Free Will and Evolved Behavior

[rousseau]

The usual discussion we have about free-will concludes like this:

• Man is a machine whose output is a result of prior input
• Therefore we do not have free-will

However, I like going further and including that we have a feeling of freedom:

• Man is a free actor in the world, giving him a sense that he is free
• Therefore he is free

But I've been thinking a lot lately about how our brain and nervous system has evolved in a way to dictate most of our behavior. For example, if we're a heterosexual male we are basically unfree from our sexual attraction to women, and are unfree from the desire to have relationship with them. Taking this line of thinking, being a social being, we are also unfree from our desire to have friends and companions.

Another example of a reality we are not free from is the need to survive and avoid pain. This forces us to put our best foot forward throughout our lives, we are in a constant tension of needing to maintain social relationships around us for the benefit of our own survival. Basically meaning that we are a kind of actor, that needs to constantly choose behavior that works in our own benefit.

And so on. The number of evolved traits we carry that we are not free from could take a while to list.

So put in this light you get this logic re: free will:

• I am a deterministic animal moving through time / space
• However I am free in the world and have a sense of freedom
• But lastly, I am still not free from my own instincts and cognitive reality

It's interesting when you put free will in this light, because it raises the question of what is true freedom. In what way could we behave that is not somehow linked to our evolved cognition?

When you take a birds eye view of humanity it's striking how consistent our behavior is in certain fundamental things, like sexual attraction, marriage, and so on. For most, marriage and relationships are completely normalized, but it does a great job of highlighting that our cognitive make-up dictates largely who we are, and how we spend most of our lives.

 

[southernhybrid]

I've mentioned before that I'm extremely skeptical that we have free will or at least total free will. But, I don't believe that we are simply products of genetics. We are also influenced by environmental things. So, let's say that someone has a tendency to want to steal something, but prior to committing the act, the thief makes friends with someone who they really like and that person is highly moral and would never take another person's belongings. That new friend has the potential to be a good influence on the thief, causing the thief to change his behavior. Since people do change, I have to believe that environmental influences are sometimes effective.

I can think of a real life example. My niece by marriage was briefly in a half way house for ( borrowing ) stealing her roommates car when she was in college. She met a boy there and they eventually married. Jamie changed his behavior, got a good job, and the two of them had 3 children together. Jamie had formerly used hard drugs and was a thief. During the great recession, Jamie lost his job and his mother died. Within a short time, he began stealing things from his father in law, and then committed burglary. He eventually ended up with a fairly long prison sentence. Oddly enough, before this happened, Jamie was a very nice, caring person. My point is that losing his job, suffering the loss of his mother who was only about 60, and being broke may very well have had an environmental influence on his behavior and he returned to his former ways.

My comments are a bit incongruent with your post, but I'm just explaining how I think of free will. In a book that I read about free will, I remember the author putting it this way: "We are all products of our genetic and environmental heritage." I think that makes sense, and explains much of the behavior of individuals.
I used to obsess whether it was nature or nurture that creates who we are, but now I realize that it's a combination. OF course, if someone is born with the type of frontal lobe damage that results in psychopathy, I don't t think that nurture is going to change that.

I find that denying free will makes it easier not to judge people harshly. Nurses are taught to never judge their patients and always treat them all equally when it comes to care and advocacy. I did my best to do that when I was working. Accepting that none of us have absolute free will made that easy.

Do you find that denying free will makes it easier to accept other people's short comings?

 

[rousseau]

I've mentioned before that I'm extremely skeptical that we have free will or at least total free will. But, I don't believe that we are simply products of genetics. We are also influenced by environmental things. So, let's say that someone has a tendency to want to steal something, but prior to committing the act, the thief makes friends with someone who they really like and that person is highly moral and would never take another person's belongings. That new friend has the potential to be a good influence on the thief, causing the thief to change his behavior. Since people do change, I have to believe that environmental influences are sometimes effective.

I can think of a real life example. My niece by marriage was briefly in a half way house for ( borrowing ) stealing her roommates car when she was in college. She met a boy there and they eventually married. Jamie changed his behavior, got a good job, and the two of them had 3 children together. Jamie had formerly used hard drugs and was a thief. During the great recession, Jamie lost his job and his mother died. Within a short time, he began stealing things from his father in law, and then committed burglary. He eventually ended up with a fairly long prison sentence. Oddly enough, before this happened, Jamie was a very nice, caring person. My point is that losing his job, suffering the loss of his mother who was only about 60, and being broke may very well have had an environmental influence on his behavior and he returned to his former ways.

