The Non-Existence of Free Will

Log 2

Introduction

I have always been a very analytical person, I like to sit down and start forming philosophical theorems in my head, and it just stays there. As I think my way to the "truth", I found out many new stuff. One of them is this, Free Will. The concept of Free Will has always been quite controversial, many say it doesn't exist, but others insist that it does exist. I find the concept ridiculous, and I find that the concept has been abused and used to justify the torture and imprisonment of people, as well as Capital Punishment. And in this log, I shall explain why Free Will doesn't actually exist. 

Free Will

Before we begin, we need to set a clear boundary, so we need to define Free Will, we don't want to be attacking a Straw Man here. So it's quite simple really, Free Will is an ideology that states that humans have the capabilities to make a choice by their own conscience without any external coercion or influence, that is the person makes the choice because they can make that choice. As a result, this means humans have a moral responsibility for their free choices, choices made by their own free will. Why? Well because it's the human that made that choice, they had the power to choose that particular choice, and not because of other parties. An example would illustrate this clearly.

Say a person threw a coin towards a wall, we don't know why, but he's just throwing a coin to the wall. For some reason, the impact of the coin caused a chain reaction to the wall and the wall just collapsed. Would they deserve blame for destroying the wall? No, because it wasn't intentional, it was an accident. And who builds such incredibly weak walls? But if the builder of said wall built the wall sloppily intentionally, then they deserve the blame. The same can be applied to praise. Let's say I am practicing with a gun, I accidentally shot it and the bullet killed a guy about to rape a little girl. Did I receive credit for saving the girl from harassment? No I won't as it was accidental, but I will be applauded as being lucky and maybe scolded for being unsafe, but that's irrelevant. It would be a different story if I found the guy about to rape a little girl and I shot the man with the intention of saving the girl, then I would deserve the credit, because I did it intentionally. And that is the basic concept of Free Will and Moral Responsibility.

Do we actually have Free Will?

Now this is my question, do we actually have Free Will? Because it has been defined that any action we do, that is considered to be a Free Choice, is our responsibility. But is there any of our choices and actions that is absolutely caused by our own doing and not influenced by others in any way at all? Can be there be another choice, or has it all been determined? Or when I ate rice for breakfast, could I have ate noodles? We will answer all of those questions.

The Arguments

There are many arguments that can easily break the concept of Free Will, one of them is the Multiple Worlds Interpretation Theory. The most basic summary is whenever we make a choice, another universe is created. Say I want to buy a notebook, in this universe I am buying a blue notebook, in the other universe, I am buying a red one, and somewhere else, I didn't even want to buy a notebook, I was buying some comic books perhaps. Another alternative is there are already many universes which go at the same pace, and they are all very identical, just with some small differences. While this argument is quite good, but I wouldn't go with it, as the Multiple Worlds theory have not seen some strong evidence, yet.

Now my argument here still uses Physics, but I consider it to be much stronger, as it's already an established law in Physics. The law I am talking about is the Law of Causality. This law is fairly simple, everything must have a cause. The same can be said to Human Beings. With Free Will, when one asks why someone did something, it's because that someone chose to do it, and that's it. One would go further by asking why, and perhaps the answer is because the person is like this or like that. Like if I didn't do a certain task, it's because I am lazy or such. That would just make heavier of a burden for that someone wouldn't it? Now not many people would continue further down to their psychology, as it's not beneficial for them and pretty much useless for them. All they know is, "He had the power to choose something better, but he didn't, so he was abusing that power," and you see where I am going here right? But we can dig deeper can we? But I'd like to tell a short story to make it clearer.

One day, there was a student and say his name is Bob. Bob had a problem, he was supposed to bring some materials for cooking class, and it's within a group. But at that time, he didn't bring it, and what he was supposed to bring are crucial ingredients of the food. Well in fact, his group have already agreed on what to bring a week prior. Though they didn't remind Bob a day before. Eventually they had to beg for other groups giving a burden to the others, but at least a girl was kind enough to share. Bob was then lambasted with tons of scoldings, reprimands, and yells by his mates. He tried to defend himself by saying that they didn't remind him. But they just scold him even more for avoiding responsibility and that he should have remembered and he could have asked the others, and well forgetting is not a good reason of course. Note how they keep saying should have or could have, implying that Bob had the power to choose otherwise.

