The most convincing argument for there being no free will I’ve read is that our thoughts and actions are the result of a long chain of prior causes, including our genes, upbringing, and current circumstances. We don't have ultimate control over these factors that shape our decisions. While we feel like we're making free choices, if we could replay a situation with identical conditions, we would make the same decision every time. Though it’s difficult to parse our lived experience from the notion of no free will. I enjoyed your exploration on this difficult topic.
Thank you for reading and adding to the conversation. You've captured much of my line of thought here. It's an incredibly challenging and controversial topic, but also incredibly interesting.
This was one of the most beautifully written pieces I have read here Rose.
Also, the timing was crazy for me as I'd just written a note expressing the same opinion.
I think something else to add as a positive spin to not having free will is that we needn't stress as much or panic as much about what we've done nor what we will do in the future. It is almost somewhat therapeutic in ways.
Wow, I really appreciate the kind words. That means so much to me.
This topic definitely seems to be in the air right now. I find it endlessly fascinating and, like you say, strangely reassuring. Thank you so much for reading and sharing.
The messiness of being human! What a wonderful exploration, Rose. Thank you.
That dance between scientific understanding, big philosophical questions and the day to day of living, is a thing of wonder. You've pulled all of these ideas together so beautifully. No easy task!
Hi Rose, I love how you point out that our illusions — of agency, free will and control — aren’t in fact an issue, that in fact they’re beneficial to us. I’d say that perhaps in some way you could even call them true. They may be both true and illusionary at the same time, depending on your perspective ✨
Thank you for reading, Philippine. I'm glad that idea resonated with you because I think it's an important takeaway from a more biological, brain-based perspective into our mental life.
This article brilliantly captures the essence of one of humanity’s most enduring pursuits: the quest for control. With eloquent precision, the author distills centuries of human endeavor into a single word that resonates deeply with our collective experience. The piece delves into the intricate dance between our relentless drive to shape the world according to our desires and our inherent discomfort with the unpredictable and the unknown. The writing is both insightful and thought-provoking, offering a profound reflection on how our need for control has driven much of human progress, while also highlighting the underlying anxiety that fuels this desire. It’s a compelling reminder of the paradox at the heart of the human condition—our creative genius intertwined with our perpetual struggle against the forces we cannot fully master. This article is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the deeper motivations behind the human journey.
Indeed, yes! I've wondered if the brain's emergent mind might be the one non-deterministic thing nature has produced. There's that quip about the brain being the one thing that named itself. It seems the only thing that seeks to *understand* reality. Some basic math suggests we're the only intelligence in the galaxy (if not for many around). Copernican principle aside, perhaps we are, in a sense, the center of the universe. They seem special compared to all non-thinking matter.
That our minds can have "mixed feelings" or a "love/hate" view suggests to me something akin to an orchestra of instruments -- our various actors and ideas vying for the spotlight (ala GWT). Mind is perhaps the highest emergent level of anything in nature. It seems "free" enough to spark mind/body dualism notions (not to mention "souls"). Could our sense of free will come from a truth about how our minds navigate competing paths?
Just a speculation, and one that might be a bit sus from lumping together two things we don't understand, free will and consciousness. Might as well go for the hat trick: it's because quantum!
As an aside, our unconscious self is often put forth as an example contra free will. But aren't our minds, conscious and unconscious, still us with all the complexity that implies? Isn't our unconscious mind just as intelligent and scheming as our conscious mind? Our will might not be free from our hidden self, but it's still *our* will.
Very interesting ideas here. You raise some interesting questions about both what it means to be a conscious, willing agent and about the integrity of the complex self. Thank you for reading and responding. I will be thinking about this.
This is so insightful. Your exploration of human agency and the illusion of control is challenging and enlightening. The references to Robert Sapolsky’s work and the philosophical implications of a determined world are fascinating. Your balanced perspective on maintaining a sense of agency while acknowledging its limitations is compelling.
Excellent writing on a subtle topic. I'm curious what you imagine is entailed by something like this: "At the same time, we must acknowledge and honor the irrepressible feeling that we are in charge, that our decisions are ours, that control remains with us."
