IS FREE WILL AN ILLUSION? IS THE QUESTION ABSURD? I CAN DO ANYTHING I LIKE. SOME PHILOSOPHERS AND
SCIENTISTS BEG TO DIFFER; THEY CLAIM THAT EVERY EVENT
IS DETERMINED BY PRIOR EVENTS, INCLUDING EVERY
EVENT IN OUR BRAINS, WHICH MEANS EVERY
THOUGHT IN OUR MINDS. I RECALL HOW PHILOSOPHER
DANIEL DENNETT PUT IT TO ME. PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT FREE
WILL, THEY WANT TO PROTECT FREE WILL, AND SO, THEY
SHOULD; IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. IF THE WORLD IS UNDETERMINED,
IT'S JUST AS HARD TO SEE HOW YOU CAN HAVE FREE
WILL THAT MATTERED, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO
DETERMINE WHAT YOU DO. IT'S REALLY INTERESTING THAT
WE USE THIS WORD "DETERMINED", AND MAINLY, IT'S
A TERM OF PRAISE. WE SAY, "SHE'S SO
DETERMINED," AND SO WE SHOULD. WE WANT TO
DETERMINE OUR ACTIONS, BUT WE DON'T WANT US TO BE
DETERMINED IN THE DETERMINING OF OUR ACTIONS. RIGHT, DAN, I DO NOT
WANT TO BE DETERMINED. I WANT TO DETERMINE MY
OWN THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO
OTHERWISE THAN THAT WHICH I DO, BUT IF I CANNOT DO OTHERWISE,
THEN WOULD FREE WILL BE AN ILLUSION? WOULD THERE BE CONSEQUENCES? I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK WE HAVE
TO RECOGNIZE THAT, SURE, THERE ARE VARIETIES OF
FREE WILL - THE TRADITIONAL VARIETIES - WHICH, WHO
CARES WHETHER WE'VE GOT THEM? THE VARIETIES OF FREE WILL
WORTH WANTING ARE PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE WITH DETERMINISM. NOW, DO WE HAVE TO
GIVE UP SOMETHING? YEAH. WE HAVE TO GIVE UP SOMETHING,
AND GOOD RIDDANCE TO IT, ABOUT BLAME AND RESPONSIBILITY. BLAME AND RESPONSIBILITY, TOO. MUCH IS AT STAKE IF
FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION. I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH ASKS THE BIG QUESTIONS OF FREE WILL. HERE'S THE DEEP PROBLEM:
ON THE ONE HAND, WE FEEL FULLY ABLE TO MAKE
CHOICES WITHOUT CONSTRAINT. ON THE OTHER HAND,
WE ARE EMBODIED BEINGS, SUBJECT TO THE UNBREAKABLE CHAIN
OF CAUSES OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD. FREE WILL, AN ILLUSION? PHILOSOPHERS AND
SCIENTISTS OFFER THEIR OWN LINES OF ARGUMENTS. BOTH RELY ON DEFINITIONS
OF DETERMINISM AND FREE WILL. FOR ORIENTATION AND CLARITY,
I BEGIN WITH PHILOSOPHER ALFRED MELE, LEADER OF THE BIG
QUESTIONS AND FREE WILL PROJECT, WHICH BRINGS TOGETHER
PHILOSOPHERS, SCIENTISTS AND THEOLOGIANS TO ADDRESS
THIS PERENNIAL CONUNDRUM. AL, WHAT IS IT ABOUT FREE WILL? WHY DO SOME PHILOSOPHERS
THINK IT'S AN ILLUSION? WE HAVE TO START WITH
THIS NOTION OF DETERMINISM. AND DETERMINISM IS THE IDEA
THAT A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE CONDITION OF THE
UNIVERSE AT ANY POINT IN TIME, TOGETHER WITH A COMPLETE
LIST OF ALL THE LAWS OF NATURE, WOULD ENTAIL ALL OTHER
TRUTHS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, INCLUDING ALL TRUTHS ABOUT
EVERYTHING YOU'LL EVER DO. OKAY, THAT'S DETERMINISM. SO, NOW, WE HAVE A PREMISE. EITHER THE
