This post will be the first of a series of discussions on a wide range of philosophical issues. What I wish to address today is the problem of free will. I’ll try to make it as short and sweet as possible.
THE PROBLEM:
Four differing views exist
1. That man is free to some extent and that an individual is ultimately responsible for his choices and these choices determine his life. This is the existentialist view.
2. That freedom is meaningless and that all events in the universe are predetermined. A person does what fate destined him to do. Choice and free will are an illusion arising from the complexity of the brain. There exists only a single past and a single possible future. This view is known as neo-fatalism.
3. That all events are not predetermined because the uncertainty principle in physics introduces randomness into the universe. Thus multiple possible futures exist but only one future is fulfilled and the particular path of future taken can change at any instant. However, freedom is still meaningless as the individual is not in control of the randomness. I don’t have a name for this view but I have reason to believe that this is the view held by most contemporary physicists.
4. Finally, the multiverse/many-worlds view that says that every time the universe encounters an event with a random outcome, the universe splits it into as many parallel universes as there are possible outcomes and each universe exists independent of every other. Freedom is still elusive here as the choice of which universe we are conscious in does not rest with the individual. This view is considered as wild and speculative.
In this post, I will proceed to refute view 1 and conclude that freedom is meaningless in the universe as we know it.
Whenever we make a conscious choice, a number of factors influence this choice (genes, upbringing, experiences, environment, etc.). But freedom of will means that even with the presence of all these factors, a person has the capacity to go against them, the driving forces, and express his choice (the freedom to do otherwise). Thus, this would require that the person makes a choice which is ultimately influenced by nothing. There is no driving force, factor or cause that led to the person’s choice.
The person’s choice is an effect.
All effects must have causes.
The choice was caused by nothing and has no cause.
Contradiction!
Thus, the assumption that the choice was uninfluenced is incorrect. This implies that the choice is not a free one. In fact, free will as a concept is meaningless as is shown above.
One may argue that free will does not mean absolute lack of influence of factors but that the previous choices of the person are what ultimately decide the present choice. This would imply that all the choices made by a person are ultimately factored by the first choice that the person made whenever or whatever it was. We would then be left with the problem of determining what influenced the first choice, and if we assume freedom of will for this choice, we would end up with the same contradiction.
This conclusively refutes view 1 and the concept of free will.
Please post your comments.
Hmm…you sound like some boring old guy with glasses. “please post your comments.” hahahahaha
Aaaaanyhoo, I guess I’ve got to do a lot more reading on Absurdism and Existentialism but I don’t agree with Neo Fatalism at all. Not one bit. Shall think of an explanation later.
Neo_Fatalism jus cannot b true, for the simple reason dat every human comes across a lot of choices n those choices he make has an efect on his future…
The 3rd view is also not possible, coz it contracdicts itself..Coz if, “events are not predetermined” and “the individual is not in control of the randomness”…. then wat is in control of the randomness?? smthing is… n that smthing (God) has it predetermined!!! Ofcourse i agree that humans hav a choice again, which will determine the future to an extend!! Though not completely.
The 4th view is kinda confusing me! But for the same reason as the 3rd view, I refute this too!
Now the 1st view is close to wat I believe in… Coz there are many instences where the choice of a man changes his destiny! Ofcourse there is a stronger power who is in control of it all… but stil, there is a level of freedom … It kud b compared to a kid in a room wid his father near him! The kid has the freedom to do anything… but the father can intervene any time for diff. reasons like the kids safety or watever!!
Now the main reason for this confusion in views is the difference in the definition of “Free will” … For some, free will is just having a choice. But if u dont consider it free will jus coz ur influenced by ur (genes, upbringing, experiences, environment, etc.)… that wud create unneccesary complications.. Oh yeah!! Thats wat philosophy is supposed to do!!!!
@all4love
ah! this is a typical response i get and i’d be glad to shed some more light on the issue.
“Neo_Fatalism jus cannot b true, for the simple reason dat every human comes across a lot of choices n those choices he make has an efect on his future”
Yes, every human comes across choices.
Yes, these choices have an effect on his future.
BUT, the point i was trying to put across is that these choices are predetermined because the person himself is a part of the universe. Any part of the universe works on laws, and on the principle of causality (every effect must have a cause).