How do we balance realizing the nonexistence of free will thoroughly enough to rework institutions and encourage commiseration in unusual contexts without also undermining that pervasive sense of authorship? I can imagine benefits to throwing that overboard, too (e.g., more humbleness in the world), but as you suggest, it does appear somewhat unshakable, and there could be downsides. So, maybe the truth can merely temper (rather than eradicate) our default psychological fantasy of wielding causal powers, but your recommendations do seem to verge upon both having and eating the cake.
Thank you for reading and for the kind words. It's a really challenging line to walk and perhaps you've caught me trying to strike an impossible balance. But I'm not sure of any other way to approach the question. The subject is so delicate and controversial that to deny it outright without taking into account our vivid and familiar feeling of agency is just too extreme. I think, as you say, tempering rather than eradicating might be our best way forward -- especially since these ideas are still very speculative.
This excerpt jumped out at me because I have always considered myself a generally positive and optimistic person. And I don't believe in free will (in the sense that everything we do depends on everything we've done before and so it is all predictable - not by us of course - but it was all going to happen just has it has happened). Anwyay, back to your excerpt:
"Perhaps, as both authors speculate via their very different paths, the human mind is fundamentally bent toward goodness, cooperation, and kindness but gets warped by unfortunate genetic combinations and an inhospitable environment. Must we continue to label this process “free will”? Should we continue to grind everyone down in the same joyless meritocracy, knowing that it’s based on an illusion of control?"
What a beautiful way to think about people, goodness, free will and luck. I have been very lucky. It is easy to be optimistic and positive when you are lucky. And easier to be empathetic about other's lack of luck if you don't ascribe it to a moral failure of some kind.
A potential solution regarding freewill came to me as a college kid in the 1990s. So sensible have I found it to be that I figured it must be the dominant perspective in academia. But it turns out that over the past decade of intense blogging, I’ve found that others seem quite unaware of this theorized solution. I’m not exactly sure why. Does my perspective here not make sense, or rather have I been more sensible than even respected professionals?
First consider something that’s true by definition, or “a priori”. If our world functions exclusively by means of systemic causality, then every element of it must perpetually happen exactly as it does. Thus from a causal perspective no one can be good or evil in the end since no one has agency in the end. This, however, is merely an ontological or “God’s eye” perspective. Since our perspectives are actually anything but perfect, agency should still exist for us epistemically, and specifically as a function of our often massive ignorance about how things are. So as naturalists it does still make sense for us to judge ourselves and others, and this is because freedom should exist for us in this sense. But we should also realize that as perfect naturalists, the more we understand about a given situation, the less freedom (and thus “good/evil”) we should see.
I find this idea so sensible that I’m not sure why I’ve never hear it from anyone else. Have any professionals ever said the same essential thing? Could I actually be more sensible here than any professionals on the matter? Or if this perspective itself isn’t useful, can anyone present an effective counter argument?
This article brilliantly captures the essence of one of humanity’s most enduring pursuits: the quest for control. With eloquent precision, the author distills centuries of human endeavor into a single word that resonates deeply with our collective experience. The piece delves into the intricate dance between our relentless drive to shape the world according to our desires and our inherent discomfort with the unpredictable and the unknown. The writing is both insightful and thought-provoking, offering a profound reflection on how our need for control has driven much of human progress, while also highlighting the underlying anxiety that fuels this desire. It’s a compelling reminder of the paradox at the heart of the human condition—our creative genius intertwined with our perpetual struggle against the forces we cannot fully master. This article is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the deeper motivations behind the human journey.
I just watched an excellent documentary called Echo in the Canyon. Jakob Dylan interviewed musicians that collided in Laurel Canyon in LA from the 1965-67 ish era. A group of individuals that independently followed their bliss and unintentionally created a new collective of music.
Free will is just the bravery to follow illogical ways of being based completely on being in the act of creation,
All these books at the moment have an agenda to squeeze the creative life spark out of everyone. They mean nothing, full of hot air. How convenient as a prelude to AI and wearables/injectibles. There is such a thing as getting swept up in an ideology. The collective consciousness, as Jung states, will tell you who you are if you don’t personally seek it out.
Trust your enthusiasm. It is never wrong.
The path towards self healing is seeking out your Laurel Canyon.
Thank you for taking the time to read and share your thoughts. Your example of these musicians acting according to their free will is very fascinating, very vivid.
