Skeptic argues free will is real

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 18, 2023

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here I will try to convince you that free will is real and not an illusion. I’ll argue that far from being exemplars of rationality and skepticism, the main arguments against free will make unjustifiable logical leaps and are naïve in the light of cutting-edge scientific findings.
Throughout the philosophical literature,8 resolving the question of whether or not we have free will has often revolved around two criteria for free will:
We must be the true sources of our own actions.
We must have the ability to do otherwise.
I argue that humans meet both criteria through two concepts: scale and undecidability. – Stuart T. Doyle (March 16, 2023)

We don’t usually hear skeptics arguing FOR free will. What’s changed?

You may also wish to read: How can we believe in naturalism if we have no choice?

Comments

Western monotheism, by positing a perfect God, one with absolute power, foreknowledge, and moral goodness, has created an insurmountable problem for free will
Nonsense! Because one entity knows what another will do, does not mean that this second entity is bound to do what it did. Why is this coming up again? Hasn't free will been debated to death here recently. It should have been over after 10 comments.jerry_{March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Origenes/18 The issue of free will vis a vis Christianity is a self-induced problem, as are most problems with Christianity, and relates to the nature of the Christian God. I think Nietzsche summed it up best:
One is most dishonest to one's god: he is not allowed to sin. BGE #65a
Western monotheism, by positing a perfect God, one with absolute power, foreknowledge, and moral goodness, has created an insurmountable problem for free will--one no less problematic than "physical determinism." Christianity has been fighting this problem from the very beginning without getting any closer to solving it. The great irony is that whether you subscribe to Christianity or "physical determinism," you end up in the same place--LaPlace's demon everywhere you look......chuckdarwin_{March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

PM1 @19
So the real nub of the issue is agent causation, not necessarily freedom of choice.
In my view, yes. For instance, if one comes to understand a fundamental truth, such as “A=A”, “I exist” or “2+2=4”, then it cannot be said that there was freedom of choice. However, I would argue that if the person really understands the fundamental truth, makes the truth its own, and incorporates it into his worldview, then he freely understands the fundamental truth. That is, the understanding comes from the person, as opposed to a (horror) scenario where ‘understanding’ is imposed on the person by something other than the person.
Does that seem right?
Your premises and conclusion seem right to me. Perhaps the crucial thing is that a free person must be causally isolated in an important sense. If we can identify a sufficient cause for an agent action, that is situated beyond its control, then that action is necessarily not free.Origenes_{March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

@16 That's helpful -- so the real nub of the issue is agent causation, not necessarily freedom of choice. (I think it make sense to make an analytical distinction here, even if they are not really separable.) So let's see how this works:
1. If reductionism is true, then any phenomenon can be exhaustively explained in terms of how its most fundamental constituents are organized and related. 2. If materialism is true, the most fundamental constituents of all phenomena are the relations and relata posited by a theory of fundamental physics. 3. The relations and relata of the theories of fundamental physics are described by laws. 4. A law of fundamental physics describes what a relation or relata will do in any situation at any instant anywhere in space-time, i.e. guarantees comprehensive prediction with complete accuracy. 5. So, if reductionism is true and materialism is true, then everything that an agent does or that happens to an agent is exhaustively described and predicted by the laws that govern the fundamental constituents of that agent. 6. If there is free will, then there must be agent causation. 7. Agent causation requires that at least some acts are performed by the agent. 8. An act is performed by the agent if there are causally efficacious agent-level states, i.e. that the agent's intentions, choices, beliefs, or desires are necessary elements in the causal sequence leading up to that act. 9. But if reductive materialism is true, then everything that an agent does can be fully described and explained in terms of the laws governing fundamental particles. 10. If everything that an agent does can be fully described and explained in terms of the laws governing fundamental particles, then there is no need to posit agent-level states as causally efficacious for performing an act. 10. So if reductive materialism is true, then agent causation is false. 11. But since agent causation is implied by free will, then if reductive materialism is true, there is no free will.
Does that seem right?PyrrhoManiac1_{March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Seversky @9, Chuckdarwin @17 Two hard-nosed physical determinists share their sincere concern about the status of free will under Christianity ....Origenes_{March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

