Free Will Again (A Response to a Reddit Question)

It's because we don't have free will that holding people accountable for there actions is effective. No need to pretend it exists at all.

Daniel, is "free will" a misnomer, incomplete without the prerequisite "the illusion of", or like "God" only an abstract concept that happens to be impossible to observe in a physical reality?

-=T=-

No, the concept is simple. Are we TRULY able to make decisions for
ourselves or are we simply "feeling" like we do so when in fact the
decisions are the result of previous physical conditions? That's the
question, and it's not a very complex one.

Which do you subscribe to, and which is more functional?

I am confused as to how you could not be clear on my position after having read the original post.

Except physics is NOT deterministic. It's probabilistic. Study quantum physics, then get back to us.

I'll keep making this point until I am convinced it isn't true:

Your question: "At what point does physics stop and free will start?" presupposes that free will contradicts known physical laws. I don't think that this has been shown.

Let me try and put it another way:
How do you escape an outcome determined solely by physical variables by
introducing yet another physical variable? If you agree that you don't, then
all outcomes are still the product of physical variables. This is to say
that all outcomes are the result of previous physical states, which in turn
were the result of their previous physical state.

I see no room here for something called a human decision, except in the
context I mentioned above whereby we're catching a conscious glimpse of the
decision about to be made. Review the link I posted; there is mounting
evidence that this is in fact the case.

Though it's not perfect, I like this response (by belarius) to the Reddit question you linked to:

-----
The biggest problem with most definitions of free will is that they either rely on extreme definitions of the word "free" (as dualism does), on counterfactuals (as any "could have done otherwise" definition does), or on a need to protect existing cultural institutions (as most definitions based in ethics do). So long as we regard telepathy as a fantasy, the only real measure we have available to us is observable behavior.

In my opinion, free will can only reasonably be defined in terms of something along the lines of a Turing test: An Agent has free will to the extent that it is able to demonstrate the ability to draw meaningful semantic conclusions from its surroundings and generate coherent patterns of behavior that incorporate that semantic understanding. This definition does not require language, or even (in the strictest sense) consciousness as we experience it. A dolphin or elephant, with its fairly sophisticated semantic capabilities, would have a higher degree of free will than, say, a mouse, and a person with a serious disorder that impeded semantic reasoning would have less free will than a healthy, normal human being.

Defining free will in terms of the ability to understand the world and effect strategies accordingly 'buys' us most of what we want from free will, as far as moral responsibility goes. The semantic ability to form Theory of Mind provides the crucial lines between "doesn't know it causes harm to others" and "doesn't care" that we presume distinguishes an ignorant Agent from a malicious one. This definition also frees us from many of the absurd thought experiments that plague the debate.

In short, to quote Douglas Adams, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."
-----

Daniel, I think that your faith (for that's what it is) that the laws of physics don't allow free will can ONLY be overturned if someone demonstrates a mechanism for free will. Your absolute claim that there is no such thing as free will is a statement of faith. Why not just say that there have been some interesting experiments that seem to imply that free will (if it exists at all) isn't what we thought it was? This is tougher to argue against, it doesn't make the experiments any less interesting, and it sets the stage for FURTHER experiments that will give more evidence to work from. (If the issue is decided, what's the point in further experiments?)

More than that, I think that if future experiements show that people can consciously change their mind, your faith in the incompatibility of physics and free will will lead you to assert something like "The fact that people are conscious of making a decision at the same time that the imager "sees" them making a decision doesn't mean that they are actually FREE to make the decision. Their entire history has led them to that moment and they had no real choice in the matter. After all, at what point does physics stop and free will start?"

My point is that the neural imaging has NOTHING to do with why YOU believe that there is no such thing as free will, so I'd venture a guess that regardless of what similar future experiments show, you will not alter your belief. Your faith will only be broken when a physical process for free will is explained.

The neural imaging is consistent with what I believe: it's not *why* I believe.

The point I'm making about free will is not that I'm certain it doesn't exist in the binary sense, but that I'm just as certain of it as I am that Yahweh doesn't exist. I cannot be sure of either, but given the facts before us the burden of proof is not on me.

In both cases the burden of proof is on the person claiming that these things do exist.

