Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New book: Anti-free-will arguments, carefully considered, simply don’t work

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further to “Two of the four horsemen of the new atheist Apocalypse clash over free will”: In the increasingly crowded field of books arguing for or against free will, Cal State U’s Mark Balaguer’s new entry, Free Will, is a heads-up:

Balaguer discusses determinism, the view that every physical event is predetermined, or completely caused by prior events. He describes several philosophical and scientific arguments against free will, including one based on Benjamin Libet’s famous neuroscientific experiments, which allegedly show that our conscious decisions are caused by neural events that occur before we choose. He considers various religious and philosophical views, including the philosophical pro-free-will view known as compatibilism. Balaguer concludes that the anti-free-will arguments put forward by philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists simply don’t work. They don’t provide any good reason to doubt the existence of free will. But, he cautions, this doesn’t necessarily mean that we have free will. The question of whether we have free will remains an open one; we simply don’t know enough about the brain to answer it definitively.

MarkHe describes his interests as “metaphysics, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of language, philosophy of logic, free will, and metaethics.” He is also the author of Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem (2012). Trust us, if you think free will is an “open scientific problem,” you are not friends with new atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris. And if you think it is anything other than a chance to parade your knowledge of bonobo parenting, you are probably not friends with these people. You might be friends with these people though. The company we keep makes a difference.

See also: “I will” means something after all

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
A columnist wrote, "In the twentieth century moral sanctions began to give way to scientific explanations. ‘Science’ confirmed the laws of survival of the fittest, biological selection, historic relativism, psychological determinism. Religion became superstition and morals wholly relative. If we go on thinking that way, democracy is on the rocks.”—Los Angeles News, March 29, 1941. Evolutionist John Gray tells us that we can no more be "masters of our destiny" than any other animal. However, contra Gray, author Shmuley Boteach expresses quite the opposite view in his book An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Judaism: “Man is not an animal, and is therefore always in control of his own destiny.” What Gray and others often fail to consider is that in many cases, a human's future is controlled by other humans. The writer Corliss Lamont asks: “How can we attribute ethical responsibility to men, and punish them for wrongdoing, if we accept . . . that their choices and actions are predetermined?” Instinct-driven animals are not held morally responsible for what they do, nor are computers deemed accountable for the functions they are programmed to perform. This is really the heart of the no-free-will argument, as far as I am concerned. It frees evolutionists from pesky moral and ethical choices that might paint them in a bad light. Lie to your boss? Nature made me do it! Cheat on your spouse? Nature made me do it! According to writer Roy Weatherford, “the majority of the people in the world—and especially the majority of women in history—have . . . no power or control over their own lives for straightforward reasons of human oppression and exploitation.” (The Implications of Determinism) Many have seen their dreams of a happy future wrecked by competing political or military powers, neither of which are controlled by blind physical forces.Barb
February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
Anti-free will books are so pointless. Even if the author is correct, and his readers believe him, they still have to live their lives as if they believe in free will. They still have decisions to make, starting with whether to get out of bed in the morning right up through whether to get back in bed at night. Even if the author is correct that the choice is pre-determined, the person still has to go through the process of making the choice as if they do have free will. And, furthermore, if the author of the book says anything more than "free will is an illusion", he is self-contradicting his book. He can't ask his reader to change their mind or actions - after all, what they are going to do is already determined, so it would be pointless, right? If he asks them to do/think differently, he is again asking them to act as if they believe in free will. From a pragmatic standpoint, it's hard to believe authors of books claiming the non-existence of free will don't choke to death on the irony while writing them. It's like freshman-level Psychology class lectures where the prof tries to convince new students that every action is done out of self-interest. Any "explanation" that allows for every possible outcome explains none of them, and has no practical value. If I have free will, I choose to believe arguments against my free will are ridiculous and stupid. If I do not have free will, matter and energy and the laws of physics compel me to a pre-determined outcome of believing that arguments against my free will are ridiculous and stupid.drc466
February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
BA77, Not only do I not understand evolution, but apparently I had no choice but to not understand it! (rim shot) I'll be here all week; try the veal. But seriously - do these guys not see that by removing free will all actual "meaning" disappears? What does anything actually "mean" if we have no choice but to blindly act and think according to purely deterministic forces? The end result of materialist determinism as the full explanation for all things is nihilism. No choice, no meaning, just nothing.reductio
February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
reductio, "you just don't understand evolution" :)bornagain77
February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
So if I disagree with Sam Harris and insist that I do in fact have free will, according to Sam it is because I had no choice but to disagree? About not having choice? I see.reductio
February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Michael W Smith - "You Won't Let Go" - video Lyric: "Not a shadow comes without the light making a way" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNZusL1OHG4bornagain77
February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
a few notes:
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
as to empirical evidence for a 'perspective outside the physical order'
What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? - By Antoine Suarez - July 22, 2013 Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices. To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time.,,, https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will How Free Will Works (In Quantum Mechanics) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMp30Q8OGOE
in the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is directly falsified by the fact that present conscious choices are effecting past material states:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html "If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded." Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000).
You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained - 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4
In other words, if my conscious choices really are merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) then how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past? These experiments from quantum mechanics are simply impossible on a reductive materialism (determinism) view of reality!
Deuteronomy 30:19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live
bornagain77
February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply