is as a rule, not terribly interesting, but alas most refuse to believe that cold reading even works. I have a ton of friends who think I'm secretly a psychic, it's sad really.

    ~S

    “and even those of us who might just possibly have one or two neurons that can string together a logical thought — even most of us run on autopilot most of the time, too.”

    Oh and as an aside, I’d be careful with thinking that being smarter and more logical makes a person less predicable, more free. I’ve noticed this belief to be quite common amongst intelligent folk… You might even say it’s predictable. Yes, I have a terrible habit of burning nearly every bridge I come to.

    ~S

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Sisyphean:
    No, my man, you're quite right. Smarter people are more sophisticated and more nuanced. But they're NOT any more "free".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sisyphean
    I think the basic problem here is a that people think that if they don't have 'free will' then they are slaves. They feel free, they want to be free and therefore they must be free. They then set about coming up with whatever mental acrobatics are necessary to explain why they are in fact free. It is of course absurd but it flows naturally from the reality that we are hard wired to think in certain ways, that we have neural heuristics aplenty working furiously to make sense of input, casting it all in the best possible light for our own survival. My guess is that the reason people widely believe in free will is because this particular delusion makes them feel good about themselves, possibly aiding procreation in some way. Would you wants to make more little Billy's and Suzie's if they're just mechanistic robots? (Maybe this isn't the right place to ask this question but you get my point.)

    I have a guilty pleasure where I see how long it takes in conversation before I can start predicting a person's innermost feelings about things which I will then occasionally blurt out to see what they'll do. Generally it's not very long. Most people are so mundane, so simplistic in their thinking that with a combination of their emotional demeanor and how they approach conversation with another person, I can get the gist of who they are in moments. The fact that anyone can learn cold reading (though not everyone can become great at it) should point people to the fact that the human herd is as a rule, not terribly interesting, but alas most refuse to believe that cold reading even works. I have a ton of friends who think I'm secretly a psychic, it's sad really.

    ~S

    Great points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I think the basic problem here is a that people think that if they don’t have ‘free will’ then they are slaves. They feel free, they want to be free and therefore they must be free. They then set about coming up with whatever mental acrobatics are necessary to explain why they are in fact free. It is of course absurd but it flows naturally from the reality that we are hard wired to think in certain ways, that we have neural heuristics aplenty working furiously to make sense of input, casting it all in the best possible light for our own survival. My guess is that the reason people widely believe in free will is because this particular delusion makes them feel good about themselves, possibly aiding procreation in some way. Would you wants to make more little Billy’s and Suzie’s if they’re just mechanistic robots? (Maybe this isn’t the right place to ask this question but you get my point.)

    I have a guilty pleasure where I see how long it takes in conversation before I can start predicting a person’s innermost feelings about things which I will then occasionally blurt out to see what they’ll do. Generally it’s not very long. Most people are so mundane, so simplistic in their thinking that with a combination of their emotional demeanor and how they approach conversation with another person, I can get the gist of who they are in moments. The fact that anyone can learn cold reading (though not everyone can become great at it) should point people to the fact that the human herd is as a rule, not terribly interesting, but alas most refuse to believe that cold reading even works. I have a ton of friends who think I’m secretly a psychic, it’s sad really.

    ~S

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Sisyphean:

    Great points.

    , @Sisyphean
    "and even those of us who might just possibly have one or two neurons that can string together a logical thought — even most of us run on autopilot most of the time, too."

    Oh and as an aside, I'd be careful with thinking that being smarter and more logical makes a person less predicable, more free. I've noticed this belief to be quite common amongst intelligent folk... You might even say it's predictable. Yes, I have a terrible habit of burning nearly every bridge I come to.

    ~S

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I’d like to see some twin studies with one twin raised by Jesuits, the other by crack dealers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Staffan
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarnoff_A._Mednick#Criminal_behavior
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] you exercise your free will, give informed consent, and make a conscious, knowing and intelligent […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Well, if the grotesquely obese cannot help being so, then I suppose I cannot help but deride them.

    “Fat-shaming on autopilot.”

