Freewill is not generally believed to be absent in humans, yet there is a persistent nagging that insists that freewill is a “partial” phenomenon, that mentally we are captured and imprisoned, products of our genetics and our culture of birth. Let’s take a look at that theory, and for the reasons behind it.
Partial Freewill: We are free only within our genetic bondage and our inherited, cultural belief system.
Is this falsifiable, or is it a law of mental behavior, unbroken and undeniable in the sense of laws of physics? Are there no instances of humans acting against their own best interests, acting against the genetic directive to reproduce oneself as many times as possible? Is it not possible, even common, to limit reproduction or even never reproduce, out of selfish desire to accommodate ones own fancies? Is every human behavior inevitable?
If we have genetic bondage, it is limited to physical features and capabilities. Few humans can run at 40 mph. Or fly unaided. Or sound to the depths of the ocean for an hour at a time, without technical assistance. Our physical limitations are ameliorated by our mental expansiveness. We can see things no eagle can see; we can move faster than sound; soar into space; dive to the bottom of the sea. We can do this because of our minds’ abilities to move unrestricted, within the space-time, mass-energy continuum that is our environment.
In fact we can move beyond our environment, into zones that we cannot physically explore, but which we can predict, mathematically. We can and do posit overlaying dimensions that are beyond our senses. We can and do hypothesize dark masses and dark energies that are beyond our current ken. We can and do propose time schemes that include negative time, and imaginary time. We can propose imaginary constructs, and then construct them.
Because our minds move outside and beyond our environment, ranging further than our bodies can ever manage to go, there is no cause to declare that our minds are genetically bound. Mentally we are genetically free.
But don’t we believe only that which we are taught to believe? Isn’t that a universal law? We are culturally bound, if not genetically bound? Children born to Muslims become Muslims; Children born to Christians become Christian.
Once again, is this Truth, or is this falsifiable? Are we predestined to become that which our culture makes us? Is this a universal law, in the sense of an incontrovertible law of physics?
Does it take much investigation to learn that some Christians have become Muslims; that some Muslims have become Christians; that some of each have become Atheists; and that some have turned back from Atheism after having examined it fully? There are so many examples of people changing cultures that the idea of being culturally imprisoned is seen to be absurd. It is not an immutable law of physics or science in any manner. Mentally we are free to accept or reject the culture into which we are born. If we were not, the culture would never change, or even have come to pass in the first place.
It is not possible to rationally conclude that humans do not have freewill. Aside from the above arguments, the rational argument goes like this: Whoever says that humans have no freewill would be demonstrating either freewill to make that statement, or the statement would not be freely made, but would have to have been genetically or culturally forced. In the first case freewill exists, despite the denial, which is false. In the second case the statement would be meaningless since it is a forced result of a captured mind; but even more disastrous for the concept, such a statement would fall on captured ears, deaf to nuances outside the programmed capabilities of their imprisoned minds. No such statement would be required, much less investigated, in a society of genetic and cultural automatons.
To say that humans have no freewill, or have only partial freewill, is push the outer limits of absurdity. Not only do humans have freewill, they have free choice and the capacity to differentiate between good and bad as well as discriminate between ethical and unethical. There would be few humans who cannot discuss why fire is both bad and good; and why using fire to burn something could be either ethical or unethical.
Given that we have – and use - choice making capabilities, freewill is an inevitable axiom.
Why, then, would freewill be denied? I see three possibilities.
First, Philosophical Materialism needs for the mind to be material. For the mind to be just the brain and nothing more, it is necessary to consider the possible operation of the brain to be completely constrained by physical attributes, and like computer software, to function within defined parameters. This would certainly make things easier for artificial intelligence enthusiasts, who need to persuade the holders-of-purse-strings that they are seeking an accomplishable objective. Hence statements such as “a brain is just a meat machine”. This derision seems to lower the boundaries of the objectives for AI, does it not?
Second, there is an elitist camp that feels itself to be more evolved than the rest of humanity. What applies to the lower humans does not apply to the elitist, so to say that humans demonstrate a lack of cultural and genetic freewill applies only to the herd, not to the elitists.
Third, there is a hedonist camp that insists that there is neither freewill nor personal responsibility; that self-serving wanton lust-fulfillment is as rational as personal restraint. It is genetically driven and impossible to control using personal willpower. Culture must adapt and accept that this is an evolutionary, genetic truth.
I am sure that there are more reasons, but these suffice to see that the denial of freewill produces a positive benefit for certain sectors, whether it is a rational denial or not. The denial is calculated, not empirical. It is self-serving. And….
It is false.
1 comment:
Post a Comment