>I WORRY ABOUT FREE WILL.
IT SEEMS SO OBVIOUS.
WHATEVER I WANT TO DO,
I JUST DO.
BUT COULD I BE FOOLED?
SOME PHILOSOPHERS TELL ME THAT
FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION.
OTHERS, THAT THERE IS A HIDDEN
MYSTERY IN FREE WILL.
SO I SIT BY MYSELF AND MUSE.
WHAT MAKES FREE WILL ACTUALLY
FREE?
ASSUMING ONLY THE PHYSICAL IS
REAL, THEN EVERY EVENT IN THE
BRAIN IS CAUSED BY A PREVIOUS
EVENT IN THE BRAIN.
THAT IS CALLED DETERMINISM
OR IF SOME EVENTS IN THE BRAIN
ARE RANDOM, THAT IS CALLED
INDETERMINISM.
DETERMINISM, INDETERMINISM,
HOW DOES EITHER MAKE
MY WILL FREE?
DO I HAVE FREE WILL?
I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY
TO FIND OUT.
I START WITH THE PROBLEM
OF FREE WILL.
WHAT PRECISELY IS THE PROBLEM?
WHY IS IT SO INTRACTABLE?
SO MADDENING?
I VISIT A PHILOSOPHER OF MIND
KNOW FOR HIS SENSE OF SCIENCE
- NED BLOCK.
AND I ASK HIM TO ANALYZE
THE PROBLEM OF FREE WILL.
>>I THINK THE CONCEPT
OF FREE WILL IS CONFUSED.
THE REASON IT'S CONFUSED IS
THAT FREE WILL UNDER THE USUAL
CONCEPT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH
DETERMINISM AND IT'S ALSO
INCOMPATIBLE WITH
INDETERMINISM.
SO WHY IS IT INCOMPATIBLE WITH
DETERMINISM?
WELL, FOR REASONS THAT ARE
PRETTY FAMILIAR TO PEOPLE.
IF AN EARLIER STATE OF YOUR
BODY DETERMINES WHAT YOU ARE
GOING TO DO NOW,
HOW CAN IT BE FREE?
INDETERMINISM THOUGH IS JUST
AS BAD BECAUSE IF YOU DO
SOMETHING BY CHANCE, THAT
DOESN'T MEAN IT'S DONE BY YOU
FREELY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE BOTH
INDETERMINISM AND DETERMINISM
ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH FREE
WILL, WHICH SHOWS THERE IS
SOMETHING WRONG WITH
THE CONCEPT.
NOW, OFTEN WHEN WE SEE
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE
CONCEPT, WE HAVE A CHOICE OF
CHUCKING IT AND SAYING THERE
ISN'T ANY SUCH THING AS
FREE WILL.
OR ACCEPTING A KIND OF REDUCED
FORM OF IT AND SAYING, YES,
THERE IS FREE WILL, BUT IT
ISN'T EXACTLY WHAT YOU THOUGHT
IT WAS.
SO I GUESS IN THAT LATTER
MODE, WE COULD SAY, SURE THERE
IS FREE WILL AND IT'S
COMPLETELY COMPATIBLE WITH
DETERMINISM, IT'S JUST CERTAIN
WAYS OF BEING DETERMINED THAT
ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH FREE
WILL, LIKE DETERMINATION WHERE
SOMEBODY IS POINTING A GUN AT
ME OR DETERMINATION WHERE
SOMETHING GOES WRONG WITH MY
BRAIN THAT MAKES IT THE CASE
THAT I HAVE A COMPULSION TO DO
SOMETHING.
SO THOSE ARE THE CASES WHERE
THERE IS NO FREE WILL.
BUT IN AN ORDINARY CASE WHERE
THERE IS NO COMPULSION, NO
GUN, YOU DO HAVE FREE WILL.
>BECAUSE YOU ARE DEFINING FREE
WILL IN A DIMINISHED WAY.
>>THAT'S RIGHT.
>LET'S NOW LOOK AT FREE WILL
IN THE CONTEXT OF BRAIN
SCIENCE AND THE BRAIN HAS ALL
OF THESE ENORMOUSLY
COMPLICATED PROCESSES, BUT
THEY ARE ALL PHYSICAL AND THEY
ARE DETERMINED BY PRECEDING
PHYSICAL EVENTS.
>>YEAH.
ONE RESULT THAT HAS MADE
PEOPLE FEEL THAT BRAIN SCIENCE
SHOWS THAT FREE WILL, WE DON'T
HAVE IT, THAT EVERY DECISION A
PERSON MAKES, EVERY CONSCIOUS
DECISION, HAS AN UNCONSCIOUS
PRIOR PART THAT CAN BE
DETECTED USING A CURRENT
INSTRUMENTATION.
