Free will vs. determinism (final thoughts)

When you adopt a theory it has to be on basic merits: 1. simplicity: a small number of assumptions,  2. consistency: lack of internal contradictions, 3. conservatism: quality of fitting with previous proven knowledge, and 4. fruitfullness: the ability to make predictions.  

Determinism: Let's go one by one, determinism seems simple enough, me move from an argument about the macro world (physics) to an argument about the microworld (our neurons). It all seems to follow causal relations. From Cosmic causality to neurophysiology, to clinical psychology to Freudian theory, etc, it all seems to follow a deterministic path. 

In psychological terms, we are determined by previous patterns of behavior, in neurophysiological terms, we are determined by behavioral neuroscience. There is also our genetic makeup. 

The implications for human behavior into morals is that we are not responsible for our actions. 

And this seems a problem of scientific dissonance since most of our human sciences depend on a different analysis. That is, free will. 

Compatibilism: The traditional version seems to balance both free will and determinism. The TC accepts determinism at the macro level, but not so at the micro level. Here we enter a supervenient property: the mind. The mind causes our actions via the will. We will from the inside. But not always. When not? When there are external constraints. How much of this prevents our willingness. Here we go back to Freud's superego. The constraints are not internal, but external. The consequence makes sense for morality. We're responsible for our free actions.  

The Hierarchical version offers a more limited picture. We can observe three addicts from the outside believing they are free, while only one is: the happy addict. 

A counterargument here is Slote's hypnotized patient. He believes he is choosing X from Y, but the truth is that he is acting on SOV planted by the hypnotist.   

Libertarianism: Here free actions are caused by selves. Libertarians believe in determinism agent causation and event causation. Yes, events can cause events (physics), but agents also cause events at the supervenient level (philosophy of the mind). Their argument is pretty good.  We feel as if we deliberate and cause our actions. Why would this be a false picture? It doesn't make sense from the evolutionary point of view to develop an inner sense that is totally deceiving and disconnected from reality.

The counter argument comes from Libet's experiment.  

Libertarians offer a rebuttal. They counter that Libet is not measuring conscious activity, but "metaconscious" activity. What's that? We are in metaconscious mode when we think that we think. Being aware of being aware is second-order awareness, which explains the delay of 150 msec between the EEG and EMG. 

If libertarianism is true, we are responsible for our actions. It explains why social engineering is doomed to fail.  Think of the examples in the USSR for 80 years. And why two brothers raised in the same environment produce different personalities with different behaviors.

Homework 11 Chapter 5 (free will and determinism)

Based on the lecture on Chapter 5

1. What is Hard Determinism (HD from here on)? Explain. 
2. if HD is true, are we responsible for our actions? Explain.

3. How is punishment considered for Hard Determinists?
4. What's Compatibilism? 

5. Explain how Compatibilism reconciles free will and determinism using the idea of alternative possibilities.

6. Is punishment justified for Compatibilists?

7. Read p. 254 from the textbook. Explain how John Locke makes a distinction from a voluntary action and a free action. 

8. What is the benefit of Hierarchical compatibilism over Traditional Compatibilism?

9. Provide a counterargument against Compatibilism.

10. What's libertarianism? Explain the argument from experience.
11. Explain Libet's experiment and how it counters Libertarianism. Click here for more about the experiment.

Explain questions require at least 25 words. 

Chapter 5 (From hard determinism to Libertarianism)

1. Causal Determinism (every event has a cause that makes it happen + laws of nature) and Hard determinism the doctrine that there are no free actions. Hard determinism assumes that if CD is true than there are no free actions becasue as our bodies are made up of matter, we must be subject to the same lwas of causation. 

If HD is true, then there is no human responsibility: i.e., if we are not free, we cannot be responsible for our actions (since one is responsible if and only if one can make choices). 

What's good here? Determinism seems a good explanation for the physics of the macro universe. And it's the consensus in the physicalist disciplines: psychiatry, neurophysiology, etc.  

However, the idea that there's no free will presents challenges to other disciplines, like ethics (which conceives a free subject, which is responsible for their actions) and jurisprudence. 

2. Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

Soft determinism: Determined actions can nevertheless be free. 

Traditional Compatibilism (Free actions have to be 1. caused by one's will and 2. not externally constrained). 

Here's the reasoning:

Principle of alternative possibilities:  one can be held responsible for doing something only if one could have done otherwise. "Could have done otherwise" means "if you had chosen otherwise, then you would have done otherwise." 

