Many scientists and philosophers are convinced that free will doesn’t exist at all. According to these skeptics, everything that happens is determined by what happened before—our actions are inevitable consequences of the events leading up to the action—and this fact makes it impossible for anyone to do anything that is truly free. This kind of anti-free will stance stretches back to 18th century philosophy, but the idea has recently been getting much more exposure through popular science books and magazine articles. Should we worry? If people come to believe that they don’t have free will, what will the consequences be for moral responsibility?

In a clever new study, psychologists Kathleen Vohs at the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler at the University of California at Santa Barbara tested this question by giving participants passages from The Astonishing Hypothesis, a popular science book by Francis Crick, a biochemist and Nobel laureate (as co-discoverer, with James Watson, of the DNA double helix). Half of the participants got a passage saying that there is no such thing as free will. The passage begins as follows: “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. Who you are is nothing but a pack of neurons.”
The passage then goes on to talk about the neural basis of decisions and claims that “…although we appear to have free will, in fact, our choices have already been predetermined for us and we cannot change that.” The other participants got a passage that was similarly scientific-sounding, but it was about the importance of studying consciousness, with no mention of free will.
 
After reading the passages, all participants completed a survey on their belief in free will. Then comes the inspired part of the experiment. Participants were told to complete 20 arithmetic problems that would appear on the computer screen. But they were also told that when the question appeared, they needed to press the space bar, otherwise a computer glitch would make the answer appear on the screen, too. The participants were told that no one would know whether they pushed the space bar, but they were asked not to cheat. 

The results were clear: those who read the anti-free will text cheated more often! (That is, they pressed the space bar less often than the other participants.) Moreover, the researchers found that the amount a participant cheated correlated with the extent to which they rejected free will in their survey responses.

Varieties of Immorality

Philosophers have raised questions about some elements of the study. For one thing, the anti-free will text presents a bleak worldview, and that alone might lead one to cheat more in such a context (“OMG, if I’m just a pack of neurons, I have much bigger things to worry about than behaving on this experiment!”). It might be that one would also find increased cheating if you gave people a passage arguing that all sentient life will ultimately be destroyed in the heat death of the universe. 

On the other hand, the results fit with what some philosophers had predicted. The Western conception idea of free will seems bound up with our sense of moral responsibility, guilt for misdeeds and pride in accomplishment. We hold ourselves responsible precisely when we think that our actions come from free will. In this light, it’s not surprising that people behave less morally as they become skeptical of free will. Further, the Vohs and Schooler result fits with the idea that people will behave less responsibly if they regard their actions as beyond their control. If I think that there’s no point in trying to be good, then I’m less likely to try.

Even if giving up on free will does have these deleterious effects, one might wonder how far they go. One question is whether the effects extend across the moral domain. Cheating in a psychology experiment doesn’t seem too terrible. Presumably the experiment didn’t also lead to a rash of criminal activity among those who read the anti-free will passage. Our moral revulsion at killing and hurting others is likely too strong to be dismantled by reflections about determinism. It might well turn out that other kinds of immoral behavior, like cheating in school, would be affected by the rejection of free will, however.

Is the Effect Permanent?

Another question is how long-lived the effect is. The Vohs and Schooler study suggests that immediately after people are made skeptical of free will, they cheat more.  But what would happen if those people were brought back to the lab two weeks later?  We might find that they would continue to be skeptical of free will but they would no longer cheat more.

155 Comments

1. 1. dollylama 09:21 AM 8/19/08

   Interesting. Isnt the very decision to be less moral because a study has shown you there in no free will, a conscious free-will decision? Even if the messages we send happen seconds before we actually do them, who is to say that the message sent seconds ago werent inspired by free will. This brings to mind chaos theory to me. It may be possible to record everything chemical/organic event going on in our minds, and so it should be possible to predict everything someone is going to do. Im sure that would not prove true though, they would find there were happenings they couldnt account for, and it may be those happenings that are guided by free-will itself.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. ganeshbrhills 09:54 AM 8/19/08

   Interesting indeed. Another question crops up - then, what is it that separates us from animals? For an answer, let us look at some basics.
   
   I like Vanilla Ice Cream - but I did not start liking it because I wanted to. I don't even know when I started liking it. But I enjoy eating it. However, whenever/wherever Vanilla Ice Cream is offered to me I may not accept it.
   You see, I have this "choice" which the animals lack, it seems to me.
   
   Offer a dog a juicy bone and it'll grab it - of course, exceptions are the specially trained ones that may accept food only from it's master.
   
   The famous quotation "REAL POWER IS WHEN YOU KNOW YOU CAN, BUT YOU DON'T" says it all.
   
   Doesn't this amount to "Free Will?" - a conscious decision?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. erbarker 10:30 AM 8/19/08

   In the beginning was the program and the program was with root and the program was root
   
   Root said run program run!
   
   A few billion cycles later, here we are.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. erbarker 10:31 AM 8/19/08

   In the beginning was the program and the program was with root and the program was root.
   
   Root said run program run!
   
   A few billion cycles later here we are.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. erbarker 10:35 AM 8/19/08

   In the beginning was the program, and the program was with root, and the program was root.
   
   Root saith run program run!
   
   A few billion cycles later here we are.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Ditches in reply to dollylama 10:40 AM 8/19/08

   What makes you so sure, dollylama? That is a pretty bold statement. What do you base that on, instinct/common sense? Physics, especially at the quantum level, does not always adhere to our "common sense" notions about how the world should behave.
   
   An inconceivably complex decision-making algorithm with a near infinite number of input parameters would produce many seemingly unpredictable results. It is convenient for us, with our inherently self-righteous worldview, to label this unpredictability as "free will" and move on, but it also seems intellectually lazy.
   
   Ganeshbrhills, your ability to deny yourself a tasty treat does not necessarily amount to "free will." You use the dog and bone example to highlight the difference between humans and animals, implying that because humans seem to have the ability to deny ourselves something we want, we have "free will" while animals do not. My counter to that is: what if there is no "free will" involved, but the equation for making that decision is simply far more complex for humans? Here's a very basic example: Dog Take Bone = (Am I hungry?) and (From previous experience, will this hurt me?), Human Eat Vanilla Ice Cream = (Am I hungry?) and (From previous experience, will this taste good?) and (Will this make me fat?) and (Will this give me cavities?) and (Will I be eating another meal soon?) and (Is that price worth it?) and (Will this make me sick?) etc.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. Astropin 12:09 PM 8/19/08

   Maybe we "act" as though we have free will because we are not free to do otherwise.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. rajahornstein 12:28 PM 8/19/08

   The study is not very interesting philosophically. The people who were shown the anti free will article were obviously predetermined to be the ones who were shown the article eons ago and their tendency to cheat was also predetermined before the experimenters or the subjects were born. I was predetermined to find this uninteresting and some of you were predetermined to ignore what I'm saying. Or, maybe not.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. Karl Hunt 12:47 PM 8/19/08

   The result of the experiment is definitely interesting. It is also true that there are too many potentially confounding factors, including the "bleak nature" of the deterministic passage. It will take a lot off work to find out what's really going on.
   
   In the meantime, there are many common misconceptions about the concept of free will reflected in the previous comments. A good discussion of the free-will debate can be found in Kwame Anthony Appiah's book, "Thinking It Through."
   
   A few points: Many people misunderstand determinism as fatalism. Determinism is *not* fatalism. That is, we are not always compelled to behave the way we do (or not ) by outside forces. Rather, we are part of the deterministic process , and our decision making is part of the process. A determinist would say we make the choices that we do because of prior events that determine how we make decisions.
   
   In that case, it becomes important that, in order to produce a more moral world (whatever that might be), we become as aware as we can of ways to guide our choices towards more moral outcomes. We also need to provide ways of doing this for others, especially those who are incarcerated for immoral/unethical acts (I'm sure we can agree that there are some acts which are clearly immoral, even if we can't agree on all of them). This opens up another difficulty; what about those who are clearly not reponsible for their acts due to such things as insanity and serious brain damage. And what about those for whom we have no ethical means of modifying their decision making, perhaps due to physiological abnormalities of the brain? Or just due to our lack of knowledge of how to do it?
   
   This points to the potential importance of the experiment, regardless of its interpretive problems. We need to understand as well as possible how people make moral decisions in order to enable us all to do better in this respect. These are thorny problems, but we do ourselves no good service by avoiding the work that will help solve them.
   
   Another book which is relevant here (in more ways than one) is Philip Zimbardo's "The Lucifer Effect." And one more comment which I feel compelled to make: There is an alternative to strict determinism, which Ditches might have had in mind with the reference to quantum mechanics. Some things might happen just by chance. That is, there is/are no cause(s) . Wow. Let's don't go there this time.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. neuroboy6 01:10 PM 8/19/08

    I read this to be more about what happens to behavior without the presumption of Free Will, than about whether or not we indeed HAVE Free Will.
    It seems clear to me that individuals and societies function best acting "as if" Free Will existed. The assumption that Free Will does not exist could itself act as a stimulus to effect a certain response from a non-free mind.
    Ruling out Free Will will likely remain difficult, if not impossible, since all involved parties are working within the system.
    I submit, that without invoking the supernatural, it is perhaps the job of those who believe in Free Will to demonstrate that it does, in fact exist, and to suggest a plausible explanation as to how it emerges from a demonstrably material collection of goop between our ears......

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. Bill Case 01:39 PM 8/19/08

    The trouble with this kind of Free-will vs Determinism debate is one of switching scales. Our current deterministic arguments comes from the 19th Century mechanical view of the world. The world is like a huge machine with every part's movement predictable. That view pre-dated and was largely defeated by 20th century cosmology and quantum mechanics.
    
    The predictable world (which is not really predictable -- Heisenberg and all that) is at the smallest level conceivable. Any human motivation encompasses billions, or perhaps billions of billions, of predetermining physical events in order to make up one human event. No one can ever know or measure all of the variables that make up that one human event. So, determined the universe might be, but not by us. We must live as if we had free will.
    
    I'll bet that those studies measured the outcomes based on normal statistical distributions rather than trying to build the worlds largest model of the physical variables that went into each test subject's decision.
    
    The irony is that at another time and in an other place millions (billions) of the physical variables might have changed enough to make the test subjects act differently. Since we will never know precisely what the differences are, how does viewing the world (except for perhaps a brief spell) as determined change our world view. We always have to come back to acting as if we had free-will.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. akayaka 02:44 PM 8/19/08

    If all our actions are pre-determined at the level of neurons, which are nothing more than complex assemblies of molecules made of atoms composed of neutrons protons and electrons made of quarks and ultimately 11 dimensional superstrings, and if all of the foregoing are subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle at the quantum mechanical level, then how can anything be said to be pre-determined given that the behavior of those fundamental particles is (as far as we know) definable only as a probability function? While this might not prove the existence of free will, it would seem to undermine the notion of determinism, except in the very weakest sense that our behavior may be the sum of these probability functions over all possible outcomes of particle interaction at the most fundamental level. But then Heisenberg and Schrodinger teach us that the very act of measurement or observation may affect the outcome of the event observed and measured, so again, determinism seems to be a slippery concept at best. But then, I guess we all knew that already (or were pre-destined to learn it), so here we are, and that's about all we can really say.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. Philo Nathan 02:54 PM 8/19/08

    For me, the question of free will revolves around a single issue - *Who* would be free or not free? We all have past experiences that condition us to act in a certain way, but is that conditioning something that we are bound by, or is it merely an influence that can be countered or circumvented? From what I have seen, people usually *want* to do what their conditioning tells them to do (and would be afraid not to), even if they know that doing so would be unhealthy and/or lead to painful experiences. This is because their identity has become caught up in that conditioning, and most people would rather experience pain than to lose the feeling of security that comes from a stable identity. So when the question of free will comes up, people are really asking "Is my identity free to act as it wills?" Of course the answer is "no," because that identity is defined by conditioned actions and responses to stimuli. However, there is a more relevant question to ask: "Can I choose not to be identified with my conditioning?" I believe the answer is "yes," because people let go of pieces of their identity all the time. They realize that they've become identified with their work, or their family, or a piece of art, or a political organization/structure, and sometimes they choose to let go of that identity. So, once again, the question comes back to "Who has free will?" Who chooses not to maintain a false identity? If we can answer this question, we can start to answer the question of whether free will exists or not.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

14. 14. Bill Case in reply to akayaka 03:24 PM 8/19/08

    Hi akayaka; You got it. Minor arguments could be made about the exact interpretation of how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Schrodinger's cat fit into a philosophical question such as Free-will vs Determinism, but the main point is made.
    
    The reason I responded is because I find the title of this article very misleading. The main point is that in this day and age Free-will vs Determinism is a non-question; ranking somewhere with the Sophists claim that a warrior can't be killed by an arrow. It is like trying to scientifically prove what comes after Steven Hawking's (or Bertram Russell's or whoever's) last turtle.
    