It's interesting, though, because I don't find that these ideas squeeze out my creative life spark. In fact, I find them liberating and empowering. I think they have the potential to make the world a kinder, more generous place by unburdening us from the idea that our will/grit can trump everything. We can instead learn more about how our brains respond to the world and then work with our brains, rather than against them. And there might just be a great deal of enthusiasm along that path -- at least there is for me.
Free will is a given. It just does not always express itself through conscious decisions. There is little need to change our way of holding people accountable. The body that held the knife ends up in prison, along with the mind that that body produces, with its conscious and unconscious parts.
The error is in thinking that free will equates with conscious decisions - that has been disproved but that changed little philosophically
Thank you for reading and taking the time to respond. Your distinction between free and conscious will is interesting to me. I think much of this entire line of thinking depends on our definitions of what constitutes "free." To me, the unconsciously determined will deserves some more attention. Again, thank you for joining the conversation.
At any moment of choice a person makes many decisions, some big, mostly small, some are conscious choices, many (or most) are unconscious but they are choices nevertheless. Since they are voluntary, they are free.
The idea that your choice for fried eggs instead of boiled eggs for breakfast this morning was determined since the Big Bang is ludicrous
It's funny Johnnie, I used to think the same as you not too long ago. The more I look into, however, I realise I was relying on how it feels rather than reducing everything to its smallest parts. The 'conscious' mind is about 5% of our mental processing, but it is STILL bound by the fact that our minds are made of neurons and we have no say over what a neuron does. If we have no say over a neuron, then how do we have say over billions of them? This is why it is such a big Philosophical question. Consider an alternative - that our minds are unbelievably sophisticated illusionists. That our experience of consciousness is an adaptive hallucination to improve our chances of survival in the world. The sheer scale of our mind, means it is able to conjure up a lie that enables us to thrive. If you dive deeper Johnnie, you will find that what seems to be obvious to us (that we have free will) isn't so black and white at all
I reached my conclusion by reaching deeper, Jem. I do not need to control billions of neurons to be free, those billions of neurons are who “I” am. There is no other I. What I consciously experience is largely after the event.
The most convincing argument for there being no free will I’ve read is that our thoughts and actions are the result of a long chain of prior causes, including our genes, upbringing, and current circumstances. We don't have ultimate control over these factors that shape our decisions. While we feel like we're making free choices, if we could replay a situation with identical conditions, we would make the same decision every time. Though it’s difficult to parse our lived experience from the notion of no free will. I enjoyed your exploration on this difficult topic.
Thank you for reading and adding to the conversation. You've captured much of my line of thought here. It's an incredibly challenging and controversial topic, but also incredibly interesting.
This was one of the most beautifully written pieces I have read here Rose.
Also, the timing was crazy for me as I'd just written a note expressing the same opinion.
I think something else to add as a positive spin to not having free will is that we needn't stress as much or panic as much about what we've done nor what we will do in the future. It is almost somewhat therapeutic in ways.
Wow, I really appreciate the kind words. That means so much to me.
This topic definitely seems to be in the air right now. I find it endlessly fascinating and, like you say, strangely reassuring. Thank you so much for reading and sharing.
The messiness of being human! What a wonderful exploration, Rose. Thank you.
That dance between scientific understanding, big philosophical questions and the day to day of living, is a thing of wonder. You've pulled all of these ideas together so beautifully. No easy task!
Thank you for the kind words. I’m so glad the piece resonated 🤍
Hi Rose, I love how you point out that our illusions — of agency, free will and control — aren’t in fact an issue, that in fact they’re beneficial to us. I’d say that perhaps in some way you could even call them true. They may be both true and illusionary at the same time, depending on your perspective ✨
Thank you for reading, Philippine. I'm glad that idea resonated with you because I think it's an important takeaway from a more biological, brain-based perspective into our mental life.
This article brilliantly captures the essence of one of humanity’s most enduring pursuits: the quest for control. With eloquent precision, the author distills centuries of human endeavor into a single word that resonates deeply with our collective experience. The piece delves into the intricate dance between our relentless drive to shape the world according to our desires and our inherent discomfort with the unpredictable and the unknown. The writing is both insightful and thought-provoking, offering a profound reflection on how our need for control has driven much of human progress, while also highlighting the underlying anxiety that fuels this desire. It’s a compelling reminder of the paradox at the heart of the human condition—our creative genius intertwined with our perpetual struggle against the forces we cannot fully master. This article is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the deeper motivations behind the human journey.
