The free will debate can get into a lot of philosophical discussions on determinism, indeterminism, causality, acausality, and can get into some pretty heavy topics such as quantum mechanics, theories of time, and a bunch of other really complex discussions. For this article I’m going to move away from all of this high level stuff and take things to a more intuitive level. If you are looking for some insight on how quantum mechanics can’t help free will (which it can’t by the way), this is not the article for that, but do subscribe for articles that get into some of these more complex topics as well! For this article, lets just try to analyze our own decisions just a bit.
Imagine what it would mean for you to have, of your own accord, been able to have decided otherwise than what you did. Just picture this for a second and then imagine what it implies. Or better yet, think of any example of a decision, and ask yourself if there was a reason why you made the decision you did. And if there was, how could you have gone against that reason? And if there wasn’t, how could you have, of your own accord, stopped the decision from happening?
Imagine, for example, that you said something to someone you love that hurt them greatly, and you wish you could take those words back. Imagine that you could have actually not said that thing at the time you did. Why should this loved one forgive you? After all, you chose to say something really hurtful when you could have not said the thing. What does this say about your character? Why would you actually choose to say something hurtful that you’d just regret, when you didn’t actually have to say it?
Or does the fact that you didn’t realize such would be hurtful and that you’d regret it play into you saying it? In which case, given that lack of information, could you really have not said it? And if you could have not said it, again why did you? Was there a reason you said it? If so, could you have not said it when there was a reason you said it? That reason would, after-all, still be the same. What if there wasn’t a reason you said it at all? Why, then, did you say such a thing?
For no reason, you might add. But if it just came out for no reason, could you really have not, of your own accord, said it? After all, it just came out and you couldn’t have stopped it. Or could you have stopped it? And if there was no reason for you to say it, and you could have stopped it, why didn’t you?
Was there a reason you didn’t stop it? If there was a reason you didn’t stop it, how could you have stopped it with the reason you didn’t being there? And if there was no reason you didn’t stop it, then how could you have stopped it?
This problem is intractable. The fact of the matter is, we don’t need to even get into determinism, indeterminism, causality, acausality, and all of the philosophical understandings that make free will impossible (though if we want to truly understand why we don’t have free will, in what way, and what it implies, we need to delve deeper into these more focused concepts).
We can simply assess any decision we ever make and ponder the question of why we made the decision. We can ask if there was a reason, and if so, what such reason implies. And we can ask if the reason had a reason. And if we think there wasn’t a reason somewhere down the line, we can ask what it would mean for our own ability to “will” something that there was no reason that led to the decision.
Even for the most seemingly random decisions we make, for example, thinking of a number between 1 and 10, this problem is intractable. So go ahead – think of a number. Got a number? Great, was there a reason you thought of that number instead of one of the 9 other numbers? If yes, why did that reason happen? If no, why did that number happen? If there was a reason but you just don’t know what it was, for example, some memory, or some association, or some neurons sparking while other not, then that is the reason that number came to be. But if there truly wasn’t a reason. If you thought of the number 5 but there was nothing that brought it above all other numbers to the forefront of your consciousness, how was that decision anything you had control over? How was it “of your own accord”?
And again, imagine what it means that you could have chosen 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10, rather than 5. Such would imply that there was no reason you chose 5. There was no underlying events that led to 5. Because if those events did exist, if there was a reason you chose 5, then such is not the same reason to choose another number instead.
But if 5 popped into your head, and there was no reason it did, such would be entirely outside of any willing. Perhaps a 6 could have popped into your consciousness instead of a 5, but again, such would be without your say. It would be outside of your control. The only thing within your capacity to will are things with reasons. But if there is a reason for a decision, you simply could not have chosen otherwise than the reason that produced what it did. The reason is what drove you to that decision. And if you had a reason for the decision, there was either a reason for the reason to come about, or the reason itself was outside of your willing capacity. This part is important, the very reason itself must either stem to another reason, or not, and likewise that reason.
Just ponder your thoughts, decisions, desires, and so on. Ask the question of if there are reasons you desire something, or don’t want something, or prefer something, or decide on something. Then ask what it means that there are reasons for the decision you made, and what it would imply if some of these came about with no reason what-so-ever.
It would imply that you could not have, of your own accord, done, said, or thought otherwise than what you do at any given moment. Each moment leads to the next, and that includes your own thoughts and decisions.
The good part, however, is that the thoughts you do have, those thoughts that come about for reasons, become part of the reasons for the next thoughts and decisions you make. In this sense our thoughts, decisions, and actions play an important role with what will happen. We simply don’t need to break free from the reasons that make our decisions, as such freedom isn’t something of worth as such freedom would never be “up to us”anyway.
Some might think they can have a split decision, that they have equal reasons for multiple options. But if you choose one over the other, the problem still exists. Either there was a reason you chose one over the other, or there wasn’t. If there wasn’t, such a decision was never willed.
