I have always suspected that there was something amiss about the concept of free will. It appears to be our most precious possession yet we don’t seem to give much though to the truth of it. Then I stumbled upon an article by a certain man named B. F. Skinner which peeked my interest. Soon enough I stumbled upon hard determinism. So far I haven’t seen a single argument disprove hard determinism. It appears be the best explanation of our ability to make choices.
Hard determinism:
1. Every event has a cause
2. Every cause is also an event
3. Human behavior is an event
Thus: All human behavior has a cause
4. If an event is caused, it is not free
Thus: No human behavior is free
I.e. - free will does not exist
Obtained:
here
My own glance at hard determinism:
- A person has no freedom to choose events that influence life. The universe is older then humanity. Hence events happened which were not determined by human action. Since these events caused the first human choices the first human choices were not free. Since the first human choices were not free the effects of these actions caused further responses, which also lacked freedom of choice. Hence no human choice was ever the first link in the chain of causality that was caused by freewill.
- A person has no choice in his own genetic makeup and hence has no choice in the predetermined factors of his mind. If a person chooses to alter himself later on such a choice will be made based on previous causes, thus no freewill is executed.
- A person appears to have a choice in the knowledge that is assimilated into his mind, but this assumption is false. We can only choose to learn from what is put before us. At first knowledge is acquired instinctively, and forced socially as well as circumstantially. Hence the acquisition of fledgling knowledge is not a choice. Since knowledge acquired by an infant is not a choice the choices that such knowledge will determine in a child is also not a choice. From birth onwards all knowledge is determined though circumstance therefore it is not acquired though freewill.
All options to act are determined by previous factors. The options of human beings are limited by our knowledge and by circumstance. Since both knowledge and circumstance are determined by causality the choices that are before us are determined by causality.
A human being’s ability choice is determined by three factors: the event (circumstance), genetics (hardware: brain, instincts, emotions) and knowledge. A human being is essentially a processing device. We receive input from the outside world and use our minds to access knowledge with which we determine our choices and our responses. Yet this process, which happens in our minds, is in no way free of causality. The individual does not have a free choice over the even that forces him to make a choice, genetics or knowledge. Hence human beings do not have the quality of freewill and human beings are at the mercy of causality.
Freewill is absurd.
People who advocate free will believe that there is a part of the human mind, which is in equilibrium to the world and is outside of causality. This part of the mind has the power to alter our behavior. I believe that if human poses such a quality it would be completely useless. For if there were no inclination to act, there would be no action or response from this part of the mind. Further more I believe that this part of the mind cannot be self aware. As all decisions are based on the circumstance and the deliberation of the mind. The thought process of the mind is based on knowledge and genetics capabilities; therefore it is not free of causality. Hence the thought process cannot affect freewill otherwise freewill be corrupted by causality. If freewill is not affected by the mind then it is not aware, hence it cannot respond to input of any kind.
All our choices are determined by causality.
References to other views on free will:
http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/i-determinism.html