Is there such a thing as Free Will? Since every day we make dozens of decisions, from the simplest ones to the ones that change our lives, as we please, unhindered and unforced, the answer seems obviously 'Yes'. Determinists, however, disagree.
Everything in the Universe, determinists say, whether matter, energy or anything else, is made of elementary particles. We still don't know what they are, but that's irrelevant. The Big Bang, or whatever started this whole thing, is the moment of "Creation". Everything was created then. Not just those elementary particles, but also the immutable laws of physics which govern their behaviour. And that's it! That was the only "decision" ever made. After that, everything was, and is, determined. That initial state of Everything - the number of those particles, their velocity, temperature, momentum, and whatever else - has completely and inescapably caused its next state. And then, the next. And so on, to this day and beyond. The law of causality is unforgiving. No particle ever has decided with which other ones to interact in order to form a particular kind of atom of matter or quanta of energy.
Every single new thing assembled at the next moment had to exist. It had no choice. Whether it was an atom, a molecule, a gene, a chromosome, a neuron, a sensation, a feeling, a thought, a belief, it had no say on whether to be or not to be. Therefore, our decisions seem to be of our own will, but our will is, fundamentally, determined. A decision is simply an artificial construct of our brain, needed as a shortcut to a virtually infinite number of underlying interactions. Options, choices, decisions, free will are nothing but buzz words we employ to convince ourselves that we are in control, and allow us to maintain our sanity. Sam Harris, a staunch believer in determinism, says it best:
"Events have causes, everything that arises seems to be born into existence by some previous state of the universe";
"You are part of the universe and there is no place for you to stand outside its causal structure";
"The next thing you think and do can only emerge from this totality of prior causes";
"There really is no way for causes to arise that would make sense of this notion of Free Will";
"Free Will is nothing but an illusion".
Nonsense!, replies The Ayn Rand Institute in their analysis of Sam Harris' claim. Free will is self evident. Moreover, it is axiomatic: to deny its existence is itself an act of free will. Everything we do is a matter of choice. From the brand of toothpaste, to our spouse, to our career, everything is the result of our decisions; and they could have been different. And for the rest of our lives we will have to keep on choosing. We could, of course, flip a coin every time, but doing that would be an act of choice. For humans, choice is inescapable. Our rational nature, our conceptual level of consciousness, demands it. Beings with lower levels of consciousness, whether perceptual or sensorial, do not have free will. Their actions are determined, they do not need to, and indeed cannot, choose. Their nature dictates their behaviour. A plant cannot decide on the color of its leaves, a zebra cannot decide to eat ants, a cheetah cannot decide not to eat zebra. Humans do not have that luxury. Each concept a human holds stands for an infinite number of concretes, which means that every waking second, a human is virtually facing an infinite number of options; and choose he must. This doesn't contradict the law of causality as Sam Harris claims. His error consists in not taking into account the nature of the thing acting. Causality is a much more complicated process than simply a myriad of bouncing billiard balls, as he presents it. The nature of a conscious organism has a definitive role in its actions. Particularly when it comes to Humans, considering the complexity of their brains alone. "Volition, ", says Leonard Peikoff, " is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation". We still don't know how the law of causality applies to our brain, but that is, indeed, irrelevant.
I don't think ARI is really getting the deterministic viewpoint. Everything, according to determinism, can be reduced to interactions of a myriad of elementary particles, including what happens inside one's brain. To deny that is to deny the universality of the Law of Causality. The current state of the totality of those particles which we call our conscious mind was pre-determined by their previous state and will inexorably determine their next state. What ARI calls the "nature" of the thing is just an arbitrary, rather mystical concept, which explains nothing, raising questions regarding the nature of that nature in the process. What ARI doesn't see, determinism would argue, is that the thing's nature is nothing more than the state of all the elementary particles which constitute the organism's body, including its consciousness. Those particles will interact among themselves as well as with particles from outside the body, according to laws that were determined a long time ago, and that will result in the next moment's inescapable state of that body's consciousness, such as a new thought. As Sam Harris says, we don't think our thoughts. We have no choice on whether to think something or not. Thoughts just appear in our brain.
So, which is it? The deterministic view does make sense, but its conclusion contradicts our experience. The objectivist view seems obvious, but it does appear to contradict the law of causality. As Harris observes, "We know we have free will because we experience it directly, but we can't just see how to make sense of it in terms of physical causation".
My answer is simple and starts with the definition. What IS Free Will? And there lies the problem - neither side defines it. While this is not surprising for determinism, it is inconceivable for objectivism. Ayn Rand only has John Galt say "that which you call “free will” is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character". True, but that's far from being a definition. Both sides assume the definition is obvious, but it's not. We can see that in their approach to the question Free - from WHAT? Determinism takes it for granted that it is from the law of causality, while objectivist Mike Mazza states casually, more in the way of a footnote, that it is from emotions, desires, character, personality, dispositions. With answers so radically different, it's not surprising that the two sides disagree. Unwillingly pointing to the correct answer Sam Harris says "The feeling of having free will is directly connected to the feeling of being a self" and concludes "You're not a self". So, here is my answer:
The Freedom of the Will is contextual.
In the context of quantum mechanics, Sam Harris would be right. The context, however, is not arbitrary. The question "Is there Free Will?" is in fact "Do human beings have Free Will?", therefore establishing the context: Humans, not elementary particles. And in this context, Objectivism is unequivocally right. Even if it is true that the state of Everything is determined by its previous state, it does not change the fact that the human being does exist. After a gazillion of interactions of elementary particles since the Big Bang the human, with its conscience, thoughts and character, has come into existence. Harris is wrong to claim "You're not a self". By using the word "you" he has established the macro-physical context. In it, to see and deal with humans and their will from an elementary particle viewpoint is a huge error. A train leaving point A and travelling at a speed of 60mph needs exactly one hour to reach point B, 60 miles away. To question this by bringing up time and space dilation caused by relativity is simply wrong. Humans DO have Free Will. Quarks don't.
Do animals have free will? Objectivism claims that Free Will results from the ability to reason, and therefore animals, with the possible exception of some higher primates, don't have it. I disagree. In the context of animals, they do have Free Will. That animals do not engage in thinking does not deny them Free Will. Their choices are indeed made based on instincts, reflexes, and experience, but choices they are. A cheetah does choose whether to freeze, crawl or charge. It does not act blindly in the act of feeding itself as a plant would. The objectivist error stems from the interpretation of Galt's Speech quoted above. What Galt says is indeed true; for humans. Galt is not addressing cheetahs or zebras.
So, quarks don't have free will. Neither do atoms, or molecules of DNA, or even plants. It might seem then that Free Will is a feature of consciousness. I don't think so. An Artificial Intelligence System has free will. An AIS functions at a much higher level than the electrons powering it. It does perceive entities, hence rising to at least the perceptual level of "consciousness". It could even be argued that in some form it does actually "think" since labeled data are a rudimentary, first layer, type of a concept. That the consciousness of an AIS is not biological, carbon based, makes no difference. An AIS does choose what to say or do, free from the programmer's code.
