A clashing of two ideas has gone on for centuries. Whether or not we act through “free-will” or are purely determined by the environment and bodies we’re born with. In today’s culture, the latter seems to be the general consensus. It comes along with the scientific “rationale” view on things. Taking a closer look at this debate, a lot of times it comes down to whether one is what we’d generally call religious, or better said, they believe there’s meaning to existence(freewill). Or the other side, the most times atheistic perspective, no meaning, just things happening through essential randomness, chance or from past events(determinism). But this is a big generalisation, so it isn’t true in all cases. So what’s the reality of this debate?
First, the deterministic perspective. When thinking of human nature, viewing it objectively, and logically, it gives the impression that there is no free will. Born in bodies with millions of years of evolution, which we personally didn’t have control over, determining our behaviour. Same with our environment, where or how we’re raised isn't freely chosen. It just happens to us. If we don’t have control or choice in what forms us, how could we free? All decisions seem, from a simple analysis, to come down to external, past influences. Hence, there is no free will(from this view).
How about free will?
First, we have our bodies, with the many genes and behavioural traits. You could say this constricts our free will, but not fully. From our subjective feelings, it feels as if we have freedom within the limitations of our bodies. I can’t fly on-demand, but I can walk or run if I want to. Again, the same goes for our environment. People experience many horrible or good things in life. Making it harder to be a certain way because external influences have been unwillingly enforced on us. Though, you could say they were willingly(from the external person or thing) unwillingly enforced on us. Accurate generalisations can be made on how people will act depending on the environment they are/were in and most of the time people do follow these patterns of acting from the nature of their environment. But there’ll always be outliers, people who go against the way they “should” be. Then again, you could use the argument of someone having certain genes that predisposed the person to act like that. It doesn’t seem like there’s a way to rationally explain a way out of this, in this context at least. Without constantly being able to turn back to either a past event that made the person make that decision. Whether it be genes(from past evolution) or environment. So what if we go where this is no past?
To view this from the frame of reference of the very beginning of the universe or existence itself(despite that there might not be a beginning). Now the question is, did the “universe” just exist, through randomness. Or did the universe will itself into existence. There’s no way to answer this rationally, it’s personal. I can’t use the argument of the past since there’s no past we know of. I can’t use the argument of subjective free will since it’s subjective. This is why the debate usually has a lot to do with a person's personal view of the universe. There is no “right answer”, it’s just perspective. They may both be right. Or neither.
The funny thing about free will is it feels like we have it. That’s why the word came into existence. When I want to do something, I do it. This feels like freedom. It’s only when trying to intellectually, or rationally understand why certain decisions are made, that we come up with the concept of determinism. We become a physical creature, trapped within the constraints of time, and we chop it up, into past, present and future. Seeing the past as an explanation for the present and the present an explanation for the future. But what is reality, what is everything else going by? It seems now is the only reality that is here, now. I’ve never been to the past, it’s only conceptual. The only place I ever am is in the present. This would mean free will is real. If all there is is now, every new decision just comes from itself.
But you can’t stop there. There’s nothing wrong about how time is conceptualised. We wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for these mechanisms. But it’s a limited view, we make up such a small portion of everything that exists. So it’d be irrational to simply apply our way of viewing to everything, to how all things work. Since it is only conceptual, an idea, from our brains, which aren’t everything.
Going back to what was explained previously, the determinist, can use the past as an argument only as long as there is a past to fall back on. When there is no past, the argument has no ground to stand on. All you have to do is consistently follow the “past explanation” argument to see where it stops. Evolution determining behaviour. What determines evolution? The past, so the right conditions of the earth. What determines that? The right movement of the planets, stars and essentially laws of the universe. What determines that. Follow the trail as long as you want, until at its root it’s “I don’t know” or there’s simply no more explanations to fall back on. But this doesn’t take away its validity since there’s always going to be new explanations. But most likely never an explanation to end all explanations.
All things are caused by external, past factors says the determinist. But what causes the external and the past to have control, as if free? Other external or past factors. This is the/another root of the argument, an external relation to the world, things are caused by other things, and those things are caused by other things. Free-will is based on the internal, rather than to look out to the external, or the past for a conclusion, it looks within. To the moment itself and to the individual. Finding the only conclusion to be 'will'.