My comments are a bit incongruent with your post, but I'm just explaining how I think of free will. In a book that I read about free will, I remember the author putting it this way: "We are all products of our genetic and environmental heritage." I think that makes sense, and explains much of the behavior of individuals.
I used to obsess whether it was nature or nurture that creates who we are, but now I realize that it's a combination. OF course, if someone is born with the type of frontal lobe damage that results in psychopathy, I don't t think that nurture is going to change that.

I find that denying free will makes it easier not to judge people harshly. Nurses are taught to never judge their patients and always treat them all equally when it comes to care and advocacy. I did my best to do that when I was working. Accepting that none of us have absolute free will made that easy.

Do you find that denying free will makes it easier to accept other people's short comings?

I definitely don't mean to imply that our genetics determines all of our behavior, but rather that we can't be free from our genetic disposition. For instance, in your example the thief learns and decides that it's a good idea to be more moral, definitely an environmental influence, however it is an evolved behavior to communicate and consider alternatives, in other words - to learn itself. So the behavioral change is caused by the environment, but the underlying mechanism is genetic. IOW, we can't be free from our ability to learn from the environment, in your example.

Our behavior can change, but there is a kind of scope of genetic predisposition that sets the framework in which we change, instincts and innate abilities, desires and so on that are unchangeable.

 

[DBT]

'Machine' suggests something robotic. Something unable to adapt and learn.

 

[Jayjay]

Our behavior can change, but there is a kind of scope of genetic predisposition that sets the framework in which we change, instincts and innate abilities, desires and so on that are unchangeable.

The problem is that everything we do is due to "innate abilities". There is no thinking without some sort of driver, and hence no free will even in the sense that you prescribe. Your sense of freedom is an illusion that has nothing to do with "being free in the world", which to me sounds a bit circular regardless.

In my opinion, the illusion of free will is simply because we can't know the internals of how our brains make decisions. If we could, then we wouldn't be able to know the internals of how that process works, and we'd need a bit more brains to account for that added functionality. No matter how much brains you add, you'd never completely understand what's going on (unless we hypothesize some sort of mathematical concept of infinite brains, which don't exist in reality). Only an external observer could even theoretically figure out your thought processes and predict them before they happen.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's fine to say a man is a machine whose output is a result of prior input, but what difference does it make?

There is always uncertainty about the outcome of any action we take, even if that outcome is predetermined by events we cannot comprehend. The best we can do is steer toward a desired outcome, which for all practical purposes is freewill.

 

[rousseau]

Our behavior can change, but there is a kind of scope of genetic predisposition that sets the framework in which we change, instincts and innate abilities, desires and so on that are unchangeable.

The problem is that everything we do is due to "innate abilities". There is no thinking without some sort of driver, and hence no free will even in the sense that you prescribe. Your sense of freedom is an illusion that has nothing to do with "being free in the world", which to me sounds a bit circular regardless.

Still I think we can imagine a person who has realized their own limitations and who wishes to live their life without restraints, to be free. It's interesting because this person usually thinks of freedom as the freedom to pursue their own desires, and it goes unquestioned because their desires are what they're programmed to seek, but few ever think about the limitations of their own desire.

No the person still has no basic free will, but I think if you throw environmental influence into the mix and get them to a point where they're aware of who/what they are, the question of freedom still makes sense. In that light - what can I do as a person that can truly be defined as free behavior? Or is 'my behavior is not impeded' the furthest we can go in defining freedom?

It's a question I find fascinating, especially when I think about sexual attraction. Most normally functioning people are intrinsically attracted to another certain kind of person, there is no choosing - almost like a chemical reaction. And when faced with a person we're attracted to social dynamics force us to attempt to be attractive. It just makes no sense to present an inferior version of ourselves. But if we don't desire this dynamic, in what ways could we be free from it?

It's almost as though the only way to truly be free is to do things that make no material sense, that aren't strictly logical, that don't follow a pattern leading us to survival / reproduction.

 

[rousseau]

It's fine to say a man is a machine whose output is a result of prior input, but what difference does it make?

There is always uncertainty about the outcome of any action we take, even if that outcome is predetermined by events we cannot comprehend. The best we can do is steer toward a desired outcome, which for all practical purposes is freewill.

I agree, but don't want to let the topic stray too far into our usual conversations about free will.

 

[Bomb#20]

 

[fromderinside]

things at time t........and what follows is determined......

Who/what clocked time t?

 

[rousseau]

things at time t........and what follows is determined......

Who/what clocked time t?

Something with a memory function that can conceive of a past, present, future self.

If my future is predetermined can I still 'want' to be free at a given point of my life? Can my seeking be a state I'm in while moving across time? I may not have control over the outcome but can I still desire a more limitless life and consciously strive for one?

