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(Yes, it has a grammar error. Yes, I was an English teacher. Moral: young people are stupid.)
ITS UP TO ME"
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 probably 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 half of the is well worth reading for the science 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. But is this the accepted definition of free will? It seems people's conclusions on free will may determine 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?"
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 brung 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
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?"
This is a cool post.
ReplyDeleteI think arguing that because we are affected by things around us that we have no choice is a reasonable, defensible argument to make. However, in practical terms, it's rendered nonsensical. What would it mean not to be able to make choices between things? Can't we tell the difference between someone who doesn't seem to have a choice about something and someone who does? The words mean something.
Even the Theravadan Buddhists, arguing that everything is part of "codependent origination," all arising together, still say Buddhism doesn't make sense if you can't make "right" choices or "skillful" choices.
I'm with you. It's funny how free will pairs with the meaning of life. If the definition of free will is having control over all the factors that affect people, than free will is a silly idea. This is one problem with scientists thinking they can philosophize, they think they're correct because they know they're smart and know the science. But they often don't know enough about history or philosophy to properly defend their values and opinions.
DeleteHear hear.
Delete