Free Will: The Necessary Delusion
By Daniel Miessler on February 13th, 2007: Tagged as Atheism | Philosophy | Religion | Science
One of the more interesting sub-debates associated with Atheism vs. Religion is that of free will. Quite simply, many Atheists don’t believe in it at all, while the majority of traditional believers feel that God gave them the ability to shape their own lives by clearly making decisions for themselves.
I personally don’t believe in it. My reason for this stance is actually very simple: I believe in nature. I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other. Just because there are trillions and trillions of them doesn’t make their interactions magical (or even special).
These variables include our genetics, our experiences, what chemicals are in our bodies at a given time, our immediate environment, etc. But ultimately, every action that a human takes when they’re “deciding” what to do is simply the output from one particular variable-set interaction.
Our brains are nothing but a collection of chemicals sloshing back and forth. These chemicals interact with each other in a finite, knowable way. The only reason we aren’t able to predict human behavior today is because we don’t have a solid grasp of the actors involved.This is really no different from our inability to predict the weather 100 years ago. And how did we come to be able to do so? We simply became more capable of gathering information about the variables.
By this point you either already agree with me or you don’t. If you don’t then I doubt I’m going to muster up the firepower while casually writing this post to convince you. So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise.
The Implications
What I find far more interesting than the fact that we don’t have free will are the implications thereof. Think of what it means for society — for human civilization as a whole. It turns out that just about everything in our society is based solidly in the notion that we do make decisions for ourselves.
What about our moral and legal systems? How do you punish someone for actions they took when no choices were really made? And what does this say about class and privilege? Doesn’t it sort of naturally lead to the doctrines of eugenics and elitism? I think it clearly does.
And what does this say about the uniqueness of humans? We’ve all heard about our ability to be logical and reason our way out of problems. Is this all an illusion? Given our lack of free will, what is actually taking place when one sits down to ponder a philosophical question or write brilliant prose?
Are we simply rocking back and forth in our little train car, trying to move a bit farther ahead on a biological track that we can never leave? It’s as if what we see as “discovery” and “growth” are in reality no different than a growing snowflake. It’s beautiful to watch, and it definitely follows a form worth giving a name to, but ultimately the snowflake is doing precisely the only thing that it can do, given the conditions.
The Solution
In terms of human society, the answer is actually stunningly simple: we simply forget that we even had this discussion. Free will is, for all intents and purposes, a necessary delusion.
To discuss the fact that it isn’t real truly serves no practical purpose other than that of an intellectual exercise. Our civilization simply could not advance in any positive way if this way of thinking were used to create policy.
Normally I abhor the idea of rejecting truth in order to make life temporarily more pleasant, but in this case I make an exception.:
--
You are crazy… LOL, enjoyed the this and the discussion.
Comment by Rick — 2/14/2007 @ 10:48 am
First, I’m an atheist — I just want to put that out there.
You say “Our brains are nothing but a collection of chemicals sloshing back and forth. These chemicals interact with each other in a finite, knowable way. The only reason we aren’t able to predict human behavior today is because we don’t have a solid grasp of the actors involved.”
But quantum physics suggests that through the act of observation, events are changed. So why not subscribe to the idea that each one of us is our own observer, changing the future as we experience it, allowing us to be the end-product of natural processes but STILL capable of free will?
And yes — I do like to have my cake and eat it, too.
Comment by Amateur6 — 2/14/2007 @ 4:02 pm
That’s not a solution.
The truth is that you don’t know the future. In a sense, you can decide the future - because nobody knows what the future will be, and you have the power to look ahead, evaluate your free will (or lack thereof), look at the consequences, and make a decision.
Think about that. If you think it’s totally out of your control, it is. If you don’t, it isn’t. There’s something to be said for those self-help books and motivational speakers who say “you decide what you want to be.”
It’s a laborious process to exercise rationality in your actions, but when you do, you are exercising free will.
This is called deterministic compatibilism.
Comment by undergroundman — 2/14/2007 @ 6:24 pm
Arguing whether free will exists or not is pointless. If it doesn’t exist and every decision you make is, in fact, shaped by some entity or system too complex or powerful for you to understand - then it doesn’t matter if it exists or not because you think it does. The same goes for the argument about natural determinism. I can still choose between A and B in any given situation, even if that it a choice between living or dying.
Ultimately, free will is about perception of choice rather than the ability to choose.
Comment by Simple Mind — 2/16/2007 @ 12:02 am
You just told me I have no free will, now you ask me to choose to act as though I don’t know something.
Hrm.
Comment by zhasper — 2/21/2007 @ 12:10 am
Meditations upon the nature of whether or not free will is the case is both a waste of time and without purpose. As any philosopher would agree, there are always those that agree and disagree with a given theory, and none would consider either side of the argument as true. Unless provided with scientific evidence for or against free will, it would not be impossible to deny a particular position upon the matter. Overall, it is my belief that we do have a degree of free will, and not absolute free will. Overall, one must ask the following question: how would an agent without a capacity for free will even contemplate it?