SO I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO
ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT ANY
CONSCIOUS ACT OR ANY CONSCIOUS
ANYTHING IS GOING TO BE A PART
OF A LARGER EVENT WHICH HAS AN
UNCONSCIOUS PART.
AND THAT DOESN'T OF COURSE
SHOW THAT THE CONSCIOUS PART
DOESN'T DO ANYTHING, IT JUST
SHOWS THAT ANY CONSCIOUS EVENT
IS AN EVENT THAT OCCURS IN
TIME AND HAS UNCONSCIOUS
ANTECEDENT PARTS.
NOT SOMETHING THAT WORRIES ME,
AS FAR AS MY FREE WILL GOES.
>BUT IF YOU ARE DEFINING
CONSCIOUSNESS IN A PURELY
PHYSICAL MANNER, WHICH YOU DO,
DOESN'T THAT, IPSO FACTO, BY
THE SAME REASONING, MAKE
CONSCIOUSNESS COMPLETELY
DETERMINED?
>>YES, I THINK CONSCIOUSNESS
IS DETERMINED, BUT WE STILL
HAVE FREE WILL IN THE ONLY
SENSE WE CAN HAVE FREE WILL,
WHICH IS THAT OUR ACTIONS ARE
NOT CAUSED BY COMPULSIONS
OR PEOPLE POINTING GUNS AT US.
THAT IS WHAT IT IS TO HAVE
FREE WILL AND THE ONLY WAY WE
CAN HAVE IT.
>ISN'T THAT NORMALLY DEFINED
AS COMPATIBLEISM BY SAYING
THAT YOU'RE DIMINISHING YOUR
DEFINITION OF FREE WILL TO BE
COMPATIBLE WITH AN ABSOLUTE
DETERMINISM, WHICH YOU ARE NOT
WILLING TO CHANGE.
>>THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT
THE ALTERNATIVE TO THAT IS TO
ALLOW SOME INTUITIVE NOTION OF
FREE WILL THAT NOT ONLY
DOESN'T EXIST BUT CAN'T EXIST
BECAUSE IT'S INCOMPATIBLE WITH
BOTH DETERMINISM AND
INDETERMINISM.
SO IF WE ARE GOING TO BE
REASONABLE ABOUT WHAT FREE
WILL IS, WE HAVE TO PICK A
COHERENT NOTION, THAT MOST
OBVIOUS COHERENT NOTION IS ONE
IN WHICH WE HAVE FREE WILL.
>NED ACCEPTS DIMINISHED FREE
WILL IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH, COMPATIBLE WITH, A
PURELY PHYSICAL DETERMINISTIC
WORLD WHERE EVERY EVENT IS
CAUSED BY A PRIOR EVENT.
I'M NOT READY TO MAKE THE
CONCESSION.
TO ME, ONLY IF I'M REALLY FREE
TO MAKE OTHER DECISIONS, CAN
MY WILL REALLY BE FREE.
NED IS A SMART GUY,
BUT HERE I HOPE HE IS WRONG.
MOREOVER, NEITHER DETERMINISM
NOR INDETERMINISM CAN CAUSE
FREE WILL.
FREE WILL, LIKE FLOWING WATER,
SEEMS SLIPPING THROUGH MY
FINGERS.
CAN I GRASP IT?
PERHAPS WITH THE LAWS OF
PHYSICS, WHICH FULLY
DETERMINES ALL EVENTS OR
INJECTS INDETERMINISM THROUGH
THE RANDOM PROBABILITIES
OF QUANTUM MECHANICS.
SO TO PROBE FURTHER, I MUST
GO AFTER THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.
I DO SO WITH NOBEL LAUREATE,
DAVID GROSS.
DAVID, DOES THE DETERMINISTIC
LAWS OF PHYSICS OR ON THE
OTHER HAND, THE PROBABILISTIC
LAWS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS -
DO EITHER ONE OR BOTH SAY
ANYTHING TO US ABOUT HUMAN
FREE WILL?
>>QUANTUM MECHANICS PLAYS VERY
LITTLE ROLE HERE, WE CAN
REALLY EXCLUDE THAT BECAUSE
ANY WAY WE DESCRIBE A HUMAN
MIND AND A HUMAN BEING IS WE
WILL NOT NEED TO USE QUANTUM
MECHANICS.
>A LOT OF PHILOSOPHERS DO,
I SHOULD TELL YOU.
>>WELL, BUT THEY DON'T
UNDERSTAND SIMPLE ORDER
OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATES
OR PHYSICS.
IN EITHER CASE, EITHER QUANTUM
MECHANICALLY OR CLASSICALLY,
THE WORLD IS DETERMINED ENOUGH
TO THREATEN OUR NOTION
OF FREE WILL.
FREE WILL ASSUMES THAT THERE
IS A UNIQUE AGENT, THE EYE
OF THE FREE WILL.
THE AGENT THAT IS MAKING
DECISIONS IN A WAY THAT IS
INDEPENDENT OF WHAT?
I MEAN, IT'S A VERY ILL
DEFINED NOTION.
>IF YOU DISCOUNT THAT, IF YOU
DISCOUNT THAT EYE, THEN YOU
ARE ROLLING BACK TO
A SITUATION WHERE BOTH
OUR CONSCIOUSNESS AND
OUR FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION?
>>CONSCIOUSNESS, I THINK MORE
AND MORE IS BEING REGARDED
AS AN ILLUSION.
CONSCIOUSNESS IS DEFINITELY
A PHENOMENON THAT EXISTS,
BUT OUR - OUR FEELING OF
CONSCIOUSNESS OR AT LEAST
MINE, IS THAT SOMEHOW
I AM IN CONTROL .
ALTHOUGH I SOMETIMES WONDER
ABOUT THAT.
I SOMETIMES HAVE A THOUGHT -
TO SAY SOMETHING.
IN FACT IN OUR CONVERSATION
TOGETHER I HAVE SAID A FEW
THINGS THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD OR
CONSCIOUSLY THOUGHT OF BEFORE.
THEY CAME OUT AND I'M A LITTLE
BIT SURPRISED AS TO WHERE THEY
CAME FROM.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS A
CENTRAL EYE SOMEWHERE IN MY
HEAD HERE, WHO IS IN CONTROL
OF ANYTHING.
IT'S MUCH MORE COMPLICATED.
THERE ARE MANY ILLUSIONS THAT
WE HAVE EVOLVED TO ACCEPT WITH
PASSION OR WITH VERY STRONG
FEELINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY
USEFUL IN ORGANIZING OUR
PERCEPTION OF THE WORLD AROUND
US AND SURVIVING.
>SO THEY WORK, BUT THEY MAY
NOT HAVE ANY FUNDAMENTAL
REALITY?
>>YES.
>CONSCIOUSNESS AND ILLUSION?
MANY SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH
DAVID, BECAUSE THE LAWS OF
PHYSICS CONSTRUCT THE WORLD
THAT IS FULLY DETERMINED.
BUT WHAT IF THE LAWS OF
PHYSICS ARE NOT SO
FUNDAMENTAL?
ONE SCIENTIST LOOKS TO SIMPLE
RULES AS UNDERGIRDING THE
COSMOS.
CAN SIMPLE RULES GENERATE
FREE WILL?
I ASKED THE POLYMATH PHYSICIST
AND ENTREPRENEUR,
STEPHEN WOLFRAM.
>>ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I AM
CURIOUS ABOUT, IT WHEN WE KNOW
THAT A SYSTEM ULTIMATELY HAS
PERHAPS EVEN QUITE SIMPLE
UNDERLYING RULES, HOW - TO
WHAT IS IT POSSIBLE THAT ONE
CAN GO FROM PERHAPS QUITE
SIMPLE UNDERLYING RULES TO
BEHAVIOR THAT IS COMPLEX
ENOUGH THAT ONE CAN IMAGINE
THAT THAT BEHAVIOR IS FREE OF
THOSE UNDERLYING RULES.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE
DISCOVERED IS THAT IF YOU LOOK
AT ALL THE POSSIBLE SIMPLE
RULES THAT YOU MIGHT USE TO
DRIVE A SYSTEM, SO TO SPEAK,
THAT MANY OF THOSE RULES,
IN FACT, DON'T LEAD TO SIMPLE
BEHAVIOR.
THEY LEAD TO EXTREMELY
ELABORATE AND COMPLEX
BEHAVIOR.
BEHAVIOR SO COMPLEX THAT IT'S
VERY HARD TO PREDICT IT.
ESSENTIALLY, THE ONLY WAY TO
FIND OUT WHAT THE SYSTEM WILL
DO IS JUST TO FOLLOW EACH STEP
AND SEE WHAT IT DOES.
