No comment |
Do we
have free will? A deceptively simple question which most would answer in the
affirmative. But this conundrum has occupied active and inquisitive minds for
over two millennia. Until the 19th century
this question was the exclusive preserve of pure philosophy. In the 19th century psychologists started to wade
in and contribute to this most vexed of problems. Relatively recently
disciplines as diverse as genetics, neurobiology and quantum physics have
deemed free to add their own particular brand of wisdom/insanity. Surprisingly,
at least to the layman’s mind, the view obtained from most studies and pure
reasoning sides with the notion that we do not have free will. This
deterministic perspective is counter intuitive and one which most would feel
uncomfortable with. But it is not just about a vague feeling of unease that is
at stake here. If the world is truly deterministic, if we have no real choice
over our actions, then there can be no voluntary violation on our part and
that, of course, has profound implications on our perceived notion of morality.
If we have no free will then how can we be morally culpable for our actions? If
our behaviour is determined from the day we are born to the day we die, then
accountability is meaningless. We have no control over how we act and
consequently traditional morality cannot apply. The ramifications from this
sort of reasoning are immense and reach to the very core of what it means to be
human. The practical implications are also disturbing and the judiciary should
release all the felons from our criminal institutions immediately. After all we
are mere automata. Trinkets driven by deterministic causal chains of events of which
we have no conscious control. Arse.
As
mentioned earlier, the idea that we are bereft of will free is counter to
intuition and seems bizarre. Therefore, it will be profitable to outline why
this viewpoint is prevalent amongst those who make a living by
contemplating this sort of thing.
It is
argued that all atoms obey predictable physical laws. The neurons in the brain,
which are the ultimate arbiter of our actions, consist of atoms. Therefore in
principle, at least, we should be able to plot the behaviour of all atoms in
the brain and therefore the response of all the billions of neurons comprising
our nervous systems, together with all their interactions, and hence all our
behaviour should be liable to prediction with unerring certainly. Of course,
this would only relate to a ‘closed system’. Or in other words an individual
suspended in a blackened room not receiving any stimuli or any form of
interaction from the outside. When we emerge into the sunlight and blink,
things start to get complex. The point being that everything is predetermined
and has an antecedent stretching back to the ultimate cause, the big bang. Or
is this a case of classic scientific reductionism and causality running amok
and turning the absurd into absolute madness (wibble bucket). If it makes
you feel better you are free to disagree. Or are you?
To my
mind this is one of sciences and
philosophies greatest challenges and is ultimately unresolvable. Perhaps
we should stop pondering the imponderable and channel humanities immense
talents into curing cancer or at least inventing the everlasting light bulb.
Very relevant after the atrocities in France caused by followers of the 'Religion of Peace'. Roland awake..... |
Given my views on all forms of religion, I guess I need to go into hiding...
ReplyDelete