The End of the Great Free Will Debate in the Era of Cognitivism
Written on
Chapter 1: The Shift in Philosophical Perspectives
In today's world of cognitive neuroscience, we possess more sophisticated tools for understanding our actions than the binary notions of 'free' and 'unfree' suggest.
Despite stepping away from academia since 2016, I still observe that many engage in the Great Free Will Debate, believing it holds value. Remarkably, significant advancements in neuroscience are being overlooked by philosophers, who resist integrating new insights and terminology that could illuminate key challenges in this discourse.
Some philosophers are embracing this evolving field, which has gained momentum as a natural successor to the cognitivist movement that began gaining traction in the 1960s. However, conventional philosophy still prominently features the age-old debate surrounding free will.
During my graduate studies, I sought to enrich my philosophical knowledge by taking courses in psychology and anthropology. I discovered that while these fields lacked the rigor of philosophy, they offered concepts that were often more developed and applicable than those presented by my philosophy instructors.
My undergraduate experience allowed me to explore various ideas with open-minded peers, and it became clear that cognitivism was favored after a brief examination of the free will debate. Why is this the case? Cognitivism provides explanatory frameworks that the traditional positions on free will lack.
Section 1.1: The Illusion of Free Will
Many philosophers still cling to the belief that pondering whether we possess free will is worthwhile. They generally align with three main perspectives: free will, determinism, and compatibilism. These viewpoints encapsulate our attempts to answer the question of free will, while concepts like indeterminism and libertarianism, though derived from these branches, often fail to add substantial value.
At first glance, it seems the universe operates deterministically. This perception allows us to predict outcomes, like in a game of pool. My undergraduate peers often leaned towards compatibilism, which asserts that free will and determinism coexist and influence our decision-making processes.
However, we must scrutinize whether physical laws affect us as they do inanimate objects. Living beings interact with their environments in intricate ways, suggesting a connection between our choices and our actions, even as we acknowledge the deterministic nature of many environmental factors. To understand this issue more profoundly, we must dig deeper into the essence of our existence, as mainstream philosophy urges.
What if our perception of free will is merely an illusion shaped by determinism? The self, as discussed by Antonio Damasio, carries complexities — could it be that we believe ourselves to be free, while in truth, we are not?
Certain behavioral studies indicate we are "programmed" to react in specific ways under various circumstances, such as addiction or social settings. Our actions are rarely devoid of environmental influence; we do not exist in isolation. This raises the possibility that we are simply components of our surroundings, responding to stimuli.
Section 1.2: Cognitivism's Insights
These reflections illuminate what contemporary theorists of free will strive to uncover: the essence of the will. Nevertheless, the central premise of cognitivism remains unaddressed: what constitutes our being?
Behaviorism, historically, refrained from tackling this question, proposing instead a "black box" model where inputs lead to outputs. Noam Chomsky's influential critique of B.F. Skinner's behaviorism in 1957 emphasized the necessity of investigating cognitive processes empirically. While this critique remains relevant, philosophers have yet to effectively incorporate its core ideas into the free will debate, which continues to stagnate despite advancements in cognitivist thought.
Chapter 2: Re-examining Free Will through Cognitivism
The first video, "Do We Have Free Will? / Daniel Dennett VS Robert Sapolsky," explores the contrasting views on free will and determinism, presenting engaging arguments from both thinkers.
The second video, "The Great Free Will Debate | Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, Robert Sapolsky, Steven Pinker & More," features prominent voices discussing the implications of free will, further deepening our understanding of this topic.
Cognitivism and the Concept of Microwills
Nietzsche's philosophy introduces intriguing notions predating the cognitivist movement by decades. In "Beyond Good & Evil," he hints at "microwills," emphasizing the complexity of human motivations. Nietzsche's exploration of morality reveals his keen interest in the will, particularly as it pertains to the flawed moralities of his time.
He observed that competing drives exist within individuals, a concept that resonates with modern cognitive neuroscience. Nietzsche's desire to understand the inner workings of the human mind connects his philosophy with contemporary discussions on cognition.
Why Free Will Is a Behaviorist Construct
The contemporary notion of free will implies that individuals can independently choose their actions. The diversity of human preferences and opinions appears to support this idea of choice. However, the modern free will discourse often misdirects its focus toward the concept of choice rather than examining the individual mind.
Indeterminism posits that randomness governs our choices, yet this perspective fails to provide a viable model. The inquiry into whether one could have chosen differently raises questions about the very nature of choice itself — an event that seems elusive.
Unfortunately, cognitivist methodologies are seldom employed to empirically investigate free will, as results typically undermine the debate. While observing neural activity and its relationship to actions provides fascinating data, it often lacks the transformative insights needed to advance the discussion. Ultimately, the language of the free will debate is entrenched in behaviorist paradigms, hindering deeper inquiries into human nature and the factors influencing our choices.
In conclusion, the great free will debate is no longer fruitful. Its stagnation prevents serious philosophers from engaging with the promising explorations of cognitivism and its vast implications.