[nyokodo]

> Free will hasn’t been proven.

Free will is something that we experience which provides extremely compelling evidence that it is true. Things don't have to be empirically proven in order to be true, if that were the case then empiricism itself would fail the test as it has never been established to be true empirically.

[pjerem]

Existence of mental illness or troubles makes me doubt that.

What is free will when you are suffering from pathological procrastination, depression or addiction ?

If you accept the fact that, like in addictions, your brain chemistry makes you smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol even when you know you’ll die from it and know it makes you miserable then how can you be convinced that you really control your normal behaviors ?

Why does anxiety makes me stay in my couch and antidepressants makes me want to go outside ?

I understand free will as a moral concept but at a biological level, i feel like it adds a lot of shaming and suffering to people who struggle to modify their behavior because science now knows that changing behavior is hard and impossible without physical modification of the brain structure.

[robertlagrant]

> If you accept the fact that, like in addictions, your brain chemistry makes you smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol even when you know you’ll die from it and know it makes you miserable then how can you be convinced that you really control your normal behaviors ?

Your brain chemistry is part of this will, though.

> science now knows that changing behavior is hard

I don't think science knows things. And while changing behaviour is hard, and much harder for some than others, it still doesn't mean that the total system that makes up your mind, including biological predispositions, is not your will.

[pixl97]

>Your brain chemistry is part of this will, though.

But here's the thing, given enough knowledge that chemistry is deterministic.

Will seems to be one of those words we've created from deep ignorance, much like consciousness, and the more we learn about the world and ourselves the less our old views make sense.

[robertlagrant]

I think you've just invented Victorian-era determinism.

What causes someone to suppress doing something they want to do, but have decided is wrong, even if they will never be caught? Or to do something they don't want to do, but have decided is right, even if no-one will ever know?

I would call that "will".

[verisimi]

Could depression, or other mental illnesses, be the outcome of one's bad decisions (or failure to make decisions)?

[komali2]

> Could depression, or other mental illnesses, be the outcome of one's bad decisions (or failure to make decisions)?

Sometimes, the outcome of one's decisions (bad is an unnecessary value statement here. Was it a "bad" idea to start a restaurant that failed and made you sad? Cmon).

However, a huge swath of mental illness, including depression, is the result of environmental and genetic factors utterly outside your control. Your mom smoked crack when you were in her womb and somehow that's "the outcome of your bad decision?"

[vasco]

> i feel like it adds a lot of shaming and suffering to people who struggle to modify their behavior

You just moved the shaming from "look they are lazy and don't move from the couch" to "they are lazy because they made bad decisions"

[jononor]

Possible in some circumstances. But also possible that they are the result of other peoples actions (example: emotionally abusive parents or partner)

[verisimi]

If you have an emotionally abusive partner, and don't do something about it, perhaps depression is acting as a prompt for you to take action. Some part of you (your soul, say) knows better, and via pain (depression) is trying to shift you towards a better, more joyful, result. I believe we have an innate guiding system, and that this is how it works - move away from pain, towards joy.

You can fail to take action, you can take drugs to manage the negative situation more comfortably, but, if abuse is the underlying issue, a genuine change of circumstances is required.

[jononor]

It is important to listen to your body and mind, and for sure - make changes when things are bad. Staying with abusive partners is not worth it.

However it can take a while to realize the problems and manage to get out. This may have effects that last for a good while. People do not deserve abuse or the negative effects of such abuse, just because they technically could have made a change, or made it earlier.

[wizardwes]

Pretty bad prompt to take action then, you know, the thing that makes it harder and less likely for you to take action?

[nikkwong]

How do you know you experience it beyond a reasonable doubt? Thoughts and intentions just seemingly appear in consciousness, without any explanation as to how they arose. Feelings are like this too; we don’t determine how we feel, we are simply served them.

When experiencing a negative emotion, some people seem to believe they can ‘free will’ their way out of it by thinking positively or something there over, but that intention too is also just a thought that appears in consciousness. To decide what to think in a manner compatible with what most people think free will is would require you to decide what to think or feel before actually thinking or feeling it, which is not possible.