The trouble arises not in the definition of free will, but in the definition of “person”. A person makes a choice, but what is a person? Can u deny that he is a biological system which is ultimately governed by physical laws? Is the person then not bound by these laws? If the person has the capacity to go against these laws, then what caused him, to do so? If every factor and driving force in the world should compel a man to do one thing, but he does something else, then shouldnt there be a cause or reason or additional factor that led him to do something else? This factor cannot be under his control because when u go on asking whys and hows and finally reach the point where all of the factors are as fundamental as can be, the very concept of a person has broken down into nothing but particles interacting with each other under the laws of physics. There is then no “person” left to have control over the fundamental factors.
The fundamental factors are always basic and beyond control of an individual. For example, a proton and a proton will repel each other and there’s nothing u can do about it. A proton will attract an electron and there’s nothing YOU can do about it. But ultimately, the way your brain works is determined by how protons repel protons, electrons attract protons and numerous other physical interactions over which YOU have no control because YOU are now merely reduced to a collection of particles. (No offense
)
Thus, Neo-Fatalism does deserve some attention.
You are partly correct about the 3rd view. I too disagree with it and will try to refute it in a future post.
We are left with only views 2 and 4, both of them providing no scope for freedom.
Remember, what I’m saying is that free will doesnt exist as a concept but it exists as an illusion and again, I will describe how this illusion is brought about in a future post.
Unnecessary complications? all4love, ignorance truly IS bliss, but never a virtue.
And oh, speaking of contradictions, I read one of yr poems and I couldnt help noticing this line…
“But I do know the one who knows my future.
His name is Jesus, He’s the light inside of me.”
Prestidigitator is probably going to be bugged with me for asking this but i simply have to… if Jesus knows your future, he should know whether you’re going to do good or bad right? Then if you do bad, then you did it because you were suppsoed to right? Since Jesus already knew you were going to do bad, then you couldnt possibly have done good could you? So where’s the freedom?
“Since Jesus already knew you were going to do bad, ” Now that idea might hav come coz of the Bible verses that says, “All have sinned”, ” All like sheep have gone astray”, e.t.c… But , thats bcoz we are all born in sin, and will go wrong… Now that doesnot mean, we couldnt do good. We can! By Grace.. v can choose to not walk in sin after getting mature and decide to obey Him … Now thats freedom.. Freedom after realizing that u can do right by His grace, n tring to obey Him. And still, the freedom reamins, freedom :-
1. Freedom to choose to have “the freedom” to do right by obeying Him.
2. Freedom to choose to not have “the freedom” to do right!
Lolz, now does that make any sense to u? If it doesn’t I’ll try to xplain. But shud read the bible, that xplains things better.
bualualublaulalu….(thats me shaking my head wildly in response to yr last comment)
all4love, first of all, you’ve ignored the first part of my comment, which is relevant to this discussion and was intended to address your miscomprehensions.
secondly, u’ve misunderstood the nature of my last question. and you’re response is riddled with contradictions:
To start with, assuming “heaven” and “hell” existed, its not just Jesus, even I, or any sensible person would be able to say that you would end up EITHER in heaven or hell. Its not really a big thing for God to guess that you would end up in either heaven or hell, and knowing that is absolutely NOT equivalent to knowing your future.
Further, the biggest screw-up is yr claim that “jesus knows the 2 futures you can have”…Listen carefully. I’m going to jump into yr shoes for a moment and assume as you think, that I have free will. If this was the case, as u had claimed earlier, I would be making free conscious choices ALL the time (not just once). Each time I make a choice (say to do good or bad), I am rejecting one future and taking another, isnt it? Suppose I have made ‘n’ free choices so far, that means i have REJECTED ‘n’ futures and chosen the (n+1)th one. For example, if I have made 11150 choices in my life, there would be 11151 futures that jesus would have had to account for. Not 2. (I can explain this with a diagram if u want, but cant put it in a comment)
Now, what amazes me even more is how you arent familar with the christian concept of the omniscience of God. It is well accepted in christian theology that God knows everything, including the future and choices of every individual. Infact, St. Augustine even went so far as to publicly claim that God has decided who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell.
I quote u:
““Since Jesus already knew you were going to do bad, ” Now that idea might hav come coz of the Bible verses that says…”
all4love, the Bible would be the last place I would draw ideas from to establish a philosophical view using logic and reason…:) What I was pointing out was the obvious fallacy in assuming the compatibility of free will and the omniscience of God(which you’re poem suggested and I may have misinterpreted).
Now please do comment on the first part of my previous post instead of quoting from sources that evryone may not agree on.
@lumeno I don’t like where this is going…
@all – ye kya ho raha hai bhai …????
