Amateur Philosophy Corner

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Ed Stapleton's post about freewill a while back has had me thinking about this issue a lot lately. I've always been a big fan of freewill. But it's been a long time since I examined it critically.

I'm a materialist; I think that everything is composed of matter, and that there is no separate "mind" or "consciousness," just the interactions of billions of neurons firing. We don't understand all of the physical processes, but I've not seen any convincing evidence of a non-physical or supernatural force.

Assuming the above, a human being at birth is endowed with certain genetic attributes beyond his control. That baby is then thrust into an environment that is also beyond his control. Where does freewill come in? You could argue that a person makes decisions that affect his or her environment, but what influences each and every decision? Only the genetic material (beyond one's control), and the environment (ditto). If freewill exists, what is the additional force, beyond genetics or environment, that influences it?

Is freewill even worth studying in the first place, other than as an academic exercise? Determinists say that each and every event is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior events. Assume first that this is true, and that freewill as we commonly understand it does not exist. Assume next that theoretically, we could construct a supercomputer capable of processing all data from the beginning of time at the Big Bang. Given all the necessary information, the computer could predict the future down to wave of a blade of grass in the breeze. That technology could enable us to predict the future exactly, and would seem to be an incredible technological advance. But in the absence of freewill, we could not change one iota of the future and planning for the future would be useless. We should just mellow out and wait for the future to come instead of fretting about freewill.

Assume the second alternative, that freewill does exist. In this case, our giant all-knowing supercomputer would also be useless, because freewill must be some supernatural force above and beyond both nature and nurture. As such, it would be impossible for mankind to understand the supernatural force unless the force chose to reveal itself. By definition, the supernatural force would be beyond our understanding. We could not seek to understand it, we must just wait for it to reveal itself. In this case, philosophizing about freewill would also be useless, except as an enjoyable pasttime. Again, just mellow out and enjoy the ride, unless and until the supernatural entity responsible for some sort of freewill reveals itself.

In both cases, knowing whether freewill exists would be useless in terms of practical implications. We've designed concepts of law, crime, punishment, and responsibility so that the physical world makes sense to our currently evolved brains. If the criminal is not "responsible" for a crime due to an absence of "freewill," neither is the judge or jury that sentences him.  If freewill causes one's actions, and freewill is some supernatural force we do not and cannot understand, is it fair to hold an individual responsible based upon it? 

Although society needs freewill to function properly, the concept of freewill will certainly change and evolve. Compatibilists like Daniel Dennett propose that freewill and determinism can coexist. Others have suggested that some basis for freewill may exist in concepts we are only beginning to understand, like quantum mechanics.

Whether freewill really exists as an independent entity or not, mankind seems to need the concept of freewill to understand its role and thrive. I'm just going mellow out and agree with Geddy Lee when he sang, "I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose freewill..."