We all like to think we have free will, but do we?
Are you making conscious decisions in your life? Or is your unconscious brain driving you?
This is a big topic of discussion for neuroscientists.
Watch this video above. What do you think?
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2015-12-11 12:38:342015-12-11 12:38:34Do you believe in free will?
24replies
Paul Flanagan says:
I believe in free will, and I think contrary to the growing trend, I believe we probably have more control of things than we think we do. I really believe the Henry Ford line (I think it was him originally): “Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t–You’re right.” I think genetics plays a part regarding the framework that we work within, but at this point I don’t think I’d call that “limited free will”. That would just be incorporated in my definition of free will. Also, while this is not a reason for my belief, I believe it benefits the individual to believe he has free will (with possible exceptions). I’m also not regarding circumstance, nature, or nurture. They all have an effect and shape one’s life, but I think it’s either we have free will or we don’t. On a slight side note (because I believe self awareness and being able to think about thinking, is required of free will), my friend who has a one year old girl, relayed a fantastic moment to me about her child. She said there was a day where her baby went from pet-like (my words not hers) to cognisant –like a million mile jump. Cute little baby (BLINK)—-> Human! I thought that was really cool
I side with Chomsky in this debate, free will does exist. It’s not that we don’t have free will, the reality is we have minuscule understanding of what’s happening and the experiments don’t provide conclusive evidence we don’t have free will, only that there are huge gaps in our scientific understanding.
It’s much easier for most people to say one side or the other, it’s more challenging for me (and I presume others, but I don’t know that for fact) to say we just don’t know. But that’s the state of the science at this time, in my understanding of it.
Paul Flanagan says:
I think this is the first time (at least that I remember) that I’ve seen Chomsky speak. I like him.
Alex says:
That argument at 2:00 is dubious. Some people are undecided enough on the question (because of various factors) that a change in their environment (by happening to come across an argument for/against free will) will determine whenever they will end up believing in it or not.
Although he might only be saying this in a tongue in cheek way.
He is right that the experiment eyes posted doesn’t do much to prove or disprove free will, however. Not all decisions are made 6 seconds in advance, otherwise people surprised with a question wouldn’t be able to answer it quickly.
Alex says:
I’ve answered “no free will” but the truth is, I do not know. Defining free will is tricky. At first I’ve tried to define it as a third factor beside the individual (genetics, drugs/hormones in their body, whenever or not a chunk of their brain is missing) and their environment. The problem with this definition if that if free will is not tied to the individual, then praising an individual for their free will is arbitrary.
Another definition of free will is to say that it is a part of the individual separate from genetics or the integrity of the brain that we haven’t discovered, but this explanation has a bad “god of the gaps” taste to it. Not being able to explain why someone would make a given decision doesn’t mean that there is no logical explanation for such a decision. It might mean that there is a logical reason for the behavior, but that said reason is just too strange for most people to understand (sometimes even to the person committing the behavior him/herself).
PS. I wonder how similar the personality of identical twins is. Does the “past behavior is indicative of future behavior” principle applies to twins somewhat, or not at all? I mean, EFL parallels using the faces of people that look alike but aren’t genetically related, so the technique must be even more powerful used on twins.
Lie2Me says:
In my opinion, you hit the key in your first sentence. What is free will? For example, what free will is to you may not be what free will is to someone in a more repressed society. Is it possible an over abundance of free will eventually leads to ‘recklessness’? Conversely, does a lack of free will become externally controlled thought. All these are reliant on the definition of free will which, I believe, is subjective. Some may call the definitions you describe above as strange or weird, but those words simply mean different than to what the labeler is accustomed. Does the externally controlled person miss their free will or will they be lost without external control? Does boundless free will unwaveringly result in recklessness? I think we’re all different with unique reactions to outside stimulus that helps shape what free will truly means to each of us. All pretty talk aside, I do concede a standard concept of free will but only in the context that it is used to describe a particular group of like-minded individuals. Not as a global concept.
I truly enjoyed reading everyone’s comments. Great topic!
Brent says:
If you don’t believe in free will then no-one is blameworthy, because everyone is simply following the laws of cause and effect. (I hope I didn’t oversimplify). There is a nice logical argument that fallible beings must have free will.
Alex says:
That’s not an argument for free will. If we can prove someone is going to do a certain behavior no matter what because of their biology, then they are indeed not blameworthy. Do you think bears can be morally blamed for bear attacks?