IN THAT SENSE, THAT IS SORT OF
A PLACE WHERE WHEN YOU LOOK AT
ONE OF THESE SYSTEMS,
IT APPEARS TO BE BEHAVING IN
A SENSE AS IF IT HAS FREE WILL.
>BUT THAT BY ITS VERY NATURE
DOESN'T MAKE IT FREE WILL,
DOES IT?
>>WELL, THE BOTTOM LEVEL OF
THAT QUESTION IS - DOES THE
UNIVERSE OPERATE ACCORDING TO
THE KINDS OF RULES THAT I'M
TAKING ABOUT OR IS THERE
SOMETHING THAT SORT OF COMES
FROM OUTSIDE THAT MIXES THINGS
UP?
PERHAPS ONE DAY WE WILL KNOW
THE COMPLETE RULES FOR THE
UNIVERSE, YET IT STILL CAN BE
THE CASE THAT THE BEHAVIOR OF
THE SYSTEM, IN EFFECT OPERATES
AS IF IT IS FREE OF THOSE
RULES IN THE SENSE THAT THERE
IS SORT OF AN IRREDUCIBLE
DISTANCE BETWEEN THE
UNDERLYING RULES AND THE
ACTUAL BEHAVIOR OF THE SYSTEM.
>BUT IF YOU PLAY THAT SYSTEM
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, YOU WILL
GET -
>>DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
>THE SAME THING.
AND IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR
IT TO DO OTHERWISE.
>>THAT'S CORRECT.
>SO THAT TO ME IS NOT
FREE WILL.
>>WELL, I THINK THAT THAT MAY
BE THE WAY THAT WE WORK.
I THINK THAT IS THE WAY WE
WORK, SO IF YOU ATTRIBUTE TO
US, FREE WILL, THEN THAT HAS
TO BE FREE WILL.
>I'M NOT ATTRIBUTING IT,
I'M SAYING THAT'S AN OPEN
QUESTION.
WHAT WE MAY BE CONCLUDING
IS THAT THE HUMAN SENSE OF FREE
WILL THAT WE HAVE IS NO
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE
RULES GENERATING THIS KIND OF
COMPLEXITY, BUT THEY ARE BOTH
NOT FREE.
>>RIGHT.
WELL, SO THEN THE QUESTION IS,
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS FREE
IN OUR UNIVERSE?
ALL THE ULTIMATE RULES FOR OUR
UNIVERSE, DETERMINISTIC AND IF
THEY ARE, THEN IT COULD BE THE
CASE THAT WE WOULD CONCLUDE
YOU KNOW, THAT IF THE RULES,
THE DETERMINISTIC RULES WERE
FAIRLY SIMPLE, THEN IT WOULD
HAVE TO BE LIKE THE OLD
SCIENCE FICTION ROBOTS AND WE
WOULD NEVER SEE ANYTHING THAT
WE WOULD EVEN IMAGINE THIS
FREE WILL.
THE MORE REMARKABLE THING IS
THAT IT IS IN FACT POSSIBLE
FOR THERE TO BE RULES, EVEN
QUITE SIMPLE RULES, THAT ARE
COMPLETELY DETERMINISTIC.
YET, SORT OF THE BEHAVIOR IS
COMPLEX ENOUGH THAT IT HAS ALL
OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WE
WOULD NORMALLY ATTRIBUTE TO
SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE
FREE OF THOSE UNDERLYING LAWS.
>TO STEPHEN, SIMPLE RULES ARE
THE DEEP STRUCTURE OF REALITY.
AND WHILE THEY GENERATE, WHAT
TO US SEEMS LIKE FREE WILL, IT
IS NOT FREE WILL IN THE STRONG
SENSE, BECAUSE IF
CIRCUMSTANCES WERE PRECISELY
THE SAME, I COULD NOT MAKE
A DIFFERENT DECISION.
STEPHEN WONDERS WHETHER WE
NEED SOMETHING COMING FROM
OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM.
NOW, THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD,
DRIVE THIS IN A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION.
THEY TOO HAVE SOMETHING COMING
FROM OUTSIDE OF THE PHYSICAL
SYSTEM, BUT THERE ARE SOME
THINGS A SOUL OR A SPIRIT,
CREATED BY GOD.
BELIEVERS SHOULD TREAD
LIGHTLY.
WEDGING GOD INTO THE FREE WILL
DEBATE MAY COMPOUND
THE PROBLEM.
BECAUSE THE TRADITIONAL GOD
IS SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE FUTURE
PERFECTLY.
HOW THEN FREE WILL?
I PUT THE CHALLENGE TO
CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER,
J.P. MORELAND.
