Free Will Explained
This discussion has been superseded by "Refutation of Hard Determinism and Serious Potential for Free Will".
Determinism is the principle that causality is responsible for all events in the universe: that everything is determined by causality.
Free will is a more slippery concept than is determinism and has different meanings to different people. This essay will try to explain free will from my compatibilist point of view.
Because time is linear, the future hasn't happened yet. Future events unfold everywhere simultaneously, yet is locally unique. The birth and death of an entire galaxy is irrelevant to us if it's so remote we can't even see it. While the senseless death of a starving child in Africa is tragic and heartbreaking, you'll undoubtedly never know about it. The point is that causality permeates the entire universe and makes its mark on everything: whether or not any particular event seems momentous or even noteworthy. But how do these events affect the future? Will anything we do make a difference in the grand scheme of things? The Big Bang has predetermined the demise of the universe . . . so aren't our own lives equally predetermined?
With this frame of reference, I propose that the future does NOT exist and is NOT predetermined everywhere, for everything. The futures of inanimate objects, however, ARE predetermined unless they fall under the control of animate beings. Wherever intelligent life leaves an impression, the future is far from predetermined. What I'm talking about is the distinction between animate and inanimate modes of response to causality -- the difference between us and rocks. This distinction is most clear when we use humans as the example. This is because humans, unlike other lifeforms, embody ALL the key phenomena of life -- motility, consciousness, intelligence and, yes, free will.
The law of causality states that: "every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause". This is true of both animate and inanimate objects. The difference between the animate and inanimate modes of response to causality is that inanimate objects have only one potential reaction to an event while animate beings have variable potential reactions to an event. One major reason for this is that animate beings are complex systems. They have many functional parts that integrate, holistically, into single entities. Animate beings are much more complex and much less predictable than inanimate objects. I'll be discussing determinism versus free will, so, for animate beings, let's stick with humans.
Whether or not you believe in determinism or free will . . . or believe free will is compatible with determinism (as I do), it's pretty difficult to deny causality (and, therefore, determinism). Without a single scientific experiment for support, we can, at any time, observe that cause always precedes effect. Conventional wisdom holds that free will is antithetical to determinism . . . but I hope to show that determinism (causality) actually creates free will.
Human identity and experience presents a problem for determinism. We all live as if we have free will: we work, play, think and plan as if we have free will. On the other hand, we can see that causality determines all events. How do we reconcile the difference? First, we need to acknowledge there might not be a difference. What if causality creates free will?
That's my basic premise: causality (determinism) creates free will. Nothing I've written above is essential to what follows -- I just wanted to frame free will in context of time and animate beings: of life.
Allowing no exceptions to causality, we must accept that effects can't exist without a cause. Therefore, the processes of the brain, such as memory, thought, analysis and imagination, can be thought of as effects caused by the brain. Of these effects, imagination is most relevant to free will . . . because imagination can be prescient. We can extrapolate cause and effect into the future to imagine potential scenarios that might occur. We then evaluate these potential scenarios and gauge the likelihood (and to what extent) they might actually happen. This is, essentially, the process of planning. We use our experience and intelligence to estimate future outcomes, then plan the steps and contingencies necessary to best ensure -- or avoid -- those outcomes. Of course, short term, simple, plans are more likely to succeed than long term, complicated, plans. Depending on our skill at prognostication, our success rates vary from person to person. But, on the whole, short term plans usually succeed. I know this, without question, from my professional experience as a project manager.
How does planning relate to free will? Here's the interesting, awesome, part. Our ability to mentally anticipate cause and effect represents an advantage over causality. Causality must wait for the future to unfold in the present but we can keep steps ahead of causality by extrapolating it into the future. In other words, we can (in our imagination) go where causality can't . . . and bring back conclusions that greatly affect our decisions. Steered by these conclusions, our choices guide us, step by step, through potential futures.