    We know that if the universe is deterministic, it is determined at such a small scale (perhaps smaller than the Plank spaces that string theorists work/calculate with) that it has no meaning. We must act with free-will at the order of magnitude in which we all live whether a determined universe is ultimately proven or not.
    
    If the article had only claimed that: People can be influenced in their decisions by outside human intervention; or even that, Test subjects can be prompted to include Determinism for some period of time as part of their world view, I would have found the title acceptable. But to suggest that the question might finally be settled and as a result human responsibility for individual actions can now be called into question is preposterous.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

15. 15. Bill Case in reply to Philo Nathan 03:32 PM 8/19/08

    Philo: I agree.
    
    In my opinion, Free-will vs Determinism is not a valid question. But as you posed it, "Am I Free or not-Free?", that is a valid question. It keeps both sides of the discussion at the same human scale.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

16. 16. almxx 03:49 PM 8/19/08

    I would have to suggest it is not logical to think we have free will, when we arrive on earth as an assemblage of genes not of our choosing , and live in a environment which shapes our behavior based on the response of this genetic assemblage that we are. So after all this, are we to think that suddenly we are in control? What about deterioration and disease? What about our despair ? I guess it's that old free will expressing itself.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

17. 17. almxx 03:50 PM 8/19/08

    would have to suggest it is not logical to think we have free will, when we arrive on earth as an assemblage of genes not of our choosing , and live in a environment which shapes our behavior based on the response of this genetic assemblage that we are. So after all this, are we to think that suddenly we are in control? What about deterioration and disease? What about our despair ? I guess it's that old free will expressing itself.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

18. 18. Occam-R 03:51 PM 8/19/08

    There are a couple of factors we may want to consider. First, I believe a moderate amount of behavior is mediated by fear of punishment, either immediate or in the distant future, rather than basic morality. Since the experiment removed both fear of punishment and offered an excuse to some, they may have been seeing that rather than a loss of morality associated with determinism.
    
    Second, we are all taught social behavior from infancy on. It is a major factor in the components that determine our actions, so we have morality built into the fund of causes that we use to determine those actions.
    
    An area that might be interesting to investigate, is why didn't ALL of those given the determinism passage cheat?
    
    Occam

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

19. 19. greiner3 04:00 PM 8/19/08

    I submit that those who questioned free will and that ended up cheating on the test were Republican by nature. Low morals and no sense for others or the future, as long as they were not to be part of it.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

20. 20. Traddles 05:12 PM 8/19/08

    "they adjust their notion of guilt and responsibility so that it really doesn't depend on the existence of free will" is the correct answer. Responsibility is not quite understood correctly. If we think of responsibility in terms of cause and effect (eg I stole a cookie, I get punished) then being punished for crimes is the very essence of responsibility. Action is met with re-action. And even with this we have to more clearly define what "free-will" is anyway. What does it mean to make a choice "freely"?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

21. 21. Traddles 05:12 PM 8/19/08

    "they adjust their notion of guilt and responsibility so that it really doesn't depend on the existence of free will" is the correct answer. Responsibility is not quite understood correctly. If we think of responsibility in terms of cause and effect (eg I stole a cookie, I get punished) then being punished for crimes is the very essence of responsibility. Action is met with re-action. And even with this we have to more clearly define what "free-will" is anyway. What does it mean to make a choice "freely"?
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

22. 22. Traddles 05:13 PM 8/19/08

    sorry about that double-post, there was some weirdness with the back/forward button in my browser

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

23. 23. srbeck13 07:03 PM 8/19/08

    Predictability is required for anything to do anything including exercising free will. Predictability means scientic law. For example, if we want to move and biology, chemistry, etc. don't work predictably we can't do what we want to do. So we need scientific law to exercise our free will. Yet, if scientific law controls everything, we don't have free will. And we can't control scientific law. The alternative to predictability is unpredictability or chance, including quantum mechanical indeterminacy, which we also can't control. So I don't see how the existence of indeterminacy gives us free will. The "free" part of "free will" means freedom from scientic law, while the "will" part requires scientific law. Free will is the absence of what you have to have in order to have it. "Free will" is a contradiction in terms. We may be able to do what we want to do, but we can't control our desire to do it. Some people will pay to do what others wouldn't do no matter how much you paid them, like skydiving, and neither group willed themselves to have those preferences. To the exent we have a choice about what we do, our preferences control what we do. We can learn to like things, but only to a limited extent and we have no control over our desire and ability to learn to like things. I don't think free will exists, even as a meaningful concept.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

24. 24. srbeck13 07:11 PM 8/19/08

    Reaponse to possum404: The important thing to me is in this debate is what is true about free will and human nature and not what is convenient for our legal system.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

25. 25. N. Perlman 09:34 PM 8/19/08

    I would say that, though I am not a believer in free will, my line of thinking is affected in a cause and effect pattern towards the most beneficial logical outcome. For instance, where the believer in free-will has a choice in choosing X over Y, the non-believer still has these two options, but one of them is a logical outcome, the other is not. So I would say that the universe is in a state of constant calculation, not predetermined in any sort of way, but does not really allow for a margin of choice. Making the wrong choice on purpose or at random wouldn't even be truly free because some force must be compelling chooser to act in this manner.
    
    This ties in directly to ethics, I would rather say, than morality, as morality is in my opinion far more subjective. Perhaps, if this is the case, then morality could be our most "free" asset, because of it's nature, but this again isn't true, because there is still an affect in the workings of any sort of moral decision making process.
    
    Anyway,
    
    If one looks it free-will as as a predetermined world, then naturally the result is a bleak one, however if one looks at the world as a constant computation, you being an important component to that equation, that, I believe can be a satisfying way of looking at the conundrum.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

26. 26. Patrick 027 11:33 PM 8/19/08

    srbeck13 and some earlier comments - great points.
    
    About choosing our identities - that is still a decision that is made within the larger identity (at the end of your life you can look back and see a whole identity that encompasses who you were at each point in time). About apparent indeterminacy - it still happened that you made the decision you did when you made it.
    
    There is a deeper reason, aside from our modern understanding of the material universe (which could be denied by the assertion that it's all an 'illusion' in some way), to not accept the notion of free will. What I'm saying may only be just a little different from srbeck13. There could be free will, but it can't be your's, because then it wouldn't be free. You have an identity. Or don't you? Well, for any meaningful concept of 'you', there is a 'you'. What 'you' do is in part determined by 'you'. At an instant in time it seems like you have free will because it is almost all determined by you. But going back in time, what determined 'you' at the moment you determined something? If nothing determined 'you', then it must have happenned by chance. Otherwise, you may have helped determine yourself, which is an important possibility but still leaves a loose thread. At what point could you have possibly been free to determine yourself - it would have to have been a moment when you were not yourself - and I don't mean you weren't acting like your usual self, ... in other words, free will always has to come from 'the outside', and considering that it is the patterns (from which causal relationships are infered) that allow us to find information and meaning (technically two different things in some contexts) in anything (This rock means there was water here at this time, my saying 'I had pizza for lunch' likely means I had pizza for lunch, I know english, I'm capable of speaking, etc..., my choosing to have pizza means, ... this weather patterns means a chance of rain tomorrow...) - actions determined by free will have no such meaning. A person choosing to act logically is (if doing a good job of it) following rules of logic; A person choosing to act morally likewise is still making decisions based on SOMETHING.
    
    But society shouldn't worry about falling apart. The legal concept of free will is a bit different - there are grey areas of course (many things falling along a spectrum in between 'someone holding a gun to my head' and 'oh, I've been planning this for a while and for no need of it ...'), but it is still useful. A person who commits an

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

27. 27. Patrick 027 11:43 PM 8/19/08

    ... A person who commits an act at time t is the person s/he was at that time and, depending on the situation, may be partly responsible for that act. Of course, people are complex entities and cannot be defined by single actions or even just a handful, hence leniency and the value of understanding, etc, the productiveness of forgiveness. There are grey areas and so how we choose to respond to the morality or lack thereof of others and their choices is not always clear cut and sometimes requires some give-and-take. Because of human nature, there is moral value in having consequences for are actions with some level of predictability. And yet it is not truly fair to have any consequences at all - but we are better off with them anyway, for the most part...Life is complicated. But that's a good thing - if life were simple we wouldn't be discussing this, and that's no fun.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

28. 28. ivanmario 12:35 AM 8/20/08

    Whether free will exists or not, that's only important for descriptive ethics. Normative ethics rely on our culture's history and on our brain's phylogenesis. For example, the sight of wounded chimps is usually aversive for chimps as the sight of wounded, abused human beings is aversive for normal human beings (depending on their emotional state, of course). Empathy appears in all cultures, having been naturally selected, and much of morals depends on empathy. In an interesting film about the N�renberg Trials, Goering asks his Jewish psychologist, "if Japanese were of your kind as Europeans are, had you thrown the atom bombs"?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

29. 29. ivanmario 12:38 AM 8/20/08

    Whether free will exists or not, that's only important for descriptive ethics. Normative ethics rely on our culture's history and on our brain's phylogenesis. For example, the sight of wounded chimps is usually aversive for chimps as the sight of wounded, abused human beings is aversive for normal human beings (depending on their emotional state, of course). Empathy appears in all cultures, having been naturally selected, and much of morals depends on empathy. In an interesting film about the Nürenberg Trials, Goering asks his Jewish psychologist, "if Japanese were of your kind as Europeans are, had you thrown the atom bombs"?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

30. 30. Iahmad 06:27 AM 8/20/08

    Well the topic deserves some comments. Americans will accept that they have free will whereas people living in dictatorships have programmed brain. Despite the fact that we are continuously programmed by our governments, media and authorities. What else was the reason to support a genocidal war on a sovereign nation. Were we not made to beleive that a dictator has WMD and may drop it on America. Were we not programmed by corrupt and immoral agencies under a christian fundamentalist king. Was not the war mongering tabloid media able to make us beleive that we are supporting extermination of Iraq out of free will. Beleif in free will is just a feel good factor and show of superiority over others.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

31. 31. Woodtears in reply to dollylama 07:39 AM 8/20/08

    The phrase "It may be possible to record everything chemical/organic event going on in our minds, and so it should be possible to predict everything someone is going to do" made me think about qvantum states. If the "bases" of reality or "classical state" (instead of "qvantum state") cast som shadow over the construction where we live...then I wonder how to handle the notion "you can't decide at the same time where a particle is located and what direction it has" About free will (sorry my English).

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

32. 32. Woodtears 07:51 AM 8/20/08

    Maybe free will is just the act of choosing alternatives...and where the degree of a person's free will is proportional to the person's insight capacity: that is, to know why you just think this way, why you say the things you say, why you believe the things you believe in, why you choose what you choose. It is the alternatives that are pre-sets, deterministic. Maybe.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

33. 33. the lovely brenda 09:40 AM 8/20/08

    free will is determined by what has happened to us in our personal experience, how we are raised, what our peers and society teaches us. it is also affected by how we deal with our emotions. our emotions control our entire endocrine system in our body. humans tend to not want to deal with pain so they bury it under something enjoyable which only makes emotions manifest into health problem. if we embrace our pain and understand why we feel the pain, fear, jealousy, hatred we can prevent it from affecting our health and our future free will.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

34. 34. JustinDoDrop 09:40 AM 8/20/08

    Fascinating. This study raises some very good questions indeed.
    
    RD
    www.decrypt.net.tc

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

35. 35. ar-lock 09:47 AM 8/20/08

    the believers in free will should be the ones called sceptics, no scientific evidence supports notion of free will, no will it ever.
    
    this is just an unpopular reality, its implications tearing deeply into our systems of reward and punishment.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

36. 36. Woodtears in reply to the lovely brenda 09:58 AM 8/20/08

    Another layer of the the concept. Maybe a psychodynamical/psychological such? By the way, if there is no free will and determinisn is the rule... does the wholeness, "all this" or the concept of what we call "God" has a free will? Is God he too, then, a prisoner of determinisn? Can you be a God then? Or is determinisn that is the God?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

37. 37. stephnlawrnce 10:13 AM 8/20/08

    Free will incompatible with determinism is a type of could do otherwise.
    
    It is not could do otherwise if you were in different circumstances, or if there was something different about you, as that would be compatible with determinism.
    
    It's not could do otherwise in the circumstances as we generally believe it to be, as that is randomness.
    
    It's a non random could do otherwise in the circumstances, which makes us ultimately morally responsible for our actions.
    
    We can see people believe in this when they say things like, "He didn't have to do it he had a choice."
    
    Obviously they don't mean he could have done otherwise if he'd been lucky enough to be in different circumstances.
    
    And equally obviously they don't mean he could have done otherwise but due to random chance he didn't.
    
    We make choices, there is no illusion but we also don't have free will because there is no way we could make a different choice, that gives us ultimate moral responsibility for the choice we make.
    
    As Galen Strawson put it "Luck swallows everything."
    
