- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Implications of debate over existence of free will are profound. How we resolve the debate determines our world view of whether we are victims of genetics and environment or bear responsibility for our intentions, decisions, and choices. Read More
Free will being an illusion
Free will being an illusion arises mainly from (hard) determinism, that everything is tied through an unbroken chain of causes and effects. Also subscribing to physicalism, I agree with the assertion that free will is an illusion. Desires and decisions have causes, therefore they arise not of free will. I don't think "free will" is the right expression for this article; the focii are the influences of the conscious and unconscious, as well as drawing the line between the two. Regardless, this is still an interesting topic, as I've read quite a bit on the unconscious effects of pheromones, ovulation, attractiveness and the sense of touch.
"Belief" in determinism and that free-will is an illusion
Belief should be confined to religion. How can you accept the supposed evidence against free will, without apparently reading my criticisms of the published research?
There are certainly unconscious effects of pheromones, ovulation, and all sorts of things. That has nothing to do with the argument. Read my original paper; the journal is on-line.
While I have no real
While I have no real disagreement with your criticism of these experiments, I do disagree with the following,
Most deliberate new learning has to be mediated by free will, because subconscious mind has not yet had a chance to learn.
You seem to be presenting a dichotomy of 1) subconscious = not free will, and 2) conscious = free will
But 2 is to me a non-sequitur, and it's a matter of causation. If we are to take a materialistic view of the universe, as a universe that follows laws (ie scientific view), then anything that ever happens is absolutely contingent upon the events that precede it. How can free will fit into a universe that does not allow even the slightest divergences from its law-based cause and effect, where ones thoughts are merely the product of a brain, both subconscious and conscious, that follows laws no different from anything else in the universe?
In order for free will to exist we must have either a non-materialistic universe (eg dualism), or a universe without absolute laws in such a way that would allow the potential for multiple outcomes, including a brain with some mechanism of indentifying and acting upon these opportunities - for effects to exist without strong contingency upon a cause. Presently I don't believe either of these is tenable.
Fiee Will
William said: "Some willed action, as when first learning to play a musical instrument or touch type must be freely willed because the subconscious mind cannot know ahead of time what to do."
This is the best argument against the more sophisticated arguments that the conscious experience is causally neutral, and the experience of conscious causation an illusion, as put out by Wegner et al, see: http://scienceblog.com/14392/the-illusion-of-free-will/
Free will is no illusion
No, I am not making either claim. As I make clear in the original scholarly publication, subconscious will certainly exists, and conscious mind does many things that do not involve free will, including becoming aware of subconsciously mediated willed behavior.
But I think (and the official peer reviewers agree) that I have made a strong case that free will does exist.
Further, I do not accept that free will can only occur in a non-materialistic universe. In fact, my new book ("Atoms of Mind. The 'Ghost in the Machine Materializes,"in press with Springer)makes just that case, that materialistic mind can generate free will.
"In the typical experiment
"In the typical experiment supporting illusory free will, a subject is asked to voluntarily press a button at any time and notice the position of a clock marker when they think they first willed the movement."
There are two instructions here:
1) press a button at will
2) notice the position of the clock marker
These instructions are implicitly linked by the order in which they are given. The noticing or at least the bringing to the forefront of consciousness of the clock marker may in itself be an act of will. This makes it very difficult to draw any conclusions from these experiments about the true nature of free will.
I also find it somewhat ironic that the subjects were instructed to do something "voluntarily". The very nature of free will is a decision free from external constraint and an experimenter's instruction is a fairly strong constraint. The only thing theoretically free in those experiments was the timing. I wonder what neurological processes were actually involved in selecting the moment of movement and observation.
Voluntarily following instructions
Joseph reinforces my criticisms of so-called free-will experiments by pointing out something everybody has missed. Namely, the instructions given to the subjects violates the spirit of free will.
Actually I addressed this in the Adv. Cog. Psychol. paper by pointing out that subjects had to keep these "rules of the game" in working memory, and these neural processes would have had electrical signatures antecedent to the movement.
I also discussed the thoughts subjects must have had prior to movement about when to choose to move. This in turn must also have had electrical signatures.
Given all the many problems with attempts to falsify the notion of free will, I suspect there is no good way to do it.
