Current state of the debate between free will and determinism in philosophy and neuroscience

[Anirudh Dabas]

Drawing from the rich history of philosophical inquiry and the ever-evolving landscape of neuroscience, the question of free will versus determinism remains a focal point of academic discussion. Building on past dialogues and incorporating the insights of modern scholars like Daniel Wegner^**, what is the prevailing perspective in the field today, and how has the latest research in neuroscience and psychology advanced our comprehension of human agency and decision-making processes? How do recent findings on the neural basis of decision-making and the subconscious factors influencing choices impact the debate on whether individuals possess genuine free will or if their actions are primarily determined by external, biological, or environmental factors?

**

Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02536 

In The Illusion of Conscious Will, Daniel Wegner writes:

The experience of consciously willing an action... serves as a kind of compass, alerting the conscious mind when actions occur that are likely to be the result of one’s own agency. The experience of will is therefore an indicator, one of those gages on the control panel to which we refer as we steer. Like a compass reading, the feeling of doing tells us something about the operation of the ship. But also like a compass reading, this information must be understood as a conscious experience, a candidate for the dreaded “epiphenomenon” label. Just as compass readings do not steer the boat, conscious experiences of will do not cause human actions.

This chapter examines why the conscious experience of will might exist at all. Why, if this experience of will is not the cause of action, would we even go to the trouble of having it? What good is an epiphenomenon? (2002, pp. 317–318)

Wegner (2002, 2004, 2008) maintains that conscious intentions and decisions are never among the causes of corresponding actions and he uses two lines of argumentation to support his thesis. One line is based on Benjamin Libet’s influential neuroscientific work, which I discuss in section 2. The other is based on a mixed bag of findings that I discuss in section 3. Section 1 provides background, and section 4 wraps things up.

---

For those unfamiliar:

https://www.mentalhealthcenter.org/free-will-versus-determinism/#:~:text=In the domain,accountable for them.

Quote

the debate between free will and determinism has been at the forefront for centuries. Free will pertains to the belief in autonomy, that we, as individuals, have the power to make our own choices and decisions.

Conversely, determinism postulates that our decisions and behaviors are invariably influenced by previous events or natural laws. The core of this discussion hinges on the question: are our actions, thoughts, and feelings predestined, or are they products of our own free will?

Determinism has its roots in many scientific disciplines, such as physics, biology, and psychology, where it is often linked to causality—the idea that everything has a cause or reason. The deterministic view supports that human behavior is predictable and governed by internal or external factors, making us somewhat akin to sophisticated machines.

Free will, however, suggests that humans have the ability to make genuine choices that are not dictated by natural laws or environmental influences. It champions the notion of responsibility, implying that we have control over our actions and, therefore, can be held accountable for them.

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Anirudh Dabas
Revising to provide assistance to individuals who lack familiarity with this subject.

[iNow]

It all comes down to how one defines free will, and how we define the self / the being whose will is being described

[martillo]

I stay with the quote of Steve Hawking: "I have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined and that we can change nothing about it still look in both ways before they cross the road."

But we don't have total free will, our decisions are always conditioned by some things, environmental or personal ones, physical or psychological. We should talk about a conditioned free will. So it is something in the middle between total free will and determinism.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by martillo

[martillo]

6 hours ago, martillo said:

I stay with the quote of Steve Hawking...

Stephen Hawking. I always get confused with his name.

 

[Eise]

On 10/14/2023 at 9:52 AM, Anirudh Dabas said:

the debate between free will and determinism has been at the forefront for centuries.

According to compatibilists, there is no debate between determinism and free will. More the opposite: without determinism, free will could impossibly exist. 

On 10/14/2023 at 9:52 AM, Anirudh Dabas said:

Conversely, determinism postulates that our decisions and behaviors are invariably influenced by previous events or natural laws.

Of course they are! But does that mean we have no free will?

12 hours ago, iNow said:

It all comes down to how one defines free will, and how we define the self / the being whose will is being described

Right. There is no self, no action, no behaviour, no decision on the level of atoms, molecules or neurons. 'Free will' however can only be defined on the level where relevant phenomena exist: of persons, their wishes and (true) beliefs. The simplest definition: being able to act according your wishes and beliefs. Now how is this definition not compatible with determinism? Can you, @Anirudh Dabas, explain this?

On 10/14/2023 at 9:52 AM, Anirudh Dabas said:

Why, if this experience of will is not the cause of action, would we even go to the trouble of having it? What good is an epiphenomenon?

Yep, no good at all. So if evolution was able to select for conscious and acting organisms, there must be causal impact of consciousness. Philosophical zombies do not exist.

On 10/14/2023 at 9:52 AM, Anirudh Dabas said:

How do recent findings on the neural basis of decision-making and the subconscious factors influencing choices impact the debate on whether individuals possess genuine free will or if their actions are primarily determined by external, biological, or environmental factors?

These findings are not relevant if you are a determinist (for all practical purposes, we forget for the moment about quantum physics), then neurology does nothing else than discovering what the mechanisms 'behind the determinism' in our bodies is. Determinism is more or less the default assumption of doing science. 

