Are we free? We clearly feel that we are free to make our own decisions. We feel that all our decisions, actions and beliefs are the ones we have chosen completely. I ate watermelon because I wanted to. The idea that human beings are completely free to make their own decisions is called libertarian free will. And many of us agree.
On the other hand, we know that there is a cause behind every effect. Every event is the result of its past events. The effect of each can be deduced precisely from the equations of physics, and nothing else could have happened. This view is called hard determinism and many of us agree with it.
The only problem is that you can't agree on both at the same time.
.. .. .. .. .. ...
Libertarians define free action as the "principle of alternative". This means that an action can only be called free if the perpetrator could have done something else instead. That is, the process can be free when there is an alternative choice. On the other hand, the alternative option is not allowed in Determinism. Accordingly, the cause of each event is the previous event. What an agent did, he could do no more. That is why he is not free. So we look at both of them more closely. And for that, a look at my watermelon that I ate a while ago ...
.. .. .. .. .. ...
Libertarians will say that my watermelon eating is not necessarily related to previous events. It could also be the result of a non-physical event. Especially my thinking that started at that point. I ate watermelon because I decided to eat watermelon. The story is over.
But as far as we know the physical world, the Libertarian perspective is not compatible with it. We know that one event leads to the next. That is why libertarians need to explain what their point of view is. One way to do this is to separate the two. One event causation and the other agent causation.
Event causation means that no physical event can take place without a physical event prior to it. For this reason, libertarians recognize that the physical world is deterministic in itself. For example, if the ball is hit with a bat, in which direction and at what speed it will go. But libertarians will argue that agent causation is different. The agent has to do with the mind. And it can start a chain of causality. The player who hit the ball with the bat did so because it was his decision. According to this logic, agents have the ability to influence the causal chain of events in the universe. And do something for yourself.
Many philosophers do not consider this idea defensible.
Their question is, where do these "independent decisions" that start the new Kazal chain come from? Are they random? And why would one agent choose one decision and not another? And if you can answer these questions, that is, explain what the agent's motive was for doing so, then it will reinforce the view that actions are not free but of some cause.
Libertarian Free Will is difficult to defend. And the best argument in support of this seems to be that since we clearly feel we are free, we should not ignore this personal and subjective feeling of ours.
If we feel so free, we should seriously consider the possibility that we will really be free.
But we can say that this is an unsatisfactory argument.
Now we move on to the second camp. Does Hard Determinism Have Better Arguments?
Dolback had said that everything is connected in a chain of cause and effect. The reason for our every action is the same as the reason for hitting the six is to hit the batsman hard. Or the cause of the storm is that the hot air current is in a condition suitable for the cold air system. In the same way, man and his actions are part of the physical world according to the physical laws.
This belief is explained from the point of view of reductionism. We feel that we have the capacity to make independent decisions. You think that when what is happening in your head is not like a ball and a bat. But the state of mind is a state of mind or at least they are related. And the state of the brain is a biological state and the biological state is a physical state. And we've already said that the physical world is deterministic. In that case, there is no free will or option left. We think we are free but we are not.
Libertarians are right that this sense of freedom is extremely difficult to ignore. But this feeling is a deception in itself. After all, we are part of this world, so we cannot be separated from it. So if the physical world is deterministic, so are our actions. There is no room for freedom.
One of the basic assumptions of science is physicalism. (That is, there are only physical objects in the universe). And if this assumption is really correct, (that is, it is the correct explanation of the nature of reality), then there is absolutely no room for your or my or anyone else's will. We are all compelled to dance on invisible strings like puppets and watch as many cosmic games as possible.
...
Why when I ate watermelon? There are many causes of our actions that are not clearly visible. Belief, desire, temperament, together lead to action. I believe watermelon is a good fruit. I wanted to eat something sweet. I like cool juicy stuff. And the result was eating my watermelon.
You might say that it could have made many other choices. Summer or peaches or grapes could also be eaten. But there were many other factors that prevented this from happening. This was not the grape season. Summer was not at home. Maybe I didn't even look at the peaches.
This is to show that if you change a factor, the result is completely different. Belief, temperament, desire ... Or any factor.
Hard Determination says that if you can't pinpoint the exact factor that led to the action, it doesn't mean that it could not be removed in principle. If we knew more about the substances that move in the brain, they could be separated.
According to this view, what we call "judgment" is not a free but a necessary consequence. Feeling free is a mirage.
...
And what if I asked someone to eat watermelon? Or would I have decided by tossing a coin? If the coin had been tossed, wouldn't this decision have been bound by my desire, belief and temperament?
no. My idea of asking someone and tossing a coin is not as free as anything else.
...
And if you are angry at the fact that I am telling you that you do not have a free choice, then your anger was pre-determined. And if you find all this talk nonsense? It was also fixed. And looking boring? Even so, it was fixed. And you could have stopped reading it, but you didn't. Why? Yes, this too.
Determiners believe that you have no choice but to change this reaction.
You think you make a choice based on your character, but that choice is itself the result of a number of factors that you did not choose.
...
However, hard deterrence has its own set of problems. Our status is no more than a part of a large machine of which we are a part. If this is indeed the case then we have to admit it. However, this does mean that the whole concept of personal responsibility disappears.
That which is destined is to be. I just had to eat watermelon. and U? You just had to read this article. Couldn't stop it.
.. .. .. .. .. ...
Where Libertarian Free Will is an idea that cannot be defended. There, hard deterrence is an idea that cannot build life or society.
.. .. .. .. .. ...
If you find both Hard Determinism and Libertarian Free Will unsatisfactory, then another option is compatiblism.
According to him, all the physical processes in the world are deterministic. And human beings are also part of the world, but some human actions are controlled to some extent by human beings. "Are we free?" One wrong question. The real question is how much control we had over what process. As much as we have control, we also have a responsibility to do so.
If you have sneezes, it is not your responsibility. You had no choice here. But if you sneeze into my watermelon plate, it's your responsibility. It was your choice. (And you will suffer the consequences).
0 Comments