Free Will... Real? Fantasy? Illusion?

[_truth dancer]

Another thread evolved into a very interesting discussion on free will.

This topic is one in which I am particularly interested so I would love to have it continue.

Please share your thoughts and insights on the idea of free will.

Do we really have free will? Is it an illusion? Fantasy? Reality?

I'm thinking illusion. :-)

Any thoughts, insights, ideas?

~dancer~

[_beastie]

thanks for taking the initiative, TD! You're going to be familiar with this information from Robert Wright, since I know you're a fan of his as well.

I basically vote with illusion, with some qualifications I mentioned on the other thread. Here's one intriguing study that gives us a tantalizing hint, from his book The Moral Animal. He's talking about reciprocal altruism and how human beings excel at fooling ourselves about many things, including our own motives (which seem remarkably noble in comparison to the motives Old Testament "the other"), but delves into an experiment that influenced my thinking on this question. I'll bold the portions that are particular to this question in case readers want to skip the context portion I'm providing.

Page 273

Reciprocal altruism brings its own agenda to the presentation of self, and thus to the deception of self. Whereas status hierarchies place a premium on our seeming competent, attractive, strong, smart, etcetera, reciprocal altruism puts its accent on niceness, integrity, fairness. These are the things that make us seem like worthy reciprocal altruists. They make people want to strike up relationships with us. Puffing up our reputations as decent and generous folks can’t hurt, and it often helps.

Richard Alexander, in particular, has stressed the evolutionary importance of moral self-advertisements. In The Biology of Moral Systems he writes that “modern society is filled with myths” about our goodness: “that scientists are humble and devoted truth-seekers; that doctors dedicate their lives to alleviation of suffering; that teachers dedicate their lives to alleviation of suffering; that we are all basically law-abiding, kind, altruistic souls who place everyone’s interests before our own.”

There’s no reason moral self-inflation has to involve self-deception. But there’s little doubt that it can. The unconscious convolutions by which we convince ourselves of our goodness were seen in the laboratory before the theory of reciprocal altruism was around to explain them. In various experiments, subjects have been told to behave cruelly toward someone, to say mean things to him or even deliver what they thought were electric shocks. Afterwards, the subjects tended to derogate their victim, as if to convince themselves that he deserved his mistreatment – although they knew he wasn’t being punished for any wrongdoing and, aside from that, knew only what you can learn about a person by briefly mistreating him in a laboratory setting. But when subjects delivered “shocks” to someone after being told he would get to retaliate by shocking them later, they tended not to derogate him. It is as if the mind were programmed with a simple rule: so long as accounts are settled, no special rationalization is in order; the symmetry of exchange is sufficient defense of your behavior. But if you cheat or abuse another person who doesn’t cheat or abuse you, you should concoct reasons why he deserved it. Either way, you’ll be prepared to defend your behavior if challenged; either way, you’ll be prepared to fight with indignation any allegations that you’re a bad person, or a person unworthy of trust.

Our repertoire of moral excuses is large. Psychologists have found that people justify their failure to help others by minimizing, variously, the person’s plight (“That’s not an assault, it’s a lover’s quarrel”), their own responsibility for the plight, and their own competence to help.

It’s always hard to be sure that people really believe such excuses. But a famous series of experiments shows (in a quite different context) how oblivious the conscious mind can be to its real motivations, and how busily it sets about justifying the products of that motivation.

The experiments were conducted on “split-brain” patients – people who have had the link between the left and right hemispheres cut to stop severe epileptic seizures. The surgery has surprisingly little effect on everyday behavior, but under contrived conditions, strange things can happen. If the word nut is flashed onto the left half of the visual field (which is processed by the right hemisphere), but not onto the right half (processed by the left hemisphere), the subject reports the conscious awareness of the signal; the information never enters the left hemisphere, which in most people controls language and seems to dominate consciousness. Meanwhile, though, the subject’s left hand – controlled by the right hemisphere – will, if allowed to rummage through a box of objects, seize on a nut. The subject reports no awareness of this fact unless allowed to see what his left hand is up to.

