I mean you, specifically.
I'm not asking whether people have free will. I think they do - except you. You're the one person on earth who doesn't have it.
If you disagree - how would you convince me that you do have it?
Alternatively, if you're one of the people who doesn't believe in free will - I agree with you, people don't have it... except me. I'm special.
-
This might seem like one of those thought experiments that only philosophers could care about, but it's of more everyday importance than the general question of 'whether we have free will'. That's an interesting debate, but really it doesn't change anything. If we have it, we always have, and if we don't, we never will. Either way, here we are, and we'd better get on with our lives.
On the other hand, the question of whether an individual has free will has real consequences. It can even be a matter of life or death. It comes up in court cases. Lawyers and psychiatrists don't use the words "free will", they'll talk about responsibility or capacity or sound minds, but what they mean, in essence, is what the rest of us mean by the term free will.
In some of these cases, free will is what you want - if, say, psychiatrists want to confine you to a hospital, and you say you don't want to be there. Other times it's the reverse - if you've committed a crime, and your defense is that some kind of mental or neurological illness made you do it, then you're arguing that you don't have it (or didn't, at the crucial moment.)
But while lots of people have opinions on the abstract "Free Will" question, I don't think many people pay attention to the issue of their own free will or lack of it - until they end up in court. We just assume that if everyone else has it, so do we, and vice versa.
Yet how can we be so sure? Everyone accepts that people differ in regards to how much free will they have. Wwhen people say "I believe people have free will", they don't really mean all people - they surely make an exception for babies, people in a coma, people having a seizure, and probably children, people with dementia, people with severe mental illness... Likewise, people who don't believe in free will recognize that there's a difference between a normal adult and one of those people.
But where do we draw the line, and how do you know which side you're on? This seems to me the most important questions to be asking about free will.
32 comments:
A definition of what YOU mean by free will [& possibly the means by which one could test for its existence] must be the starting point. Perhaps you've already covered that somewhere else...
This sounds very much like Max Velmans comment on consciousness
"Viewed from a first-person perspective, consciousness appears to be necessary for most forms of complex or novel processing. But viewed from a third-person perspective, consciousness does not appear to be necessary for any form of processing" (Velmans, p. 219, 2000).
Historically, the idea of the psychological interior, that we reside 'within ourselves' and can 'look inside ourselves' arose in the 4th c. CE and was concomitant with the development of silent reading practices. I know that free will, as an idea, was developed by the same author - Augustine of Hippo - and I suspect that its development and popularisation is, at least in part, to similar literary practices.
Hence, I imagine that free will, in the current context, is a learned activity. Indeed, much recent work by the likes of Baumeister confirms this.
Would it be too much to suggest that in the near future we may have tests of free will? In which case we could draw a line between those who have not yet developed it, or lost it, and those of us who are getting there...
Michael: Hey, this is about you, not me ;-)
Personally I think the term "free will" is problematic and that we neither have it nor don't have it because it does not refer to something it makes sense to say anything "has".
But even so I've found it useful to ask myself, OK I have decided that no-one has "free will", but why does it still seem like babies have even less of it than the rest of us? If it's a meaningless set of words then how does that work?
Looking at specific cases rather than the abstract issue can help to refine ones concepts. Well it does for me anyway.
I think that psychiatrists are just asked by judges if a person had cognitive abilities enough to know what she was doing at the time of the crime, absolutly or to some degree.
Except for drunks who the judge think responsible since they drank.
The free will is a matter for the judges or whatever jurors to decide after a crime.
And also a philosophical and religious beliefs debate.
It depends if you are a compatibilist or not. If you are a compatibilist, then psychology and neuroscience cannot add anything to the question whether we have free will, they can only investigate agency, i.e. the feeling of being in control of ones actions. If you are an incompatibilist, then you can test whether a situation in which you believe to have free will can be strongly predicted before you have made the decision.
First, I like what you said in the comment to Micahael, "Personally I think the term 'free will' is problematic and that we neither have it nor don't have it because it does not refer to something it makes sense to say anything 'has'."
