Q&A: Free Will
Free Will
Question
Your Honor supports freedom of will and human choice, even though in science it is commonly held otherwise. As I understand the point of disagreement, this isn’t a question whose only route to a solution is abstract philosophy. After all, if scientists succeed in mapping and decoding all brain processes down to the tiniest ones, there will be an objective sensory resolution to this question. If all the brain’s processes are understood in terms of cause and effect and as physiological processes and natural forces like gravity and the like, which we already know from the rest of the world, then materialism is certainly correct. If not, and there are processes that have no explanation, then there will already be room for a philosophical question: whether to prefer strict causality on spiritual or physical levels in other dimensions of the world, or alternatively to accept choice despite the seemingly obvious philosophical difficulty. Is there a chance that such a thing will happen in the near or distant future, no?
Answer
Indeed, I do think we have free will. It is not true that science generally holds otherwise. What is true is that quite a few scientists think so, but that is their personal assumption, not a scientific finding.
It is clear that if and when we understand everything, we will be able to decide the question. But at present that is not the situation, and I do not see it happening in the near or distant future. Of course there is always a possibility that it will nevertheless happen, and then we will know. For now, both determinists and libertarians are expressing a philosophical view, not a scientific opinion.
I explained all this very clearly in my book The Science of Freedom. There I also explained why it does not seem likely to happen in the foreseeable future, if at all. There too I raised several arguments saying that even if it does happen, we would have to reject those findings, since determinism means that we have no judgment, and therefore we could not seriously adopt that thesis itself either. It is forced on us, and therefore it need not be true.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner (another one):
A good week, Rabbi. Not long ago I read the following quote from you: “I explained all this very clearly in my book The Science of Freedom. There I also explained why it does not seem likely to happen in the foreseeable future, if at all. There too I raised several arguments saying that even if it does happen, we would have to reject those findings, since determinism means that we have no judgment, and therefore we could not seriously adopt that thesis itself either. It is forced on us, and therefore it need not be true.” The claim seems logical to me. But a question occurred to me: does the fact that a mode of thinking is forced on me mean that the conclusions I reach are not true? Doesn’t it simply mean that I had to reach those conclusions and nothing more? It could be that I had to arrive at this understanding that there is no choice, and that I was compelled to use certain inferential tools, but that doesn’t mean the conclusion is not true. For example: if I were compelled to use the laws of mathematics, would that mean I would not trust my conclusions? Especially when we see that our use of reason yields positive results. I assume the example is not so precise, but I hope my point is understood. Why does it follow that if judgment is forced on me, it is not correct?
Thank you very much, and have a good week.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I did not say it is necessarily untrue, but rather that you have no way of knowing whether it is true. Once something is forced on you, then even if it were not true it would still be forced on you and you would think it. So you have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. In practice it certainly could be true (and it also could be untrue). In the book there I spell out these objections and answer them.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
But suppose I am forced to use the laws of logic. I can see that I operate according to them and reach a conclusion. It cannot be that I made a mistake along the way. Maybe the specific laws of logic are ones I am forced to think according to, but from them to the conclusion I cannot go wrong. And we see in reality that someone who acted, for example, according to such-and-such formulas came out with blessing from it. Isn’t that a sign that it is necessarily correct?
Can you give an example of something I think is correct and yet it may not be correct? I can’t come up with such a thing. Is it possible that the laws of mathematics are not correct? What would that mean? The laws of mathematics, for example 1+1=2. From there I continue in a clear line to 1+2=3. Do you mean that I may think I am being consistent, but maybe there is some “demon” deceiving me and in fact my thinking is not consistent here? And it only seems that way to me?
Thanks.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The laws of logic are not forced on you; rather, it is clear to you that they are true. You have judgment and you understand that they are true. That is not coercion, and it has nothing to do with determinism. Is every single thing I think is true therefore forced on me?
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
I’m speaking according to “their view.” If determinism is true, then would your criticism also apply to my conclusions in mathematics, for example? That proofs I proved in mathematics—I now cannot know whether they are really correct because I was forced to arrive at them? Even though I work in an orderly way and move from claims to conclusions. Where could I be making a mistake here?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I already answered that, and I’ll repeat it again. The laws of logic are not forced on you. You decided that they are true (and rightly so).
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
So if determinism is true, what exactly is forced on me? To which conclusions is your criticism directed, and to which is it not? Sorry for the difficulty in understanding…
Thanks.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
If determinism is true, then everything is forced on you. Something else makes decisions for you. Therefore every decision—both that 2+2=4 and that it is now dark outside, and even if you think that now it is light outside—all of that is forced on you. You are not the one making the decision, and therefore you have no ability to critique it. By contrast, if determinism is not true, then none of these things is forced on you; rather, you make your own decisions yourself. 2+2=4 is true because you understand that it is true. It is now dark outside because you decided that it is now dark. And so on. Everything is the result of your decision.
You are mistakenly confusing the statement that some claim seems certainly true to you (2+2=4) with the statement that this claim is forced on you by an external factor. Those are really not the same thing.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Sorry, but again. Suppose the determinists are in fact right and everything really is forced on me. Then would it be correct to say that I cannot rely on anything I have attained, including logical conclusions? I’m not talking about now, when you and I know that this is not true, and therefore it is obvious that logic is correct. If determinism were true, would your criticism also be directed at logical conclusions? That although they seem logical, they were forced on me and therefore I cannot know whether they are true?
And if so, could you explain to me where I could possibly go wrong in the conclusion that 2+2=4? If the basic premise is that 1+1=2, then by definition that leads me to 2+2=4, doesn’t it? How does the fact that logic is forced on me change the fact that this conclusion is correct?
Thanks.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello.
I’ll try one last time. If this doesn’t help, then apparently I cannot explain my intention to you, and with your permission we will have to part as friends.
If you live in a deterministic world, you will not be able to critique even the argument that you yourself raised here (that you proved 2+2=4). It too is dictated to you. Therefore the fact that it is proven has no significance at all. Proofs and arguments address someone who can critique them, reject them, or accept them. When you speak to a machine there is no point in reasoning and proving things. You simply program it accordingly. The very fact that you examine things and raise arguments means that you believe in freedom and judgment, and are not compelled to your conclusions.
Within a deterministic framework, you would also adopt the argument that 2+2=17.3 if it were forced on you. And no proof or argument would help. At most, if you are built properly (and of course you have no way of knowing that), your circuits would blow because you ran into a contradiction.
Therefore even conclusions derived from valid logical inference are exposed to exactly the same criticism, so long as we are speaking within a deterministic framework.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Thank you. Happy holiday. Could I get a reference to the pages in the book that discuss this argument? Or at least the name of the chapter?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
See chapter four, p. 120 until the end of the chapter.
There is no connection at all between coercion and determinism. There is simply a causal story describing why a person holds a certain opinion. A change in that opinion will be caused by a causal mechanism; judgment too is caused, like everything else. Where does this made-up idea come from, that “no proof or argument would help,” as though determinism contradicts the ability to be rational? What actually contradicts the idea of judgment is the idea of free choice, because there there is no mechanism that arguments can influence. As for the quality of the mechanism, developmental psychologists (for example) would be happy to explain to you the significance of normal neurological development and judgment.
There’s a reason you publish only in Hebrew and for an audience outside the field—because there are no philosophers or relevant people in the field who would accept your views.