Oh, no! The author of "The Rigor of Angels" is a compatibilist

Disappointment is part of life. Okay, a big part. Still, it hurt when I reached the Free Will chapter in the book by William Egginton that I'm enjoying a lot: The Rigor of Angels: Borges, Heisenberg, Kant, and the Ultimate Nature of Reality.

Up to that point, Egginton impressed me with his writing ability, intelligence, and ability to weave the lives and teachings of a poet, physicist, and philosopher into a satisfying picture of what reality is all about.

(One sentence summary of the book: we never learn what reality is, in itself, but how reality appears to us based on our questioning and observations.)

I figured that the discussion of free will which concludes the book would be equally thoughtful and persuasive. But this sentence dashed that hope:

We are physical beings whose every move occurs in the mechanistic flow of space-time, and we are rational agents who can visualize options and choose which one to take.

Now, that sentence may not seem off-base. In fact, taken by itself I have no problem with it, since it simply says that visualizing options and choosing one occurs within the determinism that rules our physical being. Which, of course, is the only being we have.

But the entire Free Will chapter makes clear that Egginton is a free will compatibilist.

That's a position much beloved by philosophers who agree that determinism rules us humans, yet want to preserve free will in some form, for reasons that are difficult to discern, but center around how horrible it supposedly would be if lots of people gave up a belief in free will.

Wikipedia has a brief description of compatibilism.

Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had the freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. This definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism. This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one's own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination.

Compatibilism is an absurd bit of philosophizing.

It doesn't rescue free will, not in the slightest. It just redefines free will in a way that takes the "free" part out of it -- not as the ability to freely make decisions that aren't affected by prior influences, but as not being subject to external domination such as being in prison or coerced by someone to do something.  

In addition to being absurd, it's arguably useless. That's the point made in a post on the Why Evolution is True blog, "Why do we need free-will compatibilism?" Short answer: no reason. Here's excerpts from the post.

The laws of physics dictate that, from time to time, random thoughts about the free-will debate cross my mind. The latest one, which popped into my brain for no reason this morning, was the question, “Why are we even bothering with compatibilism?”

As you know, “compatibilism” is the philosophical view that even though we cannot control our thoughts and actions beyond what the laws of physics dictate, and therefore have no “free will” in the traditional sense, we have free will in a nontraditional sense.  Those “compatibilistic” varieties of free will vary among different philosophers; Dan Dennett has expounded several versions, and other philosophers still more versions. (This all makes me wonder what we’re supposed to tell people what really constitutes our [compatibilist] “free will.”)

Opposed to compatibilism are the two forms of incompatibilism that see free will as incompatible with physical law:

a.) Contracausal free will. This is the traditional “you could have done/chosen otherwise” free will in which we are agents whose wills can effect, at a given time, two or more different behaviors or choices. It is the kind of free will that most people think we really have, and is certainly the basis of Abrahamic religions whose gods either save you or doom you based on whether you make the “right” choice about God or a savior.

b.) Free will skepticism (sometimes called “hard determinism”). As you must know, this is the view to which I adhere. Though it’s often called “determinism”, with the implication that the laws of physics have already determined the entire future of the universe, including what you will do, that’s not my view. There is, if quantum mechanics be right, a fundamental form of indeterminism that is unpredictable, like when a given atom in a radioactive compound will decay. It’s unclear to what extent this fundamental unpredictability affects our actions or their predictability, but I’m sure it’s played some role in evolution (via mutation) or in the Big Bang (as Sean Carroll tells me). Thus I prefer to use the term “naturalism” rather than “determinism.” But, at any rate, fundamental quantum unpredictability cannot give us free will, for it has nothing to do with either “will” or “freedom”.

And this question struck me, as my neurons chugged through their program this morning:

Why do we even bother ruminating about compatibilism, much less write long books about it?

To me the really important issues are a) vs. b) above, which in principle can be attacked with science, while compatibilism is more or less a semantic issue. If naturalism be true, then we should trumpet it from the rooftops, as it flies in the face of what most people think and (as I note below), does have real and important implications for society.

But why bother so much with compatibilism? The only reason I can think of—and it’s a reason often voiced by philosophers—is that people need to have a definition of free will that comports with their “feeling” that they have contracausal free will, even if the definition itself isn’t contracausal.

But why this need? Even I feel like I have contracausal free will, but I realize that at best it’s an illusion and, at any rate, I have no use for a philosopher-confected definition of some compatibilistic free will. I do just fine, thank you.

l do just fine without compatibilistic free will also. I just wish that Egginton felt the same way, because then his Free Will chapter would have made more sense.

