Free will an absurdity
- This topic has 199 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi. This is not to resume the argument, just to ask something.So, in the 1970s, you accepted the argument in The Western Socialist, but today that is old hat. Is that correct? Thanks.
John Oswald wrote:Hi. This is not to resume the argument, just to ask something.So, in the 1970s, you accepted the argument in The Western Socialist, but today that is old hat. Is that correct? Thanks.I think the problem with your question is that you haven't defined who you mean by "you". Is the you the SPGB or particular members of this forum?
I know what the Party will say: that it doesn't matter. Members can be for or against.This is at odds, though, with the conclusion to the WS article.As for me, I ask that the forum recognise the prestige of the WS in WSM history. That is all.
We are not absolutely self causing, but we are not absolutely caused either. Social science does not require the rejection of agency (which is what free-will is). "Economic determinism" and "technological determinism" are over simplifications and don't do justice to the work of Marx. None of this is a particularly new idea…
I'm not getting back into this.We are caused, and we also cause.Just take away the adjective "free" before will, and I accept it.I do not deny our will/agency.
The workers make socialism when motivated to; the revolution is thus an effect from a cause/multitude of causes; the revolution in turn gives rise to effects, one of which will be humankind putting aside self-deification nonsenses and realising its place as part of the universe!
Honestly, I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the freedom of the human will. I have a feeling, for instance, that I will something or other; but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand at all. I feel that I will to light my pipe and I do it; but how can I connect this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing? Schopenhauer once said: Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will (Man can do what he will but he cannot will what he wills).Albert Einstein
Hi JohnI tend to lean towards your position.In my everyday life, I feel as if I have “free will” – I feel I can at any point make choices. I chose to make this contribution on the forum today – I could equally have chosen not to. “Seemingly”, I am free.I come to this discussion from an interest in biology, rather than philosophy. I agree with you that humans are very definitely part of nature, of the animal kingdom – and setting us apart, or “raising us above” can take us over to an idealist position. It reminds me of an old religious education teacher of mine who, although he accepted evolution, thought that at some point along the line, God intervened and set us apart – made us “special”.My interpretation of the SPGB position is the following – I’m not saying, by the way, that all members think alike on this question. I think some members of the SPGB are uneasy about “free will” for the same reason they are uneasy about “nature” having a role to play in our behaviour – they believe genes build the structure of the brain, but do not influence behaviour. Behaviour, they would like to think, is totally “conditioned” by the environment (or near as damn it). Although, to my mind, it’s hard to determine whether the “environment” is not really and truly also a genetic effect, being the product of the interests of other people’s or other animals’ and microbes’ genes. That is, the “environment” and genetic effects are so tightly intertwined it is hard to prize them apart. Anyway: in its case for socialism, the SPGB think it is easier to deal with totally “plastic” and “free” (free from their biology, that is) individuals, who can be “moulded” by the environment, by an educational programme, say, or by their parents or friends, to see “the error of their ways” and transform into individuals ready to live in a socialist society. For this, “free will” and the primacy of “nurture” are both key – otherwise, what would we be – just lumbering automatons, doomed to live forever in the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism. (I don’t know if that conclusion necessarily follows.)Something that has made me think recently is all the research that’s being carried out on the human microbiota, the microbes that live in us and on us.These are particularly numerous in our guts, but live all over our bodies. We live in symbiosis with them. We are totally dependent on them, as they are on us. The number of their genes outnumber our own (humans have somewhere over 20,000+ genes, the human microbiota – I have seen various estimates, suffice it to say there is a vast number). The talk is very much about the so-called “gut-brain” axis: the microbes in our guts, through their secretions and the vagus nerve, communicate with our brains and affect our behaviour. Alanna Collen puts it like this in her book, “10% human”: “If the nature-over-nurture idea that your personality is not your own hard-earned creation but a product of your genes makes you feel uneasy; how about the concept of a personality composed by the bacteria living in your gut?”This is exactly what researchers are finding: the secretions of our microbes are able to influence our personality.This had already been noted with at least two unwelcome invaders; Toxoplasma gondii (picked up from cats) and Tropheryma whipplei (causing Whipple’s disease).So, what is recent science telling us? According to a recent paper, “Collective unconscious: How gut microbes shape human behaviour”:“•Gut microbes are part of the unconscious system influencing behavior.