|
||
|
|
||
| ||
| Wednesday, March 17, 2010 | |||||||||||||
|
You are here: Alumbo! Self-Help Supersite > Item Detail Page
Why the Will is Not FreeThe concept of free will as it is commonly understood is a baseless and incoherent concept.
It is crucial to remember that nonexistence of free will does not negate the existence of choice itself. When confronted with circumstances, beings make decisions based on their preferences, beliefs, feelings, and so forth. Indeed, beings constantly make choices about what to do, and to the extent they are not prevented by external circumstances, they can (and do) act as they wish.Neither does this position negate the importance of choice. Humans and many other kinds of beings definitely need some measure of choice in order to be happy. Drastically restricted choice appears to result in great suffering, and Beingism is emphatically in favor of allowing beings to make decisions about the things that affect their lives to whatever extent they are able. If this seems to you like a contradiction, keep reading. It isn't. Why This Discussion Is ImportantThis is important because belief in free will is a major obstacle to having compassion. Very often it is taboo to analyze the causes of unethical or unpopular actions, as if understanding the causes involved somehow means condoning or approving the actions themselves. For example, we are often discouraged from considering the motives of terrorists or other criminals. When someone asks why such a person would do a terrible thing, the tendency is to assume that the perpetrators are simply horrible human beings and that there is nothing more to consider. Unfortunately, this is merely to substitute stigma for rational examination, resulting in increased suffering and virtually guaranteeing that the problem behavior will continue. A thorough debunking of free will shows that though human behavior may often be extremely complex, it is almost certainly as comprehensible and understandable as any other part of reality. When we understand why people act as they do even if we disapprove of their behavior, we can work to create the kind of world in which they are no longer prompted to act in that manner. Similarly, understanding that free will isn't really a meaningful idea makes it possible to dismiss as largely irrelevant the debate about whether poverty is primarily generated internally (as a result of individual decisions) or externally (due to systemic factors). While Beingism holds that the latter is considerably more important, convincing others of this truth can be difficult. By showing that the idea of free will is incoherent, we establish that beings living under unpleasant circumstances do not deserve their positions there, and that holding them morally responsible for their plight is inaccurate as well as and counterproductive to the goal of maximizing happiness. Basic Underlying ConceptsAll beings consist of some combination of different elements. As in the “nature versus nurture” debate, we often separate these elements into categories of “innate” and “acquired.” Our innate characteristics are usually defined as our genes, while our acquired characteristics are those we possess because of the ways our experiences have affected us. Consciously and unconsciously, we are constantly taking in new information which changes our cognition. Experiences may also change us by altering our bodies, as in an egg or sperm when a chemical alters its original genetic structure, or in later life as when a wound results in a permanent scar or brain damage. At any given time, a being consists of a complex and multifaceted combination of realized genetics and past experiences. New experiences reciprocally interact with this sum to produce new decisions. In complex organisms such as humans, this process is extraordinarily complicated. Some people believe that there are elements besides experience and genetics which make up some portion of the psyche and play some role in directing behavior. We will refer to these elements collectively as the "soul," although different people may prefer different terminology. Given Occam’s razor and the lack of evidence for any such thing in spite of a great deal of science, Beingism maintains that the possibility of a soul’s existence is very low. However, because there is nothing logically inconsistent about some possible definitions of a soul, we must accept such things as possible agents in human behavior, even if their existence is highly unlikely.
This is not, however, relevant to our discussion of free will. Regardless of which, whether, or how many factors influence an action, it is clear that any action must either be caused by factors, not caused by factors, or partially caused by factors and partially not. Physical or spiritual, all elements must fall into one of these categories by definition. Whichever of these options is true of the elements of the psyche overall, however, the will is not “free” in any meaningful sense. If Decisions Are Completely CausedLet’s suppose that some actions are completely caused by some combination of factors, like a stone acted upon by the laws of physics. Consider, for a moment, a stone catapulted into the air from a particular place, with a particular amount of force, at a particular angle, into a particular wind velocity, gravity, and inertia, and so on. If we are aware of every relevant factor affecting the stone, we will inevitably be able to determine its landing point with perfect mathematical accuracy. Further, if we repeat the experiment without changing any factors, we will always obtain the same result. In the same way and for the same reasons, choice — if caused — must work the same way. Of course, a decision almost inevitably has many more individual elements involved in its causation than a catapulted rock, but this in no way alters the inevitability of the result. If an action is completely caused, a being possessing total knowledge of factors relevant to the action at the moment before it takes place, as well as sufficient ability to process the data, would be always be able to predict that this action would take place. But if an action is the inevitable result of all the preceding causes, it cannot, of course, be “free.” If Decisions Are Completely UncausedSuppose, on the other hand, that an action occurs with complete independence from all other aspects of reality. No causes preceded it; those events which transpired before it in time have nothing to do with what happens after. So far as we know, any given result is as likely to occur as any other — no one would be able to predict the outcome, even with all the available knowledge at the beginning of the event and perfect processing power. In this case, of course, the action is random. Obviously, though, randomness is not what is meant by “free will.” In fact, randomness is probably about as different a concept from free will as we might imagine. If Decisions Are Partially CausedBecause total randomness would presumably result in completely unpredictable behavior, few would argue that a person’s behavior is entirely random. Some, however, might claim that some combination of causation and randomness is at work. Proponents of certain interpretations of quantum physics might argue that this is the case — that is, that some elements of behavior are ungoverned by laws. Though some people attempt to claim that they know this to be true, it is in fact inherently impossible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no causes exist for a given circumstance because it is impossible to prove a negative. Regardless, however, actions of will which are partly the inevitable result of other causes and partly random do not result in “free will.” Those parts which are caused are determined, and those parts which are uncaused are random. In BriefWhen you get right down to it, the concept of free will is not a meaningful one. There is, quite simply, nothing except causality from which the will could be free. But if the will is free of causality, it is random — not what is typically meant by the phrase “free will.” Another Way to Look at Free WillHere’s another way of looking at it. The assumptions maybe seem counterintuitive at first glance, but read about them before you dismiss them: • Assumption One: You always do what you most want. • Assumption Two: You can't control what you most want. • Conclusion: You can't control what you do. Assumption One (Revisited)Now, it may seem as though you often do things that you don't want to do. You might say, "Sometimes I force myself out of bed at five a.m. to go to yo-yo practice. But I despise waking early! So obviously I don’t always do what I want." This is an example of conflicting desires. One part of your brain says, "Ugh, I want to go back to sleep," while another part of your brain says, "But what will the other yo-yo players think? I promised I'd show them how to walk the dog at today's practice. And that attractive player who was at last month's yo-yo extravaganza might be there." So, while a part of you may not want to get out of bed, your strongest desire (considering all the factors) is to go to practice, so it overrides the others. Even so called “selfless acts” can be explained in terms of overriding wants, such as the desire to help others or avoid feeling guilty. Thus while you may do things you don’t enjoy (like getting blood drawn), your overriding want is to do them (because then you can get tested for Dung Flu, or help someone who needs blood). Of course, you inevitably have a very large number of options from which to choose, which can sometim.... Read More
| Place your ad here for as little as $19. Click for more information. |
||||||||||||
|
About Us | Get Involved | Submit Content | Privacy Pledge | Site Map Copyright © 1999-, Alumbo Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. Important Note: Material on this website is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for professional advice (medical, legal, financial or otherwise). Please see our Terms Of Service. Home Page: Alumbo! - Self Help Supersite - Tools for inspiration, motivation, success, and personal growth. |
|