A
The list of things we do not choose, however long, does not eliminate a single thing from the list of things we do choose, however short. I had a different teenage experience with the free will issue: After my father died, I spent time in the public library, browsing the philosophy section. I think I was reading something by Baruch Spinoza that introduced the issue of determinism as a threat to free will. I found this troublesome until I had this thought experiment (whether I read it in one of the books or just came up with it myself, I can’t recall). The idea that my choices were inevitable bothered me, so I considered how I might escape what seemed like an external control. It struck me that all I needed to do was to wait till I had a decision to make, between A and B, and if I felt myself leaning heavily toward A, I would simply choose B instead. So easy! But then it occurred to me that my desire to thwart inevitability had caused B to become the inevitable choice, so I would have to switch back to A again, but then … it was an infinite loop! No matter which I chose, inevitability would continue to switch to match my choice! Hmm. So, who was controlling the choice, me or inevitability? Well, the concern that was driving my thought process was my own. Inevitability was not some entity driving this process for its own reasons. And I imagined that if inevitability were such an entity, it would be sitting there in the library laughing at me, because it made me go through these gyrations without doing anything at all, except for me thinking about it. My choice may be a deterministic event, but it was an event where I was actually the one doing the choosing. And that is what free will is really about: is it me or is someone or something else making the decision. It was always really me. And since the solution was so simple, I no longer gave it any thought. Then much later, just a few years ago, I ran into some on-line discussions about it, and I wondered why it was still a problem for everyone else, since I had seen through the paradox more than fifty years ago.
A
What I love, as a human being, is that even if a person is born under extremely challenging circumstances, they can overcome them. They can change their genetic expression. The more extreme the conditions, the less likely mathematically, but the possibility exists. So far, I've seen people who have little positive influence do greatly different things than would have been predicted, and also the opposite. We can lean into our lemming qualities, or, lean into the one thing that qualifies us for free will potential. As a person with an ACE score of 10, I have opted for the idea that I have more influence than my ego would have me believe. This is the most challenging work I will ever be faced with, but the most profoundly rewarding. Having said this, I adore Robert and trying on his shoes. It helps me greatly to ask questions of my own behaviour and be more understanding of myself and others on a daily basis.
A
Here's a balanced table comparing Free Will and Determinism, including key arguments for each side, major philosophical positions, and what I (as an AI) can suggest based on current understanding:
| Aspect | Free Will | Determinism |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | The ability to make choices independent of prior causes or fate. | All events, including human actions, are caused by preceding events/laws. |
| Key Philosophers | Descartes, Kant, Sartre (existentialists) | Spinoza, Hobbes, Laplace |
| Main Argument | Humans have conscious control over their decisions. | Everything is caused by past events; choice is an illusion. |
| Scientific Support | Some neuroscience suggests conscious choice, though still debated. | Neuroscience (e.g., Libet experiments) shows decisions arise before awareness. |
| Moral Implications | Moral responsibility depends on freedom of choice. | If all is determined, accountability may need rethinking. |
| Religious Angle | Most religions affirm free will as necessary for moral judgment. | Some theological traditions (e.g., Calvinism) lean toward predestination. |
| Compatibilist View | Free will and determinism can coexist (e.g., choosing within constraints). | Determinism doesn’t necessarily deny meaningful choice, just reframes it. |
| My (AI) View | I don’t hold beliefs, but: | Both views offer insight; compatibilism is a practical middle-ground. |
| - Pure free will may be overstated biologically. | - Pure determinism underestimates complexity and unpredictability. | |
| Modern Thinkers | Daniel Dennett (supports compatibilism), Robert Kane (libertarian free will) | Sam Harris (determinist), Sapolsky (biological determinism) |
🧠 Bottom Line:
Most contemporary thinkers lean toward compatibilism—that we operate with constrained freedom within a causal world. You may not be absolutely free, but you can still make meaningful choices.
Would you like a visual infographic version of this table?
A
A
A
No comments:
Post a Comment