@prestidigitator: I dont quite like where this is going either! But ur bro is challenging me wid his philosophies, n i jus cant stop myself from responding!!
@Lumeno: Know wat! Ur rite. The problem here is,for u, “the Bible would be the last place (you) would draw ideas from to establish a philosophical view using logic and reason…” and for me, Bible is the standard!
I was an atheist till a few yrs bak. Believed in science. That “Any part of the universe works on laws, and on the principle of causality ” Believed that it was just a matter of time for scientists to come up with a theory that wud cancel off all the “superstitions” that existeded in the world. But wen ‘circumstances’ and experiences prove that u cant trust ppl (friends, family, urself, and even scientists… Cant believe scientists coz science is a history of scientists stating and restating theories. One thought electrons revolve around fixed orbits… n then someone comes up wid quantum physics and that electrons are like clouds around the neutron or watever!) I tried God, coz I needed someone to trust, n He’s been faithful ever since. It might not be proved through theories… but FAITH and EXPERIENCES are all that it takes to believe. How can u put ur trust in science that keeps changing everyday?? No offense to any scientists.
I love science, its an affort to understand God’s creations. But one says, tea causes cancer… another says, tea is good! Science is so unstable to depend on concerning issues that might determine ur eternal life… now again there is a need for FAITH to even believe eternity exist! So since our basic ideas are diff. , there is a good chance that this argument might lead us to no conclusions. But jus for argument sake, lemme continue…
1. I agree with u that “the very concept of a person has broken down into nothing but particles interacting with each other “… thats how insignificant we are in this wide universe. Driven by laws… yes! But, lemme introduce this view… of a person being 3 in 1 . That is, the ‘body’, ‘mind’/'soul’ and ‘spirit’. Now, the “body” is driven by laws of physics.. the mind controls the body, influenced by “(genes, upbringing, experiences, environment, etc.)” , But there is also a “spirit” part of ppl, which is not controled by principles. That is the level where we have freedom to go against the rules of nature. That explains the many miracles, healings through prayer that doctors kudnt heal, prophesies , e.t.c. and even the dark side of the spirit realm like witchcrafts, e.t.c. This spirit is wat makes men more than just a ,”a biological system which is ultimately governed by physical laws” !! Now, the spirit part of every individual can either guide the soul n thus the body, … or the spirit part will just sleep and let the soul control the body , in which case there is no freedom to a human being! He is as u stated , “merely reduced to a collection of particles.”
2. About the 2 future thingy that I was talking about. Let me illustrate. Say u are going to ur friends house. There will be a lot of crossroads(choices) u will come across before reaching ur destination. U might hav more than one choice at every cross road. But only one of those choices leads u to his house. how much ever ‘n’ choices u make, there are just 2 options, ONE: the right road. TWO: one of the wrong roads. That I hope explains the “2″ choices I mentioned, instead of the ‘n’ or ‘n+1′ choices. Now if u go make some wrong choices, u can still turn ur bike and come bak to the right road. U might go wrong again and again and yet come back to the right road. Now the route you take can be considered ur “future” which depends on ur choices. U might reach ur destination through the correct road straight away, or u might go all over n then come to the destination. Or u might get all messed up n reach somewhere other than ur destination. Again, the house can be the right destination(heaven) and any where other than the house can be called “hell”. You have the freedom to choose which road to take, if you are lead by the spirit. But if ur lead by laws, experiences, genes, or watever,then ur right… there is no freedom. Its all an illusion!
Oh, and about ,”All effects must have causes.” as u quoted, at times this cause is simple obedience to God without understanding. You cannot always ,”ask whys and hows and finally reach the point “… If a small kid goes to put his hands into a live plug, and his father says “DONT”!The kid can choose to obey or not. If he asks whys and hows wen he doesn’t even understand electricity, only experience will teach him. So in the kids case, ignorance is a limitation which cannot be overcome .. But faith in his father(God as in my explanation)is the Bliss! Quite often, its the human ego which believes that he is capable of understanding everything, prevents him in believing in the unexplainable and supernatural. I hope that ego doesn’t make us put our hands into a live plug, coz v dont get an understandable explanation to electricity and coz v dont see any danger from outside..
Disclaimer: I know I’ve gone away from the point of discussion.. but thats me!
Why is there no response to that last post by all4love – did she really convince you??
who we talking about??? (chicken little style) didnt understand a word…am i dumb or are u guys really smart??
who we talking about??? (chicken little style) didnt understand a word…am i dumb or are u guys really smart?? i guess both…sigh!
@Lumeno Philosophy is ‘questions’ that may never be answered.
@all4love Religion is ‘answers’ that may never be questioned.
THE IRRRRONYY!!!
@prestidigitator: Wow… well said…. well said….
My revious comment was suppsed to be sarcastic…
Alright…both of you…listen up…I’m going to TRY to be as objective as possible…as unbiased as possible…
I’m not a religious person, but I’m not an atheist either. That doesn’t mean I’m confused or an agnostic. I just happen to think rituals are too much of a waste of time and happen to side logic and reason. Spiritual…but not religious. Go ahead and label it cowardice, but it isn’t!
Now, I honestly believe that no matter how well both of you assert your opines, neither of you will be convinced of the other’s point of view; simply because both of you are convinced about what you’re saying!
I happen to believe that our beliefs/faith has something/everything to do with the way we grow up, the books we read, the movies we see and the overall culture we are exposed to/assimillate.
Relegion is mostly for people who need validation whereas atheism is for people who do not. Atheism does not mean intelligence or enlightenment and relegion does not necessarily mean disillusionment and escapism. I happen to personally know a lot of intelligent believers as well as stupid atheists.
See, I’m pretty sure you’re not going to convince each other to change your respective stance(s)! It is as futile and pointless as life itself!
@Lumeno Hey…I was re-reading this book Indecision by Benjamin Kunkel. The second time round is an ephiphany of sorts…better than the first time.
Anyhoo, theres this really neat para on Free Will boiling down to random neuro chemistry! will quote it later….
@prestidigitator: hehehe… so u hav a sensible , come to compromise kinda, big bro image too ah?? interesting!
@all4love What the???
@bluestocking: who are you?
@all4love+bluestocking: Sorry for the delay. I’ve been a bit busy the last week. I finally found time now to post a reply at 7am in the morning after sitting up through the night working on assignments!
@all4love:
What began as a humble attempt at a scientific analysis of free will ended up being a debate between the scientific method and the religious approach. This is quite unfortunate. Problems like free will when “analyzed” are to be done in a purely scientific manner if we are to reach conclusions that are not biased by “faith” or ideology. When something is analyzed in a scientific manner, counter-arguments are expected in a scientific manner. Otherwise, as we have seen, the discussion is not going to be on free will but on the incompatibility of science and religion.
This of course does NOT mean that I’m going to avoid addressing the miscomprehensions you seemed to have raised. I’ve decided to put up a post on the topic itself, but of course, as my bro would point out, its not going to convert you into an atheist. Neither are your arguments going to convert me. We both hold on to our views as adamantly as each other and have reasons to do so; reasons that neither one of us could possibly be able to convince each other of. But I can and will try.
Meanwhile, I encourage anyone who is willing to tackle the problem scientifically to do so.
I re-iterate my stand on the issue. A choice must have a cause. By asking a series of “why?”s, you can reduce the cause to a level so fundamental that the concept of a person (or agent of choice) has dissolved. Because a person is a part of the physical universe, he is bound by physical laws which ultimately do not involve him as an agent but only the units that constitute him. If you try to counter this with the idea of a soul that does not require causes for its choice, the choice is uncaused. If the choice is uncaused, there is no one to cause it – no soul responsible, no agent, no free will – just randomness.
Simply saying that the person or soul is the ultimate cause of the choice is not enough. You can still ask why the person made the choice and you’d be left with the same caused/uncaused problem.
Obedience to God is the cause? What caused the obedience to God? Questions never cease…
Your analogy to the kid at the electricity plug clearly highlights the very reason why you are different from me. Fear. The normal reaction to a new idea that threatens your beliefs, or something unknown or seemingly unexplainable is fear. You fear impending persecution if you try to explain or question things. Another reason is that humans, even with their endless curiosity, tend to like leaving certain things unexplained because it preserves the beauty (of things such as freedom, love or even beauty itself which when analyzed lose their appeal) and because it gives them hope. Hope that things always don’t have to happen as they are expected to (or are bound to), hope that things might turn around for the better.
Understand also that no one in the history of mankind has ever been able to come up with a mechanism for free will. On the contrary, actual physical experiments conducted in 1985 have indicated the contrary, that free will is impossible. It is also possible to construct a mechanism that can explain why we feel we have free will. I’ll cover all these in a later post.
Okay.
