406: Do Humans Have "Free Will?"

Special Announcement #1 Attend the Legendary Summer Intensive Featuring Drs. David Burns and Jill Levitt August 8 - 11. 2024 Learn Advanced TEAM-CBT skills Heal yourself, heal your patients First Intensive in 5 years! It will knock your socks off! Limited Seating--Act Fast Click for registration / more information!

Sadly, this workshop is a training program which will be limited to therapists and mental health professionals and graduate students in a mental health field Apologies, but therapists have complained when non-therapists have attended our continuing education training programs. This is partly because of the intimate nature of the small group exercises and the personal work the therapists may do during the workshop. Certified coaches and counselors are welcome to attend.

Special Announcement #2

Here's some GREAT news! The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it

Today's Podcast Practical Philosophy Month Part 1, The Free Will Problem

Welcome to Practical Philosophy month. For the next five weeks, we will discuss some of the most popular and challenging problems in philosophy, such as these:

1. Do human beings have free will? Or is free will just an illusion?
2. Do human beings have a "self?" Or is the "self" just another illusion?
3. Is it possible to be more or less "worthwhile?" Are some humans "better" or "worse" than others?
4. Does God exist?
5. Is the universe "real" or "one"?
6. What's the meaning of life?
7. What is "self-esteem"? How does it differ from self-confidence? What's the difference between conditional and unconditional self-esteem? What's the difference between self-esteem and self-acceptance? What do you have to do to experience joy and feelings of worthwhileness?

We will try to complete the list in five weeks, so some weeks we may include more than one topic, since many of these topics are related to one another.

Rhonda and David will be joined by our beloved Dr. Matt May, a regular on our Ask David episodes, and for the first and second sessions we will be joined by our beloved Dr. Fabrice Nye, who created and hosted the Feeling Good Podcasts several years ago.

Each week, you will also hear about the linkage between these philosophical dilemmas, and emotional problems, like depression, anxiety, and relationship conflicts. For example, nearly all depressed individuals believe that they aren't sufficiently "worthwhile." I see my goal as a psychiatrist not as helping people feel "more worthwhile," but rather showing people, if interested, how to give up this notion entirely and become free of certain kinds of damaging judgments of the "self" and others.

You will also learn how these types of philosophical problems continue to play a large role in psychiatry and psychology, including the DSM5 diagnostic system. For example, is the diagnosis of "Generalized Anxiety Disorder" a true "mental disorder" that you could "have" or "not have?"

And might some or most of the so-called "mental disorders" listed in the DSM be based on faulty philosophical / logical thinking? And if many or most of the "mental disorders" are based on goofy, faulty thinking, is there a more productive and effective way to think about most emotional problems?

And how did we get into this mess in the first place?

Worrying certainly exists, and we all worry at times. But how much or how often do you have to worry before you develop or have a "mental disorder" called "Generalized Anxiety Disorder" that can be diagnosed like any medical illness and treated with drugs?

Or is "Generalized Anxiety Disorder" (and hundreds of other "mental disorders in the DSM" based on a certain kind of nonsensical thinking? And if so, why? What is the goofy, faulty thinking in the DSM? And are there some "mental disorders" that are valid and real?

We HAVE touched on all of these themes in previous podcasts, but I thought it would be nice to put them all in one place and bring in a variety of "solutions," controversies, and experts. I David, will often represent (hopefully, and to the best of my ability) the thinking of Ludwig Wittgenstein, as expressed in his famous book, Philosophical Investigation, published in 1950 following his death.

That book consists of a series of numbered brief essays (a few paragraphs each) that were based on notes found in a metal box under his dormitory room at Cambridge University. He'd written these in preparation for his weekly seminars in his dormitory room. Wittgenstein, although now widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time, did not think he knew enough to teach in a classroom. In fact, because of his feelings of depression and self-doubt, he sadly never tried to publish anything when he was alive.

Wittgenstein's philosophy also played an indirect but significant role in the evolution of several modern psychotherapies. His philosophy created new ways of thinking that gave rise to the work of Dr. Albert Ellis, the famous New York psychologist who created Rational Emotive Therapy during the 1950s.

