Let’s start 2016 with two subjects dear to my heart: cats and free will. This cartoon, by Maria Scrivan, shows that in one respect cats are superior to many people in their understanding of the physical basis of mentation. I should add that seeing this written resolution might act on the cat’s brain to modify its future behavior:
Here’s a recently published Dilbert Classic, which not only gives the truth about “free will,” but shows the kind of fear mongering promoted by compatibilists who claim that without some notion of free will, we’re lost:
h/t: jsp, Janet D.
I love it, oh and by the way, Happy New Year all!
My theory that belongs to me is as follows.
Cats have free will, dogs have tamed will, and some humans are compatible with both.
Sorry if these may have been discussed before, but I have not followed the debate at all times. What about these as rebuttals against there being free will?
1. Maybe there are parts of your brain that have free will that processed things before the conscious part gets a hold of it. It would be a little creepy, but these regions would make choices for you without your conscious control. Compatibalists might not welcome this argument since these putative regions would be outside of where conscious choices are made, but if we expand the boundaries of the term a little to include any thing with free will….
2. Why is the issue black and white? Could we have some degree of free will + some degree of automated response while we appear to make choices? This may be similar to #1, but I am tossing it out there anyway to see what happens.
I hope the above makes sense. I am a tad hung over.
The problem with arguing any degree of free will at all is that it would require some sort of out and out randomness. Although it’s impossible, imagine being able to rewind the universe so that you were faced with the making the same decision again. Nothing is different. All the circumstances remain the same, all the impulses, all the neurons are as they were. That means that you would absolutely have to make exactly the same ‘decision’ again. Hence free will would still be an illusion, albeit a very convincing one.
Most physicists agree that if you re-wound even a rather modest event, like boiling a cup of water, the arrangement of molecules leaving the cup from vaporization would never be the exact same order. This is asserted by Statistical Mechanics, i.e., large numbers providing inherent systematic fluctuations that can never be fully predicted.
You could go further by asserting a multiverse view, which suggests re-winding events could lead to the same outcome, but would be as unlikely as producing Boltzmann Brains.
I don’t disagree that Statistical Mechanics renders prediction of the movement of atoms, and suchlike, impossible, but that is to be distinguished from my rewinding model. ‘Fully predicted’ is different to an exact replication of what has gone before, in which vapour molecules would move exactly as they did before. The only way in which this would be otherwise if there really were a truly random element, and on that there is disagreement.
I agree Statistical Mechanics would not rule out determinism given that replaying the tape means perfect replication of conditions. My understanding is that there is pretty much agreement that there is randomness due to uncertainty and fluctuations at the subatomic level. I don’t know how much that would alter boiling water.
Additionally, I doubt that random events have anything to do with free will.
Thanks. I think that is a very strong argument against the notion regarding free will. If we had f.w. at any level, then we should be free to change our minds under admittedly specific conditions.
This is why the philosopher R. Kane thinks that one only has “self forming actions” sometimes, which if he were right then allows free will at later times. The “mechanism” he proposes for these is somewhat laughable and suffers from the usual “roulette wheel vs. billiard ball” problem, though.
“Maybe there are parts of your brain that have free will that processed things before the conscious part gets a hold of it”
Spot on!
Two points here:
1) If consciously (and with free will) you essentially had “programmed” part of your brain to execute a decision for a certain type of situation, having that decision reached before the conscious part of your brain notices it was still an effect of free will
2) The brain is a complex multiprocessing entity. Processing – (in this case free will) is “distributed” in such a system. If the supervisor unit becomes “conscious” the result of a process after the result was established it is only a reflection of the nature of multi-computing – no big deal!
But reading the above, one can counter-argue that the putative brain areas with free will really don’t. At least from the standpoint that if we repeat history those areas will really have no choice but to repeat history as well.
howie,
Your point #2 – processing is distributed – nails it. I don’t get why Libet and some other scientists and commentators assume that consciousness is the only “you” there is. No it’s not. So it doesn’t follow that if your consciousness didn’t do it, you didn’t do it. In terms of Daniel Kahneman’s writings on System 1 and System 2 – both systems are us; both make us who we are.
With regard to #1 consider that the brain edits out a bunch of information before even handing it over to the visual cortex.