SEversky/9 I think another Biblical example of determinism, which is also one of literature's great tragedies, is the story of Judas Iscariot, a tragedy on par with Lear or Othello. A man doomed from birth to be remembered as one of history's greatest betrayers and scapegoats. There are those that argue that Judas could have acted otherwise (the reek of the "counterfactual") and the Romans would still have arrested Jesus eventually, but that is completely beside the point. The hand of the master puppeteer permeates this story.....chuckdarwin_{March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

PM1 @15
It seems curious to me that on this argument, we end up basically defining freedom as “the violation of at least one law of physics”.
The essence of personal freedom is self-causation. Being directed by the laws of physics is not self-causation. If the laws of physics are open-ended, it can be the case that there is room for a free person to operate within its boundaries. If the laws of physics allow me to choose each letter that I type, then this post can originate with me, as opposed to being caused by physical laws and events long before I was born. However, if physical reality indeed has an undetermined bandwidth to it, an 'undetermined realm' if you will, then a sharp distinction must be made between blind random non-teleological undetermined physical events and the chosen actions originating from a rational free person. The first has no relationship with freedom.
1. If reductionism is true, then any phenomenon can be exhaustively explained in terms of its most fundamental constituents [and its organization and relations].

5. So, if reductionism is true and materialism is true, then everything that an agent does or that happens to an agent is exhaustively described and predicted by the laws that govern the fundamental constituents of that agent. 6. The ability to make a choice for which one can be held responsible requires that the agent can grasp the distinction between what they want to do and what they should do. At this point, we need some further premise that will allow us to demonstrate that (5) and (6) are incompatible.
If the physical laws are the sufficient cause of the agent & his actions, then, as a matter of logic, there can be no other cause that is also the sufficient cause of the agent & his actions, such as the agent himself.Origenes_{March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

@14
I propose that a more abstract level offers us the correct viewpoint and allows for more clarity: 1.) If materialism is true, then both the agent & his will is matter. 2.) Matter obeys the physical laws. 3.) Matter is not free. 4.) Obeying the physical laws is not an act of free will. 5.) If materialism is true, then there is no free will.
I find the term "matter" in these conversations quite perplexing. It carries the suggestion that philosophers have not updated their metaphysics since the beginning of the 20th century. Perhaps Alex Rosenberg thinks of fermions and bosons as if they were tiny billiard balls colliding against each other, but Rosenberg is not a philosopher of physics or a physicist. His knowledge of physics is basically that of a relatively bright undergraduate who has done well in a few courses. And that's certainly an accomplishment, but it's no basis for a serious metaphysics. It seems curious to me that on this argument, we end up basically defining freedom as "the violation of at least one law of physics". At any rate I'd like to see a bit more argument as to why the capacity to have done otherwise and the capacity to be the source of one's actions involve the violation of at least one law of physics. That is, I see the argument as being:
1. If reductionism is true, then any phenomenon can be exhaustively explained in terms of its most fundamental constituents. 2. If materialism is true, the most fundamental constituents of all phenomena are the relations and relata posited by a theory of fundamental physics. 3. The relations and relata of the theories of fundamental physics are described by laws. 4. A law of fundamental physics describes what a relation or relata will do in any situation at any instant anywhere in space-time, i.e. guarantees comprehensive prediction with complete accuracy. 5. So, if reductionism is true and materialism is true, then everything that an agent does or that happens to an agent is exhaustively described and predicted by the laws that govern the fundamental constituents of that agent. 6. The ability to make a choice for which one can be held responsible requires that the agent can grasp the distinction between what they want to do and what they should do.
At this point, we need some further premise that will allow us to demonstrate that (5) and (6) are incompatible.PyrrhoManiac1_{March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

The right scale for finding answers to the question of freedom of the will is the agent scale, not the molecule scale.
I propose that a more abstract level offers us the correct viewpoint and allows for more clarity: 1.) If materialism is true, then both the agent & his will is matter. 2.) Matter obeys the physical laws. 3.) Matter is not free. 4.) Obeying the physical laws is not an act of free will. 5.) If materialism is true, then there is no free will. ---- ~ Let's end this mockery of philosophy called "naturalism." ~Origenes_{March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