I like to think we all have free will yet no one uses it because they've become so conditioned to run on autopilot all day. It's a lot easier than thinking. ;-)
Legal capacity or responsibility and free will are not necessarily as strongly related as you might think. In fact, I believe criminal law often simply assumes free will and that responsibility is an entirely different question (but I am not a lawyer).
The details are going to depend on the country/legal system in question but in France for example the criteria is more whether or not you were aware of what you were doing, not whether you were free to choose another course of action. Thus, if you beat someone to death, you might be able to get committed to a psychiatric institution instead of facing jail time by convincing the justice system that you genuinely thought this person was a punching ball but not by claiming you had an irrepressible urge to kill him or her.
In principle, you might be free to make choices even if you are completely delusional or, conversely, be moved by uncontrollable forces and still be fully aware of what is going on (including the fact that you are breaking some rule). As another commenter noted, it's more a cognitive criteria than anything else.
My view on free will is that it is a useless concept because it explains nothing about behavior. Free will is akin to the "god of the gaps" idea, we attribute free will to where we cannot explain behavior. Free will is a nuisance concept because what is free about willing? We decide in the face of constraints, not freedom. So what do we mean by "free" and "will". Is anything truly "free" in the universe?
I call plagiarism ;) But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery they say...
http://petrossa.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/free-will-does-it-exist/
The idea that, because we can explain a behavior, we justify it in some way is a persistent little pain-in-the-ass. (I touched on the issue, ever so briefly here: http://popsych.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-description-explanation.html). It comes up in opposition to evolutionary psychology a lot.
When it comes to free will, it seems to go something like this: Behavior is either determined by previous causes - in which case we're not morally responsible - or behavior isn't determined by previous causes (is random) - in which case we're also not morally responsible. Free-will seems to require some acasual, non-random force, which I see a conceptual problem with.
Since we're dealing with morality though, you can bet you'll find more than your fair share of hypocrisy about when it comes to people's thoughts on the issue.
"Except for drunks who the judge think responsible since they drank."
Well, for driving, yes; for having sex, not necessarily (then it might be date rape). Kind of odd, really.
I agree with John. Free will is a nonsense term. Until somebody comes up with a useful operational definition (ie, a means to determine if something has it or does not have it) then it can be no part of any useful model explaining behavior.
Furthermore, from a physics perspective, all of physical laws (really really good models) are dynamically deterministic. (If you bring up quantum mechanics then please be aware that the Shrodinger Equation is deterministic too. The Measurement Problem is not and it stands as an axiom of physics rather than a dynamic model.) So if our physics is a good description of our universe and since deterministic evolution of a system only depends upon initial conditions of the system then where does free will (whatever that is) fit in?
Thank you for the post and the opportunity to comment.
In my view, “free will” is like a mystery picture on a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces do not fit together.
The preceding is adapted from the opening sentence of an essay I recently posted at:
http://www.quadnets.com/puzzle.html
I am both an engineer and a practicing lawyer (my professional page is at http://www.kovsky.com). I discuss the topic from multiple points of view. As suggested by Neuroskeptic, the legal issues are quire illuminating. The posted summary of the essay is copied below. I appreciate any interest.
How to solve free-will puzzles and overcome limitations of platonic science
“Free will” puzzles are failed attempts to make freedom fit into forms of science. The failures seem puzzling because of widespread beliefs that forms of science describe and control everything. Errors in such beliefs are shown by analysis of forms of “platonic science” that were invented in ancient Greece and that have developed into modern physics. Static and quasi-static forms are suited for placid equilibrium conditions and relaxation processes. Linear forms, abstracted from geometrical space, impose rigidity and continuity. Such spatial forms fail to describe muscular movements of animals that have actual life. Limitations of platonic science are overcome by means of new forms with the character of time, e.g., a form of a beat and saccadic (jumpy) forms. New technologies of action and freedom generate and control temporal forms in proposed device models of brains. Some temporal forms have critical moments of transformation, e.g., a moment of overtaking during a footrace or a jury’s moment of decision during a trial in court.
