Post
The Phenomen- ology of Freedom
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.
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 Libertarianism seems outdated, modern physics tells us that our world is causally determined (at least at the relevant scale), that each action has a reaction.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
Archive
-
260.
The Ethics of Practicing Procedures on the Nearly Dead
The report from the field was not promising by any stretch, extensive trauma, and perhaps most importantly unknown “downtime” (referencing the period where the patient received no basic care like...
-
260.
The Ethics of Teaching Hospitals
I can’t imagine what the patient was thinking. Seeing my trembling hands approaching the lacerations on his face with a sharp needle. I tried to reassure him that I knew what I was doing, but the...
-
260.
Conscious Conversation: Behavioral Science
Dr. Eran Zaidel is a professor of Behavioral Neuroscience and faculty member at the Brain Research Institute at UCLA. His work focuses on hemispheric specialization and interhemispheric interaction...
-
260.
Progress Report
Two years down, I’m still going. The next two years are my clinical rotations, the actual hands-on training. It’s a scary prospect, responsibilities and such; but it’s equally exciting, after...
-
260.
Why Medical School Should Be Free
There’s a lot of really great doctors out there, but unfortunately, there’s also some bad ones. That’s a problem we don’t need to have, and I think it’s caused by some problems with the...
-
260.
The Cerebellum: a model for learning in the brain
I know, it’s been a while. Busy is no excuse though, as it is becoming clear that writing for erraticwisdom was an important part of exercising certain parts of my brain that I have neglected...
-
260.
Conscious Conversation: Philosophy
Daniel Black, author of Erectlocution, was kind enough to chat with me one day and we had a great discussion – have a listen.
-
260.
The Stuff in Between
I’m actually almost normal when not agonizing over robot production details, and quite a bit has happened since I last wrote an update. First, I’ve finally graduated. I had a bit of a...
Comments
That’s a pretty interesting view on freedom. Although this maybe irrelevant, but even though you can choose to raise your arm or lower it, breathe or not, your freedom is still limited.For example, we don’t have the freedom to fly or to shoot fireballs out of our hand no matter how much we will it so (some more than others). I’m sure that we have freedom on a level, but I don’t think we are completely free.
I forgot who said this but “Freedom is not the ability to choose between black and white, freedom is the ability not to choose”
I might be too far outside of the box.
Jonathan Solichin
Jun 30, 03:38 PM #
Good point, that’s a different level of freedom and seems to be tied to being in a larger social structure (maybe not the fireballs). For example, at gunpoint I think we’d all say we’re a touch less ‘free’.
Thame
Jun 30, 07:33 PM #
The presence of a cause is independent from its apparency, though, right? If we’re talking about internal investigation, isn’t the chain of neuron events that would lead to a decision internal?
I’m not clearly in one camp on this. I tend to think, though, that there’s not much special—at least not enough special—about brains, and specifically the human brain, such that they’re not beholden to whatever determinism drives the world, even in their nittiest-grittiest details. So, while you believe you’re absolutely free (from an internal perspective) to choose to raise or lower your arm at any moment, it’s as likely as not (at least) illusory, that a chain of internal events caused or determined this course.
This is a product of induction, which you’ve smartly called into question before; and we’re far from testing this hypothesis resolutely. However, if we are to pick from the likely hypotheses, I don’t see any reason to presume that the brain, for all its complexity, creates a warp in space-time that exempts it from even “internal” causality. Quantum effects, maybe?
Nice to see you back. Must’ve been a busy year. +)
Daniel Black
Jul 3, 09:07 AM #
Hi again,
Happened across a snippet (which I can’t find online anywhere) in Seed magazine, talking about this very neuron/brain-structure consideration of [a; the; one possible] source of free will.
In the ’80s, a researcher named Benjamin Libet tried to study the genesis of decision, and found that areas of the brain responsible for decision fired (relatively) long before subjects perceived having made a decision. Recently, in Europe (will dig for references), researchers replicated and extended this research; they found that they could predict a choice (with a non-unity but high probability) as many as 10 seconds before subjects were consciously aware of making a decision.
A very little Googling exploded with references to Mr. Libet, recently deceased as of the fall of 2007. There is, for instance, The Volitional Brain which resulted from his research; and there is an article in The Guardian entitled Mind over matter?. I haven’t read either very much thus far, but will be doing so.
