Got a couple of hours to kill here at the Las Vegas airport, so here is a thought: how can anyone who doesn’t believe in free will live a normal life?
I am not talking about all the details on epistemology, quantum mechanics or whether society and genetics control part of our actions… I am simply saying: how can anyone wake up in the morning if he doesn’t believe that he has the power to control at least in some part his own life?
It also surprises me that most people who believe in some form of determinism are lefties. Is this because they think it is morally easier to justify human failures on X than on each person? Or is it because that gives them a free pass to justify all types of great society programs where the successful carry the rest on their backs?
I also wonder how these people can be so against religion (if there is a God controlling my life it wouldn’t be my own!) and at the same time accept that X controls their life and not care at all about it.
Crazy stuff. Well, time to catch my plane. Or should I say time to choose to catch my plane? 🙂
“How can anyone wake up in the morning if he doesn’t believe that he has the power to control at least in some part his own life?”
They have to.
No they don’t…
Yes, they have to: this is what not having “free will” means! Why wouldn’t they wake up in the morning? Should they commit suicide or starve themselves (no waking up in the morning= no job)? Like most people, they want to live (self-preservation instinct: even the jewish prisoners of those nasty Nazi Concentration Camps wanted to avoid execution, regardless of how mistreated they were being). Should they starve their families (no job= children starving)? Most people love their families (“maternal instinct”, anyone?). If one doesn’t have “free will” and is aware of the fact, lying helpless on the good old bed all day long will make the situation much better, right? Summing up: they wake up in the morning because they have to (so does you, you’re just unware of the fact).
Most people love the same things (life over death, well-being over suffering, health over illness, sex over celibacy, love over solitude, meaning over lack of meaning), this is the proof that they are not choosing. Their human nature is doing all the choosing, making all the choices all the time.
The fact that some people do choose death, suffereing, celibacy, etc, shows how silly your point is. Of course we have instincts and some of our behavior is influenced by genes, society or whatever. But the fact that the majority of people value the same things doesn’t show lack of choice.
By the way, what part of human nature made you choose to respond to me? Your instinct to prove that you have no will? How about this answer to your comment? I could have just as easily not responded at all… do you really think genes are made in such a way that you could *only* choose to respond?
If I had closed the browser and not answered you, you would never know. That is why you *think* we only have one option, because we always end up choosing one thing. That doesn’t mean you didn’t choose to do so.
“If I had closed the browser and not answered you, you would never know.”
Come on. You are merely playing with words. The fact that I cannot predict your behavior doesn’t prove that you’re free more than my inability to predict the result of a coin-tossing game proves that coins are free. In fact, they are nothing but perfect playthings of natural forces (gravity, human strength) they do not control. Randomness is not freedom. Your wife could have forbidden you to answer me or she could even have detroyed your computer (and, as your proudly remarks, I wouldn’t have known), would it have made you free? Why would it be freedom when your neurochemistry does the trick? My cells may or may not be going to fail me right now, but that doesn’t make them “free”.
“By the way, what part of human nature made you choose to respond to me?”
The human desire of being proved right. What do you think all nagging, preaching and proselyting is all about? Do you really think that illiterate catholic peasants and ignorant protestant peasants have killed one another for the last five centuries because they have strong opinions concerning the nature of Christ’s Blood (transubstantiation VS consubstantiation)? Really?
Hi James,
Kind of absurd to compare humans to objects, don’t you think?
We are able to think, learn, and choose… we are rational beings, like the great Ayn Rand brilliantly explains on The Virtue of Selfishness. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t be so “special” and superior to all other animals.
🙂
Hi Anna,
“Kind of absurd to compare humans to objects, don’t you think?”
I just said that our inability to predict outcomes doesn’t prove that the outcomes were not predeterminated from the start.
“… we are rational beings, like the great Ayn Rand brilliantly explains on The Virtue of Selfishness.”
That explains all those randian purges Objectivism underwent: the followers were too much rational! By the way, was having an affair with a narcissist young married follower the “rational thing” to do? No, it wasn’t. Many rational people (unless you write “rational” as a shorthand for Ayn Rand’s follower) were opposed to Rand. Why? Weren’t they all “rational”? Clearly, it is not Reason (not reason alone, anyway) that controls our behaviour and makes our decisions. We can’t choose our beliefs.
James,
So many points to respond, so little time.
I wasn’t trying to compare random events with choice. Deciding to respond to a question is not random in any way. It follows a rational thought process, which ultimatelly achieves a rational decision. This is not a coin toss just like your choice of words is not random. It is based on all the complex information your system has (which is dependent on genes but also on environment and independent cognition). So here is a news break for you: you are not a coin.
Honestly, this biological determinism you follow is the least valid one in my opinion. Recent research has even proven that things we thought were totally based on genes (like the color of our eyes) are affected by our environment (see this for a short but interesting article on this: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-science-of-genius-a-qa-with-author-david-shenk/)
We also have all the experiements with identical twins and so forth. Like I said at the beginning, I am not saying genes don’t affect your range of options but to think that we are somewhat ‘programmed’ to follow one specific action at all given times without any control over the process is absurd.
And yes, you should read Ayn Rand and all the other philosophers who talked about free will. Honestly, the idea of determinism makes no sense at all. If you apply Occam’s razor principle here you will see that determinism is the most complex and unlikely explanation to something you can experience daily which is choosing your own actions. It is simply a philosophical cop out used to justify human error.
Hi Jamie,
Of course our choices are, at least, partially based on our genes and environment. I pretty much am a mix of my parents’ personalities and looks, making me selfish, independent, hard worker, rational, and very good looking 🙂
The question is, what do I choose to do with these gifts? Well, when my environment wasn’t so good, I wasn’t so good, but I *rationally* thought about that and left that environment. I *chose* to leave, and more importantly, I chose what to do after leaving. Other people choose to stay. So how can you think that we have no choice in life? We are all about choice!
Going back to genes, my brother, who is basically my twin in looks and personality, is happy with the choices he made for his life, and our lives couldn’t be more different! I don’t believe that we just go about our lives without control over ourselves.. even if we don’t control our beliefs, we control what to do with those feelings.
Oh! I almost forgot about Ayn Rand! What a lucky women having the consent of all parties involved to have an affair! That does sound very rational to me.
Take care! And make good choices!
Hi Anna,
“What a lucky women having the consent of all parties involved to have an affair!”
Well, I didn’t say Rand’s affair was immoral, I said it was irrational (the outcome of said affair and the sad effects on the Objectivist movement prove that beyond reasonable doubt). It is very doubtful that Rand and Nathaniel Branden (not to speak of Barbara Branden and Frank O’Connor) would have described the “clash of the titans” that followed their affair as “lucky”. And, as I said, many rational people were (and are) opposed to Rand’s philosophy. Why would it be so if people make their choices by Reason alone? Shouldn’t all rational people agree on such phylosophic issues)?
“I *chose* to leave, and more importantly, I chose what to do after leaving.”
And how did you choose choosing to leave? How did you choose the personal beliefs that made you leave? You can’t choose your beliefs (I can’t believe in God more than I can believe in fairies). Do you really believe that one chooses to believe that eating pork is a sin or that women must submit to men? Do you believe that a sincere communist chooses to believe that the state ownership of the means of production is a panacea?
Anyway, thanks for wish me well. I hope that good choices will be made for (not by) me.
James,
To be honest with you, I don’t know much about Rand’s private life. Idk what happened when they broke up. It is not that interesting to me.
What fascinates me about her words is how it describes my mind and my life. I basically always lived by the same ideas that she writes about. I just wasn’t aware that other people thought the same way. The main difference between me and her is that she had a gift for words, and I don’t. Reading her books is like a brain massage to me. Just wonderful!
I agree that we cannot force ourselves into believing in anything. We can, however, get as much info as possible before forming an opinion. I used to be pro-choice and Christian. Now, I guess I know better and changed my position on both counts. Aren’t those beliefs?
How do you think things work? Who chooses what’s going to happen to all of us? Who/what chose my husband for me? My brand of toothpaste?
Me,
1) It is usuless to apply Occam’s razor principle to such nebulous matters (the gaps in our knowledge of human personality are enormous to say the least). The great Newton himself confessed that he was unconfortable with the idea of planets being able to act instantly upon one another at a distance through space vacuum (a Jacobite FYI could as well have invoked Occam’s services against Newtonian Mechanics).
2) One of the hallmarks of a sound theory is its predicitve power: is the “free will model” better at predicting human behavior than the “there’s not such a thing as free will model”? Not even slightly better, I fear.
3) I am not a biological determinist, I am a determinist, period. The combination of Nature and Nurture is the sole engine of our lives. By the way, how physical characteristics being influenced by environment could be a proof that we can make choices (we don’t choose the effect environment has upon us).
