I haven't found any theories that attempt to provide evidence for free-will, yet many believe in free-will. If you believe in free-will (or anything free) - what's your rationale?

EDIT ;

There is will-power that is dependent on other variables. It is given by the interaction of genes with environment.

Will-power, whether we are referring to the subjective experience of power (as it is experienced by the individual) or observable/demonstrable will - can be enhanced or ablated through neurotechnology. The application of science to maximize happiness/eliminate suffering increases the global will-power of the human race - as this is the inherent drive of all individuals.

Free will is meaningful in the sense of not acting under duress.  Nobody held a gun to my head, so I am responsible for my action.  This is what the philosopher Daniel Dennett calls "a variety of free will worth wanting."  The idea of actions being free in the sense of being outside of causality is nonsensical, but we still hold people responsible for their actions because of the uniquely human capability of viewing oneself as an intentional agent.   As a self distributed in space and time you perform intertemporal bargaining that makes certain courses of action avoidable.  Here is a good summary from the Wikipedia entry on Dennett's Freedom Evolves:

Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions are pre-determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress, as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself. To clarify this distinction, he coins the term 'evitability' as the opposite of 'inevitability', defining it as the ability of an agent to anticipate likely consequences and act to avoid undesirable ones. Evitability is entirely compatible with, and actually requires, that human action be deterministic.

The point is that there are obviously uses of the phrase "free will" that are helpful and would be silly to deny.  We, unlike other creatures, can say to ourselves "This action taken now can affect other actions of mine in the future and so I should adjust what I do to acheive some long term goal."  We have evolved this ability and it is qualitatively different.  It means that we can productively view people as having a sort of free will because they can change their behavior based on analyzing consequences that can occur to a contiguous self that extends over time.  Other animals can't do that--at least not remotely to that degree.

Best,
Sy

P.S.  I apologize if I don't respond immediately to any responses.  It is very hard to find the time to engage in these debates.  I just think Dennett provides a useful perspective that most folks arent' aware of. 

I believe in free will because it is necessary for me to believe in it-- how can you make decisions about your life when you don't believe you're capable of making decisions?

It may or may not be logically supportable-- just as my existence is not logically justifiable-- but it doesn't matter. We can either believe in free will and function, or we can deny the existence of free will and either behave in a logically inconsistent fashion-- trying to change the inevitable-- or cease functioning altogether.

It's like believing in any kind of moral code. It's not logically supportable-- at least, not without a great deal of begging the question-- but it's necessary for our survival.

syentism:

but we still hold people responsible for their actions because of the uniquely human capability of viewing oneself as an intentional agent.

Our dependent and observed ability to 'self-talk' and percieve our illusory self - perhaps these are downstream events from the actual [biological] decision making processes. I think Dennett's theories are a rationalization for survival of the fittest policies.

IMO : our consciousness is a projection of biological processes designed to ensure Darwinian behaviors. Our minds give us the illusion of control and separate identity while the biological processes exert control.

We need pleasurable alternatives to assigning blame and rationalizing the infliction of pain through the concept of free will (a concept similar to the postulated soul.)

 

Korimyr the Rat:

I believe in free will because it is necessary for me to believe in it-- how can you make decisions about your life when you don't believe you're capable of making decisions?

It may or may not be logically supportable-- just as my existence is not logically justifiable-- but it doesn't matter. We can either believe in free will and function, or we can deny the existence of free will and either behave in a logically inconsistent fashion-- trying to change the inevitable-- or cease functioning altogether.

It's like believing in any kind of moral code. It's not logically supportable-- at least, not without a great deal of begging the question-- but it's necessary for our survival.

Your mind will create the illusion of free will whether you believe in it or not, the percieved power to believe is also the result of biological processes, IMO.

Abolitionist:

Our dependent and observed ability to 'self-talk' and percieve our illusory self - perhaps these are downstream events from the actual [biological] decision making processes.

IMO : our consciousness is a projection of biological processes designed to ensure Darwinian behaviors. Our minds give us the illusion of control and separate identity while the biological processes exert control.

If we are these biological processes and our biological processes exert control, wherefore illusory?  I don't think self or free will are illusory.  I just think we often don't know what we are saying when we are using these words.  There is a way of using these words that is useful and not inherently contradictory, but it involves navigating a mindfield of intuitions about what we think is self-evident.

