Free will? Who cares?

[moonbogg]

I would argue that very few people actually care about the question of free will. Evidence has shown that we don't have it. Studies show that the subconscious brain arrives at a decision and then that information is brought up to the top level, or conscious mind, and you become aware of what your subconscious "chose".
I've read that consciousness is simply awareness, and awareness can't choose anything. We are aware of the results of what our complex brains do only after the brain has done it. So, we are like observers who have hitched a ride in this world and we are aware of what is happening, like watching a movie, but we have no true control over anything. If that's the case, then what purpose does consciousness serve? Why would consciousness evolve at all?






Thread locked at OP's request.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I would argue that very few people actually care about the question of free will. Evidence has shown that we don't have it. Studies show that the subconscious brain arrives at a decision and then that information is brought up to the top level, or conscious mind, and you become aware of what your subconscious "chose".
I've read that consciousness is simply awareness, and awareness can't choose anything. We are aware of the results of what our complex brains do only after the brain has done it. So, we are like observers who have hitched a ride in this world and we are aware of what is happening, like watching a movie, but we have no true control over anything. If that's the case, then what purpose does consciousness serve? Why would consciousness evolve at all?

You seem to have answered your own question. Good job!

 

[moonbogg]

You seem to have answered your own question. Good job!

I don't know why consciousness evolved if it doesn't play a part in our decision making. That is the question and its laid out in the OP.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I don't know why consciousness evolved if it doesn't play a part in our decision making. That is the question and its laid out in the OP.

You seem to believe humans are merely progenitors of our DNA yet consciousness is a fluke. I submit self awareness is free will.

 

[moonbogg]

You seem to believe humans are merely progenitors of our DNA yet consciousness is a fluke. I submit self awareness is free will.

I don't believe anything. This is what the best science tell us. There is real evidence that the brain decides things before we are aware of what was chosen. I suppose that evidence should quite simply be ignored if certain world views are to be kept intact however.
Also, I didn't suggest consciousness was a fluke. The fact that is exists suggests it provides an advantage to survival. I don't understand why our brains need to be aware of choices when the choices alone should be sufficient for survival.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I don't believe anything. This is what the best science tell us. There is real evidence that the brain decides things before we are aware of what was chosen. I suppose that evidence should quite simply be ignored if certain world views are to be kept intact however.
Also, I didn't suggest consciousness was a fluke. The fact that is exists suggests it provides an advantage to survival. I don't understand why our brains need to be aware of choices when the choices alone should be sufficient for survival.

You're asking the wrong question and disappointed that it doesn't explain everything. You are trying to get granular about how the internal combustion engine works and are confused that it doesn't explain where it's going or why.

Instinct alone is insufficient for adaptation.

 

[moonbogg]

You're asking the wrong question and disappointed that it doesn't explain everything. You are trying to get granular about how the internal combustion engine works and are confused that it doesn't explain where it's going or why.

Instinct alone is insufficient for adaptation.

I think you're trolling.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I think you're trolling.

I think your belief that science can ever answer any question but 'how ' is quite foolish.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I would argue that very few people actually care about the question of free will. Evidence has shown that we don't have it. Studies show that the subconscious brain arrives at a decision and then that information is brought up to the top level, or conscious mind, and you become aware of what your subconscious "chose".

The "science" of the mind is a strange animal. It is plagued by a number of assumptions and compartmentalizations that, while often pragmatic, are then over-weighted in the end products, and this seems to lead to some distorted (IMO) concepts of what it is and how it works.

One in particular, evident in your statements above, is that the "subconscious" is somehow distinct and autonomous -- not "you," and not "free" -- as though it were some nefarious puppet master pulling each person's strings with no regard for one's dreams or fears.

I don't think that there will ever be a true scientific resolution to the question of free will vs. determinism, but it does seem at least at the present moment there is "room" in our physical models for the kind of indeterminism that free will would likely require. From a broader, and more pragmatic albeit philosophical approach, I think it is senseless for a person to reject the idea that his choices are his own to make -- in fact, despite what a person says, I'm not convinced that it is even possible to do so. I'd even go so far as to say it is implicit in that person's very existence.

I've read that consciousness is simply awareness, and awareness can't choose anything.

While I'm not convinced that the collapse of a wave function is evidently tied to observation, there are a number of experiments that are suggestive that observation is influential in the determination of indeterminate states. If that isn't "choice," I don't know what is.

We are aware of the results of what our complex brains do only after the brain has done it.

While I think self-perception is a key component of consciousness, I think its relationship to the brain is a bit more bi-directional or recursive.

So, we are like observers who have hitched a ride in this world and we are aware of what is happening, like watching a movie, but we have no true control over anything. If that's the case, then what purpose does consciousness serve? Why would consciousness evolve at all?

