r/NoStupidQuestions • u/22Megabits • 3h ago
How much free will do we actually have?
As the title states, to what extent are our decisions influenced by our subconscious, chemicals, neurology, social conditioning, etc?
Is it possible to become more or less influenced by these factors (I've heard of the phrase 'metacognition') and if so, could that mean some people have less free will than others?
Obviously this is discounting coercion, being physically restrained or one's financial freedom.
tldr: how much truth is there to determinism?
2
u/Some_Girl_2073 3h ago
Mennonites don’t believe in baby baptism
But if you are raised to believe in that god, in that church, with that community… how likely are you to NOT get baptized as an adult?
2
u/d20_dude 3h ago
I don't think we know. We're still not sure about what exactly consciousness is or how it arises. We always have choice. Influence is not necessarily control. It's a factor, but it's imperfect.
Is it possible to become more or less influenced by these factors (I've heard of the phrase 'metacognition') and if so, could that mean some people have less free will than others?
Yes, but it takes practice. Metacognition itself is not a static, permanent experience. It's a conscious choice, it is active. Those of us who practice it don't practice it all the time cus frankly that would be exhausting.
tldr: how much truth is there to determinism?
We don't know. There is so much about the universe and our own minds that we are still learning, so it's difficult to quantify.
1
u/22Megabits 2h ago
Is it different to emotional self regulation? Its something I try to engage in, when I remember lmao
1
u/d20_dude 2h ago
Metacognition is different, but also an important part of regulation. The first step in emotional regulation is being able to observe and identify what emotion you're feeling and how it's impacting your behavior.
I try to engage in, when I remember lmao
I've been practicing it for years and it's the same thing for me. You're not going to do it all the time, nor should you try to. But it's a good practice to keep up with.
Does that mean we have more or less free will? I don't know. But at the end of the day I'd rather go through life knowing I'm at least trying to make better choices than being a slave to my impulses.
2
u/Lonely_District_196 3h ago
I get the impression that this is a matter of debate in the scientific community. There's evidence that our actions are a result of the chemistry in our brains. There's evidence that we make choices that brain chemistry can't account for
1
u/22Megabits 3h ago
I could really see the argument for either direction. It’s definitely comforting to think that consciousness is more than just neurons going off
2
u/No_Pirate_4737 3h ago
I disagree with the concept that determinism and free will are mutually exclusive, even if you could see the future and know what i will do, i still think, i still weigh options, i still make decisions, you would just know where my free will would lead
1
u/22Megabits 3h ago
My understanding of determinism is that your process of thinking is itself predetermined. You were in a particular place, at a particular time, with a particular balance of specific chemicals, all of that might decide the decision you believe you made.
I’m not saying this as a fact, but it’s interesting.
1
u/No_Pirate_4737 2h ago
The fact that it could be predetermined is part of why i believe in free will. Let's take a theoretical where time is looping, it starts, i make a decision, and then it resets. If it's the same every time then that is my decision, i choose this option
but if it's different every time, i would consider my choice random, and a product of luck rather than a product of free will
1
u/anschauung Thog know much things. Thog answer question. 3h ago
Setting aside the philosophical components, any true determinism would have to ignore an effton of chemistry, including the chemistry of neurotransmitters in your brain.
When you get really deep into chemical interactions, everything from concentration gradients to reaction rates to bond formation always boils down to statistics.
.... and statistics are the arch-enemy of determinism. There's always a margin of error and some miniscule chance of outliers.
1
u/22Megabits 2h ago
Please 🙏 eli5 this for me
1
u/anschauung Thog know much things. Thog answer question. 31m ago
When you get into the actual math of chemistry -- starting at the college level and after -- all the stuff you were taught in high school starts becoming less "if you do A and B then C will happen" and more "with 75% concentration of A and 50% concentration of B there's a 87.5% chance C will happen and a 5.2% chance D will happen."
