| The problem with Free Will |
| The Science of Determinism |
Free Will?
My favorite book
Click for More
The Science of Determinism
by Jim Winn
| The problem with Free Will |
| The Science of Determinism |
|
There have been several philosophers throughout our time who have advocated different positions on the problem of free will. There are three main positions and they are the following: hard determinism, soft determinism, and libertarianism. Hard determinist beliieve that absolutely everything has been prearranged, that our decisions our not our own, and that moral responsibility is merely a mirage created from the concept of free will. Soft determinists believe that determinism is true and that determinism is compatible with free will and responsibility. And lastly, libertarianists believe that all of our decisions are based truly upon our own thinking, not just by random chance or luck, but instead on the result of rational agency. There are many arguments for the problem of free will, and it appears that no successful conclusion has been made to fully close this problem; perhaps this question will never be solved (as with most philosophical issues). In this essay, I will advocate a hard determinist position, and I will summarize upon the many great philosophers, providing objections and support for the various arguments. Philosophers such as Paul Holbach will be supported further through exerpts from advancements in science, while ideas from A.J. Ayer will be implemented to introduce chaos theory. Also, C.A. Campbell's argument on the existence of free will will be scrutinized.
To begin, I would like to state that I have been greatly influence by the perfection of mathematics and also the luxury that science can offer. Doubting the evidence that mathematics or science can demonstrate would be like doubting the existence of cars, computers, and telephones. No one can doubt the proof of mathematics, else one would not be reading this paper, one would not be wearing clothes, or one would not wake up each day to the sound of an alarm clock. The philosoper Paul Holbach was born in the 1700s, and during that time science was limited. Holbach does, however, elaborate on concepts that somewhat pertain to the scientific method. According to Holbach, free will is an illusion fabricated by the human's perception of the will. The will, Holbach proclaims, is caused by certain motives that are accumulated through our interactions with the environment. Stimuli, or motives, created from our environment produces impressions in the brain that may be "good or bad, agreeable or painful", or one that just resides in the memory. These motives create impluses in the brain that can result into action. All decisions that we make, in essence, is not truly a decision at all, but is actually an output that is constructed from these motives; hence, there is no such thing as making a pure choice from one's own original thoughts. In other words, our actions are not from our own personal decisions, but rather, our actions are produced from past experience and hereditary factors. If Holbach was alive to today and was knowledgeable about the advancement of science and mathematics, he could have made his argument even stronger. Another philosopher, named A.J. Ayer, is a soft determinist who has important insights about hard determinism. He proposes that if "every event [has] a cause" then [this] rule must apply to human behaviour as [well]." Consequently, the behavior of a human can be predicted by analyzing his or her past. It is how far we carry out the investigation, how thorough, and how precise our data is to correctly forecast what the person will do. For example, perhaps a man will cry softly because of a loved one died; or maybe he will cry loudly because he was taught that it was okay to cry. How much information we gather about the person will result in a more accurate prediction. According to Ayer, "if we had more knowledge of the circumstances and had been able to discover the appropriate natural laws," then the hard deterministic view of the universe will be a very strong argument. Ayer was a philosopher in the 1900s, publishing his Freedom and Necessity paper in 1946. Today, with the advancement of computers and measurement tools, we are able to predict many types of phenomena in the universe. For example, weather predictions can be accurate up to a week in advance. Similarly, this concept can be applied to human behavior to predict human actions. One major objection to this argument is that nothing can be measured exactly, and therefore nothing can be predicted into the far future. Accuracy and precision can only be reached to a certain extent before measurements become distorted. The progression of science, nonetheless, has produced better tools to provide more accurate measurements; and the future can, therefore, be calculated further. One major, advancement in mathematics is the development of chaos theory. Chaos theory predicts that complex nonlinear systems are inherently unpredictable; but, at the same time, chaos theory also insures that the way to express such an unpredictable system lies not in exact equations, but in representations of the behavior of a system. Thus, chaos theory, which many people believe is about unpredictability, is at the same time about predictability in unstable systems. Chaos theory can be applied to psychological models to predict behavior. It is still a relatively new science that is rigorously being developed by mathematicians. Is chaos theory compatible with libertarianism? A philosopher named C.A. Campbell explains that free will is possible if the agent is the sole author and could not have chosen otherwise. In addition, moral effort must be taken into consideration. According to Campbell, moral effort is not affected by hereditary or environmental factors, for it exists without qualification. I believe that this view is wrong. What causes moral effort? Everything must have a cause; and if hereditary or environment is not the cause, then moral effort cannot exist. Campbell is "begging the question" by trying to prove that moral effort exists without qualification. Therefore, chaos theory is not compatible with this view of libertarianism because there is no empirical data to work with. Moral effort cannot exist without a motive, and I believe that Campbell's essay has certain implications that need to be addressed. On the other hand, Holbach's essay on the illusion of freewill successfully examines the possibility of a deterministic world. Yet, determinism is such a bleak view of the universe. Besides, it is the illusion of free will that powers the economies of the world, creates societies, and maintains order. Perhaps this illusion is for the better for mankind; and by saying this statement I am implying that this illusion is able to somehow satisfy my own life endeavors. Rationally, I am a determinist, but I am truly a libertarianist by heart. |
| Please visit our sponser below. |
| Free Game Downloads - Free Computer Games - Free Video Games |