Free Will: Examining the Incoherence of an Illusion
I remember that day like it was just yesterday. I was leaving work on a warm summer day, ready to start my weekend. I arrived at an intersection, and for a moment, I felt like I could choose to go anywhere I wanted. After all, it was the weekend and no one was going to stop me. But then, I went right and continued my bike ride home. Was that choice really mine to make, or was it just an illusion? That's what we're about to find out, as we examine the illogical nature of free will.
Free will has been a hotly debated topic for centuries. From ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle, who believed in the concept of "choice by nature," to Epicurus, who argued that our actions are determined by our desires, free will has been a subject of interest for many thinkers throughout history.
Let's dive into the different types of free will. Firstly, there's the libertarian free will, which is our common-sense understanding of free will, where we have the ability to act freely without any predetermined constraints.
On the other hand, there's compatibilist free will, which argues that we can have free will even if everything is determined. The idea here is that our actions can still be considered free if they are in line with our desires and motivations. So, as long as we are acting in accordance with our own nature, our actions are still free, even if everything is determined.
Famous philosophers like David Hume and John Locke were among the first to explore the idea of compatibilist free will. Hume believed that free will and determinism were not mutually exclusive, and that free will could coexist with determinism. Locke, on the other hand, argued that as long as our actions are influenced by our desires and motivations, we can still be considered to have free will.
Buridan's donkey is a classic thought experiment that explores the nature of free will. It was named after the 14th-century French philosopher Jean Buridan. The scenario goes something like this: a hungry donkey is placed between two identical piles of hay at an even distance. However, the donkey is unable to make a decision as to which pile of hay to eat, leading to starvation. This thought experiment highlights the paradox of free will, as it seems that the donkey is unable to make a free choice due to an inability to choose. Although the illustration is named after Buridan, philosophers have discussed the concept before him, notably Aristotle, who put forward the example of a man equally hungry and thirsty, and Al-Ghazali, who used a man faced with the choice of equally good dates.
A similar phenomenon happens in digital electronics, where a transistor for example enters a metastable state between ‘0’ and ‘1’ for an undetermined amount of time, potentially leading to system failure.
One of the most famous philosophers to tackle this topic was René Descartes, who famously wrote in his "Meditations on First Philosophy," "I am a thing that thinks, that is, a mind, or a soul, or an intellect, or reason – words whose meaning I have been unaware of until now." Descartes' ideas on free will helped lay the foundation for modern Western philosophy and his belief that our minds are separate from our bodies and make choices independently.
Another prominent philosopher, Immanuel Kant, explored the idea of moral responsibility and the role of free will in ethical decision-making. In his "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," he wrote, "We must hence admit that there is a practical law, which commands the use of freedom in accordance with the idea of the moral whole, and that this law can only be the practical law of freedom itself.”
In more recent times, advances in theoretical and experimental physics and neuroscience have added new insights to the discussion. In physics, the deterministic laws of nature and the idea of causality have led many, including myself, to argue that there is no room for free will in a universe that is completely determined. Meanwhile, in neuroscience, studies have shown that our decisions may actually be made before we are consciously aware of them, further challenging our common-sense understanding of free will.
One of the biggest arguments against free will is the deterministic nature of the laws of nature. The idea is that causality plays a major role, meaning that every effect is preceded by a cause. And if our actions are solely determined by causes beyond our control, then there's no room for free will. This is where determinism comes into play, suggesting that everything that happens is, in a sense, predetermined. This ‘clockwork universe’ started with Isaac Newton, where the universe, like a clock, winds down in a single direction, the arrow of time.
Now, you might be thinking, what about quantum mechanics? Can't that offer us a reprieve? Unfortunately, as far as we know, the probabilistic effects of quantum mechanics are random, and there don't seem to be any hidden variables that would make it deterministic. This means that our actions are either determined by causes beyond our control or are random – both of which are not grounds for free will.
But even if we imagine a sort of substance dualism, as Descartes argued, then we can still not explain free will. We have only two options; either a thing is determined, or it is undetermined. If it is determined, it couldn’t have been any other way, leaving no room for choice. But if it is undetermined, for example by positing an immaterial soul, then how can we say that our actions and thoughts are free? The paradox here is that free will both requires structure and requires the absence of structure. While at the same time, the concept of free will is incoherent in both cases. If the universe is deterministic, there is no room for choice. But if the universe is not deterministic, or if there exists some immaterial world where our disembodied souls hang out, then how can we make choices in the first place? So, even in the case of some sort of Cartesian substance dualism, free will as a concept doesn’t make sense.
“Just exercising some free will.”
“Now you’re jsut being an asshole.”
Another commonly used explanation of free will is the "ability to have done otherwise." But here's the thing, how can we know this for sure? We can't turn back time to see if that would actually be the case. So this idea of "the ability to have done otherwise" can never be verified or falsified, making it impossible to say whether or not we have this type of free will.
One of the most common arguments for the existence of free will is its connection to morality. The popular conception is that free will is necessary for moral responsibility. If our actions are determined, it seems that we can't be held responsible for them. But this is merely an appeal to consequences; as if the undesirable consequences preclude it from being true.
So, does that mean morality is also an illusion? Well, yes and no. Morality evolved with other animals and us in order for animals to be able to live together and cooperate. But morality has a strong cultural component, it is constructed at least as much as it has evolved. The capability for the underlying emotional responses are evolved, while their form is shaped by culture. This can be seen in which things different cultures call moral or immoral. While in general there is a near-universal belief that killing another human being is wrong, many other things described as immoral differ widely from one culture to another.
Another example is the story of a man who suddenly became attracted to children. It was found out that he had a brain tumor. After the tumor was removed, his attraction went away as well. Could this man be held morally responsible, had he acted on said attraction? Or was it the result of something beyond his control?
I would think the latter. This example illustrates the difficulty of placing moral praise or blame, and of determining the causes that are relevant to that assessment.
For example, the emotion of disgust can be co-opted to be directed against an arbitrary object or character trait or action. Often, the people who are targets of so-claimed immorality do not conform to the reigning cultural prescriptions. This can be anything from stealing (which in capitalist societies with private property must be seen as immoral and a crime), to not being heterosexual.
The concept of free will has been a subject of debate for centuries, and while it may seem like a necessary component of our moral and ethical systems, it's actually an illusion. The laws of nature and the advancements in physics and neuroscience have led us to understand that our actions are either determined by causes beyond our control or are random. The popular belief that free will is necessary for morality has been challenged.
In this video, we've explored the illogic of free will and how it pertains to our understanding of morality. I hope this has been an engaging and informative journey for you, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. If you enjoyed this video, please like, comment, and subscribe if you haven’t already for more content. Thank you for watching, and until next time, keep thinking!