    Stephen
    
    Stephen

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

38. 38. Hae-Lim Minus 10:16 AM 8/20/08

    Just did a quick reading of the article. The first thought that popped into my mind is that the researchers are assuming that the article influenced the choices made by the test subjects. What if it had no effect, what if all the subjects would have chosen to behave in the same way regardless of the free will article? How do they know?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

39. 39. stephnlawrnce 10:35 AM 8/20/08

    Free will incompatible with determinism is a type of could do otherwise.
    
    It is not could do otherwise if you were in different circumstances, or if there was something different about us, as that would be compatible with determinism.
    
    It's not could do otherwise in the circumstances as we generally believe it to be, which is random chance.
    
    It's a non random could do otherwise in the circumstances, which makes us ultimately morally responsible for our actions.
    
    We can see people believe in this when they say things like, "He didn't have to do it he had a choice."
    
    Obviously they don't mean he could have done otherwise if he'd been lucky enough to be in different circumstances.
    
    And equally obviously they don't mean he could have done otherwise but due to random chance he didn't.
    
    We make choices, there is no illusion but we also don't have free will because there is no way we could make a different choice, which would give us ultimate responsibility.
    
    As Galen Strawson puts it "Luck swallows everything" http://www.naturalism.org/strawson.htm
    
    The subject of free will is separate to the subject of freedom. Of course we have more freedom if we are sitting on a chair because we want to, rather than if we are sitting on a chair because we are tied to it, so we can be more or less free depending upon which cirumcumstances we happen to be in. It's just this freedom has nothing to do with being able to do other than we do. That ability, if we have it at all, is undetectable by us at the level of our conscious experience of choice making and doesn't not give us freedom but simply adds an element of chance in any case.
    
    Stephen
    
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

40. 40. tzzoooma 12:17 PM 8/20/08

    It all depends on scale, and the scale determines the importance.
    
    Regardless of your individual actions or accomplishments, the Earth will cease to exist, as will the known universe, and thus, life.
    
    Nothing you do will change that fact.
    
    Will it?
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

41. 41. A passing thought 12:55 PM 8/20/08

    Free will like consciousness are, to most people, concepts which are thought forms that arise from the mind. They are subjective not objective and therefore automatic and mechanical in nature. The basic premise of the experiment is sound and does prove, even with the caveats the skeptics claimed, that we merely react to a miriad of external stimuli. Any eastern philosophy or higher teaching will tell you that we are nothing more than organic machines that are in a constant state of reaction and because we are inherently lazy when an experience that seems familiar comes along our formatory apparatus (the brain) fingers through the filing cabinets (memories) and through imagination assumes the outcome will be the same instead of realizing each experience is unique and can have an infinite variety of outcomes. It takes many years and a focused study to learn to see how your own mind works and then to understand the difference between imagination and objective reality. Science will never solve it alone because it is based on subjective observation and assumes many incorrect outcomes. It would literally take a book to write all the fallacies and misconceptions that science spouts as truth not to mention what is censored by the powers that be. The other main obstacle is language. I do not mean different racial dialects I am referring to our basic use of sound as a means of tranferring information. It too is subjective and full of fundamental flaws. For example: I say the word love which is generated by my mind in the form of a subjective thought which has many attached subjective memories based on my experiences with what I consider love to mean. It travels from my mouth in the form of sound waves and vibrates on the eardrum or is seen as a word through the eyes of an observer if written. Now it travels through the labyrinth of the observers mind in which his or her brain sorts through memories subjectively associated with the word love and based on his or her experiences of or lack of experiences with said word they think they know exactly what I am talking about. Now multiply that by several thousand words in a given conversation and consider how many words you say to one another which can mean so many different things to you yourself not to mention another being. If that is not enough now throw in the plethora of distractions both external and internal such as a loud noise, the speaker is mumbling, your tired and the conversation is boring to you and you are thinking about lunch and where you want to eat, etc...etc...etc.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

42. 42. baudrunner 01:27 PM 8/20/08

    Determinism is removed from the equation the moment you insert cognizance into the picture, otherwise the Universe is unfolding as it should, in accordance with the underlying principle that the entire creation process can be summarized as a fractal expression, which has a predetermined and fixed outcome.
    
    The question of choice belongs to sentient entities. When confronted with a dilemma, the arbitrary decision to respond in compliance, versus the decision to maintain an arrogant posturing, is truly a question of free will and the struggle between the two in which the playful personality immerses itself might very well even result in a random choice, for such is the nature of a free will.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

43. 43. maxsmart 01:40 PM 8/20/08

    Just exactly when is when? When you find that out it will be then. But then where will you be. You will be neither here nor there. What do pointless questions point to? People will probably cheat to prove they have free will and don't have to do what is expected them. The only Will I want to free is George Will. but he isn't willing to let me do it

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

44. 44. Philip Welsby 03:13 PM 8/20/08

    The brain is a hugely complicated machine with about 1012 neurones each with thousands of excitatory and inhibitory connections votes, with no mystery stuff. These neuronal interactions must use voting mechanisms to deliver outcomes. But there are several voting systems the brain can use which can produce differing results from the same voter base. These variations provide the required indeterminancy which provides freedom from rigid deterministic mechanisms (Welsby PD. Problems with voting: the ultimate source? Int Journalof Design & Nature l2, No 4, 2007:348-355). Sufficiently complex brains will have a coordinating system which, when confronted by such indeterminancy, will become aware that it has been burdened with free will as it has to determine which of the voting systems will be chosen to get the result. Hence free will.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

45. 45. sharkbomb in reply to dollylama 03:50 PM 8/20/08

    There is no such thing as free will. To imply that there is, you must first believe that an entity seperate from yourself, and full free of consequence or reward is making your decisions for you. If it is just you making decisions (responding to stimulus), then no, you cannot have free will. Here is why: you do not get to choose what you WANT. What you want is in no say simple enough to be defined as "good", "bad" or anything other than "what you want". What you want, at any given point in time, is the outcome if millions of years of evolution, your organic chemistry, your indoctrination by your parents, peers and other members of society, your life experience to date, as well as what is or is not being presented to you at the time you are aware of wanting. To make matters more complex, you often times are not even aware of what you want. To go further, what you want is not one thing--it is numerous, conflicting, cascading, counteracting and otherwise mish-mashed wants that have battled for a dominant theme at the precise moment that your WANT exists. All of your 'choices' are based on your WANT. Since you do not control your WANT, you do not control your choices.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

46. 46. piltdownman 03:56 PM 8/20/08

    The notion of Free Will illicits the further question, what's doing the willing? It's that damned old homunculus problem and an infinite regress.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

47. 47. BowMtnSpirit in reply to 04:59 PM 8/20/08

    I don't have time to read all these posts, so perhaps I will duplicate the thoughts of another here. But the one concept the story avoided entirely, and the posts I've read, is that a predisposition to moral responsibility may be itself a determined behavior. In evolutionary terms, it makes sense that a social organism would develop normative responses to stimuli that serve to protect and perpetuate the indivdual and the group. We see it all the time; it works with horses, with dogs, and with us. It is not absolute, of course, and permutations and deviations are legion. But to the extent it works, we live to reproduce and evolve. Ergo, we're hard-wired to turn to the concept of "moral responsibility" regardless of whether we believe our world is deterministic. "There are no accidents." Chi ho.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

48. 48. logan0245 05:12 PM 8/20/08

    Typical scientists. Overplaying their hand into moral and spiritual realms. The whole reason modern day science was founded was to clearly draw the line between things that could be explained vs things which could not be explained. Once you go into concepts of human morality, all scientific bets are off! Consider this, What if are physical bodies are unique manifestations based on our true spiritual selves? Then the individual neural networks of our brains would be truly unique, everyone would respond to stimuli and past experiences differently and thus give rise to free will. In the end its a question of who we are and how we relate to God in the decisions we make while alive. No topic could be further outside the realm of science than that.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

49. 49. BowMtnSpirit in reply to logan0245 05:25 PM 8/20/08

    Lol. I presume your comment about "typical scientists" had me in mind. Far from it...typical, or scientist. However, I will admit that I do not distinguish, in a global or holistic sense, science and spirituality. But I think it is untenable to say that all scientific bets are off in discussions of human morality. It is unquestioned that if you break the machinery, the ability to reason morally may follow, and I'm thinking of certain TBIs here. I also do not think, though, that this is incongruent with your conception of physical formation following spiritual form. Interesting concept, btw.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

50. 50. Esther63 06:00 PM 8/20/08

    BTW, logan, I like what you had to say.
    
    
    Two ideas to throw into the ring:
    
    (Unless, of course, someone already threw them in, and I missed it with my quick browsing.)
    
    
    1.) What if we thought of free will in terms of quality and quantity?
    
    For example, we can probably pinpoint dozens of factors that go into a person's "decision making." The people that have impacted their lives, the education they've been given, the hypocrisy they have or haven't seen, the levels of various chemicals dancing around in their brains or gut or wherever, etc. etc. Couldn't we say that free will may be one of a thousand factors that go into making a decision? That free will may have a say, but not complete power over a person's decisions?
    
    2.) It seems to me that part of the questions is, a) do we possess anything beyond our physical bodies, ie, a "soul" (or whatever your term of choice may be.) If the answer is no, then we would have to ask where that free choice stemmed from. If the answer is yes, then our beliefs about what it means to have a soul would come into play. (Pardon my use of the b-word in these circles!)
    
    Although it's nonsensical, and completely arrogant, I find it most helpful to approach the world with the attitude that I have free will, but I have no right to assume that other people do. You never know what goes into the making of any individual character besides your own (if that).
    
    A fun thing to think about: What if some people have free will, and not others? Maybe it's a genetic flaw. =)
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

51. 51. Esther63 in reply to piltdownman 06:02 PM 8/20/08

    I like that. =)

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

52. 52. Tom_B 06:29 PM 8/20/08

    I do not see how the experiment has anything to do with the question of free will. It has been well established that people's decisions can be influenced by events or information immediately preceding the decision. It has also been established that people can keep themselves from being influenced once they know that it is happening. Does stopping to think and possibly change one's mind before one does something constitute free will?
    
    From the number of comments, this topic is obviously one of great interest to this community. Does there even exist a widely accepted definition of free will? Without this, I don't see how discussion of its existence is meaningful.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

53. 53. Kurt L Hanson 06:57 PM 8/20/08

    Let me propose a common definition of free will to be the kernal inside the mind that that will decide whether to scratch an itch or not. That "thing" in the back of the eyes will either cause the arm and hand and fingers to movement which will eventually scratch the itch, or that "thing" in the back of the eyes will not mobilize the muscles of the arm, hand and fingers to scratch the itch.
    
    With this definition of free will, then of course there is such a thing in everyones mind. The key word to consider is a simple word: care. People exercise their free will sometimes with deliberate care and concern for the task at hand, and sometimes one will exercise their free will with lacksadaisical attention to the matter at hand. Sometimes the basketball game is important because you got ten dollars riding on the outcome, and sometimes you're playing hoops with your kid sister and so you may let her get by you and allow her to score a few points. All is the exercise of free will and are deliberate choices.
    
    The people in the experiment who cheated were conditioned to not care for the outcome of the experiment. How to manipulate people to care and do their best when something is important, and to not care for performing the trivial and mediocre tasks, I suppose this to be the question to ponder.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

54. 54. jdicecco 09:59 PM 8/20/08

    Studies have shown traits such as cooperation have survival benefits. Would it be too far a stretch to believe that conscience and a sense of morality have survival benefits? Could all this be wired and deterministic as well?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

55. 55. ganeshbrhills 10:15 PM 8/20/08

    Ditches:
    
    Many accounts of free will are built on the possibility that each stage of the world is determined by what preceded it by impersonal natural law.
    
    While we do not consciously initiate our actions, (studies have provided strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before we do it) - we might nonetheless retain the ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious psychological structures. There is, then, free choice of means to our ends, along with a more basic freedom not to consider something. In other words, we are avoiding "willing it unavoidably" once we have recognized its value.
    
    Free choice is an activity that involves both judgment and active commitment. The question is, whether will or intellect is the ultimate determinant of free choices.
    
    Going back to my example, I may want to eat the ice-cream, but I may also want not to eat it because of the connection between habitual candy eating and poor health. This provides the key to understanding both free action and free will. The moral responsibility for an action requires only that I acted freely, not that the action proceeded from a free will.
    
    Take for instance, an addict: typically, the addict acts out of a desire which he does not want to act upon. His will is divided, and his actions proceed from desires with which he does not reflectively identify. Hence, he is not acting freely.
    