•Microbes majorly impact on cognitive function and fundamental behavior patterns.•Disorganisation of the gut microbiota can negatively impact on mental health.•Psychobiotics are probiotics with a potential mental health benefit. AbstractThe human gut harbors a dynamic and complex microbial ecosystem, consisting of approximately 1 kg of bacteria in the average adult, approximately the weight of the human brain. The evolutionary formation of a complex gut microbiota in mammals has played an important role in enabling brain development and perhaps sophisticated social interaction. Genes within the human gut microbiota, termed the microbiome, significantly outnumber human genes in the body, and are capable of producing a myriad of neuroactive compounds. Gut microbes are part of the unconscious system regulating behavior. Recent investigations indicate that these microbes majorly impact on cognitive function and fundamental behavior patterns, such as social interaction and stress management. In the absence of microbes, underlying neurochemistry is profoundly altered. Studies of gut microbes may play an important role in advancing understanding of disorders of cognitive functioning and social interaction, such as autism.”http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395615000655So where does this leave us? I still feel as if I have free will, but maybe I have not. Is it all bad news for the prospect of a socialist society? I don’t know. I hope not. Meel
Thank you for your interesting message.Of course, nurture is not in contradiction to necessarianism. One's will is still motivated. A motivated will is itself a cause in its turn and gives rise to new effects.This is why, recognising this, socialists try to motivate others' wills toward socialism. My sole argument with my critics here is about the adjective "free". Free will implies the will is its own first cause: that we will how to will. The word "will" suffices. I am happy to say "He did it willingly" or "…of her own volition."The use of "free will" as a popular term encourages laziness in thought, and, when materialists use it , they break with the materialist philosophers who, although limited, were still the foundation on which historical materialism was built.Yes, the term also is linked to speciesism and human arrogance.However, necessarianism does not mean bad news for socialism. Far from it, free will would! The latter would mean people cannot be persuaded of anything. It would also make a fallacy of the whole concept of social evolution. It is free will, not necessarianism, which is anti-socialist!I am well aware that "scientific" apologists for capitalism, from Huxley to today, whether distorters of darwinism or gene theorists, tell us capitalism is here forever because of nature or genetics. These are distorters, too, of necessarianism. I hold no truck with them. The fact is, societies change; nothing is static, all is in flux; cause produces effect. The only eternal law is precisely revolution!And because effect follows cause, creating a new effect and so on, so humans will continue to change and society to change. So I firmly reject those bourgeois apologists.It should be the very realisation that the will is swayed and not free that makes socialists, or anyone for that matter, campaign. What would be the point of campaigning, speaking, publishing etc., if the will were immune to motive?Free will is a hangover from Christianity, which views "Man" above nature and other living beings, outside of nature, superior to nature, etc. Yes, humans are animals who change their natural environment. It is what our species of ape do. Bacteria change their environment too. They can wipe us out.We have abilities which to us are important. Other animals have abilities which to them are important. This is why Darwin preferred the term "adaptation" to "evolution" – a term he foresaw would be open to misuse. But much of this would be better on the "animalism" thread.The point is, "free will" is yet another way of holding on to the cherished prejudice of human sovereignty that Darwin demolished.Individuality is also the cherished illusion behind this clinging to free will. To our own eyes we are individuals. But we are each one of us walking societies of cellular individuals, all bound by the chain of causation.But let's not give forum members nightmares!