Indeed, yes! I've wondered if the brain's emergent mind might be the one non-deterministic thing nature has produced. There's that quip about the brain being the one thing that named itself. It seems the only thing that seeks to *understand* reality. Some basic math suggests we're the only intelligence in the galaxy (if not for many around). Copernican principle aside, perhaps we are, in a sense, the center of the universe. They seem special compared to all non-thinking matter.
That our minds can have "mixed feelings" or a "love/hate" view suggests to me something akin to an orchestra of instruments -- our various actors and ideas vying for the spotlight (ala GWT). Mind is perhaps the highest emergent level of anything in nature. It seems "free" enough to spark mind/body dualism notions (not to mention "souls"). Could our sense of free will come from a truth about how our minds navigate competing paths?
Just a speculation, and one that might be a bit sus from lumping together two things we don't understand, free will and consciousness. Might as well go for the hat trick: it's because quantum!
As an aside, our unconscious self is often put forth as an example contra free will. But aren't our minds, conscious and unconscious, still us with all the complexity that implies? Isn't our unconscious mind just as intelligent and scheming as our conscious mind? Our will might not be free from our hidden self, but it's still *our* will.
Very interesting ideas here. You raise some interesting questions about both what it means to be a conscious, willing agent and about the integrity of the complex self. Thank you for reading and responding. I will be thinking about this.
This is so insightful. Your exploration of human agency and the illusion of control is challenging and enlightening. The references to Robert Sapolsky’s work and the philosophical implications of a determined world are fascinating. Your balanced perspective on maintaining a sense of agency while acknowledging its limitations is compelling.
Thank you for the kind words, Jon. I'm glad you found the piece valuable. I always aim to share a balanced perspective.
Excellent writing on a subtle topic. I'm curious what you imagine is entailed by something like this: "At the same time, we must acknowledge and honor the irrepressible feeling that we are in charge, that our decisions are ours, that control remains with us."
How do we balance realizing the nonexistence of free will thoroughly enough to rework institutions and encourage commiseration in unusual contexts without also undermining that pervasive sense of authorship? I can imagine benefits to throwing that overboard, too (e.g., more humbleness in the world), but as you suggest, it does appear somewhat unshakable, and there could be downsides. So, maybe the truth can merely temper (rather than eradicate) our default psychological fantasy of wielding causal powers, but your recommendations do seem to verge upon both having and eating the cake.
Thank you for reading and for the kind words. It's a really challenging line to walk and perhaps you've caught me trying to strike an impossible balance. But I'm not sure of any other way to approach the question. The subject is so delicate and controversial that to deny it outright without taking into account our vivid and familiar feeling of agency is just too extreme. I think, as you say, tempering rather than eradicating might be our best way forward -- especially since these ideas are still very speculative.
This excerpt jumped out at me because I have always considered myself a generally positive and optimistic person. And I don't believe in free will (in the sense that everything we do depends on everything we've done before and so it is all predictable - not by us of course - but it was all going to happen just has it has happened). Anwyay, back to your excerpt:
"Perhaps, as both authors speculate via their very different paths, the human mind is fundamentally bent toward goodness, cooperation, and kindness but gets warped by unfortunate genetic combinations and an inhospitable environment. Must we continue to label this process “free will”? Should we continue to grind everyone down in the same joyless meritocracy, knowing that it’s based on an illusion of control?"
What a beautiful way to think about people, goodness, free will and luck. I have been very lucky. It is easy to be optimistic and positive when you are lucky. And easier to be empathetic about other's lack of luck if you don't ascribe it to a moral failure of some kind.
A potential solution regarding freewill came to me as a college kid in the 1990s. So sensible have I found it to be that I figured it must be the dominant perspective in academia. But it turns out that over the past decade of intense blogging, I’ve found that others seem quite unaware of this theorized solution. I’m not exactly sure why. Does my perspective here not make sense, or rather have I been more sensible than even respected professionals?
First consider something that’s true by definition, or “a priori”. If our world functions exclusively by means of systemic causality, then every element of it must perpetually happen exactly as it does. Thus from a causal perspective no one can be good or evil in the end since no one has agency in the end. This, however, is merely an ontological or “God’s eye” perspective. Since our perspectives are actually anything but perfect, agency should still exist for us epistemically, and specifically as a function of our often massive ignorance about how things are. So as naturalists it does still make sense for us to judge ourselves and others, and this is because freedom should exist for us in this sense. But we should also realize that as perfect naturalists, the more we understand about a given situation, the less freedom (and thus “good/evil”) we should see.
