via samharris.org

Naturally, I am fairly silly with anticipation for this book. Sadly it’s for pretty poor reasons, as I think he’s going to mirror my exact position — albeit with much more time spent on his arguments and better prose.

I do look forward to having some additional support for my position, though. He’ll spend time gathering data to support his arguments, which I do only in the form of a link to this or that.

I basically anticipate an extremely high-quality summary of my numerous articles, posts, and debate interactions on this topic.

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

–

The author succeeds in bringing life back to the debate, but he doesn’t make any new progress. The issue, as a few commenters have touched on, is much simpler than it appears from all this handwaving.

Quite simply, somebody explain how a choice can be free if one doesn’t control the inputs to the choice. I capture this in a semi-formal argument here: http://danielmiessler.com/arguments/free_will/two_lever_argument/

Some, like Dennett, agree that we don’t have the free will described in that argument but say it doesn’t matter because we can do things like choose menu items at a restaurant, or dodge spears in the jungle. I agree, of course, and that’s all very nice, but it shouldn’t be confused with true choice.

I attempt to clearly define the difference between the two here: http://danielmiessler.com/blog/absolute-vs-practical-free-will

For those who don’t wish to follow links within comments (understandable, but regrettable) practical free will lets us make choices from within our confines of not controlling the inputs to our decisions. We don’t control our physical makeup, and we don’t have full control of our environment — hence, in order to show that we have TRUE choice we must show that we can choose OUTSIDE of those influences.

This to me requires one of two things: either 1) a completely new way of looking at how the universe works, or 2) the supernatural. I simply reject both until I see evidence, and I am stunned this isn’t the default and obvious position for anyone considering themselves to be skeptical and scientifically literate.

–

::

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Many believe the discussion of free will is pointless. This is usually because one believes it’s been settled (for the religious who believe God gave it to us) or because one believes it doesn’t matter (for the secular types who believe there is no practical benefit to having the discussion).

I will attempt to convince the second group that their position of apathy is incorrect.

The Concept of “Deserving”

It’s impossible to deserve anything unless there is free will. If there is no free will then nobody deserves praise for becoming rich after years of hard work. Similarly, nobody deserves to be looked down upon for failing to succeed in life.

It is nearly impossible to overstate how important this point is.

It’s true that even those who do believe in free will give room for difficult circumstances, but ultimately they believe that free will allows one to overcome (if they care enough to do so). This places blame and praise right back onto the individual in question.

Society respects the rich and looks down on the poor because we believe, quite simply, that people have the option to go against the grain of whatever life they’ve been handed. Those born into highly prosperous and educated families could end up squandering their good fortune away, and those born in urban welfare homes to single a single mom could end up going to Harvard.

If they choose to.

This belief has subtle but violent repercussions. It means that when that boy from the ghetto doesn’t make it out, he didn’t want it enough. It was his choice, and he didn’t put the work in.

This knight’s move constitutes nothing less than justification for looking down on those that don’t succeed. If you don’t think that’s significant, expand the concept out to groups of people, parts of town, and to entire nations.

The Link to Compassion

Imagine the local homeless person asking for a dollar on the street corner. I know countless deeply religious people who make it a rule to never give these people money. It is my belief that this is because they hold in their minds the conviction that this person chose to fail, and that they are basically refuse that will benefit from their monthly tithing through the church.

They don’t see someone who needs help; they see someone who has failed to help himself.

I, on the other hand, see a person who did not have advantages. Now, who do you think is more likely to be compassionate: the person who believes that he could have willed himself out of his situation, or the person who believes he was unfortunate and unable to escape?

That’s the key: compassion goes down the more you believe the person in the position deserves what they are experiencing. As such, those who believe in free will are naturally prone to be less compassionate.

Politics

This concept permeates the various political platforms. If you permit me the simplification, the right believes strongly in free will and therefore has far less sympathy for those who don’t achieve. The left believes far more in circumstances and variables, and therefore is more sympathetic to those who don’t succeed.

