
There's No Such Thing as Free Will - dhimant
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/?single_page=true
======
dctoedt
Seems like unwarranted either-or binary thinking: Either we're totally in
control of ourselves, or we have no control at all. I suspect that doesn't
square with most people's personal experiences.

(Cf. Paul's letter to the Romans: " _I do not understand what I do. For what I
want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do._ " [1] )

One problem might lie in the nomenclature. The term "free will" is simply
wrong. And it's not like "sunrise," which is likewise wrong but for everyday
purposes the error is harmless.

[1] Romans 7.15,
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7:15-20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7:15-20)

~~~
zaque1213
> Either we're totally in control of ourselves, or we have no control at all.

Maybe I missed it, but it seems the author of the article makes no distinction
between natural and moral inability. Jonathan Edwards, in his work Freedom of
the Will, puts forth the idea that a man chained to a chair is not morally
unable to get up from the chair, but he is naturally unable.

The author mentions that a day laborer with no belief in free will are perhaps
more likely to show up to work late. I don't necessarily doubt that's true,
but they still bear moral responsibility. Unless he broke his leg on the way
to work or something like that, there is no natural inability to be on time.

In the same vein, if an otherwise gentle and courteous person develops a brain
condition that causes anger violent behavior, that is owing to a natural
inability, not a moral one.

> The term "free will" is simply wrong. And it's not like "sunrise," which is
> likewise wrong but for everyday purposes the error is harmless.

I agree with you. Again, Edwards would state that our will is determined by
our mind. We will to do whatever our mind finds most desirable at any given
moment. The laborer who is consistently late to work desires an extra few
moments on his couch at home more than the virtue of fulfilling his commitment
to his boss. But in the absence of any natural inability, he bears moral
responsibility for that choice.

You mentioned Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul is assuming a natural
inability to do the right thing, which it seems to me he also assumes to be a
moral inability. I suppose the question to be answered here is whether the
desires of our mind are captive to natural forces, such as cause and effect,
or whether have complete agency over our minds. Or both.

~~~
taneq
I think this distinction between 'moral' and 'natural' inability is an
artificial one. The only difference is where, between the chair and the center
of the man's mind, the chains are fastened.

------
dwighttk
"Smilansky is not advocating policies of Orwellian thought control." He's just
advocating policies of Orwellian thought control against scientists who don't
take his advice to stop telling people free will doesn't exist.

------
CiPHPerCoder
> if the choice is between the true and the good, then for the sake of
> society, the true must go

I vehemently disagree. This is a prelude to Brave New World.

------
kstenerud
So basically, his argument is that, unless our choices are 100% completely
independent of our environment, we don't have free will.

To be honest, I'm having trouble following his logic here, and advocating
living a "lie" so that people don't suddenly go on a reefer-madness style
rampage is in and of itself quite silly.

We can make choices for good or for worse, and you do so every day. If you're
in a bad mood, you can be snarky and mean to the barista at the coffee shop,
or you can just suck it up and be pleasant. Saying you have no free will in
the matter is ridiculous.

~~~
ci5er
A thermostat in a house will have a setting.

Similarly, if it is in your nature (your setting) to be pleasant even when
feeling slight emotional strain, you will try to be pleasant. If it is in your
nature to let it all hang out, you will let it all hang out.

I'm not necessarily supporting the idea that "there is no free will", but
pointing out that it might be a nervous poodle's setting to bite me when I
visit my friend. And it might be in my nature to throw it out the window
without thinking when bit.

You see this in discussions where people talk about being to choose tea (which
they don't prefer) over coffee (which they do prefer) in order to demonstrate
their free will. Well, yeah - I guess. But if you're the kind of person who is
designed to think it important to demonstrate your free will at the coffee
shop, it's in your nature to take your disfavored beverage just to prove your
point. Because that's how you are wired.

------
leecarraher
why come up with a free will theorem when hand waving apparently suffices :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem)

~~~
taneq
This article seems to completely confuse free will with determinism. You can
be non-deterministic without having free will, it doesn't matter whether it's
equations of motion or truly random chance that pushes you in a particular
direction, there's still no room for 'choice' in your resulting motion.

