15 ms·

Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

33 points by amichail 16y ago

There is no scientific evidence for free will. It may just be an illusion. Moreover, there's scientific evidence against it: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=unconscious-decisions How do you reconcile your rationality and a belief in free will?

orblivion 16y ago
It depends how you define free will. What would scientific evidence of free will even look like? I do what I want, so that's all I care about. I may be part of a deterministic system, but that's what defines my will.
Luc 16y ago
'Freedom evolves' by Daniel Dennett deals with this. http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Evolves-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0142003840/ http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Evolves-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/01... Our future may be fixed, but our nature is not. We don't have a 'God's eye view' that sees all our past and future laid out before us. From our perspectives conditions change and we change to adapt to them to the extent possible. It seems to me the confusion mainly arises if you consider your mind as being not subject to nature's laws...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
devijvers 16y ago
Both "rationality" and "free will" are vague terms. Your line of questioning won't get you anywhere beyond linguistic/logic side-effects.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  "Free will" may be. But "rationality" can be given a clear, concise definition that most of us will agree upon in our context. Here, amichail probably talks about epistemic rationality: the art of obtaining beliefs that correspond to reality as closely as possible. Source: http://lesswrong.com/lw/31/what_do_we_mean_by_rationality/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/31/what_do_we_mean_by_rationality/ Now, the question of free will itself has been discussed. here: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will and there: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_%28solution%29 http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_%28solution%29 are probably very good start points. I haven't read these pages yet, but from what I have already read on http://lesswrong.com http://lesswrong.com (which is quite a lot) is of outstanding quality.
noodle 16y ago
predictability doesn't necessarily preclude free will. free will doesn't imply randomness.
- amichail 16y ago
  There is no scientific evidence for free will. So why believe in it?
  - noodle 16y ago
    what defines free will, and what scientific evidence would sufficiently prove your definition of free will?
    - amichail 16y ago
      One can ask something similar about proving the existence of God. Why should you not believe in God on faith but believe in free will on faith?
      - noodle 16y ago
        sigh. i was really hoping you were trying to take this in another direction. free will is an objectively observable phenomenon, and the burden of proof is on disproving existence or providing an alternate explanation for the observable. we might not be able to show the mechanisms for why it exists, but we can show that it exists. god is not objectively observable, and so the burden of proof is on proving existence.
        Xurinos 16y ago
        > free will is an objectively observable phenomenon Not true. To observe free will, you must have a really big picture view. You must have enough information at hand to be absolutely confident that the action was not a direct result of all prior experiences of the actor. Until you have that kind of measurement, free will is a matter of faith. > god is not objectively observable That is a very human-centric view, and it would behoove any rational thinker to look beyond their own limitations. Again, it is all about having an appropriate instrument to observe Him. But you may have a point about who owns the burden of proof. (I will not argue either way on who owns it, and whether we should prove or disprove.) Edit: Sorry, my definition of "objectively" is skewed. Both free will and God can be objectively observed. You just have to have the right instruments, enough information.
mooism2 16y ago
This is a Pascal's Wager question. If there is no free will, I have no choice over whether to believe in free will or not. If free will does exist and I believe in it, I am correct to do so.
- devijvers 16y ago
  Exactly what I mean with linguistic/logic side-effects.
geophile 16y ago
Daniel Wegner's book, "The Illusion of Conscious Will" discusses the existence of free will, (not so much whether belief in it is rational): http://books.google.com/books?id=eQnlRg56piQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wegner+%22free+will%22&source=bl&ots=ZWwqItY8L1&sig=6z40tqbViqrf-em9f4QI8BHX_x0&hl=en&ei=YDF1TKWkHI3AsAPU95yhDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CD4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=wegner%20%22free%20will%22&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=eQnlRg56piQC&printsec=f...