Brent says:
You can’t disprove my argument by saying ‘IF we can prove something’. That’s neither disproving what I said or demonstrating anything. People have different amounts of free will, and how much we have depends on your perspective. But people can’t make mistakes if they don’t have free will. If they don’t have free will then they are just running like machines. You don’t ‘blame’ a car if it runs out of gas and stops. It wasn’t the car’s ‘mistake’ for running out of gas. The car didn’t ‘decide’ to keep going as long as it could.Most people including society and the courts accept people make choices and make decisions ie. that they have some free will, otherwise they consider them insane or mentally ill.
Alex says:
The thing is, what you wrote isn’t an argument against free will.
“If you don’t believe in free will then no-one is blameworthy, because everyone is simply following the laws of cause and effect. ” Isn’t an argument against free will, simply a consequence of it. What you said is as effective as an argument than saying “Darwin can’t be right because that would imply humans came from apes”
The reason people believe others are blameworthy is (partly) because they disbelieve in the law of cause and effect in the first place. Using that fact as an argument therefore is a circular argument. We have no objective proof people ARE blameworthy for their behavior. The reason people think that is because they think people have no free will.
As far as your second argument goes… I don’t get it? You said only humans makes mistakes then gave a good list of machines doing mistakes. Sure, you said that we don’t blame machines for their mistakes but we blame humans, but thats basically your first argument.
PS Talking of mental illnesses, psychopathy is one. Since you said “otherwise they consider them insane or mentally ill.” Should we give a break to people like Ted bundy, but not to lesser agressors? That sounds backwards to me…
Brent says:
My first argument is FOR free will, not against it, so you might have misunderstood what I meant throughout this.
There is nothing circular about my argument. You are using my statement and giving it your own interpretation which has little to do with what I meant.
My statement about mental illness meant that if a person isn’t considered to be in control of themselves they aren’t put in the same category as people that are and so more blameworthy. Someone with a mental illness may stand trial later and they often do. Also, psychopaths know the difference between right and wrong, they just don’t care. So again, I’m not saying what you seem to be suggesting.
I’m not interested to discuss this further as you don’t seem to follow my arguments and really just seem to interpret them in your own way.
Alex says:
“My first argument is FOR free will, not against it, so you might have misunderstood what I meant throughout this.”
Just accidentally switched a word. I obviously know what your position is about free will.
“Also, psychopaths know the difference between right and wrong, they just don’t care.”
Still doesn’t change that
1. Psychopathy is a mental illness
2. The psychopathy undeniably is the thing responsible for a psychopath’s shitty actions.
Therefore, according to you someone should sometimes be blamed for the actions caused by their mental illness.
Maybe you should either try again making better arguments, or explain them better. Its not my fault your arguments are unconvincing. I try to interpret your arguments the most logical way they can be, but if I find no logical interpretation…
Sprocket says:
Psychopathy is NOT a mental illness. Please show where, in the DSM, it lists psychopathy as a mental illness. It doesn’t. All mental illnesses are listed in Axis I in the DSM.
PERSONALITY disorders are listed in Axis II. Specifically, Cluster B’s are: anti-social personality disorder, histronic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder. Many of the issues with the Cluster B’s
I have heard from and read that psychologist argue about this. Some say ASPD = psychopath, while others don’t agree. But it is under the category of “anti-social” personality. I do believe it is a mental disorder–knowing these people. Their brains are not normal. But that’s just my opinion.
Sprocket says:
I had this long reply all typed out, and then my computer went wonky and I lost it.
Love and respect you Renee, but I tend to disagree [ with DSM, and the doctors that decides this stuff] about whether psychopathy is a recognized “illness” or not. An illness, because you don’t have empathy?
Adrian Raine, in his book, Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime, showed that, in his research, the gray and white matter of psychopaths was up to 10% smaller that normal/average brains. This was a biological marker. He also documented, that psychopaths had low resting heart rates. He tracked children from the age of 3 on up over the years into teens and beyond. The study was conducted in Guam. Not all individuals with low resting heart rate become psychopaths, but his research showed, that the children he tracked from the age of 3 with low resting heart rate, went on to have troubled youth and criminal arrests.
Do we give serial and/or psychopathic killers a pass and let them go free, because their brains are smaller? It’s okay, you have a biological condition. You can’t help it. Do we give them a pass for an “illness” that cannot be cured? I don’t believe there is anything that can be done, to correct smaller gray or white matter in a brain of a fully functioning adult. If that’s possible, I’d love to see the ground breaking research where, they have been able to insert an empathy gene into psychopaths, that now have true remorse for their killing.