Ellis emphasized that the "Should Statements" that trigger so much guilt, shame, depression, anxiety, and rage are based on illogical thinking. He might often say, "Where is it written that people or the world "should" be the way you want them to be?" Of course, this idea actually traces back to the Greek Stoic philosophers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.

Wittgenstein's thinking also seems to have played a role in the thinking of Dr. Aaron Beck, who adapted the work of Ellis and called his version of the "Cognitive Therapy." Beck emphasized many thinking errors, like All-or-Nothing Thinking, and Overgeneralization, that trigger depression, anxiety, and more.

Sadly, Wittgenstein struggled with severe depression and loneliness throughout his life, and three of his four brothers tragically died by suicide. Wittgenstein also had prolonged periods of time when he considered suicide. It is also sad that he did not know how to apply his brilliant philosophical breakthroughs to his own negative thinking, but that application of his work did not develop at the time he was still alive.

Part of Wittgenstein's depression was related, I believe, to the fact that very few people, including the most famous philosophers of Europe, could understand his thinking when he was alive. From time to time, I think he glimpsed the enormous importance of his work; but I believe that he also had prolonged moments of self-doubt when he thought his work was of little value at best.

To be as correct as possible, Wittgenstein did write a manuscript called Tractatus Logico Philosophicus as a young man, although he never tried to publish it. He wrote it when he was a prisoner of war. He thought this book solved all the problems of philosophy, which had plagued him since he was a child, and he felt great relief. He sent a copy of his manuscript to Bertrand Russell, who was a famous British philosopher.

Bertrand Russell was incredibly impressed with the Tractatus and distributed it to many European philosophers. Bertrand Russell thought it might be the greatest book in the history of philosophy, and a number of the 20th century philosophical movements including Logical Positivism, were inspired by that book.

However, Wittgenstein left the field of philosophy, thinking that his work was done, and that he'd found the solutions he was looking for. He tried teaching grammar school for a while, but was fired because he became frustrated and violent toward some of his students. He also tried to survive as a fisher in a Norwegian fishing town, but was not successful at that, either, because he didn't know much about fishing, much less supporting yourself through fishing.

One day, he learned that a brilliant Swedish economics student had found a flaw in his Tractatus, and his inner turmoil about the puzzling problems of philosophy flared up again. He decided to return to the study of philosophy.

He applied to be an advanced undergraduate at Cambridge University, but when someone in the admissions office spotted his application, they recognized his name and showed his application to Bertrand Russell, who had been wondering what had become of the young man who once sent him such a brilliant manuscript. Russell, who was the chair of the department of philosophy, said to being Wittgenstein to his office immediately for an interview.

Russell explained that he would have to reject Wittgenstein's application to be an undergraduate at Cambridge University. Deeply disappointed, Wittgenstein asked why. Russell told him it was because he was already recognized as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

Bertrand proposed that if Wittgenstein would agree to skip college and graduate school, they would immediately award him a PhD for the manuscript he'd sent to Russell years earlier. Russell also offered him a full professor ship in the department of philosophy.

Wittgenstein protested and said he needed to study philosophy again, because of the error in Tractatus, and that he didn't know anything, and definitely could not teach in a classroom. Bertrand Russell insisted, and they finally struck a deal where Wittgenstein would agree to be a professor of philosophy but all he would have to do was to have a conversation session with anybody who wanted to talk to him at his dormitory room once a week.

Wittgenstein accepted and met for years with students and famous philosophers who came from around Europe to crowd into his dormitory room for his weekly seminars, and he began to shape a radically different philosophical approach from the one he'd described earlier in his Tractatus. He was determined to find a new way to solve all the problems of philosophy.

And, to my way of thinking, along with those few who really understand him, he was successful.

But he was often frustrated because, so few understood him. This was unfortunate, because what he was saying was incredibly simple and basic, and it was pretty similar to, if not identical to, the thinking of the Buddha 2500 years earlier.

The Buddha apparently had the same problem—almost nobody could understand what he was trying to say when he was still alive. They couldn't "get it" when he was talking about the so-called "Great Death" of the "self," or talking about the path to enlightenment. The Buddha's frustration resulted from the exact same problem Wittgenstein encountered 2500 years later.

