The Illusion of Free Will

[icosahedron]

I think a review of OPAR Chapter 2, Sense Perception and Volition, will allow any rational individual to resolve this "illusion" in favor of the existence of free will, however it is implemented in the brain being irrelevant to the existential/empirical fact of volition in human beings.

In a nutshell, volition is axiomatic in Objectivism; as such, there is nothing to illusory, because volition is not a matter of perceptual choice, but a fact of existence in the nature of volitional beings. It is an axiom.

In particular, check out the section titled Volition as Axiomatic, on page 69 of OPAR. It is really beautiful logic!

I love Ayn/Leonard.

- ico

[icosahedron]

Also need to have an editorial rant on this topic.

You have a choice. You can embrace change, and your power to effect it; or you can refuse that power, and become a pawn of others, relinquishing your independence of thought along with your will to think.

It is your choice. If you can't see the added value in choosing to exercise your will (versus assuming you have no free will to exercise), then you can still rationally choose free will, just in case I am right! Because, if you have no free will to exercise, then you aren't really choosing to exercise it; but if you DO have free will, then by gosh, you'd better get busy, eh?

Point is, operationally, in terms of how you ought to behave to best further your interests, it matters not; logic shows that assuming free will exists (i.e., as an axiom) is no worse a strategy than ANY other; and it will actually turn out to be better in general, as the leverage effects of social interactions weigh in.

Cheers!

- ico

[Grames]

... because volition is not a matter of perceptual choice, but a fact of existence in the nature of volitional beings. It is an axiom.

There is no such thing as perceptual choice, which is precisely why perception is reliable as a source of knowledge. Axioms themselves are justified by perception. Your cover slipped and your rationalism is showing.

[icosahedron]

There is no such thing as perceptual choice, which is precisely why perception is reliable as a source of knowledge. Axioms themselves are justified by perception. Your cover slipped and your rationalism is showing.

My "cover"? My "rationalism"? Sir, you read a great deal into my writings, and quite incorrectly so, if you gleaned me "covering" or "rationalizing" or supporting any "-ism"'s masquerading as reasonable philosophies.

Yes there is so such thing as "perceptual choice". I get to choose what to spend my conscious time observing. Get a grip -- the choice of what direction to point your head is exactly a "perceptual choice", i.e., you get to choose what to focus on! That is the whole point of OPAR chapter 2, after all, is it not?

- ico

[Grames]

And whatever you choose to focus on is perceptual justification of the axioms. Otherwise they wouldn't be axiomatic if it were possible to cock your head just so and see something that did not entail the axioms. This is an arena where volition is irrelevant.

[icosahedron]

And whatever you choose to focus on is perceptual justification of the axioms. Otherwise they wouldn't be axiomatic if it were possible to cock your head just so and see something that did not entail the axioms. This is an arena where volition is irrelevant.

I'm not certain what you are taking exception to at this point.

Free will is axiomatic, and assuming it exists cannot make you worse off, but will very likely make you better able to organize your thinking, especially in regard to social concerns (where you either believe that the folk you deal with are your mental avatars, or else you believe that there are others with free will out there to deal with).

Perception is a process, the products of the process accrue over time, and the rate at which perceptual recognition occurs will vary as a function of the nature of the process, which also does receive feedback from the cognitive process both directly (e.g., in terms of where the time spent producing perceptual observations is spent) and indirectly via the emotional responses with their associated sensations materially induced in the body and hence altering perceptions (e.g., the heightened sensations under the influence of romantic love).

The process of perception per se is not a matter of choice; but, how to use it, and how to develop it, and how to more harmonically integrate it within one's cognitive/emotional frame of reference -- all that and more is a matter of choice. Free will is naught without an underlying consciousness, i.e., without a "memetic carrier signal" that can choose how to use a direct-able power of focus/attention to detail/direction. That is what perception is all about.

Finally, volition is ALWAYS relevant when discussing the invented, such as ideas. No?

- ico

[Grames]

I'm not certain what you are taking exception to at this point.

Free will is axiomatic, and assuming it exists cannot make you worse off, but will very likely make you better able to organize your thinking, especially in regard to social concerns (where you either believe that the folk you deal with are your mental avatars, or else you believe that there are others with free will out there to deal with).

YOU DO NOT ASSUME A PHILOSOPHIC AXIOM.

In mathematics and geometry, axioms are given. Not so in philosophy, or at least not in Objectivism. The terminology of 'axioms' is misleading if you treat them as assumptions. Rand defined what an axiomatic concept referred to, and what it meant for a proposition to be an axiom. It is not an assumption. Objectivism is not geometry. If you think axioms are assumptions, givens that permit us to get on with the system to see what pops out, then you are using the rationalist method of thinking.

