dbergan
Warlord
I'm starting this thread as a branch from "Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI?" There I argued (post 106) that we have proof that humans are part supernatural. Because I want to treat the discussion more thoroughly, here we are...
You can find this argument formatted exactly in the way I intended at my website.
Free Will
Similarly you may say, if you like, that the bold determinist speculator is free to disbelieve in the reality of the will. But it is a much more massive and important fact that he is not free to raise, to curse, to thank, to justify, to urge, to punish, to resist temptations, to incite mobs, to make New Year resolutions, to pardon sinners, to rebuke tyrants, or even to say "thank you" for the mustard. - G. K. Chesterton
The evidence for human free will is as follows:
*Observation: Every human society has some form of justice system that punishes people who choose crime... or at the very least removes them from the rest of society so as not to inflict society again.
*Observation: Every human society awards or decorates people for choices it deems virtuous... whether it be a Nobel prize for a scientific discovery or a feathered headdress for bravery against the invading tribes.
*Observation: Every human society has some form of moral code that permeates all areas of life and instructed people on which choices were ethical and which were not... from matters defined to be the gravest acts of treason against the society as a whole all the way down to the proper way to serve food at the dinner table. This moral code is not identical from one society to the next, but each society does (or did) have one.
*Observation: The insurance industry (one of the largest industries on Earth) pays or rejects claims based on who was determined to be at fault.
*Observation: Every four years over 25% of America chooses a candidate that best represents their political beliefs in a national presidential election.
*Observation: Millions of Catholics visit priests every day to confess of making sinful choices.
*Observation: Every word that appears on this page was considered and decided upon in my head before my fingers typed it out.
When faced with the above observations (and many others are also available) someone arguing against human free will always has to use the phrase that we have "the illusion of free will." We don't really have it, but it seems like we do.
What, then, is the evidence that free will is only an illusion? What elaborate explanation exists that not only (A) accounts for all of our actions, but also (B) provides us with the universal deception that our action seem to be chosen? My experience in these discussions is that those who deny free will don't usually have an adequate explanation for these questions, but rather assert the illusion of free will as a result of an a priori belief that humans are entirely natural and thus completely subject to natural laws. Thoughts are a result of the chemical reactions in the brain, they argue, which are every bit as predictable as the chemical reactions in the test tube... only we don't have enough information on brain chemistry (yet) to make accurate predictions.
The formal reasoning goes as such:
*Premise 1: Natural entities are completely bound to the interlocking cause-and-effect of natural laws. They will do exactly as the laws dictate and nothing else.
*Premise 2: Humans are completely natural entities.
*Conclusion: Therefore humans are completely bound to natural laws, and have no free will. Free will must be an illusion.
Premise 1 is acceptable. The reason that we know the cycle of the tides and the conditions which will cause paper to burn is because nature does inexorably follow natural laws. (footnote 1) The argument's problem is that premise 2 is merely a belief. If someone believes premise 2, they must accept the conclusion... but what is the evidence that supports 2?
Bertrand Russell backs this position up with a bit of reasoning:
everyone has always known that alcohol or opium will have a certain effect on behavior. The apostle of free will maintains that a man can by will power avoid getting drunk, but he does not maintain that when drunk a man can say "British Constitution" as clearly as if he were sober. And everybody who has ever had to do with children knows that a suitable diet does more to making them virtuous than the most eloquent preaching in the world. (footnote 2)
Yet Russell's conclusion is only based on half the evidence. Showing that alcohol has an effect on our mental capacity explains that our mind is in part natural and therefore affected by chemistry. But he does not put forth anything to explain the deliberations of a chess grandmaster or supreme court justice. He only says that if they were drunk (or hungry), their decisions would be impaired. You can torture a terrorist with mind and nerve-altering drugs to try to get him to reveal where the threat is... but it is still his choice whether to lie or not. Even though you can cause the brain to have certain sensations, or alter the doors of perception, you can't cause a person to make certain choices. Some people, by a lack of courage or greater sensitivity to pain, are more willing to compromise at lower thresholds, but that doesn't make their admissions any less voluntary. They chose to end the torture by saying what the others wanted to hear. (footnote 3)
Lawmakers know how substances affect free will and tailor laws to compensate... A driver usually goes unpunished altogether if his vehicle accidently kills a child who foolishly darted into the street. A driver usually receives a harsh punishment for accidently killing a person when driving a car while intoxicated (yet it is still considered an accident, the crime was deciding to drive while drunk). And the most severe punishment is reserved for the person who premeditatively, soberly, murders.
