Materially speaking, particles (“matter” in classical physics) are the cause of everything, including consciousness. Whatever actions sentient animals take are also determined by particles. In this sense, everything is predetermined, despite being highly unpredictable. If “free will” is used in the sense that we can somehow make decisions outside of the influence of particles (i.e. that our minds exist completely separated from the physical universe), no, I have never seen anything to indicate that we have free will.
Agreed. The way I think of it is that we don’t have free will, but we have to live as if we do. What we do is predetermined, but that does not absolve us from the responsibility of our actions and consequences thereof, and society also bears responsibility for our actions.
If what we do is predetermined then that absolutely absolves us from responsibility for our actions. The very definition of responsibility implies that we have the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization, or have a duty to do something. We can’t talk about responsibility without choice or free will.
Can we hold someone accountable for their actions if free will didn’t exist? Sure. We should isolate a serial killer from society, but it wouldn’t be accurate to say he was the cause of his actions.
Society should instill in the individual the mindset that if they do something harmful to their community, the individual should work on preventing performing the same action again. The community should at the same time understand that they have failed in their education of the offending individual, or that the structure of society is faulty and would inevitably lead to the undesirable action.
I am aware I am writing this in a way implying choice, that is merely a consequence of linguistic norms and the way we think.
Those linguistic norms and the way we think can’t be dismissed so easily though. There’s a reason words like responsibility and choice have the meanings they do, and why we think in terms of them. From a deterministic perspective, why do we use words like that and think like that if it’s fundamentally incorrect to do so?
I’m not a linguist (or any other kind of professional for that matter), but it seems logical to me that a species with a strong illusion of free will would, over thousands of years, develop languages influenced by the assumption that free will is a fact.
Also I’m no saying anything is fundamentally incorrect, or that I’m correct, just stating and clarifying my point of view, while trying to learn more about the views of others.
Why would particles produce the illusion that we are able to make choices and have some control over our minds and thoughts? Why would this illusion be a benefit over accepting the supposed truth that we don’t have free will?
Consciousness is directly tied to free will. The more conscious someone is, the more free will they have. The more someone is influenced by their subconscious, the less free will they have. Humans evolved consciousness to develop the ability to reason to have more control over their minds and environment and improve their quality of life.
I think your question is also interesting if we reframe it from a deterministic perspective - what is the point of consciousness if all our actions are predetermined? Wouldn’t it be more efficient for the particles to direct our actions like automatons? From a survival perspective, it seems like consciousness gets in the way, can mislead us, and can be unproductive
If you equate consciousness with free will, then, yes, I would argue that there is no such thing, materially speaking. I don’t consider this train of thought to have any practical use, though.
Humans evolved consciousness to develop the ability to reason to have more control over their minds and environment and improve their quality of life.
It’s impossible to verify what caused evolution to follow a particular path. Natural selection is the only reasonable theory of which I’m aware; I’d say it’s far more likely that consciousness was simply necessary for survival at the time, rather than assuming that there’s some deliberate purpose behind evolution. (edit: spelling)
I don’t equate the two. I take consciousness to mean one being able to recognize one’s thoughts and mind as being distinct from the world, and having an awareness of the world with that in mind. I’m that way someone could be conscious or have consciousness but not exercise their free will, which I take to mean exercising one’s free agency outside of fate.
It makes more sense to look at evolution as happening along teleological lines, for a purpose. Evolution implies improvement in some way, and if we extrapolate that idea further, then that implies that evolution is trying to perfect life over time.
That’s not what “evolution” means in terms of biology, though. It refers to the biological changes undergone by some group of organisms (e.g. a species) across many generations. I have yet to find any reason to believe that there’s some actual intent behind it.
There’s a reason for those changes though: so the organisms become better adapted to survive and thrive in their environment. If we consider the history of the evolution of life over billions of years, isn’t it the case that organisms tend to become stronger, faster, smarter, etc over time, even if it is extremely slow? And if we accept that, then that implies that life strives to inherently improve itself over time, because it must. Reality is a brutal, dialectical process, and organisms must gain whatever edge they can to survive. It’s evolve or die, so improvement is inherantly necessary to gain a competitive advantage in order for an organism or a species to survive. In that way all life inherantly intends to improve itself as much as it possibly can.
If by “reason” you mean that there’s some kind of explanation for why it happened, yes – by that definition, there is a reason for everything. What I’m saying is that there’s no conscious reason here.
I think you’ve misunderstood the idea of natural selection. “Life” doesn’t strive to do anything, because it’s an abstract concept; organisms that were unable to survive until they reproduced will not pass on their genes, thereby ending their particular evolutionary path. There is absolutely no need for any conscious desire or goal to guide the process of evolution.