And I can hardly believe it would ever occur to anyone to use Pascal's Wager as justification for Objectivism. Jesus Christ!

[freestyle]

I know my original post got ignored but I'll try it again.

Take the hypothetical scenario where it can be scientifically determined whether or not a person will CHOOSE to press a button in a controlled experiment. Let it also be assumed that the calculation includes the data that the person will be told in advance the outcome. (i.e. It is understood and assumed that the subject will have foreknowledge of what he is determined to do)

The determinist is stuck here. He has to argue that either:

A) The human will be unable to defy a scientifically determined result. (deny the self evident)

B.) Forever explain away (unscientifically) the "margin of error". (deny determinism)

Which is it?

[icosahedron]

YOU DO NOT ASSUME A PHILOSOPHIC AXIOM.

Sorry for being colloquial, what I meant by "assuming it exists" is taking it as an unshakable premise (i.e. use it as proper basis for induction), and then seeing how that affects future computations and uncertainties. I do realize the nature of axioms in Objectivism, and don't mean to be flip; but I also see, on operational grounds, the advantage of free will as a premise in explaining my observations. So, what I don't get is, if there is no good reason to suppose anything but free will, then why does anyone waste time debating whether it exists or not? Yet I take your point re axioms and will try to be more careful.

Hadn't heard of Pascal's Wager, but it is kinda obvious, no? Volition as a modeling premise is what I take, meaning that, I ensure that EVERY mental model I concoct does concord with the volition axiom. If a model contradicts volition, it is wrong, period. That very quickly winnows out whole swaths of fantasy. In that sense, an axiom acts as a sort of razor against unreality, when used as a modeling assumption to make predictions.

I still don't get why this is anything more than the old implementation versus appearance, i.e., mind/body, dichotomy. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc., then it's a duck until I get contradictory evidence. Implementation isn't relevant per se; the functionality is what it is, the "user interface" is what it is, however the "guts" are implemented.

Dang good illusion, eh? Makes the Matrix movie look like child's play.

- ico

[icosahedron]

I know my original post got ignored but I'll try it again.

Take the hypothetical scenario where it can be scientifically determined whether or not a person will CHOOSE to press a button in a controlled experiment. Let it also be assumed that the calculation includes the data that the person will be told in advance the outcome. (i.e. It is understood and assumed that the subject will have foreknowledge of what he is determined to do)

The determinist is stuck here. He has to argue that either:

A) The human will be unable to defy a scientifically determined result. (deny the self evident)

B.) Forever explain away (unscientifically) the "margin of error". (deny determinism)

Which is it?

Given your premises as stated, only (A) can occur -- you stated that the person's choice was predetermined, so done.

But of course, that is the whole problem with the original premise: "predetermined choice" is a contradiction in terms.

- ico

[Grames]

Hadn't heard of Pascal's Wager, but it is kinda obvious, no?

Pascal's wager is horrible. The theist thinks he can fool God with a pretense of faith, which can't work by any Abrahamic account of an omniscient God. An Objectivist surrenders his certainty founded on perception for a lottery ticket, for no justification or benefit at all. Any middle of the road agnostic approaching either theism or Objectivism with Pascal's wager pre-emptively sabotages any possible benefit he could gotten from that system. The wager is actually subversive and must encourage through its explicit hypocrisy a growing skepticism and nihilism over time.

edit: And from reading up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager Pascal's frame of mind in composing the wager was in fact that of a skeptic unhappy with himself.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Grames

[icosahedron]

Pascal's wager is horrible. The theist thinks he can fool God with a pretense of faith, which can't work by any Abrahamic account of an omniscient God. An Objectivist surrenders his certainty founded on perception for a lottery ticket, for no justification or benefit at all. Any middle of the road agnostic approaching either theism or Objectivism with Pascal's wager pre-emptively sabotages any possible benefit he could gotten from that system. The wager is actually subversive and must encourage through its explicit hypocrisy a growing skepticism and nihilism over time.

edit: And from reading up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager Pascal's frame of mind in composing the wager was in fact that of a skeptic unhappy with himself.

Ok, now I have to at least skim wikipedia. Dang it!

But but but! I wasn't trying to do any of that, I beg your pardon: simply, I meant to say that their is no other choice for a rational person than to embrace free will. I guess, that is my experience of the self-evidence of volition as an axiomatic corollary of the consciousness axiom. Sorry for the verbiage getting off track.