When causality meets human intelligence, we make decisions based on forecasts of events likely in our futures. There are other causal factors involved, like experience, heredity, education, circumstances, etc., but it's prescient imagination that steers our decisions in self-directed ways. When determinism meets human imagination, it becomes self determinism: free will.
The claim that free will (volition) is antithetical to determinism is a false dichotomy stemming from any assertion that assumes free will is undetermined or indeterminate. If that's how you define free will then, of course, free will would be impossible. After all, EVERYTHING is determined. Right? Free will is not a conscious process or goal of itself, requiring effort to exercise: it's an on-going, natural, human, reaction (effect) to the world around us (cause).
Volition, of itself, is not free will. That would make free will indeterminate -- and we know that's not possible: EVERYTHING is determined. Volition, desires, plans -- whatever you want to call them -- are just causal factors
that combine with other causal factors to influence our decisions.
The compatibilist view sees free will as natural and within the confines of physical laws. Undetermined or indeterminate choices or actions would be anything but free will: acting without reason or purpose is not free will. Neither is acting randomly. So, claiming that free will is not deterministic means that, if we do have free will, then we must act without reason or purpose, or we must act randomly, or some combination thereof.
But we KNOW we act with purpose. We don't stumble through life continually shocked to find ourselves doing things we don't want to do. That would make planning impossible! We KNOW we've planned our own dinners, careers, families, retirements and funerals. Our experiences represent continuous empirical evidence for free will.
Our ability to plan is so natural and human that we take it for granted. We're inured to it. The future and planning is a larger consideration in our lives than most people realize. Planning, as a prescient form of imagination, is caused by the brain's interaction with the world (causality). Free will is the effect -- the product -- of our prescient imaginations.
It's a paradox. We have no choice but to be self-directed. We are causally self-determined. Free will is a part of human nature.
Our individual destinies are NOT written in the stars (may the force be with you) -- our destinies are ours to make. We (as well as ALL life forms) might eventually face extinction as the universe grows cold and fades away. Our collective destinies might be extinction but our individual destinies are ours to make. Most of us will die obscure deaths but a select few -- as long as humanity survives -- will be remembered by history because they exercised their free will to fundamentally change our world.
Tags: causality, destiny, determinism, free will, paradox, self-determinism
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on -
@Jean Marie,
Free will is more a church doctrine than a biblical one. -
-
Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on
-
Hi MacInnes,
I'm not sure what you're asking with: "You do realize their is no such thing a Time right?"
Could you clarify please?
Now . . . off to check out those links of yours . . . -
-
Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on -
I want to start over, because I realize that I haven’t really helped to create a civilized discussion. All I want to do is engage in a reasonable discussion about an interesting topic, such as free will and consciousness. I will start by saying what I do believe, in the sense that I find it most likely due to my current knowledge of the world. My assessment of this knowledge that I posses is, in no way, a self-inflating one. Although I believe that I understand things well above the average man, this is only due to the low standard created by the scientific illiteracy of most people. I am glad, though, to be part of this community, one which cherishes honest, clear thinking in the pursuit of knowledge. I am also aware that my understanding of certain phenomena may be really far from the truth. There are many people who know a lot more than I do about certain domains, or even about most domains. I will also state what I do not believe, not because someone said I believed it, but just in case I am not clear enough. Again, with all the humility in the world, I have to tell you that my statements are just a reflection of how I understand science and I know I might very well be wrong. I just want to be shown why.
1. I do not believe that the Universe is absolutely deterministic. From quantum mechanics, it is clear that certain particles and quanta appear to behave in random ways. However, due to the statistical mediation of the probability functions of these behaviors, at the macroscopic level, things happen mostly in deterministic ways. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we can know exactly what will happen with a macroscopic if we knew all the information we could possibly know. A certain amount of randomness could exist.