Furthermore, I have also heard it said in support of premise 2, that there is no "scientific evidence" that humans are more than merely natural entities. To which the appropriate reply is, "What do you suppose scientific evidence would find?" Broadly speaking, science is a tool used for a specific kind of truth... the study of nature by repeated observation. If we are looking for the cause of free will—ie. some kind of picture or map or measurement of the supernatural "choosing entity" in human beings—it is impossible that it will ever be found. We are not using the right tool. Just like you cannot paint a wall with a hammer, you cannot use science on questions about the supernatural.
But if we turn the tool of science upon the effects of free will, we find evidence in abundance. The observations I pointed out at the top suggest that human free will is a real thing. Even though the cause of free will—the soul, so to speak—cannot be observed, the effects are right in front of our eyes.
And if we are going to follow observations in the name of science, we cannot tolerate any nonsense about free will being merely an illusion. No one in science is satisfied explaining verifiable observations as illusions. Our observations about fire do not give rise to the illusion of combustion... our observations establish the reality of combustion. Archimedes's observations about gold in water does not create an illusion of density, but the reality of density. Galileo's observations of planetary orbits does not create the illusion of solar gravity, but the reality of it. If you follow what your senses tell you, human free will is one of the most plainly observed facts on the planet.
It being thus established that human free will is as established as any a posteriori theory could be, the next argument is the big challenge to the naturalist.
*Premise 1: Natural entities are completely bound to the interlocking cause-and-effect laws of the universe. They will do exactly as the laws dictate and nothing else. (Same as above.)
*Premise 2: Humans have free will as demonstrated by observations that give us a certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. Their actions are not completely bound to the interlocking cause-and-effect laws of the universe.
*Conclusion: Humans are not completely natural entities... at least some part (the choosing part) must be supernatural.
Footnotes
1. The only exception to this rule worth mentioning comes from quantum mechanics, which describes that at the level of the atom, some things are still inherently random... meaning they are not bound to any natural law. However, macroscopic observations can produce accurate probabilities of these events. For example, a mass of radioactive material has a very predictable half-life even though we cannot say when a particular atom is going to decay. Some think it is only a matter of time until the behavior of these systems are also found to be deterministic. But either way, the law of large numbers allows us to ignore this debate, because in any event an appreciable mass has to be affected to have any practical significance.
2. Bertrand Russell, Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?
3. Which may indeed be an ethical decision, I'm not passing judgment on whether one should endure pain or say what is wanted... just remarking that in these circumstances it is a choice to give in. And it is also a choice for the others to inflict torture... which, for the most part, I am much more confident saying is immoral.
You can find this argument formatted exactly in the way I intended at my website.
Free Will
Similarly you may say, if you like, that the bold determinist speculator is free to disbelieve in the reality of the will. But it is a much more massive and important fact that he is not free to raise, to curse, to thank, to justify, to urge, to punish, to resist temptations, to incite mobs, to make New Year resolutions, to pardon sinners, to rebuke tyrants, or even to say "thank you" for the mustard. - G. K. Chesterton
The evidence for human free will is as follows:
*Observation: Every human society has some form of justice system that punishes people who choose crime... or at the very least removes them from the rest of society so as not to inflict society again.
*Observation: Every human society awards or decorates people for choices it deems virtuous... whether it be a Nobel prize for a scientific discovery or a feathered headdress for bravery against the invading tribes.
*Observation: Every human society has some form of moral code that permeates all areas of life and instructed people on which choices were ethical and which were not... from matters defined to be the gravest acts of treason against the society as a whole all the way down to the proper way to serve food at the dinner table. This moral code is not identical from one society to the next, but each society does (or did) have one.
*Observation: The insurance industry (one of the largest industries on Earth) pays or rejects claims based on who was determined to be at fault.
*Observation: Every four years over 25% of America chooses a candidate that best represents their political beliefs in a national presidential election.
*Observation: Millions of Catholics visit priests every day to confess of making sinful choices.
*Observation: Every word that appears on this page was considered and decided upon in my head before my fingers typed it out.
When faced with the above observations (and many others are also available) someone arguing against human free will always has to use the phrase that we have "the illusion of free will." We don't really have it, but it seems like we do.
What, then, is the evidence that free will is only an illusion? What elaborate explanation exists that not only (A) accounts for all of our actions, but also (B) provides us with the universal deception that our action seem to be chosen? My experience in these discussions is that those who deny free will don't usually have an adequate explanation for these questions, but rather assert the illusion of free will as a result of an a priori belief that humans are entirely natural and thus completely subject to natural laws. Thoughts are a result of the chemical reactions in the brain, they argue, which are every bit as predictable as the chemical reactions in the test tube... only we don't have enough information on brain chemistry (yet) to make accurate predictions.
