John Searle - What is Free Will?

Summary

In this philosophical discourse, the persistent problem of free will is discussed as a paradoxical issue with no clear resolution in sight. The speaker argues that while we experience free will daily, the deterministic nature of the physical world suggests otherwise. The script delves into the inconsistency between our conscious experience of decision-making and the overwhelming evidence supporting the cause-and-effect principle. It challenges the notion of compatibilism and raises the question of whether there is a 'gap' in causality where free will could exist, pondering the evolutionary implications of our volitional consciousness.

Takeaways

• 📚 The problem of free will has been a persistent issue in philosophy with no significant progress made in the past century.
• 🤔 The speaker suggests that the experience of making decisions gives us the conviction of having free will, yet determinism presents a conflicting view.
• 🧠 The speaker argues that our volitional consciousness, like deciding to raise an arm, is an everyday experience that suggests free will.
• 🔍 There is a contrast drawn between voluntary actions and those influenced by emotions, addictions, or external forces, which may not feel as if they involve free will.
• 🔗 The script discusses the overwhelming evidence that every event has a cause, suggesting that if human behavior follows this rule, free will could be an illusion.
• 💡 The speaker points out the inconsistency between the experience of free will and the understanding that the world operates under deterministic principles.
• 🍽️ An analogy is made about making choices in life, like in a restaurant, which cannot be approached with a deterministic mindset without contradicting the experience of free will.
• 🧬 The possibility of an evolutionary basis for free will is considered, questioning why such a costly phenotype as conscious decision-making would evolve if it serves no purpose.
• 🤝 The script mentions that most philosophers believe the problem has been solved by compatibilism, which claims that free will and determinism can coexist.
• 🚫 The speaker rejects compatibilism as a solution, considering it a cop-out that evades the core issue of whether antecedent causes determine decisions.
• 🔄 The concept of a 'gap' is introduced, suggesting that there may be a space between causes where free will could operate, separate from deterministic processes.

Q & A

What is the central problem discussed in the script?

The central problem discussed in the script is the philosophical dilemma of Free Will, and whether it is an illusion or a reality.

Why does the speaker suggest that the problem of Free Will might be a scandal in philosophy?

The speaker suggests that the problem of Free Will is a scandal in philosophy because there has been no significant progress or advancement in understanding it over the past centuries.

What is the experience that leads people to believe in the existence of Free Will?

The experience of conscious rational decision-making, such as deciding to raise one's arm, leads people to believe in the existence of Free Will.

What evidence is presented against the idea of Free Will?

The evidence against Free Will is the overwhelming amount of evidence that everything that happens has a cause and can be explained in terms of causally sufficient conditions.

How does the speaker describe the conflict between the experience of Free Will and the knowledge of determinism?

The speaker describes the conflict as having two inconsistent views: the experience of Free Will, which gives us the conviction of having it, and the general knowledge about how the world works, which gives us the conviction of determinism.

What is the role of compatibilism in addressing the problem of Free Will?

Compatibilism suggests that Free Will and determinism are compatible, arguing that having freedom means being determined by certain sorts of causes, such as one's desires.

Why does the speaker consider compatibilism to be a cop-out?

The speaker considers compatibilism to be a cop-out because it evades the problem rather than addressing the core issue of whether the causes of decisions are causally sufficient to determine those decisions.

What does the speaker mean by the 'experience gap'?

The 'experience gap' refers to the conscious experience where reasons for an action, though rationally the basis for an action, do not typically compel the action, suggesting the possibility of Free Will.

How does the speaker relate the concept of Free Will to evolutionary biology?

The speaker relates Free Will to evolutionary biology by questioning the high cost of conscious rational decision-making and whether it could be a massive illusion without any evolutionary function.

What is the speaker's view on the necessity of the 'gap' in the context of Free Will?

The speaker believes that there must be a 'gap' where one can participate in the decision-making process, suggesting that if there is no gap, then Free Will is an illusion.

What is the significance of the 'neurobiology level' in the discussion of Free Will?

The significance of the 'neurobiology level' is that if it is causally sufficient to determine behavior, then the experience of Freedom at a higher level, such as conscious decision-making, may be irrelevant.