News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Thought experiment: denying free will

Started by AlP, March 08, 2009, 09:11:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AlP

I decided to do a little thought experiment. I tried to deny that I have free will with varying degrees of success.

The first thing I realized is that I can deny anything or indeed make any nonsensical statement whatsoever and then immediately after turn off my mind or just keep repeating the statement over and over without thinking about it. If I do this I will not reject whatever it was I thought, however absurd. However neither will I accept it. It's like the mental equivalent of covering my ears and saying "la la la la".

I realized that if this experiment was going to go anywhere, I would have to deny that I have free will and then actually think about it. I wasn't sure exactly how I should think about it but I decided that burying my head in the sand was unreasonable.

I started out with the statement "I have no free will". I found I can deny that. I can accept that "I will" but claim that I don't have it. That is, my will is not my possesion or my attribute. I found that quite interesting and I will have to think about it more. Is my will outside the domain of what I have? Does it even mean anything to have will?

I moved on to the statement "I do not will", which does not convey the sense of having a will. It's denying "will" as a verb (an action or process) rather than "will" as a noun (a possesion or attribute). As I said before, if I avoided thinking about the statement, it didn't trouble me. But as soon as I thought about it, I was aware that it was a contradiction to deny "I will" because the act of denying it is in itself an act of willing.

I tried denying that I will freely: "I do not will freely". I was able to deny that. I can claim that nature is deterministic and that I am part of nature. I don't have enough information to know for sure whether nature is deterministic or whether I will freely. Obviously I would prefer to will freely! It seems absurd that nature would be deterministic and yet contain within its state at any instant in time the meaning that it is deterministic. But if I play devil's advocate it's easy enough to come up with a plausible alternative to free will.

That was my experiment. I've done it before. What interested me this time though was the novel (to me) difference between having will and exercising will, which I would appreciate your thoughts on. Do we have will? Willing and having seem to be othogonal concepts. In fact I suspect that together they might span being. Furthermore, will seems to come before having. I do not have will but I can willfully deny that I have anything.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

I like this. I appreciate you sharing your results. My only concern is it's really a pseudo sense of cognitive dissonance. You came into this knowing full well you were doing an experiment; I don't know how accurate the results would really depict denial.

And yes I do believe in freewill.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

AlP

Sophus, thanks for raising your concern. That has lead me to consider what bias I may have taken to this experiment. I have nihilist leanings and I think my bias might have been to accept that I could deny things to readily. That may not be so. Even for a nihilist, denying that I will is quite a step. My preferred outcome would still probably be that I have free will. Thought experiments are difficult this way. I'm confined to my own mind and whatever biases I may have.

I'll just add a little about my reflections on this experiment. I asked what it means to "have" will and whether that is even meaningful. It occurred to me that "having" is just a relation between objects (physical or abstract) and more than that it is a perceived relation, a relation perceived by the mind. It isn't even a very specific relation. It's rather lazy. When I say that one thing "has" something else I am just saying that there is some relation between them that I am not being specific about. If I am to decide whether I "have" will, I must be much more specific about what kind of relation I mean by "have". Do I mean that we own our will in the legal sense? Or do I mean that it is physically contained within our body? I mean neither. For now, all I can say is that I am associated with my will in some sense and perhaps that is all that is required to say "I have will". I "have" will but it is only through my will that I can perceive the relation and assign significance and meaning to it. That's what I was getting at when I said I think will comes before having.

Having adopted this model for a day, I must say that it is very pleasant. Today was like seeing the world in a new light. As I observed, experiencing things as physical and abstract objects with whatever relations my will saw fit to assign significance to, I felt very happy and more than a little awed. Just walking along the street aware of the relation between my feet and the ground was mind blowing.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Hitsumei

What type of free will are you referring to? A soft determinist sense, or a incompatibalist, non-casual sense?

Since you seemed to contrast it with determinism at one point, it implies that you are referring to an incompatibalist, non-casual form of will. This, with our current understanding based on neuroscience necessitates some form of dualism. It is well established that the brain is causal, so the acceptance of a non-casual will, necessitates that it is generated by something other than the brain.