 

[Treedbear]

...
Still I think we can imagine a person who has realized their own limitations and who wishes to live their life without restraints, to be free. It's interesting because this person usually thinks of freedom as the freedom to pursue their own desires, and it goes unquestioned because their desires are what they're programmed to seek, but few ever think about the limitations of their own desire.

No the person still has no basic free will, but I think if you throw environmental influence into the mix and get them to a point where they're aware of who/what they are, the question of freedom still makes sense. In that light - what can I do as a person that can truly be defined as free behavior? Or is 'my behavior is not impeded' the furthest we can go in defining freedom?
...
But if we don't desire this dynamic, in what ways could we be free from it?
...

I can only imagine what you are describing is the 8 fold path of Buddhism: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and meditation. The goal is the elimination of desires. Specifically the desire to be something other than what you are. In simpler terms it means to know and to be true to what you are. IOW you are free to be what you are. No more and no less. Why should you want anything else? The western definition of freedom (ever since Plato) has been idealized to where it has no useful meaning beyond freedom from coercion. But I think that's not what you're talking about. The kind of free will you want is obtainable even from within a prison cell.

 

[Jayjay]

Our behavior can change, but there is a kind of scope of genetic predisposition that sets the framework in which we change, instincts and innate abilities, desires and so on that are unchangeable.

The problem is that everything we do is due to "innate abilities". There is no thinking without some sort of driver, and hence no free will even in the sense that you prescribe. Your sense of freedom is an illusion that has nothing to do with "being free in the world", which to me sounds a bit circular regardless.

Still I think we can imagine a person who has realized their own limitations and who wishes to live their life without restraints, to be free. It's interesting because this person usually thinks of freedom as the freedom to pursue their own desires, and it goes unquestioned because their desires are what they're programmed to seek, but few ever think about the limitations of their own desire.

No the person still has no basic free will, but I think if you throw environmental influence into the mix and get them to a point where they're aware of who/what they are, the question of freedom still makes sense. In that light - what can I do as a person that can truly be defined as free behavior? Or is 'my behavior is not impeded' the furthest we can go in defining freedom?

It's a question I find fascinating, especially when I think about sexual attraction. Most normally functioning people are intrinsically attracted to another certain kind of person, there is no choosing - almost like a chemical reaction. And when faced with a person we're attracted to social dynamics force us to attempt to be attractive. It just makes no sense to present an inferior version of ourselves. But if we don't desire this dynamic, in what ways could we be free from it?

It's almost as though the only way to truly be free is to do things that make no material sense, that aren't strictly logical, that don't follow a pattern leading us to survival / reproduction.

My point is, that survival or reproduction aren't the only drives. Everything we do is ultimately due to some stimulus and the brain's reward system.

Think about a simple worm, that is put in a crossroads. On the right, there is food, on the left, there is nothing. When it picks the right path, it learns that there is food there and is more likely to pick the right path again when put in the same situation. How does that work? It's simple neurons are reinforced by the stimulus from eating the food and those neural pathways are then stronger. It works the same way with humans, except with much more complexity. Our neural pathways are defined by the myriad stimuli and the chemical rewards we get from them that we've collected over our lifetime. When I am attracted to someone, it's not that there is a sex gland somewhere that tells me to, but rather my brains have been reinforced time and again to prefer pathways that would make me behave and think in ways that can be characterized as sexual attraction. It's based on a memory of a memory of a memory ad absurdum. To get rid of that would mean altering my neural pathways in a way that would make me be basically someone else.

On a more subtle level, I suppose you could alter your brains in a way that no further reinforcements would happen. For example, no sexual pleasure or arousal. Even then you'd initially be favoring the old behaviours and wouldn't just suddenly cease to find someone attractive, it'd just mean that in time, that would fade away as you wouldn't be revisiting those same neural pathways again as often, and other drivers would take priority. But that's an imperfect process and not sure if that's what you were after.

I guess what I'm saying is that thinking about your urges as something external to you is not entirely true, and as such they don't really limit your freedom. You can always choose to ignore them. The key to that is not some science fictional medical procedure that rips your "sex glads" off, but rather, awareness of what your motivations are and why you are doing this instead of that. Ignorance is the true prison.

 

[rousseau]

I guess what I'm saying is that thinking about your urges as something external to you is not entirely true, and as such they don't really limit your freedom. You can always choose to ignore them. The key to that is not some science fictional medical procedure that rips your "sex glads" off, but rather, awareness of what your motivations are and why you are doing this instead of that. Ignorance is the true prison.

Yea I'm pretty much on the same page - not thinking about urges as something external. Actually thinking about them exactly as you describe - something largely intrinsic to our neural wiring. That's why I make the claim that we can't be truly free from them, because much of our immediate response to the environment cannot be chosen.

