Pages Menu
TwitterFacebooklogin
Categories Menu

Posted by on Feb 8, 2014 in Blog, Book Reviews | 10 comments

Do We Have Free Will? Or, Why the Salmon Swims

 

salmon

 

“Free-will” has been a hot topic lately.  Indeed, it’s been the crux of philosophical debate for a very long time.

The question is — do we have it?

 

Are we really in control of our decisions, our actions, and ultimately our destiny?  And if so, how much power do we actually have over the forces that influence (some would say — “control”) us?.

The death of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman recently has, temporarily at least, brought this ongoing debate to a much wider audience.  In fact, I’m not sure I’d be writing this essay were it not for the ensuing discussion about how much control the now-deceased actor had over his own life.

One side of the argument says we don’t have free will.  It’s perhaps best summed up in an article written by Debbie Bayer posted on February 4th which can be read here:  “Phillip Seymour Hoffman Did Not Have Choice or Free Will and Neither Do You.”

I’ll let the author speak for herself and I encourage you to take some time to read her viewpoint.  While I disagree with several of the assumptions contained therein, as well as take issue with her final conclusion, nonetheless her view on free will merits consideration and discussion, as do the explanations of many people interested in this timely topic who have asserted that Mr. Hoffman was a sick man who deserves our compassion rather than criticism.

Before elaborating much deeper, allow me to spend a moment defining “free will” — as I understand it.

The universe is comprised of atoms, and nothing else.  Each one of us is just a massive collection of molecules.  How many you may ask?  Well, one human cell has been found to contain approximately 100 trillion atoms.  Written out longhand that’s 100,000,000,000,000 atoms.  That’s a lot of atoms and a lot of zeros.  And that’s just one cell in the human body.

SOURCE HERE

Stay with me.  I’ll try and keep this simple.  Especially for those who like me who don’t have much of a science background.

Did you ever stop to think that parts of your body are very likely comprised of at least a few particles that were once part of Socrates?  Or Julius Caesar?  Or Jack the Ripper?

Indeed, the atoms that comprise who and what we are at this moment have been in existence from the origins of the universe.  They could be gases that were released many years ago on the planet Saturn.  They could be particles from a meteor that hit the earth’s atmosphere and then disintegrated, the barely-visible mist of ash falling to earth and breathed in later as stardust.  Atoms are finite.  Over time they take different forms depending upon conditions.  Some become vapor.  Some turn into liquid.  Others remain a solid mass.

The point is this.  According to astrophysicist Neil De Grasse Tyson, we are the universe.  The things that make up the human body are inherent throughout the solar system — including the three most predominant elements in the human body which just so happen to be the most common elements found in the universe — hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon.  We also contain about 2 percent other stuff, but the majority of our body is made up of these three common elements.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Still with me?  Good.  Now, here’s where things really get interesting.

So, the universe as we know it is nothing more than an incalculable number of atoms constantly crashing into each other and creating chaos.  What our five senses perceive are the macro-manifestations of molecules, which take solid (and sometimes liquid and gas) form.  We hold up a finger and what we’re really looking at is something like 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,ooo atoms.  There are probably a few more zeros tacked on there, but you get the point.

If all these atoms are continuously whirling around the universe, then what power do we have to control them?  Our bodies have somehow harnessed them, at least for a duration of about 74 years — the average life span of the typical homo sapiens.  Then after death, the atoms slowly disintegrate from one another and drift elsewhere.  Even so, what makes us believe we have the power to control what really happens within our brains when neurotransmitters are constantly reacting to the stimuli around us?  We may think we have the power to make decisions for ourselves.  But some would say the dye is already cast when it comes to how atoms will react, what our minds will do, and what actions we shall ultimately take.  You may think you’re in control of what happens, but you aren’t.  You’re just not aware of all those forces, internal and external, which determine our will, which is not free.  It’s far more convenient to believe the illusion that you control your destiny.  But we’re really fooled by our own senses.

In his book Free Will, philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris opens Chapter One recounting a horrific crime — a true story.  A few years ago, two young men broke into the suburban home of a newly-married couple and ended up murdering them both.  But not before torturing the man and wife to death and making them do unspeakable horrors.  The story is graphic and frankly, quite nauseating.

The two criminals were caught and were later interviewed.  Both confessed to the crimes.  It would seem they made a series of appalling decisions, one after another, which led to two unnecessary deaths.  The two men stated they had no intention of killing the family when they entered the home.  What started out as a burglary snowballed into a scene of kidnapping, torture, and murder.  So, why did things spiral so badly out of control?  Neither man had ever killed before.  Why would they go to such extremes during this particular crime?

Let’s steer this back on topic.  Did the two murderers have free will?  Weren’t they capable of exercising restraint at some point?  Might they have made the decision to tie their victims up, leave with the stolen property, and then let the couple live?  Why would they commit such horrendous crimes?  I’ll come back to this later.

The debate over free will has far-reaching consequences for us all.  Here’s why.  If we aren’t really in control of our emotions and decisions, that is, if we act in a preordained manner from birth, then why should we bear any responsibility for our actions?  It’s not my fault, some will insist.  It’s bad genetics.  It’s mommy not breastfeeding me.  It’s that I grew up in the slums.  It’s some other sob story that causes me to murder a nice couple in suburbia.

We share a common DNA with most other living species.  While the mental capacity of animals is more limited in comparison to humans, it’s just as intriguing to ask if animals have free will.  Does your dog or car have control over its life?  Or is the animal simply reacting to stimuli — the food bowl, the leash, or a ball tossed in the yard?

