First of all I have many years of experience as a zen practitioner, and agree that meditation, especially zazen or mindfulness meditation is a great help in strengthening awareness. It seems to me that the heart and gut as well as the breath and verbal thought make incursions into awareness though, and both appear to have value in perception a priori to thought. And here's a speculative question: could it be that our receptivity to thoughts might in some wise be selective, not via conscious control, but as a result of a sort of inner 'tuning' like that of a radio? And if so, could the station or stations we're tuned to be in part a result of the karma we've accrued like the colors in a dye bath. Curious to hear something about this.
Thanks! It's behind the paywall at The Missouri Review but my contract with them says after first publication rights I can post it anywhere--just have to give them "first published in" credit.
I find this to be charmingly hopeful, beyond anything I could imagine: "What will be our fate once a critical mass of us finally knows the falsity of contra-causal free will?"
My experience is the more I'm able to internalize this knowledge, the happier I am. E.g.
The most interesting example, IMO, is from Anne. She is a long-term substitute in the local school district, working with special-needs kids. It really shows other minds, lack of control, etc.
I have a post-it on my monitor here that implores me, "Only Kindness." I need it there because I so often lose the thread. :-)
Free will is difficult to completely disprove, since it has a number of definitions, some more demanding than others.
Compatiblist free will hinges on the absence of coercion and can't be disproven by proving determinism.
Libertarian free will does require freedom from determinism, but not all libertarian free will is "contra causal" -- requiring some nonphysical entity to override basic causal closure. The indeterminism of the physical is a respectable idea nowadays, and some libertarians believe in an alternative model where indetrminism bubbling uongeom fundamental physics can found an adequate notion of Libertarian free will.
Harris's arguments against free will rests on yet another definition.
He explicitly claims that free will is , definitionally , control by the self, and that the self is "a certain channel of information in their conscious minds"...and that the self , in that sense, exerts no control, so there is no free will.
That's an argument that depends on a certain definition of free will, and a certain definition of control, and an observation..that the conscious mind does not predetermine the ideas and impulses that "pop" into it. So the argument *could* be wrong, several times over..if the definition free will is wrong, if the definition of control is wrong, or if the observation is wrong.
For a start there is in fact abundant evidence that people can consciously plan out courses of goal directed behaviour, such as writing books or meditating for a period of time. There are unconscious reflex actions as well, of course. The distinction between consciousness/voluntary and unconscious/involuntary action is scientifically respectable.
And notice that his definition of selfhood is based on nothing but a feeling, so it is no more strongly founded than free will itself! The thoughts that "pop into your head" don't come from "literally nowhere", they come from your brain -- and if you are willing to regard your whole brain, or whole mind, as "you" , there's no problem.
Harris has nothing like a knock down argument against free will...and even if he did, he's not talking about naturalistic libertarian libertarian free will, or compatibilist free will.
Even a strong version of the homuncular self, a ghost in the machine,doesn't imply indeterminism .. and indeterminism doesnt require a ghost. They are separate concepts, for all that many people habitually link them.
Science stope us believing in a ghostly homunculus overriding the causality of the brain, but that is not all bad news for free will.
The scientific question of free will becomes the question of how the machine behaves, whether it has the combination of unpredictability, top down control, self modification and so on, that might characterise free will... depending on how you define free will
Conscious top down control by an executive function of the brain is still a scientifically respectable idea, even if, after the Libet results, control has to be interpreted as free won't, not free will. Bottom-up indeterminism is also available as an optional extra. Compatiblism is obviously still available. And nothing forces you into the bizarre notion that your unconscious mind has nothing to do with you , and might as well be another person controlling you.
That ending! 😂 Such a wild ride, this whole piece. Brain power. And entertaining!
Thank you so much! I was pretty happy with that ending. I tell my students to end on a stark image.
I like to do the same. But not predictably.
It can be difficult to do both--something predictable as an ending as well as striking or stark. If I've understood you.
