erraticwisdom

Are we truly free? Are the paths of our lives charted beforehand, or is every moment an opportunity to break new ground? The answer isn’t easily found, the determinate physical world seems to hit a causal brick wall at human consciousness, and the theories of free will advocates are likewise thwarted by the explanatory role of rationality. Given the mind’s pivotal role in the debate, it seems natural to tackle the issue from within, working with our intuitions and direct experience to discover if we are free.

In my mind, there are not many experiences more clear or distinct than freedom. It appears to me, despite the supposedly ever-extending causal chain of events, that I am fundamentally free. At this moment, and without apparent cause, I can lift my arm and lower it, I can decide to daydream for a bit, I can choose to hold my breath, I can do (almost) anything.

Soft Determinism: Causal (hard) determinism and free will can be compatible.

There are those who disagree, the hard determinist, who asserts that no event is without physical cause, would argue that my actions here are all still not free, that the events of the past lead directly to that moment and would necessarily cause me to do one of those things. I may have the illusion of choice, but the reality is that I cannot help but raise and lower my arm. However, the hard determinist’s argument is too strong, annihilating both the opposing position and our own mindset (and the actions of our everyday lives). If I still feel that I’m free, that the choice I make is spontaneous, then the causal chain is irrelevant, I make choices.

For the hard determinist, an individual’s path is “locked down” or determined beforehand and the outcomes of specific events can theoretically be deduced given the appropriate antecedent conditions (and one hell of a computer). Within that individual’s mind, however, a choice is made and – at least psychologically if not physically – that choice could have been otherwise and the individual was free in making their decision. In this sense, the individual’s path is locked down after them, and a sense of freedom is maintained.

It may be a feeble distinction from an external perspective, but we’re working from the inside out; there’s no such thing as an “illusion” of choice.

The alternative, libertarianism, rejects causal determinism, finding it utterly incompatible with free will. Libertarianism seems outdated, modern physics tells us that our world is causally determined (at least at the relevant scale), that each action has a reaction. To deny these laws and their influence in the debate is to ignore a significant chunk of our understanding of the universe and seems counterproductive.

We therefore arrive at my preferred position, soft determinism, combining the existence of a causally connected world – whose physics tangibly influence the interactions of the mind – and the phenomenology of freedom. The position maintains the possibility of total causal determinism but still allows that our actions could have been otherwise (and that we were free to do so). It seems counterintuitive, but it makes more sense from our current, internal perspective: I do not know which of the three available actions I will perform, I will surely do one (and the specific one may have been deduced by somebody), but there remains – in my mind – a choice to be made.

That “almost” earlier is something I may return to (perhaps in the context of literature), it explores a different layer of free will.

Terms: phenomenology, causal (hard) determinism, libertarianism