Why would particles produce a huge glowing ball to heat up our planet and light up our world to make life possible and animals able to see and navigate our world?
We shouldn’t apply will to particles, there are tons of emergent properties, and I believe consciousness and therefore the illusion if free will is one of them. The illusion of free will has been beneficial for humanity, or at least not detrimental to the point of having disappeared through evolution.
There’s a difference between particles following their natural laws to create stars and planets and particles supposedly producing an illusion of free will because it supposedly benefits us. If our actions are predetermined then what benefits do the illusion of free will produce? Why even have consciousness in the first place? Why not direct us like automatons since that would be more efficient and productive?
Evolution doesn’t lead to the most efficient and productive outcome, it’s merely the name we have for the chain of mutations in cells which get reproduced and lead to changes in a group of organisms. As I’ve said they don’t need to be beneficial, the organisms with the change just need to reproduce more than those without it. Also as consciousness is an emergent property it is most likely the result of an incredibly large amount of mutations.
Ok, but that still doesn’t explain why the illusion of choice is better than than no illusion from a deterministic standpoint.
Also, it doesn’t make sense to say that properties can emerge from things in which those properties weren’t already present in some way. If consciousness can arise from a combination of particles then that implies that particles have mental properties, which I don’t think a materialist or a determinist would want to argue.
that still doesn’t explain why the illusion of choice is better than than no illusion from a deterministic standpoint.
It isn’t my opinion that the illusion is better or worse, but that it just is.
it doesn’t make sense to say that properties can emerge from things in which those properties weren’t already present in some way.
In the same way the property of being able play guitar isn’t a property of any of the cells in my body, it becomes possible when the brain, millions of sensory receptors, muscle fibers, neurons etc. are in a system together and interact with each other.
It is my belief that in the same way, consciousness and then free will occurs when all of the neurons in the brain get stimulated by external factors, and hormones, and so on in the body.
You haven’t provided a reason for the illusion of free will. If we can’t provide a good reason or explanation for something then that should be a red flag for us to reexamine our belief and why we think that is true.
The ability or instructions of how to play the guitar does need to be present in some way in the cells and everything else though. The particle has to “know” how to perform in concert with everything else in order to make music happen. One particle may just be one building block, or one piece of the puzzle, but it still has to know exactly what to do in its role in order to play a song, in the same way a particle “knows” how to obey all the laws of physics, and how to behave in every situation because they are innate in every particle.
Materially speaking, particles (“matter” in classical physics) are the cause of everything, including consciousness. Whatever actions sentient animals take are also determined by particles. In this sense, everything is predetermined, despite being highly unpredictable. If “free will” is used in the sense that we can somehow make decisions outside of the influence of particles (i.e. that our minds exist completely separated from the physical universe), no, I have never seen anything to indicate that we have free will.
Agreed. The way I think of it is that we don’t have free will, but we have to live as if we do. What we do is predetermined, but that does not absolve us from the responsibility of our actions and consequences thereof, and society also bears responsibility for our actions.
If what we do is predetermined then that absolutely absolves us from responsibility for our actions. The very definition of responsibility implies that we have the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization, or have a duty to do something. We can’t talk about responsibility without choice or free will.
Can we hold someone accountable for their actions if free will didn’t exist? Sure. We should isolate a serial killer from society, but it wouldn’t be accurate to say he was the cause of his actions.
Society should instill in the individual the mindset that if they do something harmful to their community, the individual should work on preventing performing the same action again. The community should at the same time understand that they have failed in their education of the offending individual, or that the structure of society is faulty and would inevitably lead to the undesirable action.
I am aware I am writing this in a way implying choice, that is merely a consequence of linguistic norms and the way we think.
Those linguistic norms and the way we think can’t be dismissed so easily though. There’s a reason words like responsibility and choice have the meanings they do, and why we think in terms of them. From a deterministic perspective, why do we use words like that and think like that if it’s fundamentally incorrect to do so?
I’m not a linguist (or any other kind of professional for that matter), but it seems logical to me that a species with a strong illusion of free will would, over thousands of years, develop languages influenced by the assumption that free will is a fact.
Also I’m no saying anything is fundamentally incorrect, or that I’m correct, just stating and clarifying my point of view, while trying to learn more about the views of others.
Why would particles produce the illusion that we are able to make choices and have some control over our minds and thoughts? Why would this illusion be a benefit over accepting the supposed truth that we don’t have free will?
Unless you believe that some kind of supernatural entity is responsible for giving us consciousness, why would there need to be a purpose behind it?
Consciousness is directly tied to free will. The more conscious someone is, the more free will they have. The more someone is influenced by their subconscious, the less free will they have. Humans evolved consciousness to develop the ability to reason to have more control over their minds and environment and improve their quality of life.
