Do you think we truly have choice?

They like to let us believe we have a choice,but I think that is an illusion.

We’ve discussed this question a number of times. You might look up some of those discussions.

At the macro level, the world appears to be entirely deterministic, and that would suggest that the human brain works in a deterministic fashion and that there is no free will, just an illusion of it. However, there may be activity going on at the micro level at which quantum mechanics takes over, and there chaos seems to rule but can give rise to spectacular self-organizing order (look up chaos and strange attractors). Here’s a video of Professor Andrew Briggs. Principal Investigator, Oxford Martin Programme on Bio-Inspired Quantum Technologies, Oxford University with pretty decent understanding of science discussing, in a lecture at the Social Trends Institute Experts Meeting on the question “Is Science Compatible with Our Desire for Freedom?” held in Barcelona, Spain.

I think if you listen to the lecture above, you will come away with my conclusion that we simply don’t know, but it sure feels like we have free will. If science ever proves we are entirely deterministic, it would make no difference in how I live my life, because it’s still going to feel like I have free will.

Absolutely.

An individual can do whatever they please.

As long as they are willing to accept the consequences.

@SecondHandStoke Yes, but do the consequences limit our choices?

@OwlofHappiness Yes.

But I don’t think that is what the OP is asking.

@SecondHandStoke…I am the OP. That’s okay though, I was looking at this question as kind of a general philosophical puzzle.

@OwlofHappiness & @SecondHandStoke The question really goes deeper than whether consequences limit our actions. Recent research on simple decision making shows that the thing we think of as us, the little guy at the helm of starship self, finds out about us deciding to push a button way after the decision has already been made. So if I (meaning that which is aware of being aware, the I-ness in my head) didn’t make the decision, but was only informed about it after the decision was reached, who or what decided?

@OwlofHappiness

My bad, but that is indeed my philosophy.

@ETpro I’ve seen that! But it was 3 AM and I was smoking weed that night so I chalked up the head-spinning philosophical questions to that.

Yes. I’m leaving a pretty secure job to go be poor but I’ll be happier as a result. I’m making a major change to my life because I decided to. If you’re talking about a larger picture, one could say all/some of our choices are decided by chemical reactions etc.

It’s a pretty vague question and could mean a lot.

@ETpro asks, ”. . . only informed about it after the decision was reached, who or what decided?” The cognitive sense of self is the tip of a pyramid of self. One’s self encompasses the entire mental activity of their brain, but consciousness of the products of its activities is only possible as a final summarizing step. As Professor Briggs points out, these processes reflect an individual’s character that has evolved over their lifetime. I believe the form of one’s character is shaped by their spiritual (not religious) orientation, whether one is more or less inclined to respond to their felt needs, whether one’s focus is largely inward or outward. I believe choice, freewill, is centered here.

It seems that all choices are determined by “the entire mental and physical activity of [the] brain.” I mean, what else would make the choices if not your physical brain and it’s physical parts?

@Bill1939 I tend toward that conclusion as well, seeing the I-ness of self as an emergent phenomenon of brain activity down to the level of quantum randomness, where quantum superposition and quantum entanglement come into play.

@ninjacolin The brain is truly a phenomenal supercomputer if it only has the digital processing power of 100 trillion bits (the number of synapses in a typical human brain). But if processing proceeds down to the level of quarks and leptons, and is capable of using their superposition and entanglement, then we probably have brains capable of crunching as many bits as there are stars in the Universe; i.e., 7×10^22, or 70 sextillion bits. That’s why in its underlying chaos, emergent phenomena are not only possible, they are almost certainly there.

@ETpro 70 sextillion bits of emergent phenomena is still causal phenomenon. I get that it’s all very complex I just don’t get why we should ever assume that some of it is counter-causal. I find I’m provided with no good reason to make that leap.

I feel like there would be more evidence for disembodied decision making going on if counter-causal free will was a thing of the universe. Where are all the ghosts?

@ninjacolin You want this to be easily reducible. I get that. But emergent phenomena are inherently NOT easily reducible. No disembodied spirits are necessary for that. Deal with it.

Well, I’m looking for some kind of formula or theory that hints at counter-causality but I haven’t come across one. Free will seems like the easy-intuitive conclusion, like sun “rise” and “set”. But it doesn’t seem to follow rationally. We end up either with chaotic choice making or deterministic choice making and either way it’s not very free.

