I came across an interesting idea while reading Robert Nozick’s Philosophical Explanations in the section on free will. I thought I’d post it on here to get some feedback on it because its fairly intriguing. This of course is not his own idea, but one he sights when discussing the issue.
It essentially states that free will is impossible, because our own birth is against our will. So therefore our own existence is against our will.
There’s a big difference between having a say in something and being against that something.
Having no say in our existence, before that fact, does not presuppose that we would be against it.
Free will, or otherwise, implies the possibility of desire and will and autonomy.
Of course, but lets assume that the person in question is the biggest nihilist of all time, and says that he wishes he had never been born, and is upset against it being against his will that he was born. Granted that you are correct in saying that just because we had no say in it, doesnt mean we would be against it, however there are those who we could imagine, would be against it, and the fact that we would be or would not be against it before the fact doesn’t really matter too much in this example. Take the case of our nihilist again. He was clearly born against his will, its essentially against everyone’s will because no matter whether you would’ve wanted to be born or not (at the time before your existence you have no thoughts, feelings etc. so it really makes no difference how you would feel later on) you still have no say in it (like you said), but also no control, making it against ones possible conjecture, and against everyones will.
We may approach free will - I believe that is our evolutionary purpose.
To eventually become free? That raises some questions, the main of which is how is it will we become free?
I don’t think there’s the need to go to the elaborate extent of the birth argument that Mr. Nozick has come up with to see the real pressing and completely unsolved (philosophically) issue presented by free will.
Let me put it out there as I see it and see does anyone have a way (ways) out of the dilemma.
- You don’t have to be a strong naturalist reductionist or a died in the wool follower of Richard Dawkins to acknowledge that the universe (at a “normal” or “classical” level) seems to be governed by simple physical processes (i won’t say “laws”).
If you accept (it’s arguable I know) that our mind/soul/conscious experience is rooted in/emerges from our material brain then at base we are the result of simple physical processes at the level of neurons and chemical reactions.
So reactions and processes in the brain should be predictable and, indeed, determined.
(I’ll allow for stuff like sensitive dependence on initial conditions etc - but lets say we somehow have absolute knowledge of whats going on at a chemical level - then, in theory, 100% determined)
- At the level of conscious thought it is impossible to act as if we do not have free will.
I like Searle’s example:
waiter: What will you have as a starter?
me: I’ll have what I was always going to have.
You could sit there and get hungry or actually pick something!
(of course after you exercise the choice/free will then, of course, it can be argued that it was what you were always going to have!)
- So clearly we feel some sort of gap, a sensation as if we had choice and yet we are made up at a cellular level of regular predictable processes.
It might even be argued that what we are is in fact this gap.
But what is it - simply a time lag between are determined processes and our awareness of them that gives an illusion of choice?
This is the dilemma for me.
(I don’t think quantum processes will cut it - how does something random at the quantum level become a feeling of choice and decision at the conscious level?)
kp
Using materialistic reductionist logic free will is entirely impossible.
Very few questions have tormented me the way the question of free will and determinism has. I went through a Notes From Underground-esque insanity trying to cope with this “problem” for years and years.
These day I take a Nietzschean stance on this issue: Free Will and Determinism are empty concepts that have little to do with our day to day life experiences. The feeling of power brings with it the feeling of freedom, and the feeling of powerlessness brings with it the opposite.
I’m free because I feel free. It’s not very philosophical, but it works… for me.
David Bohm explains this very well in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Highly recommended, and also available used.
Sick decadant (nice handle) - I’ve heard worse
How else could we function day to day - makes perfect sense.
- I must admit the problem doesn’t torment me - because somehow we get by with seeming choice on a day to day level but any ideas on the dead lock are welcome!
Jonquil - I’ll add to me list - so much to read and so little time!
kp
I’m in the same boat… trying to read two or three books at the same time, with a long list ahead. Such is life.
Will you hate me if I just post a link…?
http://writeitorbust.blogspot.com/2010/02/indeterminacy-of-will.html
Just a theory, sorry if the logic is false; As we become more conscious of the forces that drive us, we get more conscious of our consciousness itself. This means that whereas determimism is still valid, there will be a new first determinator, a very particular neural configuration which amounts to a human with fully realized scientific self-knowledge.
Alright, i’ll have to pester you with more questions…
First, what do you suppose the force(s) that drive us are? Second, I understand what your saying, but could that result in an infinite regress, or at least till we reach this perfect scientific-knowledge? and third, is fully realized scientific-knowledge possible?
Do you honestly want to be a dumb, ignorant, fragile, [historically often but not always] abused, possibly slave, hungry, meager nobody on a shit ball of a planet? Your desire to be here, has been forced into you. Everything is done by force against concent. That is the basis of concent : nonconcent. Christian nations were converted by sophism and by force. Anyone who was not tricked into wanting something that would ruin their existence, would be forced into it or punished. That’s what they did to many native americans, trying to make them all little white christians. You’ve been forced to believe that life is a divine gift, that you are free, that the world is an amazing beautiful place, and all kinds of pigshittery.
Will itself is a form of control, no matter how “free” it thinks that it is, and it spreads like a disease, constantly seeking to expland its own control and influence.
Will is opposite of true freedom, therefor “free will” is complete nonsense, an inversion of true facts.
That is just how it is. And they taught you to think the exact opposite of how it actually is.
Man is not able to act, because he is all the time thinking in terms of the freedom to act. “How can I be free to act?” That’s where all the concern is, the freedom. But there is no acting that freedom. The demand for the freedom to act is preventing the action.
you’re talking all silly like, as you eat raw cabbage.
-
By the forces that drive us I simply mean the drives amounting to survival instinct, and everything which amounts to them, to the point of gravity and other basic forces of physicality. I don’t intened to be specific here, I only refer to the general idea behind determinism of an endless chain of causes of causes of causes - these causes is what i meant with forces.
-
What do you mean by an infinite regress? How does that follow?
-
I don’t know why it would be theoretically impossible… so yes, I think it’s possible.
- I fully understand what you mean here, this is precisely why I consider myself a compatibilist in this area. (as opposed to a believer in free-will)
2)By infinite regress I was simply referring to when you said that we get more conscious of our conscious self as we learn more about the forces that drive us (or as you explained the laws of physics, well just say). So our consciousness of our consciousness if based on our conscious self learning more about the laws up until we reach this “fully realized scientific knowledge”. Which, I only brought into question because though you say not theoretically impossible, it still doesnt seem quite plausible, considering the advancements in chaos theory, and the fact that humans seem to be constantly discovering new facts about the forces that limit us. Hence the (possible?)infinite regress.
I see where Jake is going here and I’m inclined to agree. I think this is very similar to the ideas of Spinoza regarding determinism and causal relationships. Supposing that determinism is valid, and much of what is realized is determined causally, we may become adequate causes of our own effects as we begin to understand the causal relationships that govern our fate(s).
In other words, if we accept that much of what we experience is, in fact, determined causally, we can begin to understand how particular causal relationships affect us in determining particular outcomes. With such an understanding we may affect the causal relationships that, in turn, affect us to yield a desired or predicted outcome. We can affect causality in our lives, rather than simply being affected; we may become our own deterministic forces to some degree – this, in my opinion, could be the beginning of ‘free will’.
The beginnings of free will yes, but how far can it extend? We will eventually run into the wall of deterministic laws which we have no control over. If that is always there then indeed! a midway point between free-will and determinism is where we stand. Of course there is that other viewpoint that if we are not completely free, then we cant really call it freewill. If our “free-will” is limited how free is it?