I think Sev is trying to compete with ba77 with how many time he mentions the BibleAaronS1978_{March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 8, My Nonsense Meter briefly went into the red. Do you read what you write? "Thus, free will depends upon doubt." Do you make a free will decision because you doubt it will happen? That you doubt is the right choice? I sure hope not. "I will put my hand in the flames because I doubt it will hurt me." Whew!relatd_{March 19, 2023
March
03
Mar
19
19
2023
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Free will does not depend on some "skeptic" approving it. If there was anything to be observed it's that determinism is dead as of the double slit experiment.Nonlin.org_{March 19, 2023
March
03
Mar
19
19
2023
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Sversky at 9, Bepp! No Bible scholar you are - as not said by Yoda. Still hung up on free will? God made you post it?relatd_{March 19, 2023
March
03
Mar
19
19
2023
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Once again, the Bible provides evidence of determinism - even superdeterminism - in the story of Peter's triple denial of knowing Jesus. How can we know that rejection of determinism and belief in our exercise of free will is not itself all determined?Seversky_{March 19, 2023
March
03
Mar
19
19
2023
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

emergentism is bulls***
because it is impossible biologically to happen and if it did happen, it would destroy itself quickly. Either way it is fantasy because of science and logic but fantasy seems to rule a lot of people’s beliefs. That’s why ID is science+
concept of undecidability
Doubt must be an essential part of a meaningful experience. Otherwise there would be no point in anything that is chosen. Thus, free will depends upon doubt.jerry_{March 19, 2023
March
03
Mar
19
19
2023
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

I happened to read this article earlier this morning - I thought it was quite entertaining. The author just uses the notion of "undecidability" as mental sleight of hand to preserve his faith in consciousness-as-mechanical-deterministic-process, to wit: "I am a system which analyzes its own inputs, character, and potential outputs; generates new outputs based on those analyses; and feeds those new outputs back into itself as inputs which affect the outputs, which affect the system’s character. I am an output of and an input for my own processing. Framing the human self-referential nature in this way brings us to the concept of undecidability." Naturally, searching for the word "value" finds no instances. And the the band plays on....BPS from AZ_{March 19, 2023
March
03
Mar
19
19
2023
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

PM1@ You are right, here at UD there is little appreciation for materialists who claim that consciousness *emerges* from FSCO/I that their position cannot begin to hope to explain.Origenes_{March 19, 2023
March
03
Mar
19
19
2023
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

@4 I was hoping that someone here would appreciate that Doyle's argument depends on a version of emergentism. Since "emergentism is bullshit" seems to be the party-line at UD, Doyle's defense of "free will" (agent causation + unpredictable dynamics) won't find a warm reception here.PyrrhoManiac1_{March 19, 2023
March
03
Mar
19
19
2023
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Skeptic: Here I will try to convince you that free will is real and not an illusion.
Here we have a materialist who has come to realize that free will must exist. So, what is his solution? As we will see, it is not rejecting materialism, instead, it is rejecting the general application of materialism, namely reductionism. So, he maintains the general claim of materialism, that is, everything consists of physical stuff, but he argues that certain special things should not be subjugated to that truth. Why not? Well, because if we do, then we can no longer understand them.
To look at molecules for the answer is a scale mistake. DNA and neurotransmitters observed at the molecular scale exhibit no will whatsoever. With that knowledge, is it compelling that they exhibit no free will? No. That should tell us that determinists are looking at the wrong scale to find answers about the will …
So, when we see the will as consisting of pure material parts, then we look at it wrongly. But if materialism is true, if the ultimate truth about the will is that it consists of nothing but physical stuff, how can it possibly be the “wrong” way of looking at it? And why is it that certain things reduce just fine to the physical and other things, such as the agent will, do not? This “wrong scale” argument is such an incredibly stupid and transparent attempt to save materialism that it is almost unbearable to read.
The right scale for finding answers to the question of freedom of the will is the agent scale, not the molecule scale.
If each molecule is unfree, then any number of molecules is unfree as a matter of basic logic. The scale of things does not make freedom. And if you conclude that free will must exist, and it cannot be explained from the physical level, then you must conclude that materialism is false. The conclusion that there is something wrong with reductionism *in this special case* does not make sense.Origenes_{March 19, 2023
March
03
Mar
19
19
2023
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

People who purposely walk over hot coals prove free will exists. Purely instinctual animals would never do that.BobRyan_{March 19, 2023
March
03
Mar
19
19
2023
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

Yes, this is truly surprising. B.F. Skinner must be spinning in his grave. Maybe we're not "meat robots" after all. -QQuerius_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

This is a refreshing changeAaronS1978_{March 18, 2023
March
03
Mar
18
18
2023
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply