Determinism

However, the freedom we assume in our choices is challenged by the reality of our existence in a physical universe. Scientific understanding suggests that in a universe governed by cause and effect, true free will — the power to make independent choices — is unattainable. Every action we take, as well as our future, is influenced by prior events that are beyond our control.

While we may recognize the choices we make, as Baruch Spinoza noted, we often lack awareness of the underlying causes of those choices. We are mere observers of our decisions rather than their true originators. The skepticism surrounding free will is largely rooted in a perspective known as "determinism," which posits that every occurrence is the result of preceding causes, including the neural activity in our brains that leads to decision-making.

Additionally, there are non-material interpretations of determinism. Theological determinism suggests that an omnipotent deity would foresee the future, thus rendering it predetermined. Logical determinism argues that future propositions are eternally true or false. For instance, the existence of a future naval battle is either a certainty or a non-event, according to the logical determinist.

Regardless of the form it takes, determinism rests on the premise that the future is predetermined. We possess no more power to alter what is to come than we do to change the past. From this viewpoint, all events occur out of necessity, dictated by an unbroken chain of cause and effect that can be traced back to the universe's inception.

Compatibilism and Libertarianism

Some determinists adopt a stance known as "compatibilism." Compatibilists acknowledge the deterministic nature of the universe while asserting that this does not negate the existence of free will. Classical compatibilism suggests that while our desires may be determined, we still possess the ability to act according to those desires. As Arthur Schopenhauer succinctly stated, "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

This raises the question of what free will truly entails. If our actions are driven by motivations that originate outside of our conscious control, can we genuinely claim to be free in our decision-making? There exists a spectrum of compatibilist beliefs, ranging from "hard determinism," which outright denies free will, to softer interpretations like "Dispositional Compatibilism." This latter perspective, traced back to the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus, distinguishes between internal mental causes and external physical influences.

Chrysippus likened human actions to the movement of a cylinder versus a cube; while a cylinder rolls due to its shape, a cube does not. By this analogy, our intrinsic dispositions guide our actions, suggesting that even within a deterministic framework, we maintain ownership of our choices.

On the other hand, libertarians reject the notion that free will and determinism can coexist. They argue that human beings possess genuine free will, independent of a deterministic universe. The intricate discussions surrounding free will span various philosophical domains, resulting in a wide array of compatibilist and incompatibilist positions.

Laws of Nature and Their Implications

Empirical evidence remains elusive in the debate over free will. Philosophers and scientists with diverse perspectives are unlikely to reach a conclusive resolution. Consequently, the philosophical examination of free will often revolves around the logical implications of our understanding of the universe.

The primary argument against free will posits that it is incoherent within a physical universe. We either inhabit a deterministic cosmos, where every action is a consequence of prior causes, or a random universe where actions lack determinacy. In both scenarios, free will seems to vanish — our minds or brains do not originate our actions.

Both perspectives hinge on the assumption that natural laws govern the cosmos, yet this premise is oversimplified. The concept of "natural laws" itself is problematic, as laws are inherently human constructs. While we can identify consistencies in nature, laws merely describe behaviors rather than being the source of those behaviors.

In contemplating the universe, we may invert the Anthropic Principle, suggesting that the cosmos appears to function consistently because it produced beings capable of observing it. This perspective invites us to reconsider whether the so-called laws of nature are merely emergent patterns rather than governing principles.

Rather than constraining the universe, previous events shape the possibilities of what may occur next. The perceived laws of nature thus serve as structural frameworks that delineate potential outcomes rather than compel specific actions.

The Eternal Present

The future may seem "fixed," leading to the notion that all actions are predetermined. As discussed earlier, the theological argument against free will asserts that if an omniscient deity knows our actions, free will cannot exist. This perspective, alongside the logical determinism rooted in the idea of fixed futures, poses formidable challenges to the concept of free will.

Boethius, a philosopher of late antiquity, tackled this dilemma in his work, "Consolation of Philosophy." He argued that God's omnipotence enables human free will. God, existing outside the confines of time, perceives all moments simultaneously. The future is not known in the same way to God as it is to us; rather, all moments exist in the eternal now.

This line of reasoning allows us to reconcile the existence of a powerful deity with the concept of free will. If we apply Boethius's insights to the scientific understanding of the universe, we can similarly conclude that our future actions are not predetermined by natural laws.

By reevaluating the nature of time, we can understand it not as a flowing river but as a dynamic tree, growing in multiple directions. Each moment is an outgrowth of cosmic mass, and time emerges from the change rather than flowing linearly.

Human Agency

How, then, do we arrive at the notion of human free will within this framework? While we may be undetermined, how can we be sure our actions are not merely random? The answer lies in recognizing that within this indeterministic universe, varying degrees of agency allow individuals to instigate change.