So what’s the conclusion. The determinist view can be right, universally it seems it'll never end, there’ll always be new explanations to follow. But not from the perspective of the present. The free will argument can also be right, based on its subjective reality and this inherent nowness to all things that exist. Also, it's a conclusion, needing no further explanation. But not from the perspective of time, and the past.
In what way could they both co-exist? It seems the closer(concerning time) to whatever event that's being examined the lesser free-will has its part. So for example, let’s say the event is the moment of death. We’re born with a limitless list of possibilities of being a certain person(besides certain genetic factors). Our parents, limit that by their influence, our environment limits that by its influence. As we get older and older, it becomes more limited through all experiences and environmental factors. It becomes easier to determine, the more experiences one has been through. A broader example could be, say before humans evolved as living creatures, we had an even larger list of limitless possibility. Then we evolve as humans, through “choosing”, within the certain limitations of our past and environment. The further along we evolve, the more limited our freedom becomes in choice.
But this again doesn’t work in all senses. A bunch of paradoxes arise the more you commit to what has just been explained. We essentially are always limited in some way depending on the frame of reference, but new possibilities are always coming from events(or the current moment) and events are always happening, so it never becomes overly constricted. The “constrictions” lead to new possibilities, making them paradoxically the opposite of constricting. A balance is always there, making free-will and determinism codependent, always 50/50. Or both 100. Although, arguments surrounding free-will don’t usually doubt that the past plays its part, whereas determinists doubt any existence of free will. Meaning what has just been explained, is the freewill perspective, involving both angles.
It seems the free-will perspective is deeply seeded in our brains. We act as if we’re free. Reacting to things as if a will is behind them, it’s why we get so angry when people wrong us or others. Freedom is felt in all decisions. Maybe it is an illusion? But the subjective experience makes it its own reality, whether illusionary or not. Determinism purely comes down to being conceptual, and all free will is, is a feeling.
The subjective reality of consciousness feels to be the most real thing there is. Making us feel that we are free. It also tells us determinism, when being looked at for the purpose of a logical explanation, when the moments are divided to seek a conclusion. Rather than the moment itself. Those who pick one idea as truth, are choosing to side with either feeling or logic, internal or external, now or the past. All have their workings in reality, or else they wouldn't exist.
To say all things come from the past, from the moment beforehand, doesn't explain why the moment exists right now or why it exists in the first place. It only explains why it exists in relation to the past. But why does it exist at all?
First, the deterministic perspective. When thinking of human nature, viewing it objectively, and logically, it gives the impression that there is no free will. Born in bodies with millions of years of evolution, which we personally didn’t have control over, determining our behaviour. Same with our environment, where or how we’re raised isn't freely chosen. It just happens to us. If we don’t have control or choice in what forms us, how could we free? All decisions seem, from a simple analysis, to come down to external, past influences. Hence, there is no free will(from this view).
How about free will?
First, we have our bodies, with the many genes and behavioural traits. You could say this constricts our free will, but not fully. From our subjective feelings, it feels as if we have freedom within the limitations of our bodies. I can’t fly on-demand, but I can walk or run if I want to. Again, the same goes for our environment. People experience many horrible or good things in life. Making it harder to be a certain way because external influences have been unwillingly enforced on us. Though, you could say they were willingly(from the external person or thing) unwillingly enforced on us. Accurate generalisations can be made on how people will act depending on the environment they are/were in and most of the time people do follow these patterns of acting from the nature of their environment. But there’ll always be outliers, people who go against the way they “should” be. Then again, you could use the argument of someone having certain genes that predisposed the person to act like that. It doesn’t seem like there’s a way to rationally explain a way out of this, in this context at least. Without constantly being able to turn back to either a past event that made the person make that decision. Whether it be genes(from past evolution) or environment. So what if we go where this is no past?
To view this from the frame of reference of the very beginning of the universe or existence itself(despite that there might not be a beginning). Now the question is, did the “universe” just exist, through randomness. Or did the universe will itself into existence. There’s no way to answer this rationally, it’s personal. I can’t use the argument of the past since there’s no past we know of. I can’t use the argument of subjective free will since it’s subjective. This is why the debate usually has a lot to do with a person's personal view of the universe. There is no “right answer”, it’s just perspective. They may both be right. Or neither.