I think your question is also interesting if we reframe it from a deterministic perspective - what is the point of consciousness if all our actions are predetermined? Wouldn’t it be more efficient for the particles to direct our actions like automatons? From a survival perspective, it seems like consciousness gets in the way, can mislead us, and can be unproductive
If you equate consciousness with free will, then, yes, I would argue that there is no such thing, materially speaking. I don’t consider this train of thought to have any practical use, though.
It’s impossible to verify what caused evolution to follow a particular path. Natural selection is the only reasonable theory of which I’m aware; I’d say it’s far more likely that consciousness was simply necessary for survival at the time, rather than assuming that there’s some deliberate purpose behind evolution. (edit: spelling)
I don’t equate the two. I take consciousness to mean one being able to recognize one’s thoughts and mind as being distinct from the world, and having an awareness of the world with that in mind. I’m that way someone could be conscious or have consciousness but not exercise their free will, which I take to mean exercising one’s free agency outside of fate.
It makes more sense to look at evolution as happening along teleological lines, for a purpose. Evolution implies improvement in some way, and if we extrapolate that idea further, then that implies that evolution is trying to perfect life over time.
That’s not what “evolution” means in terms of biology, though. It refers to the biological changes undergone by some group of organisms (e.g. a species) across many generations. I have yet to find any reason to believe that there’s some actual intent behind it.
There’s a reason for those changes though: so the organisms become better adapted to survive and thrive in their environment. If we consider the history of the evolution of life over billions of years, isn’t it the case that organisms tend to become stronger, faster, smarter, etc over time, even if it is extremely slow? And if we accept that, then that implies that life strives to inherently improve itself over time, because it must. Reality is a brutal, dialectical process, and organisms must gain whatever edge they can to survive. It’s evolve or die, so improvement is inherantly necessary to gain a competitive advantage in order for an organism or a species to survive. In that way all life inherantly intends to improve itself as much as it possibly can.
If by “reason” you mean that there’s some kind of explanation for why it happened, yes – by that definition, there is a reason for everything. What I’m saying is that there’s no conscious reason here.
I think you’ve misunderstood the idea of natural selection. “Life” doesn’t strive to do anything, because it’s an abstract concept; organisms that were unable to survive until they reproduced will not pass on their genes, thereby ending their particular evolutionary path. There is absolutely no need for any conscious desire or goal to guide the process of evolution.
Why would particles produce a huge glowing ball to heat up our planet and light up our world to make life possible and animals able to see and navigate our world?
We shouldn’t apply will to particles, there are tons of emergent properties, and I believe consciousness and therefore the illusion if free will is one of them. The illusion of free will has been beneficial for humanity, or at least not detrimental to the point of having disappeared through evolution.
There’s a difference between particles following their natural laws to create stars and planets and particles supposedly producing an illusion of free will because it supposedly benefits us. If our actions are predetermined then what benefits do the illusion of free will produce? Why even have consciousness in the first place? Why not direct us like automatons since that would be more efficient and productive?
Evolution doesn’t lead to the most efficient and productive outcome, it’s merely the name we have for the chain of mutations in cells which get reproduced and lead to changes in a group of organisms. As I’ve said they don’t need to be beneficial, the organisms with the change just need to reproduce more than those without it. Also as consciousness is an emergent property it is most likely the result of an incredibly large amount of mutations.
Ok, but that still doesn’t explain why the illusion of choice is better than than no illusion from a deterministic standpoint.
Also, it doesn’t make sense to say that properties can emerge from things in which those properties weren’t already present in some way. If consciousness can arise from a combination of particles then that implies that particles have mental properties, which I don’t think a materialist or a determinist would want to argue.
It isn’t my opinion that the illusion is better or worse, but that it just is.
In the same way the property of being able play guitar isn’t a property of any of the cells in my body, it becomes possible when the brain, millions of sensory receptors, muscle fibers, neurons etc. are in a system together and interact with each other. It is my belief that in the same way, consciousness and then free will occurs when all of the neurons in the brain get stimulated by external factors, and hormones, and so on in the body.
You haven’t provided a reason for the illusion of free will. If we can’t provide a good reason or explanation for something then that should be a red flag for us to reexamine our belief and why we think that is true.
The ability or instructions of how to play the guitar does need to be present in some way in the cells and everything else though. The particle has to “know” how to perform in concert with everything else in order to make music happen. One particle may just be one building block, or one piece of the puzzle, but it still has to know exactly what to do in its role in order to play a song, in the same way a particle “knows” how to obey all the laws of physics, and how to behave in every situation because they are innate in every particle.