A compatibalist, or soft determinist sense of free will -- such as was endorsed by Hume -- is still casual, but is considered free as long as it isn't constrained by certain things, such as coercion. This is compatible with scientific naturalism, and materialism, but non-causal free will is not.

As far as science can tell us, all things that are temporal, on the macro scale, and moving at speeds that do not exceed light are subject to causality.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

AlP

Hitsumei, let me start by saying that I think science is a fine way to interpret the world. I do it all the time. I admire your skepticism. Please correct me if I am wrong, there is a gap between science and philosophy. I admire philosophers such as Daniel Dennett who call themselves both philosophers and scientists. Unfortunately there still appears to be a hole between the two, which I hope will be filled in time. But I need to fill the hole right now and I want to fill it with something rational. So far, science has not given me a convincing reason to get out of bed in the morning.

With regard to your question about what kind of free will... I neither accepted not rejected free will. What kind of free will is an interesting question and I really should look up wikipedia to find out what "non-casual will" is. I honestly don't know though. I have insufficient evidence. If you like, I have no reason to believe that we have a free will. Or if you think determinism is obvious, I have no reason to believe that we are deterministic. It's not clear to me that either is obvious. I suppose that makes me an ignorant free will agnostic :)
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Hitsumei

Quote from: "AlP"Hitsumei, let me start by saying that I think science is a fine way to interpret the world. I do it all the time. I admire your skepticism. Please correct me if I am wrong, there is a gap between science and philosophy. I admire philosophers such as Daniel Dennett who call themselves both philosophers and scientists. Unfortunately there still appears to be a hole between the two, which I hope will be filled in time. But I need to fill the hole right now and I want to fill it with something rational. So far, science has not given me a convincing reason to get out of bed in the morning.

Science, cannot, nor will it ever be able to dictate oughts, and philosophy has long agreed (for the most part) that one can't derive an ought from an is. Is/ought fallacy. So this is an example when science and philosophy are on the same page.

Though, science and philosophy are different disciplines, and which you should implement depends on the context.

QuoteWith regard to your question about what kind of free will... I neither accepted not rejected free will. What kind of free will is an interesting question and I really should look up wikipedia to find out what "non-casual will" is. I honestly don't know though. I have insufficient evidence. If you like, I have no reason to believe that we have a free will. Or if you think determinism is obvious, I have no reason to believe that we are deterministic. It's not clear to me that either is obvious. I suppose that makes me an ignorant free will agnostic :)

If you don't quite know what you mean by "free will", then what were you denying in your thought experiment?

I don't think that determinism is "obvious" I think that it is evident, which is completely different. If you have no reason to think that the brain is deterministic, then you simply are unaware of the reasons. I would suggest reading some relevant research material.  

Although, to preempt a common misconception, determinism is not fatalism, as it is very often confused with. It doesn't suggest that the future can only happen one single way, or things are fated, or that humans have no control at all over the way the future will turn out. That is what is known as fatalism.

Determinism is merely that the future will be casual from the past, and that the universe is predictable by natural laws. For instance, there can be situations were give that things are a specific way at a specific time, that what happens next must necessarily happen as a matter of natural law.

For instance: if I were to hold out a ball, and drop it, it will necessarily fall to the floor because of gravity. Because in certain situations, the future is fixed, it is often misunderstood to mean that the future is always fixed, and can only turn out one single way. This is not the case. Both causality and natural law can hold, while leaving room for a variety of possible results.

For instance, if I were to roll a die, it would be causal. Whatever number the die landed on would be because I rolled it, and it followed the laws of nature to get to the result of landing on a specific side; however, the specific side it landed on is not fixed. What it can and cannot do is limited by causality, and nature, but there is still wiggle room in there for the future to be a matter of probability, and not a specific predestined result.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

AlP

QuoteScience, cannot, nor will it ever be able to dictate oughts, and philosophy has long agreed (for the most part) that one can't derive an ought from an is. Is/ought fallacy. So this is an example when science and philosophy are on the same page.