Can we work on this basis of defining a person? A ‘person’ remains a person as long as he can independently think for himself. When you reach the point of calling him a mass of chemicals and atoms, you immediately cease to speak of a ‘person’. An illustration close to this could be that atoms and molecules (and similar ‘physical’ stuff) ‘exist’ while persons, or human beings (what we mean when we say) LIVE.
So, having established what PLANE we are dealing with the entity of a person on, lets move on.
Now, why do I (choose to?
) eat? The reasons could be
1. because my parents made/make me,
2. because i need to eat to continue existing,
3. because im scared to be different from the other
millions of my kind who eat,
4. because i ‘want’ to.
Closely examine these. Reasons 1 and 3 are similar in that they imply no necessity of choice. Reasons 2 and 4 are also so in that they do imply one. But notice that reason 2 presupposes that one ‘wants’ to exist. That is because, unless one ‘wants’ to exist one doesn’t need to eat. Thus it is with all such desires-they all boil down to the fundamental concept of the ‘want’ing.
Coming to a new but related thread, I ask you this paradoxical question :
“When did time start?”
Yesterday? This moment? Forty trillion years back? Even before? When? What was there before it started?
Are all these, answers? No. The real answer is that the question is absurd. Why? Because the word ‘when’ itself requires the concept of TIME for meaning. The word ‘START’ means that something came into being that wasn’t there before. Thus we have unwittingly assumed that something was there before. BEFORE? What’s that? IT MEANS TIME. Thus the question has defeated itself. You can never find out WHEN TIME STARTED. Because you can imagine ‘started’ in terms of time and you’re still telling yourself that there was no time. And that too BEFORE that!
Thus, time is an absolute. It requires no justifications, no laws for its existence. It exists INDEPENDENTLY. It just exists. It can be observed. We can observe it.
Your argument against free will is similarly flawed.
To quote again (sorry for the repeats) ” By asking a series of “why?”s, you can reduce the cause to a level so fundamental that the concept of a person (or agent of choice) has dissolved.” How can you dissolve the concept of a person and still talk about free will? It is like dissolving or negating the concept of time and still asking “when?”.
The concept of a “free will” has no meaning without the concept of a person, just like the concept of ‘when’ has no meaning without the concept of time. Free will means independent choice. If the ’cause’ of independent choice is probed, you can no longer call it independent, for you have already assumed it to be ‘dependent’ on a ’cause’. What does “independent” mean? It means self-sustaining. It means not needing any ’cause’ to support it. It means it is an absolute. You have asked the cause for the independent choice, but thereby have also unwittingly assumed its NON independence(dependence). Ask the ‘why’ or any other question for that matter of the absolute and you have already assumed that it is not an absolute. You have already negated the concept of the absolute. Therefore, having ASSUMED its non-absolute nature, you cannot claim to have PROVED that since you have simply assumed it.
Absolutes don’t need causes to justify their existence. They are above causes and effects. They are facts. You can observe them. You can never prove them. They EXIST. Moreover, they JUST exist. Any attempt to prove them is self-defeating. It is upto you to see them or to ignore them.
Eg. Why is energy conserved? WHY? WHY? WHY?
WHY? I don’t know. It’s JUST conserved. I can observe it.
Conservation of energy now, follows no laws. On the other hand, it is a Law by itself. It is an absolute.
You can keep arguing that time doesn’t exist because it didn’t start or that even space doesn’t because it didn’t begin, or that free will doesn’t exist because man is a mass of chemicals. But all of them do. You can see them. You can perceive them. Because man is just NOT a mass of chemicals. Man is a creature of INDEPENDENT thought. In other words, man is an ABSOLUTE.
Thus the “fundamental concept of ‘wanting’” i referred to at the end of the 2nd paragraph is a natural attribute of man-his choices or desires. This is what ‘wanting’ rests on.
So, simply referring to our definition of a person as a creature who thinks independently, we can say that thinking independently and THEREFORE having the ability to CHOOSE independently are automatically in his domain. Thus, man defined this way needs no justification or proof of his free will. They are self-evident. They are pre-supposed when you talk of men. There can thus be no talking of a ‘person’ without free will or ‘free will’ without a ‘person’ (the concept of one). Moreover, asking the question assumes that man needs justification and thereby just assumes the non-absolute nature of man.