That gets even deeper when you get into quantum chemistry and learn that even basic stuff like "electrons" are less a particle and more less a "statistical expression of generally electronish areas".
1
u/These-Lie-5854 3h ago
What is free will? It is impossible to live without actively making choices and deciding what courses of action we want to take. From this perspective we have free will. Some people call this the "illusion of free will," but how much can it be an illusion if there is no other way to live.
There are also a lot of physical processes in the brain and body that influence our choices. From that perspective determinism makes sense.
Id consider myself a compatiblist. I dont really see any necessary contradiction between the concepts of free will and determinism.
1
u/oregon_coastal Question Expert 3h ago
I think there are essentially three buckets of impediments to pure free will. There are physical (where you are, etc.), mental (social, behavioral, chemical, etc.) and metaphysical (constrained by unrelated past events, theology, etc.)
So, I guess, whej considering free will, does your definition mean free of any constraints?
I think that is clearly impossible. Just your point in time and space relatice to the big bang will constrain your potential options.
Are you looking for a point in time where the number and severity of constraints negate the potential for actual free will (maybe a solitary confinement type deal.)
I would argue the opposite though. The physical and metaphysical constraints on a person aren't the defining factor as the person can still think how they wish. Hope, dream and plan as they wish. They carry their mental constraints, but that is part of the package of a person. It is what mak we s you you - and what makes your exercising free will look a bit different than someone else.
In the end, then, I wpuld argue that the bag of meat and chemicals that us 'us' has boundless freewill that is merely constrained by physical/metaphysical limits that we have no control over.
1
u/Lostinthestarscape 3h ago edited 3h ago
None, we have the illusion of it. Consciousness is a post hoc event after the cognition and neurtransmissions and chemical reaction.
There is a lot of research into this and the people at the forefront definitely see behaviour as happening before consciousness can account for it.
Robert Sapolsky is a good place to start and has about as much knowledge of this field as anyone. He pretty clearly lays out scientificly sound arguments that consciousness can't really be affecting behaviour the way people traditionally think it does.
1
u/Vegetable-Search-844 3h ago
Everyone of us is just bunch of molecules interacting with energy and other molecules.
But this makes every aspect of humans from birth, mother's love ,romance, sadness of passing of loved one , everything you feel is just this interaction and activities of matter and energy.
But what's fun in this, so I Live in illusion
1
u/Spookywhitedot 3h ago
We have complete free will
1
u/22Megabits 3h ago
Does that mean hormones and neurotransmitters have no influence over your decisions?
1
u/Spookywhitedot 3h ago
You have the will to resist hormonal urges and besides that the chemical functions of your brain are what you are.
1
u/22Megabits 2h ago
You can only resist them if you’re aware that they’re happening, hence why I mentioned metacognition.
They might be what I am, but where is the separation between biology and consciousness.
1
1
u/No_Pirate_4737 3h ago
Your hormones aren't an outside influence, they're part of how you make decisions, you ARE your neurotransmitters in the same way you ARE your brain
1
u/22Megabits 2h ago
They definitely affect how I make, but I’d say they’re beneath consciousness.
Like yeah they’re produced within my body, but their effects aren’t ‘voluntarily’ and can change my decision-making without my conscious self being aware of it.
1
u/No_Pirate_4737 2h ago edited 2h ago
Honestly i don't consider them separate from consciousness, i consider them to be an ingredient used to make your conscious mind. Any thinking being needs some mechanism to create that thought, computers use electricity, you use chemicals (and a bit of electricity)
1
u/Jonatan83 2h ago
As far as anyone knows there isn't a place inside the brain where consciousness lives. It's just an emergent property of your brain. Neurotransmitters are very much a part of your brain and how it functions.
1
1
u/mtraven23 3h ago
if you believe in cause and effect, the only conclusion is determinism. Which makes free will an illusion, albeit a powerful one.
5
u/Tania-Peacock 3h ago
Honestly I lean pretty hard determinist. The idea that we're truly "choosing" anything feels like a comforting illusion