I’m sorry you lost your reply. That sucks! I would have enjoyed reading it.
it’s okay to disagree! I adore you, Betsy, and differences are all good.
I in NO WAY believe psychopaths should get a pass. Absolutely NOT. They are monsters, without question, but not by choice. I do not feel they should be allowed to pray on people and destroy lives. I’ve suffered a long time from the wrath of one I keep distant as possible. I’m not against protecting society from them and locking them up! Please know that. I just think it is a brain issue–whatever you want to call it — mental illness or biological shortcoming. It’s real, but its not a choice. It’s not free will in my eyes.
“The DSM-5 published in 2013 now lists personality disorders in exactly
the same way as other mental disorders, rather than on a separate ‘axis’
as previously.”
I look at it this way. When they do autopsies on people who commit suicide, they have found high levels of melatonin. Melatonin suppresses seratonin–your feel good hormone. So these people might want to feel happy, but don’t, and can’t, and ultimately are driven by their mind to commit suicide. You may say suicide was “free will”. I would argue it was a biological process–not free will.
There are so many biological chemicals and processes in our body that drive us to do things that are out of our control. We then think we are choosing to do something when we are not. Our body is.
Brent says:
I was seeing free-will as a philosophical issue. But I know what you mean, if I’m sleep deprived over a few days I begin to feel incredibly down. A person in an abnormal or diseased mental or bodily state would not have the same degree of free will. Perhaps they wouldn’t even have any.
I’m not certain that I agree with Daniel Dennett here about what free will is, but I do agree with him about what it isn’t. If you’ve chosen a definition of “free will” which requires a violation of the laws of physics, then your definition is wrong.
Brent says:
from about 1.00.00 he speaks about the experiment.
Pseudonym says:
Incidentally, based on this, I voted “free will”, but with the caveat (for some definition of “free will” which is logically possible).
First of all, if free will is free then it is not a thing of happening but also it’s a thing of doing and then free will is an act rather than an event. If there is an omniscient being then its knowledge contradicts the free will (if it’s free). Knowledge of the being happened X does not cause X to happen. He just says, “X will happen” and X happens. Let there be light and there was light is much different than Sam26’s knowledge of sunrise. There is difference between just having the knowledge of future like predictors and being an omniscient.
I believe in free will, and I think contrary to the growing trend, I believe we probably have more control of things than we think we do. I really believe the Henry Ford line (I think it was him originally): “Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t–You’re right.” I think genetics plays a part regarding the framework that we work within, but at this point I don’t think I’d call that “limited free will”. That would just be incorporated in my definition of free will. Also, while this is not a reason for my belief, I believe it benefits the individual to believe he has free will (with possible exceptions). I’m also not regarding circumstance, nature, or nurture. They all have an effect and shape one’s life, but I think it’s either we have free will or we don’t. On a slight side note (because I believe self awareness and being able to think about thinking, is required of free will), my friend who has a one year old girl, relayed a fantastic moment to me about her child. She said there was a day where her baby went from pet-like (my words not hers) to cognisant –like a million mile jump. Cute little baby (BLINK)—-> Human! I thought that was really cool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3fhKRJNNTA
I side with Chomsky in this debate, free will does exist. It’s not that we don’t have free will, the reality is we have minuscule understanding of what’s happening and the experiments don’t provide conclusive evidence we don’t have free will, only that there are huge gaps in our scientific understanding.
It’s much easier for most people to say one side or the other, it’s more challenging for me (and I presume others, but I don’t know that for fact) to say we just don’t know. But that’s the state of the science at this time, in my understanding of it.
I think this is the first time (at least that I remember) that I’ve seen Chomsky speak. I like him.
That argument at 2:00 is dubious. Some people are undecided enough on the question (because of various factors) that a change in their environment (by happening to come across an argument for/against free will) will determine whenever they will end up believing in it or not.
Although he might only be saying this in a tongue in cheek way.
He is right that the experiment eyes posted doesn’t do much to prove or disprove free will, however. Not all decisions are made 6 seconds in advance, otherwise people surprised with a question wouldn’t be able to answer it quickly.
I’ve answered “no free will” but the truth is, I do not know. Defining free will is tricky. At first I’ve tried to define it as a third factor beside the individual (genetics, drugs/hormones in their body, whenever or not a chunk of their brain is missing) and their environment. The problem with this definition if that if free will is not tied to the individual, then praising an individual for their free will is arbitrary.
