Breaking the Free Will Illusion

[Veritas6]

The author is arguing for a deterministic universe, not a causal universe. There can be causes and effects without determinism.

What do you mean cause and effect can occur without determinism?

The author states: “If all events have a cause, the physics of the universe is said to be ‘deterministic’, if some do not, it’s said to be indeterministic… If we can predict the outcome, such can be ‘determined’… If we cannot predict the outcome, such is said to be ‘indeterministic’.” He apparently interlinks determinism entirely with causality. He also includes an argument for “casualty of the mind”.

Why? What is leading you to think this?

I’m not sure why, but I’ve kept thinking over his arguments for a while and couldn’t find a good counter argument. Your answers are helping me a lot.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

The author is arguing for a deterministic universe, not a causal universe. There can be causes and effects without determinism.

What do you mean cause and effect can occur without determinism?

Sure! If I look at you, and am free to decide whether to smack you or not, then there’s no determinism. Then, deciding to smack you, I hit you across the face. The “effect” is a sore jaw. The “cause” is my hand. However, that doesn’t imply that I was forced to hit you.

Make sense?

The author states: “If all events have a cause, the physics of the universe is said to be ‘deterministic’

That’s false.

If we can predict the outcome, such can be ‘determined’… If we cannot predict the outcome, such is said to be ‘indeterministic’.”

Unless there’s more to his statement… wow, is he bad at this.

He’s asserting that an external person’s knowledge is the factor between “determinism” and “indeterminism”. No. Just… no.

I’m not sure why, but I’ve kept thinking over his arguments for a while and couldn’t find a good counter argument. Your answers are helping me a lot.

Well… what’s one of the arguments you couldn’t counter?

 

[Bon_Croix]

Catholic thinking is something like this…

Will is part of the soul; not the body.

Man was given free will b/c he is like God, who has free will too.

Lower animals have no free will.

We are here to do God’s will; not our own will. Only through God’s grace can our will be aligned with God’s will.

So, if God tells you to do something, you may not initially want to do it (think of the Ten Commandments). But, via grace, your will and God’s will can become one. You either accept or reject his grace b/c he gave you free will and he would never violate his creation by forcing his will on you.

 

[Veritas6]

Well… what’s one of the arguments you couldn’t counter?

Actually you have helped me a lot. I needed a Catholic definition of free will and I found it. I think the author thinks perfect free will can’t exist, and I’d agree with him. He says: “My mind assesses and weighs the two options and I decide on one of them. My will is driven to one over the other. But I don’t freely choose the option, I don’t make a free decision, I ‘causally will’ rather than freely will the decision, and how I ‘act in the world’ is not free.”

But isn’t that what free will is? We are made to desire the good in all situations. Our “wills are driven” toward the good (not evil), but he mistakes it as “casually willed”. Am I thinking through this properly?

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

I think the author thinks perfect free will can’t exist, and I’d agree with him.

Hmm. OK, then: how does he define “perfect free will”? How do you define that term? How do you distinguish begween “perfect free will” and “free will”?

He says: “My mind assesses and weighs the two options and I decide on one of them. My will is driven to one over the other. But I don’t freely choose the option, I don’t make a free decision, I ‘causally will’ rather than freely will the decision, and how I ‘act in the world’ is not free.”

What does he mean by “causally will”? How does that differ from “freely willing”?

But isn’t that what free will is?

No… I don’t think:

We are made to desire the good in all situations. Our “wills are driven” toward the good (not evil)

However, if our “free will” wasn’t free (even prior to the fall), then how could our first parents have chosen against God? Therefore, even when our will was ‘perfect’, it still was ‘perfectly free’.

Even now, our wills are ‘perfectly free’. Problem is, they’re now more likely to make the wrong choice. Still a free choice, but now, more likely to freely choose wrongly.

 

[Veritas6]

Hmm. OK, then: how does he define “perfect free will”? How do you define that term? How do you distinguish begween “perfect free will” and “free will”?

