"How Free are You?"

That was the name to a little book by Ted Honderich. Mind you, I did not know anything, and still don’t care much to know, of his political ideals…idealism.
It made me think, and that is always good after reading a book. here are the ideas that I have been thinking of:

  • Determinism is a law built into nature rather than necessarly experienced or observed. It is an estimation that justifies further theorizing. When people try to declare human behaviour as thoroughly determined, conditioned, predictable, repeatable etc, I think it is a rigged vote of confidence that accomodates the person’s bias. Scientists, of course, will be cautious. Philosophers with pretentions of being scientific on the other hand, will push the envelope towards conclusions such as determinism.

What we observe in behaviour certainly does little to increase one’s confidence in determinism. A choice is conditioned, determined by what we take to be certain reason’s. Certainly, Freewill does not amount to capricious behaviour. Each of us can explain his or her behaviour…after the fact. But are we consistent? Principled persons sure like to be consistent. It is a virtue. But besides that, are we really consistent or simply wish that we were or act as if we were? Would one note a difference between the two?

I think that high character involves having values that determined our choices. If A then B, invariably. But what if in reality our choices go: If A then B, unless Y…? Now, we feel good in having clear cut reasons for doing A instead B, but is the reason in itself sufficient or is there a certain avoidance of a irrational choice. We in the end are what declares a condition or reason sufficient to bring about an act.

  • Now, determinist may point to me that no matter the illusion of self-determination, that does not rule out that, whatever the act, and even the belief that led to the act, are in themselves effects of something else. A choice might have little consistency due to our character, but could and should be regular as the motion of metal balls. But that is the difference. Metal balls follow regular laws but brains are differently configured and unique in that configuration as perhaps our finger print. A similarly built brain, as between identical twins, can inform us of dispositions. The twins may be good at math, regardless, by the very development of the brain due to their genes, but which questions are answered correctly in a test, is up to chance. In the interaction between brain and things outside brain the determination it could give is not absolute.

As determined as the mind could be, there is also imagination and creativity, which again is, I think, a way in which natural selection has remained flexible to accomodate the “capriciousness” of nature. God need not play with dice, but if He did, it is unlikely that he would necessarly play by the same rules. Light travels at 186,000 ±, but I don’t see why it could not travel faster here or there, or now and then…once upon a time it might have been much slower. How would we know if not by playing this game of causality?

But we are not even light or metal, but endure consciousness and in a very developed fashion, not commonly found in the rest of the animal kingdom. We are not special, or unlike them in many ways but in this way we are. We are predetermined to a minimum…though some desire to say that their very blood conditions their character. But neither blood cells nor carbon or sugar determines absolutely whether I will punch this next key in the board.

– Freewill is an idea, or ideal, just as determinism in reverse, applied as an interpretation of our behaviour. So what can we mean by “free”?

Suppose that someone offers you a million bucks or a slap in the face. Which would you “choose”? Hardly a choice, I would imagine. And it isn’t, for the most part. The very offer determined the outcome. Freedom is not like that and it is a bit more scary. Sartre felt it as a condemnation. Suppose you either had to defend your country from the Nazis or stay home to take care of grandma. Both alternatives offer something you would desire and so remove the over-determination one could call upon, such as our “Character”. Either could be rationalized, before or after and that makes them more free and less determined than big money instead of gratuitious assault.
Nothing in the neural cortex could select one or the other. The brain simply is the cause of the impase by leading to an equal (felt) disposition to either alternative. The brain carries enablers to either course of action. At this impasse, the scales in the balance, to use a metaphor, stand still. To break this impasse, one uses his imagination and creativity but whatever the choice one makes, it lacks an absolute determination because this capacity could have been applied to the alternative. After, one will strenghten his choice by making up reasons that load up the scales to the side already chosen free of a necessity for it. We try to create that necessity. How succesful we are at creative “writing” will determined, then, how sharply we feel our freedom.

This is why all the critical decisions in my life have been made by non-deterministic methods like a coin flip or if the traffic light turns green before I get to it or by settling into a paralysis of indecision until some unforeseen random event sets me in motion.

I do not seek to explain or justify these actions in advance or afterward.
It is my life and I live it my way, randomly and indeterminate.

It relieves my boredom.

It seems to me that many of the major choices we make in our lives like having children, buying a house, committing to a political ideology or action we make after we are aware of having made them!
We rationalise our decisions post the fact but often we don’t know how we really “slipped into” making these choices.

I find with small things like – “what will I have for lunch” or “where am I going tonight” – we put a lot of time and an impressive amount of thought into making justifiable and “rational” (according to our individual needs and biases anyway) choices.

But for the BIG decisions it often just seems to be the old Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” and also the decision is made before we are concious of having actually made a subjective choice
Maybe its just me!

A complete diceman eh? – how do you find it? Maybe we all use the throw of dice more than we would care to admit…

kp

unrealist42-
I don’t think that many of us (on the other side of your computer screen)would live life long by playing dice. Reality seems to agree with Einstein an awful lot, so one might as well try to catch the schedule for the next train…even if that is at best a good guess.

Krossie-
Have you read Steven Pinker’s “How the Mind Works”?