Think of our "fork example" of a student being late for class. He chooses ( A) "having coffee with lots of traffic," instead of (B) "not having coffee and no traffic." For Traditional Compatibilism, the student is responsible for being late since "if he had chosen (B) instead of (A), he would have been on time for class. 

Counterexample: "Taylor's Ingenious Physiologist. In class we discussed how TV can "plant" desires. So in a way is a kind of ingenious physiologist.

The advantage of Traditional Compatibilism is that it acknowledges some determinism while making room for free will. It seems plausible that external constraints play a definite role in our lives and restrict our willing from the inside, and therefore our responsibility. 

3. Hierarchical Compatibilism: There are First and Second Order Desires and Second Order Volitions. Remember: A first-order desire is directed (outside) to an object or state of affairs, a second-order desire is a desire about a desire. A second-order volition is a second-order desire on which one decisively acts. 

Harry Frankfurt's three-drug addicts: Let's call a first-order desire: FOD, a second-order desire: SOD, a second-order volition: SOV. So we get the following:  

Wanton addict: FOD, not SOD, not SOV, not free. 
Happy Addict: FOD, SOD, SOV, free.
Unwilling Addict: FOD, SOD (only this desire is against his taking the drug), SOV, but now he cannot act on these SOV, so he's not free). Remember, to be free one has to either formulate a SOV or be able to act on it. 

Lo interesante del experimento es que desde fuera tal parece que tanto the happy and the wanton addict are free, when in fact they are not acting decisively on their second-order desires.  

Now comes the problem. Can there be an SOV caused by forces outside our control? Here is a counterargument:

Slote's Hypnotized patient: Robert is undecided between two desires, X and Y. He is visited by a hypnotist who, unbeknownst to Robert puts him in a trance and induces an SOV in favor of X. Now, as a result of having this SOV planted, he acts to satisfy X, never suspecting that his decisiveness has been induced by the hypnotist.    

Punishment: How do compatibilists see punishment? p. 203. Punishment cannot be retributive (eye-for-an-eye). The only legitimate way of punishment is rehabilitation and deterrence. Criminal actions are dictated by genes and habits (nature and nurture). Retributive punishment makes sense if it's deserved. But nothing people do is up to them.

4. Libertarianism

We have two types of causation event causation and agent causation. When an event causes an event there's a physical causation. Ex: Gravitation. Agent causation is different. Here we have an agent causing an event. Example: free will. 

Libertarianism holds that agents can cause events. How? The mind supervenes the brain. We call this process FREE WILL. 

There are two arguments: 1) Argument from Experience. 2) Argument from deliberation.

1) We experience ourselves willing the action from the inside. 

2) We feel as if we deliberate options and make decisions.  

Libet's Neurophysiological challenge: seems to show that consciousness of a decision arises only after the decision has already been made (the 300 millisecond gap between the decision to press the button and the brain signal). 

Rebuttal by libertarians: There's a difference between making a "conscious decision" and a "meta-conscious decision" (meta-conscious awareness is second order). For the libertarian, the subject in Libet's report is not having a "conscious" but a "meta-conscious" decision. So it's no surprise that it happens "after" the conscious decision was made.
 
__________________

Radical Libertarianism: Jean-Paul Sartre's libertarianism (known as Existentialism) holds that the self is essentially free. His analysis is ontological. Let's begin with this point about essence & existence: 

Existence precedes essence. 

We exist first and are "defined" later. This happens because the self (consciousness) is in a constant state of becoming. 

To cope with our own boundless FREEDOM we come up with a sort of justification for our actions, which Sartre calls "bad faith." However, since not choosing is choosing, in the end, we remain responsible for our actions. 

The only possible constraint to our freedom is our facticity (the stuff we don't choose like being born and having a certain name and parents).

Aquí la conclusión del capítulo. 

¿Qué es un final paper?

El final paper es 

filosofía hecha carne, es 

argumento y contra argumento, es

el método socrático, es

la manera de pensar científica, es

la cuidadosa elaboración del mejor argumento, es

la justa, coherente prolija y metódica elaboración del contra argumento, es

como dijo Diógenes, sin contra argumento no hay propiamente argumento, es 

muestra fehaciente de ese portento socrático llamado DIÄLOGO, es

ENSAYO, peso, sentido, balanza, es EXORCISMO, es

prosa analítica, especulativa, interpretativa, es

un salto de la razón, es

manifestación de la sabiduría.