Free will is an illusion, biologist says

www.physorg.com...

Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). In A, the intuitive model, there is no causal component for will. Will influences conscious thought, which in turn influences unconscious neural activity to direct behavior. In B, a causal component of will is introduced: unconscious neural activity and GES. But now will loses its “freedom.” In C, the model that Cashmore advocates, will is dispensed with. Conscious thought is simply a reflection of, rather than an influence on, unconscious neural activity, which directs behavior. The dotted arrow 2 in C indicates a subservient role of conscious thought in directing behavior. Credit: Anthony Cashmore.

Quote from source:
When biologist Anthony Cashmore claims that the concept of free will is an illusion, he's not breaking any new ground. At least as far back as the ancient Greeks, people have wondered how humans seem to have the ability to make their own personal decisions in a manner lacking any causal component other than their desire to "will" something. But Cashmore, Professor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania, says that many biologists today still cling to the idea of free will, and reject the idea that we are simply conscious machines, completely controlled by a combination of our chemistry and external environmental forces.

In a recent study, Cashmore has argued that a belief in free will is akin to religious beliefs, since neither complies with the laws of the physical world. One of the basic premises of biology and biochemistry is that biological systems are nothing more than a bag of chemicals that obey chemical and physical laws. Generally, we have no problem with the “bag of chemicals” notion when it comes to bacteria, plants, and similar entities. So why is it so difficult to say the same about humans or other “higher level” species, when we’re all governed by the same laws?

No causal mechanism

As Cashmore explains, the human brain acts at both the conscious level as well as the unconscious. It’s our consciousness that makes us aware of our actions, giving us the sense that we control them, as well. But even without this awareness, our brains can still induce our bodies to act, and studies have indicated that consciousness is something that follows unconscious neural activity. Just because we are often aware of multiple paths to take, that doesn’t mean we actually get to choose one of them based on our own free will. As the ancient Greeks asked, by what mechanism would we be choosing? The physical world is made of causes and effects - “nothing comes from nothing” - but free will, by its very definition, has no physical cause. The Roman philosopher and poet Lucretius, in reference to this problem of free will, noted that the Greek philosophers concluded that atoms "randomly swerve" - the likely source of this movement being the numerous Greek gods.

I have to ask just because 'god' gives us free will. If he gives us free will and free will is an illusion is he then, too?

We have been programmed with survival instincts from our evolution that makes us act and behave the way we do, so just in that, how can anything be 'free?'

Any thoughts?

Pred...

edit to ask: How do I show a picture with the scrolling bar at the bottom? Thanks.


[edit on 7-3-2010 by predator0187]

To my mind this is more akin to philosophy than anything. Cause and effect is fact.
If we record every thought and action for an entire day from the moment we wake to the moment we sleep, you would see that every action or thought follows another thought.
If I look up from my keyboard, I see an empty bottle of pond bio booster that I have left on the windowsill. On seeing it, I remember that I need to buy another bottle, but I feel lazy, Im more intrested in what im typing at this moment, so I decide to delay going out to buy it.

Is this free will, or did my my subconcious desire to continue my internet session dictate my action or lack of?
Further, Is my desire to stay online my own will or not?

[edit on 7-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

This position is known as epiphenomenalism, and seems to be easily undermined upon brief consideration. The fundamental assertion made by the position is summarized by Cashmore in the article:

It’s our consciousness that makes us aware of our actions, giving us the sense that we control them, as well. But even without this awareness, our brains can still induce our bodies to act, and studies have indicated that consciousness is something that follows unconscious neural activity.

Riddle me this Cashmore and others: If consciousness merely follows neural activity and does not drive it, then how did we ever get ourselves in the neural state which we are in now; the state in which we are thinking about consciousness?

We are talking about consciousness. We wouldn't be talking about consciousness if we weren't conscious, because we wouldn't have the concept. Therefore, consciousness has somehow caused us to be having this conversation. This conversation is clearly a function of our brains, and if we are having a conversation that we wouldn't be having without consciousness, then consciousness must have some influenced our brains. This proves that consciousness - at least sometimes - does exert causal influence on neural activity.

Another criticism of epiphenomenalism is that the presence of the theory of epiphenomenalism seems to contradict the very idea. Most would agree that thinking is a mental process, but, if epiphenomenalism is true, how could someone ever express the idea of epiphenomenalism? It would be impossible, because this "expressing" would require the banned connection between mind and behavior. If epiphenomenalism is true and thinking is a mental process, then its truth is ineffable.

