Free Will and Determinism

By Ernest Boehm

Painted Bookmarks

Currently, Sam Harris and others are making a case that we are predetermined being and we are only a matter of chemistry and physics that is set by some set of boundary conditions. Harris main evidence is a set of experiment on synapses firing that has recently come into question.

I have found that neither free will and determinism have been formulated in a falsifiable matter (excluding Poppers the Open Universe, which I have to re read before commenting on. The recent youtube discussion between Harris and Bret Weinstein never bring this up although Popper is mentioned in the discussion. They are not making scientific arguments that are falsifiable so they really only are playing at science.

Since I do not have a falsifiable test of either determinism or free will I will make the following philosophical points Unlike Harris who says science then assumes it is so. All science has to be falsifiable.

So first I think it may be good to look at free will as a Pascal-like wager. The wager has two payout:

Case A go along the fixed path set by physics, chemistry, boundary or initial conditions, and random events. We don’t affect events and we may have the illusion of these causality but we are deluded. So hope you are enjoying the ride because if you aren’t it is just tough luck. If case A is the case we would only be deluding our selves by making the wager and we would make it no matter what because it is determined

Case B) The alternate is we have some level of free will. If we act with free will than we can change and alter events, we can cause or avoid bad outcomes. We can help or harm the world we live in. If we are not determined but act as if we are we could avoid opportunities and avoid decisions of little and great importance to us. So there is a great potential upside or downside to having free will. B also forces one to take a moral position, will I do good or bad, will we examine what we do or not. Case B implies our actions and choices have a value in the world which we some amount of responsibly for.

If Case A is correct it matters not what we do, we will feel, encounter the environment, move and act as dictated. Our thoughts on the matter pop into our heads and we don’t really know better or worse we will go along for the ride because we are part of the cosmic clock work.

If we wager on Case B and Case A is correct, there is no downside because well we are still along for the ride and we didn’t really wager and if some of us wagered A it doesn’t matter. We are going to make what ever wager what the universe and the initial boundary conditions dictate. There is no down side in Case A being correct and wagering on Case B error, what will be will be and the fates carry on with their spinning.

If we wager on Case B and it is correct then we are acting at least partially freely, and there are implications to our choice, and decisions. There is a are consequences (beneficial or harmful) to making the Case A is wrong and wagering on Case A error.

The first is the Weinstein error that we are mostly pre-determined and have little free will, if we act this way we may and set a boundary on what decisions we will put effort into and also take a pass on lower level decisions that may have an impact. I think we all do this and if the cost is low we can run on auto pilot. This is an error of degree, I think humans work out the boundary of what is a type 1 and type 2 thinking and decision problem ok, and the errors are small and may fit a large number of domains of actions. We deal with our auto pilot decisions well enough or we pass out of the gene pool.

The Harris Error is more a problem if anyone actually followed it but Harris doesn’t. He rights a book on lying, he talks about moral landscapes (which really would exist only in case B and would be an illusion in Case A), he is proud of not lying, wouldn’t it be disillusion pride to be proud of what you were doing without a say in the matter. Harris tells how he makes decision on what to tell his daughters. I think he has unwittingly made the case B wager. If you took the Harris error to its conclusion it, we can miss opportunities to act because we feel like our actions are determined it would influence our decisions. (Note this is an error is only an error if Case B is true. )

Note: Pascal wager had negative implications on both sides, Pascal seem to think there was an asymmetric payout for believing in God which was much greater (in his mind no downside). But we cans see a downside in believing in a god that does not exist.

With any wager we are looking for an asymmetric payout to our benefit. I see no difference in payout if Case A is correct and we wager anyway, we are not even making a wager we are deluding ourselves that we are making a wager and whats more it really we were always destined to the delusion. Which means Sam Harris is wasting his time with his books and he is going to waste it anyway. He is deluded that there is a moral landscape and should be happy he doesn’t have another delusion.

Case B has an asymmetric payoff if true, one can learn to make the world better, mankind can learn as a whole to have better or at least less dire payoffs. We can have some hope that our feelings, our ideas and actions are not robotic and set and that we act in the world again case B belief error has no downside. (unless we are not fully determined, and if we are not fully determined and not controlled only by natural randomness.

Again, it is hard to come up with a falsifiable case for either Case A or B.

So some support of Case B on an inductive non falsifiable.

1. Nature does not give a damn about possible outcomes. So if we have excess energy (Sol, food, gasoline,etc.) we can have a large number of possible outcomes. And if our brains can choose than nature doesn’t care about which outcome. It does not violate any natural law. We have the perception of choice, and we have a hard time predicting human actions so saying our choices are illusions is not proven. The only scientific argument Harris has made is against is based on the Libet Experiments which showed that we act 500 ms before we decide, but this was shown as a statistical error and may have been an artifact of the test method which seems to have been falsified . A great case against Harris scientific claims can be found on line. A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked, the Atlantic Sept 9/10/2019 (readily found on line). So if we have no evidence that our choices are not falsifiable (nor proven) I would wager on Case B since there is no energy barrier and I think the universe would not care about constraints that were in the realm of potential energy, this is a wager again, I can’t prove we had choice but if we have choice I would go with the payoff. Again a philosophical wager not science since none of this is falsifiable.
2. We can’t predict human action, we may not ever be able to even in a determined system, since that may not be in the cards for us, or the initial conditions or the total system may be beyond our grasps. That said our random and inexpiable choices and actions could be due to choice if you can not disprove choice and you can not explain why people make choices than wager B is the only one with an up side. Again a philosophical wager not science since none of this is falsifiable.
3. We are may perceive the past being fixed as being on a fixed path since we know we cannot change the past. This may be a deterministic delusion just as probable as the future is free. As well we have auto pilot system 1 thinking that is very instinctual pre determined, and we may have to engage a higher system 2 thinking to make decision base on free will. Again it is hard to test these against as all automatic system or an adaptive system as part of a determined system, but we seem to think that we make a lot of automatic and more well thought out positions again I would lean on wager B.

Harris and Weinstien act as if they have made wager B, and Sam gives full lip service to A and Bret gives it partial lip service. I myself think that the choice is obvious because of the only upside payout possible and no downside cost. (Note I do not make Pascal's original wager.)