Free will
This artcle by William Klemm questions the science behing the "illusion of Free Will," by statements such as “Most deliberate new learning has to be mediated by free will, because subconscious mind has not yet had a chance to learn.” This statement is flawed for obvious reasons; among them, the subconscious does not decide to learn voluntarily; it is programmed rather passively. The other criticism in the same article is that, “The implications of this debate are profound. It determines our world view of whether we are victims of genetics and environment or bear responsibility for our intentions, decisions, and choices. I contend we are responsible for what we make of our brains and for our choices and decisions in life. In a free-will world, people can choose to extricate themselves from many kinds of misfortune - not to men-tion make the right choices that can prevent misfortune.” Again, as we can see, the author is resorting to inflammatory labels (“victim”) and subjective and personal moral arguments (“bear responsibility,” I contend,” “right choices,” etc.). Science and objective reality is not about anybody’s opinion, no matter how elaborate, emotional, or moral. Science is not about responsibilty or guilt. Science is about facts, even if they might appear immoral, neutral, or unacceptable by one’s conscience.
Subconscious choices/decisions
On the first point, I agree that subconscious mind, by definition, cannot make a voluntary choice. Where did I say otherwise? The critic accuses me of an error I do not commit. Incidentally, the critic implies (but did not actually say so) that subconscious mind cannot not make "choices." But "choice" is a decision, and if you don't tie yourself up in philosophical knots of semantic nuance, you must conclude that the nervous system makes "decisions" both consciously and subconsciously.
My point was, and is, that a choice to learn something new may arise from other than programmed subconsciousness, and to do so, it must emerge from some aspect of free will. For example, if I choose to play a new chord on the piano that I have not programmed my subconscious mind on what the chord is and how to finger it, the subconscious mind cannot execute this act because it does not know how. Now, one could argue that the choice to play a new chord can ONLY arise subconsciously, but how would you prove that? Moreover, even if the choice is made subconsciously, how does a subconscious mind know how to play a new chord it has never seen? Can it learn the pattern on sheet music and will the appropriate finger commands under anesthesia? No, you have to be conscious to do that, and thus an element of free will has to be present. By no means am I saying that all willed actions are free.
There are those, presumably like the critic, who concede that consciousness might help guide the execution of willed actions, but all of the choices arise from the subconscious. But the burden of proof is on the advocates of illusory free will. The point of my published paper was that the so-called evidence for illusory free will provided in the research literature does not satisfy that burden of proof.
On the second point, the critic complains that science has no business dealing with opinions, moral arguments, and the like. But what I said was "the IMPLICATIONS of this debate are profound." Does the critic assert that we should not draw implications from science? Is science irrelevant to trying to understand mental function and to influence human attitudes and behavior? This second criticism seems to me to be contrived out of the critic's bias against the possibility of free will. If we limit our understanding and use of science just to its facts, we strip science of its power to change the human condition.
I hope you all will check out my new book from Springer, "Atoms of Mind," due out this Spring. The book tackles a lot of mind-body issues.
Free Will is a Convincing Illusion, Granted
Sam Harris presents a more compelling argument suggesting that willing oneself to do something is an illusion. It doesn't mean that people aren't responsible: we needn't throw in "it's good for society" if we're really talking about the truth on this issue, cough cough, Klemm. Klemm takes the rather pathetic approach of "free will must exist in order to have a good society" but that simply doesn't wash! We conscious beings should be held responsible, but not because we have this 'will' power supposed by so many who have fallen for the hallucination (fallen because they have been programmed with faulty programing).
Some people believe in
Some people believe in determinism, others free will. Some will be more biased towards "evidence" for determinism, and others towards the evidence for free will.
The problem has nothing to do
The problem has nothing to do with consciousness.
The only version of free will we can have is compatible with determinism.
This is because the problem with determinism is that we have one future we can get to from our acual past. Which means in order to make a good choice we need the good fortune that making that choice was our one possible future we could get to from the past.
Belief in free will is belief that we can overcome this luck.
But indeterminism can't help us do this, it just adds a different sought of luck.
To see why this is good news rather than bad see this: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sapient-nature/201205/free-will-is-i...
Post new comment