PS Do not use 'predetermined', or 'predestined' when you mean determinism. These have only meaning in a theological context. A 'predetermined' event will happen, independent of any other events or our actions. Fatalism does not logically follow from determinism; it does however from predeterminism.

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, Eise said:

There is no self, no action, no behaviour, no decision on the level of atoms, molecules or neurons.

Unless, of course, that’s how we frame the discussion to be useful in specific contexts. 

18 minutes ago, Eise said:

'Free will' however can only be defined on the level where relevant phenomena exist: of persons, their wishes and (true) beliefs.

You may disagree or legitimately dismiss them as specious, but it can, in fact, be defined in other ways. 

[Eise]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

You may disagree or legitimately dismiss them as specious, but it can, in fact, be defined in other ways. 

Sure, but I think we should define our concepts as close to our experience as possible. The even more simplified definition would be 'to be able to do what you want'. Why should we choose some ideology loaden definition if we in daily life more often than not know if we were coerced to do an action, or do it because of our own motivations? Why should we take definitions like

• could have done otherwise
• uncaused by any previous condition

be better? Especially because they make philosophically no sense. Do you have a better suggestion for a definition of free will?

[iNow]

I find them all to be pretty arbitrary

What matters most IMO is:

55 minutes ago, iNow said:

how we frame the discussion to be useful in specific contexts. 

 

[Eise]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Unless, of course, that’s how we frame the discussion to be useful in specific contexts. 

So which definitions would fit to which contexts? Can you give a few examples?

Edited October 15, 2023 by Eise

[martillo]

I apologize. This posting was for another thread.

Edited October 15, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, Eise said:

Can you give a few examples?

In neurobiology, it’s sometimes useful to look at where brain activity occurred BEFORE any awareness of it arose. 

In criminal law, it’s not that useful to look at the neural level since we’re reviewing the impact of one’s actions on others in society. 

In terms of healthcare, there are the issues of will to heal and placebo effects. 

There are others, and as I said, context matters. I’m not as convinced as you that there is only one valid way of considering this issue, but I do respect your stance and the force with which you so ably defend it.  

31 minutes ago, martillo said:

Is consciousness directly related to

When did the topic under discussion here change from free will instead to consciousness?

[martillo]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

When did the topic under discussion here change from free will instead to consciousness?

I apologize. That posting was for another thread. I have deleted it.

[Eise]

14 hours ago, Eise said:

So which definitions would fit to which contexts? Can you give a few examples?

Hi @iNow: you did not give examples of definitions, only contexts. Could you give the definitions of free will fitting to the contexts you mentioned?

[iNow]

That’s not how intend to allocate my own freewill right now. If you interpret that as me conceding, I have no quarrel with that. My core point is that context matters and there’s more than one viable path available to pursue on this. 

[TheVat]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s not how intend to allocate my own freewill right now. If you interpret that as me conceding, I have no quarrel with that. My core point is that context matters and there’s more than one viable path available to pursue on this. 

The one you select was determined 13.7 GYA.  

Thank goodness for Dewitt's Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory!  

Kind of exciting to imagine there's a universe where you chose to have "I" be the fourth word of your first sentence.  I have goosebumps.

[iNow]

I'm in a rush, so I'm not being as precise as I'd like here, but... The view which resonates most with me involves the unconscious firing of neural systems. The decisions and triggers of our behaviors get made outside of our awareness of them, the decision happens BEFORE entering the parts of our minds considered "self." I am separating "me" from my body, which is obviously problematic. 

Eise rightly comments that when my entire being is considered as a whole, it was this whole which made the decision to act in a free way therefore our will is itself also free... despite the decision occurring prior to any awareness or prefrontal involvement (I'm paraphrasing, so apologies for any misrepresentations... they're not intentional nor intended to strawman).

I follow this by reminding that the nature of these neural patterns involve multiple other organisms living within us, with a primary focus on the gut microbiota. There are a multitude of factors involved that cannot reasonably considered to be part of "me" or my "self."  Far beyond microbiota in our guts are similar situational inputs like hunger,  dehydration, sleep, environment, noise, and various stimuli which very much influence the way we respond and act every moment of every day, and generally all of these lay outside of our control.

This leads me to conclude that calling this process in any way a "free" one is a mistake, and the concept of "freedom" that I hold in no legitimate way applies here IMO. We are not free, but instead are subject to these chemical interactions and aggregate patterns. I feel this deeply myself as a diabetic who is often hypoglycemic and become a totally different person akin to Jeckyl and Hyde.

Eise then replies that despite these observations it is still the whole "self" acting in accordance with these patterns and therefore that whole self is acting in a free way.

At the end of the day, he is better equipped to defend his stance and is a far better philosopher than myself. I just arrive at a different conclusion from him.

I can't bring myself to call it free when so many external stimuli (biome, environment, availability of food and water, absence of stressors and illness or viruses, blood glucose levels, vitamin and minerals access, etc.) very much dictate what is happening from moment to moment with our decisions, choices, and behaviors... as all of those things restrict our freedom and cause us to act in ways outside of our "will."

My definition of self and freedom and will are what seem to differ from his, but I very much respect his stance despite our different conclusions. 