Some people will just shrug it off and let him go, forgive him as it's just a one time thing perhaps. But Bob had repeated the same mistakes over and over again. Some will actually try to analyze him even further, or like in this situation. The students eventually complained to the teacher, and he was called to the counselor. The counselor then asked him about his lazy and undisciplined behavior. Bob tried to defend himself, saying that he just forgot about it, and won't repeat it. The counselor replied, saying that Bob's just bluffing as he has said the same words over and over again, even adding that Bob often forgot because he is lazy and doesn't care about his education or his friends, meaning Bob is selfish and self-centered. Without letting Bob to speak, the counselor also charged Bob of being addicted to video games and his phone, making him unable to focus to work and also making him lazy. The counselor then just go on full scold mode and scolded Bob harshly for the next 30 minutes, then kicked out of the counseling room with a harsh threat of a very heavy sanction if he is seen doing the same thing again. Bob then just walked around wondering why everyone treats him like that. He is aware of his flaws, and he has been trying his best, but yet again, no one can understand, or no one wants to. Heck, not even his parents! He just leaves wondering about all of this.

So you see, the counselor had began their first step of analysis, an analysis of Bob's personality. But that analysis just made Bob more guilty of a poor student didn't it? Because the assumption is, Bob ALSO had the power to choose what he wants to become now didn't he? Before anything else, let's recap. So Bob made a poor choice, why? Because of a certain personality Bob had that made him choose in such a way. So that means our choices is affected by our personality and memories, correct? So let's see if we can dig deeper, that is what made Bob's personality into what it is? Or simply put, why is Bob lazy? Why can't Bob improve when he's tried? Why can't Bob care about his work and friends? So we want to find the cause of things, and since cause comes before the effect, we must look to the past, not the present. The counselor's analysis only discovered Bob's identity of the present, or the time of his decision making. That is his psychological identity, not his physiological identity, it sounds similar but let me explain. Bob's physiological identity is his body, what he looks like, how tall he is, basically the body. While his psychological identity is his mind, his mental stuff, personality, behavior, those stuff. A good analogy would be if in a computer, the physiological part is the hardware, the psychological is the software. So, what we want to find is, an answer, to this question, what makes a certain identity unique? That is, what makes someone, that someone? What makes Bob, himself. Let's get started, shall we?

Of course I won't explain about Bob in detail as I am no psychology expert, yet. But basically, we will eventually end up with birth. When a human baby is first born, they are a clean slate. This theory is also known as Tabula Rasa, the opposite of Innatism which states that babies are already equipped with ideas, knowledge, and beliefs when they are born. But it doesn't matter, I'll explain that later, we'll go with the "Blank Slate" theory first. While the babies are a blank slate, they are not completely empty, they are still equipped with a basic algorithm, basic survival instincts, basic communication skills. These basic skills, well actually it's just one skill, crying. When babies feel a problem, or need something, they can only communicate by crying to attract attention of parents or other adults. But that's all they have, heck, they can't even crawl at first, being carried around by their parents or babysitters. And the basic algorithm? Well is the algorithm that enables humans to learn and develop and so on. This basic algorithm is actually already functional since late pregnancy, that is the ability for babies to react to stimulus. This is why babies can kick around inside their mother's womb. But when they were born, the algorithm expanded with a new ability, learning. Learning as in the neural definition. As babies began to be able to hear things, feel things, and see things, all this new information is then processed by the algorithm, and what kind of information is absorbed will then shape the baby's psychological identity in that unique way. Eventually, the baby grows into a toddler, and that toddler began to have the ability to speak and interact with their environment. Before, all they can do is absorb information with minimal reaction to outside stimulus. Oh, and this early information is crucial in developing the child's identity. Now we have reached the reaction ages.

