The physical limitations of free will

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Can you think a thought that has no precedent in your knowledge?

That is to say, can you think of something completely original, that is not simply a re-organization, cross-pollination, or re-application of knowledge within your mind?

I’d wager theres a good chance the answer is no.

heres a personal story. A month or two ago, I was mad at my girlfriend for some reason. My emotional state was … upset. I took a walk. I was angry, every thought that entered my mind was tainted by anger. I would try to take my mind off things, but my inner voice was angry. I would see a tree and think “TREE$%*$!!”. You get the point.

I have been studying enlightenment, zen buddhism, etc for a while. At that point, I wanted to have the ability to control not only my brain chemistry but also my thoughts. But I did not have the necessary pre-requisite knowledge to prevent myself from being angry. The only tools I had was what I understood.

I understood, stopping, and taking 10 slow breathes. Probably on a similar vein to Zen meditation, but not nearly as effective.

Anyhow, at that point I became intimately aware of the limitations of my free will. There is this sort of pipedream free will, I think its called acausal free will - a freedom to make a choose that is uninfluenced by previous events.

I am not in the “no free will” camp. But it seems obvious that our free will has physical limitations. Our “will to action” is contained within a physical vessel. We cannot act in a way do we do not know how to do.

I guess the point is that, the more you know and understand, the more free to act you are. The more you understand the limiting factors of your actions, both physical, and social (the way you were raised), the better you can position yourself in a way to maximize the choices available to you.

After all, at this point I could choose to wreck my house or hit the post button, but I cannot choose to stop thinking ;]

2

Freedom is not something that an individual thing or whole thing can have. If you consider the universe in its elementary form as a series of effects which compose the physical attributes of substances, you couldn’t exclude any event from this interaction of effects. “Thought” is as determined as the object in its reflection, ‘thought’ is another determined body with effects extended in time and space. Freewill is impossible because everything has an effect, hence it must originate from a cause, but there needn’t be an original cause for the whole. That is infinite and within it are the strutures of time and space, coming into a rational relationship in the human intellect.

What is sensed as freedom is nothing more than a lapse of time in the mind. The 'presence-to-one’s-presence, or the spontaneous cogito, creates the experience of past and present. Without a memory one could never experience a ‘choice,’ as choosing requires the use of memory and awareness, both bound to time. Experience is the result of these time frames, but no single event involved in mind or body is undetermined. All being is an extension of one substance and its relationships of cause and effect to itself.

Consciousness exists on a sort of transcendental plane where it ‘sees itself seeing.’ This doesn’t separate it from the original substance, it only creates a new category of effect, also the sense of ‘self.’ Its all memory based Cartesian coordinates.

3

Causality is not quite so clear cut when considering Quantum Physics. I would be a bit careful arguing for or against freewill because of this; we simply don’t know enough yet.

4

Unless you are a radical idealist you will submit that the sciences require observational data. Quantum Mechanics, although stating that because a particle’s velocity and position cannot be determined simultaneously, can only describe the observational properties of the object which it studies. The fact that this paradox has emerged has nothing to do with the deterministic qualities of the universe. Observation is an empirical process, and ‘watching’ a particle at any time does not reveal its non-observational properties which are rationally determined.

Causality is nothing more than the admittance of the substantial effects of all things, thoughts and bodies. It comes as a necessary law that observation is only a degree of effects created by other effects, all of which are determined with absolute necessity.

Causality cannot be observed and quantum mechanics is no argument againt determinism.

5

Some reading:

fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jse.htm

From wikipedia:

6

anv.,

“Can you think a thought that has no precedent in your knowledge?”

This is ostensibly what happens with every new metaphor/simile. (For instance: Your love is like Olestra for my soul). Past knowledge is combined in new ways, and new knowledge is produced. This still isn’t Freewill as it is classically conceived, but it is procreative of meaning.

Dunamis

7

Yes, but that “new” knowledge is dependant on past knowledge. Reading poetry or knowing what a metaphor is, understanding olestra, souls, and a possible interelationship. There is the experience of love, and the collaboration of all those precedents into a language-based isomorphism for the experience.

My argument is that our free will and freedom to act is bound by rules, if it exists. Externally, by laws of physics, etc. Internally, by the limitations of our brain. There is even arguably, social limitation, refering to where we were raised and how it shapes our identities (and language! - the vehicle
of our consciousness)

Hence, free will for humans cannot be acausal, since all those limiting factors are caused.

Detrop,

You have a good argument for determinism. I have read similiar arguments, there are some parts I do not understand of yours, particularly “Its all memory based Cartesian coordinates.” Maybe you can clarify that for me.