2. I do believe that free will doesn’t exist, in the sense that we do not influence in any way anything. Our consciousness is just an illusion, though it may be an improper term. This is not a desire of mine, or based on faith. It’s the only thing that makes sense. Mathematically, no combination of any number of functions will ever result in something like free will. We are systems, which, like all systems, have transfer functions. Even when these transfer functions include random variables, the result is a random variable, meaning the transfer function determines its distribution, but its actual value is not determined by anything. However, if there is a way for free will to exist, please provide an explanation, or just an example!
3. I believe that our brains are biological computers, which take a number of inputs, compute them, and then throw out some outputs. These outputs are things like intention, desire, imagination, thoughts… every single thing that the brain does. Because of this, the fact that we can imagine or plan ahead, is not a proof of free will, because we don’t influence what we think at all. All thought processes are determined by everything that goes into the brain in its whole existence. The fact that we anticipate the future and decide how we’re going to behave is not an act of free will, because what we anticipated and what decision we made, they are the only outputs our brains would have given out due to the inputs. Even if there is room for randomness, this randomness doesn’t result in free will, because it can’t be influenced (after all, it’s randomness).
So, I don’t say that there is absolutely no way for free will to exist. I’m just saying that, until now, there is no explanation for its possible existence that makes sense. The fact that you are saying you provided such an explanation makes you responsible for proving it. I don’t think you managed to do that and I will tell you why I don’t think that. However, if there is something I don’t mention, please say it again.
“Because time is linear, the future hasn't happened yet. Future events unfold everywhere simultaneously, yet is locally unique.”
I think this claim is not substantiated with evidence. Moreover, the issue of simultaneity contradicts the theory of relativity, which clearly states that there is no such a thing. Also, maybe you can expand on how the future didn’t happen already with references to physics (because this is the science which deals with time).
“With this frame of reference, I propose that the future does NOT exist and is NOT predetermined everywhere, for everything.”
Similar to what I wrote above.
“The difference between the animate and inanimate modes of response to causality is that inanimate objects have only one potential reaction to an event while animate beings have variable potential reactions to an event.”
Due to the laws of physics, i.e. quantum mechanics, nothing has only one potential reaction to an event. However, there is a certain range of the possible reactions. For example, if I drop a ball on Earth, it will fall down, but the exact trajectory, on the Planck scale, can differ from one drop to another, even if all things are the same. This is the randomness that results from quantum mechanics, but it is not congruent with free will. Also, I don’t think that there is a distinction between animate and inanimate objects. We are all made of the same particles, which interact with certain randomness.
“Animate beings are much more complex and much less predictable than inanimate objects.”
This is because complex systems contain more variables. We simply do not know enough to predict exactly how a human, for example, will behave.
“Of these effects, imagination is most relevant to free will . . . because imagination can be prescient. We can extrapolate cause and effect into the future to imagine potential scenarios that might occur. We then evaluate these potential scenarios and gauge the likelihood (and to what extent) they might actually happen. This is, essentially, the process of planning. We use our experience and intelligence to estimate future outcomes, then plan the steps and contingencies necessary to best ensure -- or avoid -- those outcomes.”
As I said earlier, you didn’t prove that what we decide to do, upon imagining the future, is not determined by the current state of the part of the Universe which influences us. How do we influence our thoughts?
“How does planning relate to free will? Here's the interesting, awesome, part. Our ability to mentally anticipate cause and effect represents an advantage over causality. Causality must wait for the future to unfold in the present but we can keep steps ahead of causality by extrapolating it into the future. In other words, we can (in our imagination) go where causality can't . . . and bring back conclusions that greatly affect our decisions. Steered by these conclusions, our choices guide us, step by step, through potential futures.
When causality meets human intelligence, we make decisions based on forecasts of events likely in our futures. There are other causal factors involved, like experience, heredity, education, circumstances, etc., but it's prescient imagination that steers our decisions in self-directed ways. When determinism meets human imagination, it becomes self determinism: free will.”
