Free will, faciticity and their (not-so) surprising consequences(paraschopra.com)
paraschopra.com
Free will, faciticity and their (not-so) surprising consequences
http://paraschopra.com/blog/personal/free-will-faciticity-consequences.htm
18 comments
True. What I meant was that free will as we typically consider it -- our _conscious self_ making a decision out of free will is an illusion. As you say:
>my brain has analyze the consequences of my action, and I am now at a point where I'm making a choice
If you differentiate between brain analyzing the consequences, and then _you_ making a decision, that is wrong. Research shows _you_ seem to be making a decision, but actually your brain has already made one. Of course, if you include unconscious neural activity as a conception of self, free will does exist but if only consider self that is conscious of itself, free will doesn't seem to exist.
>my brain has analyze the consequences of my action, and I am now at a point where I'm making a choice
If you differentiate between brain analyzing the consequences, and then _you_ making a decision, that is wrong. Research shows _you_ seem to be making a decision, but actually your brain has already made one. Of course, if you include unconscious neural activity as a conception of self, free will does exist but if only consider self that is conscious of itself, free will doesn't seem to exist.
> my brain can analyze the consequences of my action
>
Very true. I think this is the key component in free-will -- the fact that we can simulate things in our head before making decisions.
We don't put murderers in jail because of their upbringing, but because they simulated the act of killing someone and then went ahead and did it.
______________________________
While we are on the subject, I want to recommend a great source of readings and commentary on consciousness and free will: http://www.consciousentities.com/
Very true. I think this is the key component in free-will -- the fact that we can simulate things in our head before making decisions.
We don't put murderers in jail because of their upbringing, but because they simulated the act of killing someone and then went ahead and did it.
______________________________
While we are on the subject, I want to recommend a great source of readings and commentary on consciousness and free will: http://www.consciousentities.com/
>(At atomic level, I don’t know if universe is deterministic or not, but at human level it definitely is not).
That level of certainty demands an explanation. The author seems to come to the conclusion that the complex interactions do not leave room for determinism. I'm not entirely sure why.
The usual idea is that if one were to know the position and velocity of every particle in the physical universe, one could theoretically predict how the universe would change at any given time. That should work as well for four particles as it should for four billion. I don't think complexity in a system can be used to show evidence of true randomness.
That being said, I don't believe the world is deterministic at either the atomic or the macroscopic level. But I wholly dislike the reasons presented here.
That level of certainty demands an explanation. The author seems to come to the conclusion that the complex interactions do not leave room for determinism. I'm not entirely sure why.
The usual idea is that if one were to know the position and velocity of every particle in the physical universe, one could theoretically predict how the universe would change at any given time. That should work as well for four particles as it should for four billion. I don't think complexity in a system can be used to show evidence of true randomness.
That being said, I don't believe the world is deterministic at either the atomic or the macroscopic level. But I wholly dislike the reasons presented here.
My point here is that universe is definitely not deterministic on a macro, human level. It may not be random at most fundamental level, but the number of variables there are, on a macro level it the universe does not seem to be deterministic.
>My point here is that universe is definitely not deterministic on a macro, human level. It may not be random at most fundamental level, but the number of variables there are, on a macro level it the universe does not seem to be deterministic.
Why does an increasing number of variables mean the system is not deterministic? Simply because interactions between people are complex, does not mean they are not deterministic. The number of variables has no impact on whether or not a system is deterministic.
Why does an increasing number of variables mean the system is not deterministic? Simply because interactions between people are complex, does not mean they are not deterministic. The number of variables has no impact on whether or not a system is deterministic.
I did not say it is not deterministic, however it _appears_ to be non deterministic on a macro level.
There's an important factor usually missing from "free will" discussions: that a deterministic consciousness engine must include the individual's beliefs about free will. Someone who believes they have free will behave differently than someone who doesn't. Moreover, a society that believes in free will exert different behavioral pressures than one who doesn't.
While I don't think "free will" exists objectively (every choice is traceable to causes under any model), it seems to me to be a necessary illusion for people to accept responsibility over their own behavior, internally and externally. However, it is at best a fuzzy abstraction, and there is absolutely benefit to continue exploring and unpacking the free will story.
While I don't think "free will" exists objectively (every choice is traceable to causes under any model), it seems to me to be a necessary illusion for people to accept responsibility over their own behavior, internally and externally. However, it is at best a fuzzy abstraction, and there is absolutely benefit to continue exploring and unpacking the free will story.
I agree with you that it may be beneficial to maintain the illusion of free will in the society, however the truth that emerges from science and philosophical discussions must be called out and their consequences must be carefully analyzed (no matter how bitter they may be). It's like the good old debate between good v/s truth where two may not be compatible.
It's facticity, as in 'fact' of the matter. I don't think you've quite grasped the concept or the necessary, productive role it plays. You might also look into Befindlichkeit and the section of B&T that deals with the hermeneutic circle (I don't have a copy at the office, but if you search 'circulus vitiosus' you'll find it).
Thanks for correcting it. Don't know why I missed it entirely! Thanks for pointing other references as well, will definitely check them out -- this subject interests me a lot.
Thanks for correcting "facticity". I thought maybe I had remembered Sartre incorrectly.
[deleted]
No point trying to decide what to do about the consequences of a lack of free will. If you can decide whether or not to punish someone, they can decide whether or not to offend. If they have no choice in their action, neither do you.
Daniel Dennett has a nice critique of the Libet experiment where he argues that there's a temporal mismatch between making the decision and recording that the decision was made. Basically that experiment can't actually measure the decision moving from unconsciousness to consciousness, only the shifting to making that decision to consciousness being aware that you made the decision and now need to focus on shifting attention. It's important to note too that people who have more attention report faster response times.
> we may either regard children who do well at studies as good kids, or we may instead idolize cool kids who bunk classes and have fun all the time. So early in our life, what makes us fall into one group and not the other?
Another conundrum: Some people like to create false dichotomies, and others (who fell into both of the above groups) see them for what they are.
How do you explain that?
Another conundrum: Some people like to create false dichotomies, and others (who fell into both of the above groups) see them for what they are.
How do you explain that?
I'm not sure I got your point. Can you elaborate?
Being influenced by your environment doesn't mean you had no say in the choices you made.
And if there truly is no free will, then we have no choice but to feel pride in our actions, if that's how we are built.
So you can't say not to feel pride. Doesn't really make sense.
And if there truly is no free will, then we have no choice but to feel pride in our actions, if that's how we are built.
So you can't say not to feel pride. Doesn't really make sense.
Negation of this universal quantifier only needs existential evidence, so I'll attempt to provide one. Say I'm unemployed and watching TV on a Monday afternoon. The thought occurs in my mind that I need to look for a job, but the facticity is setup such that I'm very lazy and unwilling to look for jobs, and the impulse for me is to continue doing what I was doing. A few minutes into it, my brain has analyze the consequences of my action, and I am now at a point where I'm making a choice. The research quote all agrees above that my unconscious brain made the choice initially, and yet there's room for "free will".
I think the problem is the extension of impulse as the basis of all human behavior, leaving no room for analytical thought. You're probably looking for a dialogue here, but unfortunately I've used up all my free time in trying to write this up :) There's no reason to respond, I only want to plant the seed that "lack of free will" theory doesn't hold up. I am sure you can stretch your metaphysics to accomodate my anecdote above, but I'm sure someone else can provide another. I urge you to step outside your thought process and really quantify free will as a result of analytical thought, come up with a different theory, and then reconcile it with the one you've come up with above.