The author might define perfect free will as the ability to choose any option with no restrictions. I believe we have free will, but it’s restricted by certain factors. Example: at a coffee shop, I have the free will to choose any coffee option on the menu, but I can’t (literally) order a Lamborghini. We can also freely choose either good or evil.

Apparently the author thinks this free will is “casually willed” because our “will is driven to one over the other. But [we] don’t freely choose the option.” I believe his reasoning is faulty.

What does he mean by “causally will”? How does that differ from “freely willing”?

I believe our will is “perfectly free”, but I think the author is mistaken with what “casual will” is and what free will is. Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[HarryStotle]

Our “wills are driven” toward the good… …but he mistakes it as “casually willed”. Am I thinking through this properly?

God Bless

Perhaps it would help to think about the connection between causes and effects in the sense of grasping the conditions which are required for some event to occur. So X, as an effect, would occur if all the necessary and sufficient conditions to bring about the particular effect, X, obtain. If those conditions come about, then X occurs, even necessarily. If we have a complete accounting of the necessary and sufficient conditions, we can reliably predict the occurrence of X. We might even say X is determinable under those conditions.

So for example, for an event such as “vase falls off the table and breaks” to occur it would require a plethora of conditions: some necessary but not sufficient (gravity or momentum) and some that might be sufficient, when taken together, although some of those not necessary (certain height of the table, vase constructed of fragile glass as opposed to tempered glass, etc). It is in the bringing together of all the sufficient and necessary conditions that actually ends up in causing the effect; i.e., those conditions fill in the causation picture, so to speak.

Now merely because we have a sense of what is involved in bringing about physical events – i.e., we can predictably compile all the necessary and sufficient conditions for many events to occur – that does not mean we fully do understand what happens when a conscious subject wills an outcome and that outcome ends up happening.

There may even be a varying number of different sufficient and necessary conditions that lead to the same effect even within a strictly material world, but there are some effects, in a very narrow sense, that positively require specified set of necessary and sufficient conditions and only those.

It is this last set of effects which make us think causation is determined or, at least, that we have good reason to think it might be, although quantum physics seems to be indicating we ought not be so certain.

The unique problem with conscious entities is that we don’t know for certain which set of conditions will bring about specific (freely?) willed actions of any particular human being. It may be that different necessary conditions must obtain (the operation of a free will being one) in order to “finalize” the act. So, for example, it may be that a certain emotional or rational state is necessary and/or a certain stimulus and/or some motivational impetus, but even having any or all of those (and more) may still NOT be sufficient to “cause” the act. It may be that some or all of those PLUS a freely willed choice are TOGETHER required in order to have the necessary and sufficient conditions to bring about a willed choice or action.

 

[HarryStotle]

It would be easy, given some such scenario, to presume only one or several of the conditions are necessary AND sufficient to bring about the action and therefore the action was determined where, in fact, those conditions may have been present and some even necessarily so, but still are not sufficient – without the free option of the will – to “close the deal,” so to speak.

There is a problem with assembling a complete picture of what is necessary for any human action to be willed, and completely so, because we do not have access to the internal life of a human subject in the way we would need to to get that complete picture. It is too easy to presume that only certain conditions are necessary and sufficient to bring about or “cause” an act when, in fact, they may not be sufficient without the necessary “veto” power of the will. We cannot presume that the will is nothing but all of those other conditions taken together when it might operate completely above and independent of those to superintend them or even arbitrate among them. In that case the will would be free from those other conditions but also free to make use of any or all of them in its agency.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Hmm. OK, then: how does he define “perfect free will”? How do you define that term? How do you distinguish begween “perfect free will” and “free will”?

The author might define perfect free will as the ability to choose any option with no restrictions. I believe we have free will, but it’s restricted by certain factors. Example: at a coffee shop, I have the free will to choose any coffee option on the menu, but I can’t (literally) order a Lamborghini. We can also freely choose either good or evil.

