Synopsis: Yes, an essential Illusion sometimes, not always.
Putting aside for the moment the question of whether we do have freewill or not, how would live your life believing you have no freewill? Would it mean no real ability to make a choice, and that you have no real control over your future or responsibility for your actions?
Believing in freewill helps people exert control over their actions. This is particularly important in helping people make better decisions and behave more virtuously.
For instance, research has found that promoting the idea that a person doesn’t have freewill makes people become more dishonest, behave aggressively and even conform to others’ thoughts and opinions. And how can we hold people morally responsible for their actions if we don’t believe they have the free will to act any differently? Belief in free will allows us to punish people for their immoral behaviors.
Believing in free will makes you feel more like your true self: Existential Psychology Lab, Texas A&M
The point of the above study is that, regardless of whether there is freewill or not, belief in freewill can be positive and desirable. There is no logic-based reason for the behaviour to be changed as it was in the study, but people don’t always behave logically. The illogical behaviour is the assumption punishment must not be applied simply because of the lack of freewill. It is the mistaken belief that lack of freewill removes the need for punishment that leads to the negative consequences found in the study.
In the end, if we have a choice as to whether to believe in freewill or not when making a decision, then simply assuming, illusion or not, we do have free could be essential for many people.
However, when evaluating past actions, whether those by ourselves as well as those by others will very likely be ruling our best strategies for achieving better future outcomes and maintaining belief in freewill can be not only dangerous but also potentially immoral.
In 2024 Neil deGrasse Tyson (see video) expressed: “I said to myself is everything in society explainable in this way and then I realised oh my gosh, if it is, then our entire moral code has to shift ujh it’s not a matter of punishment it’s a matter of nurturing and understanding so let me pivot now to you and say if we agree, and it think we do, how does society need to change?”
While the section below looks at the logic behind why it makes no sense to assume there is freewill, the video now linked here provides perhaps a better explanation than my original one.
While understanding there is freewill does not change the need for punishments to be in place as consequence of committing crimes, it totally changes the thinking of what is necessary to end crime in situations and particularly communities where crime persists despite the deterrent of punishments.
Understanding the lack of freewill can be key to breaking free from significant dangers and understanding humanity.
Theory: Is freewill just an illusion?
Lack of freewill implies neither fate nor determinism.
The concept of fate is that no matter what path you choose, you will reach the same destination. Whilst most interpretations have a person’s fate as their eventual outcome, there are other interpretations where fate is seen determining not just some future outcome, but every step on the path to that future outcome and these interpretations result in fate being identical to determinism. The interpretation of fate as fixing in only a future outcome but without all steps on the path necessarily being fixed would imply people do have freewill to choose their own steps, but all choices will result in the same outcome. Whether Oedipus could choose his steps can be open to debate, but it is often assumed it was only the prophesised fate that was predetermined, which would Oedipus to still have freewill. This would mean that the concept of fate can still allow for some freewill, but otherwise be like determinism.
Determinism does not allow for any choice at any stage. Think of a chemistry experiment at school. For a given set of ingredients and conditions, the outcome is completely predictable. But isn’t the universe just one huge and complex chemical reaction?
Determinism is the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes
Wikipedia.
Knowledge of every causal factor for every action in the universe, is not possible while within the universe due to the problem of recursion, as storing that knowledge would require its own universe. This means, that since we exist within the universe, we cannot possibly predict the future of the entire universe. So, even if the view of determinism is correct, and there is only one possible future, that future cannot be known.
Deterministic: Full information at one moment implies full information for all later moments.
Enter Quantum Physics and Random Events.
Except, in quantum physics, there are also random events.
Determinism is based on the premise that given the exact some conditions, there will always be the same result. In current quantum theory, there is the same probability of a result, but no certainty of the actual result, and on the most fundamental level, there are random outcomes. This creates confusion that random allows for freewill, but freewill is a directed outcome, not random outcome.
A physicist walks into a bar and he orders a beer for himself, and one for the empty stool next to him. He finishes his drink and then leaves. The next day he returns to the bar, and again offers a beer to the stool next to him before finishing his drink and leaving. After a week the bartender finally asks, “Why in the world do you keep offering that stool a beer?” The physicist replies “The laws of physics dictate that there is a finite possibility that at some point, the matter above this stool could reform into a beautiful woman, who would then accept the drink.” The bartender is puzzled for a second before replying, “The bar is full of beautiful women. Why not see if one of them will accept your drink?” The physicist quickly laughs before saying “What are the odds of that happening?”
Physics Joke, and yes it was retold on the Big Bang Theory.
Quantum physics concludes that at the “macro” scale, the probabilities become overwhelming of the outcomes Newtonian physics dictates, but they are still probabilities, not certainties. This probability in place of determinism is even quoted as supporting the possibility of free will as quoted on Wikipedia.