    My will is free when I am able to make any of my first-order desires the one upon which I act. As it happens, I willed to eat the ice-cream, but I could always have willed to refrain from doing so.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

56. 56. kai 10:22 PM 8/20/08

    We are self-reflective beings which separates us from the animals. This means that we are able to function with higher brain faculties i.e. mid brian and the cortex. It is a kind of graduation from the basal lobe (instictual & survival drives) that we share with the animals. Our self reflective capacity presents us with the Idea of Will and the "Freewill Act" allows us the feeling or the luxury of acting as though we are apart from the Whole.
    The "choice" that Will has is 'a free reign' to all the impulses, to all the possibilities and potentialities of being. There is only one implication to our freeWill choice; freeWill is not free from the repercussions of its own free expressions. This process of adjustment--some call it karma--allows us to experience or live out the implication of those patterns we generate in order to adjust, in order to learn whereby we eventually regulate back toward the Whole.
    FreeWill expressed is our feelings because Will functions as a pressure which pushed from within edging us to surpass our conditional limited potentials.
    We have long misunderstood our Will!?
    Trying to share my limited understanding with our human family.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

57. 57. survivordean 10:36 PM 8/20/08

    "people live their lives bounded by what they accept as correct and true.. that is how they define reality... "
    
    In the world of psychology, the human mind is divided into 2 parts: The conscious and the unconscious. We can say that most of our actions are controlled by our unconscious drives if we are not conscious about it. On the other hand, we can also say that as human beings, we are gifted with logic. It means, we can use logic in order to express ourselves in several ways.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

58. 58. Yadmaa 10:46 PM 8/20/08

    One thing is sure that we are animals. So the question must be- Do animals have free will? Now research that.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

59. 59. Yadmaa 10:48 PM 8/20/08

    One thing is for sure, we are animals. So question is- Do animals have free will? Now research that.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

60. 60. tetrahedral 11:52 PM 8/20/08

    Each choice we make we use the knowledge we can recall, and our assessment of the relevant context to decide which choice is best for attaining a goal or satisfying a need. However, many of our choices are influenced by goings-on in our brain that are below our consciousness (for example, anxiety or lust). Other animals also make choices. Animals can become satiated and will refuse any more food even if it is their favorite. And even animals sometimes have trouble making choices, does that indicate they have consciousness and therefore free will? Why not?
    
    Or does a "free will choice" have to be based on culturally defined concepts? Relatedly, do moral choices depend on the law or religious rules of a particular society? Or, can choices that flout those rules also be considered moral under certain circumstances? Is morality about following rules (as in the Old Testament), or about being fair, and making choices which strengthen society and our relationships.
    
    If we believe we have a choice to make, just having a choice implies a degree of freedom. Whether or not our choice is determined by factors outside of our consciousness is largely beside the point of how we feel when consciously making a choice. But it is also valid for a person with more accurate knowledge to claim that the choice made by someone else was not "free" because the other person was not adequately informed or capable.
    
    So what is the "correct" use of the concept? That is the problem, there is no correct (or generally accepted) way of talking about the individual's point of view vs. that of the expert or "society." So I suggest that the concept is more trouble than it is worth.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

61. 61. brembs in reply to Yadmaa 01:11 AM 8/21/08

    Do animals have free will? Well, in the sense that they can choose to act one way or another in the same situation, even fruit flies have free will (PLoS One study):
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000443
    http://brembs.net/spontaneous

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

62. 62. Brian H in reply to 01:53 AM 8/21/08

    Reminds me of the English definition of a Scots gentleman: 'Someone who can play the bagpipes, but doesn't.'
    
    :D

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

63. 63. Brian H in reply to 01:56 AM 8/21/08

    Even if there is no free will, it's better to act as though there is. The results are far less messy and unpleasant.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

64. 64. brembs 02:19 AM 8/21/08

    Oops links didn't work: PLoS One, synposis.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

65. 65. Kurt L Hanson 07:43 AM 8/21/08

    ... thanks for the links brembs. I didn't know html markup functioned here in this SciAm forum.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

66. 66. brembs 08:34 AM 8/21/08

    Well, they're still not fully functional, as there is "sciam.com" attached to them...

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

67. 67. fovanilla 09:10 AM 8/21/08

    VERY NICE ARTICLES

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

68. 68. moizbadri 09:27 AM 8/21/08

    Human mind is programmed to do particular action in particular circumstances. he uses his free will but the circumstances force him to do the exactly programmed actions using his free will.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

69. 69. moizbadri 09:30 AM 8/21/08

    Human mind is programmed to do particular actions in particular circumstances. It uses its free will do exactly the programmed actions.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

70. 70. Patrick4547 01:11 PM 8/21/08

    As a "normal" "educated" adult I sit down and clearly see that a healthy diet is necessary for me to keep from
    getting serious diseases, pain, and dying young. I know about a healthy diet and can financially afford it. "Good" food is easily available. Yet time after time I fail to eat right and get fatter. Where is my free will?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

71. 71. TheFerret 02:52 PM 8/21/08

    When I wake up in the morning I have to decide whether I get out of bed or not. My decision may (or may not) be determined by the initial condition of the universe, but from my time scale and level of perception, I still have to decide. Whether or not I ultimately have free will, I act as if I do. I really have no choice in the matter.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

72. 72. oligarchy 04:44 PM 8/21/08

    Chaos theory and the collective consciousness.
    
    Any decision we "make" is the incalculable culmination of every event that
    had predated that decision. Picking the blue tie this morning could have been an indirect result of a any number of unreleated events - the butterfly affect. Following this logic, there really is no "single" decision making consciousness as the entire system of our reality both sentient and not is responsible for shaping any one person's decisions. Each processing node (brain) may be physically isolated, but any outward reaction by any node will undoubtedly ripple out and affect every other node near it with chaotic results.
    
    Every single action we take can potentially change the decisions about future events of everyone around us. Reading my dumb comments here could change your life forever lol.
    
    So, at a lower level if the process of making a choice is soley based on which neural pathway ends up with a higher activation energy,
    and the energies of any given pathway are determeined by reactions to the environment around us then yeah there really is no free will. I wonder though if any of our neural structures or brain patterns acts as a pseudo-random signal generator? For the "close call" decisions where either choice produces roughly the same probability of being chosen, is there some base brain wave pattern or electrical pulse that may control your choice through pure randomness? So in essence not only is everything we do basedd on the chaotic inputs of everything around us, it could also be affected by occasional random perturbations.
    
    We may not have free will, but then again wecould never calculate beforehand how anyone is going to react so there is no predetermination either - it's all just chaos!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

73. 73. tamurphy 07:59 PM 8/21/08

    Free will is an artifact of perception emergent within a boundlessly elaborating universal organism. Stepping back into mathematics once again, Bell’s theorem irrefutably posits that every event within this multidimensional membrane is simultaneous — ubiquitously present. This fittingly describes the quantum underpinnings of per-ception, in which indeterminacy is the only option. Anything else would constitute a fixed condition occasioning the collapse of the dynamic perceptual field that is now evolving as myriad individuat-ing spacetime perspectives — i.e., localizing venues of remem-brance.
    
    There can be no doubt that this experience is entirely abstract and ephemeral. Even as the infamous present moment is memorialized in comprehension, its most fundamental physical properties defy prediction.
    
    Inflation from coherent source through realization in present moment perception is simultaneous and ubiquitous. Quantum entanglement affords an initial glimpse of this. The multidimensional universe of experience is rendered by its own organic perception. This cosmic process may be accurately described as the self-consciousness of coherent awareness, always and forever spirating everything from nothing.
    
    Where does free will fit within this silent maelstrom? It’s a natural byproduct of identifying with the local perspective of individuating perception. Given the faculty of human consciousness, there is perhaps no way to avoid identification with the local machinery of perception. After all, a distributed sense of self imparts the essential instincts of survival, propagation and integration that give rise to all the complexity of the observable universe.
    
    But the totality is comprised of its apparent parts. Infinite differentiation elaborating an environment is the essence of evolution. One may ask: “what is the role of free will in the interstellar formation of amino acids; or in the evolution of the universe; or in the timeless inflation of original coherence?” When all is seen as a here now fait accompli, the question of free will is rendered moot.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

74. 74. mrebus 12:42 AM 8/22/08

    If I am predetermined then why do I feel I can think. and feel that I have and am thinking right now. to say that this is just neurons misses the point of the mind. the mind is designed to create levels of abstraction and I perceive e this as my consciousness. and to be honest my consciousness is me. So I can care less if the universe decided I would be me before me. I will live as I am me and thats that.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

75. 75. belgianatheist in reply to ganeshbrhills 05:57 AM 8/22/08

    You are looking at too high a level, when you decide not to eat the ice cream are you really free in your choice not to, you have a reason not to, however small or silly, when presented with that exact same situation can you really say that you would not make that same choice?
    Ultimately indeed there is no real free will, but it does not matter because we experience what we have as free will.
    It is just like there is no absolute truth, it is impossible to prove that humans, animals, the earth and universe was not created last Thursday in a state that made it look like it has always existed but we do not live like it was, so we should not live like we do not have free will.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

76. 76. IQ0 03:00 PM 8/22/08

    In my opinion, free will or determinism depends on the scope at which we look at things. To individuals, whether to do one thing or another is unknown until the point when decision is made. But if someone can have all the related information beforehand, it will become obvious which route one will take. In another word, free will is equal to randomness. People think their decisions are random but it is only because people don't have all the information.
    
    Another interesting question which is sort of related to this is that, can people really imagine something that is not related to anything he/she has received? Or can people with no 5 sense imagine and create things? if people are not just a programmed box that intake and output information.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

77. 77. Rongbin 02:46 AM 8/23/08

    The asking a whether we have a free will or not is equivalent to ask the simple question: how does things happen and occur?
    Taking back the icecream as an example, whether you will take the icecream or not depends on the context of the incidence , the enviornment, thw weather, the charm of the lady selling you the icecream, and your "mood", etc, etc..... . Everthing is mxied up together and it is too simplistic to isolate one or two, either by your neurons or by your " soul". Yes, cause and effect chain recations can be analyzed by neuron sequence or harmone events, but they does not explain why this ( you choose to eat icecream) happens or does not happen ( such argument can be cyclic in nature).
    Who make the descisons? Who make it happens ? This could niether be explained by the Choas Theory or self-organization theory, although these are good attempts.
    The fundemantal illusion of finding a free-will or not is that we have a strong sense of ones 's "self-identity, "ego" or " I" which is independent whether you believe in free-will or not . We have a strong inclination to be in "control" of things. Things ( better say, phenonmeon, physical an mental) can happen in an infinite possibility of arrangements, the outcome of which is shaped by all parties ( factors) involved. Things cannot occur on their own, they arise becasue of the presence of others. The "infleunce functions" of events ( like the Schorendinger equation in qunatum mechanics) can be simple or very complex. The meaning of free-will has to be defined by the advocator first . If it means we can infleunce ( not determine) the outcome of an event, then why not ? If the non-free-will advaocates say we cannot influence the outcome, it probably means somtimes our influence can be small ( very true if our awarenes is very weak). There is only "awareness", no free-will. Nothing is free, but everyting is possible.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

78. 78. Rongbin 03:11 AM 8/23/08

    Whether you believe in free will depend on how you would define it. If this means you can control (determine) the outcome of events, then it is not. If we have no influence on events , then again it is not. true. The "infleunce finction" can be large or small. It is similar to the Schrodinger equation in quantum mechanics. The outcome of events has infinite possibility. Often, we falsely assume we have a "self' that can control the outcome of events, This is obvioulsy wrong. We do not have "free-will" as such, but we have "awareness " that can be cultivated to influence the course of events, abiet the influence may not be what one used to think is direct and obvious ( as we cannot ignore the compexity of intercations and mutual shaping). The outcome of events have a wide spectrum from determinstic ( occupying solid position space and time in non-qunatum state that can be predicted) to infinite possibilities ( 'emptiness") as those events in quantum state . The discusison on the existence of free-will or not without re-thinking the latest development in science, philosophy and religion is futile and leads to nowhere.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

79. 79. tetrahedral 12:01 PM 8/23/08

    Whether or not everything is determined, or indeterminant due to quantum flux, is irrelevant to understanding individual behavior. The claim that "our choices have already been made for us..." is innane. The choices we make in the future may be innevitable from a deterministic point of view, but even if true, that does not change our own perception that we do have choices; or, the perception that our choices can have an effect on our life and on our environment. We also perceive that accurate and relevant knowledge increases the likelihood that our choices will lead to better circumstances.
    
    The article about the experiment appears to presume that morality consists of following "the rules;" and that humans will not follow the rules unless they believe they have free will. IOW if someone is persuaded that they have no free will, they are likely to act differently. With logic like this it is no wonder our society is in such a mess.
    
    Moral rules and religious ideology are the result of our ancestor's attempt to minimize social conflicts. Clearly they haven't been very successful. It is therefore a mistake, I think, to assume that our ancestors were all knowing and that their moral values will work the same for us as they did for them. Rigidly following a set of moral rules of any kind is likely to result in unintended and undesirable consequences.
    
    I think there is a better way to look at moral values and moral choice than the currently dominant perspective. It is impoortant to understand the difference between "normal" and "moral" choices. When an individual makes a "normal" choice, s/he is the one primarily concerned with the results. Moral choices differ because either the person making the choice, or an observor, believe the choice will effect others; and furthermore, those others will be effected and in will some sense evaluate the results of the choice/action.
    