So, in any good philosophical discussion, it’s critical to define terms precisely. I would say that “free will” is distinct from “freedom of action”. In other words, just because I will something does not mean that I can do it; however, the inability to act does not imply a lack of ability to will an action.

This being the case, I would say that we do have ‘perfect free will’, as we’re guessing the author defines it. We do have “the ability to choose any option with no restrictions”. (Of course, that doesn’t imply that we have the ability to achieve any option with no restrictions, but that’s a common-sense realization, right?)

Apparently the author thinks this free will is “casually willed” because our “will is driven to one over the other. But [we] don’t freely choose the option.” I believe his reasoning is faulty.

Well, if you’re quoting him here, then he’s not “reasoning” – he’s just stating his opinion! There’s nothing in your quote that gives any backing for his statement. I mean… “will is driven to one over the other” is pretty much just a definition of will, and then he just follows it up with “we don’t freely choose”? That’s like saying “the moon reflects the sun’s light… the moon is made of green cheese!”… no proof, no logic, no argument – just assertion.

I believe our will is “perfectly free”, but I think the author is mistaken with what “casual will” is and what free will is. Hopefully that makes sense.

Yes, I agree. It would seem that the author is having some difficulty defining terms properly and well. In addition, having had that difficulty, he’s not doing a good job distinguishing between causal chains as such and how causal chains operate.

 

[Veritas6]

Well… what’s one of the arguments you couldn’t counter?

I think what gets me the most is he just asserts how bad free will belief is and the benefits of rejecting this idea:

“Free will belief allows people to blame others, think some are more or less ‘deserving’ than another, and a whole slew of harmful thoughts that tend to lead to retributive tenancies and less compassion. It also allows us to invoke these very same feelings on to our own ‘self’. This can lead to self-blame, guilt, shame, depression, and even self-hate.

The understanding that we lack free will gives us more compassion for the variables of others, and also compassion for our own variables. This can assist with coping with our own actions and mental states. It allows us to move past many negative feelings we have about ourselves in order to focus our effects in a proactive light rather than a retroactive light.

We don’t need to place ourselves in a self-blame situation to recognize that we can improve on our actions. Doing so has a tendency of being more of a detriment to our own psyche.

But believe it or not, these feeling that it was your fault are not a requirement for change. In fact, they often can be something that hinders change, creating depression and other negative feelings that impact your desire to bother doing anything.

These negative feelings can also lead you to ignore or deny the action you did that caused them. It’s much easier to push things in the back of your mind than to deal with those feelings that you could have and should have done otherwise. These negative feelings, can just be a mechanism for pushing those feelings down. And as we all know that doesn’t really work, as all of those little things we push down tend to build up over time, and do so in unproductive ways.

With the understanding and feeling that it’s not our fault, due to truly comprehending what it means that we lack of the type of free will defined here [the ability to have, of your own accord, been able to have decided otherwise], we can look at the happening from an almost outside observer perspective. We can be detectives and try to look for the causes that had led us to the state that we couldn’t have, of our own accord, avoided. We can do this while being free of the “blame” baggage we tend to place on our own shoulders.

Most of us were brought up in an environment that enforced our intuitions about free will. We have a free will psychology that has been embedded with decades of being blamed and shamed, in which we tend to do the same. Breaking the free will illusion is anything but an easy task given a lifetime of a built up psychology. But learning why free will is an illusion and what it means is the first step in a type of ‘self help’ that is based on the facts about our existence.”

It’s all assertions, but does he make any point? What’s the benefit of blame? It really gets me how me states we’ve “embedded” this free will belief in our psychology.

 

[po18guy]

If you focus on arguments in contra, you risk losing your faith. Forget Slattery - the sooner, the better. Free will? Saint Augustine wrote rather extensively on the subject. There must a compendium of his thoughts available.

 

[HarryStotle]

I think what gets me the most is he just asserts how bad free will belief is and the benefits of rejecting this idea:

“Free will belief allows people to blame others, think some are more or less ‘deserving’ than another, and a whole slew of harmful thoughts that tend to lead to retributive tenancies and less compassion. It also allows us to invoke these very same feelings on to our own ‘self’. This can lead to self-blame, guilt, shame, depression, and even self-hate.

