Alright, I've been discussing the concept of free will with various people for a little over a year now and my line of argument and explanation is almost always the same, so I think I'll kick things off around by presenting a very basic framework of free will and determinism (My position, we'll get to it in a moment), how the two interact and how we should view the situation. (Note: Everything that follows from here on is obviously up for debate, and I in fact encourage that at every opportunity)
First, what is free will? Literally, it is having a will that is a free. In this case the "will" is volition, the conscious desire, a mental state capable of striving towards some action. "Free" means unconstrained. So, slamming it together, we get an unconstrained volition. Great. Essentially what that means is that the volition has some form of unconstrained freedom to decide upon a particular course of action. This is all probably something that you're very familiar and seems pointless, but the technical terminology is important because...
For the volition to choose between various courses of action there have to actually be various courses of action in the first place. Again, this seems obvious, but it's very important. If there is only one course of action with no other alternatives, then it cannot be said that free will enters into the equation because there aren't any choices to be made. To put it another way, if A can lead to B, C or D, then we could discuss free will (Because there are choices), but if A can only lead to B then we cannot (Because there aren't). Free will in undertaking any course of action hinges upon alternatives being present.
Now, what's all this determinism nonsense about? Determinism is the philosophical stance that posits that given the past and the laws of nature there is only one physically possible future. Great. What does that mean? First, let's talk about the physically possible and the hypothetically possible. The physically possible is something that can actually occur in reality... a pretty simple concept. It was physically possible for me to start a blog and we know this because it already happened. The hypothetically possible is something that we can conceive of occurring, whether or not it actually does (Or can). It is hypothetically possible that I could start a second blog for the hell of it. It is also hypothetically possible that ostriches are all highly intelligent terrorists from mars that are waiting for the perfect time to eradicate the human race by panicking us with loud noises and flashing lights. The probability of these two hypothetical worlds becoming physical isn't important, nor is the level of absurdity involved, they're both equally hypothetical.
With me so far? Good.
Alright, do you know what the past is? That's what has already happened chronologically. Yeah, I thought you knew. Really, I did. What about the laws of nature, what are those? You probably already know that too, things like gravity, solid objects not being able to occupy the same coordinates in space and clowns existing. The funny thing about the laws of nature is that they are essentially various forms of cause and effect. If I drop a rock, it will fall due to gravity. If I pick the rock up and hit myself in the face with it, they will not occupy the same coordinates upon collision, instead one or the other will be forced out of the way. If a clown exists, then it exists (Yes, tautologies can be conditionals). In fact, it appears as though everything around us is governed by these chains of cause and effect. The universe seems to be a massive conglomeration of mechanical parts in motion.
Now, what does all of that mean? Well, let's revisit the definition of determinism; Given the past and the laws of nature there is only one physically possible future. From what we just talked about, that means that given some past state (P) and the laws of nature (L) we must arrive at some particular future (F). With the laws of nature being conditional (If, then) statements we cannot possibly get anything other than F if we start by putting P into the equation. It's like adding numbers, no matter how many times you punch 5+7 into a calculator you will always arrive at 12. It cannot possibly be any other way.
Consider something. Human actions are events. More than that, it appears as though your "mind" is a highly complex chemical reaction in your brain... intricate and mysterious enough that we don't fully understand it but still a very physical thing. Chemicals interact in a series of events. Physical events are governed by physical laws and if determinism holds true then given brain state A and the laws of nature we will always arrive at brain state B. The actions your physical body takes are then governed by these changes in the state of your brain, so given brain state B and the laws of nature we will always arrive at course of action C. These are conditionals, equations. It is impossible to input some set of data and arrive at more than one answer, no matter how many times it is tested.
Now, you don't exist in a vacuum. You are, hopefully, influenced by a great many factors, all of those variables feeding into this equation. But, it is still just an equation at the end of the day and all of these conditionals lead to the same physically possible future... of which there can only be one. So it is hypothetically possible that you could go to the store today and it is hypothetically possible that you could not go to the store today but only one of them is physically possible. Whatever happens doesn't just become the course of history, it is the only possible course history could have taken (Are we seeing the pattern here?).
If there is only one outcome, then there aren't any alternatives by definition. If there aren't any alternatives then free will cannot possibly enter the equation. And that, in a nutshell, is my argument for why free will does not exist (And by "my argument," I mean the argument that I've come across and adopted).
Any questions? Rebuttals? I'll probably be doing a "part two" anyways just because it's such a juicy topic and I ended up cutting a lot of stuff I'd like to talk about (Yes, as wordy as this post is, it's abbreviated), so I might as well answer any direct responses in the process should they arise before then.
No comments:
Post a Comment