The Buddha was saying something that was extremely simple, obvious, and basic—and yet, it was rumored that of his more than 100,000 followers when he was alive, only three actually "got it" and experienced enlightenment. When I read Philosophical Investigations my senior year in college, it was rumored that only seven people in the world understood what Wittgenstein was trying to say.

Wittgenstein's dream was that philosophy students would "get" his thinking and give up philosophy when they realized that most if not all philosophical problems are sheer nonsense. He wanted them to do something practical and real in the world instead of studying philosophy.

He was verry disappointed when his favorite student, Norman Malcolm (one of the seven who "got it,") pursued an illustrious career teaching philosophy in America at Cornell University.

I always wished I could have known Wittgenstein when he was alive, so I could have told him this:

I loved you, too, and I got it after several months of confusion, trying to understand your Philosophical Investigations, but eventually understood it with the help of your student, Norman Malcolm. His book about you was very inspiring. And that's why I left philosophy for something more practical in the world. I decided at the last minute to go to medical school to become a psychiatrist instead of philosophy graduate school. Hopefully, I am doing something that you might be proud of!

But oddly enough, your thinking has also influenced my approach to people who feel depressed and worthless. They are also under a kind of destructive "enchantment," thinking that there is some such "thing" as a more or less worthwhile human being! And this is a major cause of depression and anxiety and feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness.

I wonder if you, Wittgenstein, ever felt that you weren't "good enough" when you were feeling down. hopeless and suicidal? I sure wish I could have helped you with that!

If you want to understand Wittgenstein's work, the best book in my opinion is Norman Malcolm's moving and affectionate tribute to his beloved teacher, entitled "Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir." It's a short moving tribute to his beloved teacher, and tears go down my cheeks every time I read it, or even think about it. If you ever visit my office here at home, you'll find that memoir proudly sitting on my bookshelf, with a handsome photo of Wittgenstein on the cover.

Toward the end of his life, Wittgenstein appears to have become more or less homeless, and he died from prostate cancer. His doctor said he could live in his home, where he was befriended by the doctor's wife in his final days. His dying words were, "Tell them that I had a wonderful life."

He died on April 29, 1951, just a few hours before my wife was born in Palo Alto, California. Surprisingly, she is the only person I've ever met who understood Wittgenstein's thinking entirely the first time I explained it to her. She "already knew" what Wittgenstein, the greatest philosophical genius of the 20th century, spent a lifetime figuring out!

Reincarnation is pretty "out there," and fairly silly, to my way of thinking, but sometimes it can be fun to think about it!

Here is my understanding of how the thinking of the "later Wittgenstein" actually developed. His first book, which is nearly impossible to understand, was called the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. It is a series of numbered propositions, which he compared to climbing up a ladder, rung by rung, as you read the book until you got to the roof at the top of the ladder.

Then you could throw your ladder away and give up philosophical thinking, since he thought his book contained the solution to all the problems of philosophy that had tormented him since childhood, as mentioned previously.

The philosophy of language in the Tractatus is based on the thinking of Aristotle and Plato, who thought that the function of language was to name things that exist in the real world. Plato's idea was that our real world consists of imperfect examples of a "Platonic Reality" which consisted of "perfect" representations of everything.

So, for example, Plato believed there could be a perfect "table," a perfect "lamp," and so forth. In other words, he thought there was an ideal essence to the concept of a "table." And, I suppose, there might also be a "perfect" version of you! The early Wittgenstein also thought that the logic inherent in our sentences reflected the logic inherent in an external reality.

If that doesn't make much sense to you, join the club! But that's kind of what Plato and Aristotle were promoting, at least in my (David's) understanding.

When Wittgenstein's Tractatus was debunked, he was devastated, and desperately wanted to find another way to solve the problems of philosophy, since they started tormenting him again. It was much like a relapse of OCD or some other emotional problem. In fact, he thought of philosophy as a kind of mental illness that needed treatment.

Here's an example of the types of philosophical problems that tormented him. Do human beings have free will? Do we have a "self?" Is the universal "real?"

Of course, we THINK we have free will, and it SEEMS like we make "free decisions" all day long, but is this just an illusion? For example, some people would argue that we cannot have "free will" because we "have to" follow the laws of science that govern everything, including how the brain works. So, since we "have to" do what we are doing at every moment of every day, we must not have free will!