The understanding that we lack free will gives us more compassion for the variables of others, and also compassion for our own variables.

Classic case of only telling one side of the story.

Denial of free will also creates the illusion that human beings are not responsible for what they do, and are, therefore, absolved of all moral blame. I wouldn’t think the repercussion of that belief are necessarily rainbows and lollipops, especially since humans have shown ourselves to be capable of the most heinous acts. Giving free rein to psychopaths and sadists to do as they will because causal forces beyond their control are at work to absolve them of all responsibility may not be exactly a mindset we should want anyone to adopt with wholehearted abandon.

 

[Veritas6]

His definition of free will is: The ability to have, of your own accord, been able to have decided otherwise. (OR)
The ability to choose between more than one viable option or action, in which that choice was up to the chooser.

He states it would be impossible to choose otherwise (if you could go back in time) because: “more options do not make us more free to choose any one of them. They are all a part of the causality that lead to selecting the one option dictated by such…

Ponder your thoughts, decisions, desires, and so on. Ask if there are reasons you desire something, or don’t want something, or prefer something, or decide on something. Then ask what it means that there are reasons for the decision you made, and what it would imply if some of these came about with no reason what-so-ever.
It would imply that you could not have, of your own accord, done, said, or thought otherwise than what you do at any given moment. Each moment leads to the next, and that includes your own thoughts and decisions…

How our brains and bodies are configured, the neural and chemical setup at the time, the environment at the time, and so on all play into the behind the scenes reasons of the decisions we make. But even if you thought a decision didn’t have any reason at all, such still cannot escape the fact that… you could not have, of your own accord, decided otherwise than what you did – at any given time in your history.”

I’m confused by his statements. For reference, he agrees with Sam Harris’s beliefs on free will, and that consciousness is an “output of brain states”.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m confused by his statements. For reference, he agrees with Sam Harris’s beliefs on free will, and that consciousness is an “output of brain states”.

Correlation does not imply causation. Consciousness accompanies brain states and brain states may even precede some states of consciousness (though very doubtful because there is no way of determining it) but that could mean any of the following:

1. some brain states cause some conscious states
2. some conscious states cause some brain states
3. all brain states cause all conscious states
4. all conscious states cause all brain states
5. something else entirely causes some brain states and/or some conscious states; while 1) and 2) may also be true.
6. some or all brain states and conscious states correlate for some unknown reason, possibly 5)
7. something else entirely causes all brain states and all conscious states
8. causation (which we don’t fully comprehend in any case) may not be an appropriate description to account for either brain states or consciousness, or both.

 

[po18guy]

Arguments against. Ignore them, as they are not from God. This world hates God and many take up this world’s ever-changing thoughts. God is eternal and His ideas, the same.

 

[Gorgias]

I think what gets me the most is he just asserts how bad free will belief is and the benefits of rejecting this idea:

“Free will belief allows people to blame others, think some are more or less ‘deserving’ than another, and a whole slew of harmful thoughts that tend to lead to retributive tenancies and less compassion. It also allows us to invoke these very same feelings on to our own ‘self’. This can lead to self-blame, guilt, shame, depression, and even self-hate.

Right. Sometimes, when I burn the toast, I just have to admit, “I blew it. Sorry. I’ll pay more attention next time.”

Sometimes, blame is appropriate. It doesn’t only lead to the negative things he mentions: it also leads to a renewed commitment to improve oneself, a motivation to excel, and a willingness not to pass the buck. Blame has positive effects, too.

We don’t need to place ourselves in a self-blame situation to recognize that we can improve on our actions.

Here’s where my eyes really start rolling into the back of my head. If everything is deterministic, then there’s no such thing as “improving on our actions.” There’s just “doing what I must do because it’s predetermined that I do so.”

These negative feelings can also lead you to ignore or deny the action you did that caused them.