This translates directly to taxation as well. If you “deserve” your money, you shouldn’t have it taken from you. If you were lucky to get it then it should be spread to those who need it. Again, the sides on this debate fall right down the line of left and right.

Summary

No single question matters more in terms of human morality than that of whether not we have free will. To dodge this debate in the name of practicality is intellectual cowardice at this point in our civilization.

Put thought into and determine your position on this topic, and make the effort to ensure that your political views are consistent with it. ::

I have, over the last few years, put out a number of arguments against the possibility of free will. My most popular so far has been that of my Two-Lever Argument, which can be found here. I now wish to make a separate, distinct argument argument against free will called the Zero-Control argument.

The Zero-Control argument asks one to imagine a world before he was born. Imagine looking down at an earth without you in it. Now ask yourself how much control you have over that world. How much do you consciously affect what goes on in it? I think we can all agree the answer is zero.

Next, consider what happens after your parents have brought about the preconditions for your life. As you sit in the womb, sloshing to and fro as a collection of molecules and cells that you had no input into the organization of, what degree of control or choice do you have regarding your actions? What choices are you able to make that are not fully dependent on inputs from your genetic makeup and your environment? I think most will agree that the answer is still “none”.

The task now is to look at the next milestones of development–say, being a “willful” toddler who terrorizes households and disobeys the commands of parents. If one is to offer that such displays of “will” are now “free”, this raises the obvious question of, “When did that happen?” To be more pointed, at what point did the transition occur between being a simple collection of inputs processed by biological hardware, to being some sort of free being capable of making choices independent of inputs?

The same scenario can be extended to adolescence, or even full adulthood. The burden is on the believer in free will to describe, after admitting that a non-existent human has zero control, and a baby in the womb has pretty much the same amount, how exactly it is that someone switches from being purely deterministic to having free will. ¹ Let’s go from step one to adulthood:

1. You don’t exist. // control 0
2. You are a spermatozoon. // control 0
3. You are a fertilized egg. // control 0
   Up to this point it’s probably pretty clear that we, at this stage, are simply atoms bouncing off of each other. The key is to ask what changes as we progress.
4. You are an embryo in the womb. // control 0
5. You are a newborn. // what are you doing other than responding to your environment given your genetic makeup?
6. You are a toddler. // you now appear to be willful, but what has actually changed?
7. You are an adolescent. // now you have your own opinions, can be creative, etc. But again…same problem.
8. You are an adult. // see above

It seems clear that no transition ever takes place from zero control to more than zero control. We continue to be a collection of atoms bumping into each other, just as we were when we were spermatozoons clearly without free will. The perception of free will that comes as we mature is no different than the perception of intent in complex things like weather. As a primitive species, when we don’t understand something due to it’s complexity and hidden cause, we ascribe a sentient, mystical element to it.

We used to do this in how we described natural disasters and disease (it must be God!), and now we do the same with free will. The more we learn about the brain the more we’ll learn the actual, deterministic causes for the decisions we make.² The mystery will fall away from this just as it has for countless other natural phenomenon in the past. To assume otherwise is nothing less than foolish. ::

Notes

¹ Compatabilists, in my mind, are contorting free will to mean something other than making choices outside of natural inputs, therefore are excluded from the discussion. They’ve changed the definition as most think of it into “practical” free will, which I agree with by the way. See my essay on Absolute vs. Practical Free Will.
² This is already happening. We’re already able to observe “free choices” being made in very predictable fashion prior to the subject feeling they’ve made the choice, and we’re also able to directly influence people to make choices we want them to while the person feels they’re making the choice.

I write a lot about free will, and I am often asked the reason for this. My answer is invariably that, “it has moral implications”, but I’ve evidently failed to make a complete and/or successful argument on that vector. So here’s an attempt at one.

