the village idiot

Fundamentally you can't, but if the brain is seeded with the appropriate information and it processes/stores it in a certain way (dictated by the brain's physiology and chemistry which is constantly morphing) it may 'open your mind'. If these inputs don't happen in this way you will have a different outcome. A human brain that has never been exposed to the initial input (in whatever form) that free will doesn't exist can never come to the conclusion that it doesn't.

The main problem with getting your head around the issue of free will is that to do the topic justice you have to discount the evidence presented by your own subjective experience (a necessary control for almost all scientific endeavor). The complication is that it is subjective experience itself that is the article of examination. You end up in a spiralling loop of brain bending confusion. It's no wonder it makes our brains hurt. Most people are convinced that free will is a real phenomenon because it feels to them obvious that they have it. You have to try and bend your brain around the obstacle of subjective experience to carry on down the road of discovery!

If I may, I would like to revise my statement above. I think it is probably entirely possible to predict the future in the specific terms of which posts Matelot is going to click the 'like' button on!

Good questions Mesterh! I don't think we are able to predict the future in any meaningful way, however I do believe that it is theoretically possible to do so. The barrier to doing this, as pointed at in an earlier post, is that some computing device would have to be able to be aware of every single causal influence that has affected everything in the universe since the beginning of time. I dont think we are ever going to have this, even given the fact that our developments in AI are truly terrifying. I believe that everything that we think and do is the effect of an unimaginable number of causal influences, none of which we picked, stretching back to the beginning of time. When Vespasian noted that it doesn't really matter whether our outputs are predetermined or not I think he was probably right. It does have important implications for things like our criminal justice system, and systems of governance, but in terms of living out our day to day lives it pretty much is business as usual. To accept the existence of free will you have to either assume that there is some kind of central collection point for information in the brain that collates all the neural firings and combines them in a sensible way to issue a directive with the additional power to 'change it's mind'. We know there is no such region, and this is not how the brain works. Or you have to assume that there is some kind of non-material force independant of the brain that can veto it's deliberations. This would be, by definition, supernatural. The worry that we would all become psychopaths is an interesting one, but there is no reason to assume that this would be the case. Ultimately we may not have free will but our actions are most definitely influenced by outside forces. This is where aspects like good governance come in. Despite perceptions, the world has become a hugely less violent place over time. This is largely due to the development of governmental structures which influence cultures and by extension our behaviours. The question of whether we have free will is still certainly a hotly debated topic amongst scientists and philosophers. We do not yet have a definitive answer. All we can do is weigh up the available evidence that we become exposed to and make a choice (or not)

Seriously top marks for conceding on free will. It is an exceedingly high hurdle to clear. The problem with the rest of the post is that if you agree there is no such thing as free will then you have to accept that individuals cannot be held accountable for their actions. It is certainly true that the threat of punishment could have an effect on peoples brains and reduce criminal behaviour in the population, but the individual (by definition of no free will) cannot choose for that information to be utilised by the brain in issuing it's directives at any one point in time. It would be wrong to assume that they could have acted any differently even given the threat of punishment.

No I haven't read that. I will look it up. Not sure if your second line is a description of the theme of the book or a question.

That is a very good question. Logically, absolutely but it is extremely difficult to accept in day to day experience. I imagine it becomes much easier the more you erode the sense of Self, my progress along this path is painfully pathetic!

I see where you are coming from Vesp but I think you misunderstand my argument. In the case of criminal justice. It is not a 'two actors at play' scenario. The no free will scenario dictates that there is only one actor. The other element (the self) doesn't exist and by default can not carry out any actions. The person who commits the crime commits the crime. My stance is that they should be blamed but not punished. They were unlucky. If they are perceived to be a further danger then they may need to be locked up to prevent similar happening again, but every effort should be made to 'rehabilitate' the actor. We are not very good at this yet, but as we start to understand the brain much better things will improve. It is interesting how this topic always seems to default to criminal justice, there is so much more to talk about. I do understand this, the desire for vengeance is extremely strong. One relevant fact here is that imprisonment increases the re offending rate of individuals. We should logically be looking at other options.

Yes, it's commonly referred to as a flow state. It is constantly there, just shielded almost all the time by the chattering mind. People who train their brains to identify less with the Self illusion spend more time in flow. You can often spot these people. They are calm, more gently accepting of their situation and happy.

That's similar but a bit different Richard. In fact, almost the opposite. You were almost certainly lost in thought. Your thoughts were taking you away from pure experience. Had you been in 'pure conciousness' mode the journey would have been non-judgementally captivating and a real joy!

Precisely the second option. The brain helpfully or unhelpfully, depending on your perspective then tells you that you did make a free choice. "Well done you" it says. When you talk about the 'environment' this needs to include the brain environment but not the concious brain. This comes in after the event.

Potentially good, certainly a mind blowing concept, but also potentially very bad indeed. We need to proceed with extreme caution. Fat chance! It's interesting to think of our own predicament in terms of this subject. Is it on balance good or bad that humans achieved our level of self awareness? Not as clear cut an answer as it first seems!

Not killing his wife was a potential option when thought about it from a distance. The brain can weigh options like this up if the conditions (brain chemistry, environment) are conducive. The mistake is to assume that in the moment the man could have done anyting other than what his brain directed. He has no control to stop, in much the same way that he can't voluntarily stop his heart from beating. His brain didn't direct him in a way that we deem conducive to human flourishing. With different (non authored) inputs (including his own thoughts) in his life, right up to the moment before the killing the result may well have been different. The key point is that we don't control the inputs to our brains. We don't produce the thing that causes us to act. The immensely strong feeling that there is an 'us' that could have done differently is literally just a feeling. Your post is certainly half right. The environment is one of the biggest factors dictating behaviour, along with our genetics. I don't think it's quite true to say that choices should be brought to account. We do make choices but they are not under our control. The experience that they are is a very, very strong illusion. The consequences of actions need to be dealt with. The killer is evidently dangerous, but I am not at all sure that he should be thought of as evil. Both he and his wife were unlucky.

