Do We Have Free Will? Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism

*Clarification*
In the video, my explanation of "causal determinism" is somewhat misleading. I explain it in terms of cause and effect. But you can have cause and effect without causal determinism. More accurately, causal determinism is this idea: the past + the laws of nature = guarantees exactly one specific outcome.

Video Description:
Do we have free will? It seems like it. But doesn't everything in the universe follow the laws of nature--even our brains? If so, aren't our choices ultimately determined by the laws of nature? If you think the laws of nature take away our free will, then you're an incompatibilist. If you think we can still have free will despite the deterministic laws of nature, then you're a compatibilist.

Media Sources:

[thesarahsmith]

Love these! I’d love to see an idea by which I could apply the thought to real life to see how I might determine which way I lean. Makes me miss fun late night convos with good people, in my twenties!

[DannyHouk]

The sci-fi series DEVS revolved around this idea (it was a decent series, too).

[caricue]

When you are looking at a natural phenomena, you give it a name and you can describe it. If you are working with a concept, then a definition is the first order of business. Free will is an observed natural phenomena, so whatever conceptualization or definition you concoct, you can't then go back to nature and say, "No it's not" because it does not make sense in your mind. As Philip K Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

[stephenlawrence]

The speaker gets it wrong right from the start. Does it really seem like we could do otherwise in a way incompatible with causal determinism? How does it seem like I could have chosen a different breakfast? How does it seem like I could have voted for a different political party? How does it seem like I could have chosen not to go to work last week?

It's a really bad error to think it seems like we have free will. Ordinarily it does not!

[DannyHouk]

Dunno what I am. As a "particularist" I'd answer that a degree of free will seems self-evident as well as a natural laws, so probs a compatabilist. Though, wouldn't rock my world to learn that scientists discover stuff that disproves determinism in a way that crumbles a lot of hypothesis we have about the natural world.

[Sameh-Samir-Isk]

if 2 persons have the same genes and harmonies and same social circumstances they will take the same decisions

[monitorcomputersystemsltd]

Quantum mechanics does not “suggest” a probabilistic view of the laws of nature. This question is no longer in doubt and has not been for 100 years. Why do people like this still not realise that NOTHING is absolutely determined by the laws of nature when measurements are made?

[stephenlawrence]

No, it seems like we choose things, which we obviously do. It does not seem like we could do otherwise with exactly the same past.

[josephl]

Internaal causes do not mean "free".

[marvinedwards]

You've misrepresented compatibilism. Compatibilism does not assert that "free will is possible" in a deterministic universe. Compatibilism asserts that free will itself is deterministic. You see, "choosing" is a deterministic operation. Choosing inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and, based on that evaluation, outputs a single choice.

The choice is usually in the form of an "I WILL", as in "What WILL I have for lunch today? I like the Quarter Pounder with Cheese, and the Crispy Chicken, and the Big Mac. It's been a while since I've had a Big Mac, so I WILL have the Big Mac today".

Having set our intent upon the Big Mac, that intention then motivates and directs our subsequent behavior. We tell the McDonalds worker, "I WILL have the Big Mac". And he tells us how much it will cost, holding us responsible for our deliberate act, and we pay him. Finally, we enjoy the Big Mac.

The meaningful and relevant causes of our choice were all located within us. The hunger was us. The preference for the Big Mac today was us. The choosing was a process that we, and we alone, performed. And, we placed the order, and were held responsible for that choice.

So, where were the "Laws of Nature" while all this was going on? Well, it turns out that the "Laws of Nature" are not a some entity that goes about in the world causing things to happen. The "Laws of Nature" simply describe the reliable patterns of behavior that science has observed in the objects and forces that make up the physical universe. The "Laws of Nature" are not causative, they are only descriptive. And what do they describe? They describe the reliable interactions of objects and forces as they bring about events.

Why is this distinction important? Because we happen to be one of those objects that actually go about in the world causing things to happen. The "laws" governing our behavior are described by the Social sciences, which include psychology and sociology. While we are affected by physical forces like gravity, we are not governed by them. We routinely defy gravity by walking uphill or taking a flight to another city. Nor are we governed by our biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. We are affected by these drives, but when, where, and how we satisfy these drives is governed by our imagination, our evaluation, and our choosing.

This is the "rational causal mechanism". The brain organizes sensory data into a model of reality consisting of objects and events. With that model it can imagine different scenarios, estimate the likely outcome of different options, and choose the option that will best suit our own purpose, our own reasons, and our own interests.

And this operation of deciding for ourselves what we will do is called "free will". Free will is when a person decides what they will do while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. Free will is when we make that choice for ourselves versus cases where a choice is forced upon us by someone or something else.

If we wish to use the metaphor of the "Laws of Nature" then we must complete that metaphor to include us. We are specific packages of those laws, going about in the world, causing things to happen because it suits us to do so.

[ThinkingAboutStuff]

Are you a compatibilist or an incompatibilist? Do you think that we can still have free will even of we're bound by the laws of nature?

[dannygjk]

It is *known* that the universe is not deterministic.

[JSwift-jqwn]

Obviously you have no clue what free will is. To be, or not to be? That's the question. Free Will comes only through Devine Intervention.