::

My argument is that the belief in free will negatively affects societies that embrace such a belief. This is because beliefs affect behavior. If you believe it’s going to rain today, you bring an umbrella when you leave the house. And if you believe people have the option to do the right thing even when they’re overwhelmingly disadvantaged, this will be reflected clearly in your approach to criminal justice and social programs.

The horrific result of this is that societies which base their criminal justice systems on the belief in free will are less likely to engage in the types of activities that will help reduce the number of people who commit crimes, e.g. building better public schools, and offering health care for its citizens.

Imagine a rich, secluded city somewhere that has very little crime. Everyone in the town is highly educated and nobody lives below the poverty line. But they also believe strongly in free will–as given by God–as the primary factor making someone do a good thing or a bad thing. Consequently, they believe that the reason their city has so little crime is because they’re all so religious.

Now, when someone comes in from out of town and attacks one of them for money (he’s hungry and uneducated, etc, etc.), the reaction from that town’s population and court system will be wrong. Not different. Wrong.

The town’s reaction will be that this person had equal opportunity, given by God, to commit or not commit said crime. As a result, he then DESERVES punishment. It’s not that punishing him would be good for society as a deterrent, but rather that he deserves it for making the wrong choice. The importance of this distinction cannot be overstated.

Most importantly, and to return to my primary point, when it comes time to spend tax dollars, this town will spend its money on building new churches–not on going into poor neighborhoods and improving schools. And again, this will be a failure caused directly by the belief that a human’s choice is more important than his inputs in determining outcomes.

This is a battle-armored example of the belief in free will being morally harmful. It yields an inaccurate understanding of the nature of crime, and, necessarily, an equally flawed understanding of how to reduce it.

To summarize, the embrace of free will leads to the creation of societies that blame the individual for crime, while the the rejection of free will leads to the creation of society in which people understand that poor outcomes are due to poor inputs, and that the only purpose of punishment comes from a consequentialist perspective, and not a retributivist one.

This approach will lead to the adoption of social programs that aim to reduce the variables that cause negative outcomes, which is precisely what we see in secular societies such as Sweden and Denmark. There the penal systems are nearly 100% consequentialist, and it is my contention that this is due to a rejection of choice as a primary factor in negative outcomes.

And what’s the result? The lowest crime rates and the highest education rates in the entire world.

So, no–the discussion of free will is not merely academic or philosophical–it is crucial to the understanding of what causes negative outcomes in our society, and therefore what can be done to reduce those negative outcomes.

That’s why it matters whether or not we have free will. ::

http://danielmiessler.com/arguments/free_will/two_lever_argument/

Please follow it there and make a note of the location.

Thank you.

::

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

He too is an absolute determinist, but he’s a full compatibilist. He employed an interesting analogy in trying to make his argument. He believes that claiming we are just atoms bumping into each other (and therefore not really making decisions) is like claiming that airplane wings don’t allow airplanes to fly, but instead it’s “just a bunch of atoms”.

His point, obviously, is that both are true.

I have much to say about this, but I’d like to see what your thoughts are. ::

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

There are two levers for controlling outcomes in the universe, and you must be able to consciously change at least one of these in order to have any active influence on the world:

1. The previous state of the universe
   i.e. how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a decision.
2. The laws that govern the universe
   The physical rules that will determine how the universe transitions from one state to another, namely from that previous-state to the next-state.

Quite simply, if you do not have any control over at least one of these you cannot be in control of any future state of the universe. This includes any outcomes related to yourself, i.e. your own decisions and actions.

Neither quantum randomness nor consciousness provide an escape from this reality. The reason for this is simple: in order to provide an escape, an actor must, necessarily, provide a means to pull one of the levers described above.

There is a counter to this argument that’s likely to surface, which states that as soon as a human arrives on the scene and starts observing the world and making “decisions”, the results of his actions will then propagate forward into the inputs of other humans, thus rippling free will permanently into all future decisions for everyone else.

