- Posts tagged self-deception
- Explore self-deception on posterous
The Illusoriness of My Free Will
I now seriously suspect that I don't have free will. I can't say I've given it much thought in the past - I've always viewed it as somewhat philosophical, somewhat theoretical, and the works of Schopenhauer and Hobbes don't grip me as they should.
A lot of neuroscience, however, makes these questions more interesting, and more real. For example, we know that we have somewhat modular brains, and that only some parts of our brain create that consciousness that we all believe makes us. We also know that we're subject to a multitude of biases, such as the awful confirmation bias.
I typically associate Jon, me, with my conscious self and this other brain machinery that "does stuff". (Even defining self is difficult). But that brain machinery does stuff, interacts with my consciousness on occasion, and really, isn't under my control.
I know I'm not the conscious source of my thoughts and actions. This is the bit that gets me. If I was the conscious source of my thoughts and actions, then that would imply that I think of them before I think of them. Well, I don't. Neither do you. They just emerge.
In many ways, I'm an observer of my self. Where's the free will in that?
I'm also not responsible for my brain structure. It's the result of my history of interactions with the world - and I think this is a staggering thought. It started out in a way I had no control over (I didn't control the genes that provided the basic structure of my brain, nor its growth characteristics). I had no control over the exposure of my growing brain to environment, to diet. I do now, to an extent, but it's only a limited an extent - and of course, I'm already the result of all these causal chains. Over which I had no control.
So my brain and its current operation is the result of rich history of causal interactions over which I had no control. My beliefs are the product of prior causes over which I had no control. Where's the free will in that?
What's fascinating are some of the implications of dispensing with the notion of free will - how does that impact our notion of morality, retribution, politics, and in particular religion (many religions rely on free will not being an illusion). It's mind blowing.
Well, I've just started down this road. Perhaps I'll end up reading Schopenhauer after all? But to start off, here's the talk (by Sam Harris) that got me all fired up, that covers all of these topics and more. Enjoy:
Being Aware of Rationalising
When I argue with someone, try and justify a belief or a moral, or try and convince myself to do something I know isn't really great (it's okay to eat that muffin - I went swimming this morning), I rationalise. It's a terrible habit, probably innately human, yet it's useful to at least be aware of when I'm doing it (or others are doing it) - as it usually conceals, hides or otherwise smuggles away truth.
Rationalising isn't the same as being rational
I'm using the word rationalize in a very particular way here. Here's the Oxford Dictionary definition:
1 attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate
It's an interesting dictionary definition which captures the connotation of "even if these are not true or appropriate".
Rational, on the other hand, is:
1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic
So being rational is doing like Spock does - taking the facts, the premises, and applying logic, moving us towards reasoned conclusions.
Rationalising is almost the opposite - and that's what's fascinating. You're starting with a behaviour (me eating a muffin) and attempting to justify it with some plausible reasons (yeah, I exercised this morning).
Example: Morality, and art appreciation
There are a number if researchers investigating morality - how we reason about morality, come by our morals, how morality differs amongst cultures, what universal moral laws exist and so on. It's fascinating stuff - and many now believe that we make moral judgements without recourse to reason. In other words, we judge whether some act is good or bad or permissible or forbidden based on some intuition, not conscious reasoning.
So it appears we make moral judgements without rational reason. But if you were asked about the judgment afterwards ("explain sir, why is it wrong to stab someone in self defence"), and given the time to think about a moral judgement, you would rationalise. It's difficult to be entirely rational here - we don't have a formal, consistent set of moral foundations.
I believe I read something similar about art appreciation. Intuitively we may like a piece of art. If asked afterwards why we like the piece, we rationalise - providing plausible reasons (oh, the colour is just lovely darling).
Rationalising and self-deception
Being rational starts with facts/premises and works to a conclusion, while rationalising sort of starts with the conclusion, and tries to find supporting premises.
In my experience, those supporting premises just have to be "good enough" for me to support some behaviour. I'm pulling the wool over my own eyes - which makes me think rationalising is a key part of self-deception.
A pet theory of mine is that when we create these supporting premises as part of rationalising, we do it in a way that maintains consistency with our view of the world. More on that in the future…
I'm sure I'll never stop rationalising, but I wonder if it's a useful exercise to recognise it a little more often than not - especially because those "plausible reasons" are not necessarily truth.