Of course realistically we know there is a reason for each decision we make, even if we don’t know what those reasons are. Realistically, how our brain and body are configured, the neural and chemical setup at the time, the environment at the time, and so on all play into the behind the scenes reasons of the decisions we make. But even if you thought a decision didn’t have any reason at all, such still cannot escape the fact that…
…you could not have, of your own accord, decided otherwise than what you did – at any given time in your history.
And that’s the free will ability of concern, because without that ability, the capacity for your loved one to forgive you for what you said hinges on the understanding that you couldn’t have said, of your own accord, otherwise at that time. The removal of this free will ability takes away all notions of blameworthiness, and replaces it with understanding and compassion, and perhaps a desire to figure out the reasons something happened, and address the actual reasons rather than shaming and finger wagging.
Still not sure why you don’t have free will, what it means that you don’t have it, and why it’s so very important? If so, please check out Breaking the Free Will Illusion.
'Trick Slattery
Latest posts by 'Trick Slattery (see all)
- Semantic Shift Day, August 31 – REMINDER! Mark your calendar! - August 1, 2020
- Debunking Dennettian Diatribe - May 2, 2018
- Compatibilism: A Parable (comic) - December 7, 2017
10 Responses to “Freely Willed Decisions are Even Intuitively Nonsensical!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yes there are always reasons for our actions. But a reason is not a cause of our will. Our will is always free; meaning no reason compels our will. Though we always have determined reasons for our choices, those determined reasons do not cause our choices. The will is the freedom of going forward in consciousness. It is the self actualization which as beings that already partake of consciousness, are able to determine what will be. All willing is uncaused ,pure freedom of self [consciousness] which though it always exists with preceding reason to want to act, is never compelled to act. The will is the agent[self] over and above it’s determinants that causes actions. The actions of the self are always free; uncaused by determinants. That is what a self is la free agent capable of uncaused willing. The choices are not random but they are free.
Hi rose-ellen,
Thanks for stopping by. 🙂
This doesn’t make sense. If there is a reason, that is a cause.
An uncaused event cannot have a willer (cannot be caused by a willer).
The “self” must be a determinant for it to be “the action of the self”. And the self itself either has a cause (a reason) for it or it doesn’t. Either way, such stems to events outside of the self’s control.
Anyway, just some food-for-thought. Think about it some more. 😉
An uncaused event is a willer[a being] willing.The being has[given] reasons for willing this or that but the given reasons do not, like a domino, CAUSE the willer to will this or that. Willing is the free movement of the being into the future. The willer brings his/her already determined reasons to the act of willing but the act of willing is not the result[effect] of the reasons but a freedom to will.[rationally; in accordance to determined reasons] The free movement of the willer into the future is in every instance of willing the manifestation of freedom of being.
Hey rose-ellen. I’m not sure how you can say an uncaused event is a willer willing. The very process of being a “willer” or a willer “willing” are causal. For an event to be “uncaused” such event cannot be causally constrained by a willer.
You are saying that “willing is the free movement of the being into the future”, but if such is not free from the willer, such is not free movement. And just as important, the willer itself is not uncaused. And if there is an uncaused event anywhere down the line, such must be outside of what is “willed” (logically). 😉
Yes,the being did not create him/herself,The being is caused by;either natural processes or immaterial ground of being[god]. I believe the later. So though the being is caused, once existing , part and parcel of its existence is consciousness which is the ability to be the prime mover of it’s will [choices, decisions].Though the being exists with constraints [determining factors; pre existing conditions, so to speak] its ability to will is independent of those conditions. Being [for a human], is a conscious willed mover. The will is immaterial as is consciousness therefore not subject to material causes.
Even if one was to postulate immaterial causation, such still cannot remove the constraints of logic. If one has no control over their own creation, that would also include any immaterial condition. It doesn’t make sense to say one can “will” independant of all conditions, as the process of willing itself is reliant on a willer. The willer must be configured the very way they are based on their “creation” or based on any material or immaterial causation. As Sam Harris says:
“Even if you believe that every human being harbors an immortal soul, the problem of responsibility remains: I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath.”
I cannot understand what “uncaused event” is.
Is there really such thing?
I thought the only uncaused event is the beginning of the world.
Probably not (depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics that happens to be correct – if any), but even if there was, such would be incompatible with free will. 😉
The willers’ will is not constrained because it is not caused. The willers will, like” the origin of the universe” is uncaused, meaning that once a consciousness exists[ a being, a self] that self is in every instance imposing its free will on the contingencies it faces.[given reasons] The willer is the prime mover acting freely on whatever contingencies it faces. Willing is being.
Even if we accept the claim that people or our consciousness comes into being without a cause (which is itself logically problematic), this doesn’t help, as the acausal event of (a self/willer) coming into being was entirely outside of the willers control. The willer had no choice to come to be the exact way they did, in the exact configuration they did, to make the exact decisions they did.
This is the very problem with any acausal event – such an event is always outside of any willing. And once in existence it can only causally act based on the configuration it had no control over to begin with.