The formal reasoning goes as such:
*Premise 1: Natural entities are completely bound to the interlocking cause-and-effect of natural laws. They will do exactly as the laws dictate and nothing else.
*Premise 2: Humans are completely natural entities.
*Conclusion: Therefore humans are completely bound to natural laws, and have no free will. Free will must be an illusion.
Premise 1 is acceptable. The reason that we know the cycle of the tides and the conditions which will cause paper to burn is because nature does inexorably follow natural laws. (footnote 1) The argument's problem is that premise 2 is merely a belief. If someone believes premise 2, they must accept the conclusion... but what is the evidence that supports 2?
Bertrand Russell backs this position up with a bit of reasoning:
everyone has always known that alcohol or opium will have a certain effect on behavior. The apostle of free will maintains that a man can by will power avoid getting drunk, but he does not maintain that when drunk a man can say "British Constitution" as clearly as if he were sober. And everybody who has ever had to do with children knows that a suitable diet does more to making them virtuous than the most eloquent preaching in the world. (footnote 2)
Yet Russell's conclusion is only based on half the evidence. Showing that alcohol has an effect on our mental capacity explains that our mind is in part natural and therefore affected by chemistry. But he does not put forth anything to explain the deliberations of a chess grandmaster or supreme court justice. He only says that if they were drunk (or hungry), their decisions would be impaired. You can torture a terrorist with mind and nerve-altering drugs to try to get him to reveal where the threat is... but it is still his choice whether to lie or not. Even though you can cause the brain to have certain sensations, or alter the doors of perception, you can't cause a person to make certain choices. Some people, by a lack of courage or greater sensitivity to pain, are more willing to compromise at lower thresholds, but that doesn't make their admissions any less voluntary. They chose to end the torture by saying what the others wanted to hear. (footnote 3)
Lawmakers know how substances affect free will and tailor laws to compensate... A driver usually goes unpunished altogether if his vehicle accidently kills a child who foolishly darted into the street. A driver usually receives a harsh punishment for accidently killing a person when driving a car while intoxicated (yet it is still considered an accident, the crime was deciding to drive while drunk). And the most severe punishment is reserved for the person who premeditatively, soberly, murders.
Furthermore, I have also heard it said in support of premise 2, that there is no "scientific evidence" that humans are more than merely natural entities. To which the appropriate reply is, "What do you suppose scientific evidence would find?" Broadly speaking, science is a tool used for a specific kind of truth... the study of nature by repeated observation. If we are looking for the cause of free will—ie. some kind of picture or map or measurement of the supernatural "choosing entity" in human beings—it is impossible that it will ever be found. We are not using the right tool. Just like you cannot paint a wall with a hammer, you cannot use science on questions about the supernatural.
But if we turn the tool of science upon the effects of free will, we find evidence in abundance. The observations I pointed out at the top suggest that human free will is a real thing. Even though the cause of free will—the soul, so to speak—cannot be observed, the effects are right in front of our eyes.
And if we are going to follow observations in the name of science, we cannot tolerate any nonsense about free will being merely an illusion. No one in science is satisfied explaining verifiable observations as illusions. Our observations about fire do not give rise to the illusion of combustion... our observations establish the reality of combustion. Archimedes's observations about gold in water does not create an illusion of density, but the reality of density. Galileo's observations of planetary orbits does not create the illusion of solar gravity, but the reality of it. If you follow what your senses tell you, human free will is one of the most plainly observed facts on the planet.
It being thus established that human free will is as established as any a posteriori theory could be, the next argument is the big challenge to the naturalist.
*Premise 1: Natural entities are completely bound to the interlocking cause-and-effect laws of the universe. They will do exactly as the laws dictate and nothing else. (Same as above.)
*Premise 2: Humans have free will as demonstrated by observations that give us a certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. Their actions are not completely bound to the interlocking cause-and-effect laws of the universe.
*Conclusion: Humans are not completely natural entities... at least some part (the choosing part) must be supernatural.
Footnotes
1. The only exception to this rule worth mentioning comes from quantum mechanics, which describes that at the level of the atom, some things are still inherently random... meaning they are not bound to any natural law. However, macroscopic observations can produce accurate probabilities of these events. For example, a mass of radioactive material has a very predictable half-life even though we cannot say when a particular atom is going to decay. Some think it is only a matter of time until the behavior of these systems are also found to be deterministic. But either way, the law of large numbers allows us to ignore this debate, because in any event an appreciable mass has to be affected to have any practical significance.
2. Bertrand Russell, Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?
3. Which may indeed be an ethical decision, I'm not passing judgment on whether one should endure pain or say what is wanted... just remarking that in these circumstances it is a choice to give in. And it is also a choice for the others to inflict torture... which, for the most part, I am much more confident saying is immoral.