But I may also be over-complicating the matter, and it may really just come down to being aware of your motivations as you say. We can't control our intrinsic, physiological relationship with the world, but we can shape our own identity with a kind of executive functioning that can choose not to give in to immediate urges.

 

[Bronzeage]

Let's suppose there is a totally omniscient being who understands and is aware of all the minute inputs which create the output of a particular decision. This being is also honest and without guile.

I am faced with some simple choice and the being tells me which I will choose.

Do I have to abide by the being's prediction?

 

[rousseau]

...
Still I think we can imagine a person who has realized their own limitations and who wishes to live their life without restraints, to be free. It's interesting because this person usually thinks of freedom as the freedom to pursue their own desires, and it goes unquestioned because their desires are what they're programmed to seek, but few ever think about the limitations of their own desire.

No the person still has no basic free will, but I think if you throw environmental influence into the mix and get them to a point where they're aware of who/what they are, the question of freedom still makes sense. In that light - what can I do as a person that can truly be defined as free behavior? Or is 'my behavior is not impeded' the furthest we can go in defining freedom?
...
But if we don't desire this dynamic, in what ways could we be free from it?
...

I can only imagine what you are describing is the 8 fold path of Buddhism: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and meditation. The goal is the elimination of desires. Specifically the desire to be something other than what you are. In simpler terms it means to know and to be true to what you are. IOW you are free to be what you are. No more and no less. Why should you want anything else? The western definition of freedom (ever since Plato) has been idealized to where it has no useful meaning beyond freedom from coercion. But I think that's not what you're talking about. The kind of free will you want is obtainable even from within a prison cell.

It's interesting that you brought up Buddhism, because I've been attracted to it's ideas for a number of months. And I can see the link now. At it's most essential something like Zen Buddhism is the awareness of reality beyond the dualism of conceptual thought - that is what we think about the world just cakes on man-made layers that we don't necessarily need to pay attention to.

In a way it also provides a means of transcending desire, or if not transcending - putting desire off to the side and realizing that you can do whatever you want in any given situation, without restriction besides the consequences you'll face from your actions.

 

[Jayjay]

Let's suppose there is a totally omniscient being who understands and is aware of all the minute inputs which create the output of a particular decision. This being is also honest and without guile.

I am faced with some simple choice and the being tells me which I will choose.

Do I have to abide by the being's prediction?

You don't have to, but you will. Because if you didn't, the being would not have been able to tell you what you will choose.

This is like a simplified version of the Monty Hall problem. Game show host gives you two doors, behind one is a goat and behind the other one is a car. You choose one door, and the host opens the other to reveal a goat. Your chances of winning a car are 100%, even though you could have picked either door. How come?

 

[rousseau]

Just a polite reminder that this thread's not about our usual pre-occupation with determinism, it's about our instinctual behavior and it's relationship with freedom.

Would prefer this not turn into the same conversation we end up having every few months, if so I'll likely report and split.

 

[Bronzeage]

Let's suppose there is a totally omniscient being who understands and is aware of all the minute inputs which create the output of a particular decision. This being is also honest and without guile.

I am faced with some simple choice and the being tells me which I will choose.

Do I have to abide by the being's prediction?

You don't have to, but you will. Because if you didn't, the being would not have been able to tell you what you will choose.

This is like a simplified version of the Monty Hall problem. Game show host gives you two doors, behind one is a goat and behind the other one is a car. You choose one door, and the host opens the other to reveal a goat. Your chances of winning a car are 100%, even though you could have picked either door. How come?

I don't see the parallel. Once the choice is made and the goat alternative is revealed, chance is no longer relevant.

In the case of the omniscient being's prediction, I now have a small piece of information which informs my choice. Why would that compel me to act as the being said I would?

 

[rousseau]

Let's suppose there is a totally omniscient being who understands and is aware of all the minute inputs which create the output of a particular decision. This being is also honest and without guile.

I am faced with some simple choice and the being tells me which I will choose.

Do I have to abide by the being's prediction?

You don't have to, but you will. Because if you didn't, the being would not have been able to tell you what you will choose.

This is like a simplified version of the Monty Hall problem. Game show host gives you two doors, behind one is a goat and behind the other one is a car. You choose one door, and the host opens the other to reveal a goat. Your chances of winning a car are 100%, even though you could have picked either door. How come?

I don't see the parallel. Once the choice is made and the goat alternative is revealed, chance is no longer relevant.

In the case of the omniscient being's prediction, I now have a small piece of information which informs my choice. Why would that compel me to act as the being said I would?

The situation is impossible because the omniscient being can't know all of the inputs until they've all occurred. If he makes a prediction before the event occurs additional inputs will have happened which would change his calculation.

Only an outside observer with all of the information could make the prediction.