December 16, 2012
-
What it is about free will?
JDN 2456778 EDT 21:26.
Why does the concept of free will lead to such intense disagreement, even among people who otherwise agree? Jerry Coyne mocks hapless bloggers who make bad arguments for free will, but come on, it’s easy to make a bad argument for a good position.
In fact, free will seems to be a situation where even once we agree on all the facts, we still disagree intensely on the semantics. Even once all the fact nodes are set, the algorithm demands one more node.
But here’s the thing: There are compatibilists (or “requiredists“) who recognize this problem, and offer the following solution: “Okay, don’t call it ‘free will’. Talk about rational volition processes and cognitive decision algorithms.” And yet, incompatibilists refuse to accept this solution, and my question is: Why?
I think it’s because they really do think there are moral implications of determinism. They have bought into the framework that religious “free will” offered them, and haven’t questioned it (or questioned it thoroughly enough). When Sam Harris argues that life without free will would mean no retributive punishment, it’s clear he thinks that something very important hinges upon whether we call the faculties we obviously do have “free will”.
But there are really only two possibilities here, even logically: “A: We have no control over our actions.” “B: We have some control over our actions.” Under A, Harris’s argument would read: “We have no control over our actions, therefore we should not use retributive punishment.” Wait… we have no control, therefore we should? We can’t should anything, if we have no control over our actions. So let’s try the other one: “We have control over our actions that isn’t ‘free will,’ therefore we should not use retributive punishment.” And here the question inevitably arises: Well, why not?
Coyne and Harris actually seem to think A, which is why I always shake my head when I read their posts about free will. They say things like “A chicken makes decisions; do chickens have free will?” YES! Dammit man, what kind of anthropocentrist are you? Of course a vertebrate has free will, that shouldn’t even be up for debate honestly. The proper question is about arthropods–or maybe even bacteria. I think I have made very clear that I believe volition is an evolutionary trait we share with many animals. (The same goes for Dennett and Yudkowsky; they’d be the two modern compatibilists to talk about, someday I hope to be the third.)
Yet, if they really do mean that, we must take them to be denying faculties that we obviously do have. A human being can make decisions based on a predictive model of the world. A human being can respond to arguments and incentives. A human being can be persuaded, cajoled, seduced, pressured, encouraged, rewarded, or coerced. Your model of a human must, to be accurate, include very complex interactions between an enormous array of physical components; and actually, to be remotely tractable, it really needs to include higher-order systems like beliefs, intentions, desires, and emotions.
A rock, on the other hand, cannot do these things. You can push a rock, or melt it, or blow it up; but that’s about it. You are limited to very simple physical actions that can be expressed in a very simple physical model—momentum, mass, that sort of thing.
Is the human mind ultimately reducible to such physical properties? We have reason to think so, but the result would be so mind-bogglingly complex that a computer the size of the universe couldn’t process all the data in a billion years. The sense in which humans are “reducible” to atoms is the sense in which a computer program is “reducible” to 0s and 1s. (It’s almost trivial, frankly; I don’t know why anyone doubts it, or why people care so much about it. Yes, we are made of stuff. What else would we be made of?)
Is there some mysterious non-physical substance? Of course not; what would that even mean? But humans are not rocks. We do things rocks don’t. Important things–morally important things. And frankly I don’t see the problem with calling these special faculties we (and some animals, maybe robots, and not much else) have “free will,” but if that has bad connotations for you, by all means, call it something else. I have proposed several alternatives on several occasions: Rational volition, cognition, decision-making processes, behavior algorithms, intelligence… The point is, it makes a difference. You can and should treat an intelligent being different from a mindless physical system. Indeed, rewards and punishments are a very big part of that difference: Intelligent beings respond to incentives and can be operant-conditioned.
Determinism, on the other hand, does not make a difference. We could have no randomness at all, or an awful lot of randomness, and it would not make any difference as far as whether punishment makes sense. (We couldn’t have total randomness, because then we couldn’t survive at all. This is the “required” part of Yudkowsky’s “requiredism”.) You don’t punish a rock, you don’t punish a die roll. Could you punish a robot? Sure, if the robot was configured to learn from punishments (as we are).
There are many legitimate questions to be asked about our justice system, and many important reforms worth making. Psychology and cognitive science have a lot to say about that. But it just doesn’t have a damn thing to do with free will.