I'm not convinced that consciousness did evolve.

 

[1prophet]

I would argue that very few people actually care about the question of free will. Evidence has shown that we don't have it. Studies show that the subconscious brain arrives at a decision and then that information is brought up to the top level, or conscious mind, and you become aware of what your subconscious "chose".
I've read that is simply awareness, and awareness can't choose anything. We are aware of the results of what our complex brains do only after the brain has done it. So, we are like observers who have hitched a ride in this world and we are aware of what is happening, like watching a movie, but we have no true control over anything. If that's the case, then what purpose does consciousness serve? Why would consciousness evolve at all?

So you proceeded to rape the woman because your subconscious told you she wanted it based on the way she was dressed and the perfume she wore and your consciousness is just along for the ride,

therefore your consciousness self shouldn't be held responsible because it didn't have free will to say no?

Don't think anyone (reasonable) is going to buy that just like they won't buy the "devil made me do it".

 

[moonbogg]

I think your belief that science can ever answer any question but 'how ' is quite foolish.

I say "why" but what I really mean is "how". When I said why, I was trying to see what benefit awareness could provide an organism beyond simply operating on instinct.

I'm not convinced that consciousness did evolve.

How else could it have arrived?

So you proceeded to rape the woman because your subconscious told you she wanted it based on the way she was dressed and the perfume she wore and your consciousness is just along for the ride,

therefore your consciousness self shouldn't be held responsible because it didn't have free will to say no?

Don't think anyone (reasonable) is going to buy that just like they won't buy the "devil made me do it".

This is often the center of debate about this topic. People not being held responsible is a big fear, but that's not what would result from embracing the truth of determinism. Instead of that, we would view crimes in a different light. Society still needs to be protected from dangerous people, and corrective actions still yield results.
When someone commits a crime, instead of hating the person for doing it, we could understand that many events came into play that led to this person committing this crime, and then focus more energy on understanding why the crime occurred rather than simply labeling the person evil and being done with it.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

This is often the center of debate about this topic. People not being held responsible is a big fear, but that's not what would result from embracing the truth of determinism. Instead of that, we would view crimes in a different light. Society still needs to be protected from dangerous people, and corrective actions still yield results.
When someone commits a crime, instead of hating the person for doing it, we could understand that many events came into play that led to this person committing this crime, and then focus more energy on understanding why the crime occurred rather than simply labeling the person evil and being done with it.

Now, this has gotten quite silly. You've now gone from denying free will exists to denying evil exists. You believe in "science " but, choose not to believe your own experience. If you do not trust your own observations, how do you lend credence to a scientist's observations?

By focusing solely on 'how ' you remove yourself from humanity by definition.

 

[moonbogg]

Now, this has gotten quite silly. You've now gone from denying free will exists to denying evil exists. You believe in "science " but, choose not to believe your own experience. If you do not trust your own observations, how do you lend credence to a scientist's observations?

By focusing solely on 'how ' you remove yourself from humanity by definition.

Now you're trolling.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Now you're trolling.

That's the second time you've called me a troll yet, I have continued to discuss your op without name calling or denigrating you.

I'm assuming your contention is that the evil acts some people perform is due purely to mental illness. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any scientific proof of these people's brains functioning differently than yours or mine. Do you believe their DNA is somehow damaged or deficient?

Members of different cultures and societies think differently. They prioritize differently and adapt to changes in their environment differently than you or I would. How does their DNA know which group they belong to if self awareness plays no part?

 

[moonbogg]

That's the second time you've called me a troll yet, I have continued to discuss your op without name calling or denigrating you.

I'm assuming your contention is that the evil acts some people perform is due purely to mental illness. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any scientific proof of these people's brains functioning differently than yours or mine. Do you believe their DNA is somehow damaged or deficient?

Members of different cultures and societies think differently. They prioritize differently and adapt to changes in their environment differently than you or I would. How does their DNA know which group they belong to if self awareness plays no part?

If you aren't trolling, then I apologize. When you said that I was being silly for not believing in evil etc etc it seemed like a derail/troll attempt. You just seemed like you were out to antagonize, derail etc with general disrespect without giving the thread any consideration and this started with your first very unnecessary response of me answering my own question or something like that. You set a tone with your posts that made me defensive or want to avoid you.
To what you said above, I don't think "evil" is due to only mental illness. People are a product of their genes and of their environment. I think its about split 50/50 from what I read. I'm not pretending to understand how the brain/mind works in any significant detail. I am reflecting on scientific evidence that shows that a researcher with instruments can know what you will decide before you do. Decisions are made subconsciously, and yes, this is still you making the choice, but is it a willful choice if you are not aware that you are doing it?