I mean, if one attempts to imagine and operate as if free will does not exist, and is consistent in this behavior, then one's mind will presumably become an incestuous web of recursion with no exit back to reality -- "assuming" existence exists.

- ico

[icosahedron]

Pascal's wager is horrible. The theist thinks he can fool God with a pretense of faith, which can't work by any Abrahamic account of an omniscient God. An Objectivist surrenders his certainty founded on perception for a lottery ticket, for no justification or benefit at all. Any middle of the road agnostic approaching either theism or Objectivism with Pascal's wager pre-emptively sabotages any possible benefit he could gotten from that system. The wager is actually subversive and must encourage through its explicit hypocrisy a growing skepticism and nihilism over time.

edit: And from reading up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager Pascal's frame of mind in composing the wager was in fact that of a skeptic unhappy with himself.

Oh, that's called Pascal's Wager? Hahahahaha! I thought that was just something that culturally judeo-christian sophomores came up with over bong hits at every university in the world.

Anyhoo, Pascal's attempt at using optimization theory to justify belief in God is at least interesting on its face; and his logic is correct; but the premise that belief can be made more or less true by offering ex post facto rationalizations a priori to expiration has to have been known to be fallacious since Socrates at least, or so I would guess. On the other hand, the premise that knowledge can be made more or less true by offering evidence is an unshakable consequence of the nature of volition as applied to epistemological pursuits.

More interesting to me is my observation that an individual's future choices will be substantially affected depending on whether he/she embraces free will as a constant, self-evident basis of action; or not -- and especially, inconsistently not, i.e., at most intermittent ignorance of free will is all that is practicably consistent with living, any volitional being that consistently ignored their power of will wouldn't last long.

So can everyone just embrace the axiom of volition, so we can all stop wasting cycles trying to devise a workaround?

- ico

Edited January 27, 2011 by icosahedron

[DancingBear]

Finally, volition is ALWAYS relevant when discussing the invented, such as ideas. No?

- ico

That's part of my justification for being determined. Any idea you have is built off of previous ideas. You may choose to arrange them in a unique way, but you've been taught or had the necessary experiences to learn how to do that? For instance, a cook may create a new recipe, but he's only using knowledge gained from what he knows about other recipes, why they work, etc. There's no evidence there that somewhere inside him, the neural connections from his all his perceptions of everything he learned about food to creating something himself that involves a choice. The drive to attempt to create something is probably the result of strong neural connections between trying new things and reward. It's conditioning basically.

I know my original post got ignored but I'll try it again.

...

Which is it?

The answer is A. It has been DETERMINED that the person will press the button. I think that this is hard to conceptualize because of the complexity of the universe compared to the current knowledge of human beings. It is currently impossible to account for every possible variable in the universe and it probably will always be that way. Can you imagine some scientist of the future finally determining exactly how the universe works and being able to predict the rest of the future? He would be stuck and unable to defy his existence.

Also, I can confidently guess that most people would try to defy the determined result of button-pushing, so if you set up a blind study, that would probably be pretty easy to show.

One last note, is anyone arguing for volition here frightened by the fact that they may not be able to choose? Quite frankly, the notion that my actions are determined really has no effect on me. I have the values I have, so to give up on life because whatever I do is determined is absurd. Whether or not I consciously choose them, achieving my values feels good so that's always what I'm going to try to do. People seem to think that being determined means they can't do anything for themselves.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Anyhoo, Pascal's attempt at using optimization theory to justify belief in God is at least interesting on its face; and his logic is correct...

His logic is atrocious. And he cannot possibly have failed to have seen it (Pascal was a brilliant mathematician), so I wonder what his motivation was here.

Right off the bat there is the assumption that it's either Yahweh or no god at all, no possibility that it could be Allah, Zeus, Zoroaster, Thor, Cthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but most likely Lord God Tarskyte or some god no one has ever heard of before.

It's also assumed that whatever god it is, holds faith in its existence as the most important attribute of a human being, rather than (say) intelligence, appearance, skepticism...

Also (as has been touched on--this wager is not a proof of the existence of God even if you sweep all those issues aside; it's a proof that it is advantageous to profess a belief in God.

False dichotomies and unwarranted assumptions about the preferences of the entity whose existence you are claiming to prove when one's argument couldn't prove it even if it weren't based on false premises do not add up to what I'd call "correct" logic.

[JayR]

One last note, is anyone arguing for volition here frightened by the fact that they may not be able to choose?