I find this idea so sensible that I’m not sure why I’ve never hear it from anyone else. Have any professionals ever said the same essential thing? Could I actually be more sensible here than any professionals on the matter? Or if this perspective itself isn’t useful, can anyone present an effective counter argument?
This article brilliantly captures the essence of one of humanity’s most enduring pursuits: the quest for control. With eloquent precision, the author distills centuries of human endeavor into a single word that resonates deeply with our collective experience. The piece delves into the intricate dance between our relentless drive to shape the world according to our desires and our inherent discomfort with the unpredictable and the unknown. The writing is both insightful and thought-provoking, offering a profound reflection on how our need for control has driven much of human progress, while also highlighting the underlying anxiety that fuels this desire. It’s a compelling reminder of the paradox at the heart of the human condition—our creative genius intertwined with our perpetual struggle against the forces we cannot fully master. This article is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the deeper motivations behind the human journey.
I just watched an excellent documentary called Echo in the Canyon. Jakob Dylan interviewed musicians that collided in Laurel Canyon in LA from the 1965-67 ish era. A group of individuals that independently followed their bliss and unintentionally created a new collective of music.
Free will is just the bravery to follow illogical ways of being based completely on being in the act of creation,
All these books at the moment have an agenda to squeeze the creative life spark out of everyone. They mean nothing, full of hot air. How convenient as a prelude to AI and wearables/injectibles. There is such a thing as getting swept up in an ideology. The collective consciousness, as Jung states, will tell you who you are if you don’t personally seek it out.
Trust your enthusiasm. It is never wrong.
The path towards self healing is seeking out your Laurel Canyon.
Thank you for taking the time to read and share your thoughts. Your example of these musicians acting according to their free will is very fascinating, very vivid.
It's interesting, though, because I don't find that these ideas squeeze out my creative life spark. In fact, I find them liberating and empowering. I think they have the potential to make the world a kinder, more generous place by unburdening us from the idea that our will/grit can trump everything. We can instead learn more about how our brains respond to the world and then work with our brains, rather than against them. And there might just be a great deal of enthusiasm along that path -- at least there is for me.
Again, thank you for reading here.
Free will is a given. It just does not always express itself through conscious decisions. There is little need to change our way of holding people accountable. The body that held the knife ends up in prison, along with the mind that that body produces, with its conscious and unconscious parts.
The error is in thinking that free will equates with conscious decisions - that has been disproved but that changed little philosophically
Thank you for reading and taking the time to respond. Your distinction between free and conscious will is interesting to me. I think much of this entire line of thinking depends on our definitions of what constitutes "free." To me, the unconsciously determined will deserves some more attention. Again, thank you for joining the conversation.
Hey Johnnie. Interested to hear why you think free will is a given? As much as I wish this were true
At any moment of choice a person makes many decisions, some big, mostly small, some are conscious choices, many (or most) are unconscious but they are choices nevertheless. Since they are voluntary, they are free.
The idea that your choice for fried eggs instead of boiled eggs for breakfast this morning was determined since the Big Bang is ludicrous
It's funny Johnnie, I used to think the same as you not too long ago. The more I look into, however, I realise I was relying on how it feels rather than reducing everything to its smallest parts. The 'conscious' mind is about 5% of our mental processing, but it is STILL bound by the fact that our minds are made of neurons and we have no say over what a neuron does. If we have no say over a neuron, then how do we have say over billions of them? This is why it is such a big Philosophical question. Consider an alternative - that our minds are unbelievably sophisticated illusionists. That our experience of consciousness is an adaptive hallucination to improve our chances of survival in the world. The sheer scale of our mind, means it is able to conjure up a lie that enables us to thrive. If you dive deeper Johnnie, you will find that what seems to be obvious to us (that we have free will) isn't so black and white at all
I reached my conclusion by reaching deeper, Jem. I do not need to control billions of neurons to be free, those billions of neurons are who “I” am. There is no other I. What I consciously experience is largely after the event.
We Have Always Lived in the Maze.