One of the things I recall being taught about the brains’ organization is that the sensory centers like the visual cortex have nearby ‘association centers’ that store information about things you had learned thru your senses. Your visual association center has a stored memory of what your car keys look like, and it is that which sends signals to your forebrain when you see your car keys. Other other association centers store information about sounds, touch, etc.
If I recall, I think there are cases where a person has damage to an association center, so they cannot recognize a familiar object but while undamaged association centers still can. For example, imagine a person with damage to their visual association center. They are not blind, but they may not recognize their own car keys when they see them. But put the keys in their hand and their intact association center for touch will immediately recognize the car keys.
What I mean is, your conscious brain doesn’t get to decide what information it sees as the unconscious parts are handling a lot of stuff so free will then becomes even more questionable.
There are certainly random, quantum events that – if we could actually rewind the clock – could cause a person to act differently than they did in the previous instance. However, they would be extremely rare (please see http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/FreeWillSkeptic.pdf)
However, no one has ever been able to coherently explain how a human could have acted differently in a situation given THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONS. Whether it is my conscious or unconscious mind (which the dividing line is not really well defined), my hand still operates based on nervous signals. Those nervous signals are still produced through purely physical processes whether some of them are a result of random cosmic radiation or not. So, no matter how you look at, nothing we do can be other than than what what we did. I think the problem we get into is in defining “free-will.” There is the common legal definition (which I agree with), means basically, “Did you enter into this agreement without being coerced.” And then there is philosophical question of, “could the person have done differently than what they did at the time?” In human effects I think both definitions matter; they affect both the civil and criminal justice systems, the way we treat the disadvantaged, the way treat the disabled, etc.
I wish some bright and respected scholar would get the above message across (not going to be easy, many bright and respected scholars disagree with me).
Why would anyone want to act differently in the *exact same conditions*? The conditions would include my beliefs, values, emotions, and plans all being the same, everything that makes me me and thus everything I would want my actions to flow from. If I’d do something different, that looks less like free will and more like random noise.
Absolutely a Great Point!
How would we be able to decide the difference between contra-causal free-will and absolute random behavior?
BTW, great moniker. I always like to say, “there has never been a ghost detected in my machine.” But you even take a step further by disavowing the machine, bold.
Thanks. I always thought that “the machine ” was a slur, a straw man, which materialists should reject. Neither its denotation nor connotation fit the human animal.
🐾🐾🎉
Well, I would suggest that it’s time to put Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience by Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld on the 2016 “Books to Read” list. For the past two plus years, I’ve taken workshops and done extensive reading in neuroscience. The best I can say is that the assertions by “Incompatibilists” about “free will” go beyond what neuroscience allows. As for today’s “cat and free will” cartoon, and the reference to the relevant neuroscience research has been cited by David Eagleman (PBS videos on “The Brain”) has been reasonably challenged by Satel and Lilienfeld. It’s simply one of many examples of going beyond what the science allows. Most of the “Incompatibilists” arguments posted here are arguments from physics albeit even quantum physics. It’s understanding of how the brain functions is reminiscent of B.F. Skinner’s “Behaviorism” – stimulus/response, cause/effect which is considered as archaic by today’s neuroscience research. My own opinion regarding “free will” is still being formed, and as I continue to study the highly contested neuroscience research and its debate, I hope to form an evolving scientific understanding of the monist and materialist mind/brain issue. Another great book that challenges neuroscience claims is by the neuroscientist Gregory Hickok The Myth of Mirror Neurons: The Real Neuroscience of Communication and Cognition.
Congrats on the great success of WEIT and Happy New Year to all!!!
Thanks for this comment. It makes good points about the current state of neuroscience. Happy New Year.
The Dilbert cartoon is pretty good. It does sadly reflect the little people argument, which I’ve also found extra awful because it places neuroscientists in the roll of omniscient oligarchs, protecting us from the truth because it might give us a bit of a fright.
I appreciate how two simple cartoons can generate such thought provoking comments.
Happy New Year PCC(e) and readers!
If I had free will I would never subscribe to this post…
Either way, it was determined in the Big Bang that you would so…..
No free will, no crime.