Quote:
Originally posted by Danny_C
I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe we have true free will (only the illusion of free will) because nothing that happens is without cause. We do make decisions, but those decisions are based on judgment that comes from experience and genetics.
BUT, there's an inherent problem in acknowledging that fact - people will use their "lack of free will" as an excuse for their misdeeds. If everyone were to accept that there is no free will, then the courts would be filled with people saying they had no choice. The lack of free will becomes the very cause that perpetuates more misdeeds.
So sometimes we have to set aside our philosophies for the sake of practicality. I didn't mean to say we could have it both ways... that would be ridiculous. I'm only saying that although I lean toward believing one thing, I think it's more practical to live our lives by the assumption that we do have free will.
|
Ah, that sounds a lot better.
However, what do you consider "true" free will? Is true free will the freedom to decide what you do or to decide what you will?
Since the freedom to decide what you will leads to infinite regression, this does not seem like a viable option. Besides that, it also makes very little sense as a concept (if you would have the freedom to decide what you will, apparently your will is not "you", but rather the will behind it - or the ones behind that - and that supposes the existence of a soul or other kind of homunculus).
Now, the freedom to decide what you do, or in other words to do what you will, is something different altogether. It doesn't rely on something outside of cause and effect. Ofcourse, what - or maybe who - you are determines what your will will be. But isn't that the key element of free will? Making decisions based on who and what you are, what you think and what you feel?
The difference between free will and normal causality seems to consist of the conscious part of decision-making, the rational or emotional factors that eventually lead you to action or lack thereof.
One could even argue that causality is what makes free will possible, for two different reasons.
The first is that without causality, will or desire and action could not be coupled. Your choosing to do something would not affect your actions, and would thus be of no value. Causality is what makes it possible to make a decision, along with the actions that follow from it.
The second reason for causality being vital to free will is perhaps even more important. When you make a decision, it is usually based on a consideration of a range of factors, including both rational and emotional ones. If causality would not exist, and these would thus have no effect on your decisions and actions, you would only have randomness, which is contradictory to will.
Another argument in favor of free will, although slightly shady, is that free will undoubtedly plays a role in the decisions you make. Not just the concept of free will, but actually experiencing it. When you make a decision, and you are in doubt between two options, what you are experiencing is free will. That doubt, that duty to make either of both decisions is what free will is.
The mistake that determinists make is that they try to comprehend a concept that talks about mind and consciousness with science and physics. However, that is like explaining Shakespeare's Othello in terms of just paper and ink - you will miss the essence of the matter that way.
The truth is that free will is an inescapable reality of experience. Even if you would believe that free will would not exist, you would still be forced to make decisions in freedom, since there is no deterministic prediction of what will happen that you can use. You will still have to decide whether to breathe or not, whether to eat or not, whether to sleep or not - and even doing nothing would be a choice. So, living by the assumption that there is no free will is not just unpractical, it is impossible. There is no way to put it into practice, since even if you don't believe in free will you will have to assume that it exists in every action you take.
So, saying that free will does not exist because physics have causality, laws of nature and atoms is like saying love does not exist because biology has endorfines and hormones, or that fear does not exist because biology has adrenaline and nerves. It is completely missing the point and talking about a whole different level of existence.
<small>Note: Ofcourse, it is necessary to drop the dumb religious idea of free will, which is based on the assumption that a soul exists which is separate from the body and which controls your mind like it is some machine. But that was a stupid idea to begin with, which in reality said more about schizophrenia than it did about free will.</small>