Dialog Concerning Free Will

I was in an interesting exchange at Uncommon Descent a couple of days ago:

The reason I’m a Christian instead of a Deist is because I believe human beings have free will.

If that’s the only true reason you’re a Christian, then that’s a silly reason for you to be one.

Free will is, for all intents and purposes, an illusion. Try defining for yourself what free will even means. Just think about it for a minute. What is “free will”?

The idea that we have wants? Yes, people want things. But for your will to be “free” instead of merely a deterministic cause-and-effect process? What does it mean for your will to be “free”? That you don’t follow your will sometimes? I suppose if you wanted to frustrate yourself. But then again you’d only make that decision because you wanted to frustrate yourself, and because the desire to do so was stronger than some other desire that might have taken precedence.

As individual organisms we react to the environment. As the environment changes, so does the individual’s concept of the “right thing”. The environment is dictating your input - perception is the key and it can be manipulated. It is a combination of pressures, some internal and some external, that collectively dictate our pathway through life.

That’s why free will is bunk. Our personality - our will, or essence - is not free. If anything, it’s steady and solid. Humans are creatures of habit; it’s patterns in behavior that make us who we are, not some sort of quasi-religious entity called a “soul” hanging off in some other dimension.

----- RDK



RDK says:

Free will is, for all intents and purposes, an illusion. Try defining for yourself what free will even means. Just think about it for a minute. What is “free will”?

Given that you were absolutely bound and determined to make that utterance by the causal history of the universe, it became evident that it was not necessary to read the rest of your post. After all, with no free will, and due to strict physical determinism, it cannot have been caused by a process of reasoning from premises to conclusions. If I am constrained to have to observe the mere outworking of physics and causal histories, it is preferable to me to watch the rustling of the leaves outside my window, rather than the rustlings of the text following your assertion. Besides, I think the rustlings of Gil Dodgen’s and other IDist texts are much more soothing than yours.

But then I am absolutely constrained to do so, lacking free will and all. I just can’t help it. Others here might find resonance between their neural rustlings and your textual rustlings, but not me. Perhaps if the Big Bang had occurred a few Planck durations sooner or later, it might be an entirely different story. But, you know, all we can do is work with what we’ve been given.

----- Matteo

Given that you were absolutely bound and determined to make that utterance by the causal history of the universe, it became evident that it was not necessary to read the rest of your post. After all, with no free will, and due to strict physical determinism, it cannot have been caused by a process of reasoning from premises to conclusions.

So the brain’s ability to reason and conclude is refuted by the fact that instead of free will, our actions are determined causally? Right. That makes perfect sense.

Besides, I think the rustlings of Gil Dodgen’s and other IDist texts are much more soothing than yours.

Forgive me for not wasting your time by telling you what you want to hear. Meaning ridiculous notions of some floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains.

Mr. Hayden. Do you believe chimps have free will? What about dogs?

----- RDK

“Forgive me for not wasting your time by telling you what you want to hear. Meaning ridiculous notions of some floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains.”

Again, you had to say that, so there is nothing to forgive. Why, then, would you ask for forgiveness? Surpassing strange.

----- Matteo

Again, you had to say that, so there is nothing to forgive. Why, then, would you ask for forgiveness? Surpassing strange.

Glad we understand each other! ;)

----- RDK






“So the brain’s ability to reason and conclude is refuted by the fact that instead of free will, our actions are determined causally? Right. That makes perfect sense.”

Hmmmm. If the brain is perfectly capable of carrying out purely physical computational operations in order to “reason” and “conclude”, then why, oh why, does it even bother to be conscious at all? No other physical computer needs consciousness to get the job done, so why would the brain? If a “floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains” can’t really add a damned thing to any outcome, then why aren’t we merely unconscious meat robots? Why hasn’t Occam swung his magic razor in this case?

Moreover, since what goes on in the subjectivity of any such “”floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains” is wholly irrelevant as a cause to behavior (since computational physics gets the entire job done quite nicely, thank you), then how in the world could natural selection mold this wholly irrelevant subjectivity in such a way that it bears the slightest relation to reality? After all, since it can have no real causative effect, it simply doesn’t matter whether or not it bears such a relation, or indeed, exists at all.