Perfect Stubby! That is your brain acting without the cumbersome sense of self getting in the way.

I hope that was a PHEW of relief Stubby. That would definitely be the right response. Some people descend into an existential meltdown but there's no need. It's all good!

OK folks, I'll leave you with this thought. It is quite a useful way to wrap your mind around what I perceive to be the reality. Your brain is exactly analogous to a computer. We all experience the world as a concious experience slightly differently because we are all running a slightly different operating system. Lets say mine is Windows version 5326 at this present moment (our brains are fantastically powerful computers) The precise nature of the operating system in any given moment dictates the output of the computer. The operating system is constantly downloading new software, but in any given moment the operating system (your brain) is only able to produce outputs (your thoughts and actions) that the operating system is capable of. Just like a computer, your brain is a slave to it's software. A computer produces images on your screen, giving the illusion that it has mulled things over and presented it's findings. The truth, as we all know, is that the exact images on the screen are all that could have possibly arisen given the state of the software at the time. Our brains, and the thoughts that arise in our minds function in exactly the same way. If your computer gets a virus it changes the output of the operating system, just like Charles Whitman's brain tumour. Our operating system is constantly putting out computations. It controls our breathing, our heart rates, our movements our thoughts, our emotions and everything else. All of these outputs are automatic, emerging from the exact state of the operating system in any given moment and environment. The illusion that we are willing any of these outputs into existence is just that, an illusion. There is no 'us' in the driving seat. The human operating system is so advanced that it is able, automatically, to develop a perceived sense of self. This is a quirk of our operating system which has been naturally selected for as it was very useful for helping us survive in the world. Other animals have some sense of self too, but in general it tends to decrease with brain size. We act in the only way we can based on our operating system at that moment. Before the action takes place the brain effectively fools us into experiencing that we chose to perform the action. (It is interesting to note how the sense of self changes over time as a result of what happens to us). There is no malice involved. The brain is acting blidly, just like a computer. What this means is that at a fundamental level 'you' are not truly responsible for 'your' actions. There is no You! The fact that we perceive ourselves as selves is a wonderful thing, but it does come with some considerable down sides, and actually leads to a large number of the worlds problems. Having an insight into this, and how the brain is functioning can help alleviate a lot of these issues. This is what meditation and mindfulness is all about. More on this later. The meat computer formally known as the village idiot.

Skillfully steered back to topic Mark. Well done that man!

No reason why tree work wouldn't do it. If you are sufficiently focussed on your work so that your subconcious takes the reigns and your actions in retrospect seemed mentally effortless then you have lost yourSelf. The moment you think about what you are doing you are literally Self concious again.

That's very cool. You have experienced the feeling of being free of the illusion of self, and perhaps you can appreciate how hard it is to put that feeling into words in a way that makes any kind of sense. That experience is available to all. It is cunningly hidden right at the surface. You just have to get out of your own way to get there! Unfortunately this is not as easy as it should be.

That's a damn fine effort. Personally I'd put it more like this: The new inputs, along with old inputs are steering us into particular behavioural patterns. We generally act out the excretions of our brains and our brains concoct a narrative which fools us into thinking that it was our brilliant idea in the first place. Each 'blind' behavioural pattern and it's results feeds back into the computer and can affect the subsequent commands. It is worth pointing out that this sense of Self develops for a reason (we don't have it as babies). It is (or certainly was) advantageous to our survival to percieve that we are the authors of our own actions. Evolution has dictated that it is the state we are meant to be in. We now realise we have the option to see through this conditioned illusion if we are at all interested in doing so. It turns out to be a remarkably pleasant place in which to dwell.

The sense of self, and by extension free will are incredibly strong illusions, constantly being reinforced every waking moment. It is almost impossible for us to see through them to how concious experience actually manifests itself by just thinking about it. Thinking tends to reinforce the sense of there being an 'I'. One technique you can use is meditation. There is a common misconception that meditation is a practice for calming the mind. It does generally have this effect, but the primary motivation is to pay very close attention to how thoughts arise in conciousness. After a while - quite a long while usually- you begin to realise that thoughts just arise in conciousness unthought. There is no thinker of these thoughts. The sense of there being an 'I' somewhere inside your head drops away and you are left with just the contents of conciousness. This sensation quickly gets corrupted as the constructed 'Self' muscles itself back in and you are back riding the rollercoaster of your unbidden thoughts (the state we are in 99.9% of the time) It's well worth taking a bit of time to observe your thoughts for a while if you can. As Sam Harris puts it, it is as though you have been kidnapped by the most boring person on earth. You have the same conversations with yourself over and over again. Imagine what it would be like if you vocalised all your thoughts, you would appear to be completely insane. I think we probably are unless we can peek through the illusion of the Self.

I can't take any credit. I am only re-telling the thoughts and discoveries of other people who have written on the subject. None of this stuff is my own work. It is a fascinating subject and has the potential to transform how we relate to one another and to ourselves.

Maybe. It certainly appears to be the way we are headed. Most of us already admit to using our smartphones as our brains if we are honest.

You certainly can help it if you open your mind to let other ideas trickle in to the back room. People often mistake determinism (the absense of free will) with fatalism (nothing can be changed). This is not the case. Our brains and their outputs are constantly changing due to new inputs.

Agreed on Sam Harris. In my view he is one of the most important thinkers to ever rub his brain cells together.