Enda Nasution’s recent article on free will has been a good chance to (re-) think about the unique phenomenon. After reading it, its comments, and the referred-to article in the New York Times, I felt the need to attempt to emphasize its validity. The articles and most comments that followed, if not undermining the validity of free will, reflect varying degrees of our dubiousness or confusions about it.
On the face of stuff like it, what do we posses to understand with? Two distinct sets of tools: scientific and religious reasonings. I will concern myself only with the first here; while it must intrigue to engage the issue using the second set, I will reserve it for further discussions, whose chances I am sure are great to come by. I’d like to point out that even in the scientific realm, there are huge problems, which directly and not directly relate with free will--the subject of our discussion today.
Firstly, there are huge problems buried deep in oblivion due to our daily chores regarding the mantle of science, or to be more accurate, the spectacles of science. One of the major problems relates the difference between scientism and science. Most of the time, we mistake the two. Science is, after all, scientia; correct knowledge. What we think of “science” mostly replicates what people hold on natural sciences. Most social scientists use the methodology of physical or natural sciences to try to understand social phenomena. This is not only lamentable, but seriously erroneous. Furthermore, the fact that most scientists use this does not mean it is correct; nor the only way to look at science.
There is another form of science, another way of looking at things, which perhaps can bring us closer to truth. We may disagree with this; but if we dismiss it entirely, aren’t we crediting too much to the “science” that most of us see it?
Take, for instance, praxeology—or the science of human actions. It has been believed by a few proponents to be a better approach to studying beings with will, and which derives its axioms based on logical deductivism.
It is introspective to know that natural forces, trees, animals do not have will. Only we, human beings, have will. That we make choices, cannot be disproved. The fact that some cannot make choices due to external factors, it is of different nature. All of our choices have consequences; and the fact that some consequences may affect, necessitate or proscribe our next round or capacity of choice making, even to the point of debilitating it, does not contradict or totally nullify our freedom to choose.
Such examples as those one’s inability to quit smoking only reflects one’s preference over certain choices. Even Einstein’s words that Enda quoted in his post is not about will per se; it’s about power. The fact that I cannot fly from home to office does not invalidate my free will. Of course, I cannot will what I cannot do. We cannot confuse will with power, precisely because we are free to choose to the limits determined by our condition as humans.
Like everything else mundane that we know of the world, we have our certain definite and definable nature.
On the face of stuff like it, what do we posses to understand with? Two distinct sets of tools: scientific and religious reasonings. I will concern myself only with the first here; while it must intrigue to engage the issue using the second set, I will reserve it for further discussions, whose chances I am sure are great to come by. I’d like to point out that even in the scientific realm, there are huge problems, which directly and not directly relate with free will--the subject of our discussion today.
Firstly, there are huge problems buried deep in oblivion due to our daily chores regarding the mantle of science, or to be more accurate, the spectacles of science. One of the major problems relates the difference between scientism and science. Most of the time, we mistake the two. Science is, after all, scientia; correct knowledge. What we think of “science” mostly replicates what people hold on natural sciences. Most social scientists use the methodology of physical or natural sciences to try to understand social phenomena. This is not only lamentable, but seriously erroneous. Furthermore, the fact that most scientists use this does not mean it is correct; nor the only way to look at science.
There is another form of science, another way of looking at things, which perhaps can bring us closer to truth. We may disagree with this; but if we dismiss it entirely, aren’t we crediting too much to the “science” that most of us see it?
Take, for instance, praxeology—or the science of human actions. It has been believed by a few proponents to be a better approach to studying beings with will, and which derives its axioms based on logical deductivism.
It is introspective to know that natural forces, trees, animals do not have will. Only we, human beings, have will. That we make choices, cannot be disproved. The fact that some cannot make choices due to external factors, it is of different nature. All of our choices have consequences; and the fact that some consequences may affect, necessitate or proscribe our next round or capacity of choice making, even to the point of debilitating it, does not contradict or totally nullify our freedom to choose.
Such examples as those one’s inability to quit smoking only reflects one’s preference over certain choices. Even Einstein’s words that Enda quoted in his post is not about will per se; it’s about power. The fact that I cannot fly from home to office does not invalidate my free will. Of course, I cannot will what I cannot do. We cannot confuse will with power, precisely because we are free to choose to the limits determined by our condition as humans.
Like everything else mundane that we know of the world, we have our certain definite and definable nature.
4 comments:
Free will has been subject to debates as long as the history itself, more reading here if u have interest to see full debate
the new science methods and technology such as MRI gives us a new way to peer into our brain and find new stuff about our consciousness, so it gives the whole debates about free will a new light
i think free will is an illusion, there are no real choices in life. all of our "choices" are already predetermined by our gens, our parents, our environment, our culture, technology and many more
what leads people adopt particular ideas? and what makes them change their minds? what would be the purpose of learning, or revision then, if everything has been predetermined? determinism even conflicts with these rudimentary questions.
it is an essential attribute of our nature as humans that we have consciousness; what new light can “new” + “science” tell us about it? while external factors such as the ones you mentioned are indeed contributory factors, our actions are determined by the choices that our minds make. our minds make choices by thinking over problems by ourselves or by adopting other people’s solution.
we perceived ourselves making those decisions, learning new things, change minds, when in reality what we learn, decides and think already done without even the process of thinking.
the study of conscious and unconscious mind that i cited on my post showed that already
we made the choices (unconsciously) before we even think about it
for example, who you are (where u born, what education you have, what u read) made you post a respond to my post
something that the next person wouldn't have done.
enda, thanks for the determination to pursue this topic. i also determined to reread both the nyt article and the wiki reference you provided.
i had to *think* a lot because they are quite lengthy and varied. in both of them there are many excerpts of studies about (un)consciousness and with different conclusions,too; one thing in common i noticed is that most of them were done by the same strain of scientists who have tried to examine human beings using natural science approaches, eg. empirically.
i could see that you wholeheartedly identified with some of those scientists, e.g with the one that the nyt writer had rather unconvincingly done, over his chocolate. but with all due respect to eistein, i believe we can will what we want, though not invariably, as i have written in my post.
i also respect your opinion, for i do, too, believe in empiricism; but only as far as it concerns physical objects, not when it's about human activities precisely because of this willy will.
yet when you say decisions are handed down to us without us even thinking, i've found it rather hard to swallow. i then wonder if you have not ever gotten excited, in reality, to have arrived to an original solution that you thought of yourself to a particular problem. probably not, for you would have known it even without thinking...
to me, even perceiving is an action; in fact, it can be so profoundly active it calls for a lot of thinking.
well, i guess i have to stop here. having to think, even just a little thought after one put his li'l daughter to sleep, sometimes can give one a headache.
except you, of course; and i could live with that.
Post a Comment