Is Free Will An Illusion?
I was recently involved in a debate on free will and thought my opening statement was worth sharing.
Here it is.
I want to start by talking about consciousness.
Scientists almost universally agree that dualism isn’t real. We are not a consciousness separate from our body in the cartesian sense. But everyone still agrees that consciousness, in some sense, is real. “I think, therefore I am.”
The reasonable, scientific, and naturalist point of view is to then explain, through science, what consciousness is.
We don’t say that consciousness is an illusion.
The free will argument is the same. We should try to create a natural and scientific explanation of free will.
What my opponent is doing is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
It is like inferring from discoveries in organic chemistry that life is an illusion just because living organisms are made up of non-living stuff.
Folk conception of free will, we agree, doesn’t exist.
We’ll call that libertarian free will. The brain in a vat. A will that breaks the causal laws of physics.
But we still want to explain, as good scientists and philosophers do, how we as humans make decisions.
That is, we are creatures that make rational decisions about probable futures with some degree of freedom over those choices.
That’s what I am calling free will. Our ability to choose, with a varying degree of freedom, a probable future.
And this explanation works with the causal nature of the universe and a softer version of determinism.
This is called compatibilism.
Brain states are mental states. Consciousness is found in the brain. There is no mind body dualism. And the universe is causally related. But, we still should and do talk about humans as rational creatures with freedom over our choices.
That’s why philosophers are a majority compatibilists (Compatitiblism — 59% Libertarianism — 13% No free will — 12%)
To start, our ability to self-influence is demonstrably true. We use the same systems to self-influence that we would use to influence others. I use self talk, I lay out probable futures, I analyze situation, I reason with myself, and I weigh my desires, the ethical implications and so on.
We all do this and we must all admit that we do this or we would be in some way damaged or destined for the psych ward if we didn’t.
We can also see people’s ability to carry out these self-influencing tactics to varying degrees.
Think of the monk who has such control of their impulses that they can self-immolate without making a sound or the addict on the other end of the spectrum.
Think of someone whose reasoning capacity is so overwhelmed by an emotional upheaval that they’re having trouble controlling their actions. Compare the two states of mind. There’s a varying degree of something.
You can’t have varying degrees of something that doesn’t exist.
Yes, we don’t have absolute free will. You are constrained by your genetics, environment, and the causal laws of nature.
What we do have is some measure of freedom to will probable futures we desire.
So what we are looking at is our ability to self-influence. What we’re not looking for is some “ghost in the machine” that breaks the causal laws of physics.
That this ability exists is demonstrably and empirically true. Our power of self-control and our ability to self-regulate alone explains human science, law, society, psychology, literature and civilization.
It’s what separates us from animals and infants. It’s what makes us human.
So if this seems empirically true, where is the “free will is a myth” proponent going wrong?
Those that call free will an illusion are doing the very same thing they say libertarian conceptions of free will are doing. They see themselves as a passive observer of their actions, as if they are different from their actions.
“You” aren’t a witness to your rational decisions, you are those rational decisions. That’s the major logical error that the “free will is an illusion” side makes.
They are looking for something that breaks the causal nature of the universe, instead of understanding our ability to make informed and reasoned decisions.
They are using a mind-body dualism to deny free will, while at the same agreeing that there is no mind-body dualism, then denying free will.
Since the brain is making the decisions we are conscious of, and “we” are that brain, it follows that “we” are making the decisions we are conscious of.
Your consciousness isn’t the “you” — it is just a state of awareness of you.
It is an extremely useful part of you, but it’s not the whole thing.
Now, apart from that simple logical error, you also have no usable model of self-influence and control (which demonstrably exists in varying degrees) which can tell us more about how this system of self-influence works.
That’s an important point, because understanding self-influence and control has a great deal of ethical and scientific implications, should it exist or not exist.
The “free will is an illusion side” is more concerned with denying free will exists than having to explain when we have it, how much we have of it, what we can do with it, and how we can get more of it.
And this is not only an incorrect view, but is a dangerous view for its moral implications.
In closing, compatibilism is the strongest consensus view of actual experts within the field.
It is coherent, scientifically and empirically verified, and useful.
My opponent has no alternative explanation. His only recourse is pseudoscience built upon the shaky foundation of a logical fallacy.
Watch the full debate here: https://youtu.be/siqvThMv-n8