At this time, the child will begin to interact and react to certain stimulus. But they will still absorb new information as they live, and it will be processed by the learning algorithm to expand their psychological identity. Essentially, anything the child sees, hears, tastes, and feels will affect the child one way or another. Oh, and when a child reacts to something, the stimulus being reacted may respond, creating more information and more stimulus and so on. This is if the stimulus is their parents perhaps. Or an animal or something. Perhaps the child's reaction provoked another physical reaction or something. Anyway, the child will eventually gain the ability to understand language. Which means the child would be greatly influenced by words and tones and volume. As the child grows, their identity develops, and their understanding of things in the world rapidly increases over time. The child will reach a point where they can use their previous knowledge to create new knowledge, also known as logic. And this process itself will define their identity greatly. This process will then continue on until the person's death.

So now, we can start wrapping up, actually no, just make a small conclusion. We now know, that what makes someone's psychological identity at that time, is everything that the person has been exposed towards which we certainly would not say that is a part of themselves before that time, or technically all information that the person has absorbed combined with that learning algorithm and base identity over time. This means things like their parents, childhood, environment, education, friends, social media, mass media, the internet, and so much more. And we don't have any control or power on things that is not even part of ourselves do we? We didn't choose our parents or where we are born. We didn't choose when to be born either, our parents chose to, which our parents' choice is determined by their psychological identity which in part is affected by their past bla bla bla... And we just end up with an infinite regression, or just the big bang, or for theists like me, GOD. So, what this means, we have no power at all. Everything, all of our choices had been predetermined by our parents, our past, our childhood, our environment, and ourselves which is affected by the previous factors I mentioned. And we can make a simple formula of a psychological identity of a person. P. Identity=Base Identity+Information, and Base Identity=Learning Algorithm+Information, and it just loops.

What about our Bob now? Well if we try to look into his past, we will eventually find something outside of Bob that made Bob into what he is. Perhaps it's faulty parenting, or some bad social interaction, or something else. So to say that Bob chose to be lazy is in fact, false. Bob didn't chose to be lazy, and Bob had no power to have that kind of privilege. Bob didn't deserve to be lazy, and didn't deserve to be treated the way he is treated. Fear not, there is a happy ending for Bob, remember the girl who shared? She saw Bob and chatted with him, explaining about how she knows what Bob is feeling and they become close friends. But what about us? It is very safe to say that no, Free Will doesn't exist. All of our choices have been predetermined by our past. But what about innatism? Well what about it? If we do have knowledge at birth, then where does it come from? What, you say God planted it in? Even if She did, it'll be God's responsibility for putting that kind of knowledge. And even if God didn't exist, it'll be the parent's responsibility for conceiving and giving birth to us. So we will always arrive at the exact same conclusion. That Free Will doesn't exist. But I am not done yet, why? Let me explain.

Closing Statements, Implications, and True Free Will

Without this last part, the previous explanations of determinism is very very dangerous. Why? Because people can get the wrong concept, and it'll be my responsibility as I didn't explain thoroughly. What kind of wrong concept? Someone can just say, "Since the end result has been determined, then what I do won't matter right? I can just go around, molest everyone and it's not my responsibility as it has been predetermined. I can go ahead trigger WW3 and I am not responsible, I am supposed to do it right?" That is not what I want to happen. But then I hear someone else say, "Then if I have no choice, why does it feel like I have a choice?" And deep inside I scream, "THAT IS IT! EUREKA!!" What I meant is, this is what Free Will is, Free Will is the awareness, the knowledge, the consciousness, the feeling that we can make a choice. That is the important thing. And sure the end result had been determined, but we don't know right? We're not God, and we haven't developed a computer that can determine it. So what we can do, is always try and choose for the better. If the end result is bad, we've tried our best. If it's good, well then that's great right! Now, I think that's all for this factbook. This factbook explains about why Free Will is nonexistent. But next time, I am going to explain about the role of such argument in daily life, and I will also use this argument to prove that just imprisoning people is already a big no no. So while this factbook is quite technical, the next one will be in a very moral and ethic style.

Anyway, that is my log about my ideology of Free Will, which becomes quite a cornerstone within my world views. Thank you for reading this log, may you enjoy.