mxchicmx,
Here is a paper written by a “friend” that I, personally, really enjoyed. Its very simple to understand.
-Toward the Happy Marriage of Free Will and Determinism-
Unable to understand how or why the person we see behaves as he does, we attribute his behavior to a person we cannot see, whose behavior we cannot explain either but about whom we are not inclined to ask questions. We probably adopt this strategy not so much because of any lack of interest or power but because of a long-standing conviction that for much of human behavior there are no relevant antecedents. The function of the inner man is to provide an explanation which will not be explained in turn. Explanation stops with him. He is not a mediator between past history and current behavior, he is a center from which behavior emanates. He initiates, originates, and creates, and in doing so he remains, as he was for the Greeks, divine. We say that he is autonomous–and, so far as a science of behavior is concerned, that means miraculous.
B. F. Skinner Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1971
The Tick-
If I were to tell you I knew of a world other than our own, either you would think me a crackpot or I would think you one. Nonetheless, I contend that I have been granted a glimpse of just such a world, and have reason to believe it is real.
On the surface, this world appears almost exactly like ours. At the top of the food chain is a race that looks just like us and has achieved the same levels of technology and comfort. The only difference I could see is that on the head of each person is a fat tick. It is not quite fair to call these animals ticks, for they seem to have a lively intelligence. That is the best analogy I can make, however, since they exist as complete parasites, living on the blood of their hosts.
It appears that each “human” somehow acquires a “tick” sometime during infancy, which remains attached to the head until the host dies and the supply of blood runs out. I believe the tick dies with the host, rather than leaving it for another. I have worked long and hard to figure out why the people allow these parasites to live on them, but have found no answer since my only source of information is one of the ticks.
After a lengthy conversation with this informant, I saw that this world was utterly unlike our own. The parasites are clearly under the impression that they are directing the lives of their hosts. He referred to “my body”, “my job”, and “my wife” though the context clarified that he meant those of his host organism. With all the tact I could muster, I suggested that I was confused because it seemed to me that the humans were free and independent beings while he and his kind were merely unproductive spectators. He did not get upset, but was merely puzzled by the idea of humans getting anything done without their ticks to guide them.
Given that my information is limited, I must admit it is possible that the ticks’ exchange of fluids with the brains of the humans allows them to both receive sensory input from their bodies and direct behavior. This admission, however, is merely a footnote to my main hypothesis.
I believe the race of “ticks” is under some sort of mass delusion, carried on for generation after generation. Somehow they have evolved to produce interpretations of their passive role which enable them to believe they are in control. When the host starts to do something (whether it is to scratch, quit his job, or fall in love), the tick sees signs of this course of action and invents reasons why he (the tick) has decided on it.
Even without advance warning (which may or may not come with the fluid exchange), this illusion might still be maintained. Nietzsche (1889) noted a similar phenomenon in our world: that a sleeping human who hears a cannon fired in the distance will insert into his dream circumstances which seemed to precede and predict the report. Perhaps they can do awake what we do in dreams, bending time to make sense of the world.
In spite of these explanations of how the trick could be done, I find it difficult to imagine such an all-encompasing delusion on such a vast scale. It seems that over the centuries at least one of the creatures would have to open his eyes and shout “Hey–we’re just along for the ride!” as I have done.
Determinism-
When I speak to people about the problem of determinism, their answers are mostly very similar. They say yes, one’s environment pushes and pulls you toward certain decisions, but we have free will: the final decision is ours. Let me begin, then, by saying that this is not at all the way people work and not at all what I mean by determinism. I believe a strong case can be made for absolute determinism, for a world in which there is no independent entity to make any “final decision,” in which there is no speck of choice left for which one can take credit. A world in which the “self” is merely a powerless observer–and not even powerful enough to observe the whole being upon whose head it rides.
Everything must come from somewhere. One cannot be a first cause, a self-generating entity, judging and selecting from above the world, outside of life. Our efforts to uncover the complex web of causes which determine our behaviors are often frustrated after going only a couple of steps back, but this does not disprove the existence of such a web. Where is the self, the spirit, the soul to come from if not from the world? Only by positing an eternal soul can one avoid attributing the self to outside causes, and such a belief brings up another whole set of impossibilities.
Now, for me, this is enough. The proposition has been proven. Regretfully, I am not at liberty to suspend all use of the concept of free will at this very moment, as I would not then be able to speak about such things as choosing what to believe and what to throw out. One cannot say “I” in the same sense that one said “I” while believing in an independent self. One cannot say “he” and “she” without performing some serious revisions to the idea of what it is to be a person, what kind of thing a person is. The words “will” and “self” have meaning. They refer to something, even if type of entity for which we have used them does not exist. The contradiction between free will and determinism has been a difficult one precisely because we cannot afford to give up either concept. Thus our goal: a “happy marriage”.
The Courtship-
My breakthrough with this problem was to come up with a way to approach it. It struck me that the first thing necessary was merely to find a way to have faith that the contradiction could be solved. I found this faith by comparing the problem to the problem of absolute truth, to which I will therefore digress for a moment.