Why does the salmon swim upstream?  Think for a moment about that.  This species makes an extraordinary effort to defy nature.  Rather than take the easiest course of action, pursuing the path of least resistance as do most things in the environment, salmon do what seems to be unnatural.  Of course, salmon spawning can be explained best by genetics and instinct.  The point is, free will is complex and the arguments for and against seem to occasionally contradict each other.

In short, we humans sometimes behave like our pets.  We react to food bowls, leashes, and tossed balls.  Other times, we defy nature and what seems natural by swimming upstream and committing acts that are seemingly inexplicable.

READ: More writings on Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc.

10 Comments

  1. The Free Will debate, as you stated, is one which has been debated for millennia. In college I took a course that examined Free Will with regards to multiple religious interpretations, both western and eastern philosophies. In many ways, from a religious perspective, one of the most critical questions one can ask is “Do I have control of my decisions?”

    If one believes in a life beyond that which we currently experience, then the answer must be found. In many ways, though, the choices we are given are mere illusions of choice (cream or sugar, Mexican or Italian, sports or news). But hidden within these choices are much more critical ramifications of those choices and it’s the ramifications of these choices that end up mechanical.

    In the case of Phillip Seymore Hoffman, he certainly did not know the results of his choices when he made them. Was it the final decision to shoot up that killed him? Was it the decision to fall off the wagon that did it? Was it the first time he shot up that did it? Was it the first time he stepped on stage that put him on the ultimate path to his demise? How far back do the string of choices go before we get to the most critical point that would have changed everything for him? Was it the string of choices or was it destiny/fate?

    Indeed, we could conceivably follow this chain of logic back to the moment of the big bang in which all dies were initially cast if we want to believe in a lack of free-will.

    But if that is the case, if none of us truly have a single true choice in this world, that we are merely all cogs in a machine that we cannot comprehend, puppets without strings, then what does it matter the choices we are presented when there is no choice?

    I like to think that the choices we are given are our own, with the cumulative effect being who we are as individuals. Otherwise, if there were no true free-will, then why Deify someone like Ghandi or vilify someone like Attila the Hun if neither of them truly had any choice in the matter?

    In the end, though, I would like to believe in at least some semblance of Free-Will, whether it be complete or partial. Otherwise, you writing your article and my reply mean nothing to either of us, as neither one of us actually chose to do it, it was our collective fate.

  2. I could probably spend a book addressing this post, but I only want to address one issue, which I think is a key one: There is a **HUGE** difference between saying PSH wasn’t in control of his addiction and saying that he didn’t have free will. Conflating these two does any discussion of either a huge disservice.

    As an example, if I go eight hours without eating or drinking, I’ll be hungry and thirsty, and there’s nothing I can do about it, and whether or not I have free will has nothing to do with it. Imagine I go without eating or drinking for eight hours. Now imagine someone puts a feast in front of my face and tells me I’ll get some punishment if I indulge or benefit if I abstain for some period of time. If I have free will, at any time, I can choose to indulge or not. However, now matter how much willpower I have, I’m not going to be able to hold out forever. Make that amount of time short enough, and I can succeed. Make it long enough, and ultimately I’ll fail. Eventually, I’ll eat and drink. We all would. The point at which we break will be different, but it’s not a question of “if”, but “when”. Our free will plays a role, but it doesn’t change the underlying fact that eventually our judgement in the matter will be overridden by our urges.

    For an addict these urges are magnified. If you put PSH in a room with a vial of heroin in each moment he has the free will to choose to shoot up or not, but as an addict, eventually he’s going to give in, free will or not. That’s what it means to be an addict. This was what Patti was trying to tell you in your PSH post.

    Oh, and just as some philosophical food for thought, if you believe you have free will, what does it matter if you really do or not?

    • npc: That last question was fascinating, for if we truly believe we have free will why would we bother looking into whether we have free will? Just inquiring into the matter alone could be an indicator of at least a limited amount of determinism in our lives not fully understood.

      Personally, I think it’s a mixed bag and life is more complicated than polar absolutes of free will/determinism.

  3. We have to believe we have free will. Otherwise we are
    just pool balls bouncing around the table governed by the laws of physics. How boring.

    I will grant you that most of our actions are pretty darn robotic.

    Our team wins, we are happy. They lose and we blame the coach, the refs and bad luck.

    Cocktail waitress comes buy, we order our normal drink
    without a 2nd thought.

    Shooter rolls an 8. Almost without fail most players will put out their odds bet or lay bet like
    good little robots.

    But once in a while we will think of Hank Aaron and bet a hard eight or someone will say “Car 54 where are you?” and we will bet 54 on the hop. Or maybe we won’t.
    That’s free will.

  4. I thought the ? was a Y and wondered why you had a picture of a salmon instead of an orca. But to stay on topic I did debate on whether to post this or not and chose to do so.

  5. It may also be important to understand exactly WHY we are looking into the debate of whether we are creatures of free will vs. determinism, too. Just a thought in a bottle to provoke more thoughts..

    • (Nolan already answered this for himself, but I meant this for others having their own reasons still unknown.)

  6. If we don’t have free will, then all actions are predestined and thus we have no responsibility for our actions. “Your honor, I am not guilty because I have no free will and was predestined to perform this crime.”

    Do I believe in free will? Yes.

    • But then how do we know a person wasn’t predestined to face punishment or consequences for a criminal action in a person’s particular case? Others completely get away with crimes scot-free…

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php