Q. Do humans have free will, or is everything we do biologically determined?
A. Both, kinda.
It's often been suggested that free will is an illusion, but that's very unhelpfully misleading.
Free will at its core is an analogical conceptualisation of a specific perceived phenomena. It is a cognitive shortcut that allows us to describe a subjective experience in a meaningful way. And as with all analogies, it is only useful for superficial description as it crumbles under the slightest scrutiny. Discussing it as though it were the phenomena itself would be pointless, as there is simply no deeper meaning to be found there.
There is good reason that we use an analogical conceptualisation in this instance though: the reality we experience is simply not consistent with objective reality or established fact at any level. Humans instinctively perceive their mind, their sense of self, the thing that makes them special and unique, as being something separate from the flesh and bone vessel they occupy. Even when we know rationally that this is not the case, the perception persists in religion, in fiction, in metaphor* etc. to an extent that suggests it really is an integral part of how we function. From an evolutionary vantage point, it has obviously served us well so far, but don't expect to find any good reason for it beyond that.
* For related examples, even astrophysicists describe morning and evening in terms of sunrise and sunset, in spite of knowing full well that the sun does no such thing.
As an aside, this perceived awareness that the real you exists as a separate incorporeal entity results in everybody at some point seeking answers to the ultimate question: what happens to the real you after the body dies. This may be why humans are hardwired to seek out religion, but that would be a discussion for another day.
Q. OK, so in the absence of an incorporeal 'real you', all actions must therefore be biological determined. How then is free will 'kinda' true?
A. Because what we think of as 'free will' describes acts of agency, with a special focus on instances where the choices and the potential ramifications are understood at an intellectual level.
A newborn baby expresses agency right from the get go. Feels hungry, wants to not feel hungry, cries for attention, made to not feel hungry anymore, sorted.
It cannot conceptualise intellectually what the issue producing the stimulus is, what it's doing to remedy the issue or why, but it still knows exactly what it's doing, and it's learning this whole time.
As the brain develops a little, it starts to comprehend these things intellectually. It starts to make connections with predictive capability. It becomes able to anticipate an issue before it becomes an issue and counter it in advance. It can envision a desired outcome, and determine the necessary steps required to make that outcome a reality. It can, in these and many other ways, enjoy the experience of exercising choice.
But at a biological level, it is merely a more sophisticated expression of the agency it was already demonstrating more than adequately on day one.
One could argue that 'free will' requires that one be capable of understanding rudimentary cause and effect in terms of choices being made.
But it would be a waste of everybody's time.
No comments:
Post a Comment