The Free Will/Determinism Paradox
Most of us humans, I would guess, prefer to think we have free will. That is, we prefer to think we are able to make choices or decisions based upon our own unique volitions. Such thought appeals to our vanities. If we make “good” choices and decisions, our self-esteem is elevated, and this gives us pleasure.
On the other hand, most of our knowledge leads us in the direction of believing the universe’s functions are deterministic. That is, our knowledge tells us that choice is not necessary to our description of the universe. Events occur as a result of the events which preceeded them. For example, if we strike the cue-ball properly, the 8-ball will be knocked into the billiard table pocket which
…show more content…
Extending this construction of knowledge to humans tempts us to say it is possible for each of us to have the free will to make our individual decisions. As entities we are certainly very complicated and contain within each of us an infinite number of subevents occurring during our exercise of any choice or decision. However, the probabilistic approach to free will does not fullfill our desires. A choice resulting from the outcome of a random event or a million random events is not the exercise of free will based upon unique volition. It is the same as the a flip of a coin!
Even though our knowledge is telling us that we do not possess free will, most of us are loathe to accept this conclusion. We think, if I do not have free will, then it is not important whatever I do. I might just as well stay in bed all day. Such reaction is emotional, not logical. It is this kind of negative emotional reaction which inhibits us from accepting the logical conclusion of determinism. The following is a simple thought exercise which may help us understand the deception which our emotions are perpertrating upon upon our intellects. Consider the following similations of an “undetermined universe” and a “determined universe.” Suppose that a new car is to be given away by your local community association on Saturday night. Every adult in the community is eligible. In the undetermined universe, the winner of the car will be drawn at
In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self-control. I will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will.
What if every decision you thought you were making, was hypothetically predictable prior to you being consciously aware of which option you would choose? What if your control over your actions and decisions and thus the path your life will take is an illusion? What if free will is an extremely misguided belief humans have? Philosophy, psychology, neuroscience and several other disciplines have spent over two millennia, constructing hypotheses and theories, to then promptly contradict them or trump them with opposing views, with regards to the presence or lack there of, of free will. Hundreds of scientists and theorists have proposed ideas and built upon those to attempt to come up with an understanding of free will that allows for a tangible
On the other hand, most humans understand the fact that everything happens for a reason, every action has a reaction and the world runs on cause and effect. The leaf on the tree falls because the wind blow.This “philosophical position” [1] is called Determinism.
The debate between free will and determinism is something that will always be relevant, for people will never fully admit that we have no free will. But, while we may feel that we control what we do in life, we simply do not. The argument for free will is that individuals have full control and responsibility over their actions, and what they become in life as a whole (The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson, page 16). Determinism, on the other hand, is saying that we have no control over our actions and that everything we do in life is determined by things beyond our control (Strawson, page 7). After analysis of The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson and Freedom and Necessity by A. J. Ayer,
fate or determinism and say this was all planned out from the beginning of time knowing some things in nature happen randomly--
In the study of philosophy, Free will is defined as “The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. Many people wonder if they truly have free will to make their own choices, or is everything pre-determined for them in order to carry out their lifestyle. I’m sure we all wonder if our choices are correct or incorrect or if we are able to take control of our lives. Philosophers Hume and Holbach have concepts that seek to prove whether or not free will actually does exist and they both use their philosophical beliefs based on determinism in order to properly explore their concepts of free will. This paper will actively seek to explain both concepts and will expose what problems may arise from their philosophical theories of free will in relation
People believe that genuine freedom of choice is not always possible because our decisions and actions are determined by factors beyond our control. This view is known as Determinism. There is also an extreme form of determinism known as ‘hard determinism,’ in which they believe that every demeanor can be traced to a cause, although they may disagree about what those causes are. The idea of determinism poses a difficult issue to the concept of ‘free will’. Are we able to make free choices if all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by our own past and the physical laws of nature? Majority of us would like to believe that we have the freedom of will and are able to make decisions based on our own discretion but, I personally believe that the deterministic view holds true to a certain extent and that most of our actions are a result of a force that is beyond our comprehension. My purpose in this essay is to explain and critically analyze Baron d’Holbach’s view on determinism.
Over the years, both philosophers and average people alike have contemplated the concept of free will. Usually, people would not contemplate free will. The common man usually just makes choices and does not wonder if this choice is truly a free one. Like many principles, the question of free will is not answered in consensus. This leads to the question “what are humans able to do?” Van Iwagen discusses free will in his essay The Powers of Rational Beings. He states that free will and determinism brings about a mystery.
The arguments presented by D’Holbach and Hobart contain many of the same premises and opinions regarding the human mind, but nonetheless differ in their conclusion on whether we have free will. In this paper, I will explain how their individual interpretations of the meaning of free will resulted in having contrary arguments.
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to
The first matter to be noted is that this view is in no way in contradiction to science. Free will is a natural phenomenon, something that emerged in nature with the emergence of human beings, with their
To establish determinism, we can admit by denoting that some events in our lives happen because of prior reasons without yet losing our sense of freedom. It is actually evident that the events and actions that an individual undertakes action have different effects upon him even though they may be past or present events. Though we might not be sure whether our past event result to our present status in life, it is pertinent to note that freedom in decision making is an open forum for each individual and impacts on later activities. We can admit that some events, for example, a next domino fall, are bound to happen because of a prior event. It is possible that if we have no power to act other than us, in fact, to act, then we have no free will. This argument for hard determinism is persuasive. It is certainly valid, and none of the premises appears to be clearly false. Although we have discovered a plausible argument in defense of hard determinism, most people find this argument to be impossible to accept. In our lives, we hold each other in account of our deeds that we had made wrong choices.
Now, the argument for freewill states that nothing is determined and everything happens based off our own random actions and nothing is linked. Determinism takes a different route and believes every action is pre-determined and nothing is random because it has already been put in place to happen.
I proposed that perhaps it does not hold so strictly that under given circumstances we could only carry out but one action. Maybe our genetics and environment only bind us to a certain number of possibilities of actions that we can carry out. For example, our parents raise us in a certain environment and therefore we are exposed to a population of people from which we can choose our friends. From these friends, we would be exposed to, say, a certain style of music. Therefore, if we were to walk into a music shop, knowing our taste and circle of friends, one can predict what CD we would buy. It would not be probable, for example, for someone raised in the city and exposed to rap to stroll into a store and pick up the latest polka hits. His choices, subconsciously, would be limited only to a certain number of records and therefore, the action of choosing is also limited.
Though there seems to be a lot of evidence in favor of determinism, there is one field that remains an anomaly in science. Almost every area of science is based on cause and effect, order, and a structured protocol of operation, but the Quantum Mechanics is different. All matter is made up of atoms, and all atoms are made up of electrons, neutrons, and protons. These in turn are made up of quarks. The movement of quarks, and the emission of photons as electrons skip shells seem to be totally random. If this is true, then what are the implications on the free will/determinism debate? It may seem like an obscure point, but if you look at the definition of determinism, it says that all things are caused, and if there is one single uncaused event, then determinism must be false. So if you find one random event, then determinism is nothing more than a myth, but, in light of this