Picking up where I left off with my response to Dunamis. Acausal Free Will may not exist, but a Compatibalist free will can exist. Even within a deterministic system, a sufficiently complex system like that which is our physical brain and its neurons, a system which as you stated has created a self-aware consciousness can be unpredictable. Not necessarily undetermined or free to act, but unpredictable enough that for all intents and purposes, we are free to act.

I should also note, that as a self-aware being, a being that is conscious of its being, we can affect and change our being to act in novel (yet dependant) ways.

In reference to my OP, my actions are dependant on my previous knowledge, but I can choose what to study and what to learn so that I can expand my choices in the future. I can also observe my actions and consciously affect my own behavior in the future. It is a very fickle type of “free will” that is also very limited. I do not reject your deterministic argument, but Im stating that there is still room for choice, even if it be a illusion.

8

A.,

"Hence, free will for humans cannot be acausal, since all those limiting factors are caused.

That’s because the “Freewill” is not free.

Dunamis

9

precisely ;]

10

anv.,

Explain:

“I am not in the “no free will” camp.”

Dunamis

11

Well.

I suppose this wil be the lithmus test of whether we were on the same page with “free will not being free”.

I’m going to avoid any overarching metaphysical statement addressing quantum mechanics or anything like that and just go with a pragmatic argument.

Free will : the ability to choose a action that is influenced but not determined by previous events.

That is a tough cookie to crack, even with my OP, I should just bow down to the determinists. But I’m going to be stubborn. Referring back to my OP, even if my actions are limited to that which I know how to do, that which I understand, that which is apart of my knowledge from social construction, that which my brain is able to process because of genetics. Accepting all causality that has brought me to where I am, all circumstance that has so strongly influenced me sitting in this chair here.

And accepting, once again, that what I can choose to do is limited to what I know how to do and am able to do within the laws of physics.

What I can do, is similar to your metaphor, choose to move in a direction and affect my limiting factors, because I am aware of them. How can I explain it, to create new knowledge by seeking it out, and having it in my store of knowledge that I can choose from.

For instance, I can choose to continue reading philosophy, or go out drinking or watch sports. My choice will be strongly influenced by everything that has brought me here, and what I know. And it may not be a choice at all. But knowing that I can only know what I percieve, interpret, and store as knowledge. Accepting that these are determinants of my future choices, I will seek knowledge to expand my choices.

I’m still limited. Even by choosing philosophy as my most exhaulted hobby, the knowledge I’m pursuing, I am taking time and energy away from other. These are just more limiting factors that help determine my choice.

but still, I feel that my choice to attain as much knowledge as I can, to ponder the deepest issues is how I’m paying the price for freedom of action. Philosophy and self-reflection is my opinion is that which expands ones choices the most, because it deals with the fundamental.

I’m lost in my own words again, but by being self-aware of the limiting factors, and realizing that one of the few you have control over is :knowledge. One can choose to expand that limiting factor, does in some infitisemal way create some space within determinism, even if it be a illusion.

12

Anv,

“the ability to choose a action that is influenced but not determined by previous events.”

I’m just curious. In your mind what is the eensy-weensy little thing that gets slipped in between “influenced” and “determined”? What is the nature of it? How does it come about? Why is it any different than just not wanting to admit something.

Dunamis

13

Hmmm!

I’m glad youre around to challenge my assumptions ;] This is where real progress is made, it is so difficult to be self-aware of ones assumptions, even if they are plainly written in a form such as argument.

I think that the teenyweeny something is just that - self-awareness.

I understand that even what I’m saying now is strongly influenced because unlike you, I have read a small amount of philosophy books. And im currently reading Godel, Escher, Bach by Hofstadler.

Yet it is more than that. There is a cliche, “perception is reality”.

Is it that I have come to this point where I am now because of the laws of physics, because i was raised this way, or is it that I chose?

During our lives, there were a near infinite amount of events that occured, the complexity of reality is incomprehensible to us. We filter and simplify it. As humans we percieve reality through a subject-object dichotomy, etc (is this necessary?)

First: reality is filtered by what we are able to percieve. We, for example, cannot see the entire light spectrum, we are bound by being human. Eagles and other animals see various different parts of the spectrum. Some animals like bats have sonars! same reality, different perception.

but thats a sidenote. There is also another filtration, what we pay attention to. That which we hold as important. As I stated earlier, near infinite amount of events, but some I have chosen (or not?) to see as important. When I was in high school, my parents didnt want me to play football, I didnt fight them. Why? I dont remember. I percieved the events in a particular way that didnt lead me to acting, was it chosen or not?

