I've been listening to Sam Harris' FREE WILL on my iPod. One line of argument is a standard constructive dilemma similar to Strawson's basic argument. If determinism is true, we don't have free will; indeterminism can't help, for that is just randomness. Therefore, we don't have free will.
But there is also a second line of argument, based on personal identity or our lack of it. I've only listened to it a few times, so I'm not sure I have the structure down yet. But it goes something like this:
1/ Deep moral responsibility requires a conscious self that is responsible.
2/ Nothing can play that role.
Subargument: Neuroscience shows us that there are causal influences to our behavior of which we are unaware. If we decide to include that as part of the self, then were do we stop? Why not include involuntary behavior, as well?
3/ Therefore, there is no deep moral responsibility.
Anyone know of any work on this kind of argument? Also, it seems similar to Eddy's stuff on bypassing worries as well as a much older argument by John Hospers from "Meaning and Free Will" and other works. Any thoughts about this?
Perhaps a third line of argument could be considered...
Determinism is true, while predeterminism and indeterminism are both false – but that doesn’t mean we don’t have free will. “Living forces” are an emergent property of all living systems, and those forces add into the net sum thereby helping to *determine* the path of reality. Living forces are *caused* by other forces but not determined by those other forces because living forces emerge in different force fields, and forces in different fields don’t add directly with one another. Scientists have never proven that forces A1 and A2 located in field A add together and *determine* how force B1 emerges in field B. Electro-chemical forces in your brain may cause your thoughts to emerge, but those electro-chemical forces don’t determine the forces exerted *by* your thoughts – they don’t determine how your thoughts interact.
Living forces are the essence of “life”, and that’s where our free will comes from.
Okay – enough babbling from me this morning… Cheers
Posted by: James Laird | 08/03/2012 at 02:20 PM
Lots of people have advanced arguments along these lines. Matt King and Peter Carruthers argue in a recent paper that we should annex all mental events to the morally responsible self, because conscious states never cause actions. Scanlon - for very different reasons - has suggested that we ought to give up trying to identify which of our psychological states belong to the self. Less sweepingly. Angela Smith, Nomy Arpaly and George Sher have argued that some actions with nonconscious causes are morally responsible. All of them in the same ballpark as Harris, but none of them skeptics. I have a bunch of papers on these views, forthcoming in Nous, the AJP and elsewhere (will also be the topic of my next book).
Posted by: Neil Levy | 08/03/2012 at 05:59 PM
Here's a thought regarding responsibility: In theory, determining responsibility is straight forward. Whenever a given system level (i.e., an entity) exerts a force, that system level is responsible for the force.
The reason it’s so hard for humans to determine/assign responsibility, is because of our natural human references: we don’t have the ability to sense which forces are exerted from which system levels. We only perceive of the result of the net sum of forces after it’s already occurred for each moment of time.
Posted by: James Laird | 08/05/2012 at 11:54 AM
James: You make it seem like the free will problem is related to the fact that we can't experience forces, just their effects.
Thanks Neil!
Posted by: Joe Campbell | 08/05/2012 at 09:55 PM
It shouldn't be too surprising that there is an agenda behind this question, the same agenda I've been pushing. Hosper's argument explicitly uses a transfer principle.
Again, the point is not that any true argument for incompatibilism (or free will skepticism) requires a transfer principle. It is more that any can be interpreted that way, and the interpretation is revealing.
Posted by: Joe Campbell | 08/05/2012 at 10:02 PM
Neil,
Your statement summarizes the truth beautifully – “the free will problem is related to the fact that we can't experience forces, just their effects”. That’s *the* fundamental road block for mankind realizing that he has free will. Humans can experience the *result* of the net sum of forces after it’s already occurred for each moment of time, but we cannot sense which system level exerted which component force. In other words, if a given system level (i.e., an entity) exerts new emergent forces (i.e., living forces) and those forces add into the net sum in real time, humans cannot sense what system level exerted those forces because we only sense the result of the net sum after its already occurred for each moment of time. It’s a human reference problem, and it’s caused us to *naturally* form false conclusions (i.e., take the wrong path). Science believes there are only four fundamental forces of physics that predetermine the path of reality, when the truth is; living forces are an emergent property of all living systems and those forces add into the net sum and are part of what *determines* the path forward. I’m thinking we’re on the verge of discovering something totally new – a fork in the road.
Posted by: James Laird | 08/06/2012 at 12:03 AM
Neil, please allow me to expand on my last comment. The reason I’ve stated that it’s the fundamental roadblock that’s preventing mankind from realizing we have free will, is because it’s the primary reason why scientists have developed the theory of predeterminism wherein everything is solely controlled by the four fundamental forces of physics in a bottom-up manner. While learning how reality works, scientists have taken things apart and studied them. During that process, they’ve missed out on perceiving of forces that were exerted at the system level that they just took apart, and instead, scientists simply observe that all of the activity in the lower-level subsystems appears to abide by the laws of physics. They believe that it’s irrelevant that the system level they just took apart isn’t living anymore. And when studying living systems without taking them apart, scientists still chalk up all of the observable “life” to the four fundamental forces of physics playing out.
The theory of predeterminism currently has a firm grip on science, and since mankind can’t sense forces exerted by other system levels, the theory lives on and on and on… There is little incentive to change. And because mankind has accepted the predeterministic views of science as truth, we’re faced with all kinds of puzzles that don’t make sense. (e.g., How does the neural wiring in our physical brains change while we’re learning, if our thoughts don’t exert forces? If our thoughts don’t exert forces that cause our neural wiring to change, then what is the source of human intelligence? Does human intelligence come directly from the four fundamental forces of physics? If our thoughts don’t exert forces, then how can mental causation be true?).
Since we can’t perceive of living forces at other system levels, we need to develop *arguments* to prove that living forces exist. I’ve written a website named tmsolf.org that is my best effort to begin building those arguments, and I welcome constructive criticism from all.
When mankind finally realizes that living forces exist, perhaps many puzzle pieces will suddenly fit together thereby allowing us to see a bigger picture, and we’ll realize that the forces exerted by our thoughts aren’t determined solely by the four fundamental forces of physics – our thoughts are alive and that’s why we have free will.
Posted by: James Laird | 08/06/2012 at 03:41 PM