![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
i recently found myself incredibly distressed after getting stuck in an ocd episode regarding free will related obsessions. i made one post about it that i later deleted because i realized i was in the middle of an episode when i made it and i didn't want anything like that on my blog. however now that i feel normal again, i feel more comfortable talking about it in more detail.
when i was younger, i remember coming to the conclusion that free will couldn't exist because everyone based their actions on their beliefs, their wants, their values, etc. which are to some extent a result of their enviroment and upbringing. there's a reason certain social backgrounds are more linked to crime than others. so i came to the conclusion that no one truly chooses who they are, so free will cannot exist.
however, recently i've found myself really questioning this belief. i had this feeling in my gut that i was wrong and free will was a real thing. in the process of trying to make up my mind about it i ended up having an existential crisis. am i really in control of my own future? is everything i do just an inevitable consequence of everything that came before it.
determinism is the main belief system that supports this idea. the way i would describe it is that it sort of looks at things at it's most basic level. everything is dictated by cause and effect, humans are not separate from this process, so our actions are just a result of this and could not be avoided. a leads to b and only ever leads to b, human actions have to function the same way, so every human action is inevitable.
the way i also think about it is that in a deterministic world view, the future is a singular path and there never could have been another route.
this seems reasonable at first but i've come to realize the holes in this world view. if everything is caused, then that brings to mind how the series of events that lead to the present happened. there are only two options:
1. the series of events has a start, in which case there is one first uncaused event. so uncaused events can happen.
2. the series of events goes on forever, in which case the series of events was caused by nothing. once again, there's something uncaused either way.
this isn't to say humans would not be deterministic because of this, just that uncaused events are possible.
quantum mechanics are also more probabilistic than deterministic. some people think we will one day find a way to explain quantum mechanics in a deterministic way. however, as of now, we don't really know about that. however as established, even if we did, you still have to accept uncaused events exist within a deterministic logic by going back to how the series of events happened.
and even then... does that matter? human beings are sentient. we know we make choices because we observe this experience internally and externally. is the human mind bound by those simple mathematical rules? i think this only works if you observe life in a very materialist framework, where only physical things exist... but what about our thoughts? of course the brain is an important process of them, but there is still an abstract aspect to them. if you look into my brain, can you see what i'm thinking? can you extract my ideas? you might be able to see brain activity but never the thoughts themselves, because they are not themselves physical. so how can something as complex as a human mind work within such a simplistic framework?
(this isn't me arguing for the existance of souls. i'm not really religious. but i don't think you need to be religious to realize materialism is flawed and can't accurately explain sentience and counsciousness)
we also don't observe strict determinism in humans. we know external factors influence us, but a doesn't always lead to b in a human context.
and determinists will then argue, "oh but free will isn't real then either because it means it's just random, and you aren't in control of what's random" but then why do humans experience the decision making process? why do we feel like we are the ones making the choices? why does something being uncaused make it random? if it's self caused, then i'm sure it looks "random" within a determinist framework but we have no reason to assume determinism is right. and the only response this people have is that it's an illusion. but if you are going to argue against a universal experience like free will you need to prove it is in fact an illusion and they just... can't. if anything this just says "we can't explain or understand this, so we're just going to write it off." and that's not an argument.
this isn't to say humans aren't conditioned or influenced, because we are, but this is not the same as being bound to make specific choices. like i said, a doesn't always lead to b in a human context. and we want to explain why the free will experience exists without just going "uhhh illusion because we can't explain it" then it being self caused to some extent is more likely.
observation is one of the most fundamental ways of developing knowledge. we know physical laws exist because we observe them, and we know humans make decisions because we observe that, and we know free will is a very real experience at the very least, but we are supposed to ignore what we're observing because it contradicts with our ideology?
ultimately, if we can't prove decisions are somehow predetermined or "random" then all we do know is that humans make choices and experience a feeling of free will. the only objective thing here is the experience itself, and if there is no solid proof to contradict it then there is no good reason to presume it fake. we observe complex behavior in humans that we can't easily explain by simple mathematical rules, but we somehow expect free will to be any different?
i think the simplest way i can put it is that determinists want a simple world where everything can be explained by simple rules that can be summarized by mathematical equations. but human behavior has absolutely never been that way, and i think that can be uncomfortable and difficult to grapple with. but it isn't a good excuse to "quantify" human behavior when there is literally no way to do that.
we are sentient beings, not objects. we behave in complex ways that are specific to us, this isn't anything new. and that is weird and difficult to think about, but the universe itself is complex in unthinkable ways we can't begin to understand, this doesn't make it less of a reality.
i feel really silly that i found myself considering this belief system seriously. and i cannot prove free will truly exists, just as determinists cannot prove it doesn't. but i can't prove the world isn't just a projection of my mind, and i don't worry about that because i know i have no reason to presume otherwise unless something proves me wrong, and this isn't any different. this need for simplifying complex human behavior into simple laws that can be quantified is pointless and misguided and such a disservice to the complexity of human experience.