No.

Quite frankly, the notion that my actions are determined really has no effect on me.

I concur.

[Jacob86]

How something which is not physical can possibly correspond to the physical is a mystery you leave unaddressed.

I don't see the mystery. Ideas (non-physical) correspond to physical reality. I think we all would agree on this.

edit: It is especially troublesome since you also specify that this nonphysical element must be unaffected by the physical while being able to control the body. To correspond with reality while remaining aloof and unaffected by it are contradictory requirements.

Again, I don't see the problem/"contradiction". For the mind to be free from the deterministic effects of physical causation does not mean that the mind is "aloof" or incapable of interacting with the physical (body). It just means that while the mind is influenced by physical causes (stimuli, etc..) it is not entirely chained to such physical causes, but rather is free to act apart from those causes.

On the contrary, the functioning of the faculty of sight is understood very well nowadays and what happens with the lens of the eye, the pupil, the retina, the optic nerve and first stages of processing is all purely chemical reactions and it is strictly conforming to reality. Footprints in sand correspond to the reality of the foot that made them. All transducers correspond to the property they sense in a regular way. What those sensations and percepts are transduced into in the case of brains is memories, short and long term. The rest of the brain is about associating memories into conceptual hierarchies (or confused spaghetti networks), and is self-ordered. It is quite possible to keep memories properly associated and also for them to be improperly associated, that is what truth and error are respectively.

What you describe with the eye (and footprint analogy) are good descriptions of percepts corresponding to reality, but we are talking about concepts.

It's very simple:

Concepts must correspond to reality or else no knowledge is possible.

If concepts are entirely caused by physical phenomena, then they cannot correspond to reality any more than any other deterministically caused body function.

Therefore concepts are not entirely caused by physical phenomena and therefore the faculty which produces concepts (the mind) is not entirely physical.

[Jacob86]

That's part of my justification for being determined. Any idea you have is built off of previous ideas. You may choose to arrange them in a unique way, but you've been taught or had the necessary experiences to learn how to do that? For instance, a cook may create a new recipe, but he's only using knowledge gained from what he knows about other recipes, why they work, etc. There's no evidence there that somewhere inside him, the neural connections from his all his perceptions of everything he learned about food to creating something himself that involves a choice. The drive to attempt to create something is probably the result of strong neural connections between trying new things and reward. It's conditioning basically.

The answer is A. It has been DETERMINED that the person will press the button. I think that this is hard to conceptualize because of the complexity of the universe compared to the current knowledge of human beings. It is currently impossible to account for every possible variable in the universe and it probably will always be that way. Can you imagine some scientist of the future finally determining exactly how the universe works and being able to predict the rest of the future? He would be stuck and unable to defy his existence.

Also, I can confidently guess that most people would try to defy the determined result of button-pushing, so if you set up a blind study, that would probably be pretty easy to show.

One last note, is anyone arguing for volition here frightened by the fact that they may not be able to choose? Quite frankly, the notion that my actions are determined really has no effect on me. I have the values I have, so to give up on life because whatever I do is determined is absurd. Whether or not I consciously choose them, achieving my values feels good so that's always what I'm going to try to do. People seem to think that being determined means they can't do anything for themselves.

I don't think you are understanding what is meant by "volition is axiomatic"... it might be partially because some of the folks on here don't entirely understand it.

The reason volition is axiomatic is because you must assume it in order to deny it since you must assume it in order to think or say ANYTHING objectively.

If the thought in your head that "we don't have volition" was deterministically caused by molecules bumping into molecules, then that thought cannot be said to correspond to reality (i.e. to be "correct") anymore than a belch corresponds to reality. Get it?

The only way for any idea/proposition/concept/etc.... to have any objectivity (correspondence to reality) is if the mind is capable of being free from the deterministic cause and effect of the physical world.

If we don't have volition, we would never know that we don't have volition (since we would never know anything!). If you don't have volition, then the string of letters put together on your post are just a meaningless combination of words which are the inevitable results of chemical reactions in your brain.

If we don't have volition, then all of our thoughts (including the thought that we don't have volition) are meaningless stimuli which are the inevitable results of chemical reactions in our brains.

Therefore, if you want to claim that "we don't have volition" is objectively true, then you must assume that we do have volition in order to know this objective truth (thus contradicting yourself).

If you want to concede that the thought in your head which says "we don't have volition" is just a subjective chemical reaction (in order to be consistent and avoid contradiction), then please keep it to yourself and don't act as if it has any objectivity.