UNIVERSE IS DETERMINISTIC, OR IT ISN'T. NOW, SUPPOSE IT IS;
THEN, SOME PHILOSOPHERS SAY, WELL, YOU CAN'T HAVE
FREE WILL IN THAT CASE, BECAUSE YOU COULD NEVER HAVE
DONE OTHERWISE THAN YOU DID. ALL RIGHT. SO, THAT'S ONE HORN, HERE,
THAT DETERMINISM IS TRUE. AND THE OTHER HORN IS, WELL,
SUPPOSE DETERMINISM ISN'T TRUE? THEN, WHAT DO YOU HAVE, NOW? WELL, THEY SAY RANDOMNESS
AT THE POINT OF DECISION. SO, NOW, YOU COULD DECIDE
THIS, YOU COULD DECIDE THAT, BUT WHICH ONE YOU DECIDE
IS A MATTER OF CHANCE, OR LUCK. AND SO, THAT'S NOT
FREE WILL, EITHER. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY. EITHER WAY, THEN,
THERE'S NO FREE WILL. BUT STILL, PEOPLE FEEL
AS THOUGH THEY'RE FREE, AND SO, THE CLAIM IS, WELL,
THAT FEELING IS AN ILLUSION. NOW, THE WAY MOST PEOPLE WHO
DON'T BUY THE ARGUMENT ATTACK IT, IS THEY ATTACK
ONE HORN OR THE OTHER. SO, THERE ARE PHILOSOPHERS
CALLED COMPATIBILISTS. AND COMPATIBILISTS SAY THAT,
EVEN IF DETERMINISM IS TRUE, PEOPLE CAN ACT FREELY. WHAT COMPATIBILISTS THINK IS
THAT WHAT YOU NEED IS TO BE RESPONSIVE TO
REASONS IN A CERTAIN WAY, SO THAT IF THE
REASONS HAD BEEN DIFFERENT, YOU WOULD OR MIGHT
HAVE ACTED DIFFERENTLY. EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO
POSSIBILITY THAT THE REASONS WERE DIFFERENT, BASED ON
THE UNIVERSE THAT WE LIVE IN. THAT'S RIGHT. SO, THAT'S ONE WAY TO GO. AND THE OTHER WAY
TO GO IS TO SAY, NO, YOU'RE RIGHT, FREE WILL
DOES REQUIRE THAT DETERMINISM BE FALSE, BUT THE FALSITY OF
DETERMINISM DOESN'T JUST PUT YOU AT THE MERCY OF CHANCE
OR RANDOMNESS OR LUCK. YOU'RE STILL ENOUGH IN CONTROL
OF WHAT YOU DO TO ACT FREELY. THAT KIND OF RESPONSE IS
CALLED THE LIBERTARIAN RESPONSE. SO, THE
PRO-FREE-WILL VIEWS, THEN, DIVIDE INTO THOSE TWO CAMPS. ATTACK ONE OR THE
OTHER OF THESE PROBLEMS. THAT'S RIGHT. HERE'S THE ARGUMENT THAT
FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION. IF DETERMINISM IS TRUE,
THEN EVERY EVENT IS FIXED BY A PREVIOUS EVENT, AND THERE
IS NO ROOM FOR FREE WILL. AND IF DETERMINISM IS FALSE,
THEN RANDOMNESS RULES, AND WE DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT
CONTROL OF OUR ACTIONS. BUT BECAUSE WE THINK
WE DO HAVE FREE WILL, FREE WILL MUST BE AN ILLUSION. THERE ARE PHILOSOPHICAL
COUNTERARGUMENTS. I SHOULD EXPLORE THEM. BUT FIRST, I GO TO THE
SCIENCE, THE BRAIN SCIENCE, BECAUSE IF FREE WILL IS
COMPOSED OF THOUGHTS, FEELINGS, AND ACTIONS, THE
BRAIN IS WHERE THEY RESIDE. IN FACT, THE VANGUARD OF THOSE
WHO CLAIM FREE WILL TO BE AN ILLUSION ARE NOW
FOUND IN NEUROSCIENCE. I HEAR THAT ELECTRICAL PATTERNS
IN THE BRAIN PROVIDE HARD EVIDENCE THAT FREE
WILL IS AN ILLUSION. I GO TO
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON, TO MEET A PIONEER OF
FREE WILL BRAIN RESEARCH, NEUROSCIENTIST PATRICK HAGGARD. PATRICK, IS FREE
WILL AN ILLUSION? WHAT DOES THE BRAIN TELL US? I THINK, IN SOME STRONG
SENSE, FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION. SO, THE IDEA OF FREE WILL
