—Given that the brain is a physical organ for dealing with information. —Since it has evolved in humans to be powerful enough to hold a representation of the organism that holds it, (a self), of its surroundings and circumstance so that it can respond to it in an appropriate way. —Since the brain has probably evolved because of the advantage that this gives its body and genes.
Then it is necessary to expect that the brain can hold an individual point of view different and unique to this one individual.
This uniqueness can be called, in this sense “free” and if the individual thinks at all about its situation, it will even think of scenarios and then it will use this unique point of view to alter its future. This is what is free will.
For example, I’m conscious that this is my unique point of view. This is created by me. No one I know has ever thought of this. I am free do as I please.
The choice of an ice cream flavor is frivolous and requires no attention. The thought of a career, requires consideration.
Furthermore, the power of computing from this individual uniqueness is possibly the experience of self and consciousness. The responsiveness is a “will”. And so with no metaphysical or spiritual property, this will is correctly called “free will” but it could possibly be more accurately be described as “unique will”. Unique for each and everyone’s body and circumstance. It is free in the sense that it can effectively respond uniquely, intelligently and in a timely matter to the unique circumstance that faces the individual. Obviously, this is prone to error and varies in accurateness and speed, but this can correctly be an attribute of the degree of freedom.
Obviously, no cerebral function is attributable to inexplicable cause in principal, and even a quantum randomness property is not metaphysical. Brains are hard wired and programed by its genes and developmental chemicals and physical circumstances, by there experience and exposure to information. None the less when things go reasonably well, the individual has the advantage to respond to its circumstance appropriately. It is a given that some do it better than others. But the great flexibility that the brain gives to enable the individual to adapt uniquely to its circumstance, or environment, if you prefer, is the powerful property of the brain. Because this is the brains greatest advantage, I think you the reader can correctly, with me call this a “free” will.
You can define “free will” in any way you like. However, this doesn’t refute Sam’s argument. He is arguing against the “free will” of humans being able to act independently of causal events, random events and matter. If we did have free will, then serial killers could have chosen not to kill their second victim and I could have easily chosen not to type this argument. This simply isn’t coherent. The very fact that I typed this sentence is not through any free agency of my own, it is due to a chain of events (perhaps some that were random) since the beginning of space-time that has culminated in me, a primate on planet earth, typing out these sentences.
Consider by analogy a cannon ball being fired in a southerly direction. We are like this cannon ball. Free will is the idea that we can suddenly change direction mid-air and go anywhere whenever we want. However, in actuality due to the laws of physics, we can only go south. It doesn’t matter if the events preceding an action are ones by causality or randomness.
The very fact that I don’t believe in free will arose out of causal events and or random events, not my free agency. This idea is incredibly strange and almost poetic. Causal events in this universe has led to the existence of conscious beings that realize that their realization that there is no free will arose purely out of causal and or random events.
The reason why I am not Ted Bundy is not a matter of agency, it is a matter of only circumstance.
The free will that most people believe in simply makes no sense.
AmazingAtheism,
Maybe I’m wrong but I can’t reconcile what you are saying with the idea that thinking about something, I mean concentrating on a problem, has an effect that at my human level, my consciousness, will change my future. I think it is rather reductionist, mostly beside the point to go to level of electrons and the like.
How can someone have a novel idea, with out free will?
What is free will if not the ability to decide things for one’s self and circumstance? Influences are part of the game. They are a given. At the level of the self, we must decide. And can decide to put things off. Intelligence is to do things better.
With individual will, I will consider the situation, and I will decide on what I resolve to be the best decision. That is free will.
I believe that at the consciousness level, the individual has the power to at least somewhat change his future. That is intelligence. That is free will. It is the use free will. It is being creative.
As for the canon ball analogy, I know I am missing your point that things happen at the physical level, but self guiding missiles, like the Cruse missile can change direction in mid air to reach the target. It uses intelligent onboard programmes and the like. We are much more like that.
There is no doubt that concentrating and deciding things influences our futures. There is also no doubt that those concentrations and decisions are important. This is especially so in decisions of morality. What we must understand, however, is that ‘we’ (not a free agent) are not the cause of the concentration and the making of decisions. At any given time it seems that we can concentrate on making a decision in an infinite number of ways (relating to an action). However, the action of thinking and concentrating was itself formed by previous events. The action we decide or choose to take e.g. dancing, is the only one that we would do given the prior events in the universe that had built our existence (our circumstance). Our actions also may be influenced by completely random events, but as I said above that cannot give us free will. It is in this way that we do not have free will. To illustrate this in a particularly strong way here is an example:
Raise your left and right hand, then choose a hand to flap madly around. All that Sam Harris is arguing for is that we are not free as we think to move whatever hand we choose. Whatever we choose to do was logically itself caused by a long line of events (each event being caused or random) that preceded the mad hand flap. You could also choose any other action such as not flapping any hand, ad infinitum, however this is the same as above. Our actions and decisions depend entirely on our situation built by prior events (our circumstance). Random events independent from causality may also play a small role (but of course this doesn’t give us free will).
Relating to the cruise missile analogy, that is how it appears to us. However, whichever direction the missile takes is determined by a huge unknown quantity of factors that happened prior to the direction change (the most obvious being where the heat source is or whatever). These factors may have been random (indeterministic) or caused (deterministic). The intelligent missile (us) was not the independent cause of the decision to turn. The decision was just part of the flow of events, like a marble hitting a marble and that marble responding by moving.