And when you think about the causality of feelings or thoughts, which are just neuronal signaling patterns/chains in the brain, it begins to appear much more mechanical than free will intention.

[nyokodo]

> How do you know you experience it beyond a reasonable doubt?

I have no reason to doubt my common sense experience.

> we don’t determine how we feel, we are simply served it.

No definition of free will that I have encountered considers it an absolute freedom from any form of determinism. We’re obviously influenced by our nature and external influences. For instance my emotional predispositions are largely determined and my thoughts are not entirely under my control but I do have scope to shape both my emotions and my thoughts over time by what I choose to focus on. I can choose to do what is necessary to change my behavior and to treat people differently than what comes naturally. I know all of this because I have done it, I have experienced it. No materialist philosophy of mind has produced any compelling evidence to contradict my experience of free will in this capacity.

[nikkwong]

I sort of responded to this idea in another comment, but again. How can you take ‘personal credit’ (as if you could have acted otherwise) for choosing to change your behavior? Isn’t that an idea that also just appears in consciousness that is, for inexplicable reasons, more compelling than other ideas at the time so that is the choice that your brain reasons to follow?

[robertlagrant]

> an idea that also just appears in consciousness that is, for inexplicable reasons, more compelling than other ideas at the time so that is the choice that your brain reasons to follow

This seems to be an idiosyncratic definition of free will.

[vasco]

On the other hand, I think it's simplistic to equate picking options from a mental list as "free will". I think the point you are replying to is valid because if there's free will, it's not just "choosing from a list". The list itself (the options you present yourself) has way more impact on your behavior than what you choose, even. So the matter of the question is, do you have free will in forming a list.

[robertlagrant]

> do you have free will in forming a list

This seems like a separate question. Having the power to choose doesn't mean you have every conceivable option in mind, nor that you have the power to exercise every choice, nor even that you like any of the choices.

[vasco]

Imagine there's no free will.

Whatever happens you'll end up crossing the road right now.

In one example, you absent-mindedly cross the road.

In another example a thought comes to you to get coffee, and you cross the road to get it.

In another example you consider not getting coffee, and going to the park instead, but end up choosing coffee because you feel sluggish.

If there's no free will, any amount of thinking before the decision doesn't prove there's free will. It's just more stuff that was also predetermined. You having an illusion of choice doesn't prove anything.

[nyokodo]

> You having an illusion of choice doesn't prove anything.

It's not reasonable to assume one's experience is an illusion without sufficient evidence which is a bar you haven't crossed. Therefore your argument begs the question.

[vasco]

I didn't say so. I said that having choices to make presented to you, if there were no free will, would be a valid state of affairs. Since it's possible that choices are illusions, you need to address how the choices appear to prove there's free will, it's not enough to say you consider different choices before acting.

[jhbadger]

>I have no reason to doubt my common sense experience.

That's why people thought the Sun moved around the Earth. I mean, it's just "common sense" -- you see the Sun in the East in the morning, and then it's in the West in the evening. It turns out "common sense" is not useful for understanding how things work.

[somenameforme]

Hrm? When I think of things I tend to see multiple possibilities at once, and then decide which I think is the most reasonable, and go from there. Similar for emotions. I'm well aware of my emotions but can control them. And I think not doing so would be quite a poor way to behave.

Perhaps it's that we all think in somewhat different ways, yet because our own mind is the only one that we will ever know - we simply posit that everybody else must think the same way, or at least quite similarly. For instance there's that weird datum that supposedly some huge percent of people don't have an inner monologue, at all. I find it extremely difficult to believe, but if it were true then it would certainly be much easier to understand how somebody else might not believe in free will.

[pjerem]

> Hrm? When I think of things I tend to see multiple possibilities at once, and then decide which I think is the most reasonable, and go from there.