Comments

[La Madrugada]

l do just fine without compatibilistic free will also. I just wish that Egginton felt the same way, because then his Free Will chapter would have made more sense.

Hi Brian, it is not in the destiny of Egginton (at the moment) to digest that there is no free will at all. For me knowing that there is no free will at all feels as a gift, it makes life easy.

[um]

So if I do understand this discourse:

Hamas was "forced" to orchestrate an massacre
and
the IDA was and is "forced" to act on the DAHIYA doctrine and destroy the whole of Gaza.

Like the Americans were "forced" to drop 2 nuclear bombs on densely populated centers of 2 cities and they could not have acted otherwise.

An because they are "forced" none of them is guilty, none of them is to blame

What if someone is ""forced" to kill your partner, your child, your cat and dog, your house and the last physical memories of your parents?

What will be your reaction... of course also "forced"

In a world where all is "forced" the use of the word becomes meaningless.

[um]

OH before I forget

and ...I am so determinated that I consider all of your actions as being based on FREE CHOICE and I will re-act to them as I deem fit

[Appreciative Reader]

Fair point: We keep using the term "determinism" to refer to the opposite of free will. But that isn't true at all, given quantum randomness!

True, speaking for myself I generally do stick in a short qualification, within parentheses, saying "(bar quantum randomness)"; but still, it is simply incorrect to use the term 'determinism' any more, given that quantum randomness completely precludes determinism.

----------

Not, of course, that that has anything to do with free will, one way or the other! Free will does not not exist, regardless of quantum randomness.

Just, in a post-QM world, where we all know about quantum randomness, to keep using the term "determinism" is simply wrong.

Egginton uses "naturalism" instead. Nah, not snappy enough! In fact, not even quite accurate, because while, sure, naturalism is a thing, but what is being focused on is the lack of free will, and that focus isn't brought out by using terms like "naturalism", or, for that matter, 'materialism'.

I guess we need a new term, to denote "no free will", a term that we might use in place of 'determinism'.

----------

If you happen to come across any such term, Brian, in the course of your formidably wide reading, then do write about it! (For my part I'll do the same, even though, despite loving to read myself, I guess I read much less than you do!)

[Spence Tepper]

The argument for absolute determinism falls apart in a universe where odd events emerge that are entirely unpredictable. If you can call the emergence of unpredictable events determinism, BOOM, you've just turned your argument for absolute determinism into a circular argument that you can use to explain any event, even ones no one can predict.

So what is left is compatibilism. The open door. Leave it to the mind to run the entire mile around the block right back to square one...

Say it with me, "I Don't Know...".

[Brian Hines]

Spence Tepper, you're an intelligent guy, but your knowledge of science has some gaping holes in it. Deterministic systems can be unpredictable. That's a fact. You should educate yourself about a subject before you leave false comments about it.

Read Sapolsky's book, Determined. Read the classic book on chaos theory by Gleick. Heck, just read a Wikipedia article on chaos theory to learn how you're wrong. The certainty you often express in your comments disguises a severe misunderstanding of reality. Here's an excerpt. Note the references to determinism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
-----------------------------------
Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, and were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[1] Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[2] The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[3] A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas can cause a tornado in Brazil.[4][5][6]

[Sant64]

Why Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky are WRONG on Free Will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssX4fGfeDNE

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian!

You wrote:
"you're an intelligent guy, but your knowledge of science has some gaping holes in it. Deterministic systems can be unpredictable. That's a fact. You should educate yourself about a subject before you leave false comments about ...."

Sorry Brian but you have not addressed my point.

Let me reiterate: "If you can call the emergence of unpredictable events determinism, BOOM, you've just turned your argument for absolute determinism into a circular argument that you can use to explain any event, even ones no one can predict."

No one argues that unpredictable events can arise from deterministic principles.
Our ignorance is the explanation for most unpredictable things.

But no scientist argues, as you do, that every unpredictable event arises thus.

And that is because, unlike your dogma, science is open ended. We don't know enough to carry the kind of dogmatic certainty you seem to revel in.

Unfortunately, you create a circular argument that depends for proof upon its own assumption and cannot be refuted. There is no way to test your argument as false because you now have an explanation for every possible outcome, even the ones you didn't plan for and may have no idea about. You can retrospectively invent an explanation. Any explanation will do, even garden fairies, when you remove testability. And testability is a corrolary of predictability.