J.P., HERE IS MY PROBLEM -
FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF
VIEW, THERE IS NO FREE WILL IF
YOU BELIEVE IN MATERIALISM AND
FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF
VIEW, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD
KNOWS EVERYTHING, INCLUDING
THE FUTURE, THERE IS NO
FREE WILL.
SO HOW DO I GET FREE WILL?
>>YEAH, LET'S TAKE THESE IN
ORDER.
FIRST OF ALL, IF A SCIENTIST
ACTUALLY CLAIMS THAT HE
IS DRIVEN TO DETERMINISM
BY HIS THEORIES, THEN HE CAN'T
BE RATIONAL IN ACCEPTING
HIS THEORIES.
BECAUSE THE VERY RATIONALITY
OF ACCEPTING A SCIENTIFIC
THEORY, PRESUPPOSES FREEDOM.
IF EVERYTHING I BELIEVE IS
DETERMINED BY IRRATIONAL ATOMS
IN MOTION, THEN MY BELIEFS
CAN'T BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE
I CHOOSE THEM ON THE BASIS
OF THEIR RATIONAL CREDENTIALS.
AND SO, THE CLAIM THAT ALL OF
MY BELIEFS ARE DETERMINED
BY PHYSICAL FACTORS IS
SELF- REFUTING.
WHEN YOU TURN TO THE THEISTIC
ARGUMENT, JUST BECAUSE GOD
KNOWS SOMETHING AHEAD OF TIME,
DOESN'T MEAN HE ACTUALLY
DETERMINES IT.
I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT IF I
WERE TO OFFER MY DAUGHTER A
NEW CAR, SHE WOULD TAKE IT.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT MY
KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT SHE WOULD
FREELY DO, DETERMINES HER TO
DO IT.
SHE IS STILL FREE TO SAY YES
OR NO TO IT, BUT I KNOW SHE
WOULD TAKE THE CAR.
>BUT YOU KNOW IT IN A
PROBABILISTIC SENSE,
NOT A CERTAIN SENSE.
SHE MAY DECIDE NOT TO TAKE THE
CAR, BECAUSE I WANT TO SHOW
DADDY THAT I HAVE MATURED AND
I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THE CAR.
SO YOU ARE MAKING A
PREDICTION, NOT A CERTAINTY.
>>WELL, BUT JUST BECAUSE AN
APPLE ISN'T A REALLY GOOD
APPLE COMPARED TO A REALLY,
REALLY GOOD APPLE, THAT
DOESN'T MAKE IT AN ORANGE.
THE CATEGORY OF KNOWING AND
THE CATEGORY OF DETERMINING
ARE APPLES AND ORANGES.
YOUR RESPONSE THAT, WELL, GOD
HAS A REALLY, REALLY PERFECT
APPLE, YOU ONLY HAVE A
PROBABILISTIC APPLE, DOESN'T
GET YOU TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
WE HAVE AN ORANGE.
GOD KNOWING SOMETHING,
EVEN IF IT ISN'T PROBABILISTIC
BUT PERFECT, DOESN'T CAUSE
WHAT HE KNOWS TO HAPPEN.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT'S THE
OTHER WAY AROUND.
IT'S BECAUSE WE FREELY DO
THINGS, THAT IS THE GROUND FOR
GOD KNOWING THEM AHEAD OF
TIME.
AND SO FAR FROM HIS KNOWLEDGE
DETERMINING OUR ACTIONS, IT'S
OUR ACTIONS THAT DETERMINE
GOD'S FOREKNOWLEDGE.
HUMAN FREEDOM IS A REFLECTION
OF THE IMAGE OF GOD.
GOD HAS FREE CREATIVITY, WE DO
TOO AS HIS IMAGE BARERS.
I THINK FREE WILL IS IMPORTANT
FOR SOLVING WHERE EVIL CAME
FROM AND WHY WE CAN BE HELD
MORALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR
ACTIONS AND OUR BELIEFS AND
I THINK FREE WILL IS AWFULLY
IMPORTANT IN BEING A
CO-LABORER WITH GOD AND
EXPLORING THE UNIVERSE HE
MADE.
>FINE J.P., WE SHOULDN'T MIX
THE APPLES OF KNOWING THE
FUTURE WITH THE ORANGES OF
DETERMINING THE FUTURE.
BUT ONCE GOD KNOWS SOMETHING,
THAT KNOWLEDGE CANNOT BE
WRONG.
AND IF GOD KNOWS WHAT I WILL
DO BEFORE I ACTUALLY DO IT,
THEN I CANNOT IN ANY WAY DO
OTHERWISE.