Another definition of free will is to say that it is a part of the individual separate from genetics or the integrity of the brain that we haven’t discovered, but this explanation has a bad “god of the gaps” taste to it. Not being able to explain why someone would make a given decision doesn’t mean that there is no logical explanation for such a decision. It might mean that there is a logical reason for the behavior, but that said reason is just too strange for most people to understand (sometimes even to the person committing the behavior him/herself).
PS. I wonder how similar the personality of identical twins is. Does the “past behavior is indicative of future behavior” principle applies to twins somewhat, or not at all? I mean, EFL parallels using the faces of people that look alike but aren’t genetically related, so the technique must be even more powerful used on twins.
In my opinion, you hit the key in your first sentence. What is free will? For example, what free will is to you may not be what free will is to someone in a more repressed society. Is it possible an over abundance of free will eventually leads to ‘recklessness’? Conversely, does a lack of free will become externally controlled thought. All these are reliant on the definition of free will which, I believe, is subjective. Some may call the definitions you describe above as strange or weird, but those words simply mean different than to what the labeler is accustomed. Does the externally controlled person miss their free will or will they be lost without external control? Does boundless free will unwaveringly result in recklessness? I think we’re all different with unique reactions to outside stimulus that helps shape what free will truly means to each of us. All pretty talk aside, I do concede a standard concept of free will but only in the context that it is used to describe a particular group of like-minded individuals. Not as a global concept.
I truly enjoyed reading everyone’s comments. Great topic!
If you don’t believe in free will then no-one is blameworthy, because everyone is simply following the laws of cause and effect. (I hope I didn’t oversimplify). There is a nice logical argument that fallible beings must have free will.
That’s not an argument for free will. If we can prove someone is going to do a certain behavior no matter what because of their biology, then they are indeed not blameworthy. Do you think bears can be morally blamed for bear attacks?
You can’t disprove my argument by saying ‘IF we can prove something’. That’s neither disproving what I said or demonstrating anything. People have different amounts of free will, and how much we have depends on your perspective. But people can’t make mistakes if they don’t have free will. If they don’t have free will then they are just running like machines. You don’t ‘blame’ a car if it runs out of gas and stops. It wasn’t the car’s ‘mistake’ for running out of gas. The car didn’t ‘decide’ to keep going as long as it could.Most people including society and the courts accept people make choices and make decisions ie. that they have some free will, otherwise they consider them insane or mentally ill.
The thing is, what you wrote isn’t an argument against free will.
“If you don’t believe in free will then no-one is blameworthy, because everyone is simply following the laws of cause and effect. ” Isn’t an argument against free will, simply a consequence of it. What you said is as effective as an argument than saying “Darwin can’t be right because that would imply humans came from apes”
The reason people believe others are blameworthy is (partly) because they disbelieve in the law of cause and effect in the first place. Using that fact as an argument therefore is a circular argument. We have no objective proof people ARE blameworthy for their behavior. The reason people think that is because they think people have no free will.
As far as your second argument goes… I don’t get it? You said only humans makes mistakes then gave a good list of machines doing mistakes. Sure, you said that we don’t blame machines for their mistakes but we blame humans, but thats basically your first argument.
PS Talking of mental illnesses, psychopathy is one. Since you said “otherwise they consider them insane or mentally ill.” Should we give a break to people like Ted bundy, but not to lesser agressors? That sounds backwards to me…
My first argument is FOR free will, not against it, so you might have misunderstood what I meant throughout this.
There is nothing circular about my argument. You are using my statement and giving it your own interpretation which has little to do with what I meant.
My statement about mental illness meant that if a person isn’t considered to be in control of themselves they aren’t put in the same category as people that are and so more blameworthy. Someone with a mental illness may stand trial later and they often do. Also, psychopaths know the difference between right and wrong, they just don’t care. So again, I’m not saying what you seem to be suggesting.
I’m not interested to discuss this further as you don’t seem to follow my arguments and really just seem to interpret them in your own way.
“My first argument is FOR free will, not against it, so you might have misunderstood what I meant throughout this.”
Just accidentally switched a word. I obviously know what your position is about free will.
“Also, psychopaths know the difference between right and wrong, they just don’t care.”
Still doesn’t change that
1. Psychopathy is a mental illness
2. The psychopathy undeniably is the thing responsible for a psychopath’s shitty actions.
Therefore, according to you someone should sometimes be blamed for the actions caused by their mental illness.
