an exercise in academese
What is freewill? I've been reading up about this topic recently, and I'm surprised at how little consensus there is about the very definition of freewill. There have been a few answers put forth to answer my question , but taken together these answers are also not very coherent, and I havent been very satisfied with them.
The first is the notion that freewill concerns our ability to be the "first cause" of events. If every event has a cause, and is a cause of some subsequent occurrence, then to what extent are our desires, preferences, wants, choices and behavior really products of events that happened before? In other words, are these wants, preferences and choices really ours? And if we cant actually make meaningful choices, then to what extent can we be responsible for our actions? On the flip side, if we believe that causation is mere illusion, and all actions are random, so that freewill is possible, then to what extent is this haphazard freewill meaningful? Therefore, there must be causation for freewill to be meaningful. If so, then where and when does this happen? Does freewill happen at all? Most scientists do not believe so. But I believe that debates about the actual existence of freewill might be in vain. We are, in many ways, like characters in the Matrix, never knowing if we are captains of our own fate, or merely at the mercy of something that is beyond what is knowable.
The second notion of freewill comes mainly from the economics perspective-- and deals with the idea that we are able to make a reasoned choice between options. The free human is he who is able to conduct a careful cost benefit analysis and choose the best option. I only need to look within myself to appreciate why this might be true. As I feel that internal process of analyzing, reasoning and finally choosing, I find it hard to accept that the choice that I finally make is simply a product of prior circumstance. While I cannot imagine how it is like to be an animal, it is difficult to think that any form of serious thinking have place when the fish bites the bait at the end of my fishing line. But to define freewill as the ability to rationally choose is also unsatisfying-- can we then say that computer programs have freewill too?
The third notion of freewill concerns that of our ability to override our impulses. More simply, it concerns our ability to self-regulate. Free is the man who is able to use reason to guide his actions, so that he is not simply a "slave" to his passions. While it is true that the capacity to manage our emotions, our fears, and our desires a quality that seems uniquely human, it's unclear why freewill should be associated with reason. For example, is a heroin addict, who, unable to contain himself, succumbs to his addictions and continue to indulge in large amounts heroin ultimately responsible for his acts?
Even though these ideas might be unsatisfying, perhaps it is this ambiguity that makes me excited about this uncharted, gray area -- so many different methodologies can be brought to bear on the same topic. In this case, while the problem of freewill has traditionally been in the province of philosophers, more psychologists and neuroscientists are beginning to chime in on this problem. Recent research activity in these two fields have been fruitful, and predictably so, because the problem of freewill is rich with possibilities and leads to insights about how we think about causation, responsibility, and even creativity. Personally, it seems to me that the common theme that is running through these three notions of freewill is that it concerns our ability to actively resist something, be it prior causes, other options or our own impulses. Indeed, recently neuroscientists have been bandying about the idea of "freewont" as a replacement for "freewill". This conceptualisation is very seductive, and I think it's going to lead me down the rabbit hole again...
The first is the notion that freewill concerns our ability to be the "first cause" of events. If every event has a cause, and is a cause of some subsequent occurrence, then to what extent are our desires, preferences, wants, choices and behavior really products of events that happened before? In other words, are these wants, preferences and choices really ours? And if we cant actually make meaningful choices, then to what extent can we be responsible for our actions? On the flip side, if we believe that causation is mere illusion, and all actions are random, so that freewill is possible, then to what extent is this haphazard freewill meaningful? Therefore, there must be causation for freewill to be meaningful. If so, then where and when does this happen? Does freewill happen at all? Most scientists do not believe so. But I believe that debates about the actual existence of freewill might be in vain. We are, in many ways, like characters in the Matrix, never knowing if we are captains of our own fate, or merely at the mercy of something that is beyond what is knowable.
The second notion of freewill comes mainly from the economics perspective-- and deals with the idea that we are able to make a reasoned choice between options. The free human is he who is able to conduct a careful cost benefit analysis and choose the best option. I only need to look within myself to appreciate why this might be true. As I feel that internal process of analyzing, reasoning and finally choosing, I find it hard to accept that the choice that I finally make is simply a product of prior circumstance. While I cannot imagine how it is like to be an animal, it is difficult to think that any form of serious thinking have place when the fish bites the bait at the end of my fishing line. But to define freewill as the ability to rationally choose is also unsatisfying-- can we then say that computer programs have freewill too?
The third notion of freewill concerns that of our ability to override our impulses. More simply, it concerns our ability to self-regulate. Free is the man who is able to use reason to guide his actions, so that he is not simply a "slave" to his passions. While it is true that the capacity to manage our emotions, our fears, and our desires a quality that seems uniquely human, it's unclear why freewill should be associated with reason. For example, is a heroin addict, who, unable to contain himself, succumbs to his addictions and continue to indulge in large amounts heroin ultimately responsible for his acts?
Even though these ideas might be unsatisfying, perhaps it is this ambiguity that makes me excited about this uncharted, gray area -- so many different methodologies can be brought to bear on the same topic. In this case, while the problem of freewill has traditionally been in the province of philosophers, more psychologists and neuroscientists are beginning to chime in on this problem. Recent research activity in these two fields have been fruitful, and predictably so, because the problem of freewill is rich with possibilities and leads to insights about how we think about causation, responsibility, and even creativity. Personally, it seems to me that the common theme that is running through these three notions of freewill is that it concerns our ability to actively resist something, be it prior causes, other options or our own impulses. Indeed, recently neuroscientists have been bandying about the idea of "freewont" as a replacement for "freewill". This conceptualisation is very seductive, and I think it's going to lead me down the rabbit hole again...