Here is an argument that we do NOT have "free will." When a powerful storm or hurricane destroys a portion of a city, and people die, we see this as a tragedy, but we don't get angry at the hurricane because it does have "free will." It is just obeying the laws of physics that govern the forces of wind, air pressure, heat and cooling, and so forth. A storm cannot behave in any other way.

So, the argument goes, we are also following the laws that govern the functioning of our bodies and brains, and so we cannot do other than what we do, so we, too, have no "free will." We THINK we are acting freely but it is an illusion, so our brains are obeying the laws of the universe at every moment!

For hundreds of years philosophers have struggled with this puzzle, and many people still wrestle with this problem today. It was one of the problems that drew me to philosophy. Impractical for sure, but still tantalizing.

Another way to express the free will puzzle is via religious thinking. I was taught when I was growing up that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere) and omniscient (all knowing.) So, God knows the past, present, and future.

And if God knows the future, then God knows what we will do at every moment of every day, and we are helpless to do otherwise. Therefore, we have no "free will," even though we "think" we do!

This free will problem can definitely be unsettling, with troubling moral consequences. If we do not "free will," then are serial killers really responsible for, or guilty, or accountable for their actions? If we do not have free will, then wouldn't that give us license to do whatever we want whenever we want?

Clever arguments for sure! We may "feel" like we have the freedom to do whatever we want at almost any moment of any day, but are we fooling ourselves and living in some gigantic hoax, or illusion? Are we total slaves with the delusion that we are actually acting "freely?"

How do we resolve this problem?

Well, one day Wittgenstein was walking past a soccer game at the park, and the soccer ball hit him on the head.

He wasn't hurt, but had the thought, "What if the function of language is NOT to name things (like trees, or lamps, etc.) that exist in some "external reality," like Plato and Aristotle thought? What if language actually functions as a series of "language games," with rules, just like the game of soccer?

Then the meaning of any words would simply be the many ways the word is used in different real world situations. In fact, that's what you find in the dictionary when you look up the meaning of a word. The dictionary doesn't ever give you some "correct" or "pure" meaning, since most words have many meanings.

This would be the opposite of the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato who argued that there were "true" meanings for every word, noun, or concept. What if, instead, words had NO true or essential meanings, and their meanings were simply embedded in the context in which they are used in ordinary, everyday language?

If so, this might mean that philosophical problems emerge when we try to pull words out of their ordinary meanings, which are always obvious, and put them into some metaphysical realm where philosophers argue about "ultimate truth."

Let's say we wanted to find out if humans have "free will." Well, not being sure if there is such a "thing" as "free will," we could look up "free" and "will" in the dictionary. (I know this sounds incredibly obvious and almost ridiculous.) What does "free" mean?

Well, we could talk about the many ways we use "free." Political freedom means that in some countries you cannot contradict the leader (the dictator) without the danger of being thrown in prison or even murdered. But in other countries, you are, In fact, free to express your own ideas and opinions, without fear of punishment.

Free also means getting something without having to pay for it, like a seventh bottle of soda is free at the local grocery store if you purchase a six pack.

Free can also mean "available." I am starting up my Sunday hikes again, and I might say, "If you are free this Sunday morning, meet at my front door at 9 and we'll go for a hike and have a dim sum feast afterwards at a Chinese restaurant on Castro Street in Mountain View, California,

Now notice that when you talk about "free will" you have taken this word, "free," out of the familiar contexts in which we find it, and given it some type of metaphysical "meaning." But in this metaphysical, philosophical arena, it has no meaning.

So, instead of trying to "solve" the so-called "free will" problem, we can dismiss it as nonsensical, and ignore it as having no practical meaning, and move on with our lives. We can say, "I just don't understand that problem! I don't know what you're talking about when you ask the general question of whether we have something called 'free will.'"

That either works for you, or it doesn't work for you! Your choice. It does work for me, but it took me months of thinking until I suddenly "got it."

My way of describing this philosophical error is "nounism." You think that nouns always refer to things that could "exist" or "not-exist," just like Plato and Aristotle thought. So, you ponder and try to figure out if this notion of "free will" exists or does not exist. But it's arguably a meaningless question.