However, just as the physicist at the bar is not likely to see his beautiful woman materialise, we are still unlikely to see significant variations in outcomes, suggesting possibly on a very small amount of free will on this basis. For example, radioactive decay is random at the quantum level of the individual atom, but this does not stop us being able to accurately predict the half-life of an element, and it may mean that statistically, the change of an individual demonstrating ‘free will’ are negligible.
Further, all events appear random when the variables determining the outcome cannot be known. If you could roll a dice in still air with precise velocity, then the outcome could be predicted. Computer programs just always look to external events outside program control to access values controlled by events unknowable to the program for true random numbers. Just as a coin toss or roll of a dice appears random because all the data needed to calculate the outcome is not available, what if factors we have not jet discovered are controlling the probabilities we see at the quantum level, and it is again he lack of knowledge making something appear random? In summary, we are not certain there is randomness, although, to the best of our knowledge, there is randomness.
Quantum Physics May Provide Randomness, But Not Our Choice.
Just because an outcome is uncertain, that does not mean we it will obey our will. When I was about 9 years of age, having read novels with telepathy such as “Time for the Stars” and seen illusionists claiming telekinetic paranormal abilities such as mind reading and spoon bending (prior to Uri Geller being discredited), I tried to move a pencil on desk using just my will. I never succeeded. If I can’t move atoms, what are the chances I can trigger electrical signals from neurones in my brain to activate due to my will? Or is that a gain the result of external stimulus?
In reality, even allowing for randomness, we know of no mechanism beyond response previous and current stimuli playing any role in our responses. Human responses include responses that are, just like the roll of the dice, almost impossible for us to predict with the data available, but that does not prove there is free on the part of the dice, or us humans.
This does not prove there is no basis for free will, just that we know of no basis for true free will.
Illusion: It Is Clear We Overestimate the Power of our free will.
Consider advertising. Almost all of us feel that advertisements such as those for carbonated drinks which just show people having a good time will not influence our decisions, but if no ones alters their choices after viewing these, then why are they still following the same formulae after so many years?
Other principles of magic involve card tricks. Magicians can often influence people to choose a particular card from a deck, or even know which card people will choose when asked to think of one. Studying these phenomena could help us learn about the mind, as did the study of illusions and misdirection.
Revealing the Psychology of Playing Card Magic: Scientific American.
If we have free will to, for example, chose a card, then how come our will can be manipulated to produce a predictable result selected by another person.
We May be Free to Choose What We Want: But what controls our wants?
We can choose not to smoke that additional cigarette, or eat the extra piece of chocolate, but do we have any control over how compelling each option feels? Can we choose who we fall in love with, or even whether we will love our children? Can we choose to not want to eat the extra piece of chocolate? How much of even the desire to have children, is really something under our own control or something determined by nature?
Exercising freewill would mean either choosing an option we do not see as the preferred option, or being able change which option we prefer. What we want can clearly be triggered by our environment. Even without freewill we still choose what we want, but perhaps just need to recognise that there are factors affecting our wants. Quite like the card trick where you can choose any card.
Even if there is some free choice, just like those card tricks, what we will choose is very often manipulated, if not intentionally by others, than by our previous experiences. If it clear we have less free choice than our illusion of free choice. Does it stretch to the point where all free choice is an illusion?
This topic is further explored below.
The Amebae Question: Where In the Tree Of Life Does Free Will Arise?
If we study an amebae, it is quite clear all the actions are just responses to the environment. Again, most people tend not to believe trees have free will. Free will requires a brain. But then, not all animals with a brain are believed to exhibit free will. Most people are sure ants don’ts have free will, and they have a brain. If we have acquired free will, it is not clear at what point in the evolutionary tree it evolved. A degree of randomness in decisions could help an entire population, but is random variation of decisions, free will? It seems we allocated free will at the point where we wish to be judgemental about actions. If we are not going to judge the actions of a species, we determine the animal has no free will. Dogs could represent a borderline case, where some judge the actions of dogs, others blame any undesired actions on the training an environment of the dog.
In Practice: Can we control the how much we want each option?
Is it freewill, if we can’t choose our desires?
In terms of human behaviour, we believe we can choose the course of action we want, but rarely think about our inability to control what it is that we want. We can weigh pros and cons of each choice, and can make our own choice, but is how we feel about some of those pros and cons itself controlled by biology and beyond our control?
Most people ‘want’ to have children, but over time, in response to a constant as reduction of infant/child mortality, people statistically now want less children. The environment is changing how many people decide they want children. There are factors at play that change the choices people make.
