“I know of no evidence of a force or power that may be called a will.” -Harry Stack Sullivan
Back in the days that I had time for extracurricular thinking, I spent about a year reading, talking, and thinking about the arguments for and against free will. One of my tentative conclusion was (and remains) that the arguments for the existence of free will are very weak. Most flow, knowingly or not, from Christian dogma, “How can God righteously judge us if we do not really make choices?” or that other great religion of the western world, Individualism: “Why should anyone doubt that the all-mighty Individual makes choices that shape the world?” There is the moralistic “argument” that comes from our desire to exact righteous revenge: “How can we feel good about punishing criminals (or even just judging/disliking people) if they do not really make choices?” That comes with the corollary, “How can we feel proud about our accomplishments if we really had no choice in the matter?” There are the emotional arguments, along the lines of, “It would just be too depressing to imagine I didn’t have choice,” or, “The idea that I have free will is inspiring to me so I choose to believe it.” (That one a close parallel of Bender the robot’s defiant but casual, “I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe.”) There’s the classic argument from lack of imagination, “I just can’t believe that I don’t have free will.” There is the “argument” from self-evidence, “We have free will because we have free will.” (Who was it who defined “self-evident” as “evident without any evidence”?) There is the argument from randomness, which I find utterly baffling. It goes something like, “Quantum mechanics says that there is some randomness in the subatomic level of my brain, which undermines determinism. Therefore, I have free will.” While ridiculous, at least the argument from randomness is an attempt at an argument and not just dogma, like the rest.
Those who don’t believe in a distinct self, like mystics and post-modernists, say something like “Of course there’s no free will. There is no distinct entity (ego, self) to have free will. We’ve looked for it and it ain’t there.” And though I’m not a mystic or a real post-modernist, that’s my problem too. I can have vivid experiences of running, a collection of sensations that convince me that there is such a thing as running. I can have vivid experiences of loving, too, which many people consider very abstract for some reason. But nothing I’ve tried has given me any vivid experience of choosing. I can notice thinking about options, and I can notice feeling uncomfortable or excited about them or the prospect of choosing, I can notice my thinking, “Maybe it would be better do such-and-such,” and I can notice doing one of the options at some point, but I have failed to be able to notice choosing. When I look close, it just doesn’t seem to be there. And because I don’t have access to anyone else’s experience, I have to assume that people who do think they are experiencing choosing are either fooling themselves or not looking close enough.
Why do I keep thinking about this? I think it’s because I’m romantic and I feel like I’m coming to this very unromantic conclusion. (Is that true? Is being able to choose more romantic than not? It seems like it.) But now I have a blog and I can ask a bunch of people for help in one fell swoop: Please, tell me about your vivid experience of choosing. How can I have that experience? What am I missing? What should I do and what should I pay attention to while doing it?
November 11, 2009 at 11:01 am
Ah, you’re just being a Libra. They can never make up their minds.
November 24, 2009 at 12:13 am
Anyone? Please?
(Telling sound of crickets)
November 24, 2009 at 1:19 am
Nathen, I leave the burden of proof on YOU to prove that free will DOESN’T exist. Placing the burden of proving free will on others is a version of Bertrand Russell’s cosmic teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Anyways, in a world of such manifestly free choice, there are bigger fish to fry.
heart
Blake
November 24, 2009 at 11:56 am
Hi Blake.
Hmm. Interesting argument from an atheist! Your metaphysical nature is coming out.
I admit that free will might exist, no problem. I’m just saying that you can’t justify believing that it does exist if you believe in non-conscious processes and motivations, that it amounts to dogma. If you’re going around arbitrarily believing things like free will, don’t get down on theists for believing in God!
Flowers,
Nathen
November 24, 2009 at 12:07 pm
You read the teapot argument backwards: it’s an argument from occam’s razor. The teapot argument is used against god, not for him/it/whatev. Same for the invisible pink unicorn.