Daniel Black
Jul 4, 01:14 PM #
Good point, I think I’d like to explore this later (neurobiology and free will). As you say, it seem unlikely that the lump inside our heads can somehow circumvent the laws of the universe, but it also seems unlikely that the experience of conscious freedom would be entirely epiphenomenalistic. It seems like an enormous evolutionary burden if it really serves no purpose; that is, if events proceed as necessitated without the time and energy required to feign decision-making.
Thame
Jul 5, 11:40 AM #
While doing some little bit of (feature-creepy) research for a short story, I came across (again) Antonio Damasio. Not sure if you’ve heard of/read his stuff, but he’s a popular researcher/author on the general subject of the neurophysiological underpinnings of the mind, of emotions and reason, and of decision-making processes. I’ve heard of him here and there over the years, but never quite made the leap to pick up a book. Probably going to remedy that.
Daniel
Daniel Black
Jul 14, 09:47 AM #
Interest post, Tom. I appreciate how you approach this question from your own experience. I am aware that, even as I type right now, I am free to choose what I write. And yet, what I do now will seem to build some kind of momentum in one direction or another—both in my own self structure and also in others who may read this. So there does appear to be a correlative relationship between past, present, and future action or belief or behavior, but perhaps not causal—at least not absolutely so (the hard deterministic position).
Another interesting point is that I think as we develop more awareness around our thoughts, feelings, and actions, a greater measure of freedom begins to open. As I understand it, that’s actually an essential foundation of spiritual development. So the question of determinism seems to lack any recognition of the developmental nature of consciousness, that is, as one becomes more conscious, one can begin to see the relationship between thought, feeling, and action more transparently and, indeed, freely.
It’s interesting to consider that proposition cosmologically. That is, if it’s true that as consciousness evolves, there is a greater degree of freedom in the individual to make choices, and that conscious choice is, at least on this planet, as complex and integrated as the evolutionary process has become, then one could say that the universe is engaged in a process of both external (things) and internal (non-things) evolution. We could therefore say that we live not in a deterministic universe, but rather a directional universe, and that, if seen from the inside out, human beings actually gain the capacity to determine future outcomes of the evolutionary process through their own conscious choice. The less evolved the consciousness, the more seemingly (or actually) causal the relationship between thought, feeling, and action is; the more evolved, the more freedom to consciously choose a direction forward.
Okay, maybe that’s all a plug for more people to start engaging in serious and committed spiritual practice. But hey, we are talking about phenomenology, right? That’s a pretty “spiritual” word if you ask me. :)
Sam Rosen
Jul 17, 08:49 PM #
I believe we are free to the extent that our lives are not pre-determined. We have no destiny.
Although I do believe that beyond our societies laws there are clearly laws of physics, laws of the universe, laws of all types; tangible and not tangible which constrict our freedom.
Hard determinism does not sit well with me. I like your idea of soft determinism though.
I will have to think on this some more.
Bryan Chain
Jul 17, 09:03 PM #
Modern Physics long ago banished the concept of determinism. I find it astonishing that you say things are deterministic at a relevant scale. On what scale do you think a decision is made? Surely, if anywhere it must be at the level of a few charged particles quantum tunneling through the walls of neurons.
We know that the “many worlds” hypothesis of quantum theory is entirely consistent with observation to the nth degree. This gives a direct route for libertarianism to be correct.
I’m not suggesting that many worlds actually exist. I guess that there is only one – and that the brain is, in a very real way, a quantum computer which allows us to choose which of them we want to go down. We harness the power of quantum indeterminacy to allow us free will. Bear in mind I’m saying we choose the state of our brain – not the state of the universe… Now that would be cool.
Alex Houseman
Jul 18, 04:52 AM #
Very cool, I like the idea that my freedom corresponds basically to my awareness of it. Our ability to break away from “knee-jerk” responses (less free) means paying attention to our activities and making…conscious…choices.
Yes, there are a few different levels of freedom and there seems to be some confusion at each. In the end though I, like you, am just a bit irked by hard determinism.
I’m by no means an expert, but I have yet to find a reasonable theory integrating quantum mechanics. Further, introducing randomness isn’t quite what we’re looking for.