Abolitionist:

We need pleasurable alternatives to assigning blame and rationalizing the infliction of pain through the concept of free will (a concept similar to the postulated soul.)

Certainly, we should develop interventions that will allow people to be motivated by the better angels of their nature without coercion and violence.  Our goal should indeed be to create a state where people are optimally happy.

Best,
Sy

P.S.  I'll try to add more later.

syentism:

Certainly, we should develop interventions that will allow people to be motivated by the better angels of their nature without coercion and violence.  Our goal should indeed be to create a state where people are optimally happy..

Music to my ears... 8-) Could you elaborate on what you mean by optimally happy?

syentism:

If we are these biological processes and our biological processes exert control, wherefore illusory?  I don't think self or free will are illusory.  I just think we often don't know what we are saying when we are using these words.  There is a way of using these words that is useful and not inherently contradictory, but it involves navigating a mindfield of intuitions about what we think is self-evident.

I have a theory that our subjective experience of 'self' and 'free-will' is the experience of a projection of processes (like a movie screen) and not the seat of power and decision making that we may subjectively percieve them to be.

[To paint a quick picture : while in a coma, a patient may imagine that they are being pulled back into the world out of the light after choosing to go back, while the underlying biological processes are creating this 'consciousness' in order to keep the mind functioning while the brain/body heals.]

My main concern presently with these concepts is that they are used by all societies to justify atrocities in the here and now.

 

 

Abolitionist:

syentism:

Certainly, we should develop interventions that will allow people to be motivated by the better angels of their nature without coercion and violence.  Our goal should indeed be to create a state where people are optimally happy..

Music to my ears... 8-) Could you elaborate on what you mean by optimally happy?

I suspect we'll figure that out as we go along.  We will one day have the ability to tweak our emotional, motivational, and cognitive structures as we like.  Individuals should be free to do so and will choose the configuration that best suits them, leading to optimal happiness.  One way or the other, my intuition is that the configuration that leads to the optimal sharing of information will come to dominate for evoltutionary reasons. 

I guess I tend to see us either annihilating ourselves or becoming increasing joined together in a superorganism of sorts.  If we fail to choose to rein in our inherited fearful natures (through pharmacological, genetic, or cybernetic means), we won't long survive.  If we fail though, the selective pressures will remain and some other actor in the system who is more effective at sharing infomation will thrive. 

I am not a biologist, so I may be naive in my understanding of evolutionary theory, but this is the jist of what I get from authors like Stonier and Wright, whom I like.  I know it is very easy to anthropomorphize evolution, but if I have misrepresented things, I hope those more well versed in this stuff will point out my errors in thinking.

Abolitionist:

syentism:

If we are these biological processes and our biological processes exert control, wherefore illusory?  I don't think self or free will are illusory.  I just think we often don't know what we are saying when we are using these words.  There is a way of using these words that is useful and not inherently contradictory, but it involves navigating a mindfield of intuitions about what we think is self-evident.

I have a theory that our subjective experience of 'self' and 'free-will' is the experience of a projection of processes (like a movie screen) and not the seat of power and decision making that we may subjectively percieve them to be.

[To paint a quick picture : while in a coma, a patient may imagine that they are being pulled back into the world out of the light after choosing to go back, while the underlying biological processes are creating this 'consciousness' in order to keep the mind functioning while the brain/body heals.]

I would rather say that when the system is queried, it settles on the story that makes the most sense given the limited information it has, and that because we have evolved the useful adaptation of viewing ourselves as intentional agents, we cannot help but see our actions as being willed.  This sort of stuff makes my brain hurt, but I find myself agreeing with Daniel Dennett's views (as much as I understand them) most of the time. 

I do think there are ways of salvaging personal accountability from this mess though, but rather than attempt to lay out a theory, I find it more useful to repond to particulars.

Abolitionist:

My main concern presently with these concepts is that they are used by all societies to justify atrocities in the here and now.

Well, I certainly don't believe in retributive "justice", if that helps.

Best,
Sy

syentism:

...I do think there are ways of salvaging personal accountability from this mess though...

IMO, society should take rightful responsibility for both;

1. The genetic design of an individual.

2. The learning experience of that individual.

and thus the behaviors that result

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abolitionist:

syentism:

...I do think there are ways of salvaging personal accountability from this mess though...

