Free Will
Science vs Philosophy
Different conceptions of free will: The scientific debate vs the
philosophical debate
The focus of the scientific debate is on agential control:
are our actions caused by our conscious intentions? (e.g.,
the Wegner studies, Libet’s experiment)
The focus of the philosophical debate is on the question of
whether we ‘could have done otherwise’ is determinism is
true.
Scientists sometimes tend to think that the concept of free will
is necessarily dualistic and unscientific:
“Free will is the idea that we make choices and have thoughts
independent of anything remotely resembling a physical
process.
Free will is the close cousin to the idea of the soul —the
concept
that ‘you’, your thoughts, and feelings, derive from an entity
that is
separate and distinct from the physical mechanisms that make
up
your body. From this perspective, your choices are not caused
by
physical events, but instead emerge wholly formed from
somewhere indescribable and outside the purview of physical
description” (Read Montague 2008)
But this is certainly not representative of the philosophical
debate.
The Philosophical Debate
The problem of free will:
- Free will has alternative possibilities. The concept of
having alternative possibilities is intuitive. But do we really
have alternative possibilities?
- What if determinism is true? Determinism is the belief that
every event is necessitated by antecedent events and
conditions together with the laws of nature.
- Determinism vs Free will
, The Laplacian Demon:
“We may regard the present state of the universe as the
effect
of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at
a
certain moment would know all forces that set nature in
motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is
composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit
these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single
formula
the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and
those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing
would
be uncertain and the future just like the past would be
present
before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace (1814), A Philosophical Essay on
Probabilities
There are varying positions within the concept of free will:
i. Compatibilism – Free will is compatible with
determinism.
ii. Incompatibilism - Free will is not compatible with
determinism.
a. Libertarianism – Free will does exist and
determinism is false
b. Hard determinism – Free will does not exist and
determinism is true.
Classic Compatibilism
Classic compatibilism denies that free will and determinism are
incompatible. An analysis of the alternative possibilities
requirement (what is ‘up to us’) includes:
a. The power and ability to do what we want, and
b. The absence of constraints or pathologies (e.g., OCD,
robbery, handicapped etc. are all instances where we do
not have free will)
Free will is seen as having ‘agential control’ where conditions a.
and b. are satisfied. The compatibilist argues there is no
inherent conflict between free will and determinism.
Science vs Philosophy
Different conceptions of free will: The scientific debate vs the
philosophical debate
The focus of the scientific debate is on agential control:
are our actions caused by our conscious intentions? (e.g.,
the Wegner studies, Libet’s experiment)
The focus of the philosophical debate is on the question of
whether we ‘could have done otherwise’ is determinism is
true.
Scientists sometimes tend to think that the concept of free will
is necessarily dualistic and unscientific:
“Free will is the idea that we make choices and have thoughts
independent of anything remotely resembling a physical
process.
Free will is the close cousin to the idea of the soul —the
concept
that ‘you’, your thoughts, and feelings, derive from an entity
that is
separate and distinct from the physical mechanisms that make
up
your body. From this perspective, your choices are not caused
by
physical events, but instead emerge wholly formed from
somewhere indescribable and outside the purview of physical
description” (Read Montague 2008)
But this is certainly not representative of the philosophical
debate.
The Philosophical Debate
The problem of free will:
- Free will has alternative possibilities. The concept of
having alternative possibilities is intuitive. But do we really
have alternative possibilities?
- What if determinism is true? Determinism is the belief that
every event is necessitated by antecedent events and
conditions together with the laws of nature.
- Determinism vs Free will
, The Laplacian Demon:
“We may regard the present state of the universe as the
effect
of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at
a
certain moment would know all forces that set nature in
motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is
composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit
these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single
formula
the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and
those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing
would
be uncertain and the future just like the past would be
present
before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace (1814), A Philosophical Essay on
Probabilities
There are varying positions within the concept of free will:
i. Compatibilism – Free will is compatible with
determinism.
ii. Incompatibilism - Free will is not compatible with
determinism.
a. Libertarianism – Free will does exist and
determinism is false
b. Hard determinism – Free will does not exist and
determinism is true.
Classic Compatibilism
Classic compatibilism denies that free will and determinism are
incompatible. An analysis of the alternative possibilities
requirement (what is ‘up to us’) includes:
a. The power and ability to do what we want, and
b. The absence of constraints or pathologies (e.g., OCD,
robbery, handicapped etc. are all instances where we do
not have free will)
Free will is seen as having ‘agential control’ where conditions a.
and b. are satisfied. The compatibilist argues there is no
inherent conflict between free will and determinism.