You, Brian, who love to argue for testability and the requirement that every notion must be falsifiable (if it has any hope of scientific verity), are now standing on a dogma that can't be disproven.

You've fallen into the pit of circular argument to explain, but not to explore.
Just like every religion on earth.

That's just wrong buddy.

[Ron E.]

I reckon that much of what we address as free will and determinism can become thoroughly confused and often overlaps into each other’s territory. According to hard determinists, no human action is free, but human choices are free. And free will advocates that we have the ability to choose, yet unimpeded.

I know this can all be addressed from the scientific, philosophical, religious, psychological and also quantum levels, but I’d always have to approach it from the human and natural level of how we make choices and decisions – and the processes this takes. And I see ‘making choices’ as the source of the confusion. Choices have to stem from what we know. Choices cannot be made without information and all the information we display has to reside in the memory aspect of the brain – information that has been accrued from the past and influences our present thoughts, choices and actions.

So, for me, the real question is not: Do I have a choice? Rather it is: Who is the ‘me’ that’s asking if I have a choice? The view that there is no ‘you’ for things to happen to is a hard, even painful one to take in and I accept that this is a sticking point for many who believe in free will.

We are naturally drawn toward thinking of ourselves as being a particular self, separate and independent from everything and everyone else, yet simple observation can reveal how we are so inextricably linked and influenced by the environments and cultures we exist in. Nothing exists in isolation. We are the product of all that has gone before and all that we encounter now making the self-structure a non-static process. All this is observable to us.

As they say in Buddhism: The concept of free will is predicated on the assumption of a self or a soul; in Buddhism, there is no self. Instead, Buddhism asserts that there is a constantly changing 'perceiving self'. Just as there is a perception of the self, there is a perception of free will. It only resides in your mind.

[um]

>> We are naturally drawn toward thinking of ourselves as being a particular self, separate and independent from everything and everyone else, yet simple observation can reveal how we are so inextricably linked and influenced by the environments and cultures we exist in. Nothing exists in isolation. We are the product of all that has gone before and all that we encounter now making the self-structure a non-static process. All this is observable to us.>All this is observable to us.<<

The desire to drink coffee appears before me like a cloud in the sky.

It is to me to re act.
If I open up to the desire, I have to get up, and do whatever is needed to make coffee.
IT is one long chain of decision making that ends in a cup of coffee
Choices that NOBODY ELSE is making for me.

And when I drink coffee and forget of the "I" and the "MINE" I quickly am remembered,
that as long as I am in that awarenes of "I" I can controll the world and have coffee and if I am aware of the "sameness" , not being the üniquevariation" that speaks of itself as "I" there would be no coffee but the truth ... the truth that there is no I that is able to make coffee.

[Sant64]

If you truly believe in determinism, then why are you trying to convince other people to believe in determinism? Haven't their thoughts and beliefs already been determined? If you believe determinism is true, then it has to follow that trying to win people over to determinism -- or to anything for that matter -- is an utterly futile pursuit.

You don't have reason at your disposal, because what you think is reason is what causal forces have made you think is reasonable.

But if you counter that by declaring that science has determined that the universe is deterministic...well, that's just not true. The world's physicists and philosophers do not agree that the universe is deterministic or probabilistic. They don't agree on what matter is. They don't agree on what consciousness is. They don't agree on how the universe started or how life was generated from non-living matter. These are all very pertinent issues that matter much to the claim that there's no free will and that hard determinism is true.

The scientific community is agnostic on these issues. That fact has to be acknowledged if this discussion will go anywhere.

More on the false assumptions behind Harris' and Sapolksy's determinism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssX4fGfeDNE

[Sant64]

Did the Buddha teach there's no free will?

As with so many other issues, the Buddha took a middle path between the two extremes of determinism and total free will. If all your experiences were predetermined from the past—through impersonal fate, the design of a creator god, or your own past actions—the whole idea of a path of practice to the end of suffering would be nonsense. You wouldn’t be able to choose to follow such a path, and there wouldn’t be such a path for you to choose in the first place: Everything would have already been determined.

However, if your choices in the present moment were totally free, with no constraints from the past, that would mean that your present actions would, in turn, have no impact on the future. It’d be like flailing around in a vacuum: You could move your arms in any way you wanted, but you’d still be flailing.

The Buddha took this issue so seriously that, even though he rarely sought out other teachers to argue with them, he would if they taught determinism or the chaos of total freedom.

(Thannisaro Bhikku)