For example, we know that certain things are addictive, and once people become addicted, they cannot stop wanting those things. A smoker cannot stop wanting to have a cigarette, no matter how much logic tells them they should not want to have a cigarette. Then there are eating disorders, where the balance of what a person wants in terms of food, becomes controlled by illogical impulses. There are even cults that can manipulate and alter, at least temporarily, the wants of their members. Aristotle apparently was so confident that environment could shape a person’s wants, that he once said “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man”.
Manipulating Freewill.
It is not just cults that try brainwashing. The concept of rehabilitating prisoners through to psychological exposure therapy, are designed around the concept of altering what a person wants in response to specific stimuli. Can we stop the criminal wanting to offend?
Consider the thought experiment that is the work “A Clockwork Orange” which looks at manipulating desires.
The industry of manipulating Freewill.
Then there is advertising, or for a broader definition “the influence industry“. Many people are so invested in the belief that all decisions are their own choice that they will assert “advertising does not work on me”. It is certainly easy think that way. How can be believe that images of people having fun will make us choose to drink sugary carbonated drinks? Yet not only do they keep running advertisements but sponsors also keep paying. The even seem to believe advertising and targeted messages can change how we vote. But of course, buying carbonated drinks, and who we vote for, it is all our own free will.
Free will, crime punishment and justice.
Questions on the justice of punishment.
The US neuroscientist Sam Harris claims in a new book that free will is such a misleading illusion that we need to rethink our criminal justice system on the basis of discoveries coming from the neurological wards and MRI scans of the human brain in action.
Guilty, but not responsible?
At the extreme, it may be that no choice we make is really by our own free will, which results in many questioning the the legal system. Perhaps every choice is simply choosing what we have been conditioned by our environment to want.
Answer: Applying punishment is a necessary admission of failure.
Everyone wants to hold criminals responsible for their actions. This “responsibility” has its foundation in the belief that we all have the free will to choose right from wrong. What if free will is just an illusion, how would that impact the criminal justice system? Free will creates the moral structure that provides the foundation for our criminal justice system. Without it, most punishments in place today must be eliminated completely.
Free Will, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System
The problem with the above quotation, is it views the world entirely from the perspective of what happens after the crime is committed.
The major goal of any legal system should be to prevent crime, not punish crime. Ok, preventing crime would not be good business for criminal lawyers, but we still need laws. In reality, any time a crime has already happened, beyond revenue for the legal system, there is little to be gained from punishment.
We prosecute misdemeanours because, among other things, we want there to be fewer of them, and we believe prosecution deters reoffending. But a recent blockbuster paper makes a startling claim to the contrary: Prosecuting misdemeanants actually increases the likelihood that they will offend again.
(article fearing reduction in penalties)Progressives Are Overreacting to a Startling Crime Study
Yes, evidence indicates punishment does not prevent reoffending, and may even be counterproductive in that respect. But the primary role of punishment should be to prevent not reoffending, but people ever offending.
The are two key reasons why punishment cannot be reduced just because freewill is a myth:
- the very existence of the punishment becomes a part of the environment that determine choices.
- if people can expect punishment will be applied, then crime rates will logically increase.
- if there are questions over a person’s ability to resist impulses to commit crimes, then at least incarceration will restore safety to society.
- there will be less reoffending if criminals are locked up.
Just because punishment fails to prevent reoffending does not prove that it is ineffective in reducing first time offenders. Given the ultimate goal of punishment should be to provide disincentive that blocks all from ever offending, then there can even be an argument for increasing the level of punishment in for situations where offenders are not simply assuming they will escape punishment.
The Legal System and punishment should focus on Preventing Crime.
The right-wing article quoted above fails to examine the biggest unanswered questions for the study: what would be the effect of reducing prosecutions have the rate of first-time offenders? Overall, the evidence that, beyond the time people are removed from society, punishing criminals does little to reduce people reoffending.
This page is a discussion on free will. Whether the choice a person makes is their free will, or not, their choice is certainly affected by the options available, and the outcomes of those options. People who would not normally choose to hand over their money to a stranger, will more often make that choice when the stranger has a gun. The consequences of an action clearly affect what choice is made, and this is just as relevant whether people can control their choices or not.
Have you ever watched a film and heard it said: “I had no choice, it was either give it to him or he would shoot me!”. Technically, there is a clear choice being offered:
- Give it to him.
- Get shot.
This is the very definition of choice. But perhaps it is also the very definition of consequences changing the action a person would otherwise choose. Adding consequences changes the choice that will be made.
So, while it could be argued that, if free will is not the sole mechanism determining choices, then it is unfair to punish them, it can also be argued that it then becomes the responsibility of society to ensure the options will result in people not choosing crime. Removing punishment, tips the balance towards that choice even if involuntary, being to choose the crime.
So while the punishment may achieve little once the crime has taken place, the punishment needs to be in place from the outset to discourage the crime from occurring.
