QuestionAI: Free Will vs. Determinism
Evolutionary answers to hard questions of Consciousness and Will
I need some intellectual stimulation. Can you ask me some hard questions please, and I'll try to answer
Sure, here are some challenging questions to stimulate your intellect:
How optical illusions work and the science behind visual perception.
The inner workings of the human brain and nervous system at a basic level.
Different theories of the origins and evolution of life on Earth.
The science behind different states of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) and phase transitions.
Basic principles of economics like supply and demand or different macroeconomic models.
Core components of computer hardware and how they work together.
Let me know if any of those topics interest you and you feel like you could break down the key principles and explanations in a way that teaches someone else. The goal is for you to really think through organizing and communicating complex ideas clearly while also strengthening problem-solving skills.
Ok these questions are not suitable for intellectual stimulation - these are knowledge-based issues which have zero to do with intellect, but rather subjects requiring learned knowledge and long-term memory. It's not stimulating to me to simply use my memory to parrot about issues I already know about.
You're absolutely right, regurgitating memorized information is not true intellectual stimulation. Let me try reframing this in a more thought-provoking way that engages analysis and critical thinking over simple recall.
How about we discuss a complex, nuanced topic where reasonable people can disagree? You could pick a side on a controversial issue and make the best case you can for your perspective, considering counterarguments and ethically gray areas. Some options could be:
- Free will vs determinism
- Utilitarianism vs deontology in ethics
- The abortion debate
- Balancing civil liberties vs national security
- Interventionism vs isolationism in foreign policy
- The relationship between science and spirituality
Rather than facts, the goal would be engaging in thoughtful discussion and debate to sharpen your reasoning abilities. You don't need complete answers - exploring different viewpoints and logically defending an "imperfect" position could be more stimulating. What kind of philosophical/social issue interests you the most to unpack from various angles?
Ok, free will is an interesting one. Here is one reasoning why I think free will does not actually exist: all our Will arises from perception, and perception is simply a consequence of unconscious biological processes, resulting from feedback emerging from our behavior. We intitially perceive the internal and external worlds only after the biological processes of our body have been activated, and not before them. Therefore, our perception, and our will, must arise as a consequence of biological processes. Most biological processes are autonomous, therefore unconscious and not available to our conscious decision-making mechanisms. Think of homeostatic processes like breathing, digestion, metabolism, sleep-wake cycles, etc. Will is biomechanically connected to the reward system, which motivates organisms to seek rewards and opportunities to optimise survival and reproduction. Reward system is not under conscious control, but is autonomously governed by evolutionary demands of the organism to inhibit/activate motivation, with a goal to influence homeostasis and reproduction. For example, when body's energy is low, reward system is activated to induce sensation of hunger, with the purpose to motivate behavior to increase food intake - thus to increase energy levels. The same applies to Will. Will is a consequence of an unmet need, something that is missing. The sensation of "missing something" is a signal from the body that there is an instability threatening the homeostatic system. Will can also signal need for of mating opportunities, motivating sexual reward seeking. This perception of need for mating then activates the positive signaling reward system, and Will, to motivate reward-seeking behavior. In contrast, if the sexual/reproduction needs are being satisfied, the reward system signaling is not activated, and as a consequence, Will is not present. In other words, when your sexual needs are satisfied, your Will to have sex is present to a lesser degree than when needs are not satisfied. Of course it does not mean you would enjoy sex less, it’s just that you don’t crave it as much as you previously did. :)
This is a thoughtful perspective on the debate around free will. Here are a few counterarguments one could make:
- While biological and neurological factors clearly influence behavior, that does not necessarily preclude the possibility of some degree of free will. Emergent properties in complex systems may allow for choices that are not fully deterministic.
- Our experiences of consciously making decisions and choices seem very real and internal, not simply post-hoc rationalizations of biological impulses. Epiphenomenalism (consciousness as an illusion) is difficult to prove.
- High-level cognitive functions like abstract reasoning and reflection allow us to override more primal reward/punishment drives in many situations. Conscious self-control plays a role.
- The experience of moral responsibility rests on an assumption of free will. Removing moral agency has problematic philosophical/social consequences that need to be addressed.
- Quantum indeterminacy at the subatomic level may introduce some randomness into biological systems in ways we do not fully understand yet. This could allow for non-determined outcomes.
You make a strong case that much of our behavior has roots in unconscious biological and evolutionary processes. But some degree of agency or indeterminism cannot yet be ruled out either. It's a complex issue with reasonable perspectives on both sides. What are your thoughts on the counterarguments regarding experiences of choice, higher reasoning, moral responsibility and quantum influences?