I agree with you. But I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. Does science insist that scientists ought to be skeptical? Yes. That's not the point of Hume's guillotine. Hume pointed out that you can't derive an ought from an is.

QuoteIf you don't quite know what you mean by "free will", then what were you denying in your thought experiment?

I was refusing to believe in something I didn't understand and for all I know doesn't exist or even mean anything. I call it skepticism.

QuoteI don't think that determinism is "obvious" I think that it is evident, which is completely different. If you have no reason to think that the brain is deterministic, then you simply are unaware of the reasons. I would suggest reading some relevant research material.

Perhaps I will. I'm not particularly troubled about whether we will freely. I don't see much urgency. So long as I don't assume one or the other without evidence.

QuoteFor instance, if I were to roll a die, it would be causal. Whatever number the die landed on would be because I rolled it, and it followed the laws of nature to get to the result of landing on a specific side; however, the specific side it landed on is not fixed. What it can and cannot do is limited by causality, and nature, but there is still wiggle room in there for the future to be a matter of probability, and not a specific predestined result.

I like the double slit experiment as a way of demonstrating that. It also illustrates how much science still has to learn about causality.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Hitsumei

Quote from: "AlP"But I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. Does science insist that scientists ought to be skeptical? Yes. That's not the point of Hume's guillotine. Hume pointed out that you can't derive an ought from an is.

I'm well aware. Hume's point was that without something to logically connect an is statement, to an ought statement -- it cannot be done. This doesn't mean that a logical connection cannot be established. This is also the reason why Hume believed reason to be slave to the passions. The passions are how we logically derive an ought from an is.

For instance:

1)I have no money
2) I ought to get a job

Is a non sequitur. The premise does not imply the conclusion. I need something to connect them, so I formulate it:

1)I have no money
2)I want money
3) Getting a job is the best way currently available to me to acquire money
4) I ought to get a job.

An is implies an ought, only when one desires a specific end. It is specifically one's desires the rationally obligates what one ought, and ought not do.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

AlP

I have continued this experiment. I have tried not only to deny my free will but to deny everything I can think of. I have done it because my assumptions troubled me. There was cognitive dissonance.

"I do not will" was my last hurdle. I could reject everything else I knew of, if I chose to. I realize now that I was being a dumb ass. I cannot "will" without an "I" or an identity. I have now rejected identity. Without identity "will" seems to have no meaning. "I do not will" now seems meaningless because I do not accept that I have identity.

I started writing an explanation as to why I have done this. In doing so I considered what questions other people might ask. My conclusion was that nobody would care. That's okay. I no longer have an ego :). But if anyone is interested I can try to explain.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

RJMooreII

Free will makes absolutely no sense to me.
There is no differentiation between what is logically and what is physically necessary.  Nor is there any difference between my own existence and intention and my state of mind and situation in the world.  Ortega y Gasset puts it, "I am myself, plus my circumstances."  To be aware is to be aware of something.
Human beings have a will, which is to say an intentiveness - we are 'up to something'.  But this is simply because we have valuational, perceptive, critical and planning functions.  It is not that we are all 'blind robots', we are all very much seeing robots.

I recommend Earman's Primer on Determinism.  I also recommend Hubert Dreyfuss' interpretation of Heidegger.  Although I don't totally agree with Heidegger, he has excellent points about the nature of 'existence' which, combined with a logical materialist metaphysical argument lead to a complete lack of whatever 'free will' is.  This seems to me a consistent and justifiable determinism without denying human sensual and existential reality, that is to say what very much seems to be going on.
Material reality is logically consistent, this is what 'existence' means.  Logic is, as logic does.


AlP

Thanks for the youtube link RJMooreII. I hadn't seen that one before. On the basis of that I checked out your "Primer on Determinism" suggestion. $249 on Amazon for 292 pages. Wow. I just read Six Existentialist Thinkers by H. J. Blackham (a humanist). It had a chapter about Heidegger. It's a good (and short) introduction to existentialism I think. But I found I had to read each chapter twice to make some sense of it.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus