Free Will

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

(watch me twist and turn as I try to deny that free will exists! –ed.)

The fact that strict materialism means the death of intentionality, agency, or what have you (free will, in other words) is a major strike against it in the minds of those who are concerned that we should pay close attention to the evidence of our senses when trying to determine how the world works. That is, we feel we make decisions, we perceive strongly that we are agents in control (somehow, from some cockpit or other) of our own actions (and thoughts, usually). These things, in fact, seem patently obvious to us. Any theory which denies this reality must seem suspect, as the theory does not jibe with the evidence of our own senses.

I have some explanations for why this might be so–for why, on reflection, it may seem completely natural that the evidence of our senses should lie to us on this subject (as it does on others–after all, much of the way we interpret the world is done through human-created categories which have no objective existence yet make understanding the objectivity beneath easier for us. In order for our limited brains to function in this complex world–that is, function to keep us alive–we must constantly oversimplify and invent things that aren’t there.)

But first, let me rehearse why I don’t believe in free will.

1) the existence of free will implies the existence of something non-material, a soul or what have you that cannot be explained by reference to matter. Why is this? Well, there are two components to our decisions–our current brain structure (describable in material terms) and whatever experiences our sense-impressions are feeding us. Our minds, that is, brain structure, respond to these experiences, changing the structure and sending out signals to the rest of the body for action. In other words, the biological, material brain processes the input and changes its own structure while sending output. Where in this process is the actual “decision” made? Where is the room for some transcendental entity to “decide”? The decision is simply the working of the information through the brain, changing it and causing output–the biological/chemical/electrical processing of information. Any belief that there is something that stands above this process and intervenes to make the actual decision is patently an appeal to a transcendental, non-material substance.

2) Even if we posit that there is such a substance, our difficulties do not end. How does this substance “make decisions?” If it’s on the basis of past data plus the data currently received, why do we need a metaphysical agent to do that? Our material brain is perfectly capable of doing that (and in fact does do it). If there is some other criteria, what is it? If it’s not prior knowledge and current sense impressions, what is the basis for decision making? A coin flip? We find ourselves needing to explain the qualities the soul has that are somehow separate from our qualities as human beings (does the soul have knowledge that the physical brain does not?) There must be some criteria for decision making, or else the decision is made at random. That is to say, a decision is either made completely on the basis of data/sensations (or more likely, already interpreted data/sensations) or there is some random element, spinning the wheel or rolling the die. Either our perceptions interfacing with the prior state of our being leads to a particular reaction, and there could be no other, or we are essentially unpredictable because of some random factor.

Still, we all have had the experience of simply “coming to a decision” based on instinct, intuition, or whatever. That is, we weigh the alternatives, think of what pluses and minuses we can, and then somewhat mysteriously “jump” to one side or another (any real decision that we perceive as such being one that is not resolvable simply on the conscious facts alone–that is to say, that is not completely obvious to us at the outset). This “jump” can be explained as our soul’s hand on the tiller, but it can also be explained as the workings of the unconscious mind, pushing us in directions that are not immediately obvious to consciousness. It’s pretty obvious how the conscious mind can interpret this as some mysterious part of us (the little man in the control booth) making a choice. In fact, this interpretation may actually help us function by making us feel that we are in control. This encourages us to be decisive and active rather than passive and fatalistic.

Since our minds have developed to interpret and make sense of things, even of things that do not, in actual material reality, make any “sense” at all, it should come as no surprise that we experience “making decisions” as a conscious, willed act when in fact no such act takes place. There may be a signal in the brain that gives us the sensation of such an act–this may be our consciousness’s way of interpreting the signal that encodes the decision as it emerges from the calculating parts of our subconscious that actually arrive at the answer–but there is no “decisive act” that is free and free-willed.