I can't believe I'm having this 'debate'
Somehow I can't quite believe I'm still having this debate. "I think, therefore I am." "I experience free-will therefore I have free-will."
My friend, Trent Tobler, who I used to work with years ago continues to respond to this idea that human beings don't have free will. Somehow, I can't convince him of the irony of the fact that he is using his free will to debate the fact that he doesn't have it. Yes, my basic rational for 'caring' is based on moral convictions, but my main reasons for believing in free will are called 'common sense' or, more to the point, human experience.
I am just now starting to read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I have only read a few chapters but I can already see that I agree to probably the 99 percentile with everything he says. He uses the same arguments I have used over the years and I honestly believe he is fighting the good fight. Our only differences arise when he states his basic premise. He claims that an atheist (or pantheist) believes that everything in the Universe is 'physical' and may be explained via mechanistic principles arising from matter.
This is where he and I differ. I remember reading Paul Davies excellent book 'The Matter Myth' and I remember how much it impacted my way of thinking. Yes, physical reality is entirely convincing yet, at the end of the day, matter is energy and energy is matter. The deeper you delve into the 'stuff' of phyical reality you find the ephereral, you find vibratory superstrings in hyperspace; not the billiard ball atoms of my youth.
I don't believe the Universe is comprised of, nor explained by, the 'physical realm' but rather the physical realm, is a manifestation of the abundant energy of the Universe as a whole.
Nevertheless, I digress.
Let me respond to what Trent actually says:
>>I think you clearly expressed your views on free will. I asked you to clarify why you thought it was bad, because I suspected you rejected it was based on moral reasons, rather than religious, and you seem to confirmed this.
Yes, you have this more or less correct. I 'care' about the topic on moral grounds. I object to the notion that free-will does *not* exist based on COMMON SENSE AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE! We all have free-will!! We experience it a thousand times a day, every day. To deny that we lack free-will would require some incredible amount of evidence to the contrary, something those who deny free-will have never (and will never) be able to provide. ( They can't provide evidence against free-will because they most exercise their own free-will to press the argument. The fact that the irony of this doesn't hit them over the head is both exasperating and exhillerating at once.)
>>1. Are the results of an actor less serious if they did not choose the actions that lead up to the results?
To be frank, I don't quite understand what you are getting at here.
>>A. Should someone who under their own free will and chooses to cause an accident be held liable?
Of course.
>>B. Should someone who is under drug induced conditions and lacks reasonable judgement be held responsible if they get into a car and cause an accident?
Of course. Because they were able to make a judgement as to whether or not they were impaired to begin with. That is why I drink (and I do drink) almost exclusively in my own home.
>>C. What if the person in had a mental breakdown that was not drug induced, and they got into a car and caused an accident?
Obviously things get a little fuzzier here. And, our laws reflect these moral dilemas.
>>2. Does lack of free will allow one to be irresponsible?
The belief in a lack of free will would allow people to act irresponsibly. For evidence, see any person in human history who killed another based on their belief that 'God told them to.' Or the Pope. Or their Dictator. Or any other power they gave up their own free will too.
>>In any case, I think your arguments are less scientific and more moral (and I'm sure you're aware of this).
I believe my arguments are moral, scientific, and based on common sense; i.e. experience.
>>I'm not one to say you should always believe what is real (After all, some people seem to delight in managing their childrens' belief in a bearded man who wears a red suit and delivers presents to the good children once per year..) If believing a false reality leads to a better society, is it worth it?
I believe that having a society where free-thought reigns supreme is of paramount importance.
"Do what thou whilst shall be the whole of the law." Crowley "So long as you hurt no other." Ratcliff.
>>In any case, I am still fairly certain that if I had the ability to excite specific neurons in your brain and enough time and research to figure out which neurons lead you to specific choices, I could cause you to 'choose' precisely what I wanted you to choose (You would not really have any choice..)
Franky, I believe that is an absurd and naive notion. My choices in life are for more complex than yes/no, go left, or go right. I contemplate a massive amount of self-referential material to decide the course of my life. In addition to this I incorporate input from my subconscious during lucid dreaming states into the mix.
When you dream, experiencing a detailed world so dazzling that it outshines the greatest reality you have ever felt in the physical realm, and when you have conversations and complex interactions with other people in these dreams, who is creating this dramatic landscape? Are you talking to yourself? And, if so, which self?