SOME CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHERS
REJECT SOULS.
THEY BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON
IS ALL MATERIAL, THAT NO SOUL
EXISTS.
YET, STILL THEY CLAIM THAT
THE WILL WAS FULLY FREE.
HOW?
I ASK NANCY MURPHY, A
PHILOSOPHER AND A MINISTER.
>>LET ME SPEAK ABOUT THE ONE
PARTICULAR PROBLEM REGARDING
FREE WILL AND THIS IS THE
PROBLEM OF NEUROBIOLOGICAL
DETERMINISM.
IS IT THE CASE THAT OUR
DETERMINISTIC NEUROBIOLOGY
DETERMINES EVERYTHING THAT WE
THINK AND DO, OR ARE WE IN
FACT FREE AGENTS?
MY BELIEF IS THAT WE ARE IN
FACT, DETERMINED, SOMETIMES,
BY WHAT OUR BRAIN DOES.
BUT MUCH MORE OFTEN IT IS WE
WHO ARE DETERMINING WHAT
HAPPENS TO OUR BRAIN.
WHEN WE, AS COMPLETE ORGANISMS
ACT, WE ARE HAVING WHAT WE
CALL IN PHILOSOPHY, DOWNWARD
EFFECTS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF OUR
BRAINS.
SO FOR INSTANCE, IF I TAKE A
CLASS, IT RESULTS IN THE
MASSIVE CHANGE IN THE WIRING
OF MY BRAIN, WHICH IN TURN
WILL HAVE EFFECTS IN MY LATER
BEHAVIOR.
>BUT, SINCE YOU DO NOT BELIEVE
THERE IS ANYTHING NON-PHYSICAL
ASSOCIATED WITH THE BRAIN, IN
ORDER TO MAKE A MIND, ISN'T
THE "WE" WHO EFFECTS THE
BRAIN, JUST THE TOTAL OF ALL
THE SUBTOTALS OF WHAT THE
BRAIN IS?
ISN'T IT KIND OF A VICIOUS
CYCLE?
>>IT'S THE TOTAL OF THE BRAIN,
BUT IT'S ALSO THE WHOLE HUMAN
PERSON.
WE NO LONGER THINK THAT THE
REAL ME, THE REAL EYE IS A
SOUL INSIDE HERE, OR OUR MIND,
BUT WE STILL THINK THAT THERE
IS SOME LITTLE ENTITY INSIDE
THE BRAIN THAT IS MAKING THESE
DECISIONS.
BUT THE NANCY MURPHY,
WHO MAKES THE DECISION
AND DOES SOMETHING,
IS THIS WHOLE PERSON.
AND WHEN THIS WHOLE PERSON
DOES SOMETHING, SHE TAKES HER
BRAIN ALONG WITH HER AND THAT
HAS EFFECTS ON THE BRAIN AS
IT TRAVELS ALONG ON HER
ESCAPADES.
>BUT THAT WHOLE PERSON FEEDS
UP INTO THE BRAIN.
>>WELL, IT'S EFFECTED BY TOP
DOWN PROCESSING, IT'S EFFECTED
BY WHAT YOU ARE EXPECTING
TO SEE.
AND WHAT YOU ARE EXPECTING TO
SEE IS EFFECTED BY EXPERIENCES
YOU HAVE HAD IN THE PAST AND
THOSE EXPERIENCES ARE AFFECTED
BY WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN THE
PAST AND SO THERE IS THIS
COMPLEX DYNAMIC
INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT
WE WOULD CALL "BOTTOM UP"
BRAIN PROCESSES AND "TOP DOWN"
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES, BUT
THEN THERE IS ALSO THE MIDDLE
LEVEL, WHICH IS THE WHOLE YOU,
WHICH ALSO HAS A CAUSAL ROLE
IN THERE, WHICH MEDIATES WHICH
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES ARE
GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE
AN EFFECT AND WHICH ALSO CAN
MAKE SOME CHOICES ABOUT WHICH
BRAIN PROCESSES ARE GOING TO
BE PAID ATTENTION TO,
ETCETERA.
>BUT I STILL DON'T SEE HOW WE
ARE REPRESENTING THAT MIDDLE
STATE OF THE TOTAL YOU,
IF IT'S NOT JUST THE COMPOSITE
OF ALL THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS
OF THE BRAIN.
>>WELL, YOU ARE SIMPLY TAKING
THE REDUCTIONIST LINE.
YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THE
PARTS UNILATERALLY DETERMINE
THE BEHAVIOR OF THE WHOLE AND
IN ONE FIELD AFTER ANOTHER
AND FOR ONE REASON AFTER
ANOTHER, WE ARE HAVING TO FACE
THE FACT OR CELEBRATE THE FACT
THAT IN A COMPLEX SYSTEM, THE
WHOLE HAS RECIPROCAL INFLUENCE
ON ITS PARTS.
>INCLUDING CAUSATIVE.
>> YES.
>SO THE WHOLE, WHICH IS JUST
THE COMPOSITIVE, IT'S PARTS.
HAS A CAUSATIVE INFLUENCE,
DOWNWARD INFLUENCE ON ITS
PARTS AND THAT CREATES
A UNIFIED SENSE OF SELF WHICH
IS THE REAL PERSON?
>>WELL THE REASON PERSON,
IS THE WHOLE SYSTEM.
NOW, WHY IS IT THE CASE WE
HAVE HAD THIS ARGUMENT FOR
CENTURIES, PERHAPS, ABOUT
NATURE VERSUS NURTURE IF WE
DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THE
ENVIRONMENT COULD HAVE A TOP
DOWN EFFECT ON PERSONS?
>BUT THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD
HAVE AN EFFECT THROUGH THE
SENSORY ORGANS AND FEEDING
IT TO THE BRAIN.
>>OH YEAH, THAT HAS BEEN
THE OLD REDUCTIONIST TRICK
FOR YEARS.
>I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE EVER
BEEN ACCUSED OF BEING A
REDUCTIONIST BEFORE, BUT
I DON'T LIKE THE SOUND OF IT.
>>YOU SHOULDN'T.
>I REMAIN BAFFLED, NANCY, HOW
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
NON-PHYSICAL COMPONENT OF
MINE, CAN THE WHOLE ORGANISM
AFFECT INDIVIDUAL BRAIN STATES
IN A TOP DOWN,
NON-DETERMINISTIC WAY?
WHEN THE WHOLE ORGANISM IS
ONLY THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL THE
INDIVIDUAL BRAIN STATES?
FREE WILL HAS ME WHIRLING.
MAYBE FREE WILL DOESN'T
MATTER.
I ASK THE INNOVATIVE RADIAL
THINKER - JARON LANIER.
>>LET'S SUPPOSE THERE IS NO
FREE WILL.
IF WE BELIEVE IN IT, WE ARE
FATED TO, AND IT'S A HARMLESS
BELIEF.
IF THERE IS A FREE WILL, AND
WE DISBELIEVE IN IT, WE CAN
TALK OURSELVES OUT OF OUR
GREATEST TREASURE, WE COULD
SIMPLY CHOOSE TO ABANDON IT,
BECAUSE WE ARE FREE TO DO
THAT.
AND WHAT A SHAME THAT WOULD
BE.
SO THEREFORE, OUR BEST BET IS
TO BELIEVE IN IT.
>I DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THAT
ARGUMENT.
IT'S A LOUSY ARGUMENT BECAUSE
IT FORCES ME TO - INTO A WAY
OF THINKING THAT MAY NOT BE
TRUE.
I DON'T WANT TO BE HAPPY.
I WANT TO KNOW TRUTH.
>>TRUTH, RIGHT.
>I HOPE IT MAKES ME HAPPY,
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE DOESN'T
MATTER.
>>I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT
MAKES YOU HAPPY.
IT MIGHT MAKE YOU HAPPY,
BUT THAT IS A SIDE EFFECT.
WHAT IT DOES IS IT MAXIMIZES
THE POTENTIAL TO KNOW TRUTH.
YOU SEE, OF THE TWO CHOICES,
ONE SHUTS OFF THE POTENTIAL
TRUTH, ONE DOESN'T.
THE INTERESTING THING HERE IS
THAT I THINK ACTUALLY OUR
SENSE OF HAPPINESS - YOUR
SENSE OF HAPPINESS, THE REASON
IT MIGHT MAKE YOU HAPPY IS
PRECISELY BECAUSE YOU CARE
ABOUT TRUTH.
WHEN PEOPLE DISBELIEVE IN
FREE WILL, THEY ACT A LITTLE
DIFFERENTLY, IN MY EXPERIENCE,
BUT THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE AND
CHANGE THEIR ACTION EVEN THE
SLIGHTEST BIT, DISPROVE AND
DISBELIEVE.
>I DON'T THINK IT'S EVEN - HOW
IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO EXIST,
NOT BELIEVING IN FREE WILL?