The funny thing about free will is it feels like we have it. That’s why the word came into existence. When I want to do something, I do it. This feels like freedom. It’s only when trying to intellectually, or rationally understand why certain decisions are made, that we come up with the concept of determinism. We become a physical creature, trapped within the constraints of time, and we chop it up, into past, present and future. Seeing the past as an explanation for the present and the present an explanation for the future. But what is reality, what is everything else going by? It seems now is the only reality that is here, now. I’ve never been to the past, it’s only conceptual. The only place I ever am is in the present. This would mean free will is real. If all there is is now, every new decision just comes from itself.
But you can’t stop there. There’s nothing wrong about how time is conceptualised. We wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for these mechanisms. But it’s a limited view, we make up such a small portion of everything that exists. So it’d be irrational to simply apply our way of viewing to everything, to how all things work. Since it is only conceptual, an idea, from our brains, which aren’t everything.
Going back to what was explained previously, the determinist, can use the past as an argument only as long as there is a past to fall back on. When there is no past, the argument has no ground to stand on. All you have to do is consistently follow the “past explanation” argument to see where it stops. Evolution determining behaviour. What determines evolution? The past, so the right conditions of the earth. What determines that? The right movement of the planets, stars and essentially laws of the universe. What determines that. Follow the trail as long as you want, until at its root it’s “I don’t know” or there’s simply no more explanations to fall back on. But this doesn’t take away its validity since there’s always going to be new explanations. But most likely never an explanation to end all explanations.
All things are caused by external, past factors says the determinist. But what causes the external and the past to have control, as if free? Other external or past factors. This is the/another root of the argument, an external relation to the world, things are caused by other things, and those things are caused by other things. Free-will is based on the internal, rather than to look out to the external, or the past for a conclusion, it looks within. To the moment itself and to the individual. Finding the only conclusion to be 'will'.
So what’s the conclusion. The determinist view can be right, universally it seems it'll never end, there’ll always be new explanations to follow. But not from the perspective of the present. The free will argument can also be right, based on its subjective reality and this inherent nowness to all things that exist. Also, it's a conclusion, needing no further explanation. But not from the perspective of time, and the past.
In what way could they both co-exist? It seems the closer(concerning time) to whatever event that's being examined the lesser free-will has its part. So for example, let’s say the event is the moment of death. We’re born with a limitless list of possibilities of being a certain person(besides certain genetic factors). Our parents, limit that by their influence, our environment limits that by its influence. As we get older and older, it becomes more limited through all experiences and environmental factors. It becomes easier to determine, the more experiences one has been through. A broader example could be, say before humans evolved as living creatures, we had an even larger list of limitless possibility. Then we evolve as humans, through “choosing”, within the certain limitations of our past and environment. The further along we evolve, the more limited our freedom becomes in choice.
But this again doesn’t work in all senses. A bunch of paradoxes arise the more you commit to what has just been explained. We essentially are always limited in some way depending on the frame of reference, but new possibilities are always coming from events(or the current moment) and events are always happening, so it never becomes overly constricted. The “constrictions” lead to new possibilities, making them paradoxically the opposite of constricting. A balance is always there, making free-will and determinism codependent, always 50/50. Or both 100. Although, arguments surrounding free-will don’t usually doubt that the past plays its part, whereas determinists doubt any existence of free will. Meaning what has just been explained, is the freewill perspective, involving both angles.
It seems the free-will perspective is deeply seeded in our brains. We act as if we’re free. Reacting to things as if a will is behind them, it’s why we get so angry when people wrong us or others. Freedom is felt in all decisions. Maybe it is an illusion? But the subjective experience makes it its own reality, whether illusionary or not. Determinism purely comes down to being conceptual, and all free will is, is a feeling.
The subjective reality of consciousness feels to be the most real thing there is. Making us feel that we are free. It also tells us determinism, when being looked at for the purpose of a logical explanation, when the moments are divided to seek a conclusion. Rather than the moment itself. Those who pick one idea as truth, are choosing to side with either feeling or logic, internal or external, now or the past. All have their workings in reality, or else they wouldn't exist.
To say all things come from the past, from the moment beforehand, doesn't explain why the moment exists right now or why it exists in the first place. It only explains why it exists in relation to the past. But why does it exist at all?