    For example, if I decide to build a model I am probably the only person who cares how it turns out; but, if I want to borrow my neighbor's car I am careful to get his permission and acknowledge the favor. If we want our actions to be accepted and/or appreciated by those who will be effected by our choices, we need to seek some mutual understanding or agreement about whether or not the choice/act will have the desired effect. Moral choices benefit from mutual understanding, and open effective communication.
    
    Given the number of strained and failed relationships in our society, it is obvious that we are not very good at communicating and reaching agreement about our moral choices, or about the effectiveness of our moral choices. The lack of constructive communication, and our mistakes (from either point of view), result in confusion, conflict and repeated mistakes.
    
    Moral standards can be beneficial for a society if open to discussion, and treated as guidelines rather than absolutes. Making them immune from questioning or change will likely lead to social conflict. Standards can provide a focus for analysis and discussion about whether or not their use, in a given context, is likely to have the intended results. This approach to morality allows the use of scientific methodology to better understand what will be an effective moral choice in a given context, and provides a means for resolving differences of opinion about real-life situations.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

80. 80. aristotle1 in reply to 06:41 PM 8/23/08

    It is easy to think that freewill exists, because it allows people to feel like there is choice in life. But in reality even refusing your favorite ice cream at times can be referenced back to some experiance, whether it be to savor it more greatly at a better opportunity which in the past has allowed you to feel "happier" or even if it is simply to not gain weight or maybe your not even hungry and you have learned not to eat when your not hungry. The options can be limitless. I am not saying this proves the absence of free will, but the fact that it seems like you have a choice does not prove that you do eighter.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

81. 81. tetrahedral in reply to aristotle1 07:19 PM 8/23/08

    Does it matter whether you have a choice or not? As long as you think you do, (and I cannot imagine what conscious would be like if we didn't think we had choices) then you will make what you perceive to be a "good" choice at that time. Our experiences, knowledge, genes, biochemical uniqueness, evolutionary forces, etc. probably determine what we decide is good at a particular time and place. But our consciousness will never be able to encompass that level of information; so we perceive ourselves as evaluating our options and making choices and then evaluating the results. The evaluation process is probably never totally logical, nor should it be, because the function of evaluation is to improve our own circumstances -- as we perceive and understand them.
    This includes our social circumstances, which is the basis for moral choices -- as I perceive it..

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

82. 82. plastique 12:23 AM 8/24/08

    Argh. Read P.F. Strawson - please.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

83. 83. tetrahedral in reply to plastique 12:28 PM 8/24/08

    I just did at: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/strawson_pf.htm In general I agree and see no significant conflict. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "Argh."
    
    Moral values are not a part of "reality." Therefore "objectivity" must be limited to analyzing how they effect human interaction, and whether or not they enhance that interaction in ways that promote individual and species survival. Although severely flawed, some religious ideologies have influenced societal success in times and places filled with hostile forces and ignorance. But knowledge and societies in general have improved, and it seems to me that religious ideology is increasingly a threat to the success and perhaps the survival of our species.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

84. 84. Saeed 01:20 AM 8/25/08

    Its an interesting article. It has instigated some questions in my mind. That is, I know what my brain knows. But does my brain know what he knows? My point is that as I have the cognitive ability to ask such question, I have free will. May be the proponent of "programed brain" have overemphasized the activity of neuron. But I think it is not possible to know the activity of networked brain. Because neurons define our consciousness & this is why we cant consciously do that. Part cant be greater than whole in a field system (Brain= whole, Neuron= part). Thanks.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

85. 85. coltakashi 02:22 PM 8/26/08

    If we believe that OTHER people's actions are determined by their genes, and their upbringing, then we are reinforcing the notion of ethnic, racial and social discrimination. It is the assumption of class behaviorand breeding that ruled the British aristocracy and made it a fertile ground for Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" and social Darwinism. It can be used as self-justification for the mass murder of Jews and the mass imprisonment of Japanese-Americans. Additionally, it rejects the moral responsibility that is the foundation of Judeo-Christian religious teachings, fundamentally the Last Judgment of God, who holds us accountable for our actions and choices. Our laws assume that we are personally responsible, and can choose to obey. If we truly did not believe in that, then there should be no probation or parole, and in fact, the only purpose in confining criminals would be to hold them until they died, either from execution or natural causes. We know from our personal observation that people who believe in their moral responsibility think about their choices and make more considered, moral choices. Those who don't hold themselves responsible don't deliberate. At the very least, the latter make stupid decisions. If we want less emotional and more thoughtful action, less angry violence and more reflective restraint, we should WANT people to believe they are responsible and can choose. The progress of civilization, of Enlightenment, if you will, is the progress of the belief in personal moral responsibility and the belief that other people also have that capacity and should be judged on their actual behavior, not their "breeding".

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

86. 86. onefunnybabe 02:35 PM 8/26/08

    What a stupid idea, that we have no free will. That's bs and simply a way to avoid responsibility for our lives. Like what Henry said: Whether you think you can or can't, your right.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

87. 87. light 02:53 PM 8/26/08

    It is a duality, we sometimes have free will and at other times processes beyond our control determine our actions i.e. mental illness, subconscious processes, cosmic ray events.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

88. 88. rightly 03:07 PM 8/26/08

    There is too much evidence available to suggest any discussion of free will.
    Brain physiology explains cognition, imagination, sensation, feeling, and belief.
    Our perceptions and our responses depend on learned responses that may or may not adapt to updates of information that are not acceptable to a self image.
    The idea or the opinion is available on any given subject as a conviction, a firm, and emotional tie to the belief. Free will denies this association of belief with brain function. Our perceptions and cognition are so limited that we must survive in a state of virtual reality relying on prior learned successful behavior in order to function.
    Anecdotal evidence is a lawyer's trick. Any philosophic argument relies on limited understanding of the subject.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

89. 89. royniles 03:13 PM 8/26/08

    Morality at bottom has to do with predicting consequences of actions, and how they may relate to your own future prospects. Consequences don't give you a pass when the excuse is that the devil made you do it.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

90. 90. Gerry Porter 04:02 PM 8/26/08

    People raised in the West are more likely to have been taught moral behavior and moral responsibility from childhood. The ideas surrounding free will is not typically on the agenda during these formative years. As people reach adulthood and rationality enters the picture, some do, in fact, decide that free will is a myth (although Im not at all sure how one can make such a determination without, by doing so, acknowledging free will). However, while that particular decision tends to be based on rationality, morality tends to have a greater emotional content, is more deeply embedded, and is thus far more difficult to dislodge.
    The apparent paradox of people holding themselves morally responsible for their actions while simultaneously believing in a deterministic universe and a deterministic mind is simply a reflection of the way in which our brain treats the two kinds of information; morality, with its emotional content, tends to be deeply embedded and thus more influential in guiding our behavior, whereas belief in free will tends to be a more recent and rational concept which yields more readily to rational direction.
    Im of the opinion that while our behavior is, to some unknown degree, predetermined by our past, the Uncertainty Principle suggests that our every act and thought cannot be totally predetermined. Random quantum mechanical events thus leave open the door to the existence of free will.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

91. 91. royniles 04:03 PM 8/26/08

    Cheating in relation to one's belief in either free will or a predetermined fate depends more on how those beliefs affect one's calculations of the likelihood of being caught rather than on any moral principles involved.
    
    The deterministic folks will say one thing but do another, as if they calculate internally that their fate is beyond their control, they will be less likely to tempt it through any otherwise rash actions.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

92. 92. kenckar 04:12 PM 8/26/08

    The problem with the experiment is that in having the people read the articles, some level of reprogramming occurred in the subjects. Everything you do or eat or think or read causes changes in your body and brain.
    
    Here's a write up:
    http://www.emotionsforengineers.com/2007/05/does-free-will-exist.html and a follow up
    http://www.emotionsforengineers.com/2007/10/more-on-free-will-and-black-box.html
    
    Cheers,
    Tony

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

93. 93. kenckar in reply to Brian H 04:19 PM 8/26/08

    I like this approach. Clean and gets around the messy philosophical issues.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

94. 94. Assegai 04:50 PM 8/26/08

    interesting

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

95. 95. BigBAP 04:55 PM 8/26/08

    The whole argument about deterministic behavior became moot with the development of chaos theory and the discovery that completely deterministic systems can produce upredictable output. Thus a person could be completely deterministic yet their behavior still be unpredictable.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

96. 96. lealnq01 in reply to ganeshbrhills 05:02 PM 8/26/08

    But this is thed whole p�int! Just like the trained dog, you are trained by yout parents, yopur school, your church, your piers; in sum, your "masters" to resist eating the ice cream thinking that this is your free will.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

97. 97. lealnq01 05:04 PM 8/26/08

    Isn't this the whole point? You have been trained by your masters to resist the temptation to eat the ice cream. Your masters being those who trained you: your peers, your schooñ, your parents, TV, the church, etc., etc.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

98. 98. desiree 05:14 PM 8/26/08

    The article is interesting because it shows how scientists and philosophers are limited in their conception of things by the culture they have created with their methodology. It is not interesting in regard to if it touches reality. Ofcourse I don't talk about truth, because truth might not be understandable to anyone. Plants, animals and people all learn, however slow somitimes. Even catterpillars can be seen to ponder going left or right. Yes, the environment decides a lot for us. but it seems life's prerogative to negotiate between options to find out where things will bring more life to oneself. This is free choice, and all life has this. All life negotiates existence. Life is not a deus machina. However accidental life came about, it wants to hang around and stay here, expand and so on
    Every day we make complex choices. and it needs education to have a good change to make the majority smart choices. The no-free-will scientist were not forced by circumstances to do their research: they wanted to do it, and publish it to make a career out of their research. Their statement is made a paradox by their existence. Also: their science must not exist, but they want it to exists. They every right to do so. Because we acknowledge free will. Signed: Ren� Goris, head of Oriental College, Amsterdam

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

99. 99. desiree 05:16 PM 8/26/08

    The article is interesting because it shows how scientists and philosophers are limited in their conception of things by the culture they have created with their methodology. It is not interesting in regard to if it touches reality. Ofcourse I don't talk about truth, because truth might not be understandable to anyone. Plants, animals and people all learn, however slow somitimes. Even catterpillars can be seen to ponder going left or right. Yes, the environment decides a lot for us. but it seems life's prerogative to negotiate between options to find out where things will bring more life to oneself. This is free choice, and all life has this. All life negotiates existence. Life is not a deus machina. However accidental life came about, it wants to hang around and stay here, expand and so on
    Every day we make complex choices. and it needs education to have a good change to make the majority smart choices. The no-free-will scientist were not forced by circumstances to do their research: they wanted to do it, and publish it to make a career out of their research. Their statement is made a paradox by their existence. Also: their science must not exist, but they want it to exists. They every right to do so. Because we acknowledge free will. René Goris, head of Oriental College, Amsterdam and Wuhan

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

100. 100. zeal4him 05:20 PM 8/26/08

     A better conclusion would be that people are highly influenced by what they read and see.
     
     This is not new, as Hitler's Nazi Germany used propaganda to negatively influence their people.
     
     Why not fund a study that assumes free will, then see if the results disprove it? The method could use an opposite passage as an influencing tool.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

101. 101. tetrahedral 05:41 PM 8/26/08

     Of course people make choices, but that doesn't change the widely accepted fact that genes, education and many other things influence those decisions. Would a person who had never heard about the Judeo-Christian god be morally responsible? Why or why not? I ask because many believe moral responsibility is based on knowledge of the Bible.
     "Moral responsibility" is taken by many to mean that a person chooses whether or not to obey "god's law." What if moral responsibility was instead viewed as the expectation that a person do his/her fair share in family, group,or society. It implies that if a person who want's the benefit of participating in a group he/she must do what is expected by the group or negotiate a different understanding. This will not eliminate all conflicts, cheating or guilt; and it will not eliminate authoritarianism or exploitation.
     
     MY argument is that the only way to make sense of the idea of morality is of people making choices that they believe are likely to effect other people -- either positively or negatively -- irrespective of a belief in god or ideology. IF morality is viewed as the efforts of people to maintain social order; and/or to improve society and the way we relate to one another, then most of the contradictions are resolvable. I think the best way to resolve many of these conflicts is first, to acknowledge that there is no one set of beliefs or values that can resolve all moral dillemas. Secondly, also recognise that the "best choice" for improving our social relationships always depends, to some extent, on the context in which the choice is being made; and that the success of the choice can be re-evaluated and changes made.
     
     In our multi-cultural world, the refusal to discuss the relevance of one's beliefs and values when there is a conflict, is itself an immoral act because it interferes with resolution of such conflicts and makes cooperation more difficult. Just having a discussion demonstrates a respect for the other person and concern for fairly resolving differences. And, if the analysis is focused on the context, there are likely to be "real" reference points that should help resolve which course (or choice) is likely to be the best.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

102. 102. fohnnora 07:38 PM 8/26/08

     In the absence of free will, what could possibly have been the biological advantage of pouring resources into the development of the large, complex, human brain? It's not like Nature to be so evolutionarily wasteful!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

103. 103. Rabe 09:15 PM 8/26/08

     To achieve our goals we want to alter the events.
     We even desire to get a time machine to alter them.
     We stuggle to create new events.
     
