Free Will An Illusion?!?

In the ages old debate regarding the choices we make (or maybe not) this article from the site IO9 raises some interesting questions about our ability to make conscious decisions and whether or not these decisions are made before we are aware of having made them.

For a different perspective, check out the 12 Nidana's (the chain of causation) of Buddhism. This description lays it out in a funny way, but makes the point.

So, let's start off with an excerpt from the article on IO9.com, by George Dvorsky:

"Humans have debated the issue of free will for millennia. But over the past several years, while the philosophers continue to argue about the metaphysical underpinnings of human choice, an increasing number of neuroscientists have started to tackle the issue head on — quite literally. And some of them believe that their experiments reveal that our subjective experience of freedom may be nothing more than an illusion. Here's why you probably don't have free will.

Indeed, historically speaking, philosophers have had plenty to say on the matter. Their ruminations have given rise to such considerations as cosmological determinism (the notion that everything proceeds over the course of time in a predictable way, making free will impossible), indeterminism (the idea that the universe and our actions within it are random, also making free will impossible), and cosmological libertarianism/compatibilism (the suggestion that free will is logically compatible with deterministic views of the universe).

Now, while these lines of inquiry are clearly important, one cannot help but feel that they're also terribly unhelpful and inadequate. What the debate needs is some actual science — something a bit more...testable.

And indeed, this is starting to happen. As the early results of scientific brain experiments are showing, our minds appear to be making decisions before we're actually aware of them — and at times by a significant degree. It's a disturbing observation that has led some neuroscientists to conclude that we're less in control of our choices than we think — at least as far as some basic movements and tasks are concerned."

What do you think...and are you sure that your view is predetermined? <g>

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by M. Al Amati on January 20, 2013 at 10:33am

It is very easy to prove that free will is an illusion. Try "willing" your thoughts to stop for even five seconds.

The highest that a man can attain is to be able to do.

G.I Gurdjieff's 2nd aphirism.

By yourself you can do nothing; seek a Friend. If you could taste the slightest bit of your insipidity you would recoil from it.

Nizami's "Treasury of Mysteries"

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hari Menon on January 20, 2013 at 11:50am

Dear Joe ,

You have put up a very difficult proposition because Will if you define as a physical phenomena , it is maybe only useful in getting Actions done by the individual and on the collective scale when one person (normally people in power) get a group of others to act in accordance with their wishes or diktats . Hitler, Napolean etc had will so too Martin Luther King ,Mahatma Gandhi and a host of other personages . Another flaw in this physical theory of will is that Laws enacted have the same result and is slightly subtler at this stage it overlaps into the psychology of man and beast and not fully physical , Also social stups like a family unit has will flowing from the Patriarch oe Matriarch or eldest son etc etc depending on the type of society in which case anthropological and sociological considerations give rise to will . The crudest will is bestial in nature where physically endowed people actually abuse their physique vis a vis another . So Will in the physical senses is accompanied by appropriation and subjucating another . Employee - Employer , Pimp - Whore , Buyer - Seller ,Seller - Buyer , King- subjects. Bully - student , Teacher - student , etc etc . So over time what emerged was that Will is a power and inherent ''in something'' not necessarily in the body per se - but whatever made the body work with ''Knowing'' . It was also found that in individuals it was not distributed equally (this from a Psychologocal,Sociological,Anthropological , etc etc angles). since cases of a person being dominant sometimes and docile at times arose vis a vis the same persons . eg. LIke say a bully gains the respect of a Nerd and becomes his friend etc etc so will was found to have a subtle movement according to life and conditions and not static . These are all scientific observations and theories on will , just as how children twist parents etc .

Now my question to you is - let us disregard metaphysics and their various wills (it is only in the Christian world that Unfree and Free will is discussed - such theories and concepts are alien in the Eastern Religions or philosophy which has decided views on Will ) .