Negative Influences have a real impact on choice, resulting in injustice and racism.
Several years ago, I looked at the impact of exposure to lead on crime rates. Take two identical twins, separated when young children, with one raised in a high lead environment and the other in a low lead environment, the twin in a high lead environment will be more likely to commit violent crime.
I have also examined this issue in more depth in the page “the innocent child assumption“.
The question discussed is, given the increased predilection for violent crime can be a result of environment, does the individual, in the case above the twin from high lead environment, deserve punishment?
Or should we accept the ‘promise’ of punishment must be fulfilled, but we as a society should also consider whether we have failed in our role.
In an even more significant injustice, both aboriginal people in Australia and African Americans in the USA, are far more likely to spend time in jail than Caucasians. Why? Mostly because they commit more crime. Which leads to the core question: why do they more often chose crime? Just in case it is necessary to point this out, although these two groups share dark skin, they are not closely genetically related, with Australian aborigines more closely related to Caucasians than to African Americans. While economic circumstance is definitely one factor and poverty created by social circumstance does correlate with crime, data from the US shows even when economic circumstances are equal, crime rates are still higher among African Americans. Could it be that crime rates are higher against those who suffer discrimination, and a higher percentage of African Americans encounter discrimination, even when economic circumstances are equal?
The higher incarceration rates reinforce stereotypes and lead to more discrimination and racism. However, lesser penalties are not the answer as that could not only lead to more racism, but if penalties do currently discourage crime, then lesser penalties could increase the problem.
The only solution would be is tackle the source of the problem, the factors in society that produce the circumstances which increase the rate at which crime is the selected option and not a choice due to an illusion of ‘free will’.
Facing the dangers of the illusion.
I would like to believe there is free will, but I can find no basis beyond hope for any belief free will is any more than an illusion.
Does it really change anything to understand our decisions are not driven by freewill?
The answer is “yes”, but not in the way most people very often first assume.
Whether or not our choices are the result of freewill, these choices still result from us weighing up the consequences of our actions and choosing the action which we believe delivers the best outcome.
All that an illusion of freewill suggests, is that we are free to choose an action other than the one we feel has the best outcome. How exactly would that work?
The common mistakes are false assuming that since choices do not represent freewill, then there can be the assumption this means peoples actions are inevitable, and that lack of freewill would mean people should be free from consequences and punishments that result from their choices.
While assuming a lack of freewill should result in a chance of crime prevention strategies, any assumption this removes the need for negative consequences and punishments is simply invalid.
Lack of freewill does not make our actions more inevitable than before.
There is no proposal to change from a world where there is freewill to world with no freewill, but instead a realisation that we have been living in world where there is no freewill, yet it appears indistinguishable from a world where there is freewill.
The same factors that influenced your decisions before still influence your decisions even when you factor in that how you weigh the options is determined by the events of your life and the environment.
Nothing is about the change other than one thought in our mind that there is no freewill. While that though could change how we feel about the actions we take, the consequences of our actions will remain just as they have been throughout our lives up until this point.
It is not that nothing will change how a person will act, but rather that it is environment and prior experiences that will determine how a person will act.
The danger in ending the illusion: the myth of absolution.
To remove punishments for crimes would be to change the environment in a way that would result in more people seeing the optimum outcome that the must choose as being that of committing the crime.
Understanding there is no freewill is not a reason to end punishments that for most people do work as a deterrent.
Dangers of faith in Freewill.
Too much faith in free will is also dangerous, leaving people vulnerable to being manipulated while being confident they are making our own choices. Faith in freewill can leave people suffering from negative influences simply punished by in the law in the blind faith the problems for these people are of their own choices, instead of society trying to address that which is affecting their choices.
The dangers that can be avoided.
The danger of the illusion of freewill is the assumption that groups who keep breaking laws are doing so because they just happen to have the will to break those laws, and the punishments will change that problematic will.
While punishments will normally need to remain in place to keep acting as a deterrent for those currently not breaking the law, that attitude should not be to assume that those who break the law deserve the punishment, but rather are being place in the situation where circumstances are making people break the law, and this will continue something has to change for those who still break the law.
What we need to fix is, as outlined in the video by Neil deGrasse Tyson the concept of a false meritocracy that rewards those placed into the best environments and punishes those just because the experienced worse environments.
I am reminded of an occasion with a group of parents of very young children where another parent remarked on how well behaved my child was compared to their child, and it was very clear that the reality was both children were doing exactly what they wanted to do rather than “behaving” and that it just so happened that what my child wanted to do was more convenient for the adults.
Updates.
- 2024 March 16 : Added explanation by Neil deGrasse Tyson video and updated facing dangers.
- 2022 March 8: corrections.