THAT WE MAY HAVE IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES REALLY HAS SEVERE PROBLEMS
WHEN YOU TEST IT AGAINST THE DATA FROM MODERN BRAIN SCIENCE. THE WAY MOST OF US GO THROUGH
OUR EVERYDAY LIVES IS WITH AN IDEA OF FREE WILL, WHICH IS
MY CONSCIOUS THOUGHTS AND MY CONSCIOUS INTENTIONS
CAUSE MY ACTIONS. I THINK ABOUT LIFTING MY ARM -
THAT'S A CONSCIOUS MENTAL EVENT - AND SOMEHOW THAT
CONSCIOUS MENTAL EVENT CAUSES MY ARM TO GO UP. NOW, THE CAUSAL
BIT IS THE PROBLEM, BECAUSE IN NEUROSCIENCE, WE HAVE
A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE IDEA THAT A CONSCIOUS EVENT, WHICH
IS SOMEHOW INDEPENDENT OF THE BRAIN, WHICH IS
OCCURRING ONLY IN THE MIND, BUT NOT IN THE BRAIN, CAN
SOMEHOW TRIGGER THE BRAIN ACTIVITY, WHICH THEN
TRIGGERS THE MOVEMENT OF MY ARM. AND CONSCIOUS CAUSATION FROM
THE MIND TO THE BRAIN IS REALLY UNDEFINED AND, IF YOU LIKE IT,
IT'S A GHOST IN THE MACHINE; NOBODY CAN GIVE A
GOOD DESCRIPTION OF IT, IT SEEMS ALMOST MYSTICAL. FROM A NEUROSCIENTIFIC
POINT OF VIEW, THERE IS NO CONSCIOUS MIND
INDEPENDENT OF THE BRAIN. AND I THINK THIS WAS REALLY
SHOWN VERY CLEARLY IN THE FAMOUS LIBET EXPERIMENT. SO, IN THE LIBET EXPERIMENT,
THE PARTICIPANT IS GIVEN THIS RATHER STRANGE INSTRUCTION, TO -
TO MAKE AN ACTION WHENEVER YOU FEEL LIKE IT, A SIMPLE,
BRISK MOVEMENT OF THE WRIST. NOW, WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING,
THE PARTICIPANT IS WATCHING A CLOCK HAND ROTATING, AND THE
PARTICIPANT'S TASK IS TO REPORT THE MOMENT THEN THEY FEEL THE
CONSCIOUS INTENTION TO MAKE THE ACTION, WHICH THEY
THEN SUBSEQUENTLY MAKE. SO, USING THIS METHOD, LIBET
WAS ABLE TO TIME THE CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE OF WILL -
OF FREE WILL. AND WHILE HE WAS DOING THAT,
HE WAS ALSO RECORDING THE BRAIN ACTIVITY OF THE PARTICIPANTS,
USING ELECTRODES PLACED ON THE SCALP, AND THE REALLY
INTERESTING PART OF THE LIBET EXPERIMENT IS THAT YOU CAN
RECORD A SO-CALLED READINESS POTENTIAL, A BUILD-UP
OF BRAIN ACTIVITY, OVER THE PLANNING
CENTERS OF THE BRAIN, OFTEN A SECOND OR SO BEFORE THE
PERSON MAKES THIS MOVEMENT THAT THEY DECIDE TO MAKE. A SECOND IS A LONG
TIME, IN BRAIN TIME. IN BRAIN TIME, IT'S
EXTREMELY LONG, RIGHT? THE BRAIN CAN DO
A LOT IN A SECOND. BUT THE CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE
THAT THE PERSON REPORTS, USING THE ROTATING
CLOCK, THAT HAPPENS, ON AVERAGE, ONLY A COUPLE OF
HUNDRED MILLISECONDS BEFORE THE HAND ACTUALLY MOVES. SO, THERE'S A REALLY BIG GAP,
WHICH IS ABOUT 800 MILLISECONDS, OR MORE, BETWEEN THE BRAIN
BEGINNING TO PREPARE THE ACTION, AND YOU HAVING THE CONSCIOUS
EXPERIENCE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ACT. NOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT,
THAT'S EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE TEMPORAL ORDER FROM WHAT THE
CARTESIAN ACCOUNT OF FREE WILL WOULD REQUIRE. SO, THE WAY THAT WE THINK ABOUT
FREE WILL IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES, IN WHICH DESCARTES