When it comes time for the subject to justify his behavior, the left brain passes from professed ignorance into unknowing dishonesty. One example: the command walk is sent to a man’s right brain, and he complies. When asked where he’s going, his left brain, not privy to the real reason, comes up with another one: he’s going to get a soda, he says, convinced. Another example: a nude image is flashed to the right brain of a woman, who then lets loose an embarrassed laugh. Asked what’s so funny, she gives an answer that’s less racy than the truth.

Michael Gazzaniga, who conducted some of the split-brain experiments, has said that language is merely the “press-agent” for other parts of the mind; it justifies whatever acts they induce, convincing the world that the actor is reasonable, rational, upstanding person. It may be that the realm of consciousness itself is in large part such a press agent – the place where our unconsciously written press releases are infused with the conviction that gives them force. Consciousness cloaks the cold and self-serving logic of the genes in a variety of innocent guises. The Darwinian anthropologist Jerome Barkow has written, “It is possible to argue that the primary evolutionary function of the self is to be the organ of impression management (rather than, as our folk psychology would have it, a decision-maker.)”

One could go further and suggest that the folk psychology itself is built into our genes. In other word, not only is the feeling that we are “consciously” in control of our behavior an illusion (as is suggested by other neurological experiments as well); it is a purposeful illusion, designed by natural selection to lend conviction to our claims. For centuries people have approached the philosophical debate over free will with the vague but powerful intuition that free will does exist; we (the conscious we) are in charge of our behavior. It is not beyond the pale to suggest that this nontrivial chunk of intellectual history can be ascribed fairly directly to natural selection – that one of the most hallowed of all philosophical positions is essentially an adaptation.

I find this amazing. by the way, it isn't the only experiment that demonstrates that some sort of "decision" is made before the person in question is even conscious of having made a decision. I can't recall straight off where I read about this experiment, so I'll have to come back later with a reference. I'm going by memory so I may have to correct details later. But basically the experiment was set up to ask the subject to make some sort of decision about something flashed in front of them, and then they pushed a button to indicate the "yes/no" decision. The subject gave a verbal indication of the moment he/she made the "decision" and equipment was set up to monitor electrical nerve impulses that indicated the hand was going to make a movement towards a button. The interesting thing was that the nerve impulses were being sent before the subject reported being conscious of making the decision, even factoring in the verbal delay. I'll try to find the exact report later.

I have other replies to make in response to the other thread, but since I'm under the weather this weekend, can only handle this in bits and pieces.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Beastie...

The Moral Animal is a book I think should be required reading for everyone on the planet! :-)

You quoted...

In other word, not only is the feeling that we are “consciously” in control of our behavior an illusion (as is suggested by other neurological experiments as well); it is a purposeful illusion, designed by natural selection to lend conviction to our claims.

I agree with this.

I think we have evolved to notice behavior so we get the sense that we are choosing it when, even the reasons we give for our choices may very well be all based on evolution. At this point, I don't know how it could be any other way.

In other words, could anything go against evolution? That is sort of a weird question but I mean, it seems that all of life (and even before life existed) unfolds as it will. Animals do what they can to survive based on all that they are (including everything that is in the DNA, memory, hardwiring etc). I do not see humans as any different with the exception that we can notice our behavior (in normal circumstances)... or, we are self aware.

But noticing behavior does not mean we come up with correct conclusions about their purpose, nor does it mean we are actually choosing (in a free will sort of way) these behaviors, although it certainly appears to be the case for many of us.

Blink, is a great book that actually speaks to your quote... Malcolm Gladwell gives several examples of how we make choices without actually knowing why we are making them. It is fascinating actually. It is as if our behaviors occur and then we come up with reasons why. Even when we have NO idea why we behave or act in certain ways, we come up with reasonable answers.

I'm still open to ideas and insight but at this point I think we all do our best with what we have.... no one morally better than another.

It is just that some humans have the DNA/background/neurology/evolutionary history/etc. etc. to conform better than others, to manage our current situation better than others, to survive better than others.

For example, we all hold the "choices" of our ancestors in our DNA, so some survival strategies, or sexual strategies are more pronounced in some than others.

Anyway, I think we are just beginning to understand the complexity of our brains and how humans really "work."