And based on what do you decide ? Probably your past experience, your knowledge, your education and your moral values. Which are all somehow environmental factors.

[somenameforme]

Of course. I'm not saying environment has no impact at all - that would be plainly absurd. I am saying that, in the end, the choice of what you do is up to you. Your experiences will influence, but they will not dictate you. I assume you'll appeal to physicalism here, but at that point we just end up getting into an unanswerable philosophical debate. So I would simply say that while what I'm assuming is not falsifiable, neither is physicalism.

I'm largely swayed by the 'conscious experience.' Presumably neither of us believe that if you make a program to add 2+2, that some entity suddenly pops into existence and imagines itself to be adding 2+2 only to then zip out out of existence. Where we may differ is that I don't think that changes if we go from adding 2+2, to instead sequentially carrying out arbitrarily more simple instruction.

Yet here we are - 'passenger' or 'driver' in a body feeling as though we have complete control over our own actions. I tend to believe what lay before my eyes. And so in this case, I am obligated to reject this as being an emergent property of complexity, or as a facade. Which, in turn, obligates me to reject physicalism.

[nikkwong]

Are you positing that you have free will but that those around you with less emotional control don’t? I don’t think your example is serving your argument; your brain is structured in such a way that you reason in a way that is unique to you, and others reason otherwise based on the structure of their brains. I don’t see how this grants you free will. You’re talking about feelings and reasoning as part of conscious experience and that’s, in my opinion, the end state of all of the neurological activity that pointed us to feel or think a certain way in the present moment.

The chain of causality that leads to thoughts and emotions in consciousness is completely determined by the structure and action potentials that propagate through our brain and nothing else, and this doesn’t leave room for some conscious agent in our brain also pulling levers and further modifying causality.

[somenameforme]

No, I am stating that we can control and change how we behave, which is largely the definition of free will. This is why even identical twins growing up in a practically identical environment will not end up identical. To continue with claims of no free will you end up needing to start appealing to some sort of a butterfly effect of environment. And while that claim is not falsifiable and probably never will be, I think such diverge is vastly more easily explained by simply people having agency and, in identical circumstance and even near identical genetics, being free to make different decisions.

[TFYS]

> To continue with claims of no free will you end up needing to start appealing to some sort of a butterfly effect of environment.

The differences between the lives of even identical twins in the same environment are a lot more than a flap of a butterfly's wings. They don't spend every second of their lives together, so their experiences will differ quite a bit.

[lynx23]

You already said it. "practically identical" is not the same as identical, which alrady explains the (butterfly?) differences. Miniscule differences actually add up...

[samus]

The amount of possibilities you see might be influenced by your emotional state, and what you call "reasonable" might not be the same thing as other people consider it.

A lot of our reasoning are applications of observations and best practices rules that we are sometimes not really aware of unless challenged by circumstances or outsiders.

This is to some degree necessary - the outside world is too complex to fully model inside our minds. The most important things that we can only build approximate models about are other people.

[ixsploit]

How are you experiencing free will? You have no idea what your next thought will be, nor can you control it. You have the opinion that you have free will, but that doesn't mean it's true.

[piloto_ciego]

You can’t choose what you will think about? How do you get through the day? Are you just frequently blindsided by random non-sequiturs that derail you for hours? I routinely chose things to think about or things to concentrate on.

It’s not like all thoughts leap into my mind fully formed either. Hell, I edited this message before hitting reply.

[pjerem]

Choosing is not free will.

You choose based on your past experience. If you know doing A is better than B, you didn’t choose A, it’s just that your brain already knows that A is the best option based on past experience or knowledge or beliefs.

Even if you choose the seemingly "worst" option B, it’s just that you know that new experiences can be rewarding so your brain is ok to try it.

And there is the extreme example : given you are in good mental health, you are totally, physically, unable to chose to kill someone (or even yourself) without a very important reason (to you).

Also, if the absence of free will at biological levels don’t make the concept useless at the society level. Accepting that environment, culture, knowledge and society have such an influence on us just shows the importance of shaping a good society.

