Free Will- What Is It Good For...

Is the free will debate a semantics game?

Probably.

Does the debate over free will matter?

I doubt it.

Either way, we live in a universe where we feel like we have free will. With that said, I'm going to use my time to explore free will further because it interests me.

Introduction

I love the idea of free will. I got a stupid tattoo on my arm because of my love for free will. It says:

"NEVER QUIT
ITS UP TO ME"

(Yes, it has a grammar error. Yes, I was an English teacher. Moral: young people are stupid.)

I loved Lance Armstrong, Steve Prefontaine, and Neo. They could do anything. They pushed themselves beyond the limits. Armstrong survived cancer and won the Tour de France 7 times on pure grit and hard work... Prefontaine created a self image of a tough guy who shouldn't have been as good as he was. Neo was the Chosen One. When Neo discovered his destiny, he rejected it and saved humanity. I loved the self determination. I wanted to be like these self determined Chosen Ones. Defying the odds with their wills, without the use of drugs, superior genetics, or created fictions.

But, there's always a but, I love learning. It's fun and entertaining. The more I learned, the harder it was to believe the tattoo on my arm.

I lost my faith in free will in the early 2010s. I still love the idea. I hope it's true. Daniel Dennett, philosopher, has restored some hope in my ideology and admiration in free will. Read more here:

"We're not responsible for being responsible. We're lucky to be responsible. But once we're responsible, we're responsible for staying responsible..."

The Debate

The free will debate has interested and entertained me since I first started learning philosophy. Stephen Hawking first persuaded me to question free will with his writings on the nature of the universe. Since then I have read and listened to Daniel Dennett and Robert Sapolsky, among others. Recently the two determinists had a debate, "Daniel Dennett V. Robert Sapolsky- Do We Have Free Will?" I listened and found myself agreeing with both.

Since first listening to the debate, I listened to Sapolsky's newest book Determined. It's okay. It's scientific. The scientific parts are well worth reading for the studies on behavior. Sapolsky forms a well argued and crafted argument. Here is the basic argument:

1) Free will depends on human intentions/will/actions to be independent of biology, environment, and culture.
2) Human intentions/wills/actions are dependent on biology, environment, and culture a person experienced from microseconds prior to millions of years ago.
3) Humans cannot choose all the factors from microseconds to millions of years ago that determine intentions/wills/actions.
Conclusion) Humans do not have free will.

But, there's always a but, Sapolsky assumes that free will can only exist if people have a choice in all these factors that impact their intentions/wills/actions. If that's the accepted definition of free will, I agree. Sapolsky is a hard determinist and hard incompatibilism. 

Dennett is a compatibilist, thinking free will and determinism are compatible. 

It seems people's conclusions on free will may be determined their accepted definitions.

Definitions of Free Will

Merriam-Webster on-line:

1: voluntary choice or decision 'I do this of my own free will'

2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Oxford English Dictionary:

1: Spontaneous or unconstrained will; unforced choice; (also) inclination to act without suggestion from others. Esp. in of one's (own) free will and similar expressions.

2: The power of an individual to make free choices, not determined by divine predestination, the laws of physical causality, fate, etc.

Wiktionary:

1: A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.

2: (philosophy) The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.

MarvinBEdwards01 described it best in a reddit comment, "Basically, if you want to resolve the arguments, use the first definition. If you wish to argue interminably, choose the second definition." See his full comment here.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy takes it deeper down the rabbit hole. Here is a sample:

The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?), and what its true significance is (is it necessary for moral responsibility or human dignity?) have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant... It should be clear that disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics. In ferreting out the kind of control at stake in free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons. In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert. The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?"

For a through and way more complete discussion on the topic, visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry.

Back to the Debate

Sapolsky and Dennett didn't agreed on a definition of free will. Dennett commented that he wasn't arguing for Sapolsky's type of free will. But the moderator didn't bring attention or focus the conversation on this important distinction. The conversation/debate is mostly Dennett and Sapolsky talking past each other. 

If I could moderate a debate between Sapolsky and Dennett, I would first have the two intellectuals agree on a definition of free will. If they wouldn't, I'd want to break the debate into two smaller debates over each interlocutors definition of free will. I suspect the two would have very little disagreement outside of semantics.

Conclusion

I really want to be a compatibilist! I'm not sure that I am. Until a consensus is formed, I prefer the a definition of free will that focuses on the freedom to do otherwise. I personally like Dennett's conclusion that some people are lucky enough to have the control needed to be responsible for the norms and laws of society. 

Further Explorations

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry for Free Wil  

"Daniel Dennett V. Robert Sapolsky- Do We Have Free Will?"

Dennett's "Lucky to Be Responsible"

"Self or not a Self"

Lucky to Be Responsible

This is a lightly edited quote from Daniel Dennett. I think this applies to more than just free will.

“We're not responsible for being responsible. We're lucky to be responsible, but once we're responsible we're responsible for staying responsible. Once you have the competence, once you have the can do, once you've got the self-control, then you get two things: 1) you get the freedom of the state, you get to sign contracts, you get to earn royalties, you get to go where you want to, you get to get a passport, you get to get married; 2) the price you pay for that is your willingness to be punished for any violations of laws. It's a great bargain. It's a great deal. It's the best game in town and we've got to think of free will as an achievement not a metaphysical endowment. We weren't born with free will. The little baby doesn't have self-control. They get self-control, pretty much unless they have a horrific childhood. They get self-control. They learn from their mistakes, they overcome their obstacles, not in every case, we want to leave plenty of room for people who are disabled. But a key fact, the serial killer, the person with the brain tumor, are disabled. They don't have free will. But that doesn't mean nobody has free will."

