Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

imdfantom t1_j8rj9es wrote

Reply to comment by bread93096 in Free Will Is Only an Illusion if You Are, Too by greghickey5

> It’s entirely possible to subjectively perceive yourself to not have free will.

How would that even work?

7

bread93096 t1_j8s8t3x wrote

If you pay attention in your day to day life, you’ll notice that most of the things you say and do don’t require any conscious reflection. Words and ideas pop into our heads from the subconscious, and we immediately act them out. This is why it’s possible to zone out while driving a familiar route, or having a routine conversation with your barrista. Most of what we do is following a routine - when our routine is disrupted in a significant way, it leads to confusion, and our response under such circumstances might surprise us.

For example, if I was walking down the street on my way to work, following my little routine, and a man leapt out of an alley to attack me, I can’t say with any confidence whether I would fight, flight, or freeze up. It would come down to whatever instinct was strongest in my subconscious at that moment. I simply wouldn’t have time to make a reasoned decision.

Even when I’m reflecting deeply on a difficult decision, it’s hard to explain exactly how I come to an outcome: usually I just ‘go with my gut’, that is, I follow whatever impulse is strongest within me. When we’re making a difficult decision, it’s like we’re being pulled in different directions by two different forces, and while it might feel like there’s a great struggle between them, in the end the victor is predetermined by whichever emotional force is strongest.

And if you make decisions based on reason instead of emotion - well reason is universal, so the more heavily you rely on rationality, the less ‘personal’ your decisions become. If someone asks me what’s 2+2, I can’t help but think 4 - I am compelled to by reason.

9

imdfantom t1_j8sa9nz wrote

You seem to believe that (and correct me if I am wrong here) if you thought or acted using "free will" you would somehow consciously decide what you think, say or do a priori to the thought, vocalisation, or action. However, here we would come to a problem.

Now, this a priori "conscious decision" has been done without a priori thought process.

So to have "real" free will we need to take an a priori decision about out a priori decision.

So on and so forth ad infinitum

At no point will you be satisfied since at the bottom of the rabbit hole there will always be thought/decision will come to you without an a priori decision is process.

You seem to be asking too much of what a reasonable definition of free will could provide. Essentially, your definition of free will seems intrinsically paradoxical, in which case, of course you don't think you have it.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

6

bread93096 t1_j8sba7y wrote

The way I see it there’s 2 kinds of free will: 1st is the more traditional metaphysical version, essentially the question of whether it is possible for any mind to make truly free decisions in what appears to be a deterministic reality. The 2nd kind is specifically human free will, which depends on our own psychology, and the degree of conscious involvement we share in our actions.

I don’t believe in either kind of free will - but even if the 1st type of free will existed, if our decisions truly were self caused … we could still lack the 2nd type of free will, which is our subjective sense of conscious involvement in our decisions. It’s the 2nd type of free will I see as being absent from my personal experience, as I can never directly observe the 1st type.

2

imdfantom t1_j8sd8li wrote

An interesting and atypical perspective to be sure, but evolution tries all sorts of things, so it isn't too out there for some people to feel less ownership of their thoughts, decisions and actions.

Slightly higher than average levels of subclinical (so still within "normal" limits) depersonalisation (which exists on a spectrum in aus all) may explain what you feel, who knows.

1

bread93096 t1_j8suqqv wrote

My case is unusual, but within a culture where there’s a strong belief in fate, people would agree that their sense of free will is an illusion. they might perceive themselves to have volition, but on a deeper level they’d believe this volition is a kind of mirage - basically the point of the Oedipus myth.

5

VitriolicViolet t1_j8t3g30 wrote

As someone who has been attacked you do indeed have time to make a reasoned choice in response.

When I was attacked I literally reasoned through my choices, I could have allowed it to happen, I could have fled into traffic or I could defend myself.

Further more I had the option of either ramming my fingers into his eyes or hitting him in the throat, I chose the throat.

Some people do reason through as much as possible, I use my emotions to frame and guide my reasoning.

−2

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j8rpo60 wrote

Here are some links and studies around researchers effecting people's level of free will belief.

Turns out that convincing people that they don't have free will is bad.

​

>These three studies suggest that endorsement of the belief in free will can lead to decreased ethnic/racial prejudice compared to denial of the belief in free will. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0091572#s1>
>
>
>
>For example, weakening free will belief led participants to behave less morally and responsibly (Baumeister et al., 2009; Protzko et al., 2016; Vohs & Schooler, 2008)
>
>From https://www.ethicalpsychology.com/search?q=free+will

​

>these results provide a potential explanation for the strength and prevalence of belief in free will: It is functional for holding others morally responsible and facilitates justifiably punishing harmful members of society. https://www.academia.edu/15691341/Free_to_punish_A_motivated_account_of_free_will_belief?utm_content=buffercd36e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

​

>A study suggests that when people are encouraged to believe their behavior is predetermined — by genes or by environment — they may be more likely to cheat. The report, in the January issue of Psychological Science, describes two studies by Kathleen D. Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan W. Schooler of the University of British Columbia.
>
>From https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/health/19beha.html?scp=5&sq=psychology%20jonathan%20schooler&st=cse

8

Rainbowoverderp t1_j8s1v5q wrote

>Turns out that convincing people that they don't have free will is bad.

Within our society/culture which desperately clings to the idea of free will. People grow up believing this and a lot of patterns, beliefs and thoughts are based on this assumption. You can't just tell people this assumption is wrong and expect them to magically adapt their whole way of thinking to that. It's no wonder accountability, morality, etc goes straight out the door if it was always based on the cultural myth of free will.

4

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j8s2pqw wrote

>You can't just tell people this assumption is wrong and expect them to magically adapt their whole way of thinking to that. It's no wonder accountability, morality, etc goes straight out the door if it was always based on the cultural myth of free will.

I see it another way, people really mean compatibilist free will which does exist, convincing people they don't have libertarian free will just confuses them and messes up their perfectly working moral system based on compatibilist free.

5

Rainbowoverderp t1_j8s6d3q wrote

I tend to agree with you, but I wouldn't say their moral system is based on compatabilism, but rather on libertarianism. Their moral system can be adapted to a compatibilist base, but as you say, this is a confusing and difficult process, which for a lot of people ends up in them throwing away parts of their moral system (thereby proving compatibilism, ironically).

2