 

[SMOGZINN]

When someone commits a crime, instead of hating the person for doing it, we could understand that many events came into play that led to this person committing this crime, and then focus more energy on understanding why the crime occurred rather than simply labeling the person evil and being done with it.

All of which would require freewill.


The problem with the Freewill vs. Determinism debate is that it is framed wrong. It is framed as a black and white issue when there nearly has to be a grey area between them that we sit in. Our actions are deterministic reactions that are shaped by freewill. Like so much in this universe, both are true and neither are a complete answer by themselves.

 

[moonbogg]

All of which would require freewill.


The problem with the Freewill vs. Determinism debate is that it is framed wrong. It is framed as a black and white issue when there nearly has to be a grey area between them that we sit in. Our actions are deterministic reactions that are shaped by freewill. Like so much in this universe, both are true and neither are a complete answer by themselves.

Could be. Anything is possible at this point I suppose. Its not like its exactly a settled issue. I lean hard toward free will being illusory. Its an illusion because it seems very much like we have it.
When you decide what to have for desert, and you choose chocolate cake, I may ask you why you chose that and you might say "because it just sounded good". Why did it sound good over the other choices? Did it just happen and you became aware of it? Or did you consciously choose to like chocolate more at that point in time?
I would argue that your choice to eat chocolate had nothing to do with free will.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How else could it have arrived?

I'm not convinced it "arrived." There is the very legitimate possibility that consciousness is primal. I intended to explore this idea in my thread about panpsychism, but admittedly I didn't do a very good job with it.

 

[moonbogg]

I'm not convinced it "arrived." There is the very legitimate possibility that consciousness is primal. I intended to explore this idea in my thread about panpsychism, but admittedly I didn't do a very good job with it.

Could be, and imagine how incredible a shock that would be. I don't know if that would necessarily mean we had free will though. Consciousness could be the foundation of reality and could still result in a deterministic world.
This free will thing gets wrapped up in world views pretty easily.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

If people are a product of their environment, whatever percentage you assign it, then selfawareness must play a part. Free will is a condition not, a choice. The subconscious is as affected by it as your conscious mind is. The old saw about not making a choice is a choice, is a truism.

 

[moonbogg]

If people are a product of their environment, whatever percentage you assign it, then selfawareness must play a part. Free will is a condition not, a choice. The subconscious is as affected by it as your conscious mind is. The old saw about not making a choice is a choice, is a truism.

Yes, self awareness has an effect on us because we can reflect and think about our previous actions and their consequences and then plan better for the future.
When I say our subconscious make our decisions, its not like its some stranger in the shadows and we are at their mercy. Our subconscious is us. It is where all of our experiences of the past are and it contains our values, moral etc. So, when a decision is made subconsciously during information processing in the brain, and we then become aware of that decision, we have no problem taking ownership of that decision. You would say that you made that decision, and in fact you did make it. My point was that you had no conscious choice in the matter. The decision is made in the dark without your knowledge, and once it is made only then does it come to light so you can take ownership of it.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Yes, self awareness has an effect on us because we can reflect and think about our previous actions and their consequences and then plan better for the future.
When I say our subconscious make our decisions, its not like its some stranger in the shadows and we are at their mercy. Our subconscious is us. It is where all of our experiences of the past are and it contains our values, moral etc. So, when a decision is made subconsciously during information processing in the brain, and we then become aware of that decision, we have no problem taking ownership of that decision. You would say that you made that decision, and in fact you did make it. My point was that you had no conscious choice in the matter. The decision is made in the dark without your knowledge, and once it is made only then does it come to light so you can take ownership of it.

Your first sentence would seem to conflict with the rest of your statement. How is planning possible without free will? If that planning is instinctual, how do we learn?

 

[moonbogg]

Your first sentence would seem to conflict with the rest of your statement. How is planning possible without free will? If that planning is instinctual, how do we learn?

Information goes in, it gets processed, and then information goes out. We are able to witness this and reflect on it, but because the actual processing takes place in conjunction with so much information that we have no access to, the outcomes are not dependent on our ability to take note of the process.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Numerous people have the ability for their conscious mind to control autonomic responses and functions. How does that fit with the subconscious as the only decision maker?

 

[moonbogg]

Numerous people have the ability for their conscious mind to control autonomic responses and functions. How does that fit with the subconscious as the only decision maker?

This is the same as chocolate cake. The device functions on electrical impulse. The device does not know or care about choice. It is mechanical.
The person electing to move the cursor on the screen to the left, does so in the same way as you elect to move your hand to the left. The decision making process that led both of you to that choice took place in the dark, based on information being processed in the subconscious that neither of you had any access to.

EDIT: Experiments show a time delay between a decision being made and a person being aware of making that decision. The decision is made first, and then enters your awareness at which point you take ownership of the decision. The time delay is real and you can read about the study. I'll find the link if need be.