There are two problems with this line:

1. Humans did not always exist. When they did not, they had zero control over the previous state of the universe. A rigorous explanation is therefore required for how the first human gained control over the previous state of the universe, as this is a prerequisite for affecting any outcome.

2. Furthermore, even if a previous human (say, in the very beginning of humans) did somehow gain control over the universe for a moment in order to have a genuine effect, this action would not propagate as free will to future human actors, but rather as a standard physical input. In other words, each person hoping to exercise free will requires access to the past-state lever, not just a single previous person.

Again, regardless of what we experience as humans, if we cannot affect either the universe’s previous state or the laws that govern the transition to subsequent states, we are no more than an observer of events–regardless of any feelings to the contrary. ::

As even casual enthusiasts of philosophy will know, the debate about free will has been ongoing for hundreds of years. I’ll not go describe in any detail the various arguments here, however, as doing so will take considerable time.

Instead, I’ll assume the reader is to some degree familiar with the arguments of determinism vs. indeterminism, compatibilism vs. incompatibilism, and other fundamentals of the subject.

Here I will lay out two ways of looking at free will, which I call the absolute and the practical perspectives. I believe these two classifications take into account both the existing, well-traveled arguments as well as the treacherous semantic issues that frequently obscure free will discussions.

Absolute Free Will

absolute free will

absolute free will is the ability for an individual to make a choice outside physical causality, i.e. one that results from something other than a combination of physical preconditions and physical laws.

So, while emergence may yield extreme complexity–allowing for phenomenon like consciousness–this is ultimately nothing more than a playing out of two things: existing state and a set of natural laws. Those laws may lack randomness, in which case we’d have a hard determinist’s world, or it may be completely random at the quantum level.

Either way, the person making choices–regardless of how they appear or feel–is merely having these choices move through him (with consciousness as a means of experiencing them), as he has no control of either the preconditions or the laws that ultimately determine outcomes. In other words, at the most basic (and real) level, he’s not making any of the decisions at all.

It’s important to realize that the argument here is not one of pre-determinism or fate. No–the key concept isn’t whether or not these actions can be predicted, it’s that we as humans aren’t in control of the outcomes.

Practical Free Will

practical free will

practical free will is the ability for an individual to exert effort to evaluate alternatives–often involving significant complexity–and then take action based on his/her value system, e.g. swerving to avoid a deer on the road, or going hungry to feed a child.

The key for this definition is that it is a practical one. It feels as if we’re making decisions, and outcomes are shaped by our deliberations, so any arguments about what is actually happening are largely academic. This is the view of free will that most have (excluding those who think free will comes directly from God).

As Daniel Dennett points out, we as humans have the ability to do things like decide to go to work to avoid being fired, or to influence climate for future generations, or to blow up distant astroids to keep them from crashing into Earth 5 years into the future. These things require complex analysis of variables for the purpose of promoting our own goals–which may even be altruistic if so inclined.

The argument for practical free will is actually stunningly simple:

Basically, if it feels like you make decisions, and the outcomes that result help you to achieve your goals due to the analysis you performed, and you can continue to do this repeatedly (learning more as you go in order to enhance the process) then what else is there?

In other words, what else can be gained by attaining absolute free will? Will it not feel identical anyway, and will it not result in essentially the same outcomes? In short, it very well may be true that we lack absolute free will, but who cares? Practical free will offers the same benefits, and we all agree that it’s a reality here and now.

Why the Distinction is Important

So, that being said, many ask why pointing out the distinction between absolute and practical free will is important at all. The answer is that the question of absolute free will is highly…practical when it comes to political philosophy–especially related to the treatment of the successful (taxation) and the poor (education and punishment).

Once a person accepts that absolute free will is false, it becomes considerably more difficult to say that someone “deserves” to suffer, or that someone “deserves” to be inordinately rich. In other words, accepting absolute free will means accepting that each persons’ position in life is ultimately a matter of chance.