We have free will. But this is restricted by the structures around us, and the structures of our personality. Both of which have been chosen before our conception of individuality-consciousness. And can more-or-less have an effect on what we perceive to be free-will and the choices available.

A clear observation of free will:
A person with access to a large amount of food decides to commit suicide by starvation.

Personally, I believe biology has nothing to do with freewill and the example is simply philosophy. Free will has everything to do with control and autonomy at a subatomic level.... Physics!

Since you, I nor anyone else have control over their constituent parts and these parts are all subject to random and probabilistic interactions, there can be no definitive "personal" control mechanism, therefore there can be no free will.

Free will would require that you are outside the system of interaction, eg. outside of this reality. But that presents the additional problem of, are there non-controllable interactions in the next and subsequent realities?

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 3/7.2010 by bobs_uruncle]

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


What's your definition of Free Will?

Of course we don't have control and autonomy over our microscopic identities (directly that is). Are you suggesting we are nothing but rocks? A construction of sub-atomic particles that just exists and reacts to other sub-atomic conditions? If that's the case we have control and autonomy over the sub-atomic structures (macro-sized) we come into contact with. Does that not reflect a degree of Free Will?

well assuming i got the gist of what that scientist is saying is that " belief in free will is akin to religious beliefs, since neither complies with the laws of the physical world. One of the basic premises of biology and biochemistry is that biological systems are nothing more than a bag of chemicals that obey chemical and physical laws."
So by the same reasoning i can assume he also thinks conciousness is also an illusion.....

Originally posted by loner007
[...]
So by the same reasoning i can assume he also thinks conciousness is also an illusion.....

Exactly, and the very notion that he had the free will to create this theory and publish it goes against the theory itself. Its pretty oxymoronic.

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
A clear observation of free will:
A person with access to a large amount of food decides to commit suicide by starvation.

Why did he decide?

reply to post by RestingInPieces


To Illustrate his free will.

or

To project an opinion (ie hunger strike).

I choose to mate for life with Natalie Portman. But she doesn't choose me.

Do I really have free will?

I choose to buy a Ferrari, but I can't afford to buy a Ferrari.

Do I really have free will?

I want to win the Power Ball, but I can't guess the numbers correctly!

Do I really have free will?

I choose to watch Dancing with the Stars, so I watch Dancing with the Stars.

I'm FREEE!!!!! I'm FREEEEE!!!! I'm FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Natalie Portman would beg to differ.

reply to post by harrytuttle


None of those are effective analogies to analyze free will.

Wishful thinking is not the equivalent to free will.

Capitalistic slave culture inhibits the choices available, but none the less Free Will still exists if you choose to exercise it.

EDIT: (the equivalent to)

[edit on 8-3-2010 by ghostsoldier]

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
reply to post by RestingInPieces

 

To Illustrate his free will.

or

To project an opinion (ie hunger strike).

... and why is he illustrating his free will, or projecting an opinion in a hunger strike? Where did he get the idea to illustrate his free will? When and how was his opinion of hunger strikes formed?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

reply to post by predator0187


A few thoughts from a duel point of view. First, for years I've heard people go back and forth about it especially in the field of AI. For every biologist that says it doesn't exist, you can probably find one that says it does. I'm not a biologist so I don't know which one to believe right?

I do know about the field of artificial intelligence though and in that field us programmers face a nice little paradox. We have to believe that free will is just an illusion and the brain is a completely deterministic machine. We have to be sure of it, because if we didn't believe that it would mean we believed that we were wasting our efforts.

No matter how we program the computer it still won't be truly intelligent like a human would be if a human is in fact more than just a machine. So, for programmers that do AI they have to believe that the human is just a machine.

So here's the paradox. You have a bunch of coders absolutely sure there is no such thing as free will trying to program completely deterministic computers to act like humans. And we fail at it every time!

We always end up with a very limited machine that just doesn't act anything like a human. So maybe there is more to free will then we thought? Or maybe we just haven't perfected our programs yet. But so far AI is the only comp sci field where we arrogantly think we know exactly how it works, but can't simulate it. So, there's obviously something wrong with our model, but we don't know what.

Now as a Christian with some alternate beliefs than the mainstream the Bible says we have free will, but it doesn't really say how much. So, I personally believe in a form of free will, but I also believe in a form of fate as well. In my opinion free will only applies to if you believe in God or not.

Everything else is kinda of fate and the road you go down depends on if you believe or not because I personally believe if you truly believe or not changes you as a person. Therefore putting you on a different path.

The reason I believe that is mostly personal.