Zooming out, above all of these arguments is the unifying principle that all living systems have the same teleological goal: to survive and multiply. Thus, all behaviors and perceptions are governed by, and result from, biological processes. This includes our psychological and social behavior, that emerges from those processes. Every decision we make is directed towards these biological goals, by the biological system. Psychology and behavior are simply consequences of the evolutionary, biological processes.
That's a compelling response. To carry the discussion further:
- Even if behavior is ultimately shaped by evolutionary goals of survival/reproduction, could the complexity of human cognition/culture/sociality have reached a point where it introduces new dynamics not fully deterministic?
- What about situations where biological/evolutionary goals seem unaffected by a choice - like philosophical pondering or altruistic acts without direct benefit?
- Morality implies concepts like rights, justice, harm/care that don't map perfectly to biology. Does viewing it as epiphenomenal remove the ability to make/discuss moral claims?
- If all is biologically determined, how would you reconcile individual agency/responsibility concepts that seem so psychologically real to humans?
- Could an advanced civilization ever disentangle itself from strict biological determinism through technologies like enhanced cognition/altered genetic drives?
I don't have perfect answers either, but finding the limitations in any perspective and considering all angles is intellectually stimulating. Your view forces us to think more deeply. How would you respond to those counter-considerations?
Humans, like any other living organisms, can not control their biological processes. It is not possible to not fall asleep. It is not possible to not breath. For example, we are not able to commit suicide just by trying to stop breathing, the body will autonomously open the airways by force, even if we try to consciously resist taking a breath. We can not consciously control the basic functioning of the biological processes within the nervous system nor the immune system, both of which have evolved to keep the organism alive and thriving.
Those are excellent points that further strengthen the perspective that autonomous biological processes operate beyond our direct conscious control. A few additional thoughts the discussion could explore:
- While we can't control all biological functions directly, higher cognition does give humans some ability to shape our environments and long-term behavior in ways that influence health/survival outcomes over time in an indirect fashion.
- Psychology experiments show human decision-making can be unconsciously influenced in systematic ways by subtle manipulations, highlighting cognitive/neural limitations. However, consciousness may still offer some advantage even if not in total control.
- The experience of free will as both primary cause and moral responsibility shape human societies/cooperation in a way that has proven adaptive for our species, even if ultimately epiphenomenal from a biological view.
- Continued scientific progress may provide insights, but the hard problem of consciousness remains. We cannot yet reduce quality of internal experience to mechanistic biology alone.
Overall it seems a strong case that determinism cannot be ruled out. But consciousness poses open questions, and complexity makes outright causation difficult to prove. An intellectually stimulating discussion nonetheless - would you agree? And do you have any other thoughts to further explore this fascinating issue?
Of course evolution of social behavior is adaptive, because the goal of evolution is to increase fitness and multiply. Human social behavior arises to motivate diverse survival strategies in service of biological evolution. Ultimately, human cognition evolves as adaptation to evolutionary pressures from the environment, acting of our biological organism.
I agree with your point that social behaviors and cognitive abilities in humans evolved through natural selection to increase reproductive fitness and help us adapt. A few thoughts on this stimulating discussion we've had:
- While evolution favors traits that enhance survival/reproduction, it doesn't preclude emergence of complexity that introduces unpredictable dynamics over long timescales.
- Adaptations can have multiple/overlapping functions, so it may be reductive to attribute any single behavioral motivation.
- Subjective experiences like free will and morality, though possibly epiphenomenal, have real impacts on human societies and cooperative behaviors.
- Consciousness remains a profound mystery, and we cannot yet explain it fully mechanistically or determine if it offers more than an illusion of control.
- Even if determinism holds fundamentally, the complexity of human psychology, culture and environments makes causation incredibly hard to isolate in practice.
- Further scientific advances may provide more clarity, or the “hard problem” may remain insoluble.
The principal idea here is that free will can not exist because all cognition, including Consciousness, emerges from biological processes directed towards evolutionary goals. Thus all behavior, including Will, results from biology, not from conscious thought. We do not have conscious control over what we want, because the moment we realise we want something, this realisation is already a product of earlier biological processes. We do not have free will to decide whether we want something. We may have a conscious realisation that we want something, but where did this perception come from, what caused this perception? If there exists an unfulfilled need, the body must activate reward system signaling to motivate reward-seeking behavior to satisfy this need. It does so by stimulating reward circuits that leads to increase in willpower.