Feel free to give me your best answer.

----- Matteo

Hmmmm. If the brain is perfectly capable of carrying out purely physical computational operations in order to “reason” and “conclude”, then why, oh why, does it even bother to be conscious at all?

You’re conflating free will with consciousness. Consciousness is a result of our ability to perceive ourselves, much like what some dogs (and chimps) can do; a “loop” if you will. Again - what part of consciousness makes our will “free”? I’ve asked the question a handful of times and nobody’s risked an answer to it.

No other physical computer needs consciousness to get the job done, so why would the brain?

Really now? So you’re purporting that the laptop or desktop you’re using right now can perform all the necessary functions to type on this message board without human input?

But even that’s beside the case. Consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently sophisticated perception systems; it’s not an add-on feature. You wouldn’t say mosquitoes, or any other lower life form, are conscious, would you?

What about dogs? Chimps?

Moreover, since what goes on in the subjectivity of any such “”floating quasi-religious entity housed inside each and every one of our brains” is wholly irrelevant as a cause to behavior (since computational physics gets the entire job done quite nicely, thank you), then how in the world could natural selection mold this wholly irrelevant subjectivity in such a way that it bears the slightest relation to reality? After all, since it can have no real causative effect, it simply doesn’t matter whether or not it bears such a relation, or indeed, exists at all.

Read my answer to your question above. Consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently complicated, sophisticated brain systems. Although I have to say I’m not catching the gist of this particular question. You’re asking me to explain the cause and effect of something that A) doesn’t partake in cause and effect, and B) doesn’t exist.

Anyone care to answer my questions about free will? It’s very telling for the creationist side when my questions are met with more questions.

----- RDK






“Consciousness is an emergent property…”

In other words, everything is going along swimmingly, just running fine on pure physics, and then *poof*, emergence occurs? And a consciousness that can’t *really* steer anything just kind of pops into existence to enjoy the ride?

And I thought materialists didn’t believe in magic.

“Really now? So you’re purporting that the laptop or desktop you’re using right now can perform all the necessary functions to type on this message board without human input?”

Very interesting you should say this, because you yourself are purporting that the brain can perform all of its functions without a “floating quasi-religious entity”. So which is it? Is the lack of input from something outside the computer a problem, or is it not?

Do computers need a Programmer and an Operator or don’t they?

Obviously we can choose to go back and forth on this endlessly, but I don’t think anyone of intellectual distinction would choose to decide one way or another based on blog comments. Might I suggest to you the choice of reading Miracles by C.S. Lewis and Philosophy of Mind by Edward Feser? Should you choose to do so, I think you might find them fascinating.

It is possible that you might then choose to view the idea of “emergence” as a bit more problematical than you currently do. That’s the choice I made. But it’s up to you!

----- Matteo



“You’re conflating free will with consciousness.”

Free will presupposes consciousness. If your schema cannot give a sufficient reason for consciousness, then the free will question becomes moot.

----- Matteo

In other words, everything is going along swimmingly, just running fine on pure physics, and then *poof*, emergence occurs? And a consciousness that can’t *really* steer anything just kind of pops into existence to enjoy the ride?

And I thought materialists didn’t believe in magic.

Once again; consciousness is not free will. Free will may suppose consciousness, but I’m not arguing for free will, so I don’t know why you keep asking me to. All I’m asking is to imagine a world without the notion of “free” will - a world very much like our own.

Very interesting you should say this, because you yourself are purporting that the brain can perform all of its functions without a “floating quasi-religious entity”. So which is it? Is the lack of input from something outside the computer a problem, or is it not?

Do computers need a Programmer and an Operator or don’t they?

The human brain is not like a desktop computer. Not even close.

Obviously we can choose to go back and forth on this endlessly, but I don’t think anyone of intellectual distinction would choose to decide one way or another based on blog comments. Might I suggest to you the choice of reading Miracles by C.S. Lewis and Philosophy of Mind by Edward Feser? Should you choose to do so, I think you might find them fascinating.

It is possible that you might then choose to view the idea of “emergence” as a bit more problematical than you currently do. That’s the choice I made. But it’s up to you!

