There is no such thing as "free will" (a response to the "problem of free will")
When people decide to do something, they often say, "I did it of my own free will." When someone emits this statement what they are usually saying is, in essence, "I did it because I wanted to, not because someone else forced me to do it."
I find no fault with the second statement, for indeed we all have "Wants" and "Desires," however I am uncomfortable with the first statement...namely the adjective "FREE." Why? Well I'm glad you asked.
Sometimes our desires bang up against obstacles. Someody else drank the last soft drink in the refrigerator; the dog ate my homework; my friend's car has a flat tire; we're having computer problems and can't seem to get powerpoint to work in here; I left my wallet in my other pair of pants ad infinitum
In such cases our will alone, though it pushes us, does not get us what we want. It pushes us in a certain direction, but we are manuevering inside a hedge maze whose available paths are dictated by the rest of the world, not by our wants. Thus we move "willy-nilly," but NOT "freewilly-nilly," inside the maze. A combination of pressures, some internal and some external, collectively dictates our pathway in this crazy hedge maze called "life".
There is nothing too puzzling about this. And I repeat, there is nothing puzzling about the idea that some of the pressures are our wants. What makes no sense is to maintain, over and above that, that our wants are somehow "free" or that our decisions are somehow "free". They are the outcomes of physical events inside our heads... How is that free?
When a male dog gets a whiff of a female dog in heat, it has certain extremely intense desires, which it will try extremely hard to satisfy. We see the intensity only too clearly, and when the desire is thwarted (i.e. by a fence or a leash), it pains us to identify with that poor animal, trapped by its innate drives, pushed by an abstract force that it doesn't in the least understand. This poignant sight clearly exemplifies will, but is it free will?
How do we as humans have anything that transcends that dog-like kind of yearning? We too have intense yearnings- some of them in the sexual arena, some in more exalted arenas of life- and when our yearnings are satisfied, we attain some kind of happy state, but when they are thwarted, we are forlorn, like that dog on a tight leash.
What then is all the fuss about "free will" about? Why do so many people insist on the grandiose adjective, often even finding in it humanity's crowning glory? What does it gain us, or rather, what would it gain us, if the word "free" were accurate? I do not know, nor do I see any room for it in this complex world.
I am pleased to have a will, or at least I'm pleased to have one when it is not too terribly frustrated by the hedge maze I am constrained by, but I dont know what it would feel like if my will were FREE. What on earth would that mean? That I didn't follow my will sometimes? Well, why would I do that? In order to frustrate myself? I guess that if I wanted to frustrate myself, I might make such a choice - but then it would be because I WANTED to frustrate myself, and because my meta-level desire was stronger than my plain-old desire. Thus I might choose no to take a second helping of dessert even though I - or rather, part of me - would still like some, because there's another part of me that wants me not to gain weight, and the weight-watching part happens (on this occasion) to have more votes than the gluttonous part does. If it didn't, then it would lose and my inner glutton would win, and that would be fine - but in either case, my non-free will would win out and I'd follow the dominant desire in my brain.
Yes, certainly, I'll make a decision, and I'll do so by conducting a kind of inner vote. The count of votes will yield a result, and by George, one side will come out the winner. But where's any "freeness" in all of this?
Speaking of George, the analogy to our electoral process is such a blantant elephant in the room that I should spell it out. it's not as if, in a brain, there is some kind of "neural suffrage" ("one neuron, one vote"); however, on a higher level of organization, there is some kind of "desire-level suffrage" in the brain. Since our understanding of brains is not at the state where I can pinpoint this suffrage physically, I'll just say that it's essentially "one desire, n votes", where n is someweight associated with the given desire. Not all values of n are identical, which is to say, not all desires are born equal; the brain is not an egalitarian society...
In sum, our decisions are made by an analogue to a voting process in democracy. Our various desires chime in, taking into account the many external factors that act as constraints, or more metaphorically, that play the role of hedges in the vast maze of life in which we are trapped. Much of life is incredibly random, and we have no control over it. We can will away all we want, but much of the time our will is frustrated. Our will, quite opposite of being free, is steady and stable, like an inner gyroscope, and it is the stability and constancy of our non-free will that makes me me and you you, and that also keeps me me and you you. Free Willie is just another blue humpback
I find no fault with the second statement, for indeed we all have "Wants" and "Desires," however I am uncomfortable with the first statement...namely the adjective "FREE." Why? Well I'm glad you asked.
Sometimes our desires bang up against obstacles. Someody else drank the last soft drink in the refrigerator; the dog ate my homework; my friend's car has a flat tire; we're having computer problems and can't seem to get powerpoint to work in here; I left my wallet in my other pair of pants ad infinitum
In such cases our will alone, though it pushes us, does not get us what we want. It pushes us in a certain direction, but we are manuevering inside a hedge maze whose available paths are dictated by the rest of the world, not by our wants. Thus we move "willy-nilly," but NOT "freewilly-nilly," inside the maze. A combination of pressures, some internal and some external, collectively dictates our pathway in this crazy hedge maze called "life".
There is nothing too puzzling about this. And I repeat, there is nothing puzzling about the idea that some of the pressures are our wants. What makes no sense is to maintain, over and above that, that our wants are somehow "free" or that our decisions are somehow "free". They are the outcomes of physical events inside our heads... How is that free?
When a male dog gets a whiff of a female dog in heat, it has certain extremely intense desires, which it will try extremely hard to satisfy. We see the intensity only too clearly, and when the desire is thwarted (i.e. by a fence or a leash), it pains us to identify with that poor animal, trapped by its innate drives, pushed by an abstract force that it doesn't in the least understand. This poignant sight clearly exemplifies will, but is it free will?
How do we as humans have anything that transcends that dog-like kind of yearning? We too have intense yearnings- some of them in the sexual arena, some in more exalted arenas of life- and when our yearnings are satisfied, we attain some kind of happy state, but when they are thwarted, we are forlorn, like that dog on a tight leash.
What then is all the fuss about "free will" about? Why do so many people insist on the grandiose adjective, often even finding in it humanity's crowning glory? What does it gain us, or rather, what would it gain us, if the word "free" were accurate? I do not know, nor do I see any room for it in this complex world.
I am pleased to have a will, or at least I'm pleased to have one when it is not too terribly frustrated by the hedge maze I am constrained by, but I dont know what it would feel like if my will were FREE. What on earth would that mean? That I didn't follow my will sometimes? Well, why would I do that? In order to frustrate myself? I guess that if I wanted to frustrate myself, I might make such a choice - but then it would be because I WANTED to frustrate myself, and because my meta-level desire was stronger than my plain-old desire. Thus I might choose no to take a second helping of dessert even though I - or rather, part of me - would still like some, because there's another part of me that wants me not to gain weight, and the weight-watching part happens (on this occasion) to have more votes than the gluttonous part does. If it didn't, then it would lose and my inner glutton would win, and that would be fine - but in either case, my non-free will would win out and I'd follow the dominant desire in my brain.
Yes, certainly, I'll make a decision, and I'll do so by conducting a kind of inner vote. The count of votes will yield a result, and by George, one side will come out the winner. But where's any "freeness" in all of this?
Speaking of George, the analogy to our electoral process is such a blantant elephant in the room that I should spell it out. it's not as if, in a brain, there is some kind of "neural suffrage" ("one neuron, one vote"); however, on a higher level of organization, there is some kind of "desire-level suffrage" in the brain. Since our understanding of brains is not at the state where I can pinpoint this suffrage physically, I'll just say that it's essentially "one desire, n votes", where n is someweight associated with the given desire. Not all values of n are identical, which is to say, not all desires are born equal; the brain is not an egalitarian society...
In sum, our decisions are made by an analogue to a voting process in democracy. Our various desires chime in, taking into account the many external factors that act as constraints, or more metaphorically, that play the role of hedges in the vast maze of life in which we are trapped. Much of life is incredibly random, and we have no control over it. We can will away all we want, but much of the time our will is frustrated. Our will, quite opposite of being free, is steady and stable, like an inner gyroscope, and it is the stability and constancy of our non-free will that makes me me and you you, and that also keeps me me and you you. Free Willie is just another blue humpback