I look forward to this discussion!

Hope you get feeling better soon! Drink lots of fluid and get lots of rest! :-)

~dancer~

[_marg]

I'm still open to ideas and insight but at this point I think we all do our best with what we have.... no one morally better than another.

Do you really take this position? If so why argue polygamy is unethical in most circumstances?

[_Fortigurn]

When it comes time for the subject to justify his behavior, the left brain passes from professed ignorance into unknowing dishonesty. One example: the command walk is sent to a man’s right brain, and he complies. When asked where he’s going, his left brain, not privy to the real reason, comes up with another one: he’s going to get a soda, he says, convinced. Another example: a nude image is flashed to the right brain of a woman, who then lets loose an embarrassed laugh. Asked what’s so funny, she gives an answer that’s less racy than the truth.

This is a bizarre description. It claims 'the left brain passes from professed ignorance into unknowing dishonesty'. Dishonesty, by definition, is the willful misrepresentation, distortion, or avoidance of the truth. In this case one hemisphere has no idea of the facts, and so is unable to explain the real reason or cause. It therefore comes up with a likely justification (which is what the brain does naturally, and dreams are a typical example). I don't see any evidence that the people here are lying, or being dishonest. It's not possible for them to be dishonest in their report, since they're unaware of the truth.

I don't see how this proves we are incapable of conscious decision making.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Marg... :-)

I'm still open to ideas and insight but at this point I think we all do our best with what we have.... no one morally better than another.

Do you really take this position? If so why argue polygamy is unethical in most circumstances?

I think "moral" has to do with how culture defines behavior at any given time.

I think "ethical" behavior has to do with behavior that is ultimatly in the best interest of life.

I don't think I have ever said polygamy is 'immoral' because I think animals form all sorts of mating rituals, practices, and habits for various reasons... I do think that in the human it is very unhealthy and unethical and hurtful for individuals, our species, and our world.

When I suggest no one is more moral than another, I'm suggesting the "good" people are not somehow more righteous than the "not so good" people because they are better spirits or just choose to make better choices... In other words they are not intrinsically better in the "moral" sense.

Obviously I think some behavior is much better and more healthier than others.

I think even those who do really horrific things are doing so because of what is going on inside them. I'm open to being wrong on this but at this point this is how it seems to me.

I'm pretty sure I would engage in all sorts of horrific things if I had the biology, DNA, past experiences, ancestry, unhealthy neurology of others who live really horrible lives.

I'm also pretty sure that the really "horrible" people who engage in all sorts of unhealthy and hurtful behavior would be much more appropriate if they had different DNA, neurology, experiences, etc. etc. etc.

Does that make sense?

What do you think Marg... do you think people have free will?

~dancer~

[_beastie]

This is a bizarre description. It claims 'the left brain passes from professed ignorance into unknowing dishonesty'. Dishonesty, by definition, is the willful misrepresentation, distortion, or avoidance of the truth. In this case one hemisphere has no idea of the facts, and so is unable to explain the real reason or cause. It therefore comes up with a likely justification (which is what the brain does naturally, and dreams are a typical example). I don't see any evidence that the people here are lying, or being dishonest. It's not possible for them to be dishonest in their report, since they're unaware of the truth.

I don't see how this proves we are incapable of conscious decision making.

You're arguing over semantics.

I didn't say this proves we are incapable of conscious decision making. I said it was a tantalizing piece of evidence. It demonstrates that just because we are convinced we are engaged in conscious decision making doesn't necessarily mean we are.

I'll offer other tantalizing clues later.

[_Fortigurn]

This is a bizarre description. It claims 'the left brain passes from professed ignorance into unknowing dishonesty'. Dishonesty, by definition, is the willful misrepresentation, distortion, or avoidance of the truth. In this case one hemisphere has no idea of the facts, and so is unable to explain the real reason or cause. It therefore comes up with a likely justification (which is what the brain does naturally, and dreams are a typical example). I don't see any evidence that the people here are lying, or being dishonest. It's not possible for them to be dishonest in their report, since they're unaware of the truth.

I don't see how this proves we are incapable of conscious decision making.

