This
is a very random, off topic rant. I hate deterministic arguments
against free will, but not the subject itself. I have no strong
qualms one way or another, I just hate the argument because there are
many potential LEVELS of determinism that is either ignored- in most
arguments of determinism versus free will the concept of determinism
is used broadly to apply that everything happens because of something
else and as such there is no free will; my problem here isn't with
that argument but because there are many potential LEVELS where the
“you don't have free will because of this mechanic” could be
stated to be the level or mechanic that actually stops the free will
from happening. What annoys me about this is that it does matter
where this breakgap happens, and nobody seems to want to talk about
it.
Once
again, I'm not a philosopher nor do I have any strong belief in this
topic that I am trying to share, this is a very nitpicky post. I was
almost going to call this a Vagueposting but it's a bit too short for
that and, instead, I'll just type this up real quick.
Level 1- Cosmic / Physics
Determinism
In
this level of Determinism, everything in the physical universe has
already be set in motion since the big bang and will act exactly
according to how the laws of physics will interact with it in a
predictable way, therefore the entire universe from birth to death is
deterministic. The idea here is that everything is set in motion at
the start of the universe and as such everything is already
pre-determined- it's not so much that free will doesn't exist because
the laws of physics work one specific way, but free will doesn't
exist because everything in the universe has a set trajectory that
will not change.
You
could also rope in a God figure in this deterministic level, but
since God would set the entire universe and everything outside the
universe (such as souls and the nature of the afterlife) then God
would be an even higher level of determinism, a tier 0 if you will.
Level 2-
Chemical Determinism
In
this possible level of determinism, the physical laws of reality may
have room for random chance, but all chemical reactions and
interactions of particles have a set and specific way they can and
will interact. Note- this level does not discount the first level of
determinism, the idea is that the fundamental particles of the
universe may act with randomness or not necessarily be
pre-determined, but free
will still doesn't exist
because the way these particles will interact and form bonds/living
things is pre set and will forever be the same. The random nature of
elementary particles means that the movement of the universe isn't
necessarily deterministic, but chemical mechanics means things are
deterministic for living things and the ability to have free will.
There is a minor distinction between these two concepts, which is why
they are separate levels.
Level 3-
Genetic Determinism
In
this level of determinism, all actions are predetermined because of
the genetic code and lineage of a living thing- you will only react
to things in one way given your genes. This includes nature and
nurture, because the way you react to stimuli and are raised to
change your behavior is already predetermined by your genes. In this
hypothetical level of determinism, you don't have free will because
your genes determine everything. If you had a perfect clone of
yourself that had your exact same upbringing with everything being
identical, they would be the exact same as you.
Level 4-
Nurture Determinism
In
this level of determinism, you don't have free will because your past
experiences shaped the way you see the world and react to things,
thus your ability to make decisions isn't truly free will but simply
a logical and emotional response to the way you were molded as a
thinking person. Note that this level of determinism is separate from
genetic determinism, because in genetic determinism your reaction to
the world is encoded in your genes and thus no free will is possible,
where as in this level it is your experiences that shaped you
(usually along with your genes to some extant) that make up the basis
for all of your decision making. You don't have free will because of
that as opposed to a purely genetic, chemical, or cosmological basis.
The
reason why I made this is because I get annoyed at the lack of
specificity of philosophical arguments. Any one of these could be the
“block” that stops people from being able to have free will, but
yet they don't seem to be discussed very much as opposed to just
being swept into the grander picture of an "unbroken chain of cause and effect". Any one of them could be the argument!
These levels are strongly colinear if not casually related, to the point that they don't seem very parsimonious. What would genetic determinism be in the absence of chemical determinism? Does it even make sense to think of physical and chemical processes as independent? What even is nurture determinism independent of physical or chemical processes (which is to say, everything...). These aren't even really determinism questions per se.
ReplyDeleteThese also don't per se acknowledge the possibility of determinism as an interaction, or as a statistically emergent phenomenon. In regards to the former, it would probably make more sense to think of what you call genetic and nurture determinism as interactive effects rather than main effects. The latter is sort of a whole thing in its own right but I guess is maybe an argument for some kind of determinism even if physics is technically probabilistic.
Interesting. My personal quibbles with determinism come from the fact that beside being philosophically interesting and of some application on the more local level, it is damned near useless to get all esestiantial about it since you as human being cannot readily distinguish between having and not having free will.
ReplyDeleteThis mostly comes out of annoyance with those who use determinism as an excuse for apathy. It is of course, still valuable from a philosophical stand point but it gets misapplied far too often for my tastes.
(meant to type existential there)
DeleteYa agreed. I consider myself philosophically a determinist (with some caveats such as in regards to the aforementioned probabilistic stuff) but that doesn't really factor into my real world decision making, for the reasons you state.
Delete