     The future is unpredictable, if we take incoming events
     as parameters of our program then our mind is free.
     
     It is like the difference between following a successfull recipe
     and allways reinventing the wheel.
     If we are allways reinventing the same wheel,
     we cannot observe the manifestation of free will.
     If people are not given sufficient choices
     then the hypothesis cannot be contradicted.
     
     There is maybe 10 different thesis on free will
     for 6 billions people, is there enough
     freedom at the mind level ?
     
     I am myself before my computer alone in a room.
     I am waiting for a phone call, the room is quiet.
     I am like a computer deamon because the incoming event
     is so numb.
     
     When Francis Crick DARE to shout to people
     "YOU ! you dont have free will NOW !"
     he sets the exception that confirms that we are sensible
     to unexpected events. We are interested by this sciam article.
     
     So under the hypothesis that we are programs,
     are we taking parameters from the world ?
     Is the world free enough to prove or disprove our free will ?
     
     The reverse thesis is that people put in such world can
     neglect their free will. Its like watching the Olympic Games,
     we are not free willy but we all share the same real hapiness
     for the same winner.
     The advantage is that in such controled world
     you can trace with authority if free will is still in our minds.
     
     Our mind is a program if a program can grow.
     Under this hypothesis events pass through
     consciousness and learning to become new modules
     of our mind.
     If we learn beyond consciousness then what
     we learn become parameters of our minds.
     We knew how to behave before our father
     so now we just behave before the authority.
     We recognize faces without thoughts.
     what we learn deeply is the static part, the program.
     
     The extrem example is to take pills at random
     intervals to randomly hate the faces we loved. MK.
     But such pills should not exist so there is a limited
     output actions to our will.
     
     Consciousness too has the power to even review the values
     of our values of our goals and our means. Free will manifestation
     shrinks if we limit our mind to our realisable actions, but can it disapear ?
     
     So if your mind is completely prepared for all incoming events,
     it is so smart that you dont need to think to always apply your recipes.
     You may review your goal, your values, your methods
     if you suddenly feel different at looking what you are doing.
     
     So feeling free will may be enough & necessary.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

104. 104. Vir Narain 09:54 PM 8/26/08

     There seems to be no conclusive way of refuting the inevitability of the actual. If there was, it would clearly undermine determinism. As to free will and moral responsibility, clearly - for the determinist - nothing changes as basically he is not free to believe or not believe in moral responsibility. Chances are that he will behave AS IF he had moral responsibility. Free will may or may not be a fact - perhaps no conclusive proof will ever be available - but it has to be a critical ASSUMPTION for moral living.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

105. 105. Vir Narain 10:23 PM 8/26/08

     It does not seem that there is (or can be ) a conclusive proof refuting the inevitability of the actual. I f there was, it would greatly undermine determinism as an objective fact. The idea of free will is complicated further by its inescapably subjective nature and the difficulty of defining it precisely.
     Whether free will (howsoever defined) is a fact, we are surely genetically predisposed to act as if it is. Even a determinist cannot escape behaving as if he (and others) were morally responsible beings. The assumption of free will is necessary for moral living, whether it is a fact it may never be possible to determine.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

106. 106. Vir Narain 10:39 PM 8/26/08

     It seems that there is (and perhaps can be) no conclusive proof to refute the inevitability of the actual. I f that were possible, the idea of determinism would be seriously undermined The concept of free will is further complicated by its inescapably subjective nature and the difficulty of defining it with any degree of precision. The fact is that we are genetically predisposed to act AS IF there was free will and we are morally responsible beings. Even a determinist is bound to behave as if he (and others) are morally responsible individuals. Whether free will is an objective fact or not,
     it is an inescapable assumption for morally responsible living.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

107. 107. Binban 01:09 AM 8/27/08

     Believers in Determinism 'act' as if they have free will because they all know that nobody even understands the basics of sentience. We don't have any idea what the physics of space time is even about, much less understand how computing devices like ourselves function. Determinists are just taking a 'best guess' based on our current grasp of things knowing all along that that grasp is infantile. Here is some math for all of you to do. Go figure out where we lie on the scale of relative knowledge as compared to every other technical civilization in the galaxy. It's actually as easy problem when you know the age of the galxy (13.7 BY) and the short period of time we have possessed any kind of technology (maybe 10K years). So how does it feel to live in what HAS TO BE the least advanced civilization in the galaxy ? So you have asked a question that is really not yet even meaningful. Give it 500 years then ask the current inhabitants of the planet again.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

108. 108. Amina Haider 01:53 AM 8/27/08

     This is a very complex issue...but a good escape for us to fall on as a reason for not being morally careless about our deeds.
     Free will does exist and the accountability factor is out there but yet yes this is an unquestionable fact that we are wired and that happenings in this life are interlinked...in fact the truth that life is surreal annoys us.
     I deeply believe that there are only two uncontrollable things...disease and death...apart from we have a certain level of command...
     If I shut myself in my room for hours at my 'free will'...and can say that I am destined to do it; that will be quite absurd wont it..

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

109. 109. Amina Haider in reply to Amina Haider 02:04 AM 8/27/08

     This is a very complex issue...but a good escape for us to fall on as a reason for being morally careless about our deeds.
     Free will does exist and the accountability factor is out there but yet yes this is an unquestionable fact that we are wired and that happenings in this life are interlinked...in fact the truth that life is surreal annoys us.
     I deeply believe that there are only two uncontrollable things...disease and death...apart from that we have a certain level of command...
     If I shut myself in my room for hours at my 'free will'...and say that I am destined to do it; that will be quite absurd wont it..
     I also think its that any idea can be implanted in the human mind to overpower actions...it is all a matter of wanting to believe in something.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

110. 110. Amina Haider 02:08 AM 8/27/08

     This is a very complex issue...but a good escape for us to fall on as a reason for being morally careless about our deeds.
     Free will does exist and the accountability factor is out there but yet yes this is an unquestionable fact that we are wired and that happenings in this life are interlinked...in fact the truth that life is surreal annoys us.
     I deeply believe that there are only two uncontrollable things...disease and death...apart from that we have a certain level of command...
     If I shut myself in my room for hours at my 'free will'...and say that I am destined to do it; that will be quite absurd wont it..
     Apart from that... any idea can be implanted in the human mind and it can be made to overpower all actions...its all the matter of believing!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

111. 111. hannahb 03:52 AM 8/27/08

     Of course we are free to choose, we are more than free to choose, we are condemned to be free. And whether or not we base a decision on prior actions or not, we still make a choice, and it is not the choice that matters, but rather the action of choosing in and of itself. And because we choose, we are responsible for the outcome of our choice. Although it is tempting to say that we are not responsible simply because or choices are governed by prior actions, it is also highly irresponsible to adhere to such.
     
     For example: Say that I watched my father be brutally killed when I was a child, if I were to then result to violence, as witnesses of such crimes often do, should I be held responsible? Here we have the prior action, and the following choice. Now, here I must interject, I do think that it is completely valid that I, having witnessed my own father's murder, that I am far more susceptible to becoming a violent person. However, that does not mean that I am absent of the ability or the responsibility to choose. In my opinion it doesn't matter whether I choose to be violent or not, because I am still choosing. I think that previous actions do have an influence on the choices we make, but they do not choose for us. We are condemned to be free because no matter what we are making a choice, we are choosing, and in this analysis, free will and choice are synonymous. We are responsible for our actions as far as the fact that we made them. In other words, the responsibility that comes from a choice is only as relevant as the action. Whether or not we are responsible for the consequence of our actions is a completely separate matter. (One often addressed by our legal system.)

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

112. 112. hannahb 04:06 AM 8/27/08

     I don't know why my comment entered six times. I apologize. That is fairly obnoxious.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

113. 113. pepe 05:10 AM 8/27/08

     The dogmatic kind of Free Will You are dealing with would only be possible if we where our own creators, and this obviously is not the case. On the other hand, our World obviously is not deterministic. More at http://peter-peters.info.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

114. 114. strings42 09:22 AM 8/27/08

     This is an ontological issue. First you have to clearly understand that as of this date no one knows what causes a person to think. I'm not talking about the synapses firing that is a result of thinking and breaking it down to a chemical reaction is a weak answer. Once we are able to fully come to grips with this process that will open up a whole other line of questions that may get us one step closer. You first have to fully undersatnd the being(Brain) before you can understand it's ties.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

115. 115. tetrahedral 11:10 AM 8/27/08

     No one here seems to doubt that we do have choices. It seems to me that the concept of "free will" has significance only for those who believe that religious belief defines morality. IOW the moral rules are unchanging givens to be obeyed or not. If you choose to ignore or violate those rules yor are using your free will and therefore are subject to punishment. For those of us who do not believe that moral choice is defined by religious doctrine, free will becomes a meaningless concept.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

116. 116. gs_chandy 11:15 AM 8/27/08

     What the experiement describes is only that the subject's belief in free will can be influenced by the conditions surrounding the subject? So how does that demonstrate the existence or otherwise of free will? -- GSC

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

117. 117. gs_chandy 11:24 AM 8/27/08

     The existence or otherwise of "free will" is something like the existence or otherwise of "god","God" or "gods": well-nigh impossible to prove one way or the other. Currently, the only scientifically justifiable view is that of a healthy agnosticism. (But that's a matter of my belief, of course!) --- GSC
     --

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

118. 118. pjmccann3 09:04 PM 8/27/08

     Of course there is no free will. A simple thought experiment confirms it. Imagine two atoms of hydrogen and an atom of oxygen. Combine them and you get a molecule of water and some energy. Totally conserved. Then expand this to two moles of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Again totally conserved and predictable. Now make it slightly more complex. Add some proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, salts, etc. Again predictable (perhaps not with today's technology) but definitely deterministic. Now advance the trend further to organisms. All the molecular interactions in such a closed system are deterministic. Finally take the thought experiment to its extreme. Remove yourself from the spacetime bubble that we call the Universe and peer back inside. All the atoms, molecules, organisms, forces, and time are there. Everything has already happened. Think about it.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

119. 119. gs_chandy 03:04 AM 8/28/08

     I have thought about pjmccann3's "simple thought experiment", as directed. However, to my mind, it does not either confirm or negate the presence or absence of free will. The thought experiment has nothing whatsoever (that I am now able to perceive or think about) to do with free mind.
     
     Possibly it is just that I am blind to what pjmccann3 is seeing clearly. If so, please do explain to that I too may see and understand.
     
     -- GSC

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

120. 120. Arnell 04:28 AM 8/28/08

     Attempting to demonstrate that people who recognize that humans are subject to the same laws of cause and effect as are all other things in our classical universe, are less inclined to be honest or moral than those who remain gripped by the illusion of free will, seems like trying to show that people who dont believe in god are less honest or moral than those who do.
     
     This experiment seems to be built around a premise which is a complete misunderstanding of what motivates the behaviors upon which a healthy society depends- cooperation, altruism, caring, a potent desire to contribute and be productive- and a strong sense of connectedness to those around us- all of these have as much to do with belief in god, or free will, as they do with belief in fairies.
     
     Voluminous studies in social science indicate that healthy humans are far more likely than not to approach their human potential which includes being the kind of people society needs them to be. To achieve this humans do not need to be inculcated into believing in a supernatural god, or to believe that they possess a magical ability to transcend causality; they simply need to have had their significant developmental needs met.
     
     Social science also demonstrates the degree to which a persons significant developmental needs are neglected the likelihood of them reaching their human potential becomes reduced.
     
     Rather than worrying that if people learned the truth- that our behaviors are caused- it would result in social chaos, researchers would do far more to advance our becoming a healthier and more humanistic society by demonstrating that the self righteous justifications for excessive rewards and harsh punishments, which always revolve around free will, just will not work any longer.
     
     Yes recognizing that human behavior is the result of determinants- genes and environment and nothing more- and that even though we make choices, there are reasons we choose as we do- such new naturalistic wisdom does have revolutionary implications which are as far reaching in how we shall proceed as a civilization as have been the traditional religious ideas which it will replace.
     
     How we will share resources, mete out criminal justice, and educate our children, will all need to be radically restructured. But this should not frighten us- we sit poised on the edge of a new and exciting age in human affairs. A time when rather than basing our institutions on anachronistic, ancient, supernatural ideas about the human experience we, for the first time, will build a loving and humanistic society based upon real evidence. Believing or not believing in free will does indeed have far reaching moral implications, however they are the exact opposite from what the experimenters apparently want to suggest.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

121. 121. Arnell 04:32 AM 8/28/08

     Attempting to demonstrate that people who recognize that humans are subject to the same laws of cause and effect as are all other things in our classical universe, are less inclined to be honest or moral than those who remain gripped by the illusion of free will, seems like trying to show that people who don’t believe in god are less honest or moral than those who do.
     