In the real world, we have the freedom to choose what we want. Do I want pineapple or watermelon for dessert? I can choose. Do I want Clinton or Saddam for President? I can know. Will my grades be top class next? I KNOW that I can’t be sure. But I KNOW that in if my school environment is ‘usual’, i can improve them by studying. If the environment turns out to have been unusual, I KNOW that if my classmates sneak the paper out and I get a peek at questions, I might get good ones. If I dont, I might still do as well as them. Or if my teacher gets a bias against me suddenly, I may get bad ones. I KNOW ALL THIS. And I can choose, with my desired outcome in mind. I dont know my family’s genes, God’s plan for me or the world’s directions to my life. As far as I am concerned, I didn’t make my decisions considering these. Thus I made my decisions independently of all this. It thus makes absolutely no sense in saying “God drove my choices”. In fact, even if you say HE DID, it doesn’t matter. You’re just disguising free will under the name God. Go ahead. Call it God. Call it my “ignorance of higher truth”. No problem. You have accepted my free will. And anyway, if I say I like watermelon more that pineapple, what a strange attitude of fishing for the most unlikely, unobservable reason of God ‘making’ me want it, rather that the most likeloy, abservable one that I want it.
Thus, in conclusion,
1. if you ask ” Are men capable of free will?”, you can answer “The question is absurd, because the concept of man rests on the concept of free-will-capability.”
2. Man is an absolute.
3. Man has free will which is also an absolute.
4. The existentialist viewpoint is correct. The others are blatantly wrong.
5. Excuse the unnatural length of this ‘comment’, the many “‘you’s ” (I was seldom referring to YOU per-se)and Thank you for your (possibly-infinite) patience.
Vivek Thyagarajan
p.s. I am George Joseph’s friend.
Nice! Your response is very interesting and well-thought. However, I’m afraid I completely disagree. I’m going to try and clarify this systematically.
1. There is always a relation between the ‘plane’ of atoms and molecules and the ‘plane’ of a person. To negate the existence of a causal relation between the 2 planes is to assume something non-physical. I don’t want to deal with anything non-physical (nor would anyone who is scientifically oriented). I’m sure you would agree.
2. Given such a causal relation, one can always describe the entity we are dealing with (i.e., man), on either plane. This is a very important point to note. If you make an analysis of the mind of a person on the ‘person plane’, I am equally (if not more) justified to make the analysis on the ‘atomic plane’.
3. We seem to reach 2 different conclusions when we analyze from the 2 different planes. I want to identify the reason.
Let me tell you why I chose the ‘atomic plane’. Heard of Occam’s Razor? It’s a simple principle that anyone who wants to formulate a theory on anything, sticks to. It essentially says that the fewer the assumptions an explanation of a phenomenon depends on, the better it is.
Let me digress a bit and come back to the point I’m making.
Why isn’t the existence of God assumed in any commonly accepted scientific theory? Why do skeptics try to debunk UFO sightings and supposed encounters with ghosts using elaborate explanations? Why don’t you and I believe in the Sandman, or Santa Claus or fairies? Because God, UFOs, ghosts, the Sandman, Santa Claus and fairies are assumed without really being necessary to explain different situations. Their assumption is a logical flaw as long as there is another theory that doesn’t assume them and yet explains the given situation precisely and gives accurate predictions. It might be easier and (sometimes more ‘common sense’) and usually more convenient to explain things with a greater number of assumptions but that’s not how science works.
Coming back to free will, just as you did, I can define an Absolute known as PERSON. I can define another Absolute known as FREE WILL. Then I can say that a PERSON possesses FREE WILL, independent capability of choice. I can say just as you did that, it is meaningless to try and use causal arguments for the Absolute known as FREE WILL because its definition disallows it. It is a perfectly consistent theory. It fits beautifully with observations.
But why make such assumptions in the first place? From the atomic plane, everything can still be described. I can give you a neat description of how a person can feel he has free will. This theory does not assume the existence of Absolutes like PERSON or FREE WILL. Mind you, it does of course assume the existence of Absolutes like PARTICLE or INTERACTION or SPACE-TIME, etc. But these are Absolutes which are assumed in the person-plane as well. You may say that in order to describe a person from the person-plane, fewer Absolutes are required. For example, using the person-plane, you need only PERSON and FREE WILL to explain choice but from the atomic-plane you need ELECTRON, PROTON, ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE, etc. and numerous other Absolutes. Thus you would use Occam’s Razor and say that your theory is better. But our goal is not to describe just a person but the entire universe and then even the person-plane will again require all of the absolutes the atomic-plane required plus absolutes like PERSON and FREE WILL. Thus we will have to go back to the atomic plane.
Your argument essentially states that Free Will is an à priori entity. Thus it requires no explanation. Doesn’t this strike you as a cop-out?