We have option and choices and the capacity to choose between the options. Options are constrained to variable degrees by facticity and are therefore determined. Depending on constraints of determinism, we have variable degrees of choice. Options or choices can't be completely free, even when they may appear to be so, since there are so many unconscious and subliminal factors that closely affect our choices. Even in conditions where we think we are randomly choosing, conditioning and unconscious motivations are at play. Even in the brain, there are a number of different pathways that lead to a particular percept, which pathway dominates perception is determined by previous choices and constraints of our surroundings. Therefore,i think I can choose, but I can increase my ability to make more conscious choices by reappraising, and for that, the ability to self reflect (be cognizant of my own though processes) is crucial.
Well, the problem also lies in a conflation of a "freedom from" outside influences and a "freedom to" choose.
If a choice is anything other than random, there must be a preexisting quality in the subject (e.g. preference, instinct, etc.) that makes the choice. Most people will take things like genetics or psychology, etc. to say that what we do is predetermined by an outside factor. But most of us would say that without a personality, we cannot form a preference.
So I'd propose that most arguments against free will are unwilling/unable to clearly define what is part of personality and what is outside it. (but something must remain inside that circle, or the question is nonsense!)
JESSE MARCZYK,
Since when and in which country being drunk at the time of action in commiting a serious crime has been a way of escaping the criminal justice system for a date rapist -unless the victim was so drunk herself or himself to be able to prove that she or he dsaid no ?
I am not aware of any rapists or wife murderer or child murderer or whatever escaping justice because he or she was drunk.
You wrote 6 January 2012 18:06:
""Well, for driving, yes; for having sex, not necessarily (then it might be date rape). Kind of odd, really.""
In answer to my slightly sarcastic sentence:
"Except for drunks who the judge think responsible since they drank."
In France you escape justice if you were too much cognitively impaired or mentally insane at the time of the crime to the point that you cognitiver abilitities were not permitting you "discernement" (the ability to form a proper judgment.
The judges want to know if your ability to form a jusgement of the situation and of the consequences of your action has been abolished or severly impaired but not completely abolished.
In France it is unlawful to put to criminal trial a person who had no "discernement" at all at the moment of the crime.
But in praxctice psychiatry being anything but a science until now and right wing demagogy being pregnant in France politics, a completely delusional man was put to criminal trial because the minister of justice promised it to the parent of a child victim on television and then sentenced as heavily as a sane man because- as the journalist put it-
"the psychiatrists experts left the court room clmosing the door behing them after having switch off the light."
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2011/12/12/01016-20111212ARTFIG00498-les-experts-defilent-au-proces-valentin.php
John,
I read your -October 2011I I think- post on free will and I more or less take your attitude for the theoritical thinking about free will.
Still, as psychiatrists we have in France to answer -to the best of our abilities- the judges who ask if a criminal suspect was or not "without proper judgment" at the time of the crime.
Was he delusional enough to believe truly and without any possibility to escape the delusion that the person he killed was a wampire about to suck his blood or that he had to kill that child in order to prevent a cosmic disaster and the end of the world?
Basically the French judge want to know if a suspect is completly crazy or seriously crazy in order to send them to forensic hospitals instead of a trial.
By the way, I believe Darwin was a genius and that there is very few holes in his theory.
I am not aware that the psychologists trying to put to good use his theory of the evolution of the species have produced another striking piece of research so far.
I know for sure that some of those "darwinian psychologists" have a peculiar grasp of the theory and a very light view about what is a scientific proof or even argument.
FOR ATTENTION OF Commenter "DC" - I think I just accidentally deleted the comment you left on this thread. sorry, I was clearing out the spam and clicked on the wrong thing.
I guess you could say you're a victim of collateral spammage.
My comment was that we may have will but not free will.