We've talked about this before. The case for Yahweh is at best
circumstantial and in any case is not scientific. The case for free
will is entirely different.

Rather than reinventing my argument, I've copied below (and slightly
edited) some of what I wrote a month or so ago in a similar discussion
here on your blog.

We gather empirical evidence to learn what happens in the universe and
THEN we construct theories to fit that evidence. It doesn’t work the
other way around. That is, we don’t form theories and then say “well,
this evidence doesn’t contradict existing theories, but I don’t see
any mechanism within existing theories that allow for it, so the
evidence must be wrong.” I’m not saying that an observation here and
there can’t be misleading or faulty or an illusion, but if there is
overwhelming observational evidence of something, then to deny it
requires justification. You've asserted that the burden of proof is
on the people claiming that free will exists. My response is that
there is plenty of observational evidence that free will exists. You
know this and dismiss it all as illusion and use your "where does
physics stop" response as justification. That is, your argument seems
to be: (1) there is no known mechanism by which free will exists, (2)
so such a mechanism must be supernatural, (3) therefore since there is
no scientific evidence for the supernatural, there must not be free
will.

The flaw I see is that there is NO justification for step (2).

Here’s an experiment (which I just carried out). Toss a coin. If it
comes up heads, raise your right hand over your head. If it comes up
tails, raise your left hand over your head. When I did it, the coin
came up tails and sure enough, I raised my left hand over my head. You
can simplify the experiment if you want by just making a conscious
decision to raise either your right or left hand and then doing it,
but I thought that introducing the randomization might make it a
little more interesting.

We ALL (even you Daniel) feel that we can make a decision about which
hand to raise and then carry out the action of actually raising the
hand. In fact, we all experience free will many times every day. If
you claim that this is an illusion, then it is up to you to explain
why we must throw out this particular (enormous) batch of empirical
evidence.

If we throw out the neural imaging experiment (which you have admitted
is merely consistent with your belief and doesn't serve as a proof),
then your argument against free will seems to be based on physics.
I've pointed out before that there is no scientific understanding of
how consciousness arises. So, by the logic that you seem to be
espousing, we must therefore say that consciousness requires the
supernatural. The fact that science doesn’t (yet) have a mechanism by
which consciousness arises does NOT imply that any such mechanism must
be supernatural. Similarly (you should be able to guess where I’m
going with this) the fact that science doesn’t (yet) have a mechanism
by which free will arises does NOT imply that any such mechanism must
be supernatural.

IF we eventually reach the conclusion that the universe is
deterministic, then it has been shown that free will can’t exist. We
haven’t reached that conclusion. So, if you suggest that the empirical
evidence for free will that all of us experience every day is all
illusion, then it is upon YOU to demonstrate that.

Here’s an example of an illusion: When the sun (or moon) is close to
the horizon, it appears larger in diameter than when it is overhead.
It is easy to demonstrate that this is an illusion (extend your arm at
full length and point one finger upwards – compare the size of the sun
(moon) to your finger when it is overhead and when it is at the
horizon - the size doesn’t change). I’m well aware that there are
illusions that fool our senses, but science is BASED on empirical
evidence. We have plenty of empirical evidence that indicates that
free will exists. That evidence needs to be explained. EITHER it is an
illusion or it isn’t. Assuming that empirical evidence is an illusion
is NOT the default position in science.

Daniel, I READ the article at the link you posted. Please note that
it doesn't make the same claim that you are making. The cartoon at
this link expresses my point.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&...
I've not said that there isn't interesting evidence that free will
isn't what we once thought it was or that there isn't evidence that
decisions are not made as consciously as it seems. This does NOT
prove that decisions are not being made in a "free" way. I look
forward to seeing what the evidence says about the ability to change
ones mind. That is ONE of the follow-up experiements that will give
some teeth to the (admittedly interesting) experiements that have been
performed to date.

As to the physics, as I explained in an earlier piece, the fact that I
can't explain the physical process by which free will is exerted
doesn't mean that there isn't one. I am absolutely not convinced that
our understanding of physics implies that it is impossible. THAT is
what would be necessary for there to be PROOF that there is no such
thing as free will.