Here is a link to a video of Dennett’s conversation with Michael Shermer where I heard the quote. Below is the original transcript I copied from youtube.

49:54

uh I think that we have to

50:01

recognize that we're not

50:07

responsible for being responsible we're lucky to be

50:13

responsible but once we're responsible we're responsible for staying

50:18

responsible once once you have the competence once you have the can do once

50:24

you've got the self-control then you get two things you get the

50:31

freedom of the state you get to sign contracts you get to earn royalties you get to you you get to go where you want

50:37

to you get to get a passport and so forth and so on you get to get married the price you pay for that is

50:44

your willingness to be uh punished for any violations of laws that

50:51

you make it's a great bargain it's a great deal it's the best game in town

50:56

and and we've got to think of Free Will as an achievement not a metaphysical

51:04

endowment we we we weren't born with free will the little

51:09

baby doesn't have the self-control they get self-control

51:16

pretty much unless they have a horrific

51:21

childhood they get self-control they learn from their

51:28

mistakes they overcome their obstacles not in every case we want to leave

51:34

plenty of room for people who are who are disabled but a key fact if you look

51:40

at at I haven't read sosi's book but if you look at at um Sam Harris's little

51:47

book on free will he he runs out this the the serial

51:54

killer the person with the brain tumor right yeah most people are disabled they don't have free will but

52:02

that doesn't mean nobody has free will

Children Never Get a Chance to Be Themselves

I didn't research anything yet. I also have a bias. I haven't heard a convincing argument against causal determinism. I believe determinism rules the universe whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not. My ideas are stemming from my denial of free will.

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

A little more background, I have a 13 month old child. Observing her develop sparks many ideas about parenting, education, learning, etc. My daughter has been a hilarious baby. Jamie knows how to work a crowd. She picks up what makes people laugh and what gives her positive feedback. She loves laughing and positive feedback. I don't think this makes her unique or special.

Readers should know what I mean by "true" or "own personalities." Writing philosophy is tough. Terms and words need to be unpacked, defined, and or explained. I'll try to be concise. I'm going to stick with the terms baby, child, and parent to sum up the interactions between children and whoever provides them care.

Today's Rant: Children are sculpted by their parents/caregivers/family/environment, so babies/children have no chance to develop their own/true personality.

The Argument (I'm working on this. It's a mess)

1) Genes and environment produce behavior and personality.

2) If parents dictate environment, offspring cannot create their environment.

3) If parents condition offsprings' behavior, offspring cannot create their personality.


Conclusion: Parents and genes dictate offsprings' personality.

The Reasoning and Analysis

I'm not suggestions that people's behavior or personality do not change or evolve later in life. I also know that friends, society, profession, schools etc. have huge impacts on personality.  But by the time these events take place, offspring have been sculpted so finely by parents, environment, and genes that offspring have no agency in their personality or identity. I'm saying that, Jamie, you, and I have no influence over who we are. Our identity and personality is determined

My daughter is confirmation bias for my predisposition.

I watch Jamie, and she laughs because we laugh. My wife and I especially are creating her sense of humor. Something happens; Jamie looks to us; we tell Jamie if it is funny or not; Jamie laughs or doesn't.

One day Jamie randomly or accidentally made a noise. I don't know what the noise sounded like, but my brain processed it close to "was dat." Of course, I started mimicking and pointing to Jamie, which reinforced Jamie learning to say "was dat." It was hilarious and random, but it became part of her personality and our relationship. I could have ignored it. I could have heard something different. I could have thought that wasn't. This might be a counter example to my argument, but the point is I not Jamie reinforced and conditioned us to.

Little things like this happen all the time. Now that Jamie is 13 months I can see how much I influence her. Jamie started head banging dancing last week. It's pretty awesome, and everyone loves it. So she keeps doing it. This along with everything else is teaching her what is funny.

I'll admit, I don't have full control over Jamie. I wish I did. When she gets hysterical, she has this unbearable screech. It's terrible and gives me a headache. But this behavior, and a few others, we try to change and condition.

Still I can't help think when I see her interact, how much "thank you"s, "no Jamie"s, clapping, cheering, etc shape her. She conditions us too, of course, but we condition her more.

How much does each of my actions affect her? How many behaviors that I inhibit would have lead to x identity or personality?

There isn't a double blind study to run. She doesn't have an identical twin that we could not condition. And I'm not worried. My worldview doesn't care much. But it's a trip to think about. What if I was more compassionate or tolerant of her cries and screeches? Would she develop into a more "true self?" I don't believe in a true self/personally, but it's a term that captures my idea best.

That's good enough. Please leave a comment if you're interested. I can add explanations where they are needed.

Jimbo Out

3 April 2022 (Update!)

This sounds like a bunch of nonsense now. I mostly agree with the ideas, but this isn't going to convince or change anyone's mind with a different idea.  

Jimbo out again

23 January 2026 (Update!)

Nature > Nurture

"The best available evidence shows that large differences in upbringing have little effect on how kids turn out.” (pg 34 of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids by Bryan Caplan)