While simpler entities may be subject to external forces, more complex beings, such as plants, animals, and humans, possess greater agency. Unlike a speck of dust, which lacks the ability to influence its fate, humans have the capacity to shape their own destinies.

Critics of free will often argue that the truth of determinism is irrelevant to the broader discussion. Friedrich Nietzsche likened the belief in personal responsibility to a fictional character's absurdity in pulling himself from a swamp by his hair. To claim absolute free will implies a self-causation that is inherently impossible.

Galen Strawson elaborated on this idea, asserting that we cannot be accountable for our current situations without being responsible for prior ones, leading to an infinite regress. Both Nietzsche and Strawson challenge the conventional understanding of free will without resorting to determinism.

While some may claim that free will as responsibility is nonsensical, it is essential to recognize that our mental state does not solely dictate our actions. Reflection and reasoning are actions in themselves and not entirely predetermined by our mental states.

Free Will and Self-Identity

What, then, constitutes the "I" that is responsible? A common argument against free will posits that agency cannot exist without a self, which is often deemed a fictional construct. Sam Harris contends that while we experience thoughts, those thoughts do not truly belong to us.

Harris suggests that even the idea of free will being an illusion is misguided. In a thought experiment, he asks listeners to consider a movie they enjoy; the thought of that film does not emerge from nowhere. There is no separate aspect of ourselves that generates action from nothing.

The will is not a discrete entity within us; it is a complex interplay of desires and inclinations. The confusion surrounding free will arises from the careless use of the term. It is not that we possess free will as an object; rather, we are embodiments of will.

Jean-Paul Sartre's "Transcendence of the Ego" posits that our inner control is an illusion. Our consciousness constantly synthesizes fragmented sensory data into coherent experiences. For example, when driving, we integrate sensory inputs to navigate safely.

Thus, our sense of self, or ego, arises from this process. Our consciousness compels us to make choices continuously, reflecting on our experiences to create a coherent identity. When we refer to ourselves as "I," we are acknowledging this synthesized experience.

This ego is not a separate entity from consciousness but rather a byproduct of it. Our selfhood helps us navigate existence, as our consciousness weaves together disparate experiences into a cohesive whole.

The Good

Modern interpretations of free will often suggest that we possess an unencumbered "will" enabling us to make choices. However, earlier philosophical understandings, such as those of Thomas Aquinas, viewed this as an illusion.

Aquinas argued that humans are driven by a pursuit of "the good." Our perceptions of what is good guide our motivations and decisions. In his "Disputed Questions on Evil," Aquinas claimed that our wills are not bound to any specific good but are oriented toward goodness itself.

Whereas inanimate objects move according to fixed laws, human judgment allows for deliberation and the pursuit of goals. Aquinas illustrates this by comparing our decision-making process to that of an architect, who envisions a house design that accommodates various possibilities.

Even if our thoughts arise from external causes, our capacity for reason allows us to make choices based on our deliberations. The narrator in Proust's "In Search of Lost Time" experiences involuntary memories, but his reflections on those memories remain within his control.

Ultimately, our will directs us toward the good, shaping our choices. In Aquinas's view, freedom is not merely the ability to make choices but the capacity to align our will with true goodness. Choosing wisely enhances our freedom, while poor choices constrain us.

Free will, therefore, is not a tangible entity but a genuine aspect of human experience. It is defined by our actions and orientations toward good, reflecting our capacity for agency within a complex cosmos.

The Reality of Free Will

A pessimistic outlook suggests an insurmountable divide between the belief in free will and its denial. Ludwig Wittgenstein hinted that our positions on free will resemble moral stances, lacking empirical grounding.

Yet, the challenge of validating our innate sense of free will stems from the convoluted nature of the concept itself. Free will is not a discrete entity awaiting proof of existence. By systematically dissecting the issue, we can dismiss both determinism and randomness.

Firstly, as Boethius posited, we can perceive a cosmos that evolves through time as an eternal present. The absence of a definite future negates the idea of a predetermined future. Secondly, existentialism suggests that our consciousness synthesizes reality into a cohesive whole. Our self emerges from this process rather than serving as its source.

Finally, the understanding that our will is directional enables us to recognize a form of freedom that arises from the complex interplay of existence. Sam Harris rightly points out that there is no singular aspect of us that embodies free will; it emerges from a confluence of processes.

Free will, then, is akin to a shadow cast by our existence — it is not an object but a real phenomenon. The notion that we have no role in shaping our destinies is a misconception that absolves us of responsibility. Embracing our capacity to influence our lives is both daunting and noble, as we must ultimately seek our own truths.

Thank you for reading.

This video features Dr. Ken Sheldon discussing the nuances of free will and its implications on personal agency and decision-making.

This video explores the idea that while free will may be an illusion, it does not detract from our capacity to navigate life meaningfully.