(Google always marks my comments as Spam.)
Don Cox
@DS: Deterministic, yes, but not necessarily computable! Billions, trillions of connections... All you need is a hundred billiard balls on a (large) billiard table and your ability to compute where any one particular ball ends up is practically impossible to compute. Yet all around deterministic!
Ivana,
The difference I was suggesting is that if someone is heavily intoxicated, it's generally not acceptable to have sex with them, even if they consent at the time. That would fall under the category of rape, because the drunk person in question is supposed to have a diminished capacity to make decisions.
However, if someone is heavily intoxicated and commits a crime, such as driving in such a state, their diminished capacity to make the decision about whether or not to commit said crime is not often viewed a mitigating factor.
In one case, the idea seems to run along the lines of: being drunk has an effect on your ability to make decisions, leaving you not responsible for that decision; in the other case, the idea sounds more like: being drunk has an effect on your ability to make decisions, but you're still completely responsible for them.
I hope that clears it up a bit, because I'm not sure you caught that meaning the first time around.
It's not likely that anyone has free will in the way it is thought of by most people (the idea that a person could have done otherwise). However, all of our emotions presuppose free will, and we can't get rid of emotional responses because they're an intrinsic to being human. In essence, we're doomed to reason as if free will exists. Peter Strawson made this argument in his "Freedom and Resentment." There's a really good discussion of this idea on the In Our Time podcast by three philosophers: Simon Blackburn, Helen Beebee and Galen Strawson. Highly recommended if you're interested in this stuff.
Hi Ryan
We do appear to be emotionally wed to the notion.
Another slightly philosophical twist... (And then I'll get back on piste, I promise!)
"Is the earth flat?"
As far as our everyday experiences are concerned, if we are walking to the pub, or navigating around town using a (flat) map then the experiential answer is "yes." For sure, some of the things we can do (like climb a mountain to see the curve of the earth or use GPS instead of a paper map) will bring the non-flatness of the earth into question. But these are quite peripheral to our physical experience.
Free will could be a similarly efficient "illusion." Strictly speaking "illusion" it might be, but for practical purposes it works (and will continue to work) well. I expect that this would be true even if someone eventually comes up with a formula that defines a "free will quotient" from the bazillions of cells, connections and whatnot in our brain goop. What would seem to count is the emergent property, which sure feels "flat like the earth."
Jesse,
For what I know the judges consider that you are responsible for your drinking and the consequences of being drunk-like if addiciton did not exist for some persons -
For a car accident it is an offense in itself to drive when drunk and you will get punished more heavily in criminal court if yoy cause a traffic accident when drunk.
But if you complain of rape when drunk -unlike if you complain about receiving drug rape benzodiazepine or whatever to make yoy unable to escape rape before being raped- yoy will have a very hard time to obtain a rape convinction.
It is the same at least in New York for what I know: a drunk person is supposed by the police and the judges not to be able to remember if she(he) did say no or not.
A jury acquitted two New York police officers on Thursday of charges that they raped a drunken woman after helping her into her apartment ...May 27, 2011 - By JOHN ELIGON - N.Y. / Region
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/nyregion/two-new-york-city-police-officers-acquitted-of-rape.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=excecutive%20woman%20raped%20policemen%20new%20york%20attorney%20Vance&st=cse
In GB, they have soccer champions who died publicly repenting their bouts of drunkness, in France wz had a caoptain of the national rudby team who became alcohol dependant and kill his wife at the wedding of a friend. he did not escape sentencing when even his wife's family were considering he was a great man victim of an addiction.
practiCal fMRI
What do you mean by "What would seem to count"? Emotionally count? Count with respect to some predictive model?
FWIW, the legal standards for the situations you highlight (competency to make decisions or execute documents, or legal responsibility for a crime) are usually operationalized in terms of knowledge rather than freedom to choose and don't really get to the "free will" question.