This has direct and monumental implications on how society should be built. Subscribers to this world view would be more inclined to isolate and educate criminals rather than punish them and deride them. They would also be more naturally willing to support the use of extreme wealth to lift those that need help.

A belief that absolute free will does not exist promotes a world view in which compassion, rather than selfishness, is backed by science. If you believe that everyone has the ability to make choices–to whatever degree–apart from their circumstances then this belief instantly justifies the chasm between those who have and those who do not.

Any time you find intelligent rich people surrounded by, but insulated from, ignorance and suffering–where they either feel apathetic toward their plight and/or feel as if they deserve their lesser position in life–you can draw a straight line from those beliefs to their belief in absolute free will (which is usually rooted in religion).

Rejecting absolute free will prevents this connection, and forces any affluent thinking person to realize that their position of strength is not an earned possession, but rather a responsibility to be wielded.

Conclusion

While all of the variations of free will belief are no-doubt valid within a philosophical context I believe the most tangible and meaningful distinctions are defined by a practical vs. absolute belief.

The argument for practical free will reduces to effective free will, meaning we get all the benefits of choice, as if we truly had it, so it matters not if we don’t. We are still able, as humans, to experience making choices, avoid harm by evaluating complex sets of variables while contemplating the future, and improve our own thinking processes through science that we developed.

This highlights the semantic nature of the free will debate. If practical free will, as described above, is what most people consider to be free will, and the reality of the absolute version (breaking causality) would not change the experience humans have when compared to practical free will, then it is easy to see how one person could be arguing that free will exists while thinking of practical free will while the other can argue that it doesn’t while thinking of the absolute version. I believe this to be the semantic foundation of conflict between the two camps.

In any case, the ability to function in our world is made possible by a belief in practical free will, and this should never be disrespected given the stability it brings. However, a acceptance that absolute free will is false is still crucial for any advanced individual or society, as it allows one to free himself of perhaps the most dangerous moral idea of all: the idea that someone can deserve to suffer or prosper. ::

The two, fundamental political belief systems are:

1. Circumstances people are born into largely determine their choices and outcomes, and that each of us is fundamentally responsible for helping others overcome the negativity associated with their disadvantages. Because of this, the happiness and suffering of every person is inexorably tied to that of every other person.

2. Every person has his/her own choice to fail or succeed, and that those who suffer are doing so in some part due their own personal failure. As such, it is not the moral obligation of those who chose correctly to sacrifice in order to help those who chose poorly.

To put this in another way, one group thinks that those who are in positions of advantage are there by way of good fortune alone, and that they therefore are indebted to society, and humanity, as a whole.

The other group feels it was their individual choices that yielded their success, apart from any advantages they may have had, and that they therefore owe nobody anything–least of all those who made poor choices when they should have made the right ones.

No Longer Academic

This brings the discussion of free will directly to the forefront. It changes it from a high-brow matter for philosophers and theologians to to a real-world discussion of how the haves should treat the have-nots. I submit that no topic of political discourse is more fundamental than this.

Naturally, this brings us directly to religion. Religion teaches that God gave each of us the ability to make the right choices regardless of negative circumstances. So, when the poor kid skips school to shoot drugs in another country, or if someone rots in prison across town for crimes committed, we are taught by religion to believe that both made poor choices–not that they were handed an unfortunate set of variables.

What this means is that religion, at it’s very core, teaches apathy, and even disdain, for those who suffer because it propagates the belief that those who suffered had the God-given option to avoid it–but they chose incorrectly. If you probe deeply enough into the rhetoric of hate-filled healthcare-reform protesters (just one example) you’ll find this very belief powering their fury.

They. Chose. To. Suffer.

A belief in determinism, on the other hand, is tied to compassion, and it makes sense. Those who believe that the Big Bang happened, and that we all ended up here–some of us doing well, and others suffering–leads to the creation of public policy built upon communal happiness and suffering. And this sort of “it just happened this way” approach relies specifically on the lack of belief in supernatural free will.