Accepting absence of free will at a biological level can just makes us more empathetic towards others.

It doesn’t means society have to accept any wrong behavior from humans but rather something way more positive : society is ultimately responsible for individuals behaviors and have the power to change them for the benefit of everyone.

[piloto_ciego]

This is a lot of text to mean, “I’ve already made up my mind I can’t make any choices.”

Typing out such a long rambling reply was itself a choice.

[Kbelicius]

> Typing out such a long rambling reply was itself a choice.

First sentence GP wrote is: "Choosing is not free will.". Did you choose to ignore what GP wrote when writing your reply?

Free will isn't about making choices, at least not according to any definition I've heard. After all, it is obvious that in some way we do make choices. As far as my understanding goes free will is, depending on the definition, either about choosing differently when all else is equal or not having a gun pointed at your head when making a choice.

[piloto_ciego]

Free will is absolutely largely about making choices. That’s not all of it, but denying that is silly, it’s goal post shifting from the ones who don’t believe in it.

[huygens6363]

And what process do you propose decided to think “I chose my thoughts and what to concentrate on”?

Surely you must see this is problems all the way down.

[piloto_ciego]

Simply think about what you want to concentrate on, then concentrate on that until you get tired or physically can’t concentrate on it any more?

I would be shocked if I was the only one on HN who ever thought, “I don’t want to think about this right now, I want to think about <whatever>” and then stopped thinking about the first thing. In aviation there’s even actually training on division of attention and learning to prioritize and concentrate selectively. You evaluate the situation and classify things as “important” or “not important” then focus in the important stuff. Literally choosing what to think about in the moment.

You’ve never said “gotta concentrate on this now,” and then concentrated on it very hard? Everyone on here is going overly reductive and going into infinite regress as though that proves their point, but it’s Sorites Paradox. “Oh where did the decision about its importance come from? Well that’s entirely the product of your environment! Checkmate free will!” But it’s a lot simpler than that, in the heat of the moment if you don’t have time you tend to fall back to your training, but in other decisions - even when making a choice about what to think about - you can even hold a bit of a discussion with yourself, or lay out the pros and cons to decide what to do, evaluate them all and then choose.

You can absolutely choose to think about one thing or think about another. That’s its own sort of free will. As I read a lot of these comments I really pity the people who don’t believe they’re imbued with free will. It really makes me wonder about their lives and upbringing.

[huygens6363]

You are glossing over very fundamental issues here. If you want to be pragmatic about it, sure. Don’t worry about it. At the macroscopic scale this discussion does not matter and of course I can choose what to focus on, I hope we all can.

But then again, the addict also says he willingly chooses to drink another beer.. I’m sorry, I can’t let go. But I get your point and TBH I don’t really care either way. I just like to introspect and get at the bottom of things and then let go.

[ben_w]

> You can’t choose what you will think about? How do you get through the day? Are you just frequently blindsided by random non-sequiturs that derail you for hours?

My tongue-in-cheek answer here is: Correct, badly, and it looks like the obsessive-compulsive desire to check social media and/or the news.

[piloto_ciego]

Choose to stop then? I mean social media that is - but seriously. Choose to say, “I’m not driven by my pleasure sensors” and do something hard for the sake of doing it - not for glory, not for nothing. Nihilism and predestination lead to some orettt dark places.

Sometimes I feel like a lot of the folks I hear advocating against free will (which is really a stance against choice and even our own consciousness at its core) have never had to make any real “no-shit” choices in their life with serious consequences. I don’t mean to sound like an ass, but I both pity and envy these folks. Obviously you don’t have control over a lot of things, but the idea that this is all on rails screams “I’ve never had to do anything that had any real risk to it.”

[ben_w]

> Choose to stop then?