The problem with Dawkins and, perhaps the problem you suffer from here as well Trent, is that you assume that the limits of human knowledge and experience is that which has been measured in a laboratory or expressed in a mathematical equation. The bulk of human experience transcends all of that.
The Universe, as a whole, is so vastly more complex and sophisticated than our crude models that I, personally, find it distasteful when authors argue, with vehemence, that my experience must match their equations. I assure you, their equations fall far short of human experience.
Need I trot out the basics of quantum psychology for you, courtesy of our great prophet Robert Anton Wilson? Einstein introduced us to the concept of relativity but, there, he scratched only the surface. Relativity is a deeply personal thing and we, each one of us, may only speak with certainty about the reality which is subsumed by our individual neurolinguistic grid.
It matters not that a scientist might claim that an experience I have had does not match his equations. At the the end of the day personal experience trumps all equations.
I experience and exercise my free will constantly and I am one of the more adamant proponents of the power, force, and responsibility of free will.
For anyone to claim that I lack it, would require them to take it away from me and, let me assure you, you would have to kill me before I would relinquish the right.
Comments
I suppose I share your wonder that I'm responding to this. Sorry for the length, but I do occasionally get these “lack of free will” moments where I must absolutely respond to things.. you know the feeling, right? :) Our tactics do appear to be playing dirty a little (sorry about that); hope nothing is taken too personally.
“If people freak at evolution, etc., how much more will they freak if scientists and philosophers tell them they are nothing more than sophisticated meat machines, and is that conclusion now clearly warranted or is it premature?” -- Michael Silberstein.
The above quote certainly seems very applicable to the discussion, is it not?
You say: "The problem with Dawkins and, perhaps the problem you suffer from here as well Trent, is that you assume that the limits of human knowledge and experience is that which has been measured in a laboratory or expressed in a mathematical equation." Perhaps your problem is you assume it is more? Is this going to degenerate into a "Yes it is" "No it isn't" debate? Tell me more of your experience and common sense relating to the electrical and chemical state of your brain that indicate you choose, or had an experience based on other than the (extremely chaotic) physics of your mind and sensory input. I fully understand that in the ‘ordinary’ sense, people can choose. I think the scientific discussion is whether those choices can be predicted or controlled with any certainty. This does seem to have ramifications in legal and personal freedom terms. The Clockwork Orange fictionalizes possible ramifications. Imagine the possible abuses if one could simply add some carefully crafted drug to the local water supply and have 50% of the population “choose” to fly themselves to Iraq and shoot all those horrible people that blew up the world trade center?
However, my feeling is that science is used to tell us what “is”, not what “we want to be”. That should be left to the three P’s - philosophers, popes, and politicians, right? Ok, maybe not.
"When you dream, experiencing a detailed world so dazzling that it outshines the greatest reality you have ever felt in the physical realm, and when you have conversations and complex interactions with other people in these dreams, who is creating this dramatic landscape? Are you talking to yourself? And, if so, which self?"
Come now. This is easy. The mind is a chaotic playground of electrical and chemical signals. REM sleep seems necessary for our brains -- studies that indicate without REM sleep, mental degeneration and death will follow (If you really wish, I'll find you the exact references so you can read about it yourself?) Now, it’s relatively easy to verify that there is brain activity within the limbic system and other areas of the brain active during consciousness… obviously, the brain is doing something during that time. Since I believe awareness and consciousness is an artifact of these processes, "common sense" would dictate that you could and would experience this storm of chemical and electrical activity, and further, that it could be similar, and at the same time, very differently from conscious reality.
In any case, you stated your displeasure that scientists might suggest that free will is an illusion, that we are trapped by the chaotic physical processes of our mind rather than being some metaphysical spirit floating thru the ether. Further, they compound that sin by actually performing experiments that may or may not deny their hypothesis. Then they actually publish their results. Which part of this do you feel should be stopped, given that you just stated "I believe that having a society where free-thought reigns supreme is of paramount importance." Did you mean to add ".., but only when it agrees with my own notions" to the end of that? ;-) Where are your proposals for experiments to deny their findings (If they exist, I would certainly be interested? I did read some experimental criticism about the time delayed choice experiments that Benjamin Libet started; I don't remember the details..) Or is it "Don't discover truth, because truth is dangerous?” (Frankly, that doesn’t really seem like you, but then, you’re always a surprising sort of guy. :))
To conclude: I enjoyed reading this and hope that you will continue this type of presentation in the future.