That's why I say, and Wittgenstein might say, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Today we'll discuss the free will problem and how it might relate to our field of psychotherapy. Next week, we'll deal with another thorny problem: Do we have a "self?" Or is that also just some kind of illusion?

I (David) wrote these show notes before the show, and we have had fairly extensive email exchanges, with a variety of points of view on whether or not we have something we can call "free will." First, I'll put a great email by Matt, followed by a comment by Fabrice.

Here's Matt's email first:

Subject: Re: question

Yes, that's getting very close to what I'm trying to communicate. I don't believe you are 'slow' or 'super lame', either. In fact, quite the opposite.

I suspect I'm failing to do an adequate job of disarming your claims that 'free will' and 'self' are words taken out-of-context and, therefore, can't be shown to exist or not-exist.

I apologize, as I am pretty excited about the potential to help people, suffering with self-blame and other-blame, by realizing that we and others don't have a 'self' or 'free will'. I believe we have a brain that makes decisions and creates experiences, including the experience of having a 'self' and 'free will'. I believe that the experience of 'making' a decision is an illusion, as is the idea of a static, unchanging 'self' that controls decision-making.

I asked you to pick a movie and you said, 'Green Mile'. You acknowledged that this movie title simply 'popped into my head'. That's correct. Your 'self' didn't control what you selected, using 'free will'. Your brain just came up with that movie title. There was no 'self' that made a decision to choose that word.

I agree that we have a brain which is incredibly powerful. I'm claiming that we don't have an auxiliary 'self', with extra super powers, controlling our brain. We can make decisions, but we don't have 'free will', meaning, the ability to control those decisions.

I do think you have some resistance to seeing through the illusions of 'self' and 'free will', all of which say awesome things about you, e.g. morality and justice. I'm not trying to convince you, one way or another, and I don't expect to. I'm more interested in the listening audience, as many people are significantly relieved when they realize that we are more the victims of our biology and circumstance rather than defective 'selves' lacking 'willpower'.

To put a slightly finer point on the subject, when people say they have 'free will', they don't mean that 'decisions are made'. Obviously, decisions are made. You decided to keep reading this email, for example. Or you didn't. I'm not sure. Either way, a decision was made. When people say they have 'free will', they are saying that they (really, their 'self') are/is free to decide whether to continue reading this email, and that this power goes above and beyond what their brain is doing, according to the laws of physics. I am claiming that this is a ridiculous and dangerous thought, for which there is no evidence.

You're saying these terms haven't been defined. I'm pointing out that they already have been, intuitively, by anyone who thinks, 'I shouldn't have done that', or 'they shouldn't have done that'. These thoughts require a belief that they 'could have' done something different, that they had free will.

Aside from rage and guilt, let's examine the narcissism and excessive sense of confidence a patient might have, if they believe that they can simply 'decide', through sheer 'willpower', not to beat up on themselves anymore. Or a patient who believes they can simply 'decide' to always use the 5-Secrets, rather than criticize and blame. Can they? I've never seen that happen. That's why I assign homework. I know that the goal is to rewire the brain so they can feel and perform better, later.

We can't simply decide to feel good all the time. We all drift in-and-out of enlightenment. If we want to increase the likelihood that we will be able to set aside self-criticism or communicate more effectively, we have to practice new thoughts and behaviors. If we do, we will develop greater skills at defeating negative thoughts and communicating effectively. Otherwise, our brains will do, in the future, what they are programmed to do, now. It's because we lack 'free will', that we must do homework.

Similarly, you couldn't simply 'decide' to be the world's best ping-pong player. You realized you would have to work hard to re-wire your brain, if you wanted to have a chance at that.

Let's use the murderer/cat example:

A cat tortures and kills mice for the same reasons that a murderer does: their brains are programmed to do so. Murderers don't have a defective 'self' that is failing to express 'free will' adequately, when they murder. They're doing precisely what the atomic structure of their brain caused them to do, according to the laws of physics, in that moment, when presented with those precise stimuli. We don't have to judge or punish the cat or the murderer's 'self' and insist they should have used their 'free will'. We can accept that neither creature had the ability to decide differently from what their brain decided, in that moment. That is where the therapeutic element of this realization comes into play. I think it's important on a lot of levels, to stop blaming cats for being cats and murderers for being murderers.