Humans make mental models or representations of parts of the world, and use these models to understand, predict, and give meaning to life. (This is just one such model, as we could describe the process in other ways, but I think it is a valid one.) Some of these representations work better than others. Those that work better are closer to “the truth”. “The truth” is an abstraction, the idea of a model which would perfectly describe some piece of reality. “Reality” is a word that refers to that which exists, to that which we attempt to describe in our models. It is always separate from the models themselves, since it denotes that which they describe. There is another sense in which “truth” need not refer to an ideal of perfect knowledge, but merely to mental models which have performed well and which we consider trustworthy. There is a distinction to be made between asserting that one has “a truth” and “the truth”.
Absolute truth is an ideal. It is not that it is unattainable because we are imperfect. It is unattainable because that’s what ideals are. Being unattainable is part of the concept. Given this sense of the word, there is no shame in the lack of perfect truth. The best truths there are are our imperfect human representations. Many of our truths are amazing in the degree to which they explain and predict our lives, in the beauty of their simplicity, or of their complexity. Our truths are great achievements, and creating and improving such truths are noble causes on which to spend one’s life.
The only reason there is a problem with truth is that we have inherited some erroneous ideas about what truth could and should be. We believe in absolute truth and are frustrated by our inability to defend it. The assertions of religions that absolute truth has been attained through divine revelation are the most obvious source of this myth. It also derives, however, from a natural if simplistic model of knowledge. One begins understanding things with models that are black and white. In the case of truth: right and wrong. Even without a history of faith-based beliefs, one begins with the idea that one either has the truth or does not. Once this fallacy is dismissed, respect for our imperfect truths falls right into place, and the problem is solved.
That the problem of truth could be solved primarily by recognizing a traditional concept that set up unrealistic expectations gave me hope that the present problem was the result of a similar inherited error. Surely it was only an immature model which led us to place our faith in an image of the human as unmoved mover, as an independent agent. If we can dismiss this expectation, if we can coax our pride to no longer require this status, then perhaps everything will again fall into place.
The Wedding-
I do not have a single theory which will accomplish the desired matrimony, but only a few reflections which have helped me to feel alright in a world without free will. If I am only a tick on the head of this body and self I have called my own, how am I, the observer, to make this an acceptable role? First, that term “self” must be expanded. I am indeed part of this “self”, but perhaps I am not all of it. Perhaps one can have a sense of saying “I want…” and meaning “The I which is speaking, as a representative of the larger I, expresses a desire for…”, can see “I” as merely shorthand for “that of which I am aware and that which drives me unseen”. This, of course, we have already done to some extent with the awareness of sub-conscious drives to which Freud led us, but how would we speak of “free will”, and “I made the final choice” if we really gave credit to those parts of ourself of which we are not aware? There is a definite sense in which we are accustomed to think of the self as being discrete, of having some kind of integrity which it clearly lacks. It is merely something to try to keep in mind.
As a “mere” observer, one may still make some claim to refer to the observed as “my” self. I have been carried along on this being through good times and bad. I have had to experience its pains and humiliations. I have shared in its greatest ecstasies. I have been witness to all this, and no other conscious being can make this claim. Therefore, to the extent that a consciousness can claim a whole being, this one is mine. In addition to being a unique observer, I have been made by these events as I observed them. I am a conglomerate of the many things which have happened to this being, of the circumstances which happened to converge upon it. It is mine and I am its.
“Conglomerate” is almost a defining characteristic of this self which is more than the self I know. It is (I am) not from any god, nor some eternal spark held in a physical container. A body came to be and within it grew this spark, somewhere (in Nietzsche’s words) “between plant and ghost”. It passes through the world and encounters things. Some of them it internalizes. Those already internalized determine what next shall be passed by and what shall be incorporated. It grows somewhat like an organism, but more like a city: with additions and detours created which often enough refuse to be interpreted in terms of any grand scheme. And this mess am I. But within this piecemeal self, distinctions can be made which make some things more central than others, which lay a stronger claim to call some pieces mine.
There are parts of my self which appear to be adopted whole and maintained intact from my parents, from Nietzsche, from some random event which crystallized a concept, from sources of which I am not aware. There are other parts which have undoubtedly been processed thoroughly after their arrival. Parts made of innumerable influences, parts which can be said to have my “flavor”, which share some essential characteristics and moods with other “heavily processed” items. I cannot say that anything is purely mine, that any part of myself does not owe it’s existence to something outside, but I can distinguish that which is realtively adopted from that which has been made relatively me. This is an important realization. Just as one can dismiss any expectations that truth be absolute, one can dismiss the expectation that the self be independent. Once that is done, it is quite sensible to speak of parts of the self within which one has exerted one’s will, which one has (relatively speaking) created.
This is the essence of the drive many of us share to claim free will. One wants to see that one has gone into all corners of one’s life and self and made conscious decisions. There is, at least, a certain kind of person who feels this need to “claim territory” by having the experience of selecting, naming, and willing. In the service of these goals, “will” and “free will” are resurrected as sensible and defensible notions. I exert my will by forever stirring the soup of sensations and opinions which have come to be me, making sure no noodle or piece of carrot fails to deliver that unique and proud taste of my personal spice.
-Mark at Thinedge.org