

Free will is an illusion, biologist says - codeodor
http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html

======
greyman
In my opinion, any discussion about the "free will" or its non-existence
should begin with the precise definition of the term. I observed in the past
than people have different notions about what the term comprises, and without
that common ground the discussions tends to be fruitless.

~~~
byrneseyeview
I'll try.

"Free will" is the hypothesis that it is, in principle, impossible to
determine the outputs of a brain just by measuring its physical state with
perfect accuracy. In other words, if you have two physically identical brains,
with physically identical states, these brains _can_ have different outputs.

~~~
joss82
Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents perfectly accurate measure of
"physical state".

So, two brains as physically identical as possible will probably have
(slightly) different outputs.

But those differences would have nothing to do with human will. They would be
random, or, more precisely, non-deterministic (per definition, as you can't
measure them). So, having a non-deterministic free will is like having no free
will at all.

Conclusion: We have no free will nor fate ;)

~~~
joeyo
_Conclusion: We have no free will nor fate ;)_

The alternative interpretation is that all particles in the universe have free
will. ;)

~~~
joss82
At a bigger scale, they seem to act randomly, though.

But maybe if we could follow one particle in its everyday life, we see how it
exercises its free will?

------
lukifer
Free will is an algorithm, nothing more or less. Input genetics and
experience, output decision and behavior.

What's more, your beliefs about free will get integrated into the algorithm as
well; someone who believes that they are not responsible for their actions
will behave quite differently than someone who believes they are capable of
choosing. Like many human ideas, free will is a necessary (or at least,
useful) illusion.

------
hakunin
As programmers we have to understand how we can program something to seem
incredibly intelligent. If we had access to time and resources that universe
"contributed" to us - we may be able to come up with the type of program that
looks, acts, learns, emotionally reacts 100% like a normal human being. Even
currently we can get pretty far using image recognition, sound recognition,
learning algorithms and fast-lookup data structures. The question of free will
is - at which exact point in developing those data structures and algorithms
the program gains an illusion of controlling its own actions? Moreover — how
can you verify that it did?

What the article essentially says is that our brain is nothing but a CPU,
programmed over millions of years by natural evolution in a way that it gained
all kinds of responses to multitude of various inputs (our 5 senses) in all
kinds of combinations, self-improving learning algorithm, and that illusion of
consciousness emerged as a by-product of this complex system. Pretty
interesting what exact data-structure/algorithm/etc caused this peculiar side
effect.

It could have something todo with the observation that our brain doesn't need
to be whole in order to have consciousness. In different types of physical
brain damage, even major ones, a human was able to remain conscious. Same
could happen with the other part of brain damaged, which was healthy in
another example. So I'm thinking - maybe our the sense of conscoiousness is
like a potential difference which makes electrical current flow through the
wire - you need to have multiple parts of brain with potential difference to
create an illusion of consciousness. This is pretty vague but I like this
concept - may be onto something. Consciousness does feel a lot like different
parts of brain interacting, or one part /observing/ another and reacting to it
just like it'd be reacting to the outside world.

Meh.

------
msg
If a scientist tells you something doesn't exist, remind them of the problem
of induction.

If you hold a prior belief that the physical world is all there is (or that
physical explanations are the only valid explanations, which the physical
sciences take as their starting point), you can come up with endless circular
rationalizations of materialism.

~~~
byrneseyeview
"It doesn't exist" is a shorthand for "There is insufficient evidence for it
or against it, and it has minimal explanatory power, and it's not amenable to
proof or disproof, so your life will be simpler if you assume it doesn't
exist."

This, at least, is the attitude that many people have to ghosts, gods, and
werewolves.

~~~
msg
Your argument is still circular. What do you think proof and disproof mean in
this context? Why don't you think that materialism suffers from the same
flaws?