SUMMARIZED FOR US, IS THAT OUR CONSCIOUS
THOUGHTS CAUSE OUR ACTIONS, BUT REALLY, THIS IS NOT
NEUROSCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE. SO, NO NEUROSCIENTISTS ARE
REALLY SURPRISED BY THE RESULT OF THE LIBET EXPERIMENT, BECAUSE
CONSCIOUSNESS HAS GOT TO BE A PRODUCT OF OUR BRAIN ACTIVITY. BRAIN ACTIVITY COMES BEFORE,
PRECEDES CONSCIOUS AWARENESS. I CANNOT DENY IT. I THINK I MAKE THE DECISIONS,
BUT MY BRAIN KNOWS BEFORE I KNOW. WHAT, THEN,
CONSCIOUS AWARENESS? WHAT, THEN, ME? BRAIN SCIENCE SEEMS TO
TURN FREE WILL UPSIDE-DOWN, BECAUSE IF BRAIN ACTIVITY
COMES BEFORE CONSCIOUS INTENT, BRAIN ACTIVITY SEEMS TO
CAUSE CONSCIOUS INTENT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. IS BRAIN SCIENCE THE
DEATH NAIL OF FREE WILL? MANY OPPOSE THIS, WELL,
DISCONCERTING CONCLUSION, INCLUDING MANY PHILOSOPHERS. IS THERE OTHER EVIDENCE? THALIA WHEATLEY, AN EXPERIMENTAL
PSYCHOLOGIST AT DARTMOUTH, CLAIMS HER RESEARCH CONFIRMS
THAT FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION. I MEET THALIA AT THE FIRST
GATHERING OF THE BIG QUESTIONS AND FREE WILL PROJECT,
AT FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY IN TALLAHASSEE. THALIA, YOU BELIEVE FREE
WILL, IN COMMON DEFINITION, IS AN ILLUSION. YES. AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY. OKAY. AND THAT'S THE KEY, THE
COMMON DEFINITION OF FREE WILL, WHICH I BELIEVE TO BE, MY
CONSCIOUS SELF IS FREELY DECIDING, INITIATING
COURSES OF ACTION. THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE THAT THAT'S THE CASE. IN FACT, IT LINES
UP ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT SEEMS LIKE CONSCIOUSNESS IS
COMING VERY LATE IN THE STREAM OF THINGS TO BE CAUSAL IN THE
WAY WE THINK OF A CONSCIOUS SELF CAUSING ACTION. WE, OF COURSE, ONLY SEE, I
HAD THE THOUGHT TO PICK UP THE COFFEE CUP, AND I PICKED IT UP,
AND THEN WE CHUCK THAT AS THE BEGINNING AND THE END, AND WE
MISS ALL OF THIS NEURAL ACTIVITY THAT'S ACTUALLY CREATING
THE ACTION BEFORE WE'RE EVEN AWARE OF IT. BUT I WILL SAY THAT MOST
PEOPLE WHO FIGHT FOR FREE WILL, INCLUDING NEUROSCIENTISTS, THE
BEST EVIDENCE THAT THEY SORT OF MARSHAL IS HOW COMPELLING IT
FEELS TO BE A CONSCIOUS AGENT. BUT LOTS OF THINGS FEEL
COMPELLING THAT WE NOW KNOW, SCIENTIFICALLY, AREN'T TRUE. THERE'S LOTS OF VISUAL
ILLUSIONS, FOR EXAMPLE. AND YOU KNOW IT'S AN ILLUSION,
BUT IT'S STILL COMPELLING. COMPELLING IS NOT ENOUGH. ANOTHER SOURCE OF EVIDENCE WE
HAVE FOR WHY WE MAY NOT HAVE THIS KIND OF FREE WILL IS THAT
THE FEELING OF FREE WILL CAN BE PUSHED AROUND SO MUCH. YOU CAN MAKE PEOPLE FEEL
WILL FOR THINGS THEY DIDN'T DO, YOU CAN TAKE IT AWAY WHEN
THEY REALLY SHOULD HAVE IT. AND SO, IF YOU
CAN PUSH IT AROUND, THIS FEELING, THEN
WHAT'S IT REALLY DOING? ONE WAY WE PUSH THIS FEELING
AROUND - WHEN I WAS A GRADUATE STUDENT, WORKING WITH DAN WEGNER
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, IS WE CREATED A SITUATION IN
WHICH A PERSON WOULD BE TOLD, YOUR JOB IS TO MOVE THIS BIG