How is it impossible for non-conscious processes to coexist with free will? It’s not either/or. Example: I’m hungry. That’s a non-conscious process. Should I buy an apple, steal an orange, or become an ascetic? My choice, i.e., volition, i.e., free will.
And I don’t get down on deists, before their god just created everything and left (might as well call him the laws of physics)..I get down on theists who use their personal (arbitrary) god to justify all sorts of repressions.
heart
November 24, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Blake,
Hm. I didn’t look up the teacup argument, so I may have gotten it wrong, but understand me that I am saying that an insistence in believing in free will is like an insistence in believing in God. Free will and God are equivalent in my argument, so if the teacup argument is used against God, it can be used against free will, a concept with even less empirical support than God.
Also, understand that I am not arguing against the existence of free will. I’m arguing against a rational _belief_ in free will. It’s not that non-conscious processes and free will cannot coexist, it’s that, if non-conscious processes exist, you can by definition _never_ know when they are running you and when, or if, your ‘free will’ is running you.
Also, it seems like you’re making this argument:
1) If we seem to have options, we have free will
2) We seem to have options
Therefore, we have free will.
Is that it?
If you think “apple or orange?” and go with orange, how do you know you went with orange because of your will instead of because of your unconscious associations with oranges?
Or how about this one:
1) For Blake and Nathen, thinking about free will is more fun than writing.
2) Blake and Nathen are supposed to be writing.
Therefore, Blake and Nathen are probably thinking about free will.
November 25, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Nathen,
It seems that arguing against a “rational belief” in free will is the same thing as arguing against its existence. To “rationally believe” something means, to me, to act as if it existed.
And yes, your first argument sounds about right.
Do you really think that your subconscious is making you read, analyze, and respond to my arguments? Or “non-conscious processes” created the microprocessors that allow you to read this computer screen? Are humans really just deterministic clockwork machinery? Because arguing against a “rational belief” in free will seems to logically lead there.
December 13, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Well wait, what is free will? Shouldn’t we know what it is before we debate whether we have it or not?
The way I look at it is you’re absolutely right. We have no control over our choices – all of our choices are pre-determined based on how we’ve grown up or things that are in our passed. People go down the path they are set on and then later make up stories about how they had a choice … “Oh yes, it was Harvard or Yale and I chose Harvard which led me to blah blah blah!” No you didn’t! You would have gone to Harvard no matter what because that is the path you have been set on – you have no control over such things. I totally agree with you – I have no conscious recollection of ever really making a choice. Ever.
But it’s not to despair because you know what you DO have control over? How you define yourself. I DEFIANTLY can pin point times in my life where I have made a decision about who I am going to be. You can say “You know what, I’m going to be a family therapist!” and suddenly POW! Off you go, ‘choosing’ to go to school for it and doing things that line up with that definition of who you are. Just like one day I said “You know what? I’m going to be a musician!” and WHAM suddenly my path from then on is set in a different direction then it was before. Suddenly Matt Henson suggestion going to the Musicians Institute seems like a good idea when before I had never even considered school seriously.
Maybe someone really lets you down and you decide “I’m never going to be like that – from now on I am going to be a dependable friend!” and suddenly your path is changed again. Maybe a friend that you normally would have flaked on you don’t anymore. You don’t get to make a real choice about whether or not to flake on your friend at the time but the way you’ve defined yourself prior has changed your path.
So no, I don’t think we have much control over the ‘choices’ that come up in our lives in any given moment but we do have control over how we define ourselves. We have absolute control over that.
I actually read this entry a long time ago but had only stumble upon the words to describe what I was thinking about it very recently.
December 18, 2009 at 10:56 am
Well said, Zen. Especially “Defiantly.” I love your spirit!
December 15, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Would you guys consider this an appropriate analogy:
You can’t control the ingredients that life hands you, but you can certainly choose which meal you cook?
December 18, 2009 at 10:58 am
I might quibble with “certainly,” but I do think it’s a good way to think about your life.