IMO, society should take rightful responsibility for both;

1. The genetic design of an individual.

2. The learning experience of that individual.

and thus the behaviors that result

Hmm...  What do you mean by take rightful responsibility for?  Do you believe that the government should require that embryos be genetically manipulated against the wishes of their parents?  Do you think the government should require somatic gene therapy for currently existing humans?  Would a system of subsidies suffice in your view?  What manipulations would you consider justified?  Who would get to decide?

It strikes me that there is a contradiction somewhere in your willingness to assign responsibility to society but not to the individual.  Are they not both "determined" in their actions according to your use of the term?  What do you mean by responsibility? 

Also, are you ruling out aversive stimuli as a part of the "learning experience of the individual?"

What do you mean by take rightful responsibility for?

Society should be designed with the happiness of it's citizens in mind.

Do you believe that the government should require that embryos be genetically manipulated against the wishes of their parents?

No. I think that would not work - most humans would rebel. However, mandatory genetic screening for all potential embryos should be implemented as soon as possible (the technology needs improvement) IMO. We'll likely start by eliminating congenital defects;

http://www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/birthd.htm

IMO, it's resonable to demand that people give up the freedom to procreate without genetic screening - just like it's unlawful to knowingly transmit AIDS to an unsuspecting partner. However, the technology needs to be subsidized and freely available/accessible to all.

Do you think the government should require somatic gene therapy for currently existing humans?

Not in general, I think that humans would not accept such a dictatorship - though there are exceptions;

For example : let's say there was a proven method for eliminating the motivation for sex offenders to molest children - this might have to be mandated.

In the future, we may view genetic therapy as ongoing and look forward to 'updates' intelligently/compassionately designed to make us happier.

Would a system of subsidies suffice in your view?

Not in the present.

What manipulations would you consider justified?

In general (and at this point in time) only optional manipulations, though there would be exceptions - just as we mandate treatments today.

Who would get to decide?

Depends on the specifics. In general, we need teams of experts who are under the constant eye of the public and peers.

It strikes me that there is a contradiction somewhere in your willingness to assign responsibility to society but not to the individual.  Are they not both "determined" in their actions according to your use of the term?

It will take time to shift blame away from concepts (free-will) and onto our [policies/systems] in a positive way - we'll have to build an infrastructure that supports the Abolitionist directive.

Also, are you ruling out aversive stimuli as a part of the "learning experience of the individual?"

No, aversive experience is still required with our present design (though not to the extent utilized today.) There may conceivably be cases in the future where an individual might choose to retain the option of suffering - however, when suffering is truly optional - I think it's unlikely that anyone would choose pain over pleasure.

just a quick response, more soon. thanks for the great questions!

Using biotechnology, we could conceivably create a human that experiences subjective free-will intensely and durably.

Cocaine and methamphetamine use both give the user a stronger sense of self and empowerment. Intense pleasure elicited through stimulation of the pleasure centers provides a feeling of self-satisfaction - the idea that you are getting what you want or are better able to do so.

Yet meth and cocaine users appear foolish and overconfident to the rest of us - they suffer from cognitive delusions (albeit pleasureable ones.) Wireheading, if done correctly, does not cause mania.

It's possible that we could satiate the human desire to experience free-will while concurrently improving functionality.

Unfortunately, accurate perception of reality is hindered by the experience of free-will.

Abolitionist:

What do you mean by take rightful responsibility for?

Society should be designed with the happiness of it's citizens in mind.

 Mind and happiness are characteristics of individual beings, sometimes; To expect thought or emotion from some undefinable "society" is a blatant reiffication and hallucination fallacy, per buildfreedom.com

Do you believe that the government should require that embryos be genetically manipulated against the wishes of their parents?

No. I think that would not work - most humans would rebel. However, mandatory genetic screening for all potential embryos should be implemented as soon as possible (the technology needs improvement) IMO. We'll likely start by eliminating congenital defects;

 What if Stephen Hawking's acumen was caused by the fact that his "handicap" allowed him to tame his inner life to an unprecedented level? Eliminating "congenital defects" then might be horrifically destructive in many cases.

IMO, it's resonable to demand that people give up the freedom to procreate without genetic screening - just like it's unlawful to knowingly transmit AIDS to an unsuspecting partner. However, the technology needs to be subsidized and freely available/accessible to all.

Do you think the government should require somatic gene therapy for currently existing humans?

