The Zero-Control Argument Against Free Will

By Daniel Miessler on September 8th, 2010: Tagged as Free Will
  • rusty

    I agree with the two lever argument. This argument however, is not good. A transition could happen slowly. A fetus may simply not be aware of his ability to make choices of free will. A baby could slowly become aware of this fact similarly to the way a child slowly becomes aware of his ability to manipulate his surroundings with his hands. Instead the child would slowly learn how he can manipulate the world with his mind. Assuming this happens, it would be a slow transition.

    • http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

      But you had no choice before you existed. And you had no choice as a sperm. You had no choice as a fertilized egg.

      So what changed when you became a small human in the womb? What changed when you became a toddler? Or even an adult. Isn’t it clear that the choices we make are simply more complex versions of the same thing that was happening when we were in those previous stages?

      The perception of free will is no different than the perception of intent in things like weather. We don’t understand something due to it’s complexity and hidden cause, therefore we ascribe a sentient, special personality to it.

      Free will is no different. The more we learn about the brain the more we’ll learn that free will is an illusion.

      • Gdoteof

        What changed when the toddler became able to talk? What changed when the toddler became able to recognize himself in the mirror? What changed when the child realized what his parents said wasn’t inherently true? What changed when the child was able to make out-of-the-box decisions and drop out of school and start up an internet business?

        • http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

          Nothing.

      • http://twitter.com/kevinks Kevin Kennedy-Spaien

        What has changed is that the incremental process of brain development has moved further along.

  • Gdoteof

    This a very weak argument.

    I could make the same argument for ‘being able to walk’.

    I think we can all agree that we can’t walk as a fetus. I think we can all agree that a child who takes his first step still plainly cannot walk. At what point did the adult learn to walk? Obviously, he cannot walk.

    • Hudjnekdxj

      Exactly! And to further the issue, this argument would suppose we know as much about human thought processes as we do our ability to walk.

      This argument is not only flawed but basically irrational…good thing the author can just blame hid deterministic make up.

    • Greendaze

      If you think that is a weak argument… your one is just pathetic. I can’t even be bothered pointing out the fallacy and non-sequiturs… you seem to be completely missing the point… read the article again and think harder! :)

  • Gdoteof

    I am 100% convinced in some degree of free will. However, I can fully agree that compatibalists are contorting the definition of free will in order to avoid the question fully.

    The ‘evidence’ beyond the fact that our most basic experience of reality is that of a free will, is the ability to do completely arbitrary things. Picking up a pencil and just moving it in random directions of your choosing then throwing it at a wall and randomly yelling ‘susan!’.. the ability to do these completely seemingly-random actions, but not random because they are of our choosing, makes free will seem completely obvious in every respect, to me.

    It appears to me people against free-will, as yourself almost always are a) strict materialists, and b) hold the notion that free will is an illusion based on the fact that the universe acts according to rules, we are part of the universe, and we therefore act according to rules.

    However, ignoring a), b) is actually false when taken to extremes.. there are certain phenomenon that cannot be predicted (not for lack of knowledge, but an inherent quality in the system) in anyway other than probabilistically.

    • http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

      Randomness means we can’t predict things, it doesn’t mean they aren’t deterministic. The fact that randomness may exist at the quantum level gives us no additional measure of control over outcomes.

  • Surly

    Compatabilists have changed the definition from incoherent twaddle into something that might possibly make sense.

    You seem like a smart guy. Why are you wasting your time writing about versions of free will that require magic to work?

    • http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

      Because people believe in that magic, so it must be countered.

  • Anonymous

    Free will must exist in the decision making process. To say that the brain does not decide, for whatever reason, is akin to saying the clock that strikes twelve doesn’t really strike twelve.

    Relative dependance and independance permits those processes of conscious decision making to which we proscibe free will as evidence is a scalar measure of how much one’s pathology is insulated from external influence, as defined by the sillouette of one vs all.

    (However, ANY independance, proves the existance of free will, however restrained, confined, or otherwise manipulated by outside forces by which those decisions were made.)

    Because I exist in the media of physical matter, and all matter is the universe, I am the universe, right? No. The universe ends where I begin, and vice versa. So, though I make decisions based on the contraints the universe provides, those decisions are still mine.

    Limiting them further, if those decisions were based on a select group of neurons trained, designed, refined, practiced, and so forth on finding a particular body sexually attractive, it would be those neurons that calculated the conclusion, based on the limited input. Neither my smallest toenail nor the inifinite universe were my neurons acting as they do at that time.

    The decision making process included specific axons and dendrites, and salt ion transfers, and only those neurons possess those in that specific combination. Thus was the decision making process, post-input, restricted to only that system.

    Do we need to break physical laws and causality to prove free will? Does that mean that the gravity defying Superman, by following a proposed set of physical laws (getting his powers from our yellow sun), does not have free will, where archangels and leprechauns must, as they would be defined as supernatural? (I believe that Harry Potter’s magic, however, would fall under an alternate-science / alternatate physical universal laws, because it can be repeated, inspected, measured, and follow a set of rules that create a set outcome.)

    Is it that only the impossible can possibly be free will, when observation and definitions establish otherwise, how is it that a rock floating in space above Saturn provided any measurable input into my neuron’s calculations?

    Did that same rock have a measurable influence in starting my car this morning?

    How about the sun, which I’m guessing is much more prevalent to influencing many processes here on earth; how much did it assert any powers of duress in the ice cream I didn’t buy at the store yesterday? (It was mint w/ chocolate chips, and a good quantity as a low price, too.)

    Anyways, I have typed my meagerest upon blind eyes. You have already made up your mind, and I conclude with much doubt that you, or a theoretical rock floating above Saturn, will change it.

    -=T=-

    ps: As I currently comprehend the situation, you seem to see the limitations and vulnerabilities of the brain to external input as proof that free will does not exist and remains rooted in dependance, where I see the one smallest atom that tips the brain one way or another as part of that brain’s decision process, every influence owned by the decision’s process. “One choice isn’t all choices”, which you seem to neglect in favor of “All choices from one original, past, immutable event.” I believe the difference is because I, like most people, define each decision to being based on variables I am conscious of. This makes free will not only possible, but required for each calculation.

    Here’s a test: Have your ever told someone “Well, if I would have known that, then I would have done things differently.” You might say that free will was taken away once the person did not know what he would have to have made the other choice. However, I will say that the person still made a choice from the range put before him.

    Again, any independance is proof of free will.

    And I believe you have the alternate view, that any dependance is proof against free will.

    But, the two are relative ( and vulnaerable to subjective observation ), and I think that they may not exist in any proportion without some corresponding amount of the other. If this is true, then it’s all a matter of one’s perspective, and arbitrary, possibly even a game of the semantics of one’s particular psychological status at a given time.


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs