Subnostr

A few thoughts on free will.

Free will involves self sovereignty, from the simplest of organisms to the more advanced species.

When we ask if free will exists, we are asking if sovereignty and free agency is possible.

Free will can be viewed as a spectrum, from low degrees of sovereignty to higher capacity for autonomy.

If we are intoxicated, our freedom of deliberation is clearly impacted. If we had a brain implant that forced us to carry out someone else's command, we would basically have zero free will, hence no sovereignty.

Considering this spectrum then, from lower to higher degrees of sovereignty, it makes sense to define the higher echelons of self sovereignty as free will, as contrasted by its opposite; complete subjugation to the will of another.

If I would sum up the arguments against free will, in the most favorable way I could steel-man it, what I hear is this: you are the sum of your parts. Hence you must act within the confines of your personality.

This does not contradict the definition of free will as self-sovereignty. We are free to build and change our inner environment to our heart's content. We are free to build positive or negative responses to our experiences. We are free to explore any subject and press beyond our previous boundaries. This doesn't mean that we are without flaws and limitations, just that we have the potential to be sovereign.

We know that colors exist because we can observe a whole spectrum of colors that can be differentiated. Saying that colors doesn't exist gives us no practival advantage when we are dealing with colors, quite the contrary.

Free will is a spectrum that defines the extent of our self sovereignty and free agency. It makes little sense to claim that sovereignty and individual autonomy doesn't exist, unless we want sovereignty to not exist.

It would be a disastrous mistake to claim that an obedient cog-in-the-wheel, who is requiered to follow its commands without the chance of refusing, is equivalent to a free-willed individual with the capacity to break free from its bonds and challenge every command.

Free will exists because we can observe a spectrum of free agency and the more of it we have, the more sovereign we are.

Free agency exists.

The opposite is slavery.

Brisket 1y ago

I agree with the 'free will spectrum' concept. Our ability to think & act consciously & of our own volition, is not equal among us. It's also not static, we can elevate our own level of autonomy or surrender it to other forces.

But who are we? Who is the 'I' that supposedly has some level of free will?

Am I simply my mind which is a part of a human body? Is there a higher force or a soul which has some say in the thoughts & feelings I experience? How much does my conditioning & beliefs impact these thoughts & feelings?

I propose that it is near impossible to determine the level of free will another possess simply by observing their actions or state of being. That a cog in a wheel may possess more free will than is initially apparent. Perhaps their soul chose that experience & there's a greater plan at play. Perhaps those that appear the most free, are actually trapped in their own mind's unconscious patterns & programs.

My intuition says that we are more than our minds & our bodies. That our minds are not capable of comprehending the full picture of the all that is. I feel like to achieve full sovereignty we, our conscious minds ironically need to surrender to a higher force within our perception. That we have to trust that everything is happening for us & that we are not trapped & alone within this avatar.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Leo Fernevak 1y ago

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I think you are correct that we can't measure someone else's free will, at least not objectively. There is too much that we cannot possibly know about them. Not everything is subject to objective analysis and probing.

Our own abilities can vary drastically over the span of a day. A problem that we are struggling with in the evening may present itself in a completely new light in the morning, in spite of us not having learned anything new from our environment. A fresh vantage point, a rested mind, a new creative consideration, a deeper meditation over a subject.

Returning to the cog-in-the-wheel idea, my thinking is that if we somehow were reduced to being a cog in the wheel, for example via an implanted chip that controlled us, then this would represent the lower end of the spectrum of free will. It wouldn't necessarily be a permanent condition but it demonstrates the spectrum.

When we believe in free will and the chance to have free will, we naturally reject the idea of controlling other people because we respect their sovereign decisionmaking. It would be a crime against humanity to destroy or limit someone else's ability to reason. This is why lobotomy and chemical lobotomy is so abhorrent; it is the destruction or degradation of a person's soul, personality or the sovereign core of their being, depending on how we would phrase that.

I caught myself observing recently that I believe the universe to be mechanistic, but not the mind. We can predict orbits of planets, but we cannot with certainty predict a life trajectory. The mind is sovereign and have the ability to change itself, to rebuild its architecture. Not everyone will have an equal ability to change themselves, and the ability may vary during a lifetime.

I think one problem with denying free will is that it implies a deterministic view of consciousness. It assumes that the mind is merely an output based on inputs. It removes the chances of individual and sovereign decisionmaking.

If we were just the mechanistic result of our inputs, then a tyrant with this belief would have no ethical concerns over changing our inputs, i.e. reprogramming us with new stimuli, in order to produce within us the desired result of that tyrant, disregarding our sovereign minds. Not bothering to convince us that something is correct, but instead to force some belief upon us. I think this is the darker side of viewing the human mind as deterministic; it opens up the floodgates to totalitarianism