     This experiment seems to be built around a premise which is a complete misunderstanding of what motivates the behaviors upon which a healthy society depends- cooperation, altruism, caring, a potent desire to contribute and be productive- and a strong sense of connectedness to those around us- all of these have as much to do with belief in god, or free will, as they do with belief in fairies.
     
     Voluminous studies in social science indicate that healthy humans are far more likely than not to approach their human potential which includes being the kind of people society needs them to be. To achieve this humans do not need to be inculcated into believing in a supernatural god, or to believe that they possess a magical ability to transcend causality; they simply need to have had their significant developmental needs met.
     
     Social science also demonstrates the degree to which a person’s significant developmental needs are neglected the likelihood of them reaching their human potential becomes reduced.
     
     Rather than worrying that if people learned the truth- that our behaviors are caused- it would result in social chaos, researchers would do far more to advance our becoming a healthier and more humanistic society by demonstrating that the self righteous justifications for excessive rewards and harsh punishments, which always revolve around free will, just will not work any longer.
     
     Yes recognizing that human behavior is the result of determinants- genes and environment and nothing more- and that even though we make choices, there are reasons we choose as we do- such new naturalistic wisdom does have revolutionary implications which are as far reaching in how we shall proceed as a civilization as have been the traditional religious ideas which it will replace.
     
     How we will share resources, mete out criminal justice, and educate our children, will all need to be radically restructured. But this should not frighten us- we sit poised on the edge of a new and exciting age in human affairs. A time when rather than basing our institutions on anachronistic, ancient, supernatural ideas about the human experience we, for the first time, will build a loving and humanistic society based upon real evidence. Believing or not believing in free will does indeed have far reaching moral implications, however they are the exact opposite from what the experimenters apparently want to suggest.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

122. 122. Arnell 04:53 AM 8/28/08

     Apologies for double posting my comment – it’s my first time posting on this site.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

123. 123. Gerry Porter 09:07 PM 8/28/08

     I believe that free will exists for two reasons:
     
     1) because the innate randomness of quantum mechanics precludes absolute predictability; there can only be a probability that any given decision or opinion will be this or that.
     
     2) because we are capable of guilt. When we feel guilt, it means that we believe we have made a bad decision. If we act only in accordance with a fixed set of neurological parameters, we would have no choice and thus would be unable to feel guilt; guilt would not be part of our evolutionary mental baggage.
     
     But that is not the case.
     
     People unable to feel guilt are deemed psychopathic, i.e. they are neurologically flawed. Their decisions are based on a narrow set of determinants centered mostly on the individual - what the individual wants. People incapable of feeling guilt are abnormal; guilt is therefore an evolutionary construct that guides us when we make decisions involving morality and fairness.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

124. 124. robertmartin 09:22 PM 8/28/08

     The question of free will vs. determinism is a poorly considered question. It is like asking if there is consciousness or if there is only brain function. Objectively, there is brain function. Subjectively, consciousness is immediately evident. It is not helpful to ask which is correct  subjective or objective. We know directly that we are conscious. We know directly that we have free will. Subjective experience is immediately available. Objective constructs are mental, and therefore less immediate. This whole issue is about asking the wrong question: which is true, subjective or objective?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

125. 125. robertmartin 09:24 PM 8/28/08

     The question of free will vs. determinism is a poorly considered question. It is like asking if there is consciousness or if there is only brain function. Objectively, there is brain function. Subjectively, it is clear that consciousness is immediately evident. It is not helpful to ask which is correct – subjective or objective. We know directly that we are conscious. We know directly that we have free will. Subjective experience is immediately available. Objective constructs are mental, and less immediate. This whole issue is about asking the wrong question: which is true, subjective or objective?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

126. 126. Konga 03:29 AM 8/29/08

     I see here a lack of good "spiritual" training. :-) I say, "spiritual" though I do not believe in god or in spirits (though I'm happy to be shown the error in my ways). I believe, as most good scientists would, I think, that we are, indeed "nothing but a pack of neurons". However that fact has little or no relevance to the world in which we actually live. By virtually ANY definition of the words being used, I CHOSE to eat Subway tonight. What learned behaviors played critical parts in this decision mean nothing.
     
     Back to "spiritual". It seem to me that too few people understand that the major reason that humans, for the most part, behave in a socially acceptable manner is NOT because they fear what others might think, but rather because they know that doing bad things makes THEM feel bad. Had I been given the tests outlined in the article, I wouldn't have cheated. Why? NOT because I'm altruistic, but because I'm selfish. I know that cheating would have made ME feel bad.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

127. 127. Konga 03:30 AM 8/29/08

     I see here a lack of good "spiritual" training. I say, "spiritual" though I do not believe in god or in spirits (though I'm happy to be shown the error in my ways. I believe, as most good scientists would, I think, that we are, indeed "nothing but a pack of neurons". However that fact has little or no relevance to the world in which we actually live. By virtually ANY definition of the words being used, I CHOSE to eat Subway tonight. What learned behaviors played critical parts in this decision mean nothing.
     
     Back to "spiritual". It seem to me that too few people understand that the major reason that humans, for the most part, behave in a socially acceptable manner is NOT because they fear what others might think, but rather because they know that doing bad things makes THEM feel bad. Had I been given the tests outlined in the article, I wouldn't have cheated. Why? NOT because I'm altruistic, but because 'm selfish. I know that would have made ME feel bad.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

128. 128. Konga in reply to Arnell 03:46 AM 8/29/08

     ARNELL: Apologies for double posting my comment – it’s my first time posting on this site.
     
     You're not alone.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

129. 129. mirwin 08:07 AM 8/29/08

     Many worlds would imply that we are only aware of the outcomes that are consistent with the structure of the observable world. Thus what is imagination? A self-generated neural pattern that has no correlate in the sensually observable (material) world?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

130. 130. mirwin 08:13 AM 8/29/08

     Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory implies that 'we' select an outcome that is consistent with the classical physics of the mutually observable world. Is 'our' imagining of an alternative outcome or even impossible outcomes that are not consistent with the exterior material world a mere neural pattern that is generated by a brain taxed with observing the real world? Do our actions in the 'real' material world have effects on alternative worlds or 'our' alternative selves?
     
     There is a lot to learn yet about reality.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

131. 131. Ray Evans 03:32 PM 8/29/08

     My view.
     
     There is no doubt that we have basic hard-wired instincts. They range from the suckling and crying of a newborn baby to avoidance of pain and fear of death. We know that in many ways we are creatures of habit. We also know that we make new decisions based on past experiences and new inputs.
     
     We know a few (very, very few) things about the mechanisms of the brain. For all we know, the universe may actually be a state machine and we may be pure automatons but we do not know these things for a fact and I think it is extremely unlikely that we ever will. If such a day came, I think we would rue it; philosophically, morally and ethically.
     
     When it comes to "free will vs choice," I believe the question is strictly definitional. The brain is a simulator that accepts new sensory inputs, processes them in unknown ways with past experience, and makes decisions about the best (hopefully) course of future action(s) to take for its own benefit. Thus, from my point of view, these decisions are equivalent to "choice" and also to "free will." We can call these decisions anything we want to call them but they are decisions and man has almost always regarded them as the responsibility of the person making them. I do not think the idea that they may rely on mysterious neural processes and past experiences that regress all the way back to birth make them any less personal choices or decisions.
     
     It seems to me that the arguments about free will are really nothing more than trying to separate our consciousness from our brain as if we were outside it. The same thing that allows many to believe in a "soul." So I see little point in belaboring the question of "free will." Particulary when, as I believe, it is just a matter of definition. Outside the reality of decision making by the brain, the term belongs in the areas of religion, morality and ultimates where the debate about "mind" (or soul) versus "brain" properly reside.
     
     So the next time you decide to come in out of the rain, please be aware that although you may not believe it to be a choice, you have been serendipitously endowed with the pleasing illusion that you have some control over the state of your relative dryness. :-D

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

132. 132. simianfu in reply to Ditches 06:16 PM 8/29/08

     It is our goals that indirectly control will. Goals determine the will, will isnevercontrolled directly.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

133. 133. mauimaniac 03:51 AM 8/30/08

     I have observed that each choice/decision, involves an outcome;a series of events that evolve within a specific sphere of time, thus equating it with
     a sphere, or perhaps a pearl (a more pleasing metaphor) Therefore a chain of "events" could be considered analagous to a string of pearls. " a pearl necklace" would it not be wonderful if we were all taught to treat every group of events in our own perspective lives as a pearl with which we create the jewelry of our lives? consequence is inevevitable, choice is controlable. educating humans that understanding thier biologic/emotional
     response to stimuli (the world) directly affects thier ability to make rational/logical decisions,and encouraging constant self observations might make the "world" a little calmer.
     would it not be wonderful if we all wore such jewelry? I guess that I am a wishful thinker in world full of non ai robots!
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

134. 134. mauimaniac in reply to dollylama 04:11 AM 8/30/08

     since it has been said"simplify,simplify" take that statement in the context that matter has the potential for comutation/memory, it stands to reason that all matter having existed in one state or another at almost infinite points in time bears the fruit of molecular memory, meaning that the history of all you or I can possibly imagine could be alredy writtin within your own recombinate self! How far down the rabbit hole do you really want to go? And by the way, for anyone that really cares, the icon for the unknowable is the celtic knot. you can not know it all, so choose your rabbit hole wisely lest you expend your irretrievable time on this planet
     on paths impertinent ot your life of the lives of those you directly affect.
     like any other addiction, research can equally rob you of time you could spend with people you love or those who love you. fortunatly there are few in my sphere, and none suffer the loss of my time. but for you daddys
     and mommies take this to heart; those close to you may not understand the thrill and satisfaction you get from research. Yes it is a drug
     Better than crack or sex (some might disagree)
     but io digress(as usual)
     I am new to this site, and like the rest of you i hunger for salient discourse
     I am here, anyone is welcome to respond

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

135. 135. PNATH 10:21 AM 8/31/08

     I believe the human situation is deterministic( preordained) as well as nondeterministic( depending on freewill). They simply are the two extremes of the 'will' spectrum. Unfortunately or may be fortunately, most of us( I reckon more than 90%) fall inbetween which makes all thought & action possible and we strive to move in either direction at any moment of time, takng high moral ground now and not hesitating to justify our immoral actions the next moment. In Hindu Sanatanist thought, of course, the 'will' spectrum is somewhat circular-- With the manifest freewill and the zero freewill believer coinciding( the former having become the universal freewill and the latter, having surrendered to it fully, also desolving into the same. That is what sprituality is all about. That is what 'Yoga' is about.The former having followed the path of Gyana-Karma and the latter Bakti--Karma.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

136. 136. BuckSkinMan 02:09 AM 9/1/08

     I'm surprised and a little disappointed: This article is the equivalent to the old "If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear, does the impact create sound?"
     Meaning: This "philosophical question" works the way it does because of the evolved attributes of the human mind. It's evolution which gives us the reason for behaving according to group (i.e. social) rules. NOT some independent mechanism or god. Groups which have all "independent & dishonest" people will never advance - therefore will die out. It's a dynamic of nature - although also somewhat deterministic: the determination to survive and thrive as individuals within a surviving, thriving society is reason enough to "be good."

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

137. 137. Spin-oza 12:18 AM 9/2/08

     FREE WILL (FW), like "souls" is the biggest hoax foisted, besides a belief in a personal supernatural agency (i.e. god), upon the minds of the dull masses. We, our minds, and everything else about our universe is strictly causal... and the notion of "randomness" does absolutely nothing for those desparately clingning to imagined FW.
     The empty notion of a contra-causal FW is joined at the proverbial hip with the "judeo-christian abrahamic god" of the patchwork bible. One must have it to "freely choose" god and the demi-god who allegedly roamed our planet some two thousand years ago... and to reject that pesky devil... and thus, to DESERVE the harshest pushishment imaginable: eternal torment for poor, fraile, hapless humans.
     What a pathetic joke! There is not one aspect of our human selves which has not been naturalistically determined... not one. The genetic basis and underlying the biochemical processes which determine our very selves have been peeled away, like the layer of an onion. Only a fool would suspect that there is truly a Wizard behind the curtain in the murky Land O' OZ, eh?
     Many philosophers, scientists and thinkers of the modern age have embraced this conclusion AND IT IN NO WAY DIMINISHES OUR wonderfully determined, evolved human natures... it only grounds them in reality.
     WHAT ABOUT YOURSELF DID YOU FREELY CHOOSE?: your parents & genes... the place & time of your birth... whether you were nutrued or neglected... your language & religion? Did you "freely choose" your addictions & compulsions? Does the autistic or severely handicapped have possession of this FW... does the serial killer, child molester or pathalogic liar? Do people "freely choose" their maladaptive behaviors to become the scorn of the very society they inhabit? How absurd.
     
     We know from the pioneering work of Libet & Pasqual-Leone alone... and the fact that the heavy-lifting of our physical brains (aka minds) is done on a subconcious basis, that unfettered FW is utter nonsense.
     
     The notion that morality flys out the window is totally bogus as well. People are moral because of how they are ABLE to respond to the dynamic of social, societal and family mores... & the social conditioning throughout their lives. There is absolutely no mystery about it.
     