I enjoy reading, debating, listening to music and hanging out with friends. Why do I enjoy these things? It makes no sense to say ‘well I could have chosen not to enjoy those things’, I just do, because millions of factors/ preexisting events have caused me to be so. Why did I stop believing in free will when I was 14 years of age? Why am I an atheist, a student, a gay rights supporter and a free thinker instead of a religious homophobic? I must confess that I only know a small amount of the factors that have led to my character, but I know that I think that I have the right beliefs (which seems rather arrogant and almost ironic).
We have to admit that if each of us (well it wouldn’t be us) was put in EXACTLY the same circumstance (down to the last electron) as a sadist then ‘we’ ‘ourselves’ would become a sadist. No amount of tiny random quantum events could make us otherwise.
We need to be very careful with this information. It doesn’t follow that choices are somehow meaningless or pointless. It also doesn’t follow that there are no bad or good actions. There are still good and bad people, it just means that they are not the cause of their badness or goodness.
What does logically follow from this, is that it is pointless to punish criminals as RETRIBUTION. It is more necessary to treat them as unfortunate victims of circumstance, who will sadly need therapy, rehabilitation or a prison sentence (to stop them harming people). What the criminals have done (murder, theft, rape etc) are still terrible things make no mistake. They have just done these things due to a gigantic list of factors pre-existing their horrible act. The list of factors would be massive; genetics, mental health, friends, family…....... etc etc etc.
Myself (hopefully), Circle of life (probably) and probably the majority of people on this forum are compassionate, good people. This is a very fortunate thing to be.
However, there are unfortunate people who are criminals because of circumstance. There are also unfortunate people who are affected by these criminals.
There isn’t a single country in the world who’s laws don’t depend heavily on this idea of free will.
Free Will/Won’t ——- a different angle
Before language we lived in groups and members cooperated. When we learned more efficient cooperation it was due to improvements in communication of what the different organisms intended to do. It was done by by signs, sounds and, later, words. The intensions/decisions were formed in the (sub)conscious workings of that organism.
With time, we got better and better in communications and we even created a word for the ‘announcement’: ‘I’ ! But that did not mean that we added a function to our organism: an ‘I’ that suddenly could deliberate and decide about things!
Through 1000s of years we then used ‘I’ to give agency to decisions that were communicated and then we started to believe that what was communicated was really made by ‘I’, as we had little idea about how a decision came to.
We are still in that situation; most people have no idea about how an organism makes decisions….they just assume that ‘I’ did it.
And …. As ‘I’ did it…‘I’ have Free Will.
Voila!
But…..
My organism is still doing decisions in the same way as it has done for 1000s of years! Only better due to access to more information.
A big confusion was created when this witnessing and announcing function of my organism’s deliberations and decisions was also supposed to have the powers to do them; i.e. when the announcement got the confusing ID: ‘I’ ? Or rather: Who is there to have Free Will? There is no one!
Without anybody to own the Free Will/Won’t mechanism; it can not exist.
But my organism will continue to make decisions and announce them and many people will continue to believe that a Free Will decision has been announced.
> author=“AmazingAtheism”
> You can define “free will” in any way you like. However, this doesn’t refute Sam’s argument. He is arguing against the “free will” of humans being able to act independently of causal events, random events and matter. If we did have free will, then serial killers could have chosen not to kill their second victim
Yes they could. But they didn’t. Why? Because they *wanted* to kill the second victim. Could they change their *want*? Sure. People change their preferences all the time. There are people who get married, then get divorced. Some of them think about the idea of marriage and realize that their reasons for getting married are bad, thus changing their preference for marriage. Some of them don’t think much, or they do think but don’t realize that their reasons for getting married are bad, so they don’t change their preference.
You can try out my argument right now. You might be someone that thinks that the idea of marriage is a good one. You might have already tried it and failed (i.e. divorced). Either way, I claim that the idea of marriage is bad. It causes suffering and has no upsides at all.
One way to think of it is like this: What problem(s) does marriage solve? List the problems and their attributes. Then think about what other options you have besides marriage.
At this point, you may still think marriage is a good idea, in which case your preference for marriage hasn’t changed. Or you may have realized that marriage is a bad idea, in which case you have changed your preference for marriage.
For those of you that changed your preference, you’ve have proven that you have free will.
For those of you that haven’t changed your preference, check out the new relationship philosophy called Autonomy Respecting Relationships:
You can define “free will” in any way you like. However, this doesn’t refute Sam’s argument. He is arguing against the “free will” of humans being able to act independently of causal events, random events and matter. If we did have free will, then serial killers could have chosen not to kill their second victim and I could have easily chosen not to type this argument. This simply isn’t coherent. The very fact that I typed this sentence is not through any free agency of my own, it is due to a chain of events (perhaps some that were random) since the beginning of space-time that has culminated in me, a primate on planet earth, typing out these sentences.
I have not actually read the book, but watched a lot of Sam Harris on Youtube.
You seem to be saying what I have finally seem to get from the debate.
The confusion is that when he says there is no free will, he means that we are influenced to various degrees, by all kinds of things.Genes, environment etc.
He is not saying we have no choice, but we have a limited number of choices, compared to the number of choices we might have, if we had completely free will.
At least that’s the understanding I can readily accept and comprehend.