You are competent to write a will if you know (1) who your family is, (2) what you own, and (3) you don't leave anything to a hallucination. The typical successful insanity defense involves a condition that deprives you of knowledge of the way that things actually are (e.g. you hallucinate that your neighbor is really Darth Vader or Hitler), rather than one that deprives you have an ability to make a conscious decision (which comes up in cases where the issue is whether you engaged in a legal "act" by, for example, having a spasm that fires a gun.
Something that reminded me of this a bit, and seems to having something to say about it:
http://theneuroethicsblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/framing-and-responsibility-in.html#more
Legal and ethical implications of not having Free Will are irrelevant. First answer the question of Free Will, then worry about the societal implications. It is unwise to consider the implications of No Free Will before actually answering that question because it can bias our cognition. Additionally, keep in mind that while many think their beliefs drive their behavior, there is also the fact that our behavior can drive our beliefs. Too many loops in all that so I'm leaving it alone! Except ...
We place a greater penalty on intentional misdeeds because the clear that intentional acts are much more likely to be repeated than unintentional acts. Whether or not the person is free to choose or has a Self is not relevant, what is relevant is the conditioning effects of the Law. The Law may be based in morality but can be understood in other frames of reference.
I don't see how emergent properties are going to provide greater degrees of freedom. Emergent properties of organisms certainly expand the range of potential behaviors but given that emergent properties are constrained by known physical laws unless one is willing to entertain non-physical causative processes emergent properties are constrained by the known scientific principles. Emergent properties are products of things in the universe, there is nothing magical about emergent properties that enables us to believe that the increased range of behaviors = "freely choosing" a behavior.
If emergent properties do create a self which does exercise free will then why haven't we found this self? What we see tends to be the opposite, there is no "unified centre" by which all our decisions are made. There is no reason to assume that a self and its decision making capabilities are the product of a consistent and persistent set of emergent properties. It is not enough to say emergent properties = greater behavioral repertoires= greater freedom.
Now we can get really sad and perhaps follow the lead of the philosopher Hume, who upon forming this concept about the Self, immediately became depressed. He refers to "Bundle Theory", that in essence we are just sets of complicated responses. The concept has a long history in Eastern thought particularly and mystical traditions in general. Modern neuroscience tends to lean very much in that direction.My view is that I very much doubt free will and and the Self. I find it very liberating.
The primary epistemological absurdity in relation Free Will debates is this:
For myself, I think it silly to address such questions where the arguments have raged for centuries and typically by very intelligent people because in the absence of new information why should I even waste my time thinking about the problem? The problem cannot be solved with the currently available data and available references frames; unless of course I happen to think I'm some sort of uber genius.
John,
We all agree that psychiatrists are just asked to tell judges if a person understood what he (she) was doing when committed a criminal offense -except in case of voluntary intoxication.
But societies decide also to let foreign long term residents to vote for local council but also to let women vote (In France only in 1947 much after the Turkish women were able to vote and married women were not allowed to open and use a bank account without the husband's permission until 1968 )
Societies decide also of "ages of consent" (to have sex, to enter mariage, to smoke, drinking alcohol, driving a car etc..)
Societies decide also of a minimal age to go to jail, a minima age to vote and be elected
All that via the people making the laws-elected persons in democracies.
As neuroskeptic pointed out in this post,I cite :
"(...)when people say "I believe people have free will", they don't really mean all people - they surely make an exception for babies, people in a coma, people having a seizure,(...) people who don't believe in free will recognize that there's a difference between a normal adult and one of those people.(...)
But where do we draw the line, and how do you know which side you're on?This seems to me the most important questions to be asking about free will."
NB: the psychiatrist is not always the good person who try to help an aspie out of jail with fairness and medical knowledge that the person was not intended to offend but had an aspie particular interest in some military code .It is a difficult and unpleasant task in some cases to decide and tell a client that you will ask a judge to act and deprive him (her) of part of his rights and decide for himself -at least only for the time being in a maniac episode but more permanently in cases of dementia.
of course if we are entitled to have him as responsible persons
Post a Comment