mburney 16y ago
If you define free will as conscious deliberation of action, it is easier to make the claim that it exists
Xurinos 16y ago
I remember beating myself over this idea in college, that there is no such thing as free will. I came to believe it. Then I realized something that was even more important: it does not matter if it is true. This is not a form of enlightenment that actually helps me or anyone. Really, work through it. Congratulations: you discovered that everything you think and do is preordained by the first energy patterns of the universe. Now what? Do you second-guess your decisions? Isn't your second-guessing also preordained? Isn't your so-called enlightenment also just a part of the system? What does this knowledge really do for you? Note that your quoted article does not oppose free will (unless you buy into the sensationalism). It points to the idea that a part of your brain figures out your next action before you are fully conscious of that decision. This does not invalidate free will; it just shows that you make decisions from multiple levels of your brain. You do not want too much decision-making power, like when your heart should next beat. So, accepting that it is useless to believe in lack of free will, what happens if you decide to place your faith in having or acquiring free will? This opposite philosophy flows hand-in-hand with the idea of personal responsibility, the idea that you may actually be to blame for your own misfortunes and fortunes. There is a certain liberty in realizing that you have the power of Choice, that you can simply choose to leave these perceived/accepted traps and social constructs. In other words, it would be irrational to not operate on the assumption that you have free will. tl;dr - This philosophy does not help anyone. The opposite helps a great deal. Most people fall in the middle.
- amichail 16y ago
  In other words, it would be irrational to not operate on the assumption that you have free will. Religious people might say something similar about God's existence.
  - Xurinos 16y ago
    Given that the choice is a form of insanity vs a way of dealing with life that may lead to greater happiness, I agree. But we are, after all, discussing "free will". :) It is also interesting to note that scientific studies may show us things that influence or make some of our choices for us, but this will not cover all kinds of choices. We are running into areas where we do not yet have the right tools to study this stuff.
mikecane 16y ago
Philip K. Dick: The Electric Ant. I think that sums up everything, really.
dspeyer 16y ago
I have yet to hear a definition of free will that isn't circular. I am not convinced the term means anything.
- mrtron 16y ago
  Free will and randomness are both terms that are really tough to define. It is more the absence of order than a definition of something.
- lulin 16y ago
  This. Let's say you had free will. In most definitions, this means you can do what you want, without being forced by anything. But are you really free in your choices? You still can not decide against anything you want. Your mind (or soul, or whatever) will decide what you want to do, and then do that. You may be in the mood to deliberately choose something that is bad for you, but again, this is influenced by your mood. This is actually something I often hear as a reason for free will: If we did not have it, we would never do something that is against our interests. But this will only work if you assume a mind that is both very simple (always trying to choose the best) and extremely smart (so that it can differentiate between bad and good decisions). There is no reason to think that we are like that.
BillGoates 16y ago
There is no point in getting up either; eventually gravity will win.
praptak 16y ago
A related cartoon: http://www.lukesurl.com/archives/1243 http://www.lukesurl.com/archives/1243
Robin_Message 16y ago
I read something recently saying that study was a load of bunk, but I can't find it right now. Anyone else see that?
mjgoins 16y ago
I say this every time this topic comes up, which seems to be often, so I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but y'all need to read 'Freedom Evolves' by Dan Dennett, followed up by his longer more important work, 'Consciousness Explained.' You might not agree with his conclusions, as they're fairly radical, but it answers the question of the original post.
- superk 16y ago
  Since you've read both books would you mind just summing up the jist of it.
  - mjgoins 16y ago
    Yes, the gist of both books is "There is no mysterious stuff out there, we don't need God or even physics to explain the mind, it's all just computation happening in your brain. Both consciousness and free will are ways of describing some of the stuff that your brain does." He's essentially a Functionalist. But he makes his arguments convincing. The convincing-ness cannot be summed up more briefly than he does in his books.
joshuacc 16y ago
1. The idea that we are capable of freely deciding between alternatives seems to be built into our psyches. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, it is rational to believe this intuition. 2. While there may indeed be scientific evidence against free will, the article that you linked doesn't seem to provide it. Just because decisions happen at a preconscious level doesn't mean that the decision was unfree. For instance, if I'm playing a very intense video game, I tend to make split-second decisions with no conscious decision making. That doesn't mean I didn't choose what to do in the game. It just means that discursive thought isn't essential to free choice. 3. If you're religious, then you could consider God a sort of "guarantor" of free will.
frobozz 16y ago
I have no choice but to believe in free will.