But also because there is no way to really know for sure if god is real or not I also believe in a form of free will. No matter how much it's debated, no matter how many experiments are done or evidence is presented. It's just out of our domain because god isn't limited to the physical limitations of our universe. That's what by definition makes a god a god. And the Bible talks about a test of faith.

So that's why I believe our one true form of free will is if we believe in god or not. That's our real only choice. Because since there's no way to know for sure, your past experiences really can't influence that decision because no matter what your past experiences were they really don't give you any hint one way or another as to if a god is real or not.

The idea of a god seems to be this special thing that past experiences can't really lean you towards or against. In the end you just don't know for sure. So you have to pick.

Now the question is do we actually have free will or are we just picking randomly and deterministically? Well I don't know for sure. However, I wouldn't trust any scientist that says they know for sure either, because if free will does really exist remember that we still have no idea how it works. Since we have no idea how such a thing would actually work, there's no way for a scientist to test it to see if it really works.

Also, we don't know exactly how the human mind works either. So there's no test a scientist can run to tell us if the human mind is just picking randomly either. It may look that way, but there's no way to know for sure yet.

A scientist telling you they know for sure, when he doesn't really know for sure because he doesn't know everything about the human mind yet, isn't a scientist. That's just another true believer with their own religion.

Until we can build another machine that acts just like a human there's no proof whatsoever we have any idea how the human mind actually works. So beware of anyone that says they do. Because if they could do that, they wouldn't be a scientist. They would be a very rich retired person that once ran an AI robotics company that changed the world.

However, when talking about religion I'm not really worried about it because of the new paradox that not having free will would create. If we really don't have any free will then that means I don't really have any choice if I choose to believe in god or not. I just have to, because I have no choice. I could no longer choose to believe or choose not to believe. I would just simply have to wait around for some new experience to happen that causes my brain to calculate a different opinion.

Maybe then atheists would stop calling believers stupid for believing. I mean, it's not like they have a choice right? Also, religious people might stop trying to pester and force their views on the atheists, but I doubt it.

See the problem is, if science proves that there is no free will, then what you'll have are a bunch of religious people that still believe in it because the Bible tells them so. So they'll still be trying to convert everybody.

But then when an atheist tries to talk them out of it the religious person can just say, well I can't help it. I don't have any free will, yet I still believe in it. Sounds crazy I know, but I don't really have choice in the matter now do I? lol.

reply to post by harrytuttle


It's free WILL, not freedom.

Will : the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.

We are free to choose or decide upon any course of action we want. That doesn't mean we are capable of actually making that action happen.



Here is an example:

You have infinite choices.......... you can choose any one you want. That is free will.

If you choose to buy a car, but you can't afford it, well, that doesn't mean you don't have free will, that just means you don't have freedom. You were free to choose the car.... just not get it.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by ALLis0NE]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by ALLis0NE]

this is Maslow's Hierarchy of needs;
you must have everything at the bottom before you can proceed higher;


what you are talking about is instinct;
which exists in the lower part of the pyramid;

true free will exists in the self actualization section

[edit on 8-3-2010 by DjSharperimage]

Originally posted by predator0187
I have to ask just because 'god' gives us free will. If he gives us free will and free will is an illusion is he then, too?

...yep... both concepts were created by humans, imo...

Originally posted by predator0187
We have been programmed with survival instincts from our evolution that makes us act and behave the way we do, so just in that, how can anything be 'free?'

...its not just evolved instincts that dictates our behavior... they may give us a predisposition or a reaction tendency but we're not robotically controlled by our genetic makeup... environment is a strong contributor too, often stronger than genetics...

...thought is free, unless you're sittin' around thinkin' about stuff when you should be workin'...

Riddle me this Cashmore and others: If consciousness merely follows neural activity and does not drive it, then how did we ever get ourselves in the neural state which we are in now; the state in which we are thinking about consciousness?

How does this differ from the question 'how did we get ourselves into the neural state in which we are thinking about dinner?'

You say

We wouldn't be talking about consciousness if we weren't conscious, because we wouldn't have the concept. Therefore, consciousness has somehow caused us to be having this conversation. This conversation is clearly a function of our brains, and if we are having a conversation that we wouldn't be having without consciousness, then consciousness must have somehow influenced our brains. This proves that consciousness - at least sometimes - does exert causal influence on neural activity.

Surely this is a tad casuistic, if indeed it is a point at all. A precisely equivalent argument would run as follows: 'We wouldn't be talking about dinner if we didn't have dinners, because we wouldn't have the concept. Therefore, dinner has somehow caused us to be having this conversation. This conversation is clearly a function of our brains, and if we are having a conversation that we wouldn't be having without dinner, then dinner must have some influenced our brains. This proves that dinner - at least sometimes - does exert causal influence on neural activity.'