COMPUTER MOUSE AROUND WITH THIS OTHER PERSON. THIS OTHER PERSON, THEY
THOUGHT WAS ANOTHER SUBJECT, ACTUALLY THEY'RE - IT'S
NOT; IT'S AN EMPLOYEE OF THE EXPERIMENT. SO, THEY'RE MOVING THE
COMPUTER MOUSE AROUND, AND THIS IS MOVING ACTUALLY
A CURSOR AROUND ON THE SCREEN, AND ON THE SCREEN IS A
BUNCH OF DIFFERENT OBJECTS. AND SO, THEY MOVE
THE THING AROUND, AND THEY STOP, AND THEY WAIT. WE GAVE THEM HEADPHONES. AND THEY'RE LISTENING TO THESE
WORDS THROUGH THEIR HEADPHONES, AND THEY HEAR A WORD -
MONKEY - IN THEIR HEADPHONES. AND THIS IS THE MOMENT WHEN THE
EMPLOYEE OF THE EXPERIENCE IS TOLD, THROUGH THEIR HEADPHONES,
STOP ON THE MONKEY ON THE SCREEN. SO, YOU GET THE
EXPERIENCE, AS A SUBJECT, HEARING, MONKEY, AND THEN YOU
SEE YOURSELF STOP ON THE MONKEY ON THE SCREEN. THAT WAS COMPLETELY
FORCED BY THE OTHER PERSON, BUT YOU HEAR THE
THOUGHT, YOU SEE YOURSELF ACT, AND LO AND BEHOLD,
YOU SAY, I DID THAT. SO, THEREFORE, YOU CREATED
A SITUATION WHERE THE PERSON IMAGINED THEY HAD
TOTAL FREE WILL, AND IN FACT, THEY HAD ZERO. THEY HAD ZERO FREE WILL, BUT
WE MANIPULATED THESE THINGS, AND BOOM, THE
BRAIN CODED THAT IS, I DID IT. HENCE, FREE WILL
IS AN ILLUSION. YES. IT MAY BE. AT LEAST A CONFABULATION. AH, THALIA, CONFABULATION. IS OUR SENSE OF FREE
WILL FABRICATING AN IMAGINARY EXPERIENCE? I FIND MYSELF DISMISSING
THE CLAIM THAT FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION. BUT WHEN I CANNOT
REBUT THE SCIENCE, I PAUSE. YET, FREE WILL
FEELS SO NATURAL, NOTHING SEEMS SURER. I PUT THE PROBLEM
TO TIMOTHY O'CONNOR, A PHILOSOPHER OF
METAPHYSICS AND RELIGION. TIM IS AN EXPERT ON PERSONS. CAN PERSONS RESOLVE
PARADOXES OF FREE WILL? TIM, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HUMAN MIND IS ABOUT, WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS,
HOW DO YOU RECONCILE FREE WILL? SO, WE ARE CAPABLE
OF MAKING CHOICES, AND WE HOLD ONE ANOTHER
RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR CHOICES. THAT'S ONE PICTURE. THE OTHER PICTURE IS, HUMAN
BEINGS ARE PHYSICALLY EMBODIED THINGS, AND IN HIGHLY
COMPLEX - COMPLICATED WAYS, PHYSICAL PROCESSES
UNFOLD WITH REGULARITY, THROUGH TIME, INCLUDING
PROCESSES COURSING THROUGH OUR BRAINS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE
THERE'S AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CAUSES AND EFFECTS, THAT WE ARE
JUST EMBEDDED IN A MUCH LARGER, PHYSICAL MACHINE,
THAT UNFOLDS IN THIS WAY. A FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION ONE
NEEDS TO DRAW TO - TO BEGIN TO SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF
RECONCILING THESE TWO VISIONS IS BETWEEN SOME
THINGS HAVING CAUSES, AND SOME THINGS BEING WHOLLY
DETERMINED BY SOME SET OF CAUSAL FACTORS. THERE ARE PHYSICALLY EMBEDDED
FACTORS INFLUENCING ME TO TAKE SERIOUSLY CERTAIN
OPTIONS, WHEN I MAKE A CHOICE, BUT VERSUS OTHER OPTIONS
THAT I DON'T EVEN CONSIDER. OFTEN, WHEN I'M ACTING,
I'M BIKING INTO CAMPUS, I'M THINKING ABOUT