- greatfog 16y ago
  [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Bashevis_Singer http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Bashevis_Singer]
Estragon 16y ago
I've never even heard an adequate definition of free will, and don't think one is possible.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
heed 16y ago
You can do what you will, but you can't will what you will.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
dhs 16y ago
The belief in "free will" in a strict sense indeed strikes me an irrational and unscientific, since it seems to imply "freedom from cause" - free will can cause things, and nothing causes free will, since if something would cause free will, it wouldn't be free, but bound to that other, external thing. And since Science takes the view that there must be a cause for everything, the assumption of free will does not seem to be in tune with it. However, even without the presence of "free will" in a strict sense, there can be freedom of action, in the sense of freedom from external and internal constrains, freedom from coercion and from compulsion. It means that I am able to recognize all my options in a situation and may freely chose between them. This easily acknowledges that my situation, my options and my choices all have causes (are not "free" in a strict sense), but still gives me the ability to change my world, by deliberately chosing the actions I prefer to take from the spectrum of those available under my current constrains. It also means that others can hold me responsible for the results of my actions.
lhnz 16y ago
I feel like this question is just not pragmatic. Unless, of course, you're trying to avoid the blame for your actions by saying you have no real choice. "Oh, it's not my fault I attacked Y because I have no free will!" If that is the case, good luck. Otherwise, live life how you 'choose' to live it.
viggity 16y ago
That scientific american article always pissed me off. Just because my brain may know what decision I'm going to make before I'm conscious of it, doesn't mean that I didn't make the decision. It is still my brain. The whole thing reeks of nihilism. In the words of the great Walter Sobchak: "Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
Wilduck 16y ago
Have you read the following article? http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25665/?ref=rss http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25665/?ref=rss It (partly) fills in the other half of the free will theorem by Conway and Kochen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem ) which states that if we have free will, then so must elementary particles. It's an interesting way of looking at the problem. And I think I can say conclusively that we really have no idea whether or not elementary particles can have free will. However we do know that they don't function purely deterministically/probabalistically or randomly.
126 16y ago
Everything has already been done, except your life. Free will is not "instead of" determinism... It is that "despite everything already being done" something else... Now, me. The real beauty is to turn that around and give your own turn to everyone else, and say: Now, you. Or, Namaste. I honor your plans for what to do in all this, peacefully.
aidenn0 16y ago
Well, I do believe in free will, but since free will doesn't exist, it's not my fault.
superk 16y ago
If you don't believe in free will does that mean you will always win in Rock-Paper-Scissors?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
losethos 16y ago
I know! Let's ask Him. Philosophy is not the source of religious knowledge :-) God says... relics raven prerogative t shut constituted indications different infantine cured considering shapes fruitlessly strait generally delete diversity tower infants affliction Pusey DAMAGES partners beatific adversities burial translated damages neighbouring creatures itching palaces exhausted fountain intermitted Virgin spider inanimate gazing were Thee lulled Ghost family assent Wha? Philosophy is gay? ROFLAO Okay, He said something -- your guess is probably not quite as good as mine. I just like jokes. One thing I know is causality is quaint. Getting back to the question, I get puppeted, but it seems like any other decision I make -- it's not like my arm involentarily does stuff I didn't tell it. When I speak more cleverly than I had a right too, I can't tell a difference. I think this question is pointless to worry about. It's just one of bunches of mysteries you just have to live with. I mock people who don't have my pragmitism. I donno, but it works for me. God says... seeking perishable sinners putrefied agonised Perverseness maidens musical saint lamented recent specimens legal shall grass email passionately exclusions ashamed once ripened grieved occasioned selling overcome deserve repeating brides crucifixion applicable overhastily glorified temper ocean resisteth unadorned five indignant cleanse anguish realised reviled lettest gladly passage feareth joyously burnest operations steer divinity enlighten late instructed terms impression miss held resolute sparks reaching mankind grammarian trace utterly stumble province Prodigality darksomely curest doubtfulness disciple repay presented main medicine willed noble reformed notion wishes littles scanning eloquently forests commiserating breadth fig teach overturned ripened loss Rejoiceth actors against unhappiness seemed honest bargain Agonistic Donations manifestation exceedeth warped partaker monstrous supercelestial mention paths list adulteress tend oftentimes unarranged Sometimes, I think about my pet birds and how they live while not understanding reality. They have absolutely no clue, but carry-on. God says(random passage)...C:\TEXT\BIBLE.TXT th salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! 52:8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion. 52:9 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the LORD hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem. 52:10 The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. 52:11
superk 16y ago
After reading the article... in a scenario where subjects have a single task (push a button) and no time limit, then unconscious trumps conscious thought. I don't see how the unconscious could have much affect over rapid-fire decisions involving extrinsic stimulation that could not have been predetermined. Life is much more the latter of the two experiences so I don't really get this as scientific evidence against free will.