     Furthermore, the more secular countries are by every measure more "moral" and "healthier"than the overtly religious ones.
     Heck, the U.S. is virtually awash in self-proclaimed bible-believers and is likewise awash in the hippocrisy of every imaginable "evil": god n' guns, eh?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

138. 138. wanderingzenarcher 02:19 PM 9/5/08

     Who gives a fuck ..... i said this freely ... i was gonna say something else else ... until ..... i opened the box ...found the cat was dead .... and decided otherwise .... either that or it was ... the Bosnian wine i just drank in Mostar which together with the effect the town had on me today ... i was split between east and west ... between ...Bosniak and Croat ... between catholic and muslim ... between here and eternity.... when all of a sudden time stood time still..................................what a good place to be when you need a fucking strong coffee to bring you to your senses

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

139. 139. PNATH 04:00 AM 9/15/08

     i wonder why exercise of free will necessarily has to be contra-causal. Any event in this physical universe anywhere has to be consistant with causality ,not necessarily the one we have understood till date-- who knows tomorrow these principles might (most probabily will) get modified/ extended. After all nothing is absolute except a scientific belief in ultimate natural laws including Causality.There can be nothing outside, including the so called freewill. Infact there can't be any 'outside'. Even if we assume one it is irrelevent as the same cannot be observed, interacted with since it is incosistent with our universe by definition.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

140. 140. mista 03:42 PM 9/25/08

     boobies are determined and darwin told me to like them otherwise...

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

141. 141. Fetishself 02:02 PM 10/22/08

     I think that before we can even discuss if there is a Free Will, we need to have a clear definition of it. Yes, you'd be surprised how people define Free Will... It is a complex, and a long conversation... but if I described an absolute definition of Free Will. I'd say you have to know everything, that means everything that happened to you... why. where... how... you have to remember every second all those events that happened to you, you have to be aware of every response, and behavior of yours all the time... knowing why you do what you do on the spot, not after or before analysis
     
     Who got that? None... We cannot capture the whole picture, so how could we think that we have a free will.. We don't know why we do what we do... in many instances... we regret after and so on
     
     Basically, having all input, understanding all links.. All - I mean any possible input that is out there.. in the universe, not only what we experience in our limited world ... understanding, knowing why things work the way they do, what are the consequences of every action.. and so on
     
     This is too much. Don’t you think so?
     On the other hand, we do have more choices than animals. And if you call it free will. Ok so it be
     
     We are as humanity going through evolution, and expanding our perception, consciousness. Which brings in more knowledge, and understanding.. So in a way we kind of discover how is it to possess a free will. For now some of us can get only glimpses of that true freedom.
     the rest of us ... following the long before determined path....
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

142. 142. e_caroline 05:10 PM 11/7/08

     I would suggest that those who claim there is no free will, have none. They only report their own experience of life.
     
     I would venture a guess they are among the 90% of right-handers and 10% of left-handers who have rigidly liner "thought" processes... if you can consider the ideas in a linear mind actual human thought. I operate on the presumption that these are beings who are very nearly soulless automatons (soul used in the poetic vs the theological sense) whose sentience is more akin to that seen in clams and lobsters.... perhaps even ascending to the level of a dog. Yes this is a facetious observation but it is a riot to watch the naive pseudo-philosopher try to misuse science to prove a philosophy. It is like using math to write a poem.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

143. 143. MNeigh 04:06 PM 11/30/08

     Any suggestions on a good overview of both sides of the free will argument?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

144. 144. SES in reply to Spin-oza 10:13 PM 12/1/08

     Suppose I said I was the worlds premier authority on free will (FW).
     
     (My aim in making this bold claim is to provoke thoughts and criticisms which may not have occurred to me. Because I want to maintain my position as the worlds premier authority on FW. Because my bold claim just may also be the truth.)
     
     As long as people are going to read articles in Scientific American about FW they might as well understand the reality about FW. The article of course is not really about FW, its existence or nonexistence as some have already observed.
     
     I have reviewed briefly many of the comments written here.
     
     So whats the bottom line on FW?
     
     Well the winner in this forum is ... Spin-oza!
     
     Congratulations Spin-oza. Your post comes closest to providing the big picture about FW. Your post comes closest to elaborating what is IMPORTANT to know when it comes to the topic of FW.
     
     What is important to know about FW?
     
     First of all FW does not exist. For all intents and purposes. Condolences to those of you having supported FW.
     
     Yes the situation is in part a matter of how one defines FW.
     
     But how people define FW depends on how they WANT to define FW. And how they want to define FW depends on what they want accomplished with said definition. That's where the "intents and purposes comes" in.
     
     So what do people want when they talk about free will?
     
     They want three things:
     
     1. They want to believe they are free from manipulation.
     2. They want to preserve the notion of responsibility.
     3. They want to preserve the notion of merit.
     
     Why then does FW not exist for all intents and purposes? Because of the causality/determinism issue of course. Causality is very important when it comes to intents and purposes. Its the basis of empirical science. Its the way and the reason the empirical sciences work. But thats not all. Causality is the way each one of us deals with the world around us. Its the way we work with things and think about things!
     
     So to the extent that people in their choices decisions and voluntary actions are subject to causality  and people are subject to causality in these respects  they do not have free will.
     
     Its just like if I had a special radio transmitter that could by cause and effect manipulate peoples choices decisions and voluntary actions. Clearly those manipulated do not possess what one wants to call free will. But it's not necessary for there to exist such a transmitter for people's choices decisions and voluntary actions to be not free. It's merely necessary for these entities to be subject to causality. Which they are. Therefore causally-free will does not exist.
     
     Then what about the two other "desirables", responsibility and merit, if FW does not exist? Here again I commend Spin-oza. He recognizes that free will is not a necessary condition for undertaking the actions relating to what we give the names of responsibility and merit.
     
     And how is that you ask? How can we hold people responsible and assign merit if FW does not exist? The answer lies in this considerstion: Are you really going to not put a dangerous criminal into protective custody just because free will does not exist? Of course not. Of course you are still going to put him into protective custody because you want and need to. Even though you were caused to do so. Even though you don't have free will.
     
     In fact it is not the concept of the NONexistence but the concept of EXISTENCE of free will defined as causually free that is INCOMPATIBLE with what we call responsibility and merit. (The idea that free will is incompatible with responsibility and merit derives from a simple misundertanding which I will save for later).
     
     But where Spin-oza really shines is in his recognition that the myth of free will is a cruel hoax. Free will is a cruel hoax for manipulating people. The myth of free will for those promoting it accomplishes the exact opposite of what those who swallow this lie believe it accomplishes for them. That is, accepting the myth of free will does not mean you are free and it does not set you free. It ENSLAVES you to the manipulation of others.
     
     Spin-oza I am sure understands exactly what I am talking about.
     Spin-oza if you read this I hope you will get back to me. We need to work together. No kidding.
     
     In fact here I will go a little beyond Spin-oza. (I want a little credit for myself.)I will make a bold assertion. I assert that free will is one of the premier instruments of bigotry and oppression. And how's that you ask? Well people used to think it was OK to bring negative consequences to bear on others for example because of their race gender ethnicity etc. We now know that's not right. But many if not most still believe it's ok to do the same to others "because they possess free will". This is an extremely important issue. The hoax of free will is a premier instrument of bigotry. And if we expose the hoax of free will we will expose the ignorance, misconception and falsehood from which it originates. Spin-oza has already said a little about this.
     
     Thumbs up also to Patrick 027 who points out that "You cannot have free will if you are 'you'" -- because each of us if defined by parameters and parameters mean limitations and that means the will is not free. An excellent point.
     
     There is a lot more and there are lots more subtleties. Against free will. But I will stop now to see what happens. If anyone wants additional explanation I'll be happy to oblige.
     
     To conclude I say once again that as long as people are going to read articles in Scientific American about FW they might as well understand the reality about FW.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

145. 145. roro 11:50 AM 1/22/09

     the only free will we have is to choose god !!! otherwise we have no will ! when we choose god our will would be according to god's will through unification with him -which is all good and meaningful, if we dont choose god , then we are under the controll of evil which dominates the whole world. as i said the only choice is to unite with god or stay under the controll of evil !!!!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

146. 146. Imponderabilion in reply to ganeshbrhills 02:19 PM 2/20/09

     [reply to ganeshbrhills]
     What you really experience is the feeling of free choice, which doesn't mean that your choice isn't predetermined, just as your sense of free choosing.
     Deterministic universe + deterministic brain = no free will as most people see it: that there is somebody perceiving and choosing.
     There is quite a lot of evidence that consciousness does not produce behavior; and if there is a fraction of it that consciousness causes - it isn't free in the traditional way. Just like predicting choice from brain activity:
     The moment you think you decided to reject the vanilla ice cream - the decision has already been known, it has been decided, now it's just that decision going global in the brain.
     We are machines but it doesn't change a thing as long as our sense of freedom is one of the determinants of behavior.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

147. 147. Imponderabilion 02:20 PM 2/20/09

     [reply to ganeshbrhills]
     What you really experience is the feeling of free choice, which doesn't mean that your choice isn't predetermined, just as your sense of free choosing.
     Deterministic universe + deterministic brain = no free will as most people see it: that there is somebody perceiving and choosing.
     There is quite a lot of evidence that consciousness does not produce behavior; and if there is a fraction of it that consciousness causes - it isn't free in the traditional way. Just like predicting choice from brain activity:
     The moment you think you decided to reject the vanilla ice cream - the decision has already been known, it has been decided, now it's just that decision going global in the brain.
     We are machines but it doesn't change a thing as long as our sense of freedom is one of the determinants of behavior.
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

148. 148. Hrimpurstala 09:33 PM 3/22/09

     The question which I'm curious about is does god or nature have freewill ?

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

149. 149. Pasture Timmy in reply to SES 11:21 PM 5/19/09

     One thang that i like about the idea of no such thang as free will is... that nobody deserves punishment.!!!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

150. 150. Pasture Timmy in reply to Traddles 11:48 PM 5/19/09

     Free Will is bein able to make an un-influenced choise.!!!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

151. 151. Pasture Timmy in reply to Hrimpurstala 04:41 PM 5/20/09

     If God is all-knowin... then he has no free-will to change anythang... he can only watch as thangs un-fold the way he knows they will.!!!

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

152. 152. telfer cronos 11:14 AM 5/19/10

     isn't the "bleak picture" in this experiment, the fact that the experimenter lied and said "no one would know"?
     
     telfer cronos

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

153. 153. haribol 10:07 AM 10/19/10

     minute free will and conditioned life this has been ellaborately discussed in the indian vedic literature. We get all the answer if we study them under proper guidance. But we have neglected them and so we will remain confused about this matter.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

154. 154. davidsaxton 10:32 AM 5/6/11

     Someday, a computer program or a system of programs may become self-aware and make decisions, based on feedback from the environment. We already have systems that do this, but they are just not self-aware. Being conciouse of their programmed decision-making process does not give them free will, anymore than our conciousness of our decision making gives us the power to alter the way that the atoms and particles were already going to move. Being self-aware is simply another cosequence of the underlying physics.
     
     Similarly, urging others to "act as if" they have free will, is just another consequece of our lack of free will. This comment, and all of the comments above were written by people who consciously "decided" to write a comment.
     
     Still, the universe is non-deterministic at the quantum level. The absense of classical determinism does not imply free-will. It just implies that there is some randomness in the rules. Furthermore, gaps in our knowledge of the world around us does not magically leave an opening for free-will or magic or gods to step in and fill the gap. It may turn out that there is an underlying set of mathematics that fully describes our universe or there may not. Either way says nothing of "free will."
     
     Free will is simply a nice feeling that most of us have. Something is telling me to stop typing now and to press the "Submit Comment" button.

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

155. 155. Anothervoice 03:04 PM 7/9/11

     Okay, here’s my take. It’s absurd to define “free will” as an ability to make random decisions with no causal link to the past. Nor is it much better to define it as the ability to make quick, casual choices. More often than not, choices like these just reflect our group’s current fashion or repeat some personal habit. A simple computer program could make similar “choices.”
     
     Seriously, when we say that we have free will, we usually mean that we sometimes make decisions that escape the walls of our tribal beliefs or the grooves of our habitual behavior. We learn to look “on the other hand,” to search out facts and arguments that oppose our current preference as well as those that support it, and to give them their full weight even (or especially) when we don’t want to. We learn what Darwin called his “golden rule, namely that whenever a published fact, a new observation of thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory than favourable ones."
     
     Where can this free will come from, when the world seems to be deterministic on every level above the quantum mechanical? The answer is a huge paradox. Our ability to consider all sides of an issue is not in itself an example of free will: it is a skill, one that most of us have to be taught. But—here’s the paradox—the decisions it produces are indistinguishable from the products of free will.
     
     The paradox is very similar to Arthur C. Clarke’s “Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.” Or to this remark by Bertrand Russell: “… since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation.”
     

     Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this