What justification do you have for considering Free Will as an absolute? Is it merely the experience or the feeling of possessing it? What if I gave you a mechanism via which a person can feel his choices are free when they are not? It would eliminate the need to consider Free Will as an absolute because the illusion of Free Will has been explained. Less assumptions + all observations accounted for = the better theory.
I’ll hold back talk on the mechanism for a while. Let me first clear up this “concept of a Person” problem.
I quote you: “The concept of a ‘free will’ has no meaning without the concept of a person…”
This is exactly what I showed in my arguments! What I intended to convey is that there is no such thing as “concept of a person”. The concept of a person is brought about only within our minds by a process known as Consciousness. Self-identification, experience of feelings, pain, emotions, etc. come under this process. No one has been able to come up with a theory so far as to how conscious experience can arise from a physical system. At the same time, the idea known as dualism, which states that the mind is of a non-physical nature has long been rejected. Thus we can be pretty sure that consciousness arises physically from our brain-matter (without involving any ‘soul’) though we don’t know how.
The concept of a person is thus meaningless as people are but physical systems. And as you rightly said, free will is then meaningless.
I hope I made myself clear as to why I don’t consider Person and Free Will as absolute concepts.
To conclude… When I talk about Free will, I mean the illusion of possessing Free Will (which you consider to be an absolute). I do so because I feel that considering Free Will to be an absolute is an unnecessary (fatal) assumption that hinders our progress in understanding the human mind whilst avoiding an attempt to explain the phenomenon.
Let me put in one more word out of humility. The “better theory” doesn’t always have to be the right one. No one can say for certain that truth favours what us humans consider as the better theory. This is of course a consequence of the fact that absolute truth can neither be derived (rationally) or experienced (empirically). Which makes one wonder whether there is such a thing as truth.
Thus it ultimately comes down to “belief” or faith. You can either believe a better theory (if you’re scientifically oriented) or believe a more romantic and appealing theory (usually if you’re religious).
Thanks for the reply.
Nice one really! I hadn’t heard of Occam’s Razor. It fitted in quite well logically into my mindframe. It sounds logical to call theories satisfying the Razor to be better ones. It was interesting and informative.
You disagree? Same here! No problems anyway. Right?
I’d like to ask you a question.
What have you proved in your original post? You have not accepted the concept of a ‘person’. Thus you cannot ‘prove’ the absence of free will. There is no need. It is already accepted. There can be no ‘free will’ without ‘person’ and vice-versa.
Instead, we can just debate the existence of a ‘person’ instead of the existence of free will since one rests on the other and naturally follows from the other.
The primary conflict in ideas is whether a ‘person’ really exists on not.
If he exists, free will is but obvious.
If he doesn’t, equivalently free will doesn’t either.
Now, since the ultimate and truthful purpose of your argument is to prove that people as absolutes don’t exist, lets tackle that one.
I quote you : “The concept of a person is thus meaningless as people are but physical systems.”
Okay. The reason why your are not supposedly ‘assuming’ the concepts of ‘person’ and ‘free will’ is because you want to explain the entire universe and atoms, molecules etc will serve you the best in doing so by functioning as minimal assumptions.
So the only way you can accept free will or ‘person’ is by finding that free-will becomes, not an optional ‘assumption’ but a necessary absolute in explaining the universe, since that is your goal.
And the only way THAT can happen is to counter your argument relating to the mechanism by which the illusion of possessing free will is created. So please post the mechanism in your next one.
But, I can prove to you that one more absolute will be needed even by you at some level or the other to explain the universe. For a starter, lets just ponder over these :
So, what difference would we actually be able to see between atoms or the so called ‘physical’ plane and the ‘human’ or ‘mental’ or ‘cognitive’ plane? What is the difference? Consciousness, right? Okay.
What is consciousness? The feeling of ‘being’? Or the feeling of being a unit?
Okay, comoing back, see, if the concept of a person is dissolved or if people are nothing but physical systems, what makes them go? What makes them do what they do? What makes them think? What makes them act? Or, do they? What you are saying looks like they dont. It looks like a cosmic game played by the atoms and molecules we know of.