I MEAN, I THINK EVEN PEOPLE
WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN FREE
WILL, ACT AS IF THEY DO.
>>RIGHT.
WELL, YOU KNOW THESE THINGS
ARE MYSTERIOUS.
IT COMES BACK TO ANOTHER THING
THAT I HAVE BEEN INTERESTED
IN, WHICH IS HOW THE MOMENT OF
NOW IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER
MOMENTS.
EITHER WE LIVE IN THIS
DETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE WITHOUT
FREE WILL AND CONSCIOUSNESS
HAPPENS TO PLACE US IN THIS
MOMENT, EXPERIENCING THIS
MOMENT, SO - OR THERE IS NO
CONSCIOUSNESS AND THERE IS
SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT THE
MOMENT, IN WHICH CASE IT IS
A NON-DETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE,
PERHAPS WITH FREE WILL.
THE POINT IS, WHEN YOU TRY TO
GET RID OF DUALISM, WHEN YOU
TRY TO GET RID OF THE SPOOKY
THING, YOU END UP IN A SHELL
GAME WHERE IT KEEPS ON
RE-APPEARING.
YOU CAN'T EVEN QUITE GET RID
OF IT.
>WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO DEVELOP
THAT?
BECAUSE UNDERSTANDING THE
ISSUE OF NOW MAY BE VERY
RELEVANT IN ENRICHING OUR
CONCEPT OF FREE WILL.
>>AND SOME OF THESE THINGS YOU
HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE
ISN'T TOO MUCH YOU CAN SAY.
EITHER THERE IS SOME SPOOKY
CONSCIOUSNESS THING WHICH IS
LIKE THIS REPORTING HEAD
RUNNING OVER DETERMINISTIC
REALITIES, SELECTING A NOW,
OR - THE UNIVERSE IS
NON-DETERMINISTIC AND THE
REASON THE NOW IS SPECIAL
IS BECAUSE THE FUTURE IS
UNDETERMINED.
AND THEN THAT ALLOWS FOR FREE
WILL.
IT'S EASY TO GET RID OF EITHER
CONSCIOUSNESS OR FREE WILL OR
NON-DETERMINISM, BUT IF YOU
REALLY TRY TO CONSTRUCT A VIEW
THAT DEALS WITH THE WHOLE
SHEBANG OF WEIRDNESS AT ONCE,
YOU CAN'T EVER QUITE DO IT.
>NO, YOU CAN'T DO IT.
DOES ANYTHING FOLLOW FROM
THAT?
>>I THINK HEALTHY SPIRITUALITY
IS FINDING SOME SORT OF
PLEASURE, EVEN GLEE, IN COMING
ACROSS A QUESTION
YOU CAN'T ANSWER.
>HEY, THAT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD,
BECAUSE I MUST BE SPIRITUAL,
BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS IN THAT
STATE.
IT'S TIME I GET OFF THE FENCE.
HERE IS MY TAKE ON FREE WILL.
IF MATERIALISM IS TRUE AND THE
WORLD IS ALL AND ONLY
PHYSICAL, OUR ACTIONS ARE
EITHER DETERMINED OR RANDOM
AND EITHER WAY, WE DO NOT HAVE
FREE WILL.
SOME SAY THAT TOP DOWN
CAUSATION, THE WHOLE PERSON,
CAN SHAKE US FREE OF RIGID
DETERMINISM.
I'M NOT CONVINCED.
I CONCLUDE THAT IF THE WORLD
IS PURELY PHYSICAL, FREE WILL
IS INDEED AN ILLUSION.
THE ONLY WAY FREE WILL COULD
EXIST IS IF SOMETHING
NON-PHYSICAL EXISTS.
A SOUL?
A SPIRIT?
BUT WHY WOULD A SOUL OR A
SPIRIT BE FREE AND HOW WOULD
IT INFLUENCE THE BRAIN?
WHAT COULD A SOUL
OR A SPIRIT BE?
I HAVE NO IDEA.
HOW COULD IT WORK?
I'VE NOT A CLUE.
COULD IT EXIST?
I FIND NO FACT.
HOPE?
YES.
SUSPICION?
MAYBE.
EVIDENCE?
NO.
ADRIFT IN THIS ENDLESS SEA OF
THE FOAM OF FREE WILL, I GRASP
THE RUDDER OF JARON'S KIND OF
HEALTHY SPIRITUALITY.
WHEN BIG QUESTIONS GIVE
PLEASURE, EVEN WITHOUT
ANSWERS, ONE GETS CLOSER
TO TRUTH.