No… when you believe everything’s already pre-determined, that’s when you ignore actions – after all, you can’t do anything to change them!

(I really think he’s arguing for something different, and calling it by the wrong name, but doesn’t realize it. )

With the understanding and feeling that it’s not our fault, … we can look at the happening from an almost outside observer perspective… and try to look for the causes that had led us to the state that we couldn’t have, of our own accord, avoided.

And now we’ve arrived. The whole benefit he sees in adopting his ideas is that we can point to somebody else and say “not my fault… his!”

(Of course, determinism means that it’s no one’s fault. It means, explicitly that there are no causes that we can point to that lead us from action to action. So, his solution doesn’t even do what he says it does.)

It’s all assertions, but does he make any point? What’s the benefit of blame? It really gets me how me states we’ve “embedded” this free will belief in our psychology.

Yes – the point that I see him making, quite clearly, is that he has a deficient background in philosophy and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 

[Veritas6]

Thank you very much for your help Gorgias and all those who answered my questions!

 

[Veritas6]

The author states: “more options do not make us more free to choose any one of them. They are all a part of the causality that lead to selecting the one option dictated by such.”

Is there some break in casualty when we make a decision? He says: “how our brains and bodies are configured, the neural and chemical setup at the time, the environment at the time, and so on all play into the behind the scenes reasons of the decisions we make. But even if you thought a decision didn’t have any reason at all, such still cannot escape the fact that… you could not have, of your own accord, decided otherwise than what you did – at any given time in your history.” (He’s referencing a completely casual universe).

I doubt our universe is completely deterministic or completely indeterministic, maybe both together? I’m aware God knows complete foreknowledge, like commentating on a football game as it unfolds, He’s also completely aware of every possibility at once.

A lot of free will skeptics believe there must be a complete break in casualty when we make a free decision. Doesn’t this assume a deterministic universe? Then they reject indeterminism because “uncaused” choices can’t be up to us. Any Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

Is there some break in casualty when we make a decision?

No. We just become part of the chain of causes.

He says: “how our brains and bodies are configured, the neural and chemical setup at the time, the environment at the time, and so on all play into the behind the scenes reasons of the decisions we make.

True. But not the complete story. He’s pointing to all the material causes, but is discounting the effect of intellect (and therefore, of will). (On the other hand, if he were more skillful, he’d attempt to identify ‘intellect’ as something that does not act on its own, but is dictated to by our physical self.)

But even if you thought a decision didn’t have any reason at all, such still cannot escape the fact that… you could not have, of your own accord, decided otherwise than what you did – at any given time in your history.”

No proof here. Just bald assertion. That and 20 cents will get you a cup of coffee…

(He’s referencing a completely casual universe).

I’m ok with a “causal universe”. However, it’s possible to have a causal universe that isn’t predetermined – that is, one that also depends on the choices of the moral agents in the universe – and that causal universe (which, not coincidentally, I believe is the one we live in) is not deterministic in the way he claims it is. Again, he’s conflating “cause” with “determinism”.

 

[Veritas6]

he’d attempt to identify ‘intellect’ as something that does not act on its own, but is dictated to by our physical self.

The author also wrote about how consciousness might be an “output of brain states”, but consciousness isn’t the intellect right? He mentions the spilt brain experiments and such to “disprove” a duality of mind and body.

Mental Causation - A Case for Mental Causation

A case in support of mental causation.

breakingthefreewillillusion.com

Consciousness - An Output of Brain States

Consciousness is a huge topic in which a whole lot of the discussions can be had about “the hard problem” that extends to “qualia” (e.g. the experience of “redness”), how it happens, why it happens (a faulty question in my opinion), how it relates to the brain, and so on. These discussions...

breakingthefreewillillusion.com

Could you please take a look at those links and help me understand how this might play into free will?
I believe in “hylemorphic dualism” and Edward Feser wrote a great article on it Edward Feser: Against “neurobabble” . I reject Cartesian dualism and understand the soul/brain are one together.