What I am comfortable with, though, is the notion @Bill1939 suggested: That the individual experience of a brain makes up the soul of the creature.. even though that brain is itself a determined thing by the age 2 or 12 or 22 or 92.. it’s done and learned things in a way that no other brain ever has or ever will and it represents one unique spirit of an individual capable only of it’s own signature decision making, entirely “free” (albeit similar) from the decisions of any other brains in the universe.

@ninjacolin Yeah, well cite me the theory in E = MC^2 sinplicity, that defines how human sentience arises from strictly causal rules. I’m not up on the soapbox preaching, here. I am saying it’s not yet known. To those who claim to absolutely know lays the burden of proof. The trick is explaining doing the exact opposite of what you know, by all your learning, that you ought to do just to prove you can. And we do that.

That’s a fair challenge and I consider it resolved by introducing a causal change of motive. Doing something “to prove you can” in one circumstance is no less of a motive than doing it “to do what’s right” in another circumstance.

Usually you don’t dip your hands in nearly boiling water, but if you drop your wedding ring in a pot and it doesn’t seem quite that hot yet, you might give it a try. You might throw yourself in front of bus one day with the intention of shoving a small child out of its way. I find I do things opposite of my better learning whenever I’ve concluded that there’s a good reason to do so.. essentially, when I’ve learned that it’s a good idea to defy the usual rule.

Seems like the same processes are happening in both cases.

@ETpro said: “To those who claim to absolutely know lays the burden of proof.” – I’m not saying that I absolutely know one way or the other, but I am saying that there is good evidence and rigorous testing available for causality but only about as much evidence for “truly” free will as there is for a benevolent creator.

The illusion of choice is all that is possible. Real choice would open up infinite possibilities with no means of comparison and would lead to paralysis.

All experience is illusion. Reality outside one’s mind can only be envisioned by their mind. How well one’s mental construction of reality corresponds with actual reality will determine whether their expectations arise or they are surprised. It is possible that, because of the disconnect between what one thinks is reality and actual reality, choice exists.

Einstein could not conceive of a universe that was not fixed, and so created a fudge-factor to resolve the appearance of an expanding universe. Later, when evidence made it impossible for him to hold his long held belief in a static universe, he regarded his cosmological constant to be the biggest mistake of his life. This change in his belief seems to have been a choice.

@Bill1939 I consider that a mistake on your part: (not in a horrible way, promise, just in a technical way) “when evidence made it impossible for him to hold his long held belief in a static universe, he regarded his cosmological constant to be the biggest mistake of his life. This change in his belief seems to have been a choice.”

Evidence coerced his belief. It wasn’t any kind of free choice on his part. It was the coercion of the evidence that changed his belief. For example, what if the evidence that he was making no mistake? Then he would have no choice but to continue on believing his first conclusion. Awareness of overwhelming evidence determines a person’s beliefs, especially so for a scientific mind. Beliefs have nothing at all to do with free will.

I’m getting upity again about this stuff. lol. But how could you not see it that way?

For example, if you believe in free will why is it IMPOSSIBLE to believe in determinism? And if you believe in determinsim, why is it impossible to believe in free will? The reason, I suggest, is because you have been exposed to evidence (arguments, studies, etc..) that coerce your belief one way or the other and the only thing that can cause it to sway would be sufficient evidence to the contrary of your current conviction. In this view, conviction/belief is comparable to the deterministic behavior of a weighing scale.

@Bill1939 Reality underlies all illusions. If it did not, they wouldn’t be illusions, they would be reality. :-)

@ninjacolin I have no problem believing either way. But just as I refuse to believe in a particular deity without supporting evidence, I remain agnostic about free will vs. determinism. The scientific jury isn’t in yet. We do not know. I do think the evidence is mounting, and we will soon know. I’ll be fine with whichever conclusion proves to be true.

@ninjacolin, I am not sure what you mean by coercion. My dictionary defines coerce as “To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.” What compelled Einstein to change his belief was the cognitive dissonance created by what appeared to his thinking to be conflicting facts. I deeply doubt that social pressures were as significant a force as his internal conflict had been in necessitating his rejection of the notion of a static universe. Had the scientific evidence supported his belief there would not have been an internal psychological conflict to impel him to rethink his established conception.