Thank you for the suggestion; I’ll have to pick up Philosophy of the Mind, but I’m afraid I’ve already read most of C.S. Lewis’s works, and I’m not much of a Lewis fan to say the least. Most of my mind studies background comes from Dennett and Hofstadter.

Free will presupposes consciousness. If your schema cannot give a sufficient reason for consciousness, then the free will question becomes moot.

The emergence of consciousness comes about from the brain’s ability (once it becomes sophisticated enough) to loop back and perceive itself, very much like how some dogs and modern chimps are able to do.

----- RDK




“The emergence of consciousness comes about from the brain’s ability (once it becomes sophisticated enough) to loop back and perceive itself, very much like how some dogs and modern chimps are able to do.”

Again, magic.

Look, I can certainly believe that the loopback and “self perception” is important to how the unconscious physical computational system operates, perhaps allowing it to do what it couldn’t do before, but there is still a radical disconnect. What am I doing in the middle of such a looped back physical computational system, what are you doing in the middle of one, what is anyone doing in the middle of one? Feedback can do some neat stuff, but last I checked, when you aim a video camera at its own monitor screen, no elves pop into existence. And I can certainly turn up my guitar amp to give me infinite sustain due to feedback, but I never saw Jimi Hendrix pop into existence via such a process.

Feedback may well be necessary to give a mindless robot some higher level functional behavior, but if you’re asserting that it can put a genie into an empty bottle, well, I think you’re going to have to show your work on that one.

----- Matteo






“Free will may suppose consciousness, but I’m not arguing for free will, so I don’t know why you keep asking me to.”

I would never ask anyone to argue for free will. It is unnecessary. Free will is data. However, what you purport to do is explain the non-existence of something that self-evidently exists. As such you’d need to explain free will as an illusion somehow generated by material arrangements. Now I’m just trying to make it easier on you. You don’t even have to explain the illusion of free will, but only something more simple and foundational, namely how it is that arrangements of matter give rise to someone to have the illusion.

So far, what we seem to have is:

(1) Feedback loops in a physical computation system.

(2) ?

(3) Voila!

----- Matteo




Hi Matteo,

I would never ask anyone to argue for free will. It is unnecessary. Free will is data. However, what you purport to do is explain the non-existence of something that self-evidently exists. As such you’d need to explain free will as an illusion somehow generated by material arrangements. Now I’m just trying to make it easier on you. You don’t even have to explain the illusion of free will, but only something more simple and foundational, namely how it is that arrangements of matter give rise to someone to have the illusion.

What exactly is self-evident about it? Is it self-evident in the same way that the sun revolving around the earth was self-evident to the church hundreds of years ago?

In reality, free will is simply a way of speaking that we have adopted because it is useful for us to do so. It doesn’t follow that we actually have some sort of “free” will (which as of yet still requires a coherent defintion). Rather, it seems that we are pre-disposed to certain types of habits and behaviours that emerge from the interaction of the environment in which we live. Organism + Experience = predisposition to act. A prime example is personality types. No doubt you can guess how certain friends of yours are going to act before the actual event, knowingly saying to others: “Oh, that’s just Phil,” or “Well, that’s Bob for you!”

Obviously my explanation isn’t good enough for you. Seeing as how trying to prove that something doesn’t exist (whether or not it is “self-evident” to certain parties) is nigh impossible, instead maybe you should make a compelling case for why you believe the concept of “free will” is a scientifically valid one. You still have yet to properly define the term we’re using, and I’d really like to see a detailed argument for the seemingly physical existence of something that isn’t physical. Or are you saying that it really isn’t physical? Because in that case it can’t be tested.

In any case, your position is unclear.

----- RDK






“Or are you saying that it really isn’t physical? Because in that case it can’t be tested.”

Yeah. It’s non-physical and it can’t be tested. So what? It’s that thing we use to choose to do scientific testing with in the first place. It’s that thing that is a basic part of our makeup that allows us to freely theorize scientifically. It does not need to justify itself via scientific argument because it is the basis of scientific argument.

