Barbara Smoker the great British Humanist and Freethinker who died this month aged ninety four put the notion of Free Will very succinctly when she said “ You choose to act the way you wish, but you do not choose the way you wish to act.”
Free will is a concept that has been discussed for centuries. For my purposes here it is the ability to do other than what one did in precisely the same circumstances. In other words to have made a decision other than that which you made, assuming nothing else has changed. Logically it’s a simple situation, either we have Free Will or we don’t. There is no evidence whatsoever or even a plausible theory explaining how we can have Free Will. The only argument for Free Will is that it feels as if we have Free Will. Many people confuse freedom of will with Free Will. Freedom of will is our ability to act on our will i.e. to say or do what we want, or go where we want. Free Will is also often used incorrectly in the sense of the absence of external coercion whereby one feels one is free to make a personal choice. Many others confuse Free Will with choice.
Logically at the end of the day we only have two choices - do or don’t. Choice is part of life and what we are. As conscious beings we are aware of options and so must choose. Not to choose is also an option. If the choice is Tea or Coffee, we can choose neither, but that is also a choice. Other sentient creatures also have options and make choices, but are not aware of having made the choice. We however are aware of the options and the choices we make. Most then assume that because we made a choice and were aware of so doing that it was a free choice. At the end of the day you make a decision because you wanted to or were forced to, there really is no other alternative. If the decision is forced, then it is obviously not free.
Free will is a concept that has been discussed for centuries. For my purposes here it is the ability to do other than what one did in precisely the same circumstances. In other words to have made a decision other than that which you made, assuming nothing else has changed. Logically it’s a simple situation, either we have Free Will or we don’t. There is no evidence whatsoever or even a plausible theory explaining how we can have Free Will. The only argument for Free Will is that it feels as if we have Free Will. Many people confuse freedom of will with Free Will. Freedom of will is our ability to act on our will i.e. to say or do what we want, or go where we want. Free Will is also often used incorrectly in the sense of the absence of external coercion whereby one feels one is free to make a personal choice. Many others confuse Free Will with choice.
Logically at the end of the day we only have two choices - do or don’t. Choice is part of life and what we are. As conscious beings we are aware of options and so must choose. Not to choose is also an option. If the choice is Tea or Coffee, we can choose neither, but that is also a choice. Other sentient creatures also have options and make choices, but are not aware of having made the choice. We however are aware of the options and the choices we make. Most then assume that because we made a choice and were aware of so doing that it was a free choice. At the end of the day you make a decision because you wanted to or were forced to, there really is no other alternative. If the decision is forced, then it is obviously not free.
If all events are caused then they are determined. That is the principle of determinism. You cannot have an event that happens without a cause. That would make the event random or chance and therefore not freely chosen. If there is such a thing as an uncaused or acausal event it cannot have anything to do with Free Will as for any event to be willed there must be someone doing the willing. There must be a willer. The actual feeling of Free Will and the concept of Free Will are completely separate issues and although Free Will is an illusion the feeling of Free Will is not. It is a genuine and possibly necessary illusion. Will power is about learning to control habits and craving. It is when the logical and conscious mind overcomes the emotional and subconscious mind.
Free Will is an imagined and impossible concept. We don’t actually choose our needs, wants or desires and our will is what we desire when we choose. For our will to be free it would need to be free of our needs, wants and desires. People generally don’t understand how and what motivates them. Will is the desire for a certain outcome. Our goal is always to be as happy as possible and that is the goal of the will. Sometimes there is a battle between emotion and logic in the brain. We generally make decisions for a reason, either emotional or logical. Past events and knowledge stored in our brains lead us to particular conclusions.
Free Will is an imagined and impossible concept. We don’t actually choose our needs, wants or desires and our will is what we desire when we choose. For our will to be free it would need to be free of our needs, wants and desires. People generally don’t understand how and what motivates them. Will is the desire for a certain outcome. Our goal is always to be as happy as possible and that is the goal of the will. Sometimes there is a battle between emotion and logic in the brain. We generally make decisions for a reason, either emotional or logical. Past events and knowledge stored in our brains lead us to particular conclusions.