I have no doubt that cause and effect dominates reality, at least at the macro-scale. If it were otherwise there would be no basis for scientific studies. However, pure determinism implies that randomness is impossible. While in theory predicting the outcome of every flip of a coin might be possible for a super-super-computer, it would require that every aspect of the flip, the coin and the physical conditions (air temperature, local gravitational force, etc.) to have been observed and entered into the machine’s algorithms to accomplish the task. However, double slit experiments strongly suggest that the act of observation alters the outcome, so this too would have to be included in the calculations. This seems to me to be less likely than randomness.

The difference between objective and subjective determines the distinction between making a gram measurement and recognizing that something is heavy. Similarly, a distinction between determination and freewill exists. I believe in both. The former exists in an external reality and the latter an internal reality. Why is it impossible for you to believe in both? ;-)

@ETpro, I fail to follow the logic of “Reality underlies all illusions. If it did not, they wouldn’t be illusions, they would be reality.” A confirmed atheist would hold that the belief in a god or gods would be an illusion without any basis in reality. :-0

@Bill1939 Not so. A hard atheist would do so, but there are almost no such beings. My guess is the few who claim there is no deity and they are 100% certain of that are either gadflies enjoying the furor such a claim creates, or just too scientifically illiterate to grasp what 100% certainty means. I’m a member of BostonAtheists and with a membership of over 1000, virtually all our members define atheism as the refusal to believe there is a god unless evidence suggests it is so. They are agnostic atheist, not hard atheists. The very word, “A” “Theist” means Not Theist.

If you do not think reality underlies illusions, can you name me an illusion that doesn’t have an underlying cause in the real world?

@ETpro, I have several good friends who are devout believers that there is no such thing as god. They all are college graduates and some with advanced degrees including a doctorate.

I would argue that a lack of correspondence between what someone experiences as reality and what is real is sufficient to support my contention that illusions do not require actual reality. However, given that thought requires a biological mechanism, I am sure that you would argue that even psychotic delusions have an underlying cause in the real world.

Our prefrontal cortex truly has a veto power.

@mattbrowne, can you provide a link that supports your contention that the prefrontal cortex has a veto power?

@Bill1939 That’s its purpose.

“The power of the conscious self to veto an unconscious impulse or urge is sometimes called “free won’t.” Libet, arguably the first to link conscious choices with unconscious causes experimentally, claimed that the conscious self retains this power.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-control#cite_note-16

http://wysu.org/commentary.php?recnum=446

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

@mattbrowne, thank you for the link. I had not heard the term ‘veto power’ although I have long considered an existence of free-won’t as a conjunct of freewill. However, as the references (I love wikipedia) that @ETpro provided posits, it (veto power) ain’t necessarily so.

Wikipedia’s “Neuroscience of free will” reports that ”[r]ecent research by Simone Kühn and Marcel Brass suggests that our consciousness may not be what causes some actions to be vetoed at the last moment. . . . the phenomenon of ‘consciousness’ is more of narration than direct arbitration (i.e. unconscious processing causes all thoughts, and these thoughts are again processed subconsciously).”

It may be that “the decision to ‘veto’ an action is determined subconsciously, just as the initiation of the action may have been subconscious in the first place.” [Consciousness and Cognition Volume 18, Issue 1, March 2009, Pages 12–21] (wikipedia’s reference)

@ETpro, the above quotations question, if not refutes, your contention that a purpose of the prefrontal cortex is to choose not to act. I think that in a sense it does, just as in the same sense it chooses to act. Both choices arise from the ability of the prefrontal cortex to envision a desirable or undesirable future reality, and to conceive of how this future may be realized.

@Bill1939 I tire of this game.

I think your question equates to a similar one, and that is, are we living in a simulated universe? A simulated universe would be one where the past is an illusion (it could be changed at a moment’s notice by the creators without our awareness, and one where all physical law is arbitrary – ie. magic would be possible).

We can’t really know for sure from “inside” so what do we do?

Are we real, do we have choice?

In a simulated universe your ultimate goal would be to distinguish yourself from others so that you would avoid “deletion” as a mundane character.

If you have no choice, well, isn’t the same premise true? Why not enjoy life as much as you can if its all a setup anyway?