And of course, dinner does exert causal influence on neural activity. Clearly there is nothing very special about the influence of consciousness.

Most would agree that thinking is a mental process, but, if epiphenomenalism is true, how could someone ever express the idea of epiphenomenalism? It would be impossible, because this "expressing" would require the banned connection between mind and behavior.

If such were the case, surely it would apply to all abstract thought, not merely the concept of epiphenomenalism?

I look forward eagerly to your reply.

You have infinite choices.......... you can choose any one you want. That is free will.

If I had free will, I could will a dinosaur into existence.

If you find yourself buck naked falling to your death off the side of a cliff, you may very well think you have free will, but the choices you make on the way down will hardly matter: the outcome will be the same

reply to post by Astyanax


This will be an interesting conversation. It will also be difficult for me get the get the quote and /quote notation correct, so expect some edits.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Riddle me this Cashmore and others: If consciousness merely follows neural activity and does not drive it, then how did we ever get ourselves in the neural state which we are in now; the state in which we are thinking about consciousness?

How does this differ from the question 'how did we get ourselves into the neural state in which we are thinking about dinner?'

In all cases - dinner, consciousness, unicorns, ect. - it is not the thing itself which has a causal influence on our brain, it is the concept of the thing. Unicorns don't exist but the concept of unicorns exists, and this concept corresponds to some brain state.

Consciousness is different from dinner and unicorns. Consciousness has the peculiar quality that it can only have meaning to you if you have it. It is impossible to capture consciousness in any informational language, and to use that informational representation meaningfully to any non-conscious information processing entity. We can say, "what is it like to see the blue sky?" The fact that it is "like" anything to see the blue sky is based on the fact that we have a conscious experience of it. What is it like to be a bat? This is impossible for us to know, or to even imagine, because the qualities of conscious experience cannot be communicated meaningfully. I cannot meaningfully convey what it is like to see red to a blind person. Not with math, english, or any other language. The information about it is not enough, you have to experience it.

Dinner is not like this. I can express in a language all of the properties of dinner. You can therefore have the concept of dinner meaningfully conveyed to you, even if you have never had dinner. You cannot have the concept of consicousness meanfully conveyed to you if you have never been conscious. That's the difference.

You say

We wouldn't be talking about consciousness if we weren't conscious, because we wouldn't have the concept. Therefore, consciousness has somehow caused us to be having this conversation. This conversation is clearly a function of our brains, and if we are having a conversation that we wouldn't be having without consciousness, then consciousness must have somehow influenced our brains. This proves that consciousness - at least sometimes - does exert causal influence on neural activity.

Surely this is a tad casuistic, if indeed it is a point at all. A precisely equivalent argument would run as follows: 'We wouldn't be talking about dinner if we didn't have dinners, because we wouldn't have the concept. Therefore, dinner has somehow caused us to be having this conversation. This conversation is clearly a function of our brains, and if we are having a conversation that we wouldn't be having without dinner, then dinner must have some influenced our brains. This proves that dinner - at least sometimes - does exert causal influence on neural activity.'

And of course, dinner does exert causal influence on neural activity. Clearly there is nothing very special about the influence of consciousness.

What is special about consciousness is that it's existance and influence is proven by the fact that we are talking about it. There is no way to have a concept of consciousness without being conscious. It is possible however to have concepts of dinner and unicorns without ever experiencing them, and indeed we can hold these concepts even though unicorns don't exist.

Most would agree that thinking is a mental process, but, if epiphenomenalism is true, how could someone ever express the idea of epiphenomenalism? It would be impossible, because this "expressing" would require the banned connection between mind and behavior.

If such were the case, surely it would apply to all abstract thought, not merely the concept of epiphenomenalism?

I look forward eagerly to your reply.

The concept of unicorns can arise is any informational system; which is virtually every system. The concept of unicorns exists in books and paintings, and human brains. Everything is able to represent "normal" abstact concepts like unicorns and dinner.

Only conscious thing can have a meaningful concept of consciousness. The fact that we are able to refer to this concept in a meaningful way means that we are conscious. The fact that our concept of consciousness is manifest somewhere in our brains, means that consciousness somehow interacted with our neurobiological representational system.

Consciousness cannot be an idle by product of our concept forming system. It can only get into that concept forming system by existing and having a causal influence on our brains.

[edit on 3/8/10 by OnceReturned]