To make a Free Will choice there can be no determining causes. That means no needs, wants or desires. Your wants, needs and desires determine your will. If you are gay you cannot be attracted to the opposite sex, if you prefer apples to oranges you can’t detest apples and enjoy oranges. Our needs and desires are subconscious and determined. They can be affected by stimuli which release hormones such as adrenalin and serotonin and over which we have no control. Our beliefs, needs and desires can and do change, but the change is always due to an external event, experience or stimulus. We have no control over our DNA, our parents, gender, upbringing, or culture. All of these affect who we are, as well as our wants, needs and desires. Am I free to choose my want or desire? No. Conscious behavior is always determined by a combination of nature and nurture. We do not choose our subconscious compulsions. Reflex actions are instinctive and not chosen nor willed.
Determinism is a scientific fact. There are no exceptions, even at the quantum level. We may not know precisely which particle in the atom is going to decay, but we do know the cause of the event, which is that the nucleus becomes unstable due to the fact that it has insufficient binding energy caused by an excess of either protons or neutrons. Indeterminacy at the quantum level is often used as an argument against Free Will. What this indeterminacy actually is, is a limit on our knowledge at the Quantum scale. The correct term here is unpredictability. It is similar to weather forecasting or chaos theory. It is extremely difficult to make precise weather forecasts more than a week or so in advance due to the number and scale of the factors involved. In the 1960’s Edward Lorenz during the course of experiments regarding weather forecast modeling was using calculations to six places of decimals. Later in checking his calculations he only used three places of decimals and found this small difference gave him a vastly different model. This became known as “the butterfly effect” or chaos theory whereby a very small change in initial conditions can actually create a significantly different outcome. Determinism does not of necessity imply predictability.
The free will debate generally categorises into three camps. Firstly there are determinists, who believe nothing can interfere with cause and effect and thus we cannot have Free Will. Next are the libertarians who believe we have some form of liberty or freedom to choose, that overcomes cause and effect. This is classical Free Will. Finally we have the compatibilists who believe in determinism but also believe in Free Will. Determinists and libertarians are classified as non-compatibilists. Religionists generally are libertarians in that to sin requires Free Will and demands punishment. To believe in sin you must believe in Free Will.
The biggest problem to me in this debate is that Free Will is generally conflated with responsibility and consequences. That is because possibly all societies, and legal systems in particular, are lived and based on the assumption of everyone being held freely responsible for their actions unless coercion or mental disability is shown or proven. Without free will we would not be personally responsible for our actions nor would there be any need for praise or blame. However were a society or group to accept the illusory nature of Free Will it would still be necessary in that society or group for an individual to be responsible to that society for their actions or deeds, and that might require some form of control or action consequent on the particular deed. Although they may not be personally responsible for their actions they would necessarily need to be responsible to their group or society. Either our decisions are freely made or they are not and the consequences of those decisions should not effect the debate. The debate is whether or not Free Will exists. It is about truth. The consequences are an extraneous issue. Most of our decisions are not moral decisions and without moral consequences, and accordingly this should not be an issue in the debate.
Freewill however is a philosophical concept. It only applies to humans and generally to judgment and morality. Philosophy is holding back in many instances in this debate because of the perceived probable consequences if society as a whole were to become aware that free will is an illusion, although I accept it may be a necessary illusion. The fact that Free Will is generally accepted as being true does not in any way make the belief true. I know of no evidence to support its truth. The scientific evidence points otherwise. Philosophy, science and particularly neuroscience is pushing the boundary back all the time and showing that free will is an illusion. In many experiments neuroscientists can now show the area of the brain involved in the particular decision being made lighting up electrochemically seconds before we ourselves are aware of the decision made.
The idea of Free Will is only sustained by the unwillingness to ask where our decisions come from and by the reluctance of some Scientists and Philosophers to suppress our current philosophical and scientific knowledge on the subject, because they fear society would be unable to deal with the reality. They consider the illusion is necessary for the functioning of civil society. In the Universe which has existed for over 13.8 billion years and where every non-living and living thing is in a chain of cause and effect, how did humanity manage to break that chain? Did our ancient Hominid ancestors have Free Will or our recent cousins the Neanderthals? When did Free Will arrive for humans? If we had Free Will we would be going around doing things for no reason and with no rational intention. If the Universe is deterministic, and there is no evidence it is otherwise, and we, including our brains are made of atomic matter, then Free Will must be an illusion.