Now, if atoms and molecules actually are the SOLE cause of ‘people’ and ‘free will’, since things are not RANDOMLY carried out by even the ‘people’ or ‘free wills’ we have to realise that even the atoms or molecules are behaving cooperatively. They are behaving within an ORDER. But, wait here. Do I mean order as in the (again so-called!) physical laws of the universe. No. You need more laws to explain the behaviour called “non-random, seemingly purposeful and entity-suggesting behaviour of humans(special atom clusters)”. You cannot explain this even atomic behaviour simply in terms of laws on the physical plane. In fact, no problem. Call it ‘physical’ if you want or when it may be discovered, if ever. I am simply saying that you will need ANOTHER law in your set of physical laws to explain this behaviour. You cannot explain it in terms of Gravitation, electromagnetism or atomic theory as yet. (I don’t know about QM ‘coz I havent read enough about it. But QM may predict or ‘discover’ the ‘other’ law i spoke of.)
So, you need one MORE law, one more principle, linking the *what we called physical* to the *what we call conscious* in some way or the other. Maybe a pure mathematical law. I don’t know. I wouldn’t.
But yes, what I have proven here is that if you say ‘person’ as a concept does not exist, and only atoms do, you cannot explain human behaviour, thought or consciousness in terms of what we have called atoms till now. If you wish to explain these in those terms, atoms will take on different properties that what we thought they were capable of. Maybe cooperative action (other than gravitation, conservation of energy, electromagnetic laws, mechanics or nuclear physics). Maybe thought. Maybe consciousness itself. Without that, we will remain unable to explain behaviour, thought or cognition.
So, if you say people as absolutes don’t exist, something else DOES. If you say atoms, they will have to take on properties not attributed to them now, where the absolute will take its place. If you say God, you have to accept that absolute in him at least, saying he has free will. So, wherever you go, whatever explanation you cite, the absolute will follow you and you have to accept it. Because, you have the unanswered question to account for.
So, I think free will, or consciousness, or ‘person’ or “life” will definitely come into the picture somewhere. At some point or the other.
In conclusion, I would like to say that if your goal is to explain the universe, it would be logically impossible for both of us to disgree on the number or nature of absolutes we need. Provided we make no assumptions about the real absolutes involved. You have said you are not ‘assuming’ free will (actually not free will, I mean the ‘extra absolute) to explain the universe because it is not necessary since the atomic plane suffices. When you have EXPLAINED THE UNIVERSE, if you look for the extra ‘connector’ absolute in your atomic plane itself, you will find it. The better argument by the Razor, will still contain the same number of absolutes.
p.s. That was written without reflection. Please excuse any inadvertent obvious errors.
I may not be able to reply to your comment immediately. I will read it anyway sometime later. Please continue posting on the main blog anyway. I’ll await it!
You are right we don’t have free will, not the type people commonly believe in any way.
We are all brought up to believe we have it and people just can’t let it go, it’s sad because I think it is the most harmful cultural myth of all.
It’s what makes us think people deserve what happens to them, either us deserving our good fortune or them deserving their bad fortune or vice versa.
Dr William Provine”Without free will, moral responsibility seems impossible. But I will argue that moral responsibility is actually based upon the lack of free will.
Free will is a disastrous and mean social myth. Using free will as an excuse, we condone a vicious attitude of revenge toward anyone who does wrong in our society. Most of the movies in a video store are based upon getting even with some nasty person. This attitude leads to a gross ly expensive and hopeless systems of punishment in America , though much the same attitude can be found in most countries around the world.
Without free will, justification for revenge disappears and rehabilitation is the main job of judicial systems and prisons. We will all live in a better society when the myth of free will is dispelled. ”
Stephen
@Stephen
“We are all brought up to believe we have it [free will] and people just can’t let it go…”
OK, but I have no choice but to believe in free will, right?
@all for love
“Philosophy is perhaps questions that are never answered…religion is always answers that are never questioned”
I can’t believe this thing is STILL on!!!
. And it’s not even strictly logical: as you can see, we already have people doubting it.
You have some very jobless friends,man…
@Fenn- already quoted right here, by presti.
@Peter- “OK, but I have no choice but to believe in free will, right?” that too, old paradox, Isaac Bashevis Singer, look it up
ha ha…and to think I don’t even entirely agree with the original post anyomore
If everything is fated, the future is predictable; you can prove this by predicting it.
If fate does not rule the universe, the future is unpredictable; you cannot prove something is unpredictable.
As fatalists, we have the unique opportunity to materializing our beliefs; we can try to predicting the future. No other philosophy/religion provides this gift to its adherents.
To predict future, you must first believe it is predictable
Thanks
I’ve quoted you in a blog of mine, I hope you don’t mind. This is a brilliant article; it sums up my opinion quite clearly and concisely, which I’ve been attempting to do for quite some time. Thank you.