Thame
Jul 20, 01:01 AM #
Hi Thane
I’m not an expert either – but if you doubt that quantum indeterminacy exists you are over-ruling (or at least choosing to ignore) every physicist currently practicing. Although you are in good company; Einstein agreed at least at first.
In classical deterministic physics there was asolutely no place for consciousness. Newton and even Einstein provided nowhere for it to hide. The collapsing wave function of extended structures provides somewhere for consciousness to live.
Your argument that adding in a random element does nothing to help the argument is precisiely the point. “Random” doesn’t exist in a deterministic universe. Nowhere. Neither quantum indeterminacy nor free will (consciousness) make sense in a deterministic universe.
Still think they are unconnected?
Alex Houseman
Jul 21, 05:40 AM #
I’m not doubting that it exists, just its explanatory application in this case. Quantum indeterminacy is an interesting addition, but it brings its own problems with it. Indeterminate randomness can’t help explain free-will decisions.
Thame
Jul 22, 09:12 PM #
I have long wondered about the existence of freedom in the human condition and some time ago it struck me that the answer to that question will never come out of causality and hence out of a scientific understanding of the world. Causality is a great tool for understanding the external and objective world in which we find ourselves but the limit of that understanding ends with externality, if you erase the subject from the understanding, as science does, then no one should be surprised when we are uncormfortable with the answers we get about ourselves. Equations don’t think or feel or choose, we do and it is we who have engendered the equations themselves, for causality and mathamatics are all abstractions. This debate on freedom seems to me now as pointless as the famed ontological arguments for the existence of god. Look into Bergson on this one, his view is very close to what I am saying here and I agree with most of his points, on freedom and on duration anyway. Okham’s razor occurs to me here, which is a principle used in science all the time, so from that point of view which is more likely, that our experience of freedom is a great conspiracy of the mind or that we really are free to choose?
Nathaniel
Aug 12, 11:30 AM #
We are free to the extend it has been revealed to us.
Marc
Nov 9, 10:20 AM #
thats a very interesting statement because it is also tied to political and social philiosphy and science relating to modern democracys they give us the chance to choose between black and white but never are questions of anarchy of our right not to choose a government period brought up
ben fff
Dec 28, 09:15 AM #
While the scientific explanation to free will is nowhere close to settled, I am intrigued by 1) emergent complexity (much like how I feel about consciousness—have you studied anesthesia in med school yet?); 2) how the mind sorts through the potential dozens of commands within the brain competing for attention; and 3) how our emotions and reason integrate in learning and decision-making (if it is the same as the conscious-unconscious divide, or fast/slow thinking, which it may not be). I am not entirely sold on the idea that the brain simply does whatever sets of neurons ‘clamor the most’ (produces the most action potential—which may be the immediate effect, but is perhaps downstream from many, many other events including learning, memory, habit, attention and focus). Free will seems to be the ability to override all of those. I also instinctively believe free will is more than “free won’t”.
c
Jul 2, 05:31 PM #
Our brains produce enough information and potential varying responses from it’s various lobes and functions that I think free will is the consciousness to choose among our own self-generated choices. Thus, in a sense, free will is not a deterministic response to the external world (of a single best choice, which in many cases there is none. For instance, should you have with your scone the clotted cream, lemon curd, strawberry jam, butter, Nutella, PB&J, vegemite, natto … ?). Free will is a response to ourselves. Learning is experimentation, not making a single isolated ‘best’ choice once. Mistakes are inevitable. Satisficing rampant. Epiphanies rare but possible. Personal punctuated equilibriums occasionally unavoidable. Many outcomes involving information we could never have anticipated—we simply don’t have that much control. It’s like the tree of life, which is now a bush, and will probably change form repeatedly as our knowledge grows.
c
Jul 2, 05:53 PM #
To me, the problem with hard determinism is when it runs into natural selection. Law school or med school? There are so many ways to survive, and thrive, there is no ‘one’ good choice that then affects everything else down the line. The environment doesn’t force your hand. Your genetics doesn’t make the choice obvious (if it did, there would be a lot fewer gap years and quarter-life crises).
c
Jul 2, 06:10 PM #
Add a Comment
Phrase modifiers:
_emphasis_
*strong*
__italic__
**bold**
??citation??
-
deleted text-@code@Block modifiers:
bq. Blockquote
p. Paragraph
Links:
"linktext":http://example.com