Your supposition that everything important needs to have a physical explanation is something that you have chosen freely. The fact that you have gotten yourself into a philosophical/methodological thicket over the issue is not relevant to whether or not free will is data.

I mean come on, are you engaging in this conversation because you want to, or because you are robotically compelled to? Do you have some burning need to demote your own freedom in such a way?

I have no idea whether you are in this category, but it’s the strangest thing: on the one hand, atheists want to defeat the idea of God or spirit (I mean where else could our free will come from) so they can be free to do whatever they want without worrying about divine judgment, but then they turn around and assert that they don’t believe in free will anyway. They want to be free, while asserting that there is no such thing as free.

Again, surpassing strange.

----- Matteo




Just to preempt a fairly obvious retort that I’m trying to stop science with a “God’s the explanation” statement. It’s much simpler than that: if a sound philosophical argument can be made that explaining mind or the “illusion” of free will via the functioning of special arrangements of matter wholly determined by physical causation just cannot get you from A to B, well then them’s the breaks. That’s just the way it is. Science is thereby freed not to waste its time on the impossible, just as its freed from searching for perpetual motion, or just how the sun goes around the earth, or what is the right way to turn lead into gold via common household chemicals. It’s not a loss for science, it’s a gain.

----- Matteo




For what it’s worth, I wasn’t going to reply with the “science stopper” argument because there’s no point in arguing about a deity, Judeo-Christian Yahweh or othewise, until you overcome the hurdle of free will. And just like clockwork, there you go again, completely ignoring the bulk of my post. What a wonderful real-life analogy for my “humans are creatures of habit” rant! Let’s try again.

Obviously my explanation isn’t good enough for you. Seeing as how trying to prove that something doesn’t exist (whether or not it is “self-evident” to certain parties) is nigh impossible, instead maybe you should make a compelling case for why you believe the concept of “free will” is a scientifically valid one. You still have yet to properly define the term we’re using, and I’d really like to see a detailed argument for the seemingly physical existence of something that isn’t physical. Or are you saying that it really isn’t physical? Because in that case it can’t be tested.

In any case, your position is unclear.

I’d really like to know your position before I go about “attacking” it. All I’m really asking for is a coherent definition of “free will”, because I have the suspicion that in reality we essentially have similar views (minus the Yahweh thing), and semantics are getting in the way.

----- RDK






“I’d really like to know your position before I go about “attacking” it. All I’m really asking for is a coherent definition of “free will”, because I have the suspicion that in reality we essentially have similar views (minus the Yahweh thing), and semantics are getting in the way.”

Perhaps so, but what I really don’t understand is why I should need to provide a coherent definition of free will, any more than I should be able to provide an exact description of, say, the color yellow to a blind person. Free will is free will. Yellow is yellow. Can you defend the position that “free will” is a thing that requires analysis?

It’s as bloody obvious to me that I have it as that the color yellow looks like yellow. It’s that thing I use when I decide something is worth analysing, that thing I use to judge and make distinctions with, that thing that commands the various faculties of my intellect to assist me in figuring things out. In short, it’s the thing doin’ the analysin’, not the thing to be analysed.

This is all classical metaphysical stuff.

Again, you seem to have gotten yourself into some sort of scientistic thicket. You have willfully boxed yourself with reason into such a position that you don’t even believe in the thing that commands your reason. You have somehow gotten yourself into a situation of self-refutation. This is a sure sign that you need to retrace your steps.

Science is supposed to explain the basic things of experience, not explain them away. There are some things it can handle, and some it can’t. But for science to claim that that which it is not competent to explain, simply doesn’t exist, is an indication that it’s gotten a little too big for its britches. Now, why do you want to be such close friends with such a “pompous blowhard” as “science” beyond the competence of real science? True science is groovy, true philosophy is groovy, true theology is groovy. Don’t you want to make some other friends, you know, for some intellectual variety? Can you prove scientifically that science is the complete route to all true knowledge? I mean, heck, Godel proved that no finite mathematical system is the route to all true mathematical knowledge. Why not branch out a little?

RDK, with all fancy scientistic wrappings put aside, are you a man, or are you a robot? Or just a man who has willfully convinced himself that he is a robot?

----- Matteo