First of all I have many years of experience as a zen practitioner, and agree that meditation, especially zazen or mindfulness meditation is a great help in strengthening awareness. It seems to me that the heart and gut as well as the breath and verbal thought make incursions into awareness though, and both appear to have value in perception a priori to thought. And here's a speculative question: could it be that our receptivity to thoughts might in some wise be selective, not via conscious control, but as a result of a sort of inner 'tuning' like that of a radio? And if so, could the station or stations we're tuned to be in part a result of the karma we've accrued like the colors in a dye bath. Curious to hear something about this.
I'm glad you were able to republish your essay in its entirety here.
Thanks! It's behind the paywall at The Missouri Review but my contract with them says after first publication rights I can post it anywhere--just have to give them "first published in" credit.
Love this. Thank you for this series.
I find this to be charmingly hopeful, beyond anything I could imagine: "What will be our fate once a critical mass of us finally knows the falsity of contra-causal free will?"
My experience is the more I'm able to internalize this knowledge, the happier I am. E.g.
https://mattball.substack.com/p/enlightenment-june-2023
Hi Matt Ball, Thank you so much for your kind comments. And the link! :-)
Anne (my better half) and I use the codeword "Sapolsky" when we're losing the determinist thread. ;-)
Really? Ha! Tell me about a time you kept the thread and a time you lost it if you are willing. :-)
The most interesting example, IMO, is from Anne. She is a long-term substitute in the local school district, working with special-needs kids. It really shows other minds, lack of control, etc.
I have a post-it on my monitor here that implores me, "Only Kindness." I need it there because I so often lose the thread. :-)
I see. Yes indeed. Thank you!
Free will is difficult to completely disprove, since it has a number of definitions, some more demanding than others.
Compatiblist free will hinges on the absence of coercion and can't be disproven by proving determinism.
Libertarian free will does require freedom from determinism, but not all libertarian free will is "contra causal" -- requiring some nonphysical entity to override basic causal closure. The indeterminism of the physical is a respectable idea nowadays, and some libertarians believe in an alternative model where indetrminism bubbling uongeom fundamental physics can found an adequate notion of Libertarian free will.
Harris's arguments against free will rests on yet another definition.
He explicitly claims that free will is , definitionally , control by the self, and that the self is "a certain channel of information in their conscious minds"...and that the self , in that sense, exerts no control, so there is no free will.
That's an argument that depends on a certain definition of free will, and a certain definition of control, and an observation..that the conscious mind does not predetermine the ideas and impulses that "pop" into it. So the argument *could* be wrong, several times over..if the definition free will is wrong, if the definition of control is wrong, or if the observation is wrong.
For a start there is in fact abundant evidence that people can consciously plan out courses of goal directed behaviour, such as writing books or meditating for a period of time. There are unconscious reflex actions as well, of course. The distinction between consciousness/voluntary and unconscious/involuntary action is scientifically respectable.
And notice that his definition of selfhood is based on nothing but a feeling, so it is no more strongly founded than free will itself! The thoughts that "pop into your head" don't come from "literally nowhere", they come from your brain -- and if you are willing to regard your whole brain, or whole mind, as "you" , there's no problem.
Harris has nothing like a knock down argument against free will...and even if he did, he's not talking about naturalistic libertarian libertarian free will, or compatibilist free will.
Even a strong version of the homuncular self, a ghost in the machine,doesn't imply indeterminism .. and indeterminism doesnt require a ghost. They are separate concepts, for all that many people habitually link them.
Science stope us believing in a ghostly homunculus overriding the causality of the brain, but that is not all bad news for free will.
The scientific question of free will becomes the question of how the machine behaves, whether it has the combination of unpredictability, top down control, self modification and so on, that might characterise free will... depending on how you define free will
Conscious top down control by an executive function of the brain is still a scientifically respectable idea, even if, after the Libet results, control has to be interpreted as free won't, not free will. Bottom-up indeterminism is also available as an optional extra. Compatiblism is obviously still available. And nothing forces you into the bizarre notion that your unconscious mind has nothing to do with you , and might as well be another person controlling you.
With respect to the ending, dear readers, what have you known but not believed?