Not in general, I think that humans would not accept such a dictatorship - though there are exceptions;

For example : let's say there was a proven method for eliminating the motivation for sex offenders to molest children - this might have to be mandated.

In the future, we may view genetic therapy as ongoing and look forward to 'updates' intelligently/compassionately designed to make us happier.

Would a system of subsidies suffice in your view?

Not in the present.

What manipulations would you consider justified?

In general (and at this point in time) only optional manipulations, though there would be exceptions - just as we mandate treatments today.

Who would get to decide?

Depends on the specifics. In general, we need teams of experts who are under the constant eye of the public and peers.

It strikes me that there is a contradiction somewhere in your willingness to assign responsibility to society but not to the individual.  Are they not both "determined" in their actions according to your use of the term?

It will take time to shift blame away from concepts (free-will) and onto our [policies/systems] in a positive way - we'll have to build an infrastructure that supports the Abolitionist directive.

Also, are you ruling out aversive stimuli as a part of the "learning experience of the individual?"

No, aversive experience is still required with our present design (though not to the extent utilized today.) There may conceivably be cases in the future where an individual might choose to retain the option of suffering - however, when suffering is truly optional - I think it's unlikely that anyone would choose pain over pleasure.

just a quick response, more soon. thanks for the great questions!

 Possibly, Abolitionist, you needs remove the mote from your own eye before making sweeping statements about what is "right" for another person's reality.

Chironian:

 Mind and happiness are characteristics of individual beings, sometimes; To expect thought or emotion from some undefinable "society" is a blatant reiffication and hallucination fallacy, per buildfreedom.com

What is meant by assigning blame to systems/policies rather than individuals? It means that we focus on changing our policies rather than the vilification of individual humans. Systems and policies are concrete - while the reification of free-will is based on unvalidated theory.

Chironian:

What if Stephen Hawking's acumen was caused by the fact that his "handicap" allowed him to tame his inner life to an unprecedented level? Eliminating "congenital defects" then might be horrifically destructive in many cases.

So, cause congenital defects to promote 'character' development? Who can say what he would have learned or accomplished without his congenital defects. Would Hawking choose a cure for his handicap if it were available?

Another factor to consider is the societal cost of treating congenital defects.

In effect - by choosing to procreate without genetic screening (when it's verified safe and freely accessible) a parent is choosing to impart a higher likelihood of congenital defects on their offspring.

Chironian:

Possibly, Abolitionist, you needs remove the mote from your own eye before making sweeping statements about what is "right" for another person's reality.

You'll have to be more specific if you want a response to this statement. Right now it's looking like a prod to me.

Abolitionist:

Chironian:

 Mind and happiness are characteristics of individual beings, sometimes; To expect thought or emotion from some undefinable "society" is a blatant reiffication and hallucination fallacy, per buildfreedom.com

What is meant by assigning blame to systems/policies rather than individuals? It means that we focus on changing our policies rather than the vilification of individual humans. Systems and policies are concrete - while the reification of free-will is based on unvalidated theory.

Chironian:

What if Stephen Hawking's acumen was caused by the fact that his "handicap" allowed him to tame his inner life to an unprecedented level? Eliminating "congenital defects" then might be horrifically destructive in many cases.

So, cause congenital defects to promote 'character' development? Who can say what he would have learned or accomplished without his congenital defects. Would Hawking choose a cure for his handicap if it were available?

Another factor to consider is the societal cost of treating congenital defects.

In effect - by choosing to procreate without genetic screening (when it's verified safe and freely accessible) a parent is choosing to impart a higher likelihood of congenital defects on their offspring.

Chironian:

Possibly, Abolitionist, you needs remove the mote from your own eye before making sweeping statements about what is "right" for another person's reality.

You'll have to be more specific if you want a response to this statement. Right now it's looking like a prod to me.

Yeah, I'm prodding you to discipline your own mind, since your thoughts are penduluming all over the place. Your ideas about correcting supposed "genetic" defects comes from your own anthropocentric fallacy, and the necessary technology is pure fantasy right now. You know I didn't say a goddamn thing aobout crippling people; but what You have to understand is how little insight you have here. You do not have wisdom to even define or manifest your well being; you have no business even evaluating other's.

 

I've left all the references here at betterhumans for catalyzing freedom and sanity, no matter what physiological and psycho-social and technological sewer one happens to be mired in. Why don't you have looksy before you post any more of your stuff here.