This is why scientists make bad philosophers. They do not acknowledge the
boundaries of their philosophy.

~~~
pw0ncakes
This is the difference between science and scientism.

Science is an extremely powerful and well-proven set of tools for learning
about the natural world. Scientism is a crock of baloney.

------
jackfoxy
I'm guilty of only scanning the article, so I could have missed something, but
I expected from the title "biologist says" to find some empirical evidence.
Instead I got just another philosophizing speculative article.

You would think the belief in free will, or its absence, becomes a feedback
mechanism in human behavior. How many different ways can that seed be planted?
Why does the belief/disbelief amplitude vary among individuals? Is the
belief/disbelief meme just another meme that's been around a long time, and
affects us far less than we believe? I once knew a successful Indian woman who
completely believed in fate, which surprised me because with all her energy
and drive I thought she was living her life as a free willer.

------
kevinh
Free will doesn't really matter. Only an illusion of free will matters. You
give me an illusion of free will, I'm fine with that. But if you take away any
perception I have that I'm making choices, I won't like it.

------
Mc_Big_G
I'm not exactly sure how relevant this is the the free will conversation, but
it's related and something I think about on a regular basis.

When I see a person who grew up in a wonderful environment with presumably
good genetics, judge and condemn someone who did not, I wonder how they
justify their superiority. It's as if they believe that, if they were that
person, they would make better choices and do better things with their life.
My question is, if you were that person, with exactly the same genetics and
environment, then wouldn't you, by definition, BE that person and live your
life in exactly the same way?

I suspect their answer would eventually come down to something about a "soul"
which, even if it exists, would still be something that you were born with and
thus completely out of your control. So, again, I would ask how they deserve
their superiority, especially if they don't go for the soul argument.

I can then imagine some of them going for the "I deserve it because I was so
awesome in my past-life.", which also doesn't hold up because it's a circular
argument. So, again, how can they justify their superiority?

I'd say it's just luck, but I can see some people using that as an excuse to
never do the right thing. "I was born this way so that's how I'm going to be."
I could probably argue with myself for hours about this kind of stuff.

~~~
AmaroqWolf
"I can then imagine some of them going for the "I deserve it because I was so
awesome in my past-life.", which also doesn't hold up because it's a circular
argument. So, again, how can they justify their superiority?"

I'd personally go with "I deserve it because I was so awesome in this life."

------
rms
<http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_(solution)>

------
indrax
I love how 'conscious thought' goes into a little circle like it's a solved
problem. Same with 'unconscious thought'.

------
byrneseyeview
Free will is a little like Hume's idea of miracles. Which is more likely: that
physical entities created from (roughly) deterministic processes would develop
free will, or that it would be a valuable evolutionary adaptation for them to
_think_ they had free will, and to narrate their lives as if they did?

------
bitdiddle
My favorite thinking on this comes from Pratt:

<http://chu.stanford.edu/guide.html#ratmech>

My favorite line in the paper, cogito ergo sum should be cogito ergo eram :)

It's all Chu spaces -- enjoy!

------
michael_dorfman
"Free will" is a philosophical issue, not a biological one. It's somewhat
comical that a neurobiologist thinks he has something relevant to say on the
subject.

Would anyone take seriously an article like "Phagocytosis is a myth,
philosopher says"?

~~~
indrax
Yeah, it's not like philosophy should update itself based on science, pfft!

------
psawaya
It depends on how you define "free will".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism>

------
scotty79
[http://izismile.com/img/img3/20100304/daily_picdump_357_127....](http://izismile.com/img/img3/20100304/daily_picdump_357_127.jpg)

------
icey
Take heart entrepreneurs, John Calvin had this idea almost 500 years ago when
he introduced Calvinism.

There are no new ideas, just new implementations.

------
indrax
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/r0/thou_art_physics/>

------
cianestro
I discovered this video a few months ago researching for an essay; it's a
great source on this topic.

<http://www.ucsd.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=11190>

------
tierack
See also this story of a biologist thinking that even fruit flies have free
will: <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1532077920070516>

------
reader5000
To determine if I have free will, I shall now attempt to willfully raise my
arm. _Raises arm_. I don't know, that's pretty hard evidence to refute.

~~~
byrneseyeview
You've probably evolved to avoid asking too many boring existential questions
when you could be breeding, instead. You probably have no choice but to trick
yourself into trivially proving that you have free will.

~~~
reader5000
You've probably evolved to produce offensive body odors and to fear social
interactions with your own species. You probably have no choice but to trick
yourself into thinking you are good at trivial reading comprehension.

------
breck
Let's assume free will does not exist. It follows then, that you should
theoretically be able to perfectly predict the actions of a human given enough
information about their current chemical & physical state.

I have never seen evidence of such a machine, so I don't think you can prove
it either way. I like to believe whichever theory seems to benefit me most at
the time.

~~~
Jach
I volunteer myself as such a machine, though I won't say I can perfectly
predict the actions of another human and many others are better than I am.
Nevertheless I find I can make pretty good estimates from time to time
depending on information.

I'm curious about your "I like to believe" stance. Are you saying you'll
ignore any evidence for any theory if you don't think the theory benefits you
more than another theory, even if your theory has been shown to be wrong?

------
DanielBMarkham
True story: I major decision early in my life by flipping a coin.

Now whether or not I was programmed by the universe to make that decision that
way or not, from the outside there is no way a universal observer could
determine what eventual choice I would make. It easily passes the duck test as
being free will.

------
pw0ncakes
Determinism = age-old philosophical stance. Nothing new here.