You're arguing over semantics.

I'm not arguing over semantics. It's simply not true to say that people are being dishonest if they don't know the truth to start with. This is an example of the brain's capacity for ad hoc rationalization, not evidence of people being dishonest.

I didn't say this proves we are incapable of conscious decision making. I said it was a tantalizing piece of evidence. It demonstrates that just because we are convinced we are engaged in conscious decision making doesn't necessarily mean we are.

What it shows is that a brain with aberrant functionality, operating under controlled conditions intended to deprive it of the truth by taking advantage of the aberration, will provide an ad hoc rationalization for a particular phenomenon. I don't see how this disproves a decision making process. In the example of the nut, the left brain clearly made an informed decision to seize the nut in the bag, aware that this was the correct item. That is clear evidence for a decision making process, though the decision making process did not occur at the conscious level.

As the text says, this shows 'how oblivious the conscious mind can be to its real motivations, and how busily it sets about justifying the products of that motivation', but I don't see how it disproves a decision making process.

[_marg]

I think "moral" has to do with how culture defines behavior at any given time.

I think "ethical" behavior has to do with behavior that is ultimatly in the best interest of life.

I don't think I have ever said polygamy is 'immoral' because I think animals form all sorts of mating rituals, practices, and habits for various reasons... I do think that in the human it is very unhealthy and unethical and hurtful for individuals, our species, and our world.

When I suggest no one is more moral than another, I'm suggesting the "good" people are not somehow more righteous than the "not so good" people because they are better spirits or just choose to make better choices... In other words they are not intrinsically better in the "moral" sense.

At this point I don't think I understand you. I do think some people are intrisically better in a moral sense. People are motivated by personal reward. Some people seek personal reward knowing full well it's at the expense of others, sometimes great expense of others. I'm not comfortable with using the word "moral" because I do think morals can be relative depending on perspective. My impression of ethics is that it can be determined independent of personal perspective. That is the facts can be presented to a group of people who are objective, who can critically evaluate and that no matter what their background they can determine based on the facts presented whether an action/behavior was ethical, in the ulimate best interests of all, overall.

Not having studied the complexities of ethics, or taken a course in it, I could quite easily be wrong in my understanding of it.

I think even those who do really horrific things are doing so because of what is going on inside them. I'm open to being wrong on this but at this point this is how it seems to me.

It seems that your assumption is that people who abuse others aren't really aware or in control of their actions. That may be the case for some people, who are quite delusional perhaps mentally ill but I don't think that can be assumed. I think the presumption is that people abuse others for conscious selfish interests and those who aren't aware of what they are doing...should be medically diagnosed if it is to make a difference in the legal system.

I'm pretty sure I would engage in all sorts of horrific things if I had the biology, DNA, past experiences, ancestry, unhealthy neurology of others who live really horrible lives.

You seem to be making excuses for the bad behavior of others. I don't agree with you. I do think people chose to hurt others oftentimes because it benefits them in some way.

I'm also pretty sure that the really "horrible" people who engage in all sorts of unhealthy and hurtful behavior would be much more appropriate if they had different DNA, neurology, experiences, etc. etc. etc.

So they aren't in control of their actions? To some extent yes, but I still think those who hurt others are fully aware. However they may feel they can get away with their behavior, or there are more rewards for them tham other alternatives, or it's an easy way to do what they've learned from others. But I still think the majority who hurt others do know and know right from wrong...even if they feel justified.

Does that make sense?

What do you think Marg... do you think people have free will?

I do think people have free will as far as knowing whether or not they have abused or hurt others. As far as beliefs go, they are often held for such a long time that an individual never appreciates how or why they acquired them.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Marg... :-)

No, I am not trying to excuse behavior, and I don't think people are robots.

I just think there is much more to the story than just people "choosing" behavior.

Our instincts, our ancestry, our experiences, our DNA, our culture, etc., all combine together to create a brain that works a certain way... I think we have some behavior that is hard wired, some that is flexible, some that is depenant on various interactions, some that requires certain environments to be evoked, some that is a result of faulty "wiring," etc. etc.

:-)

~dancer~