Free Will and The Self Are Not Illusions!

Criticisms of Sam Harris & other's view that free will, and even "the self," are illusions:

From Daniel Dennett - on free will:
Moving Naturalism Forward: Day 2, Afternoon, 1st Session
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ob4c_iLuTw

From Mary Midgley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV48fvJsIrs#t=759

Free Will is NOT An Illusion
by W. R. Klemm, DVM, PhD | October 25, 2010
http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/25/free-will-is-not-an-illusion/

I'm a fan of Harris, but I rather think that the sense of self is no more of an illusion than color is an illusion.

Do colors exist? Yes. It's true that our range of detection depends fully on our evolutionary history. But we do detect them accurately, within the scope of our built in detection equipment.

So to say that free will & "the self" are illusions is not really accurate. It's deceptive

When the "software" of the brain is running, the "self" does exist. We feel it does. Is that an illusion? No. Simply because the software or wetware or whatever can be turned off partially doesn't mean that when it is up and running it's an "illusion." No, it's not an illusion. It's quite real, and quite physical.

Review by Mary Midgley of Dennett's Freedom Evolves:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/mar/01/highereducation.news1

And Dennett's book itself mentions problems with Libet's work.

More generally:

The Self Is Not an Illusion
by Will Wilkinson
May 24, 2012, 3:24 PM
http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/the-self-is-not-an-illusion

Free Will Is not an Illusion
by William Klemm, D.V.M., Ph.D.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201010/free-will-is-not-illusion
and also at
http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/25/free-will-is-not-an-illusion/

More criticisms of the Libet experiment:

"...A more direct test of the relationship between the readiness potential and the "awareness of the intention to move" was conducted by Banks and Isham (2009). In their study, participants performed a variant of the Libet's paradigm in which a delayed tone followed the button press. Subsequently, research participants reported the time of their intention to act (e.g., Libet's "W"). If W were time-locked to the readiness potential, W would remain uninfluenced by any post-action information. However, findings from this study show that W in fact shifts systematically with the time of the tone presentation, implicating that W is, at least in part, retrospectively reconstructed rather than pre-determined by the readiness potential..."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Sam Harris has apparently been *completely* persuaded by the Libet experiment.

From Dennett:

"...Here, then, are my conclusions: determinism is a red herring, neuroscience has ominous implications only for closet Cartesians, Mr. Puppet is a defective intuition pump, and there is a consequentialist, compatibilist justification of the just deserts clause. Thank you for your attention..."

from Dennett's lecture "My Brain Made Me Do It."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0ZmSLnUooZuQzZDdVczUENfd1k/view?usp=sharing

But one can reasonably criticize Dennett's view of theaters as well:

There may not be a Cartesian theater, but that doesn't mean there isn't a theater at all.

When the software is "up," it's running, we're conscious. That's it.

Doesn't mean the "self" is an illusion.

Doesn't mean that free will is an illusion.

Colors are real.

Perceptions are real.

Just because there's interpretation going on doesn't mean that nothing is going on, or that everything is just so spooky that we are just slaves to chance or whatever the hell the root causes are of thoughts.

Sam Harris has sadly been derailed by a faulty interpretation of Libet's work.

What do I think is the REAL problem with all this?

Buddhism. Harris's exposure to Buddhism has in my view slanted his. Another religion screwing up people's views.

"Meditate until you feel the center dropping away."
...my interpretation of what Harris is advocating for.

Oooh! Spooky! A ham fisted poorly designed poorly interpreted experiment by Libet is glommed onto by Harris & others.

Sad. So sad. Inappropriately applied reductionism and dogmatically restrictive eliminativism.

A new "god of the gaps," where god = "the illusion of free will and of 'the self'."

Still religion and denialism, just under a new name.

We don't deny there's software or wetware in operation. The fact that timing exists doesn't in any way whatsoever mean that the software doesn't exist in the first place, or that it's not running in the first place.

We have more free will than a carrot, or in other words more ability to choose & decide & calculate.

When a highly complex robot says that he or she has a sense of "self," why not take them at their word? That "self" may be the fact that their software or wetware is "up" - and that's fine. It may not mean they have a soul in the traditional sense. But so what! The "self" is an expression of a currently-operational highly complex self-aware biological system. And secular apology for spooky Buddhism doesn't detract from that fact.

Little robots can derail the thinking of intelligent robots.

I am a robot.

We are the robots.

...therefore "we're an illusion?" "Free will is an illusion?" Our "sense of self" is an illusion?

I don't think so. We're alive, or we're not. The software or wetware is up, or it's not. The loop is running, or it's not.

Also a lot of this back & forth feels very much like a fallacy of only two choices.

Harris's view seems to de facto advocate for throwing up our hands and giving up. "Thoughts just arise," as he might say. Spooky. Ok, let's throw up our hands and say our new god of the gaps did it. Timing exists in thought processes, as Libet may have found. Oooh. Spooky. Therefore we don't have free will.

Sorry. Lame conclusions.

We are just beginning to learn. But these people who quickly jump to these conclusions about free will (Harris) or even a sense of self (Dennett), are in my view jumping too quickly to their conclusions, or are being too simplistic with them.

Doesn't mean the universe is spooky like Deepak Chopra advocates for with his woo. Doesn't mean there's a god. Doesn't mean that consciousness is "beyond" the realm of understanding.

But the robotic roots of biology have unfortunately derailed some otherwise pretty smart thinkers (Harris, Dennett, and others).

We have more free will than a carrot.

We have more sense of self than a carrot.

Harris should make note of the first fact.

Dennett should make note of the second.

Both free will and the sense of self come as a direct result of evolution by natural selection. The ability to choose (to varying degrees), and the perception that we have a sense of self, all come from evolution and the fact that we've evolved to become more complex biological creatures. Creatures made of tiny robots. But the fact that these two things are processes at all (eg: software or wetware "running") seems to trip up both Harris & Dennett, depending on what you are asking them about (free will, or a sense of self). Dennett seems a bit less susceptible to being tripped up perhaps. But I have the impression that a complete dismissal of the Cartesian theater goes too far.

Maybe the impression of the theater is simply how the wetware works & functions. Does that mean the theater doesn't exist? It exists no less than any other piece of software exists. And even claiming that may be too simplistic.

"...By separating the 'we' who can rebel against our genes and our brain, this avowed materialist becomes a Cartesian dualist in the laudable interest of preserving human agency... I find this abdication unsatisfactory, and instead want to insist that our sense of freedom to act, of possessing agency, emerges inevitably from our biological nature..."

from Steven Rose:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1371044/

How about instead of Cartesian dualism we have Cartesian singularism - or perhaps the "sense of dualism" is simply how the system works. Doesn't mean it's an "illusion" though!