[martillo]

On 10/15/2023 at 11:04 AM, Eise said:

Sure, but I think we should define our concepts as close to our experience as possible. The even more simplified definition would be 'to be able to do what you want'. Why should we choose some ideology loaden definition if we in daily life more often than not know if we were coerced to do an action, or do it because of our own motivations? Why should we take definitions like

• could have done otherwise
• uncaused by any previous condition

be better? Especially because they make philosophically no sense. Do you have a better suggestion for a definition of free will?

I stay with that last definition of "free will" as "to be able to make decisions independent of any previous condition". That in total opposition to "determinism" as "everything caused by previous conditions". I don't see how they could become "compatible". For me they are both not true, not real. As I said, actually what exist is something in the middle. I think it can be called "conditioned will". I think this agree someway with @iNow point of view.

On 10/15/2023 at 10:02 AM, Eise said:

Determinism is more or less the default assumption of doing science. 

Science is always based on cause-effect relations but this does not imply beings cannot take their own decisions "uncaused by any previous condition" sometimes. I think even animals can take such kind of decisions following an own "conditioned will". For instance a dog or a cat can freely decide to play with a ball and how to play it.

Seems it could be related to a degree of freedom in the universe...

Edited October 16, 2023 by martillo

[studiot]

On 10/15/2023 at 2:07 AM, martillo said:

stay with the quote of Steve Hawking: "I have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined and that we can change nothing about it still look in both ways before they cross the road."

+1

 

 

I don't have a problem with free will.

How about free will is the ability to override the unconscious reflexes @iNow refers to ?

For instance the deliberate choice to grab hot end of a red hot poker ?

 

I would also like to refer @Anirudh Dabas  to the discussion in Jordan Ellenberg's book, pages 84 to 89, about the mathematics of Artificial intelligence, where Jordan discusses this question

Jordan Ellenberg

Shape : the Hidden Geometry of abssolutely everything.

Edited October 16, 2023 by studiot

[martillo]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

+1

Thanks!

 

On 10/14/2023 at 9:03 PM, iNow said:

It all comes down to how one defines free will, and how we define the self / the being whose will is being described

I just want to comment that we are not so free in making alternative definitions. I have made a google search for the definition of "free will" before I posted about and it can be found in dictionaries like Cambridge, Oxford, etc. The definitions I found can be well expressed as I did in my previous post:

5 hours ago, martillo said:

"free will" as "to be able to make decisions independent of any previous condition".

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by martillo

[studiot]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

I just want to comment that we are not so free in making alternative definitions. I have made a google search for the definition of "free will" before I posted about and it can be found in dictionaries like Cambridge, Oxford, etc. The definitions I found can be well expressed as I did in my previous post:

 

Isn't that just a bit glib ?

Most decisions are conditioned by what went before.

Most decisions are also conditioned by a balance of forcing conditions at the time.

Yes we are often free to decide to do something different, but how often does this actually happen ?

[martillo]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

Isn't that just a bit glib ?

Most decisions are conditioned by what went before.

Most decisions are also conditioned by a balance of forcing conditions at the time.

Yes we are often free to decide to do something different, but how often does this actually happen ?

Right, just some degree of freedom exist in making choices and not always is possible. We can only make choices in the degrees of freedom the conditions leave to us. That's why I talk about a "conditioned will".

We must first agree in some definitions, if not, how to discuss anything? The dictionaries' definitions are fine for me in this case. The problem is in how much degree of freedom we can have in reality to make choices.

Thinking about it, comes a good definition of "conditioned will" to me: "the ability to make decisions in the degree of freedom the conditions allow".

There would be no "free will" nor "determinism", just a "conditioned will".

Edited October 16, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

How about free will is the ability to override the unconscious reflexes @iNow refers to ?

For instance the deliberate choice to grab hot end of a red hot poker ?

What makes you think this choice wasn’t made before you even became aware of it?

The data suggests it is and that our minds just apply a post-dictive narrative to explain it in such a way that we think we were in control.

Also, at some point you will lack the will to continue holding the poker. Your body will let go of it for you. That doesn’t sound free to me.

9 hours ago, martillo said:

"to be able to make decisions independent of any previous condition”

This is literally impossible. 

[martillo]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is literally impossible. 

As impossible as the meant "free will" is. Just a "conditioned will" as defined above is possible. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by martillo

[studiot]

On 10/17/2023 at 1:47 AM, iNow said:

What makes you think this choice wasn’t made before you even became aware of it?

The data suggests it is and that our minds just apply a post-dictive narrative to explain it in such a way that we think we were in control.

Also, at some point you will lack the will to continue holding the poker. Your body will let go of it for you. That doesn’t sound free to me.

Have you heard of Fire Walkers ?

In the days when we had steelworks in the UK, there were recorded cases of hands deliverately plunged into molten metal and surviving ( I believe it was a lower temp steam protection).

 

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Have you heard of Fire Walkers ?

In the days when we had steelworks in the UK, there were recorded cases of hands deliverately plunged into molten metal and surviving ( I believe it was a lower temp steam protection).

 

 

It’s called the Liedenfrost effect