Comment by Navid — 3/24/2007 @ 5:55 pm
This is not the case when it comes to science. If it were then you wouldn’t have to go to study for 8-10 years before becoming an independently practicing physician. All opinions are not equally valid in the realm of science, which is what I argue governs the issue of free will.
I’d argue that we already have that evidence.
The same way any sentient being with the capacity for reason contemplates anything. Just because the subject is the ultimate hard-wired nature of humans doesn’t mean that hardwiring prohibits self-exploration.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 3/25/2007 @ 1:21 am
http://5.eb3rxpornooox.info x http://3.ebrxsxytoox.info x
Comment by Nbkvqqm — 6/15/2007 @ 7:23 am
[...] or Judaism for them. The latest of these has been free will. I’ve touched on the topic a number of times before, but would like to revisit it again.Upon being presented the moral mechanics of [...]
Pingback by The Atheist's Dilemma: Logical Conclusions to the Lack of Free Will | dmiessler.com — 7/28/2007 @ 11:40 am
Free will or determinism? Both are true. It depends on your point of view. Just as does the question, Is the earth flat or round? For many purposes, we act as if the earth were flat, even though, in the back of our minds, we know it’s round. All the interrelationships in the universe were created at the time of the Big Bang (or in the conditions that caused it) but from an individual’s point of view, it seems that we control our actions.
Comment by Uncle Rich — 1/10/2008 @ 5:04 pm
Onle kind of physilogocal matter. there are always those that agree and disagree with a given theory, and none would consider either side of the argument as true.
Comment by mizan — 1/24/2008 @ 6:16 am
People commonly assume that free will is necessary to justify punishment for offenses committed.
Not so. All that is required is that the risk of punishment be known, and when included in whatever actually motivates people that risk has a significant deterrent effect. Whether that effect is a matter of free choice or is a determined behavior makes no practical and therefore in this case no ethical difference.
Comment by Phili Ekstrom — 2/11/2008 @ 5:39 pm
I thank God that your statement does not even qualify as a generalization. Fortunately for you, your brain boasts
and, source: http://www.brainsource.com/amazing%20brain.htm Also, Each synapse is not a simple switch but changes the strength of the signal it passes on according to the history of its use. source: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/brain/mg16622349.000 Also, though my quick searching found no source, I recall reading that each connection/synapse was capable of multiplexing something like 16,000 channels, and that each neuron can take on not just two states (i.e. being binary), but some 60,000 states or so. (this second unsourced bit might be more a restatement of the last quoted fact) Well, I intend not, by any means, to shred you for the simple (and intellectually valuable) act of posting your thoughts in public forum. But, I did feel compelled to share what I had read on the matter of human brain complexity.Comment by Jacob Kline — 2/25/2008 @ 9:28 am
[...] Free Will: The Necessary Delusion [...]
Pingback by Free Will: The Necessary Delusion — 3/12/2008 @ 11:39 pm
“So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise.”
I’m not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe your main premise is incorrect. You say:
“I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other. Just because there are trillions and trillions of them doesn’t make their interactions magical (or even special).”
… but this is exactly the problem Einstein had that led him to give the famous quote “God does not play dice with the universe.” The thing is, according to quantum theory, He/She/It does.
Take nuclear decay, for example. You simply cannot predict when any individual atom will decay. You can perform a statistical analysis of any large enough grouping, but for any one atom, there is no telling. There have been statistical analyses done, and they show that the resultant decay follows all mathematical tests for randomness.
Hence the universe is, at a fundamental level, not predictable. The question of free-will vs determinism is a wider issue and I think I personally agree with the person above who said that both are true depending on how you look at it. But I don’t think your proof above has a supportable premise.
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompletenessofquantum_physics
… unless, of course, I’ve misunderstood your argument.
Comment by weasel — 3/13/2008 @ 12:04 am
“So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise.”
I’m not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe that your premise is incorrect. You say:
“I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other.”
… however this is the same argument used by Einstein in his “God does not play dice with the universe” quote.
Unfortunately for that theory, numerous experiments in quantum physics has shown that He/She/It does in fact play dice. For example, atomic decay is random at the atomic level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
What this means is that although large numbers of atoms may obey a statistical average, there is no way to predict when any given atom will decay. There have been mathematical studies of such decays, using methods which show the resulting number sequences are random.
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompletenessofquantum_physics
Hence, at a fundamental level, the universe is not predictable. I don’t want to push this argument all the way up to say it is a proof of free will - just that your own argument comes from a premise I don’t believe is supportable.
“This is really no different from our inability to predict the weather 100 years ago. And how did we come to be able to do so? We simply became more capable of gathering information about the variables.”
What randomness and incompleteness suggests is that there are no hidden variables, and that the universe is not ultimately knowable by anyone.
As far as free will or determinism goes, that is a wider argument. I think I agree with the post above which says that it is a function of how you look at it. Looked at one way, we are prisoners of our genes, of education, etc. Looked at another, we have freedom. It’s not a binary on-off switch, but rather a question of interpretation.
Comment by weasel — 3/13/2008 @ 9:06 am