

Free will, faciticity and their (not-so) surprising consequences - ankneo
http://paraschopra.com/blog/personal/free-will-faciticity-consequences.htm

======
ergosum
The terminology, premise, and references are sound, but there is an
unjustifiably large leap to the conclusion. This entirely ignores the
analytical portion of human thought. You can't stretch an anecdote and a few
specific research articles to a metaphysical theory, certainly not in a blog
post.

Negation of this universal quantifier only needs existential evidence, so I'll
attempt to provide one. Say I'm unemployed and watching TV on a Monday
afternoon. The thought occurs in my mind that I need to look for a job, but
the facticity is setup such that I'm very lazy and unwilling to look for jobs,
and the impulse for me is to continue doing what I was doing. A few minutes
into it, my brain has analyze the consequences of my action, and I am now at a
point where I'm making a choice. The research quote all agrees above that my
unconscious brain made the choice initially, and yet there's room for "free
will".

I think the problem is the extension of impulse as the basis of all human
behavior, leaving no room for analytical thought. You're probably looking for
a dialogue here, but unfortunately I've used up all my free time in trying to
write this up :) There's no reason to respond, I only want to plant the seed
that "lack of free will" theory doesn't hold up. I am sure you can stretch
your metaphysics to accomodate my anecdote above, but I'm sure someone else
can provide another. I urge you to step outside your thought process and
really quantify free will as a result of analytical thought, come up with a
different theory, and then reconcile it with the one you've come up with
above.

~~~
paraschopra
True. What I meant was that free will as we typically consider it -- our
_conscious self_ making a decision out of free will is an illusion. As you
say:

>my brain has analyze the consequences of my action, and I am now at a point
where I'm making a choice

If you differentiate between brain analyzing the consequences, and then _you_
making a decision, that is wrong. Research shows _you_ seem to be making a
decision, but actually your brain has already made one. Of course, if you
include unconscious neural activity as a conception of self, free will does
exist but if only consider self that is conscious of itself, free will doesn't
seem to exist.

------
Permit
>(At atomic level, I don’t know if universe is deterministic or not, but at
human level it definitely is not).

That level of certainty demands an explanation. The author seems to come to
the conclusion that the complex interactions do not leave room for
determinism. I'm not entirely sure why.

The usual idea is that if one were to know the position and velocity of every
particle in the physical universe, one could theoretically predict how the
universe would change at any given time. That should work as well for four
particles as it should for four billion. I don't think complexity in a system
can be used to show evidence of true randomness.

That being said, I don't believe the world is deterministic at either the
atomic or the macroscopic level. But I wholly dislike the reasons presented
here.

~~~
paraschopra
My point here is that universe is definitely not deterministic on a macro,
human level. It may not be random at most fundamental level, but the number of
variables there are, on a macro level it the universe does not seem to be
deterministic.

~~~
Permit
>My point here is that universe is definitely not deterministic on a macro,
human level. It may not be random at most fundamental level, but the number of
variables there are, on a macro level it the universe does not seem to be
deterministic.

Why does an increasing number of variables mean the system is not
deterministic? Simply because interactions between people are complex, does
not mean they are not deterministic. The number of variables has no impact on
whether or not a system is deterministic.

~~~
paraschopra
I did not say it is not deterministic, however it _appears_ to be non
deterministic on a macro level.

------
lukifer
There's an important factor usually missing from "free will" discussions: that
a deterministic consciousness engine must include the individual's beliefs
about free will. Someone who believes they have free will behave differently
than someone who doesn't. Moreover, a society that believes in free will exert
different behavioral pressures than one who doesn't.

While I don't think "free will" exists objectively (every choice is traceable
to causes under any model), it seems to me to be a necessary illusion for
people to accept responsibility over their own behavior, internally and
externally. However, it is at best a fuzzy abstraction, and there is
absolutely benefit to continue exploring and unpacking the free will story.

~~~
paraschopra
I agree with you that it may be beneficial to maintain the illusion of free
will in the society, however the truth that emerges from science and
philosophical discussions must be called out and their consequences must be
carefully analyzed (no matter how bitter they may be). It's like the good old
debate between good v/s truth where two may not be compatible.

------
FreakLegion
It's _fact_ icity, as in 'fact' of the matter. I don't think you've quite
grasped the concept or the necessary, productive role it plays. You might also
look into _Befindlichkeit_ and the section of B&T that deals with the
hermeneutic circle (I don't have a copy at the office, but if you search '
_circulus vitiosus_ ' you'll find it).

~~~
paraschopra
Thanks for correcting it. Don't know why I missed it entirely! Thanks for
pointing other references as well, will definitely check them out -- this
subject interests me a lot.

------
disappointment
No point trying to decide what to do about the consequences of a lack of free
will. If you can decide whether or not to punish someone, they can decide
whether or not to offend. If they have no choice in their action, neither do
you.

------
adjwilli
Daniel Dennett has a nice critique of the Libet experiment where he argues
that there's a temporal mismatch between making the decision and recording
that the decision was made. Basically that experiment can't actually measure
the decision moving from unconsciousness to consciousness, only the shifting
to making that decision to consciousness being aware that you made the
decision and now need to focus on shifting attention. It's important to note
too that people who have more attention report faster response times.

------
jpdoctor
> _we may either regard children who do well at studies as good kids, or we
> may instead idolize cool kids who bunk classes and have fun all the time. So
> early in our life, what makes us fall into one group and not the other?_

Another conundrum: Some people like to create false dichotomies, and others
(who fell into both of the above groups) see them for what they are.

How do you explain that?

~~~
paraschopra
I'm not sure I got your point. Can you elaborate?

------
bbaplha
Being influenced by your environment doesn't mean you had no say in the
choices you made.

And if there truly is no free will, then we have no choice but to feel pride
in our actions, if that's how we are built.

So you can't say not to feel pride. Doesn't really make sense.