Similarly, if a patient doesn't want to do homework, will it do any good to blame them and think they're bad and should decide differently? No, it helps to accept them where they are, and to accept ourselves where we are, with open hands.

Realizing nobody has a 'self' operating their brain and making decisions that are better than their brains' decisions doesn't mean we have to let all the murderers go or trust our cat with a new mouse companion. We can still be aware that their brains are programmed to murder. We would still be motivated to do whatever is necessary to protect society and mice. The difference is the attitude towards the murderer. We aren't trying to 'punish' or 'get vengeance' but to protect and, instead of 'labeling' them as having a 'bad self' or even being a 'murderer', but someone who has murdered and, left to their own devices, likely to do so again.

Instead of judging and demanding vengeance, we would see a murderer as the victim of their biology and environment. Instead of condemning them as permanently evil and bad, we could recognize that their brain is currently wired to do bad things and they might still learn new ways to interact with others. Perhaps they're not hopeless cases, after all. From the other side, if I ever committed murder, and sentenced to death, I wouldn't want to be feeling defective, thinking what a bad self I have and guilty/ashamed for not flexing my 'free will' in the heat of the moment. Instead, I might feel a sense of relief, purpose and meaning, that I was protecting others by being put to death.

Alright, enough out of me!

Thanks,

Matt

And now, the response from Fabrice:

Matt's thinking is exactly in line with mine. I don't know if the topic came up in your discussion, but some people argue that actually someone could have done something differently than they did, because there is some randomness in Nature. But that argument doesn't hold water because even if the decision "made" by their brain is different, it has nothing to do with their will but only with the Heisenberg principle.

Cheers!

Fabrice Nye fabrice@life.net

David's wrap up comment. Matt and Fabrice have quite a different view of "free will" and the "self." They are arguing, very thoughtfully and persuasive, that we do not "have" a "self" or "free will." People have been involved in this debate, as I've mentioned, for hundreds of years, taking one side or another.

My own thinking is different, and reflects my understanding of Wittgenstein's thinking. They have take these words out of the contexts in which they exist in everyday language, (which is a huge temptation) and involved in a debate about abstract concepts which have no meaning.

Very few people, it seems, were able to grasp this idea when Wittgenstein was alive, or even today.

So, if what I'm saying makes no sense to you, be comforted, since it seems likely that 99% of the people reading this, or listening to the show, will agree with you!

And that's still a puzzle to me. It is not clear to me why so many people still cannot "see" or "get" this idea that words do not have any pure or essential "meaning" outside of the context of everyday use of language.

The best psychotherapy example I can use is the fact that nearly all depressed individuals are trying to figure out, on some abstract or philosophical level, whether they are "worthwhile" or "good enough," or whatever. This seems to be a "real" problem, and so they believe that they are not sufficiently worthwhile.

This belief can be so convincing that many people commit suicide, out of a sense of hopelessness and self-hatred.

But there is not such thing as a human being who is more or less "worthwhile." Of course, your actions can be more or less worthwhile at any moment, and we can evaluate or judge our specific behaviors. Yesterday, we had our first recording session in a video studio we have set up for our Feeling Great App.

We had a lot of fun and recorded some (hopefully) interesting stories we'll publish on our two new YouTube channels. I really appreciated the colleagues who made this possible. It was a relief for me because I tend to have performance anxiety, which impairs my ability to speak naturally and with emotion. But this time, there was no anxiety at all, so it was fun.

Did this make me or my colleagues more worthwhile human beings?

No! But it did show that we'd become a bit more effective and communicating messages that will trigger healing and understanding in our fans, and hope that includes you!

When you "see" this, perhaps for the first time, it can be incredibly liberating, since you no longer have the need to have a "self" that's "special" or worthwhile.

And, as some of you know, my beloved teacher and cat, Obie, taught me that when you no longer need to be "special," life becomes special. When your "self" dies, you inherit the world! There's no funeral, only a celebration!

Feel free to contact us with your thoughts, ideas and questions!

Thank you for listening today!

Rhonda, Matt, Fabrice, and David