Again, all decisions that we make are the result of our brains processing the information available and giving a unique, or random, result, one which we can’t influence.
“The compatibilist view sees free will as natural and within the confines of physical laws.”
It is my conviction that one has to prove scientifically one’s claims about the physical laws. I don’t see such a proof.
“But we KNOW we act with purpose. We don't stumble through life continually shocked to find ourselves doing things we don't want to do. That would make planning impossible! We KNOW we've planned our own dinners, careers, families, retirements and funerals. Our experiences represent continuous empirical evidence for free will.”
What we “know” is, again, the output of our brains. What we want to do is also an output of our brain. The brain is a system, specifically a computer, which has a transfer function. You have to prove that there is a function which can somehow have free will.
P.S. I keep asking for a scientific explanation, or evidence, for this free will. It seems to me that you keep steering away from science and math on this issue. After all, if you had even a hint of scientific insight on this free will stuff, you would have been famous, at least in the scientific community.
Remember, the burden of proof is on you, because you are the one making the positive claim that free will exists. I simply remain unconvinced by this due to no one actually providing at least a logical/mathematical model of this, let alone a testable one. And please, don’t say that math has nothing to do with this. Math has to do with everything and you have to show how some math functions (all of the laws of physics) can result in something that is not determined or randomly distributed (basically, something that is not a function itself). -
-
Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on
-
Yeah, words can be tricky that way. Often, people use the same words to talk about different things, or different words to talk about the same thing. This is why I like math so much. It is a language where there is little room for interpretation (and also has many more qualities). However, I think I get what AE is talking about. I just disagree with him and want to exchange arguments with him in the hope that both of us will understand things better. I fail to understand, not what conclusion he arrived to, but how he arrived to that conclusion. This is why formal logic is so useful. You connect all the dots to arrive at a conclusion and it's easier that way to retrace your journey and find the errors, if they exist.
You said: "You are deep into determinism", which is false. As I said earlier, as the current laws of physics stand, there is no such thing as determinism, unless we agree that this term means determining with certain probabilities what will happen given all the information possibly available. Things may happen differently under the same circumstances, but due to randomness, which is not determined by anything, including free will. -
-
Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on
-
I was just asking for an ideal mathematical model. It doesn't have to be for this world, but for a hypothetical one. It doesn't matter because I only want to see if it is possible for free will to exist. Only then we could talk about how this model applies to the real world.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on
-
@Radu,
First of all, I've already asked, in my first reply to you, that you switch your participation to the "Free Will: Self-aware and Future-aware" discussion, which is more fleshed out with recent refinements. If you like, you can save effort by copying and pasting your above reply to that discussion and tweaking it, if necessary, to fit my post.
Second of all, as I've explained elsewhere, it was my INTENT to avoid science and philosophy as much as possible because I'm not a scientist or philosopher and because it doesn't matter to my explanation how the brain does what it does as long as you acknowledge that whatever it does precedes action and are thus causal factors to those actions . . . besides, scientific understand of the brain/mind is still sketchy and in its infant stage of understanding. Our imaging technologies have really boosted the neurological sciences but we've barely left the starting blocks where knowledge and understanding are concerned. Thus, citing relevant science at this stage is hardly more valuable than personal opinion.
Also: I've historically treated quantum mechanics as applicable (with rare exception) only to the quantum realm. In the classical realm, conventional wisdom has been that we can ignore or discount quantum activity. However, recent cosmological hypotheses like quantum fluctuations and dark matter, is weakening conventional wisdom on this issue. If quantum factors do "leak" into the classical realm, then all bets are off where predeterminism is concerned until we know how causality is affected.
So, please, move this discussion, as requested, so that we can develop our arguments from my most recent explanation. -
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
What's new today
Discussion Forum
Refutation of Hard Determinism and Serious Potential for Free Will
Started by Atheist Exile. Last reply by Joel Eisenhofer Aug 29, 2012. 21 Replies 3 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