MattGrommes 16y ago
I've always thought that our conception of "free will" is flawed. In the case of the article you list, I don't see that as evidence against free will. There's no homunculus in your subconscious making decisions for you that you don't have access to. It's all your brain and its functions making decisions. Just because we've labelled the very top of the iceberg free will or consciousness doesn't mean that the rest of the iceberg under the water isn't connected. There are a lot of studies about things like, for example, people saying they like someone more if the subject is exposed to warmth than if they're exposed to cold. Your brain still made that determination using all your experiences and patterns from your life, nothing "fooled" you or overrode your choice. We need to re-conceptualize our ideas of free will to include our whole brain, not just the magical separate part we've previously called our consciousness. In the same vein, it's looking a lot like we're going to have to figure out how to fit "partly sentient" animals into our model of free will and consciousness as well. There are too many animals exhibiting behaviors we previously thought of as human only. I think both of these things will be big revolutions in thinking in the coming years.
Josh0 16y ago
There was a science story published today on technologyreview.com that reported on a team that purported to essentially prove that quantum entanglement proves free will. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25665/ http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25665/
- dolphenstein 16y ago
  Neurons are way too big to be entangled (pun intended!) with quantum physics. They act in a deterministic way. The only thing I could gleam from that article is that atoms might have "free will". To that I say: So what?
andreyf 16y ago
What's "free will"?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
indrax 16y ago
What do you mean by free will? Was it a meaningful question in the first place? http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will
dolphenstein 16y ago
Arthur Schopenhauer: "You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want."
nimai 16y ago
Here's my take on it: -You experience events. -You seem to have control over some events, and other events seem to be outside of your control. -The process that determines this feeling of control is chemical, and has nothing to do with whether or not you actually do have any control. In other words, even though control is entirely an illusion, it is the illusion that defines our existence. Understanding it is NOT useless - most people who you would describe as "assholes" are just people with control issues.
vox 16y ago
There is scientific evidence: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Free_will_theorem https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Free_will_the...
- registrationsux 16y ago
  No there is not. From the page you link: "Conway and Kochen do not prove that free will does exist."
JeffL 16y ago
I view the debate over free will as missing the point about context. Context is everything. An analogy would be rolling a dice with your hand onto a table. Is this random? A physicist could say, "no", how you roll it, what the speed it's going, how hard the table is, etc, etc, determine exactly what number will come up. But we don't know all that. To the context of our experience, that dice roll is random. Similarly, everything we think or do is predetermined by the current state of the universe and our own nature, but to us, we are making choices. In the context of our human experience, we do have free will. Just like it could be theoretically possible to predict the dice roll, it is theoretically possible to predict any persons future action. But we don't have access to that information, so for us, that information, and thus the determination of the future might as well not exist.
Confusion 16y ago
Moreover, there's scientific evidence against it [..] No, there isn't. All the interpretations of the results of the experiments since Libet make one crucial unsupported assumption: that rationality and free will must always be exercised by the conscious mind. This assumption is unwarranted and a gross underestimation of the importance and abilities of our subconsciousness. There is no reason to suppose that your subconscious mind can't make a score of rational, and free, decisions, upon which your conscious mind gets to reflect only some time later. The fact that your mind came upon a conclusion in a subconscious manner does not mean it is irrational or 'unfree': it just means you didn't get the time to reflect on it, before it was acted upon.
mikko 16y ago
Free will is a potentiality. To attain it, you must first see that you do not have it, and then work consistently for many years to develop it.
zoomzoom 16y ago
This is a hot topic in modern (in the philosophical sense of modern, not necessarily contemporary) philosophy - the debate over what some will call "compatabilism." IMHO, the rationality of free will hinges on the definition of freedom. There is the freedom of not being a rock, and then the freedom of dreams. There is free like free beer, free like free speech, and free like the opposite of slave. Some are rational and some are, by definition, not.
elptacek 16y ago
I am struggling with your definition of free will, here. I read that stub four times, and I fail to see how preconscious brain activity proves or denies the existence of rational, conscious decisions over choices? There's not enough detail in the article to explain what "preconscious activity" means in this case. Since nurture heavily influences all decision making, some part of the rational, conscious process of choice must consult memory (experience). Perhaps that's the preconscious activity? You don't think, "This time I will stand still while the bear runs towards me." The consequences of free will can't negate our survival as a species. That'd be dumb. So there has to be some sort of middle ground. I read something years ago that stuck with me. Let me make it clear that my own beliefs on the existence of a sentient creator cannot be proven or denied. He wrote, "God could have made us just like himself. But he did not. Instead he made us imperfect and gave us free will." There's a lot implied about our purpose in that statement. There will be no unified theory that does not take into account why we so badly want a unified theory.