Here are the Knight moves:

Atheism –> Determinism –> Compassion for the Weak

vs.

Religion –> God-granted Free Will –> Personal Responsibility for Failure –> Apathy (or disdain) from the Strong

Evidence

Ah, but what are claims without some evidence, right? As it turns out, Phil Zuckerman did an exhaustive study in 2008 of two of the most secular and most socialist societies on Earth–Denmark and Sweden. Here’s a defining excerpt from his work:

High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism.

Alas, correlation does not equal causation, but feel free to add your own anecdotal evidence ad infinitum. Find someone who believes in the shared well-being of all humanity, and they’ll tend to be more deterministic and less religious. Find someone who’s angry because they have to give up some of their money to help the poor and suffering, and you’ll likely find someone who’s not only religious, but someone who thinks religion is required for morality. Think about that for a second.

And the phenomenon continues, as Zuckerman’s work shows, at the scale of nations.

Conclusion

Resist the temptation to argue the semantics of “conservative” or “liberal” policy. Demand instead to discuss the real issue–separated from overloaded terms–i.e. the level of responsibility each of us has to help others. This is the central issue for nearly all important political topics.

Here is the argument in summary form:

1. the belief in free will leads to a lack of compassion for those who suffer
2. this is in large part due to the core religious teaching of God-given free will
3. those who lack belief in religion, and therefore in God-given free will tend to be more deterministic with respect to how and why people arrive at their station in life
4. the deterministic view, held by more secular individuals and groups, fosters compassion and a sense of connectedness between everyone’s level of happiness and suffering. Evidence of this can be seen in less poverty, higher education rates, and overall higher standards of living in countries that embrace this philosophy.

In short, the belief in free will, as propagated by religion and a religion-based criminal justice system, retards human progress by giving a backdoor justification for selfishness. The reason we are seeing so much resistance to policies that help the have-nots, at the expense of the haves (e.g. healthcare reform), is in significant part due to the belief that the have-nots deserve their position, as a direct result of their poor choices.

Until this fundamental issue is addressed head-on, by taking on the illogical belief in supernatural free will, true political discourse will remain out of reach.

::

To those who believe in free will the mission is clear: show me where the laws of physics stop and where free will begins.

First off, we need to agree on the meaning of free will before we proceed. Too many arguments (most?) are enormous time drains resulting in no progress simply because people had different ideas about the nature of the argument. Here are a couple of definitions:

Stanford

A philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.

Wikipedia

[snip] Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not — determinism versus indeterminism — and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not — compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, ‘hard determinists’ argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.

I prefer Wikipedia’s definition, as it offers more detail regarding the crucial point of determinism. That is, if the universe is bound by physics–even if there is true randomness at the quantum level–then every physical and chemical interaction that takes place in your body will take place according to the laws of physics.

The mission of the free will proponent is to explain to us how exactly this is not the case. In other words, if the physical world’s numerous interactions take place according to the laws of physics–and our bodies are bound by those same laws–then at what point does a human decision become an input type that exists outside those laws? And would that not necessarily have to be super-natural?

The free will argument usually takes the shape of:

We can’t possibly know or understand all the physical interactions taking place. They’re opaque to us. The brain’s decision center is a black box. Therefore we have free will.

This is a strikingly insufficient argument. It’s like building a transparent machine with a billion moving parts that’s spread out over the size of a football field, and then covering various portions of the machine with giant tarps. Then, because someone can’t see exactly what’s happening under those covered areas, they claim, “That’s where the free will lives”.

Laid out like that you can see the problem, but now realize that that the human body is one such machine. It’s vast, it’s complex, and much of it is still covered with tarps. But why are we so quick to abandon science when faced with a lack of specific knowledge? Isn’t this like inventing God to explain weather patterns?