Maybe you should either try again making better arguments, or explain them better. Its not my fault your arguments are unconvincing. I try to interpret your arguments the most logical way they can be, but if I find no logical interpretation…
Psychopathy is NOT a mental illness. Please show where, in the DSM, it lists psychopathy as a mental illness. It doesn’t. All mental illnesses are listed in Axis I in the DSM.
PERSONALITY disorders are listed in Axis II. Specifically, Cluster B’s are: anti-social personality disorder, histronic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder. Many of the issues with the Cluster B’s
Again, all listed in Axis II, not Axis I.
http://lab4.psico.unimib.it/nettuno/forum/free_download/nettuno_495.pdf
I have heard from and read that psychologist argue about this. Some say ASPD = psychopath, while others don’t agree. But it is under the category of “anti-social” personality. I do believe it is a mental disorder–knowing these people. Their brains are not normal. But that’s just my opinion.
I had this long reply all typed out, and then my computer went wonky and I lost it.
Love and respect you Renee, but I tend to disagree [ with DSM, and the doctors that decides this stuff] about whether psychopathy is a recognized “illness” or not. An illness, because you don’t have empathy?
Adrian Raine, in his book, Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime, showed that, in his research, the gray and white matter of psychopaths was up to 10% smaller that normal/average brains. This was a biological marker. He also documented, that psychopaths had low resting heart rates. He tracked children from the age of 3 on up over the years into teens and beyond. The study was conducted in Guam. Not all individuals with low resting heart rate become psychopaths, but his research showed, that the children he tracked from the age of 3 with low resting heart rate, went on to have troubled youth and criminal arrests.
Do we give serial and/or psychopathic killers a pass and let them go free, because their brains are smaller? It’s okay, you have a biological condition. You can’t help it. Do we give them a pass for an “illness” that cannot be cured? I don’t believe there is anything that can be done, to correct smaller gray or white matter in a brain of a fully functioning adult. If that’s possible, I’d love to see the ground breaking research where, they have been able to insert an empathy gene into psychopaths, that now have true remorse for their killing.
<3
I’m sorry you lost your reply. That sucks! I would have enjoyed reading it.
it’s okay to disagree! I adore you, Betsy, and differences are all good.
I in NO WAY believe psychopaths should get a pass. Absolutely NOT. They are monsters, without question, but not by choice. I do not feel they should be allowed to pray on people and destroy lives. I’ve suffered a long time from the wrath of one I keep distant as possible. I’m not against protecting society from them and locking them up! Please know that. I just think it is a brain issue–whatever you want to call it — mental illness or biological shortcoming. It’s real, but its not a choice. It’s not free will in my eyes.
Do we disagree on that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder
“The DSM-5 published in 2013 now lists personality disorders in exactly
the same way as other mental disorders, rather than on a separate ‘axis’
as previously.”
I look at it this way. When they do autopsies on people who commit suicide, they have found high levels of melatonin. Melatonin suppresses seratonin–your feel good hormone. So these people might want to feel happy, but don’t, and can’t, and ultimately are driven by their mind to commit suicide. You may say suicide was “free will”. I would argue it was a biological process–not free will.
There are so many biological chemicals and processes in our body that drive us to do things that are out of our control. We then think we are choosing to do something when we are not. Our body is.
I was seeing free-will as a philosophical issue. But I know what you mean, if I’m sleep deprived over a few days I begin to feel incredibly down. A person in an abnormal or diseased mental or bodily state would not have the same degree of free will. Perhaps they wouldn’t even have any.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwbnGqOrAEM
I’m not certain that I agree with Daniel Dennett here about what free will is, but I do agree with him about what it isn’t. If you’ve chosen a definition of “free will” which requires a violation of the laws of physics, then your definition is wrong.
from about 1.00.00 he speaks about the experiment.
Incidentally, based on this, I voted “free will”, but with the caveat (for some definition of “free will” which is logically possible).
First of all, if free will is free then it is not a thing of happening but also it’s a thing of doing and then free will is an act rather than an event. If there is an omniscient being then its knowledge contradicts the free will (if it’s free). Knowledge of the being happened X does not cause X to happen. He just says, “X will happen” and X happens. Let there be light and there was light is much different than Sam26’s knowledge of sunrise. There is difference between just having the knowledge of future like predictors and being an omniscient.
This is worth a read and is more in line with what i suspect is going on. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/a-neuroscience-finding-on-free-will.html#