For as long as people have thought about philosophy, they have argued about whether we have free will. I think that both sides are wrong.
In one corner of the ring, there are those who say that we do have free will. They usually say that this ability:
- Makes us personally responsible for our own choices
- Makes us far more than mere machines
- Makes us far greater than anything that we could possibly create
- Gives us great intrinsic worth
- Makes us deserve to be treated with dignity
In the other corner, there are those who say that we have no free will. Today, these people generally believe that we’re machines, and thus:
- Not personally responsible for our own choices
- “Only” machines – that is, no better than the machines that we create, or could possibly create someday
- Have no more intrinsic worth than them
- Deserve to be treated with no more dignity than them
Now it seems that everyone with an opinion on this subject thinks that it’s pretty cut and dry – they’re right, and the other guys are totally wrong. But there’s strong evidence for both sides. This is one reason why free will (and lack thereof) has remained controversial.
Why we have free will:
- We make choices
If I feel like taking a nap, and do homework instead, I have -of my own will – made a choice. If I had instead chosen to take a nap, I would’ve still made a choice. Even though your mind must – due to the nature of computing -follow some kind of pre-defined algorithm to make a choice, that algorithm still is your will. That being said, there are some reasons that I can think of where an action is not a personal choice:
- It’s involuntary
That is, done by a part of my brain or body that I have no conscious control over
- Insanity/brain damage
Generally a madman isn’t considered personally responsible for his actions
This one may or may not be considered a choice. One one hand, habits run automatically, and you can’t always prevent yourself from following your habits. On the other hand, they’re created by a personal choice to start doing whatever you’re in the habit of doing.
Decisions made in this group are technically choices, but people often aren’t held fully personally responsible for them. For example, if someone who’s severely autistic offends someone, they’re (hopefully) not treated in the same way as someone who does the same thing, but doesn’t have that disability.
- It’s involuntary
Why we don’t have free will:
- Thinking is fundamentally computing, and algorithms are by their nature predefined
Even though the human brain isn’t built the same way that man-made computers currently are, it’s still some kind of computational device. The human mind, too, is made of thoughts, memories, emotions, and instincts. All these things are not physical by nature, but are instead computational. And as far as I know, it’s a universal principle of computing that if something isn’t very precisely predefined, it doesn’t exist. “Predefined” could mean:
- In a lookup table
Also known as memorized, habitual, or instinctive.
- Follows a formula
Habits and instincts can fall into this category too, but so can skills and problem solving. Google can’t build their business around a magical function findRelevantResults(yourSearch) that nobody ever had to write it. Neither can you solve problems without using a problem-solving algorithm that you either learned or have built into your brain.
- Follows a learning algorithm that creates a lookup table, formula, or other learning algorithm
- In a lookup table
- Even emotions – one of the two strongholds of those who believe we have free will – can certainly be implemented in a computer. Here’s one technology that could probably be used as a starting point. See also some examples of how neural networks can be used to do some fundamental electronic logic operations. The human brain is a very advanced neural network.
- Also, if anyone doubts that the brain is the seat of at least most of his consciousness, I point out the fact that there are many things that can be done to the head and brain which profoundly affect our minds, like getting punched in the face or getting drunk.
As far as I can tell, the truth is a muddled mix of the two main sides:
- Our minds are decision-making machines, that run in our brains
- Our wills are about as free as possible, given the nature of computing
- For most practical purposes, we have free will…
- …But there are plenty of ways that we can be manipulated by those who understand human nature
Next: Possible Objections
11 thoughts on “Do We Have Free Will? Yes and No”
maybe to have a proper discussion, what do you understand by freewill. I couldn’t get it’s meaning from your post
Thanks for asking. First, I’ll give my definition of free will, then I’ll try to clarify my claims and reasons, then I’ll give the back story – where I got this from.
Free will – as I understand it – is the ability to make decisions for yourself. That is, a person with free will isn’t just a marionette on strings or a remote-controlled robot. You are in control.
The claims that I want to make are:
I haven’t had any formal training in philosophy, but I have thought quite a bit about philosophical and religious matters. I understand the concepts, I just don’t know all the lingo. According to one person who I talked with – who has read a lot of philosophy books – each of the great philosophers makes up a lot of their own lingo. So I might not actually be missing out on much.
When I first started paying attention to the controversy about free will, something didn’t make sense to me. I could see some truth in both sides, but they seemed to be polar opposites. I also found that the Bible has passages that seem to say both. (1 Corinthians 2:14-16) (John 3:35-36) The apostle Paul even seems to affirm both of them in 1 passage (Romans 9:1-10:13), while at the same time claiming that God has absolute control over who chooses what.
I’ve also done some computer programming, and the decisions of every information system that I know of are predefined. I also see no way that an information system could make a decision without having a precisely predefined method (algorithm) by which to make that decision. Thus, the only conclusion I can see is that the premise that the traditional controversy over free will is based must be flawed – the premise that we either have free will, or that our choices our predetermined. Is this contradictory? Quite possibly. But it’s the only explanation that I know of that fits the available evidence.
Thanks for your indulgence. I am no philosopher so not talking philosophical lingo will not be a barrier to our communication.
and I think this is where the problem is. I will explain. I think freewill, as commonly used, means our actions are uncaused.
I contend that choice only refers to awareness of alternatives but do tell us nothing about how a person will act. Knowing that I can take tea, chocolate or coffee tells you nothing about what I will take. My action is determined. I can theorize as much as I want but that is just that, wishful thinking, when it comes to action, my action is determined by so many things among them my environment, my genetic make up etc.
I conclude, different from you, that the debate has been on going because of the failure of the freewillers to clearly define what they mean when they talk of freewill.
And, I don’t think quoting bible verses is going to bring us any close to arriving at a solution in this question.
By the definition of free will that you use, you’re absolutely right: that kind of free will most likely doesn’t exist. Your comment got me curious about the official definition of free will.
It turns out that according to dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com, “free will” has 2 definitions:
So it turns out that we’re both right about the definition of free will – at least according to the dictionaries. When you see “free will” used by others, is it usually by your definition, rather than mine?
I think freewill as commonly used is to imply that our actions are uncaused.
The meaning you refer to is similar to the distinction between a freed man and a slave. It doesn’t really refer to the discussion of freewill as understood in philosophy
I’ve never heard before of “free will” being used to describe the distinction between a freed man and a slave. Where did you hear/read this? Also, I found a fascinating survey of some of the main opinions on free will. I haven’t finished reading it yet.
You didn’t understand what I said. I said your usage of freewill is similar to that distinction. You referred to freewill to mean being able to make decisions freely, that is, to be not under duress.
After re-reading your comment, I see what you mean. I agree that the definition of “free will” that I’m using is similar to the distinction between free and slave. However, as far as I can tell, it still is one of the main definitions of “free will”. You see “free will” from the perspective of an atheist, but many – including myself – see it from the perspective of a theist, or even Christian. And one of the main areas of the controversy about “free will” that Christians debate about is whether we make our choices, or God. See this chart for a good summary of the two extremes of this.
When applied to this area, my understanding of “free will” would say that we and God make our choices:
“You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?”
There’s a little more to what he’s talking about than just free will in general. For more details, I highly recommend that you read the whole chapter.
Thanks again for your response.
But I think we have reached an end of our conversation. Whilst you are free to quote the whole bible, I don’t think it helps us one way or the other in this discussion. And by also arguing god this or that, we really are standing at two very opposite ends.
Thanks a lot