    Sounds like my epitaph.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anthony
    I've always thought that if I were a judge, and a defendant tried to convince me that because he didn't have free will, he shouldn't be held responsible for his crimes, that I'd reply "Since I, too, lack free will, I have no choice but to find you guilty and sentence you to ..."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    @Jayman

    1) You would have to define your criteria for 'free will', using some scale such as completely unfettered at one end and entirely deterministic at the other.

    2) Certainly, our PREFERENCES and ABILITIES are bounded genetically both as an individual and as a species.

    3) Equally certainly, it's not PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE for our thoughts to be thoroughly deterministic for reasons I've argued elsewhere but will repeat here if necessary.

    4) That we are bounded does not mean that within those bounds of our senses, perceptions, apprehensions, and rational abilities, we cannot make decisions by our own will. It does mean that we will produce categorically similar decisions. But categorizing those decisions as similar is an artifact of the same processes, and therefore appears more deterministic for the same reason.

    The reason our decisions are categorically similar is that most decisions are unclear and require guessing and guessing is heavily weighted by intuition, and intuition is very heavily genetically biased - which the twin studies illustrate.

    That we produce similar decisions because of biological factors is different from saying that we cannot choose differently if we are aware that the choice is in itself a test of free will. And most studies prove this, and the problem of measurement in the social sciences is largely driven by the need to eliminate this awareness so that the results are unbiased by the question.

    5) I have spent quite a bit of time on this problem and while I think in the large I agree with your sentiment that our gene expressions, pedagogical experiences, normative biases, and general knowledge tend to produce categorically predictable results, that is very different from saying that we cannot choose to make alternate choices that produce DIFFERENT results. We demonstrably can. As such, the question is better stated as an information problem. People are open to persuasion given sufficient knowledge and incentive. But ignorance simply encourages that we rely on intuition out of calculative efficiency. Where I use "calculative" in the broadest sense: as choosing between sets of "anticipations".

    Most of the time, humans choose that which has the greatest benefit in the shortest time with the least effort, with the greatest chance of success at the lowest risk. Any organism must do that. But if we change the 'greatest benefit' to something trivial, like, a test of free will, we can demonstrate free will.

    Cheers
    Curt

    @curtd59:

    You would have to define your criteria for ‘free will’, using some scale such as completely unfettered at one end and entirely deterministic at the other.

    No. Free will ≠ lack of determinism. Even in a “random” world, free will would not exist.

    In any case, this makes little sense, because the world isn’t deterministic, ala quantum mechanics. The world is “probabilistically deterministic”; the exact course of events we perceive is random, but that occurs within a probability function that evolves deterministic way.

    That we are bounded does not mean that within those bounds of our senses, perceptions, apprehensions, and rational abilities, we cannot make decisions by our own will.

    But why do you make the decisions you do? That’s the key thing and the reason there can be no free will.

    I have spent quite a bit of time on this problem and while I think in the large I agree with your sentiment that our gene expressions, pedagogical experiences, normative biases, and general knowledge tend to produce categorically predictable results, that is very different from saying that we cannot choose to make alternate choices that produce DIFFERENT results. We demonstrably can.

    We can? There is no way within our technological capability to demonstrate this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Handle
    This is uncharacteristically sloppy work by Baumeister.

    The obvious analogy to human decision making is a computer running a program making calls to a sensor. All the Sci-Fi talk about AI and the singularity should make this analogy more obvious in common parlance, let alone philosophical investigation. Even a lego-mindstorms device can do squirrel-like things and receive data about it's surroundings, interpret and process it, and make complicated decisions on that basis about what actions to take next. But we live in the age of Siri, self-driving cars, ultra-smart / ultra-complex search engines, big-data handlers, and ultra-sophisticated Bayesian prior-updaters that learn about the world in a progressive manner, adjusting and refining their models and notions of causality as time goes by and more evidence is received.

    Is google's server farm and like applications complex enough to rise to 'free will'? Why not? They handle tasks in microseconds that no human could possibly accomplish. Describing the civil war in terms of carbon atoms is no different than describing interstate traffic consisting solely of automatically-driving cars in terms of silicon atoms. What distinguishes a program from genetic predispositions and neurological biochemical processes?