Do we not know how countless functions work within the human body? Do we not understand these interactions to be completely physical in nature? At what point are we to believe this system breaks down and yields to something other than physics and chemistry? Nowhere, and that’s the problem. Free will requires an input that exists outside of the system.

In order to believe in true free will, you must believe that your personal decision-making-ability exists outside of all other physical variables. It’s a remarkable proposition if you think about it. You have to believe that the physical world combines all its variables, i.e. your genetics, your upbringing, your mood, whether you’re hungry, tired, drunk, etc.–all according to the laws of physics that you accept–and then you somehow bestow upon this focal point a completely separate type of input in order to make the decision.

I ask anyone who believes this a simple question: where exactly do you think that separate input is coming from? Your options are limited. In fact, I think you have only one–the supernatural.

Practical vs. True Free Will

There’s another argument that I want to address. Many take the line that we “practically” have free will since we can’t possibly see the variables involved, or because we as a civilization need the concept of free will in order to hold people responsible for their actions. I fully agree with this position, and if that’s your definition of free will then you’ll get no argument from me.

But that’s not what religion means by free will, and it’s not what most seem to mean when they talk about it. Most truly think they are making decisions separately from physics. In other words, if I were to say that they did x because of all the variables that led up to the decision, they would say no. They would say the variables all played a part, but at the end they had a choice. This is the part that requires the supernatural, and that’s the part I reject outright.

What About Randomness?

One concept free will supporters almost invariably lean upon is the possibility of quantum randomness. So, as the argument goes, if true randomness exists at the molecular level then there is no such thing as determinism.

Fair enough–no argument there. Unfortunately, this lends no support to the free will argument. Why would it? Even if the universe were to be truly random, it would say absolutely nothing about your individual ability to effect its outcome. Again, that would require that your decision-making ability exist outside the system. So, fine, keep your subatomic randomness; keep your non-deterministic reality–it doesn’t mean we have any individual input into the outcome.

The Behavior Modification Argument

Another line that many take for support of free will is that of being able to change habits and other types of behavior based on analysis. The argument goes:

I used to drink regular, sugar soda, but then I found out how bad it was for my arterial health. So, even though I loved it, and I craved it, I made the conscious choice to stop drinking it and switch to diet soda.

This is attractive at first glance but ultimately fails the same test as any other “I felt myself make the decision” scenario. It implies that the analysis of previous, undesired situations–and then the ability to navigate around those situations to change outcomes–somehow avoids the world of cause and effect.

But no part of your analysis of the preconditions, nor the conditions themselves, fall outside of the physical realm. As a result, nothing about your decision itself can fall outside of that realm either. Hence, the outcome that results comes from the preconditions, regardless of what you “feel” took place.

In other words, we haven’t avoided the primary question: which part of that process existed outside of physics and chemistry? I have a few variables to consider that exist in the realm of physics, so let’s evaluate them:

1. Intelligence: you have a good IQ due to genetics, being raised well, and having good nutrition as a child.
2. Education: you learned about how the body works in school.
3. Experience: you saw people get very sick from consuming too much sugar, so you wanted to avoid the same fate.

It seems magical, but it’s rather easy to see where the inputs came from once you decide to look. It’s a pleasant illusion of self-control that no-doubt has roots in evolutionary biology. It wants you to believe that the physical variables existed and put pressure on your decisions, but then you leveraged your deep insight and sage-like experience to temper and enhance the outcome. But in reality, all that happened was your genetics, education, and experience became part of the variables.

And this is constantly happening. It’s the Butterfly Effect. You missed the train in London because you stopped to give money to a homeless person. Because you missed the train you had to wait for a taxi, and the taxi driver who picked you up had a heart attack while driving, which led to an accident where you broke your wrist. And because you broke your wrist you couldn’t play hockey for a month. And because of that you didn’t get on the team plane to fly to Hawaii–a plane that crashed and killed everyone on board.