[Eiuol]

The only way for any idea/proposition/concept/etc.... to have any objectivity (correspondence to reality) is if the mind is capable of being free from the deterministic cause and effect of the physical world.

That doesn't even make sense. Nothing is free from the physical world, saying so is only feeding into determinism because there is no separate realm of existence for the mind. Or at least, this should be explicitly understood as NOT the Objectivist position.

[Jacob86]

That doesn't even make sense. Nothing is free from the physical world, saying so is only feeding into determinism because there is no separate realm of existence for the mind. Or at least, this should be explicitly understood as NOT the Objectivist position.

A) For anyone who doesn't know, my posts do not represent "official Objectivist positions"..haha... I am a Theistic admirer of Objectivism.

I didn't say that the mind is "free from the physical world", I said that it must be free from the deterministic cause and effects of the physical world. However, by this, I do mean that the mind must be not entirely physical.

Yes, I hold that there is a "Super Nature" ("nature" here meaning the physical universe), but please do not read into this all the ridiculous and fanciful musings of people in the past. I do not hold to a soul/body dichotomy or mind/brain dichotomy or any other such dichotomy... So don't object as though I do.

C) "Nothing is free from the physical world". That is an assertion- do you have reason for it? I am submitting reason to believe that the mind (in part) IS "free from the physical world" and that this must be the case if we have volition and the ability to reason objectively. Do you have an objection against my reasoning??

[Jacob86]

A) For anyone who doesn't know, my posts do not represent "official Objectivist positions"..haha... I am a Theistic admirer of Objectivism.

I didn't say that the mind is "free from the physical world", I said that it must be free from the deterministic cause and effects of the physical world. However, by this, I do mean that the mind must be not entirely physical.

Yes, I hold that there is a "Super Nature" ("nature" here meaning the physical universe), but please do not read into this all the ridiculous and fanciful musings of people in the past. I do not hold to a soul/body dichotomy or mind/brain dichotomy or any other such dichotomy... So don't object as though I do.

C) "Nothing is free from the physical world". That is an assertion- do you have reason for it? I am submitting reason to believe that the mind (in part) IS "free from the physical world" and that this must be the case if we have volition and the ability to reason objectively. Do you have an objection against my reasoning??

HOWEVER, the issue of "supernaturalism"/"the mind being free from physical cause and effect" is more properly a topic of discussion in the argument for the existence of God thread (or perhaps a separate thread)...so I apologize for bringing up that specific issue here.

I invite Grames and anyone else who wants to continue that conversation to do so either in the "God" thread or in a new one.

[Grames]

Again, I don't see the problem/"contradiction".

It is there. That you can't appreciate it is your deficiency, my work here is done.

[DancingBear]

Okay well I'm going to order OPAR, but until it arrives, anyone care to elaborate on how free will operates in a physical body, yet separated from the causal chains that connect the rest of the universe?

The reason volition is axiomatic is because you must assume it in order to deny it since you must assume it in order to think or say ANYTHING objectively.

Thanks Jacob86. That's the most satisfying answer I've heard thus far.

I still can't get beyond the problem that this function of human nature has no physical counterpart. There's not a specific region of the brain where said consciousness takes place?

[JayR]

I still can't get beyond the problem that this function of human nature has no physical counterpart. There's not a specific region of the brain where said consciousness takes place?

Voilition is part of the identity of (human) consciousness. Its a corolary of the axiom of consciousness. Objectivism doesnt regard free will as a wild card severing the mind from causality, it regards it primarily as the choice to focus or not focus our cognitive equipment. There neednt be a volition center in the brain in the same way there isnt a need for an area where consciousness takes place.

or, to get all Socratic:

Why do you think that human actions that result is disaster can be evaluated morally, while those same types of actions performed by an animal are regarded not as morally right or wrong, but just part of nature?

[Jacob86]

Okay well I'm going to order OPAR, but until it arrives, anyone care to elaborate on how free will operates in a physical body, yet separated from the causal chains that connect the rest of the universe?

Thanks Jacob86. That's the most satisfying answer I've heard thus far.

I still can't get beyond the problem that this function of human nature has no physical counterpart. There's not a specific region of the brain where said consciousness takes place?

Yes. Objectivism is absolutely right to say that volition is axiomatic (for the reason I said above). However (keep in mind I do NOT represent Objectivism) I don't think Objectivism has an answer as to how volition can be integrated without contradiction into the rest of the worldview. But that is a separate topic from the one above-- in fact, I think I will begin a new thread on specifically that topic, so if you wish to see that debate, you can go there..