THINGS, I'M ON AUTOPILOT. BUT SOMETIMES, A
DECISION IS CALLED FOR, AND OPTIONS PRESENT
THEMSELVES TO ME. AND IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT THERE
IS A PHYSICAL PROCESS THAT IS PUSHING ME IN ONE WAY
RATHER THAN ANOTHER. IT COMES TO MY
CONSCIOUS AWARENESS; I HAVE TO DECIDE. NOW, THAT COULD BE
AN ILLUSION, RIGHT? BUT THERE'S NO NECESSITY TO
SUPPOSE THAT IT'S AN ILLUSION, JUST FROM THE FACT THAT ANY
CHOICE CAPACITY THAT I HAVE IS AT LEAST A CAUSAL
PRODUCT OF THAT VERY CAPACITY, THERE BEING A
PROPERLY FUNCTIONING BRAIN. I THINK PEOPLE MOVE TOO QUICKLY
FROM PHYSICALLY EMBODIED TO, IT'S NOTHING BUT
UNDERLYING PHYSICAL STUFF HAPPENING HERE. SO, YOU HAVE A
DUALITY OF FEATURES AND, IN THIS CASE, OF
CAPACITIES TO ACT. BUT THERE'S JUST ONE
UNDERLYING KIND OF STUFF... AND OUT OF THAT,
YOU GET FREE WILL? AND OUT OF THAT,
YOU GET FREE WILL, IF ALL GOES WELL. TO TIM, THERE IS SOMETHING
ABOUT PERSONS THAT ENABLES A ROBUST FREE WILL. HE CLAIMS THAT A CHOICE
CAPACITY IS A CAUSAL PRODUCT OF OUR CONSCIOUS AWARENESS, BUT
THAT A DUALITY OF FEATURES IS GROUNDED IN NON-DUALISTIC,
PHYSICAL MATERIAL. THAT SOUNDS INTERESTING. BUT I STILL CANNOT RID MYSELF
OF THE STARK AND SIMPLE NOTION THAT, IF THE PHYSICAL
BRAIN DESCRIBES MENTAL LIFE COMPLETELY, THEN OUR COMMON
SENSE UNDERSTANDING OF FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION. CAN FREE WILL BE RESTORED? ONLY IF THE SCIENCE
CAN BE REFUTED. DOES PHILOSOPHY
HAVE THE FIREPOWER? I GO TO NOTRE DAME, TO
MEET METAPHYSICS PHILOSOPHER, PETER VAN INWAGEN. I ASK HIM TO EXPLAIN THE
ARGUMENT THAT FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION. FREE WILL SAYS WE'RE ABLE TO
DO OTHER THINGS THAN THOSE WE DO DO. IF DETERMINISM ISN'T
COMPATIBLE WITH FREE WILL, IT IMPLIES THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO
JUST EXACTLY THOSE THINGS WE DO. BUT OF COURSE, SINCE WE HAVE
THE STRONG CONVICTION THAT WE COULD HAVE DONE THINGS - THAT WE
WERE ABLE TO DO THINGS - OTHER THAN THOSE THAT WE DID THEN
FREE WILL MUST BE AN ILLUSION. BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO
BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING? I SUGGESTED THAT IF
DETERMINISM IS TRUE, YOU COULDN'T BE ABLE TO
DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU DID. BUT CERTAIN PHILOSOPHERS
HAVE SAID THAT THIS ARGUMENT IS WRONG, BECAUSE THE ABILITY TO
DO BOTH THOSE THINGS IS QUITE COMPATIBLE WITH DETERMINISM. EVEN IF DETERMINISM IS TRUE,
YOU COULD HAVE A FRAGILE WINDOW THAT NEVER BREAKS, RIGHT? THEY SAY IT'S JUST A CONCEPTUAL
CONFUSION TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T - YOU'RE UNABLE TO DO
THINGS EXPECT WHAT YOU DO DO, IF DETERMINISM IS TRUE. THE SAME CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION
IT WOULD BE TO SAY THAT SOMETHING COULDN'T BE FRAGILE. BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, IF THE
WINDOW NEVER IS GOING TO BREAK, THEN THE PRESENT STATE OF
