This is a very interesting piece and it's good to hear your personal, honest thoughts about the subject. Some other things that came to mind.
I'd make the subheadings more descriptive as they don't really tell me enough about what's below.
In places you ask questions where I'd like to hear your answer: "If I fully accept that I am not in control, couldn’t I then lean back and relax on my ride of life, enjoying the view?" Do you agree or disagree with that idea?
"For trees and bees I’d have no doubt to say that their behavior is determined by their genes and instincts and the environment they are facing at a certain time. Trees and bees follow nature’s will, not their own. That’s a no-brainer." This may be true, although I wouldn't say 'I have no doubt' or 'That's a no-brainer' since there's still uncertainty in this area. Plant neurobiologists, panpsychists, and animists may disagree with these claims. You could say instead 'it seems', 'as far as we can tell', etc.
"I’d doubt that there is such thing as a “conscious” (as in free) decision." I'm not sure if "conscious" would be the right word to use here. It seems you're saying that a free decision is a conscious one, but then you go on to say that we can be conscious of decisions but these decisions are still done on autopilot mode (so therefore not free?) Could you instead say "I'd doubt that being conscious of my decisions makes them free. However..." But also I'd like to know why you doubt that. Is it because of the arguments made before in support of determinism, meaning that any decision (conscious or not) is still determined by cause and effect?
"I believe that there is only auto-pilot mode. But the more we “consciously see” the more advanced our auto-pilot gets." Very interesting! I like this idea. I'd like to hear you unpack more about this advanced autopilot idea though. What does 'levelling up', 'the next level', and 'advanced' look like in comparison to just normal autopilot? Does it mean you make better decisions?
"According to the “New atheists” consciousness is a property of matter." I think the term that should be used here is "panpsychists", not "New atheists", as the latter is the term I have seen refer to atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, who do not believe consciousness is a property of matter, as far as I know.
"A stone then would have an experience too, just like any other matter. However, this still builds on top of a materialistic world view, and follows the laws of physics. Is this enough?" This doesn't necessarily build on materialism or follow physics. This panpsychist view is beyond physics (it is metaphysics) because it says that consciousness, which cannot be explained purely by physical laws, is fundamental in the universe. Also, not all panpsychists are materialists (Galen Strawson is, for instance, but many others, like David Chalmers consider panpsychism to be an alternative to materialism).
I don't really feel a connection was made between the consciousness section and free will. Does the panpsychist view, for example, have anything to say about free will?
"Matter then is a manifestation of consciousness and not vice versa. I definitely can’t grasp this fully but weirdly I find that explanation to be the most plausible." Why do you find it to be the most plausible? Why is it more plausible than materialism? I know panpsychists say their view can solve the 'hard problem of consciousness'. Maybe that's worth including?
I like the thought-provoking questions at the end!
Overall, a great piece and nice use of examples. I hope this feedback is useful.
Hey Sam!
Thank you for your feedback/questions.
I'd make the subheadings more descriptive as they don't really tell me enough about what's below.
The whole text is basically a response to the question "If I don't have free will, what remains, for me personally?", hence the headings. I reformulated the intro text to make that more clear.
In places you ask questions where I'd like to hear your answer: "If I fully accept that I am not in control, couldn’t I then lean back and relax on my ride of life, enjoying the view?" Do you agree or disagree with that idea?
Text is a bit like a personal diary. I'm undecided about many things, so I'm basically asking these questions myself. Given the main assumption "I don't have free will", I agree in the context of this text.
"For trees and bees I’d have no doubt to say that their behavior is determined by their genes and instincts and the environment they are facing at a certain time. Trees and bees follow nature’s will, not their own. That’s a no-brainer." This may be true, although I wouldn't say 'I have no doubt' or 'That's a no-brainer' since there's still uncertainty in this area. Plant neurobiologists, panpsychists, and animists may disagree with these claims. You could say instead 'it seems', 'as far as we can tell', etc.
Good point. Changed the language.
