First of all, I need to say that, even if it is ignorant, I even do not bother to read philosophical speculations.
I am interested in empirical premises. I’ve heard that there is some research, where scientists, monitoring activity of a person’s brain, are able to predict which switch (s)he’s going to switch, before (s)he does, or maybe before (s)he’s conscious about the choice. This implies that our decisions are results of some chemical processes determined aside of our “free choice” and so called free will is only an illusion, a way in which alternatives presents to us, while the choice is made already deep in our minds unconsciously and maybe even deterministically. Does anybody know this research and could cite it?
Since I am constantly busy, I really sucks in the theory, so could anybody say what’s the Marxist stance on free will if any?
The definition of free will I use is the philosophical one from disctionart.com:
the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
The argument against free will typically rests on the claim that human choices are determined. But if the universe has non-deterministic elements and small changes in conditions can have large changes in outcomes, then both of these together make human choice non-determined.
The analogy to dice fails because dice are not human decision makers.
We can’t have perfect knowledge of classical systems because those systems are built on top of a quantum system that has elements that are entirely probabilistic. Chaos theory is relevant for the very reason that they make systems impossible to predict. Again, going back to Schrödinger’s cat: we don’t know if it’s alive or dead until we open the box. The sensor is based on quantum mechanics, the cat and the gas are macro elements, but we can’t just ignore it because the decay does not fit with classical physics. It’s already been proven via the Uncertainty Principle that our knowledge can never be fully complete, so we would never be able to run such a simulation as you suggest.
Ultimately, the burden of proof is on those claiming that all choice is determined to show it, but considering the universe does not constrain choice to be 100% deterministic, there is no real reason to suspect it exists.
The analogy with the dice is precisely correct because all systems can be reduced down to their individual parts. Humans can be reduced to atoms, electrons, etc. Those particles are all governed by the laws of physics, not by human choice. Whether their behavior is deterministic or stochastic is irrelevant, we still have zero control over how the particles which make up our brain behave. And yes, quantum interactions have probabilistic outcomes and are thus non-deterministic. I repeat: the ability or inability to predict our actions is not sufficient to determine whether we have free will or not. This is also why quantum uncertainty plays no role at all in this. It would only play a role if non-predictability was the sole defining feature of “free will”. But free will as it is traditionally defined implies more than that, it implies a conscious choice. Saying that we have free will because quantum randomness exists implies that we can control how the “dice” of quantum randomness fall, and there simply is no evidence for that. It is in fact the position which claims that this physics-defying so-called “free will” exists which requires proof. Where in the chain of causality from subatomic quantum interactions to the actions taken by a human does the “free will” come in and how? Which particle is compelled by human will to behave differently than it would if it were only subject to the laws of physics (no matter whether the laws are deterministic or probabilistic)?
The reason i asked for a definition is because you can only argue that free will exists if you remove the element of choice/control and reduce it solely to a problem of predictability. That is not the definition you cited however. In your definition free will is “when the conduct of human beings […] is not simply determined by physical […] forces”. But you acknowledge that human behavior is the result of the behavior of the components which make up a human, and you also acknowledge that those components are subject to the laws of physics, therefore human behavior is determined by the laws of physics. The confusion stems from conflating this with determinism. A system does not need to be deterministic for its behavior to be “determined” (a better word to use here would be “governed” in order to avoid conflation with determinism) by the laws of physics.
The crux of your reply appears to rely on your claim that “all systems can be reduced down to their individual parts.” Before we continue, am I correct that you are in essence stating that emergence does not exist?
Depends what you mean by emergence. I believe systems can exhibit emergent properties but those properties are ultimately still just a statistical result of the myriad complex interactions between their individual parts. I don’t believe that somehow new physics magically appears simply because you add more particles and make a system more complex (if you believe otherwise then i would like to know where exactly the point is at which this magic occurs, where is the threshold such that X+1 particles behave in a radically different way than they behaved when there were just X of them and that is not explainable by the rules which govern the individual parts?). All macroscopic behavior is derived from the microscopic scale; to believe otherwise is to believe in magic. Whether or not we can actually perform this derivation in practice is irrelevant, analogous to how not being able to write down a closed form solution for an integral does not mean that it does not have a solution, it’s just that sometimes we need to apply methods of approximational computation instead.
That being said i still don’t see what this has to do with free will. Where exactly does the human input come in? Where is the choice? Are you claiming that it is an emergent property of sufficiently complex systems such as brains that they can choose the way that their physics works? That given possible outcomes A or B for random quantum interactions of their component particles they can choose at will which will happen such that the effect of this choice propagates into the macroscopic system and changes the actual human behavior? And do they do this in a way that is so sneaky and smart that we are still not able to distinguish between choice and randomness if we were ever to make a statistical analysis of all the random quantum outcomes? Because normally when choice gets imposed on something that was supposed to be random this alters the observed probability distribution when we do the tally at the end, it’s why we can tell when people are cheating at games of pure chance. So how exactly are we cheating the laws of physics and the randomness of quantum interactions such that we impose our will on them?
I don’t know, this whole notion of “free will as emergent behavior” sounds too much like magic to me. It seems to be something that is by definition unexplainable, that defies the laws of physics and simply appears out of nowhere and that cannot ever be proven to exist by any amount of careful scientific examination because it is so shrewd as to disguise itself as though it was never there if we were ever to look closely to try and find traces of it at the most fundamental level of reality. Awfully convenient… and basically the same as any other metaphysical belief.