THINGS AND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DETERMINE NOTHING IS EVER GOING
TO STRIKE THE WINDOW HARD ENOUGH TO BREAK IT, SO IT
WILL NEVER BREAK. STILL, IT'S FRAGILE
- IT'S SITTING THERE, BEING FRAGILE ALL
THE TIME, ISN'T IT? ACCORDING TO THESE
PHILOSOPHERS, COMPATIBILISTS, TO SAY THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DO
SOMETHING IS JUST TO SAY THAT, IF YOU WERE TO CHOOSE TO
DO IT, YOU WOULD DO IT. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CHANCE
IN THE WORLD THAT YOU EVER WOULD, THE FACT THAT YOU
COULD CHOOSE TO DO IT, OR THERE WAS A CHOICE,
MAKES FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM COMPATIBLE. RIGHT, BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT ABILITY IS; YOU'RE ABLE TO DO
SOMETHING, IF YOU WOULD DO IT, IF YOU CHOSE TO. AND THAT'S ALL
THERE IS TO ABILITY, THE COMPATIBILIST WILL TELL YOU. HOW ABOUT INCOMPATIBILIST? THE INCOMPATIBILIST IS LOYAL TO
THAT ARGUMENT THAT YOU CAN'T BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING IF DOING IT
WOULD REQUIRE A DEPARTURE FROM THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. THE INCOMPATIBILIST,
THEREFORE SAYS THAT MORALITY AND EVERYTHING ELSE, FREE
WILL REQUIRES - MUST REQUIRE INDETERMINISM. IT MUST BE THAT, IF YOU DO
SOMETHING AND/OR ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE BEFOREHAND, IT
WAS CAUSALLY UNDETERMINED WHICH OF THOSE TWO
THINGS YOU WOULD DO. SO, YOU REALLY DO
HAVE A REAL CHOICE. REMEMBER, THAT THE
COMPATIBILIST WILL SAY THAT YOU HAVE A REAL CHOICE AS WELL, JUST
THAT THE COMPATIBILIST HAS A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
IT IS TO HAVE A REAL CHOICE, FROM THE INCOMPATIBILIST. BUT WHAT THE INCOMPATIBILIST IS
SAYING IS THAT THERE IS A REAL, PHYSICAL POSSIBILITY OF
BOTH THINGS HAPPENING. FREE WILL IS EITHER
INCOMPATIBLE WITH DETERMINISM, OR IT'S COMPATIBLE
WITH DETERMINISM. SUPPOSE IT'S BOTH
INCOMPATIBLE WITH DETERMINISM, AND INCOMPATIBLE
WITH INDETERMINISM, AND THERE ARE ONLY TWO
POSSIBILITIES - DETERMINISM AND INDETERMINISM - THEN IT'S
INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVERY POSSIBILITY, AND
SO, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. TO PETER, FREE WILL IS EITHER
COMPATIBLE WITH DETERMINISM - CALLED COMPATIBILISM - OR
FREE WILL IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH DETERMINISM - CALLED
LIBERTARIANISM - AND PETER CAN PROVE THEM BOTH WRONG. WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. SO, DOES THE PHILOSOPHY
OF FREE WILL IMPLODE, DEFAULTING TO SCIENCE,
WHICH DECLARES ALL FREE WILL - COMPATIBILIST FREE WILL,
OR LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL - AN ILLUSION? I HURRY BACK TO AL MELE. MY OWN VIEW IS THIS:
EITHER COMPATIBILISM IS TRUE, OR LIBERTARIANISM IS TRUE. THAT EITHER/OR PROPOSITION IS
MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE OPPOSING PROPOSITION, WHICH
IS, NO FREE WILL, EITHER WAY, FREE
WILL IS AN ILLUSION. THE LIBERTARIAN
PART OF THE PROJECT, I THINK IS MORE INTERESTING. SO, YOU CAN SORT OF SEE