    My intuition is that 'most people's opinion' (a horrible authority, but the one to which Baumeister himself makes appeal) would reject any of these complex decision-making computers as having 'free will' - so most of what Baumeister wrote seems utterly besides the point.

    Sentience, Consciousness, and Self-Awareness, seem more along the lines of what most people would need to be willing to adjudge a computation system as having 'free-will like' properties. Self-re-programming, or at least Bayesian updating, is also a must.

    But, what I really think ordinary people are getting at when they talk about free will is the feeling of grappling with a hard decision, especially trying to summon the discipline and willpower to deny indulging in a detrimental temptation. We have this grappling experience with results that do not seem to be deterministic and, again, to an ordinary person, if that experience is not part of a process where we are exercising 'free will', then what is it? Or, how would you explain it to them. Does it have a good evo-psych story?

    Very well said!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    @Jayman

    1) You would have to define your criteria for ‘free will’, using some scale such as completely unfettered at one end and entirely deterministic at the other.

    2) Certainly, our PREFERENCES and ABILITIES are bounded genetically both as an individual and as a species.

    3) Equally certainly, it’s not PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE for our thoughts to be thoroughly deterministic for reasons I’ve argued elsewhere but will repeat here if necessary.

    4) That we are bounded does not mean that within those bounds of our senses, perceptions, apprehensions, and rational abilities, we cannot make decisions by our own will. It does mean that we will produce categorically similar decisions. But categorizing those decisions as similar is an artifact of the same processes, and therefore appears more deterministic for the same reason.

    The reason our decisions are categorically similar is that most decisions are unclear and require guessing and guessing is heavily weighted by intuition, and intuition is very heavily genetically biased – which the twin studies illustrate.

    That we produce similar decisions because of biological factors is different from saying that we cannot choose differently if we are aware that the choice is in itself a test of free will. And most studies prove this, and the problem of measurement in the social sciences is largely driven by the need to eliminate this awareness so that the results are unbiased by the question.

    5) I have spent quite a bit of time on this problem and while I think in the large I agree with your sentiment that our gene expressions, pedagogical experiences, normative biases, and general knowledge tend to produce categorically predictable results, that is very different from saying that we cannot choose to make alternate choices that produce DIFFERENT results. We demonstrably can. As such, the question is better stated as an information problem. People are open to persuasion given sufficient knowledge and incentive. But ignorance simply encourages that we rely on intuition out of calculative efficiency. Where I use “calculative” in the broadest sense: as choosing between sets of “anticipations”.

    Most of the time, humans choose that which has the greatest benefit in the shortest time with the least effort, with the greatest chance of success at the lowest risk. Any organism must do that. But if we change the ‘greatest benefit’ to something trivial, like, a test of free will, we can demonstrate free will.

    Cheers
    Curt

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @curtd59:

    You would have to define your criteria for ‘free will’, using some scale such as completely unfettered at one end and entirely deterministic at the other.
     
    No. Free will ≠ lack of determinism. Even in a "random" world, free will would not exist.

    In any case, this makes little sense, because the world isn't deterministic, ala quantum mechanics. The world is "probabilistically deterministic"; the exact course of events we perceive is random, but that occurs within a probability function that evolves deterministic way.


    That we are bounded does not mean that within those bounds of our senses, perceptions, apprehensions, and rational abilities, we cannot make decisions by our own will.
     
    But why do you make the decisions you do? That's the key thing and the reason there can be no free will.

    I have spent quite a bit of time on this problem and while I think in the large I agree with your sentiment that our gene expressions, pedagogical experiences, normative biases, and general knowledge tend to produce categorically predictable results, that is very different from saying that we cannot choose to make alternate choices that produce DIFFERENT results. We demonstrably can.
     
    We can? There is no way within our technological capability to demonstrate this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I think your thinking on this subject is a cross-purposes with mine (rather than actually contradicting it), and I find this kind of lack of meeting of minds is typical of the free-will debate. To me, ideas of uncoerced decisionmaking and unimpeded will form a perfectly adequate concept of free will that has nothing to do with uncaused causes or subatomic-particle-level determinism.

