Thoughts on Free Will and Determinism
by Joseph Rowlands
The debate on Free Will vs. Determinism rages on over the years, even the centuries, without an end in sight. Objectivists are not immune to the topic. And surprisingly, even with a philosophy aimed at clarity and objectivity, it seems to be one giant muddled mess with people talking past one another. How can we make some progress? One necessary step is to try to converge on what each side means, and also try to understand the alleged merits of the alternatives. If we approach it with some benevolence, we can see why someone might accept the other position. It would then let the arguments deal with the critical issues.
One of the main issues that seems to come up is that the meanings for Free Will and Determinism are often quite vague, and are not necessarily agreed upon. Roughly, Free will is the position that we as individuals are actually able to make choices. Determinism is the position that our actions are controlled by something else. There are lots of varieties of determinism. It could be video games that control you, or drugs, or your environment, or your genes, or anything else.
But if we go a little deeper, we can see why there's some confusion. Determinism, for instance, is sometimes taken to be an application of the Law of Identity. The mind is a product of the brain, and the brain is a physical object that obeys exact physical laws. From that perspective, while we may believe we're making choices, they are all derived from the effects of the laws of physics on our brains.
Given this perspective, what is Free Will? If you take that as the meaning of Determinism, and accept it as true, then Free Will has to be something that exists outside of the Law of Identity. Some claim your soul is outside of this worldly existence, and so is able to be free. Some claim that Quantum Mechanics allows non-determinism into the equation, as if that could somehow leave the door open for Free Will. But having to posit some supernatural or non-causal explanation makes Free Will a lost cause.
But that was given a specific view of Determinism and suggesting a definition of Free Will to be consistent with it. The Free Will side of debate has their own perspective on it all. Free Will is the name given to our capacity to make choices. We experience making choices all of the time. Free Will is the recognition of this, and the view that we really are making those choices.
From this Free Will perspective, Determinism is not the Law of Identity at all. It's a mistake. It is the position that our choices are actually caused by something other than ourselves. Determinism then amounts to the position that we only think we're making choices, but that actually it's all just an illusion. It is the view that we may experience ourselves making choices, but that experience isn't real.
It's like the difference between watching television and real life. The TV can present decision-making as a vivid experience, but you aren't at all in control. Determinism seems to be a view of our capacity to make choices that puts it on par with this TV experience. It may seem even more vivid and real, but it is no different. Your decisions are made without it.
It should also be noted that if our ability to choose is just a television-like experience, faked by our brains to experience a false rationalization for the choice, then the rest of the conscious experience is the same. If our choices are illusions, so is the rest of our thought processes. If we're not directing our actions, then we're not directing our thinking, which is also an action. The whole experience would have to be fake. Even the experience of understanding is just an illusion. And especially the experience of agreeing with determinism would be false.
These different perspectives are just examples, but common ones. There are people who espouse each of these positions, on both sides of the debate. So for instance there are people who promote free will by suggesting that our minds are controlled by quantum probabilities. With friends like that, it certainly adds to the confusion.
One thing to notice is that these varying definitions are formed by different approaches. The pro-determinism view I mentioned tackles the issue by referring to the underlying causality of everything. The free will side focuses on the mental experience and our direct (introspective) evidence.
The two approaches lead to two different results. Can they be resolved? There are a couple possible ways. The first is to take the Determinist position that our sense of choice is really an illusion. Since the free will is based on direct evidence, you can just suggest that the evidence is invalid. We think we're making choices, but we're really controlled.
The Free Will side has a different way to bridge the gap. Instead of throwing out the Law of Identity, you can simply throw out the alleged contradiction. There's no problem with a brain or mind that obeys the Law of Identity and still having Free Will. Our consciousness, or mind, is an emergent property of our brains. And instead of it being an illusion, we can simply argue that it is a real phenomena. It does function the way we experience. We do process data. We do think and value. We do make choices. The consciousness as a process actually exists, and the brain is just the medium.
That solves the problem because it still fully accepts the Law of Identity and the capacity to choose. Free Will isn't something that violates Identity. And the identity of the mind isn't just a complicated chemical reaction that gives us the appearance of being in control. The identity of the mind actually is what it seems to be, a functioning mind with emotions, memories, a reasoning process, senses to gather data, and the capacity to direct its own operation.
The important point is that you can't simply explain the choices by reference to the physical phenomena of the brain. To actually understand what's going on, you need to focus on the consciousness itself. It's no different then how you would try to understand a computer program. You don't look at what the hardware is doing. While it has all of the information there, to understand it you need to recognize that the process itself has an identity. Or for instance you wouldn't look at each atom in a book to try to understand the message it is built to convey. It only makes sense when you recognize that at the higher level, there are letters forming words forming sentences conveying meaning.
Again, we can see that by approaching this phenomena at different angles or levels of abstraction, we get seemingly conflicting results. We can also see that there are methods for resolving those conflicts. By trying to identify the approaches and seeming merits, we can hopefully gain a better understanding of where the other side is coming from.
Discuss this Article (23 messages)
|