when i was younger, i remember coming to the conclusion that free will couldn't exist because everyone based their actions on their beliefs, their wants, their values, etc. which are to some extent a result of their enviroment and upbringing. there's a reason certain social backgrounds are more linked to crime than others. so i came to the conclusion that no one truly chooses who they are, so free will cannot exist.
however, recently i've found myself really questioning this belief. i had this feeling in my gut that i was wrong and free will was a real thing. in the process of trying to make up my mind about it i ended up having an existential crisis. am i really in control of my own future? is everything i do just an inevitable consequence of everything that came before it.
determinism is the main belief system that supports this idea. the way i would describe it is that it sort of looks at things at it's most basic level. everything is dictated by cause and effect, humans are not separate from this process, so our actions are just a result of this and could not be avoided. a leads to b and only ever leads to b, human actions have to function the same way, so every human action is inevitable.
the way i also think about it is that in a deterministic world view, the future is a singular path and there never could have been another route.
this seems reasonable at first but i've come to realize the holes in this world view. if everything is caused, then that brings to mind how the series of events that lead to the present happened. there are only two options:
1. the series of events has a start, in which case there is one first uncaused event. so uncaused events can happen.
2. the series of events goes on forever, in which case the series of events was caused by nothing. once again, there's something uncaused either way.
this isn't to say humans would not be deterministic because of this, just that uncaused events are possible.
quantum mechanics are also more probabilistic than deterministic. some people think we will one day find a way to explain quantum mechanics in a deterministic way. however, as of now, we don't really know about that. however as established, even if we did, you still have to accept uncaused events exist within a deterministic logic by going back to how the series of events happened.
and even then... does that matter? human beings are sentient. we know we make choices because we observe this experience internally and externally. is the human mind bound by those simple mathematical rules? i think this only works if you observe life in a very materialist framework, where only physical things exist... but what about our thoughts? of course the brain is an important process of them, but there is still an abstract aspect to them. if you look into my brain, can you see what i'm thinking? can you extract my ideas? you might be able to see brain activity but never the thoughts themselves, because they are not themselves physical. so how can something as complex as a human mind work within such a simplistic framework?
(this isn't me arguing for the existance of souls. i'm not really religious. but i don't think you need to be religious to realize materialism is flawed and can't accurately explain sentience and counsciousness)
we also don't observe strict determinism in humans. we know external factors influence us, but a doesn't always lead to b in a human context.
and determinists will then argue, "oh but free will isn't real then either because it means it's just random, and you aren't in control of what's random" but then why do humans experience the decision making process? why do we feel like we are the ones making the choices? why does something being uncaused make it random? if it's self caused, then i'm sure it looks "random" within a determinist framework but we have no reason to assume determinism is right. and the only response this people have is that it's an illusion. but if you are going to argue against a universal experience like free will you need to prove it is in fact an illusion and they just... can't. if anything this just says "we can't explain or understand this, so we're just going to write it off." and that's not an argument.
this isn't to say humans aren't conditioned or influenced, because we are, but this is not the same as being bound to make specific choices. like i said, a doesn't always lead to b in a human context. and we want to explain why the free will experience exists without just going "uhhh illusion because we can't explain it" then it being self caused to some extent is more likely.
observation is one of the most fundamental ways of developing knowledge. we know physical laws exist because we observe them, and we know humans make decisions because we observe that, and we know free will is a very real experience at the very least, but we are supposed to ignore what we're observing because it contradicts with our ideology?
ultimately, if we can't prove decisions are somehow predetermined or "random" then all we do know is that humans make choices and experience a feeling of free will. the only objective thing here is the experience itself, and if there is no solid proof to contradict it then there is no good reason to presume it fake. we observe complex behavior in humans that we can't easily explain by simple mathematical rules, but we somehow expect free will to be any different?
i think the simplest way i can put it is that determinists want a simple world where everything can be explained by simple rules that can be summarized by mathematical equations. but human behavior has absolutely never been that way, and i think that can be uncomfortable and difficult to grapple with. but it isn't a good excuse to "quantify" human behavior when there is literally no way to do that.
we are sentient beings, not objects. we behave in complex ways that are specific to us, this isn't anything new. and that is weird and difficult to think about, but the universe itself is complex in unthinkable ways we can't begin to understand, this doesn't make it less of a reality.
i feel really silly that i found myself considering this belief system seriously. and i cannot prove free will truly exists, just as determinists cannot prove it doesn't. but i can't prove the world isn't just a projection of my mind, and i don't worry about that because i know i have no reason to presume otherwise unless something proves me wrong, and this isn't any different. this need for simplifying complex human behavior into simple laws that can be quantified is pointless and misguided and such a disservice to the complexity of human experience.
no subject
Date: 2025-04-18 03:52 am (UTC)From:we have will, even if it's never free because of various constraints and consequences placed on us. we can always think for ourselves and change our minds often in opposition to our upbringing or the status quo, so i think within each of us there's a kernel of philosophical free animal.
yup!