noodle 16y ago
> To observe free will, you must have a really big picture view. why? can you justify this statement? beyond that, that is not how the scientific method works. you make conclusions on observable data, and if more data becomes accessible, you reconsider conclusions. you can't dismiss conclusions you disagree with by simply saying "you don't have enough data yet to justify my conclusion". > Again, it is all about having an appropriate instrument to observe Him. could you elaborate on an appropriate instrument to appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively?
- Xurinos 16y ago
  > why? can you justify this statement? Yes. Based on your next sentence, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. You state that the scientific method is about making conclusions on observable data and then discarding them when new data arrives. This is incomplete. Good scientific experiments depend on variables under your control. In layman's terms, you must be in control of everything, know what is going on, and test the specific thing, the one variable you are not controlling. And there are varying degrees of variables involved in the scientific method, along with their complexities. Now, just in case we already agree and that your statement assumed all that, then I would find fault with the theory that you have sufficient "observable data". That is the entire problem. We already know what you are missing. You need the entire set of experiences that someone has stored in their brain. You need to know the state of the body as well, so that you can identify additional influences (such as a headache, making for hastier decisions based on more recent experiences). You need instruments that can provide you this data, and then you can run your statistics and learn something. And, of course, you need to have an understanding of the influences of the various experiences and body issues; so you have many studies to run before you get to tackle the issue of free will. Fortunately, we have a LOT of these studies already (and a lot more to do). See psychology, etc. > could you elaborate on an appropriate instrument to appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively? I am in full agreement with your criteria. Maybe one day we will have the technology to do this. Right now, I cannot imagine what the instrument is. I would propose that another god could observe God, or the context of the universe around God could be used in some fashion or produce an instrument to observe God. Maybe in God's metauniverse, there are entities analogous to our rocks, plants, and so forth that could be used to observe His passing. Taking another approach, this might be akin to gut bacteria trying to prove the existence of Earth. If existence as we know it is an extension of God, how can we identify God? (Trying to avoid the obvious circular argument.) Anyway, this is all freshman philosophy stuff. Good fodder for coffee talk. Suffice it to say that when we are talking science, we are indeed talking about using tools that "appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively". Just because we do not have those tools does not invalidate truths about our universe. We did not have a yardstick until the 10th century. We have come a long way since then, and we have a long way to go.
  - noodle 16y ago
    > ... then I would find fault with the theory that you have sufficient "observable data". That is the entire problem. i agree, and i think then it comes down to each of our own personal opinions, unless you have some hard facts to provide (i surely don't, as you say, this is basically coffee talk for me, here). sub-question: what do you feel like is the alternative to free will? predestination? do you feel that by disproving free will, it will lead to greater empirical evidence of god or gods (a la "god's plan")? or that proving free will somehow reduces the odds of the existence of god or gods?
    - Xurinos 16y ago
      > what do you feel like is the alternative to free will? predestination? I would propose that the alternative is manipulation, and the most extreme form of manipulation is predestination. Less extreme forms are environmental manipulation, our bacterial collective, and so forth. Was it predestined by God or by some initial atomic movement or potential energy? We do not have evidence either way, but it is fair to point out the possibilities. I have my personal belief, which is compatible with both and leaves space for the truth. I see the topic of free will orthogonal to the topic of gods. We have to be careful here; there are religious beliefs that we humans were granted free will by God. Within that context, if we learn conclusively that free will does not exist, then there was no gift, and it is a blow towards God, although not necessarily disproving God. After all, if we are capable of deceit, isn't it possible that God is also capable of deceit? So what we think we understand from Him might only be what He wants us to see. We also may not be capable of understanding His reasons. In the same vein, HE may simply be a purely creative force with no reasoning other than to make a bunch of stuff and let what sticks stick. So I think we can erode belief systems -- and our minds are generally frail enough to sway -- but it will be pretty difficult to disprove a god. On the other hand, opportunity may arise where a god can be proven. Perhaps He did reveal himself (several times), and time gave us an easy excuse to forget and deny, to beg for fresh evidence. Today, what could God possibly do that we cannot do that would conclusively prove His existence? And why should He bother?
      - 16y ago