• Furon
    5
    I came up with this a while ago.
    A Materialist Defence of Free Will (or Free Won’t)


    P1: A strictly material universe needs only naturalistic explanation. Hard determinism is said to be a naturalistic position, so human nature is determined and mechanistic according to the materialist.

    P2: Findings in neuroscience, an otherwise naturalistic field, shows that we have ‘veto power’ over our impulses, that is, we can consciously choose not to do something.

    C: A materialist universe does not necessitate hard determinism.



    Note on P1: It follows from materialism that the physical is all there is, therefore, a naturalistic explanation for everything is sufficient. It would substantiate the position of , for instance, which is that: ‘Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have.’[1] The hard determinist position can be summed up in this sentence: ‘your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime - by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas.’[2] The law of cause and effect reigns supreme here.

    Note on P2: If a materialistic universe relies entirely on naturalistic explanations, then surely the finding of a ‘veto power’ is relevant, affirming a compatibilist position to free will at the very least? ‘Free won’t’ as it is called, is the term given, where we can consciously inhibit an impulse to do something, thus restoring the notion of free choice. The idea stems from an experiment by ((((((((((((Benjamin Libet)))))))))))), whose research showed that the neural impulse to do something, such as flexing one’s wrist, preceded the action by about half a second, indicating that we aren’t consciously making decisions. (This was done via EEG readings.) However, subsequent research showed that we have a window of around 150 milliseconds to ‘veto’ this neural impulse, which can be seen as a conscious decision not to do something - not free will exactly, rather, free won’t.[3]

    Note on C: ‘Degrees of freedom’ exist.[4] They are not the same for everyone - the mentally handicapped or psychopaths clearly are restricted in their freedom - but this is different from concluding that we are solely determined by background causes. Therefore, the strict materialist is not necessarily condemned to belief in hard determinism.

    References
    [1] , Free Will (New York: Free Press, 2012), p.5.
    [2] Ibid, p.41.
    [3]https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/201106/free-wont-it-may-be-all-we-have-or-need
    [4] https://moralarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/137.FreeWont.pdf

    A friend of mine criticised the 'veto', claiming that this power still has to come from somewhere. I think this implied that it would have a metaphysical or generally non-physical source.
    Criticise this all you want, agree with it, destroy it - just be constructive.
  • BC
    13.6k
    It's phrased in different ways, but it seems to me that a physical world is compatible with a (necessarily limited) will which is able to make many decisions that are not deterministic. (Answering the phone, which many people do reflexively whether they want to or not, can be countermanded. Countermand often enough, and answering the phone is no longer automatic.)

    Benjamin Libet's experiment bring to mind another point about determinism and free will: If someone thinks that their conscious mind is who they are, they will think they have complete free will. Feeling in charge is the effect of consciousness for us. But most of what we are, think, wish for, fear, will, etc. is not conscious, and we really don't have much personal knowledge about how anything happens back there in the stacks. My own opinion is that consciousness is a product of the non-conscious brain. In that sense, who we think we are (if we limit it to the conscious mind) is indeed determined, but it is determined by our non-conscious selves who operate out of sight, out of mind.

    Of course there are physical causes of behavior. People become excited before thunderstorms begin. The air is charged with negative ions, and this stimulates people. Some dogs who hate thunder and lightening become agitated well before we notice that a storm is approaching. That's determinism. Chemicals in the food, water, and air have an effect on us as well, which is pretty much deterministic. Slip a small dose of caffeine into someone's food who never consumes caffeine, and they will feel elated whether they want to feel that way or not. Determinism. Low blood sugar can make a pleasant person turn into a snarling junk yard dog--which all disappears once one gets some food. Determinism.

    We don't know how we think of things. It just happens. (I mean, "I can not observe my non-conscious brain working".) But something prompts the non-conscious mind to suddenly send text to the fingers (or mouth) which the conscious mind thinks it is composing. I don't "feel" this post being created. It just flows out, and I - conscious mind - read it as it happens. 999 times out of a thousand it isn't gibberish. But that 1 time per thousand comes round quite often...
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.1k
    A friend of mine criticised the 'veto', claiming that this power still has to come from somewhere. I think this implied that it would have a metaphysical or generally non-physical source.Furon

    Right, so how would you account for the "free won't", in a materialist way? Suppose, for example, a chain of efficient causes, one action brings about another, which brings about another, etc.. How would you put an end to this causation without defying the law of conservation of energy?
  • Furon
    5

    Volition perhaps? I guess you can debate whether or not this 'power' if you want to call it that, can arise from material causes or is beyond that.
  • Furon
    5
    Will we ever find out why?
  • BC
    13.6k
    Damned if I know.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.