"I’d doubt that there is such thing as a “conscious” (as in free) decision." I'm not sure if "conscious" would be the right word to use here. It seems you're saying that a free decision is a conscious one, but then you go on to say that we can be conscious of decisions but these decisions are still done on autopilot mode (so therefore not free?) Could you instead say "I'd doubt that being conscious of my decisions makes them free. However..." But also I'd like to know why you doubt that. Is it because of the arguments made before in support of determinism, meaning that any decision (conscious or not) is still determined by cause and effect?
You are right, I changed the language here too. Given the whole context of the piece (I don't have free will) it implies that there is either pure cause and effect or randomness in addition to it. Not sure to add this to the section as it would be redundant.
"I believe that there is only auto-pilot mode. But the more we “consciously see” the more advanced our auto-pilot gets." Very interesting! I like this idea. I'd like to hear you unpack more about this advanced autopilot idea though. What does 'levelling up', 'the next level', and 'advanced' look like in comparison to just normal autopilot? Does it mean you make better decisions?
I improved that section to make it more clear. And yes, better autopilot means "better" decision (as in based on a more accurate model of reality).
"According to the “New atheists” consciousness is a property of matter." I think the term that should be used here is "panpsychists", not 'New atheists", as the latter is the term I have seen refer to atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, who do not believe consciousness is a property of matter, as far as I know.
Now I'm not sure anymore too. I think it was Sam Harris’ wife mentioning consciousness as a property of matter. Generally, I want to stay away from references and definitions as much as possible, to allow an original reasoning process. Mostly for myself, but great if others can follow. So I removed the references to New Atheists and just described the 3 models and why I have doubts about model 1 and model 2.
"A stone then would have an experience too, just like any other matter. However, this still builds on top of a materialistic world view, and follows the laws of physics. Is this enough?" This doesn't necessarily build on materialism or follow physics. This panpsychist view is beyond physics (it is metaphysics) because it says that consciousness, which cannot be explained purely by physical laws, is fundamental in the universe. Also, not all panpsychists are materialists (Galen Strawson is, for instance, but many others, like David Chalmers consider panpsychism to be an alternative to materialism).
Right, consciousness is definitely not physical. Actually the term "meta-physical" (above physical) suggests the last model "matter arises from consciousness". So in my head I have now these three models:
matter-first: conciousness arises from matter
same-level: conciousness and matter are like siblings: You could say the universe consists of physics and mind
mind-first: matter arises from consciousness
Does this make sense? At least in my head I got more clarity. :)
I don't really feel a connection was made between the consciousness section and free will. Does the panpsychist view, for example, have anything to say about free will?
The connection is that consciousness is one of the things that continue to exist, even if free will does not.
"Matter then is a manifestation of consciousness and not vice versa. I definitely can’t grasp this fully but weirdly I find that explanation to be the most plausible." Why do you find it to be the most plausible? Why is it more plausible than materialism? I know panpsychists say their view can solve the 'hard problem of consciousness'. Maybe that's worth including?
Made this whole chapter more clear, I hope.
I like the thought-provoking questions at the end!
Honestly, thank you! I really value your comments.
Wait, one more question I have for you. How do you find the title? "If freedom is an illusion, what remains?" requires the term free will and freedom to be used synonymously, which kind of works for me, but the safer bet would be to call the text "If free will is an illusion, what remains?". Or maybe you have other title ideas. :)
Changes look good! I think the title works. I suppose 'what remains' is a bit ambiguous, but nothing wrong with that necessarily. Sometimes ambiguity draws readers in.
I would use 'free will' instead of 'freedom' though, as they have different meanings. Someone might see the title and think you're referring to political freedom.
Would 'If free will is an illusion, does it matter?' also work?
Yeah I'm undecided. I have some strange thought loop behind using the term freedom. Because if free will does not exist it would imply that freedom (political or any other) does not exist either. Or to put it another way: If I asked: "If free will does not exist, what remains?" - Freedom would not be in the list of answers.
That's why I'm thinking of even putting freedom up there (as it's a huge value of myself that is now challenged) to make the question even bolder.
Of course one could find definitions of a weaker freedom that would exist even if there is no free will, but that'd be more an act of denial. At least for me, and I'm not intending to convince any reader. Just want to make sense of it for myself.