no free-will
Choice and free-will continue to be (mis)used to suggest we have a degree of autonomy, along with the freedom to choose any option we are presented with. But they are completely delusional explanations for how we make decisions. In that regard, they are, in fact, meaningless terms. We do not choose, we evaluate situations to establish the available options, and then assess their merits as to which one is most appropriate for us at that moment. It is a calculation, a process of elimination, not a choice.
In any discussion, definitions are essential if we are to benefit from that engagement. So when it comes to free-will, the definitions understood here are;
- Do we have the capacity to choose between possible options unimpeded?
- Can our actions transcend the deterministic nature of how everything else in the universe – both organic and inorganic – is governed?*
*Randomness is a feature of the subatomic realm, and some philosophers have naively seen this as a possible challenge to determinism, uncomfortably suggesting that this ‘contradiction’ offers us the wiggle-room to have free-will, a connection that is a contradiction in itself, as free-will is supposedly anything but random. Quantum physics may have its own peculiar behaviours, but they do not interfere with how the macroscopic-mechanics of our deterministic universe function.
In any given situation where someone has to make a decision, replace decide with calculate. Calculating, in this context, is the process by which a person evaluates that particular situation with a view to establishing the most appropriate action to take. However, they are unavoidably constrained by their unique set of conditions; that of their current needs, desires, motivations, moral values, beliefs, biases, and other limiting factors, along with their subjective assessment of the possible consequences, and a consideration for the effects of external influences at that moment.
The conclusion to that process is wholly dependent on all those pre-existing parameters and the current situation – there are no other elements involved – and therefore it was never a choice, but an inevitability. That process by which we evaluate the situation we find ourselves in, with the motivations we are trying to satisfy, through the lens of our limitations and prejudices, collectively determine what we do. Not referring to those ‘conditions’ would result in an arbitrary outcome, which, by definition, is not a choice.
That calculation is going to be a combination of subconscious and conscious processing. The latter does not infer control, rather, that the subject is aware of some aspects of the calculation, and therefore will have, to some degree, an understanding of why they executed a particular action.
“Why did you do that?” The fact that there are reasons that can be referenced when explaining an action, further demonstrates that the action was not a choice, but a consequence of those reasons. Since we each have a unique set of conditions that determine our own actions, it also explains why people often respond differently in the same situation, and it is those varied responses which give rise to the illusion that there was a choice.
You are in a scenario where you are offered a drink; a choice of coke, coffee, or a glass of wine. Other options also become available as a consequence; you could, for example, decline to have one, or you might ask to have a glass of water instead. It’s mid-morning, you’ll be driving later on, and so you don’t want the wine. Aware of the issues relating to a high sugar intake, you always avoid coke and similar drinks. Yet you feel compelled to accept the hospitality because you calculate that it would be beneficial for you to do so on this occasion.
Noticing that your host already has a coffee, and not wishing to put them out, and since it’s also a little chilly this morning, the offer of coffee seems to be the best option to satisfy all those considerations. The question is whether you ‘deciding’ to have coffee was the result of free-will, or was it an evitabile?
Every decision we make can be explained because there are reasons that direct the outcome. Being aware of that process does not mean that we are free to act independently of those determinants.
We wrongly attribute the awareness of our own conscious mental processes to an independent entity. Despite being an understandable assumption, it forms the basis of our confusion when we talk about free-will, because it necessitates the invention of an internal director, or self, one that oversees what’s going on, and ultimately who makes the decisions. But if that was the case, that self – the one supposedly in charge – is also burdened with having to assess every potential ‘choice’ with the same subjective set of limitations, biases, preferences, and motivations, resulting in the same outcome. We are not some independent entity within our brains, but the sum of our subjective limitations; our beliefs, our understanding, our experiences, our prejudices, and our opinions. We cannot be free of those determinants, because they define who we are, but they can be modified through influences, education, and experiences, which are the mechanisms that allow us to change.
The argument that we can function without referring to those pre-existing conditions, or to the situation we find ourselves in, and then decide to do something without any motivation as an attempt to demonstrate that free-will is possible, is clutching at straws. It is not an expression of free-will, just a demonstration of doing something for no apparent reason. That, in its own right, is the reason for doing it, so it is not free. There is always a ‘because of’ behind everything we do – it is unavoidable.
So the inclusion of ‘free’, in ‘free-will’, is there to suggest autonomy, when really we should simply talk of having ‘will’ (motivation), something which is wholly consequential of everything but ourselves.
March 2023