Hi Meel I think the problem of free will really boils down to a question of interpretation. Proponents of free will are NOT saying that our will is uncaused – apart from a few who subscribe to the theory of indeterminism. This is where the confusion arises. Opponents of free will seem to think this is what the proponents in general are saying but it is not the case. The case for free will does not depend on the idea of free will being free in some absolutist sense. Really, what lies befind the controversy over free will is the theory of causation. The classical precept of mechanical philosophy was articulated by the philosopher David Hume – namely that causes always precede effects. Causation is thus unidirectional in this view of the universe. You strike one bar billard ball with a cue and the ball collides with another which then collides with another causing the last to sink into the pocket at the far end of the table. It is purely mechanical and in theory entirely predictable Free will is also said to be entirely predictable in theory according the opponents of this idea and so is not really free will at all. Becuase causation according to mechanical philosopy is unidirectional any explanations for the decisions that we make as human agents are essentially physicalist explanations. This is becuase the physical world preceded human consciosuness in the same way that causes precede effects. The different levels of reality are built up, layer upon layer, such that each layer culimating in human conciousnesss can be completely satisfactorily or adequately explained by those layers beneath it. Note that what follows from this is that there can be no such thing as "downward causation". In other words, effects cannot exert an influence on what caused them. Effects can only be the medium through which more fundamental causes exert their influence on still higher levels of reality. So sociological explanations can be entirely reduced to phsychological explanations, psychological explanations to biological, biological to chemical, chemical to physical and so on. Ultimately what this means is that the reason why I mugged the old lady crossing the street for her purse can be entirely or satisfactorily put down to the behaviour of certain sub atomic particles of which my body is composed. It really had nothing to do with my upbringing or capitalism. This is the reductio ad absurdum that ultimately vindicates the concept of free will. It posits human consciousness as an emergent property that supervenes – is dependent on – the physical brain but is not reducible to the human brain in that mechanical sense. You cannot trace particular mental states to particular brain states, for example – the argument for "wild disjunction" as it is called – but very clearly you cannot have a mental state without a brain state. You cannot think without a brain. With emrgence theory the whole paradigm of mechanical philosophy and one-way causation breaks down – and therefore the argument against free will. If downward causation exists then so too must free will at least in a relative sense. This is called soft determinism – a view I endorse – as opposed to the hard determinism of mechanical philosophy There is also a third position – namely that of indeterminism which I touched upon. Though I am a soft determinist I also believe some things in the universe do not necessarily have to have a cause. Determinism can happily coexst with indeterminismhttps://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/theory-of-the-acausal/ If you think this is impossible ask yourself the question – what caused matter to come into existence? If everything must have a cause then matter too must have a cause. Logically, you are faced with just two options. Either there was a Final Cause – God – that brought matter into existence or whatever it was that brought matter into existence must itself have been caused and so on ad infinitum by a process of infinite regression. However the argument about infinite regression amounts to an argument in favour of acausailiy. If you reject the idea of a Final Cause then you must logically acept the theoretical possibility of indeterminism. It has to be one or the other. The really interesting philophical question to address I think is how, in that case, does causality coexist with acasuality. I really wouldnt have a clue about how to go about answering that question but it could have profound implications for the whole argument about free will
John Oswald wrote:It should be the very realisation that the will is swayed and not free that makes socialists, or anyone for that matter, campaign. What would be the point of campaigning, speaking, publishing etc., if the will were immune to motive?This is a straw argument. No proponent of free will ever suggested will was immune to motive (with the exception of indeterminists that is). Soft determinists argue that will in only free in a relative sense. You need to address the argument from EMERGENCE THEORY which I presented in the preceding post. Its implications for the kind of mechanical theory of causation you espouse are highly significant, I think. It should be the very realisation that the will is swayed and not free that makes socialists, or anyone for that matter, campaign. What would be the point of campaigning, speaking, publishing etc., if the will were immune to motive? [/quote]
John Oswald wrote:Individuality is also the cherished illusion behind this clinging to free will. To our own eyes we are individuals. But we are each one of us walking societies of cellular individuals, all bound by the chain of causationNo John the very opposite is the case. Mechnical determinism which you espouse is a theory of one way causation. Society is the product of concrete individuals since causes must always precede effects. There can never be downward causation in your view of the world. Society is the product of individuals . Your theory of causation precludes the possibility of society shaping individuals, of two way interaction. This view is fully consistent with the early bourgeois philosophers like Locke and Hobbes who posited the idea of an isolated pre social individual who entered into a soial contract with other such indivduals to form a society for their mutual benefit. It is a complete myth of course.
To say that you have "some" free will is to say that sometimes you will to will.To believe in a free will is to believe in an entity inside of you that is non-material and free of the laws of nature. A soul, in fact.To believe that a single feeling or thought you have is uncaused is to seriously fail to appreciate biological, chemical and organic complexity, replete with invisible causes and effects, which your intellect is not up to fathoming.To seek a beginning of matter is to be an idealist, ("Something must have caused it!") unable to see that if matter is indefinable, to posit anything else is even more indefinable. Infinity/eternity is and always will be beyond human understanding, since we are inside of it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.