Comments (18)
[Is there some mysterious non-physical substance? Of course not;]
You don’t know that. Gravity exists, yet we have never discovered any physical substance that gravity is made of. Photons exist, yet they have no mass. And there are things in quantum physics that we don’t understand. So I think it’s a little arrogant to say of course not. On freewill, I believe it exists and if it doesn’t, then we aren’t responsible for anything we do. And I can’t have any different opinion than I have on this. And neither could you.
This was very well written.
IF we did not have free will, then we would be a puppet on a string to The Almighty and He move the strings and we do what He wants.
This is not what the Scripture tell us. We have free will to either accept or not accept Him, to follow His plan or not.
If we did not have free will, then why go out and witness too people? Because we might be talking to those lost forever.
If that is the case there will be people that will be lost forever with no hope of getting salvation, then we would be serving a Saviour who was unjust.
Bro. Doc
Good post.
My arguments with others often come to a standstill when this issue is touched. Many don’t have a moral basis other than the free will for their punishment. I feel like they punish for the sake of punishing, not for the sake of a solution, or a better balance in the world.
All that of course serves a purpose too: assuming a free will gives you sense of being “empowered” (sadly many wannabe psychologists seem to use that as a strategy, it always drives me nuts), you can collect the laurels for “good choices” and it also paints the world in the wonderfully disticnt colors of black and white…there are naturally “good people” (like you) and entirely “bad people”, that just don’t need to be understood. Everything seems simple and safe.
I fail to follow this argument to its conclusion that there is freewill but neither might I say there is not free will. I am not ready for that and I am not training for that. I honestly at this time cannot say.
Also, I am unaware of the value of the contributing references.
I came here to read your opinion based on a recommendation. I hope to learn more about what you have to offer, so I signed up for friends
As for legislation, protections, and education, not to mention systems of care, our cultures here and throughout the world have not solved these problems. The harm, suffering, and ignorance is there; chaos is there.
Every day suffering is visiting our country and the world. In some places it seems sometimes controlled. Yet, that it is an illusion. This is a world ruled by a myriad of imperfect solutions that sometimes of themselves lead to more suffering.
Please reply as a friend. I would like to continue to receive updates of your work; sincerely. I’ll await forming replies on my time if ever there comes a time when I want to present freewill. Presently, I choose to stay out of the arguments in favor of learning more about the construction of the arguments for and against.
@eshunt@revelife - Just to let you know, he’s an atheist, not a Christian.
@musterion99@xanga – He may worship as he wishes… it seems as we all do so. You recommended this thread. Being my nature, I read presentations that are written for others to understand. As I said, I have difficulty following this freewill presentation, but I see there is possibly a cohesive understanding and I’d like to learn more. Thanks M.
___
I am having no luck getting this comment box to work correctly… I’ll have to settle and let M know in a separate message.
@eshunt@revelife - Yes, I did recommend it. I just wanted to let you know that in case you were wondering.
@eshunt@revelife -
Violence can be reduced; indeed, it is being reduced, as we speak. While there is considerable fluctuation, the general trend in recent history has been toward a reduction in violence worldwide. I highly recommend Steven Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature” if you want to know more about this.
@musterion99 -
Gravity and light are physical phenomena; indeed, they are paradigmatic physical phenomena. You clearly have a much too narrow concept of what physics is. There is much more to physics than fermions. Yes, there are a few things we don’t understand about quantum physics; but we’re working on it. And we know plenty to say that there aren’t any magical fairies living inside the quarks.
For me, free will is being responsible with our actions and listeing to the voice of our conscience.
this is your blog, so I won’t fret that the @ won’t load to you.
No thanks, I’m not going to read long analytical history of modern society that proves that modern cultures have less violence. I can see that for myself.
Violence against innocents… mass murders, serial killers, terrorist acts, deaths due to sex trade, butcher doctors, muggers, drug dealers, robbers, spouses gone wild, and so on don’t make up the war losses to violence and so on—for sure. However, the violence is not manageable is the problem. Millions of people easily rage and some stab or shoot before even asking simple questions. If you actually didn’t notice drugged and drunken individuals are packing. There are more of them every day (so I say). Our culture didn’t solve the problems; the problems will turn into new different problems as has always been the case. There really is no need to recommend the longest most drawn out, superfluous analytical works if you may come up with something easier to investigate or if you can manage to state yourself for discussion. Pinkner’s book is actually more well received than not; and that in fact worries me more than that you may believe that violence is to be or is being better managed. My dear friend, not only is violence forever out of control in our culture, so is drug addiction, drunkenness, promiscuity, porn addiction, gambling addiction, and on and on. Government and social services can’t even put a dent into it. In fact in many cases they promote it or look the other way.