⏩ Noel Byrne is a retired Civil Servant and a Humanist, with a principal interest in Philosophy, and a particular interest in Ethics and Morality.
Determinism is a scientific fact. There are no exceptions, even at the quantum level. We may not know precisely which particle in the atom is going to decay, but we do know the cause of the event, which is that the nucleus becomes unstable due to the fact that it has insufficient binding energy caused by an excess of either protons or neutrons. Indeterminacy at the quantum level is often used as an argument against Free Will. What this indeterminacy actually is, is a limit on our knowledge at the Quantum scale. The correct term here is unpredictability. It is similar to weather forecasting or chaos theory. It is extremely difficult to make precise weather forecasts more than a week or so in advance due to the number and scale of the factors involved. In the 1960’s Edward Lorenz during the course of experiments regarding weather forecast modeling was using calculations to six places of decimals. Later in checking his calculations he only used three places of decimals and found this small difference gave him a vastly different model. This became known as “the butterfly effect” or chaos theory whereby a very small change in initial conditions can actually create a significantly different outcome. Determinism does not of necessity imply predictability.
The free will debate generally categorises into three camps. Firstly there are determinists, who believe nothing can interfere with cause and effect and thus we cannot have Free Will. Next are the libertarians who believe we have some form of liberty or freedom to choose, that overcomes cause and effect. This is classical Free Will. Finally we have the compatibilists who believe in determinism but also believe in Free Will. Determinists and libertarians are classified as non-compatibilists. Religionists generally are libertarians in that to sin requires Free Will and demands punishment. To believe in sin you must believe in Free Will.
The biggest problem to me in this debate is that Free Will is generally conflated with responsibility and consequences. That is because possibly all societies, and legal systems in particular, are lived and based on the assumption of everyone being held freely responsible for their actions unless coercion or mental disability is shown or proven. Without free will we would not be personally responsible for our actions nor would there be any need for praise or blame. However were a society or group to accept the illusory nature of Free Will it would still be necessary in that society or group for an individual to be responsible to that society for their actions or deeds, and that might require some form of control or action consequent on the particular deed. Although they may not be personally responsible for their actions they would necessarily need to be responsible to their group or society. Either our decisions are freely made or they are not and the consequences of those decisions should not effect the debate. The debate is whether or not Free Will exists. It is about truth. The consequences are an extraneous issue. Most of our decisions are not moral decisions and without moral consequences, and accordingly this should not be an issue in the debate.
Freewill however is a philosophical concept. It only applies to humans and generally to judgment and morality. Philosophy is holding back in many instances in this debate because of the perceived probable consequences if society as a whole were to become aware that free will is an illusion, although I accept it may be a necessary illusion. The fact that Free Will is generally accepted as being true does not in any way make the belief true. I know of no evidence to support its truth. The scientific evidence points otherwise. Philosophy, science and particularly neuroscience is pushing the boundary back all the time and showing that free will is an illusion. In many experiments neuroscientists can now show the area of the brain involved in the particular decision being made lighting up electrochemically seconds before we ourselves are aware of the decision made.
The idea of Free Will is only sustained by the unwillingness to ask where our decisions come from and by the reluctance of some Scientists and Philosophers to suppress our current philosophical and scientific knowledge on the subject, because they fear society would be unable to deal with the reality. They consider the illusion is necessary for the functioning of civil society. In the Universe which has existed for over 13.8 billion years and where every non-living and living thing is in a chain of cause and effect, how did humanity manage to break that chain? Did our ancient Hominid ancestors have Free Will or our recent cousins the Neanderthals? When did Free Will arrive for humans? If we had Free Will we would be going around doing things for no reason and with no rational intention. If the Universe is deterministic, and there is no evidence it is otherwise, and we, including our brains are made of atomic matter, then Free Will must be an illusion.
⏩ Noel Byrne is a retired Civil Servant and a Humanist, with a principal interest in Philosophy, and a particular interest in Ethics and Morality.
No comments