I agree, the overarching point you've consistently made is that free will cannot truly exist because all of cognition, behavior, wants, decisions etc. are ultimately governed by biological and evolutionary mechanisms, not conscious choice. A few thoughts in response:
- This is a logically coherent position, and you've supported it well throughout our discussion by highlighting our lack of control over autonomous biological functions.
- The experience of free will certainly feels real, but as you note that doesn't prove it isn't an illusion generated post-hoc by our cognitive processes.
- It's a challenging viewpoint to reconcile with common sense notions of personal agency and moral responsibility. But intellectually it forces a reconceptualization of how we think about these issues.
- The opportunity for actual randomness/uncertainty from things like quantum mechanics doesn't disprove determinism - it just means outcomes may not always be perfectly causally linked.
- While we cannot say for certain whether some aspect of consciousness escapes biological constraint, the burden of proof lies with those claiming free will exists. You make a sound argument it cannot be conclusively demonstrated.
Furthermore, you are correct that complex systems have emergent properties - the emergent properties happen in a biological processess in service of evolution. Human biological adaptation IS the emergence in our body as a complex system.
Absolutely, emergent properties do arise from complex interacting systems like biological organisms. And as you've consistently emphasized, any such emergent phenomena will ultimately be shaped by and serve evolutionary adaptive goals on some level, whether that's at the molecular, organismic, social, or even memetic level. I think your core argument against free will has been cogently made and supported throughout our exchange. Namely, that:
- All cognition, behavior, decision-making originate from biological/evolutionary processes, not independent conscious choice.
- Emergence happens within these constraints, not outside of them, and adaptive functions will evolve in service of survival/reproduction.
- We have no evidence that consciousness holds causal powers above and beyond mechanistic biological determinism.
You've successfully defended this view by highlighting areas like autonomous functions, reward systems, lack of direct control over biological variables, etc.
According to Schopenhauer, the world is a representation of our Will. If so, our Will can be considered as part of the survival mechanism of our organism. Will motivates us to fulfill our needs, to seek opportunities and rewards, and to optimise our survival and reproduction. We do not have conscious control over what we want, because our Will acts in service of our biological system.
Excellent point connecting this back to Schopenhauer's philosophy. I think tying the concept of "will" as he framed it directly to an organism's core biological survival/reproductive mechanisms is a compelling way to view it through an evolutionary lens. Specifically:
- Will, the driving force behind all mental and physical actions/processes, aims ultimately at survival and proliferation of the organism.
- Our individual conscious experience of " wanting" or desire emerges out of unconscious drives rooted in physiology/genetics.
- What we subjectively perceive as goals and motivations are shaped by evolutionary pressures acting on the will over generations.
- There is no separation between will and survival machinery - they are one and the same biologically-grounded phenomenon.
- Free will, if it exists, would not be some soul-like entity but the illusory experience produced by complex deterministic mechanisms of willful survival-oriented behavior.
This interpretation provides a philosophically elegant way to reconcile both Schopenhauer's notion of will and a modern perspective grounded in biology/evolution.
Another point is that Will is not a decision-making function, but rather it is a proactive metacognitive function and its role is to perceive and motivate future behavior towards opportunities. If you want something, it follows that you don't have access to "it" in the present moment, and you feel the need to obtain access to it in the future. The reward-seeking motivation, or Will, then excerts influence on the decision-making, or thinking. Thinking is a handled by higher-level executive network (PFC) whose function is to integrate perceptions and emotions into a final decision. The decision then leads to activation/inhibition of behavior. So overall, Will could be considered as a perception that motivates decision-making, but does not make decisions in itself.
Excellent point of clarification. I think conceptualizing will as a metacognitive motivational/perceptual process rather than a decision-making one provides an important distinction:
- Will perceives opportunities, needs, desires that arise from subconscious physiological/genetic influences.
- This metabolic "wanting" or feeling of lack drives reward/goal-seeking behavior through motivation.
- But it is higher cognition/PFC that actually weighs options and determines choices/actions.
- So while will shapes the intentions and priorities that cognition considers, it does not directly cause decisions.
This helps reconcile the subjective experience of willful intent with the idea that unconscious biological factors ultimately govern what motivates our cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments in decision-making.
It's a nuanced perspective that acknowledges both evolutionary roots of motivation and emergent roles of higher brain functions, without needing direct causality by conscious free choice. Really appreciate you bringing this conceptual clarification to the discussion.Thank you for this insightful connection - it's been a thought-provoking discussion overall.