We get irked that the ancients tainted their science with
philosophy, yet today make the equal error of tainting our philosophy with
science. Then let us take the ancient wisdom and the modern science, the best
of both worlds, and venture onwards. There's an article floating around
proclaiming that free will doesn't exist, but that we should believe in it
anyway. Most of it talks about how detrimental (or in some small ways
beneficial) a belief in determinism is, while resting on the assumption that
'science has disproved' free will. This large but scarcely discussed claim
comes whence:
"Many scientists say that the American physiologist Benjamin Libet demonstrated in the 1980s that we have no free will. It was already known that electrical activity builds up in a person's brain before she, for example, moves her hand; Libet showed that this buildup occurs before the person consciously makes a decision to move. The conscious experience of deciding to act, which we usually associate with free will, appears to be an add-on, a post hoc reconstruction of events that occurs after the brain has already set the act in motion."
That is, there is something bringing forth a decision before the conscious decision… which sounds
a lot like what we would call the subconscious. Basically, it is saying that we
do not have free will because we subconsciously make decisions before
consciously doing so.
Now I find this to be a bizarre claim. For one, there is no
reason free will must only be conscious decision rather than decision in
general with all that it entails. We've already defined free will, I had
thought, as the ability to make decisions, and all that that implies, conscious
or subconscious, so it doesn't make sense to deny the existence of free will by
showing how it works. If "free will" involves both subconscious and
conscious decision, you can't point to subconscious decision to say that free
will doesn't exist.
Secondly, this argument seems only to apply to those who are
acting immediately, and it falls apart when one considers the many instances in
which a person has a decided plan far in advance to any carrying of it out.
But perhaps we are supposed to understand this scenario as
having a broader application than immediate action. Perhaps the implication is
being made that all of our conscious thoughts are simply the product of our
subconscious, and since we think our decisions come from our conscious thought
(that is in our control), but it has actually been shown to be under the
control of the subconscious (which seems to be out of our control),
consequently we do not have free will. But I still do not believe this must
follow, because the premises have faults, namely that decisions come from
conscious thought alone and that the subconscious is entirely out of our
control.
Let us bring this back to our own experience. When you
experience the process of thinking, do you not somehow sense that there is
something in you guiding your thoughts before you put them into words? Don't
you have a conception or idea before you formulate it? That is your
subconscious, and it's still you. We
might, as a proportion, say that subconscious thought is to conscious thought
as conscious thought is to outward expression. Conscious thought is the inward
expression, or formulation, of what is already there subconsciously. Now this
might sound like what those against free will are saying, but my point here is
that the subconscious is still part of you and so it is still you making the
decision.
And it may be true to some extent that you don't get to
choose your subconscious. That is why we would say you're not yet morally responsible,
for those things beneath the surface, and as such for example cannot be blamed for
what you dream of when you sleep.
But it is also true that your subconscious can be formed by
what you decide to feed into or deny. To indulge in baser thoughts and desires
will flood your subconscious with more of the same and incline you to end up
choosing it more often; to deny and redirect them will make it easier to
habitually do so outwardly.
But how is it possible, one might ask, to consciously form
your subconscious, if it is your subconscious forming that conscious? It should
be made clear that there is another step between conscious thought and action,
for one does not simply act on every thought. There is deliberation, of course,
of which I ought not pretend to fully understand.
And supposedly, herein lies the force of the anti-free-will
argument: during the process of deliberation to act, the subconscious decides
first, and the conscious only does so as if after the fact.
But it also should be said again, that the subconscious is still
you, and so it is still you deciding. It is not an outside force that you have no
control over, in which case you could perhaps be said to have no free will. And
what should have been already implied in the original definition of free will
was the entire process of decision, even if that ends up including both
conscious and subconscious, not merely the "conscious experience of deciding
to act."
But it does bring us back to the question of how one can
consciously form the not entirely controlled subconscious, if it is really the
opposite that is taking place. To this I must appeal again to deliberation, and
the process of reasoning with I trust that you are familiar with. It seems that
while consciously reasoning we may come to conclusions that were not in the
subconscious at first, and thus the conscious is not merely entirely contained
in the subconscious, but can introduce new elements that can then be referred
back to the subconscious to form it. For example, it would definitely be unfair
to assert that all atheists subconsciously know God exists. Maybe some do, but
surely others do not. Yet, if one who does not reads and follows an argument
and becomes convinced by it, the conscious now gains new information without
influence of the subconscious.
Now, I do not know how well I have spoken, for I am not a
psychologist or neurologist. But I came across this argument against free will
and found some philosophical problems in it, in addition to having my natural
reaction against an idea so destructive and contrary to experience.
It seems to claim that because we have causes of our
decisions, we are not freely making those decisions. I do not know how having causeless decisions would be any freer,
in fact that would seem even less free, if we simply behaved randomly, that is,
without cause or reason.
That the decisions we make have causes should be clear even
from regular experience, that we take the information that we have and weigh
options and act according to what we decide, or sometimes by our own feelings.
Could it not be said that our knowledge and desire of the good causes us to
choose it, or our ignorance (incomplete or erroneous knowledge) causes us to
choose something bad, or our reason's acquiescence to passion does the same?
Nowhere does it appear that choices are supposed to have no cause other than
our own will, considering that our own will is influenced by innumerable
factors even apart from what is subconscious. Logically, the other option would
be randomness, which seems even less to lend us freedom, for then there would
be no reason guiding our decisions.
So, to summarize the objections to the objections to free
will:
1. We've already defined and understood free will by our
experience, and it is clear that as far as we can tell, we do have free will.
Nothing is compelling us to choose one thing over another in our ordinary lives
other than what we deem to be best. And if it ends up being that our
subconscious decides things before we realize it (that is, before it translates
into conscious decision), that should rather deepen our understanding of how
free will works, than invalidate it as we move the goalpost to something that
does not exist: a thing neither caused nor random.
2. The brief scientific argument that is made in the article
seems only to apply to immediate action, and says nothing of planning ahead,
unless also we are supposed to understand that the subconscious influences us
even in our planning ahead, which I have taken to be the case and written my
response accordingly.
3. Your subconscious is still you, so you're still making
decisions. And while your subconscious influences your conscious, your
conscious in turn influences your subconscious with new reasoned insights, or
new information that you choose to expose yourself to, or indulgence in certain
thoughts versus denial.
4. Of course our choices have causes, because we're
influenced by things all the time, which help us to make our decisions. We act
according to what we know or believe and what we feel and what we desire, not
according to nothing, and definitely not according to indeterminacy
(randomness). It is precisely when we have indeterminacy (many options without
something, either within us or without, causing us to be inclined towards one)
that we feel indecisive.
Perhaps the root of the problem lies with what we're using
as a definition of "free." The most common appears to be without
influence from another, not compelled or forced, able to act according to one's
own wishes. Yet it would be strange and misguided to point to one's own wishes
and say "that is influence," and then say we do not have free will.
Likewise it should be strange and misguided to point to one's own subconscious
and do the same. It should be clear that, in that sense, caused decisions are
still free decisions.
In this essay I take the approach of translating
"electrical buildup" into "subconscious activity." But
perhaps the "neurons firing" aspect of the other article deserves its
own post. In short, it should come as no surprise to the classical philosopher
that material and agent causes exist. We already know that. What should not be
ignored are the formal and final causes, all of which I may address more fully
later.
No comments:
Post a Comment