    From my point of view, the fact that twins may make identical choices has no bearing on issue: the question is, were their decisions freely made, or coerced? (obviously, there’s a continuum.) That is, after all, what people mean when they ask whether someone did something of their own free will.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This is uncharacteristically sloppy work by Baumeister.

    The obvious analogy to human decision making is a computer running a program making calls to a sensor. All the Sci-Fi talk about AI and the singularity should make this analogy more obvious in common parlance, let alone philosophical investigation. Even a lego-mindstorms device can do squirrel-like things and receive data about it’s surroundings, interpret and process it, and make complicated decisions on that basis about what actions to take next. But we live in the age of Siri, self-driving cars, ultra-smart / ultra-complex search engines, big-data handlers, and ultra-sophisticated Bayesian prior-updaters that learn about the world in a progressive manner, adjusting and refining their models and notions of causality as time goes by and more evidence is received.

    Is google’s server farm and like applications complex enough to rise to ‘free will’? Why not? They handle tasks in microseconds that no human could possibly accomplish. Describing the civil war in terms of carbon atoms is no different than describing interstate traffic consisting solely of automatically-driving cars in terms of silicon atoms. What distinguishes a program from genetic predispositions and neurological biochemical processes?

    My intuition is that ‘most people’s opinion’ (a horrible authority, but the one to which Baumeister himself makes appeal) would reject any of these complex decision-making computers as having ‘free will’ – so most of what Baumeister wrote seems utterly besides the point.

    Sentience, Consciousness, and Self-Awareness, seem more along the lines of what most people would need to be willing to adjudge a computation system as having ‘free-will like’ properties. Self-re-programming, or at least Bayesian updating, is also a must.

    But, what I really think ordinary people are getting at when they talk about free will is the feeling of grappling with a hard decision, especially trying to summon the discipline and willpower to deny indulging in a detrimental temptation. We have this grappling experience with results that do not seem to be deterministic and, again, to an ordinary person, if that experience is not part of a process where we are exercising ‘free will’, then what is it? Or, how would you explain it to them. Does it have a good evo-psych story?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Handle:

    Very well said!

    , @Luke Lea
    "I can resist anything except temptation." Oscar Wilde
    , @Jean
    I would explain it to "them" (the Ordinary) thusly: maybe we have a built-in mechanism that causes us as human beings to believe our actions are "free" - or as you've stated that "grappling with a decision" is evidence of free-will, or for that matter invoking willpower is an example of free will. The more interesting question is, why do we have such a mechanism? Why must we believe that our choices are, in fact, choices? Dogs and cats and other perfectly good mammals don't have such a mechanism . . . or (yikes!) do they??!? Someone below speculated it had to do with procreation . . . perhaps we'd lose motivation to procreate if we didn't think we had a lot of choice about it. Which is funny, since when it comes to rational choice, procreation is one of those things we often have the least rational control over.
    , @Neptunutation
    The fact that we even have a word called discipline, begs the fact that we live in a Deterministic universe. That word would not exist. Many phrase, ideas, and institutions give our determinism away; like the phrase "I just couldn't help myself." Why did you think you ever could?
    To someone still believing they have freewill I'd say consider two things; (both I've borrowed from Sam Harris) You have about as much control over the next thing you think as the next thing I write. Where does freedom fit into that? Also, are you free to do things that don't occur to you to do? And if you "decide" upon two alternatives, to look back and say that you could have chosen differently is to simply state that "I would have "chosen" differently IF I had chosen differently." Really, you had no choice at all. Only what can happen, will happen. I strongly believe that we're ENTIRELY automated. Not only does our heredity and environment dictate us but the above lessons in consciousness that I mentioned seal our automation totally. Thoughts arise unannounced, uninvited and force us to do things before we even consider doing them. People who argue for Free will either can't reliably understand the human condition or have some axe to grind that would dull if people knew they were automated.
    My acceptance of my own automation has been exceedingly helpful in becoming sober after years of alcoholism. I have a peace of mind and an understanding of my brain that no religious zealot can enjoy free of delusion.
    The funny part is that you can use determinism as a way around step 3 in recovery models. As an atheist and Sam Harris fanatic, this was important to me. I don't have to foolishly try "giving my will and life over to the care of god" when I see I have no will anyway!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.