Scientifically and historically will can only be gauged from the effects of an Action - it cannot be measured on any scale and its variations are too many vis a vis all the actions of all the people in the world .So if will is what decides action then in the physical sense or moves the body to act on each and every action done by a person - it would not lend itself to a standard interpretation or definition . Another thing that arises is that Will is thus not concerned with the body but more with the Psychological movements in persons which provoke action which may be uniform or at variance with each other

Now reason and will and choice : choice is an action and again in the grossest form Will has nothing to do with Action directly (it is through the various pressures of the mental make up that a man acts ). So Will also has nothing to be connected with either making of choices or not making choices (both of which are actions albeit intellectual) .

So the question ultimately comes down to What is Will ?, To Whom does it belong (both in the micro cosm and in the macrocosm ) - this equality in both the Microcosm and Macrocosm is to be there if will is considered to be a subtle movement of life , other wise it would only be something applicable to human beings and no one else.

So will is not physical and Maybe it is something to do with only human beings and their concepts in which case it would not necessitate the discussing of free or unfreewill .

Now coming to the word itself Will , Free Will , And Unfreewill connotes that there is within the word Idea the concepts of

Pure Will = Will and Free will and Unfreewill as relating to the individual . So we are back to the place where like the differences between Truth , Absolute Truth and Phenomenal Truth - Will means something that is within both the infinte and the finite . Language is a science but it has now thrown up a question that can never be explained by science without making Apriori some reasonable assumptions which are within the purview of Metaphysics !.

Again what use is the finding that the mind makes decison before the brain shows it ? It is by very definition a forgone conclusion that such a finding will occur since the activity of the mind on matter in certain (not all) cases require the brain as an interface for bodily action . And just before the mind acts the intellect has to act other wise the mind is incapable of action in a human being and before the intellect acts Knowledge has to be there which is conscious by itself otherwise the intellect will not be able to act . And this consciousness will act only if an ego is there .

Everyone has an ego and consciousness which are so far more subtle than the mind and what contribution can the knowledge that BEFORE the brain the mind works confer ?. It is obvious to a blind man also . Here the capacity of the mind is what is pertinent and not the brain . The brain is an inferior evidence as in all cases it is not needed by the mind or intellect - so the finding itself is flawed in that it is not universally true where even the mind vis a vis the brain is concerned .

Coming back to Will - what will however is has been reasonably confirmed is that " Intelligence is required for Will to be successfull in all cases of willing '' Intelligence = Right Knowledge , If results of willing are flawed then it means that the knowledge accompanying the willing was faulty . .....We are now in the areas reserved for the non dual so leaving it at that .

My view is that the world itself in Dream has no real existence , so where are the actions or willing ? Everything that is there or known including all the languages and sciences are negated in dream and in deep sleep dream is also negated . I know it is an unpalatable view as it may be termed an extreme view by many . But it is the Truth nevertheless. All discussions in the waking state are useless as it has no real existence and is temporary - so no truths can emerge from the waking state . Which is why the world is imploding under the weight of the human intellect . The poor mans view would be to give appellations to what I have said and pigeon hole it as Monism or Non Dual state etc and continue to sleep .

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M. Al Amati on January 20, 2013 at 4:05pm

Actually, try stopping your thoughts for even one second.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hari Menon on January 20, 2013 at 11:01pm

Dear MAM ,

Nobody on can ''stop thoughts '' by any kind of action or by themselves .....Thoughts subside by themself in knowledge , they rise from knowledge and merge in knowledge - we become aware of thoughts only in the interim when it floats into our consciousness - we interpret feelings into thoughts due to our ego and then think we think . That is all . Through no kind of action can thoughts be stopped - for if action is there then there will be thinker and thought . It is no big deal to stop thoughts if one is quiet and has a keen intellect - It becomes a settled state , thoughts are not required for living , neither is the mind required .What is more difficult is to stop the internal dialogue within oneself and which is manifested as a constant rememberance of ''I- Am" ness.