So, because a homeless person got moved into your path randomly (he was just told to move from his regular spot that morning) you didn’t die in a plane crash along with five of your close friends.

What does this have to do with free will? Well, when you go to get on a plane next time, or you go to give money to a homeless person, all this information will be processed by your brain–both subconsciously and consciously–and an outcome will result. That outcome will seem purely self-made, but in fact it will have been a product of how much you know about statistics, whether you’ve read this post or not, whether you know what the Butterfly Effect is, how hungry you are, how tired you are, AND the fact that you know all these things are variables.

But whether you have this knowledge or not doesn’t change the physical reality that all of this information is simply processed as variables–all within the realm of the natural world. An outcome will result, and you won’t know exactly what variables led to that outcome, but you will no-doubt feel as if you were the one making the choice. It’s an illusion–just as with simpler examples that don’t involve conscious analysis.

The Influence Element

One thing I find peculiar about the free will argument, when coming from educated and intelligent people, is that they accept that food and drugs and all sorts of chemical and hormonal levels affect the ability to make decisions, yet they fail to see how free will is being infringed upon by these influences.

Here are a few of my favorite examples:

1. being attracted to beautiful women
2. wanting water when you get rescued out of a desert after a day without
3. being unable to think about Calculus or Chess if you’re in extreme pain
4. exposure to narcotics
5. being knocked unconscious

So, what part of an autonomous you compels you to look at a highly attractive woman when she walks by? Where was your decision to do that? When you are dying of thirst, and your thoughts are consumed with the idea of drinking water, why don’t you simply decide to not want to drink water? If you’ve severely burned yourself on a hot stove, and are in route to the hospital, how come you can’t elect to consider chess moves instead of the pain?

How can a drug like crack cause someone to stop loving their husband, wife, or child? Why doesn’t an addict simply choose not to be affected by the drug? Or, what choice do you have to pass out or not if your air supply is cut off to your brain? You are you, right? Who’s going to tell you to go unconscious if you don’t want to?

The answer is that, to varying degrees, we lose control over ourselves when exposed to variables in the environment. This can be anything from being unable to stop stealing glances at attractive breasts, to feeling euphoria from an opiate, to being unable to avoid passing out while in a choke hold. And most intelligent free-willers accept this. The key is realizing that passing out from the choke is very much the same as wanting to look at a pretty girl.

This exact same phenomenon is going on at all times–every moment of every day–within our own bodies and minds. Every single decision we make is being guided in precisely the same way as passing out from lack of oxygen to the brain, or by consumed by thirst, or dizzy with alcohol poisoning. So the question becomes: if we know we’re losing some degree of free will by being under these influences, and you know that every metric in your body affects those same decisions, why would you assume that when the extreme and obvious variables go away you somehow regain free will?

Conclusion

Just because you feel it, doesn’t mean it’s there.

I do not see any way in which true free will is compatible with a physical, non-supernatural reality. Atoms crash into each other according to laws (add randomness, if you so desire), and at the end of any particular human decision point (an arbitrary point from the perspective of physics) you arrive at an outcome.

These events move through us. The illusion of free will can perhaps be described as a function of consciousness whereby we are able to vaguely glimpse some portion of the variable combination process, and, through some feat of evolutionary trickery, become convinced that we had a part in it. The fact that our bodies have been programmed to irrationally attribute some of these outcomes to our own decision-making powers (outside the world of physics) is no-doubt a scientific phenomenon that’s much easier to explain than any would-be magical decision source.

Free will, like the empirical truth of popular religions, will soon be seen for what it is–an illusion. Whether those constructs are useful is another matter altogether, but their basis in reality will not be debated by the intellectual elite for much longer. That time will soon pass, and I for one will be glad when it happens.

But for those who still cling to it, the challenge is clear. Show us the source of human decision-making that exists outside of the physical world. Only then will you have any basis for true (as opposed to practical) free will. ::

[ 2009-07-07 : EDIT | Argument clean-up. ]