The point? here I am. I have many choices already today, like not going to the gym, making tea myself instead of heading over to Starbucks, eating a turkey sandwich instead of finishing off the milk for cereal. Etc etc.

Are those really choices? I dont know. But looking forward, I can make at least illusory choices. I cant control my past, I cant control my genetics, I cant control that I’m the product of a brain in this physical body.

I sense that I have some control over the future. I am aware that my past choices are strongly influenced if not determined causally. But, I can choose to read a website about milk, or the benefits of the gym, or work out how much a starbucks chai tea latte costs me. I can arrange this past knowledge, and with some effort and time, synthesize new knowledge that will be in my knowledge for future choices.

Hence, by being aware of my limited nature, I can act in a way that at least I percieve as free. But I do not believe I can escape causality or determinism… just nudge it gently from being aware of causality, of limitations, or existing in a possibly deterministic universe.

In a way, if anything… just fooling myself that I have free will… but in a rather satisfactory fashion ;]

or to sum it up in another way: The decision-maker’s ability to change the decision-maker

14

A.,

“I think that the teenyweeny something is just that - self-awareness.”

“Self awareness” is simply the body’s ability to relate an image (actually several in varying composition) of itself to its own thresholds. In order for “self-awareness” to be the source of an undetermined act, it would have to be complete awareness of the self. Influences upon what are called “decisions” are constantly happening beneath the threshold of awareness, so they cannot be taken into account in the conscious process itself. “Self awareness”, that is the representation of the self to the self can certainly account for the impression of freedom, but does seem insufficient to account for the undetermined status of “choices”.

Dunamis

15

Hmmm.

There are some interesting assertions in your argument.

I do not contest several of your premises

  1. a self cannot have complete awareness of itself
    I agree, the self is dynamic even without trying, events, experiences, information, etc is constantly being percieved, interpretted, and assimilated into the self. Complete awareness is impossible, but increasing awareness is not.

  2. There are constant decision-making happenings beneath the awareness of consciousness

I agree, much of the decision-making process appears to be subconscious.

however, I disagree that this decision-making process cannot be brought “up” to consciousness. Tying this to premise #1, that it is possible to increase awareness of ones self, or more precisely of the decision-maker.

sidenote: I think there are ways to tie the decision-maker to Nietzsche’s WTP, but ive only read zarathustra so far.

Okay, back to the discussion. You stated that " In order for “self-awareness” to be the source of an undetermined act, it would have to be complete awareness of the self". Complete awareness being a impossibility, would increased awareness correspond to a higher degree of freedom?

This has been the theme of my posts and my argument. But it hinges on being able to bring the decision-maker to the level of consciousness, in order to study the process, create models, and gain understanding. Is that possible?

Consider again the “perception is reality” cliche. When the information from our senses is brought into the brain, it is made sense of in a human way, and a social way. That is: it is simplified and judged (man is the creator of value right?).

The judgment of events seems to be a main component of the decision-making process, and for many it is purely subconscious. Consider how difficult it is think outside the subject-object dichotomy. It judges percieved reality, interprets it for us. This me, that is something else. Yet, it is possible for a human to think outside of it (granted you take buddhist monks word for it).

Anyway, through the study of the self, the decision-maker, through introspection. Do something - analyze it, create models, find ‘truths’, etc. You can gain greater awareness and I seem to be repeating myself in every post just using different words: gain greater freedom in future actions.

Not necessarily “free will”, but freer will than with no awareness of the processes that motivate ones choices. So, free will isnt free ;]

16

anv,

however, I disagree that this decision-making process cannot be brought “up” to consciousness. Tying this to premise #1, that it is possible to increase awareness of ones self, or more precisely of the decision-maker.

Did I say it cannot be “brought up”? Only that part of it must inevitably remain behind.

Complete awareness being a impossibility, would increased awareness correspond to a higher degree of freedom?

Freedom is only, freedom from “x”, not freedom from all “x”. What is imagined by freewill is freedom from all “x”, which is seemingly both logically, psychologically and biologically impossible.

Not necessarily “free will”, but freer will than with no awareness of the processes that motivate ones choices.

This is essentially Spinoza’s point, that through knowledge of causes we gain a relative freedom from those causes, but that our will at no time is “free” from determination.

Dunamis

17

We seem to be on the same page regarding the first statement about relative freedom.

But I’m not quite sure what you mean by will here. I have not read Spinoza yet, but its officially on the to-do list now.