Sam Harris wrote a book in 2012 called Free Will in which he essentially argued that free will is an illusion. Our decisions may feel as if we're in control of them, but in truth, we're a bundle of synapses operating according to the same causal laws of physics that govern everything else in the material universe. If you're deciding between Fritos or cookies, some constellation of anterior conditions or states will predispose you to select one or the other. You are literally pushed to your decision. Nothing is random; everything is determined.
Dr. Vallicella comes along with a response I've never read before, and it's interesting enough for me to link to it here. Basically, Dr. V argues that, when we typically say something is "an illusion," we're assuming that it's possible to be disabused of this illusion, but this isn't true about our sense that we have free will: that sense is ingrained in us at the cellular level. While you could counter-argue that this argument says nothing about whether free will actually exists, the point Dr. V is making is epistemological: even people who claim there is no free will have a deep sense that they do have free will, so how can one possibly know the difference between being in thrall to the illusion and being "liberated" from it? As Dr. V writes:
But if free will is an illusion, it is not an illusion that can be cast off or seen through, no matter what I do. I must deliberate from time to time, and I cannot help but believe, whenever I deliberate, that the outcome is at least in part 'up to me.' Indeed, it is inconceivable that I should ever disembarrass myself of this 'illusion.' One can become disillusioned about many things but not about the 'illusion' of free will. For this ‘illusion’ is integral to my being an agent, and being an agent is part and parcel of being a human being. To get free of the 'illusion' of free will, I would have to learn to interpret myself as a deterministic system whose behavior I merely observe but do not control. I would have to learn how to cede control and simply let things happen. But this is precisely what I cannot do. Nor do I have any idea what it would involve.
[...]
"But perhaps free will is a special sort of illusion, one that cannot be seen through and corrected." My challenge to a person who makes this move will be: Explain how living under this illusion differs from the reality of being a free agent!
Dr. V offers a few other arguments in defense of free will, but this is the one I found most interesting. Read the rest of his piece for further enlightenment.
That's WAY too deep for my feeble mind, but I believe I have free will, and I'll be damned if anyone is going to change my mind about that!
ReplyDeleteI recall the last time I attended Sunday school at the First Baptist Church in Columbia, SC. The lesson that day was how God gave man free will. When class was over, a woman announced that there was going to be a march on the statehouse to support efforts to ban abortion. I raised my hand and asked, "If God gives man free will, why would we want to pass a law taking away that choice?". I got the standard "it's a matter of faith" response. I never went back.
Interesting. That makes a lot of sense to me as well. I have heard a variety of this argument before, not given directly against the "no free will" theory, but against a similar theory, namely simulation theory. The idea that we are probably living in a computer simulation--provided we accept certain facts about human development--is meaningless because it does not differ in any real way from the idea that we are genuinely experiencing reality.
ReplyDeleteI remember when I first came across the simulation theory (or hypothesis), I had a bit of an existential crisis until I realized that it didn't matter. I long ago came to the same conclusion about free will--whether I actually have free will doesn't matter as long as I feel and believe I have free will. So I might not have articulated it as eloquently as Dr. V, but I was thinking along those lines.
I think if I were to subscribe to any theory regarding free will, it would probably be the Buddhist concept of "no self." This obviously goes against my Christian beliefs, but philosophically speaking I find Buddhism to be compelling on certain points. My understanding of the concepts may be flawed, but I've always felt that the doctrine of dependent co-origination was a nice compromise between the "no free will" people and the "free will" people.
Charles,
ReplyDeleteI wrote something similar in 2013.
I should also note that Dr. V ends his piece by noting that the question of free will is an aporia, i.e., an indissoluble problem, so at best, his arguments make room for the existence of free will, but they don't have the probative force to establish, conclusively, that free will in fact exists.
ReplyDeleteThere you go. I, of course, did not remember that post from nine years ago, but I probably read it at the time, and no doubt it was lurking somewhere in the depths of my mind, informing my own thoughts.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I can't fairly expect my readers to remember every little thing I've written. Not even I clearly remember half of the things I've put on this blog, but the memories are there, floating around vaguely, waiting to be triggered by some phrase or image.
ReplyDeleteIf my writing played even a minor role in your thinking, well, that's cool.