4) Determinism is NOT a way to feign excuses for our shortcomings. Quite the opposite! Determinism is the way to correct social ills by studying human behaviour. Watson and Skinner made a wonderful contribution to our knowledge of human nature and its uses. People can be made happy and productive if we are brave enought to give up the silly superstitions of yore. “Freewillism” is little more than an excuse for wringing hands. You should read “Walden Two”.
5) “It is based on all the complex information your system has (which is dependent on genes but also on environment and independent cognition)”
Cogntion? What about cognition? I can’t control my cogntion. I can’t choose being able of adding (I can add, it’s not a choice). I can’t choose to be right about God, Socialism, Fatherland (intelligent people disagree on these matters).
“To be honest with you, I don’t know much about Rand’s private life. Idk what happened when they broke up. It is not that interesting to me.”
I’d say that Rand’s private life is a fascinating story because the characters are so bright and strong-willed. Since both sides wanted to win hearts and minds among their fellow objectivists, their accounts were very detailed . Anyway, that had nothing to do with racionality.
“We can, however, get as much info as possible before forming an opinion. I used to be pro-choice and Christian.”
Weren’t you free by then? Still, your lack of information (says you) made you being wrong. And even now, you can’t be sure you are right. How well informed are you (or am I, by the way) about Policies, Science, Religion, Business, Economics, Education? How free are we to make decisions? Talking about information, isn’t the Pope knowledgeable about Religion? If you had shared your discoveries with him, would he have deserted Rome? It doesn’t seem to be about information at all.
“Who/what chose my husband for me? My brand of toothpaste?”
You are legally responsible for these choices and many others, this is for sure. However, did you really make choices? If your husband and your toothpaste brand please you, how can you say that it is a choice? Did you choose to be pleased by someone’s manners or by the taste of something? Did you choose to be heterossexual and price conscious? Did you choose to be concerned about your teeth? Marriage is a time-tested institution and an acceptable way of meeting many human needs (needs you did not choose), how can it be a choice? There is not a single force responsible for all our decisions, our decisions are products of a mix of social and biological forces.
James,
“…isn’t the Pope knowledgeable about Religion? If you had shared your discoveries with him, would he have deserted Rome? It doesn’t seem to be about information at all.”
Right! That’s why I agree with you that beliefs are not choices. However, I can be a non-believer and choose to go to church anyway for the benefits of it (friends, activities, etc). That’s where the choices come into play.
“Did you choose to be pleased by someone’s manners or by the taste of something?”
No, but more than one person or toothpaste could be acceptable to be, and I choose what I rationally think is best.
In my own life I can think of situations where I let my body decide for me (when I eat a whole pint of ice cream at once!), and other times when I rationally put away the ice cream (even though I really want to eat it!).
I agree with this:
“There is not a single force responsible for all our decisions, our decisions are products of a mix of social and biological forces.”
Yes, we mix biological and social factors with our ability to think and decide what is best for us. So where do we disagree?
Anna,
“That’s why I agree with you that beliefs are not choices.”
People act on their beliefs and little more. If you believe that church activities are funny and worth your time, you are not free to believe they are boring and not worth your time. If you believed that believers are disgusting, you’d be a lot less “free” to play with them. Not to mention that they also are “free” to not welcome you.
“No, but more than one person or toothpaste could be acceptable to be, and I choose what I rationally think is best.”
Really? Which is the “rationally best” brand of toothpaste? You think that a toothpaste brand is beter than the others for the same reason the pope thinks that his brand of Religion is better than the others.
“In my own life I can think of situations where I let my body decide for me…”
Your brain is part of your body. What you mean by “letting your body decide for you” is that you regret your behaviour. Well, you were as capable of rational thinking when you chose eating the ice cream as you were when chose not eating it.
“So where do we disagree?”
On almost everything, I fear.
ok, then..
James,
Ok, I said at the beginning of the post that I didn’t want to go down into the details of epistemology or any philosophical discussion (basically because one I am not a philoshopher, and two because these arguments go nowhere).so this is my last message to you (how about that for “instinct of being right”!)
It is interesting that now you are simply a “determinist”. I’d think that, like most determinists you would have a strong feeling towards one or other. That is how it usually goes because in the end, social determinism completely refutes biological determinism. If society is what shapes our behavior, and one understands that society is simply the collection of individuals, then social deterministm is simply the acknowledgement of free will. There is no way you can “correct” societies “mistakes” if you don’t believe in free will my friend.
But in any case, if you really believe all that lunacy that Skinner proposed I guess this was a doomed conversation no matter what. Jeez, even Chomsky thought Skinner was nuts!
I just hope you have some rational people around you to help you my friend. Otherwise I can see your life as being a huge mess! (not your fault, of course)