THIS PROBLEM ABOUT LUCK OR RANDOMNESS. SO, WHAT ARE YOU
GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT? HOW DO YOU SAVE LIBERTARIANISM? THE ANSWER IS, DECISIONS YOU
MADE IN THE PAST HAVE A BEARING ON HOW YOUR LIFE GOES, YOU CAN
LEARN FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE DECISIONS, AND ADJUST
YOUR THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE. SO, PAST DECISIONS HAVE
EFFECTS ON FUTURE DECISIONS. THEY CAN ACTUALLY
SHAPE THE PROBABILITIES OF FUTURE DECISIONS. SO, I SAY THAT, IF YOU LOOK AT
PEOPLE JUST AT MOMENTS IN TIME, JUST SNAPSHOTS OF
THEM, INTERNALLY, THIS LUCK PROBLEM LOOMS LARGE. BUT IF YOU CONSIDER
WHAT PEOPLE CAN DO, UM, TO CHANGE THEIR LUCK, AS
IT WERE THEY START LOOKING MORE LIKE THEY COULD BE FREE AGENTS. PHILOSOPHICALLY, FREE
WILL SEEMS TO CONTRADICT ANY DESCRIPTION OF
THE PHYSICAL WORLD. SCIENTIFICALLY, FREE WILL SEEMS
TO BE AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT OF OUR BRAIN-GENERATED
INNER AWARENESS. SO, IS FREE WILL A
MASSIVE ILLUSION? THE MORE ONE STUDIES THE BRAIN,
THE MORE ONE FINDS ELECTRICAL PATTERNS PRECEDING
CONSCIOUS AWARENESS. BUT IF FREE WILL
WERE AN ILLUSION, COULD WE TRUST
ANYBODY ABOUT ANYTHING? I RECALL AGAIN DAN
DENNETT'S WISDOM. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY
TO BABYSIT YOUR CHILDREN, SO YOU WANT SOMEBODY GOOD. DO YOU WANT SOMEBODY
WHO WILL BE FORESIGHTED, WHO WILL THINK
CAREFULLY AND BE REFLECTIVE? YOU WANT A VERY, VERY ADROIT AND
CLEVER AND RESPONSIBLE AGENT. NOW, I GIVE YOU TWO CHOICES;
ONE OF THEM IS A HUMAN BEING, AND THE OTHER ONE IS A ROBOT. BUT A VERY INTELLIGENT
ROBOT - IN FACT, A ROBOT THAT IS BETTER
THAN THE HUMAN BEING, DETERMINED TO BE BETTER, MORE
RESOURCEFUL THAN THE PERSON, BECAUSE THE PERSON, YOU KNOW,
GETS TIRED AND A LITTLE BIT ABSENTMINDED, AND SO FORTH. I'M ALSO GOING TO SUPPOSE THAT
THE PERSON IS NOT DETERMINED, WHEREAS THE ROBOT IS. NOW, WHO DO YOU
TRUST YOU CHILDREN TO? IS IT OBVIOUS? TRICKY. YEAH, IT'S TRICKY, BECAUSE
YOU BEGIN TO REALIZE THAT THE COMPETENCE THAT THAT ROBOT
IS DETERMINED TO HAVE IS THE COMPETENCE THAT WE CARE ABOUT. THAT'S WHAT I WANT, YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. NICE. PROVOCATIVE. I APPRECIATE I
CAN BE COMPETENT, EVEN IF I AM DETERMINED. BUT FREE WILL'S CLAIM IS
NOT SO MUCH TO COMPETENCE, BUT RATHER TO PRIVATE
VOLITION, MENTAL CONTROL, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. IT'D BE A BIG DEAL IF
THERE WERE NO FREE WILL. ALL THESE ARGUMENTS. SO, HOW DO YOU CONCLUDE? IT'S A MYSTERY, TO ME. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A
GREATER MYSTERY IF THERE WERE NO FREE WILL. SO, I CONCLUDE, YES, THERE MUST
BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH ONE OF THESE ARGUMENTS. SO, I REGARD FREE WILL
AS A COMPLETE MYSTERY. FOR ME, FOR NOW, EITHER
FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION, OR SOMETHING IS MISSING,
GETTING CLOSER TO TRUTH.
