I disagree with the argument as it is presented here by Massimo Pigliucci. He states:
"
We live in a universe that works according to the laws of physics, and more broadly is governed by a web of cause and effect. If by “free” we mean that human beings somehow have the ability to transcend such laws then science tells us that we have no free will."
(Just to put us on the same page, the terms “free will” are clumsy and obfuscating. But we can keep to them for historic reasons. The real question here, though, is about freedom, not about will.)
While I do not believe claims that we can transcend the “web of cause and effect”, I also do not believe that the “web of cause and effect” proves that we do not have free will. So I find the opening premise as he states it to be problematic. I think this issue is from him and others conflating "cause and effect" with “determined.” They are not synonymous. Just because there are causes does not mean that caused events are determined, in the sense of being immalleable consequences beyond the influence of human freedom. In many of our observations it appears that many events are caused by free choices.
I think this conflation arises from the multiple definitions of the word determined. For instance, if I am hoping to ski down a hill, facilitating that choice is determined by whether or not I have skis. But having skis does not determine whether or not I will choose to ski. So although causes can determine what we might choose, our choices are not determined, in the sense of being not freely chosen. In other words, although the laws of physics determine what we do, the laws of physics do not suggest that what we do is determined, to use two meanings of “determine” in one sentence.
This confusion is repeatedly shared within the claims that determinism is consistent with the laws of physics, while free will must suffer gymnastics of compatibilism in order to be possible with or without magical justifications. Simply put, my argument against that is that “determinism" is what is not consistent with the laws of physics or with the web of cause and effect. Meanwhile, free will is consistent with the laws of physics. Of course, if this claim of mine is true, we must then redefine the philosophical use of the term compatibilism, or just abandon it.
Free will is compatible with reality, so it is compatible with the laws of physics. Determinism is not compatible with the laws of physics, though it is conventionally assumed that such a claim is an unreasonable premise. But the laws of physics make no claim about a necessary single path of future events; they only claim that future events must have causes consistent with the laws of physics. Pigliucci claims that we must reconcile free will with the facts of science, yet the facts provided are not actually supported by science.
Pigliucci concludes; "Again, you — and your decision-making brain apparatus — are part and parcel of the web of cause-effect, not something external to it and to which things just happen. If you get up and go to the doctor then you will get better. If you don’t, you won’t. You can’t use determinism as an excuse for inaction.” This argument, which is also put forward by Sam Harris, claims that we must voluntarily agree to make an involuntary predetermined choice for determinism to be true. But refusing to do that is not "using determinism as an excuse for inaction", it’s using free will as proof that determinism is without merit.
I wholly welcome comments on either side of this.
Please stay safe,
Peter
Peter Lloyd Jones
562-209-4080
Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
Hi TOK Folks,
Since the free will v. determinism debate seems to stir up interest, deciding to share this😊…
Best,
Gregg
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1