So, visit me. I’ll do my best to teach you about Jesus.
@pnrj - What you replied in no way explains that there’s no non physical substances as I showed there are. Again, gravity and photons have not been shown to have any physical qualities that they’re made of. You could add dark energy to that list.
@eshunt@revelife -
The plural of anecdote is not data. Look up the statistics that actual anthropologists, political scientists, economists, etc. have gathered on rates of violence, and you will see the trend toward a decrease in violence per capita. You really need to read The Better Angels of our Nature.
@musterion99 -
You clearly don’t understand what the word “physical” means, so I see no point in continuing this discussion further. Physics has moved a good deal beyond Newtonian mechanics and its billiard-ball particles. We are all undulations in the all-consuming wavefunction, a unity that nonlocally surpasses our simple notions of time and space. You can talk about the spiritual implications of that if you want (I actually do see something there, as did Bohm and Einstein), but it’s nothing remotely like Christianity, and it’s certainly not non-physical; it is the very essence of physics itself.
And no, I did not prove physicalism in a single blog comment. Nor should I be expected to, though perhaps I’ll try an abridged argument in a later post. Entire books have been written about physicalism, but suffice it to say that in this post my argument is about how free will (of a kind worth having) is compatible with physicalism and determinism. It’s not intended as an argument for determinism, which for this argument I take for granted.
@pnrj -
[You can talk about the spiritual implications of that if you want (I actually do see something there, as did Bohm and Einstein]
That was the point of my comment. You don’t know whether or not a soul or spirit exists apart from our physical body.
“The plural of anecdote is not data.” what is this? I’m reading your replies to M as well. I don’t care about the stats on violence. Evil is prevalent and people suffer. I read reviews on both sides, pro and con. The book isn’t for me. As I said earlier, (something like) the flow of your ideas don’t lead to a conclusion as I discern. I’d thought that perhaps you left something out…now, if it is the book, The Better Angels of our Nature, then I suppose there isn’t any hope for this as a discussion.
Example ‘But there are really only two possibilities here, even logically: “A: We have no control over our actions.” “B: We have some control over our actions.” Under A, Harris’s argument would read: “We have no control over our actions, therefore we should not use retributive punishment.”‘
Where is that conclusion supported? Did you consider other than logical possibilities? I wonder what even you mean by “two possibilities here, even logically”
Well, you may have other areas to attend to. If ever you decide to write a blog that actually discusses free will, let me know if you will be so kind.
@eshunt@revelife -
By “even logically” I mean that these are the logically possible alternatives, not necessarily physically possible. And the proof that they are the only two alternatives follows straightforwardly from the Law of Excluded Middle applied to first-order logic.
I am not interested any longer in discussion. I read your links. I reread your post. I reread a couple of your links and I read some other pages supportive of your linked pages.
I’ve decided that the origin of your views are in conflict with the ordered method of my beliefs. I choose to believe that physics is a result of divine design. I choose not to explore that physics developed from nothing. Thanks for your last comments. I see though that it is entirely a waste of my time to discuss anything other than the 1st fact. God created the universe that you are hoping to describe in physical laws that occur because of chance.
As similar to what one of your friends pointed out, a quark from Pluto is not likely to change the circumstances of your decisions and neither am I. Only you are able to realize that your logic is flawed because you have made a choice to eliminate the cause of all reality. In my mind, that is illogical. It reminds me of the legends of Adam’s first wife. She invoked the name of God to gain all the powers of the universe and shunned God’s angelic emissaries that were sent to convince her of the error of her ways. She decide to shun them and to become a demon. I hope that you may Watch your soul friend. It would be of no use for me to pray for you. You must pray for yourself. Yet, you have no God. That is perhaps sad for you. It is what is for me. Your free mind is butchered by a mindless intellect. Only the mind of Jesus the Christ is relevant. He explains to us the fallen nature of our will and it is free alright. Freedom is not always worth exploring. I choose to not explore fee will here any longer.
@musterion99 - I understand now what you told me. Thanks again. This time, I thank you for also caring about my sanity.