"""Addiction is a neuropsychological disorder characterized by a persistent and intense urge to use a drug or engage in a behaviour that produces natural reward, despite substantial harm and other negative consequences. Repetitive drug use often alters brain function in ways that perpetuate craving, and weakens (but does not completely negate) self-control.[1] This phenomenon – drugs reshaping brain function – has led to an understanding of addiction as a brain disorder with a complex variety of psychosocial as well as neurobiological (and thus involuntary)[a] factors that are implicated in addiction's development.[2][3][4] Classic signs of addiction include compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, preoccupation with substances or behavior, and continued use despite negative consequences. Habits and patterns associated with addiction are typically characterized by immediate gratification (short-term reward),[5][6] coupled with delayed deleterious effects (long-term costs).[3][7]""" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

I block some social media entirely, and I have to block rather than simply "choose to stop", due to the "compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli" and habituation to patterns "characterized by immediate gratification (short-term reward)".

I can easily recognise the long term deleterious effects social media, especially when it comes to just being horizontal in bed, either needing to go to sleep or to get up in the morning, and wanting to open up a browser on my phone to check for replies rather than either of those.

> which is really a stance against choice and even our own consciousness at its core

The me of the id is not the same as the me of the ego, or the superego.

The me of tomorrow can curse the expanding waistline caused by the cake eaten by the me of today.

There is only one thing any of us can choose to do in any given moment while remaining true to ourselves; but which of the selves is truly "our"?

[piloto_ciego]

I know what addiction is, of course I’m aware that there’s a biological component. I quit smoking, I have many friends who quit drinking or doing drugs. It was incredibly hard, but I did it. Some of them did it.

I met a young guy while I was backpacking last year who was quitting heroin cold turkey. He was back packing to quit - he’d simply chosen to walk out of his home and go without heroin for thousands of km from the trail system by his home in France.

He was a nice guy - I wonder what became of him, but still, he chose to simply stop. I think you have a lot more agency than you think. Yeah, things cannot be undone, but you can definitely will yourself to change a great many things. It’s just hard and our body resists doing hard things.

[mchaver]

I think another part is that materialism, determinism and science have (seemingly) given us great understanding and control of our environment and overturned lots of superstitious and erroneous ideas that society has. So if you accept materialism and determinism as the base of the universe and nature of things you naturally arrive at the conclusion that there is no free will.

I have a hunch that the universe is more complicated than that and might likely be beyond human understanding, but maybe that's just another superstitious belief. Regardless, we should keep using Science to explore because it is the best model we have so far and continue to use Philosophy to question things.

Personally I feel that I have free will and understanding of my emotions gives me more free will. Even if I am wrong, I prefer living in a non-free will universe and believing in free will than living in a free will universe and not believing in free will. In the former case that would just be my destiny, haha.

[piloto_ciego]

I agree at the universe being much more complex than we comprehend.

[TFYS]

> Nihilism and predestination lead to some orettt dark places.

I think it's the other way around. Because as a society we believe in free will, we easily ignore the effect of environment on our choices. We let social media companies make their products addictive, because we believe that it's a choice to use them. If we ackwnoledged the fact that our choices are the result of our genetics and experiences, we could start creating a society that avoids such practices and would be a better place to live in.

Let's say you were addicted to social media and you never in your life have heard or read anything bad about it. No one has ever mentioned quitting social media to you. Do you think the thought to do so would come to your mind? Or is the "choice" to quit social media just a path carved into your brain by all the negative experiences you have had or heard about?

[piloto_ciego]

This is all just word salad though - you don’t have to ignore the effect of environmental conditions to believe in free will. Just because I was born to who I was or grew up where I did doesn’t mean that I cannot change things in my life. Seriously - it’ll be hard, but just try to change. I bet you’ll be surprised.

[LocalH]

Let me introduce you to a little dopamine imbalance I like to call "focus control disorder", better known as Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder.

Think of it like having a preemptive multitasking scheduler that is unable to keep track of the state of the previous task.

[piloto_ciego]

Then I wonder if many of the most vociferous opponents of free will in these comments are suffering from that.

I also wonder if this sort of “free will is not real” sort of mindset comes from a world that’s removed all agency from them?