An Example of a Philosophical Dialogue

This page was originally created on 2002-07-01
Latest update:

The full URL to this page is http://www.kotiposti.net/jounivilkka/ExampleDialogue.htm

This page is part of the Official Home Page of Jouni Vilkka (http://www.kotiposti.net/jounivilkka/)

An example of philosophical discussion / Free Will and Determinism

Since I could not draw a picture about this, I decided to write an example of what philosophical discussion can be like. Since I started with Glenmorangie, am going thru Glengoyne and will end with Rob Roy, so I'll blame them for any typos and such.

I will intriduce two characters: Alex, a proponent of some form of Libertarianism, the idea that we have Free Will and Beth, who sides with Determinism. It is obvious that of these two, only Beth has some education in philosophy, so she is really the only one providing example here. Alex is mainly just going along, but at least he does his best.


Alex: "We have Free Will."

Beth: "Really? What is it?"

Alex: "It means that we can decide, or choose freely, what to do."

Beth: "'Freely', as opposed to what?"

Alex: "Some people claim that our genes and/or experiences determine our actions. I don't believe that."

Beth: "Ok. I am some kind of a determinist. I don't believe that genes alone determine our actions, but _all_ of our experiences added to the determinants, I really don't see what else could there be..."

Alex: "We all choose our own actions."

Beth: "Yes, obviously, but the reason we choose what we choose must have a cause somewhere, doesn't it? And if we rule out our genetic inheritance and all of our experiences, what remains?"

Alex: "The real 'I' in each of us. It can cause actions without having causes itself."

Beth stares blankly for a while, then asks: "What do you mean? A First Cause of some kind?"

Alex: "Yes, the real 'I' in each of us."

Beth: "I don't understand. I am this organism you see before yourself. I have a brain connected to the rest of my body thru a nervous system. The brain thinks, creating what I call my mind. It is this mind I most strongly 'identify with'. But the mind is created by biological and social processes, both causal."

Alex: "It can still cause actions without those actions having causes of their own."

Beth: "But how can it do that? I mean, sure it can create smthg almost like new ideas by creatively mixing information received by the senses. But these are not really new ideas, they are just mixtures and combinations. Like the idea of the pegasus is really just the ideas of horse and bird combined. At best it could accidentally create smthg new by forgetting or remembering smthg incorrectly or receiving sensual experiences incorrectly, for example under the influence of some hallucinogen. But these are all causal processes."

Alex: "I don't know how it works, but you can't prove that I don't have Free Will. Neither can I prove that I have it, but as long as neither can be proved, we can freely believe what we will (pun intended:)"

Beth: "That's not exactly true. I think the whole idea of Free Will seems rather spurious and I also think that there are strong reasons to discard it. First of all, it's really just an old (xian) superstition. It's only that tradition that keeps sustaining the idea. But second, it is incompatible with our scientific world view. There are no such things as First Causes in science. There are events that may very well be indeterministic, but they are still causal, material events and therefore of no use to your case - as far as I know."

Alex: "If our actions were determined, then nothing would matter. It's pointless to even think about this."

Beth, surprised: "Oh? What does this have to do with what we are talking about?"

Alex: "Well, if you're right, then nothing matters and this whole discussion is also pointless, because we can't change anything - what ever will be, will be (que sera, sera). But if I'm right, then we can start talking about ethics. Besides this whole topic is boring."

Beth: "If you're bored by this topic and wish to talk about ethics, fine. But I think you're wrong on the other points. For example, even if we are determined, we can still talk about ethics. (A view that denied this could not be taken seriously in the first place, could it?) And in any case, we can still do whatever we want, even if we are determined."

Alex: "That makes no sense: the whole point of determinism is that you _don't_ really do anything; you don't _act_ you just do what you are determined to do."

Beth: "Well, I suppose some people might actually believe that, or may have believed so in the 19th Century at least, but what I believe is that we have this thing I called the mind... For this purpose it would be best to call it personality. This personality is determined, created biologically and socially, like I mentioned above. But - once it has gown enough - it can do things in accordance with its personality. For example, I like chocolate and hate cider, so if I get to choose, I take the first."

Alex: "I don't buy that. If we are determined, we are not responsible for what we do. We can't be accused for behaving in a certain way (like killing a dozen young girls), if we can't really choose our actions."

Beth: "But we can. Btw, my view is called compatibilism, as it combines a form of 'free will' with determinism. What I mean by freedom here, is lack of physical restraints like chains and such, not freedom from causality. That is, our actions are considered 'free' as long as they are not compelled by others somehow. I am thinking of some kind of brainwashing or physical force. We all have been taught basic manners - for example, that we are not allowed to kill others. There is also at least some threat of harm to us if do not obey such basic commands. Our mind have absorbed this kind of informations and our personalities are for a major part formed by the such information. Therefore we can expect everyone to obey such basic rules. If someone does, we know that the individual is not fit for our society and can get rid of him. Think about dogs that have rabies, for example. They are shot or otherwise killed, even if they don't actually harm anyone, because their condition cannot be treated. IMHO, serial rapists should be treated in a similar manner, because they are at least as dangerous. What is wrong with them is not that they have 'sinned' or have 'evil intentions', but that they have a dangerously strong inclination to harm others. Of course they may also be guilty of crimes, but that is not what I'm talking about here. I am talking about their personalities. Or here's another, recent, example: think about the police officers, firemen and rescue workers etc who died as a result of the 9/11 incident. They may have acted without thinking - it is my undrestanding that people usually do so in that kind of situations; they just do their job. What actully was the case is unimportant. Just think about this: are they, or are they not, heroes? Were they not brave, courageous? I think they were. It doesn't matter one bit whether they thought about what they were doing or whether they were determined or not. What matters is that they exemplified these virtues, that they had the kind of personalities that they did. It is possible for us to influence people - as these heroes probably did by providing an example - so that they behave 'well' rather than 'badly'. It is also obvious that we can discuss ethics and try to figure out what exactly we should consider 'good' and so on. But I would like to get back to the question of Free Will, if you aren't too bored by it already. Ok with you?"

Alex: "Whatever you say."

Beth: "Do you still claim that our actions are Free?"

Alex: "I know that obviously some of them are determined, but there are also Free actions, we have Free Will."

Beth: "Well, since this appears to contradict the physical, or natural realm, it seems to me that the question of Free Will vs. Determinism is really a question of Supernatural vs. Natural. Would you agree?"

Alex: "I guess I would."

Beth: "So you are claiming that in addition to the natural, there is also a supernatural 'realm' out there?"

Alex: "Yes. The real 'I' is not limited by causal laws."

Beth: "So it is a soul of some kind?"

Alex: "For a lack of better word, call it that if you wish."

Beth: "But this soul somehow 'communicates' with the natural world, doesn't it? I mean, it gets information from the natural world and sends back commands to the body, some kind of mundane vehicle that it uses to move about in the natural world. Right?"

Alex: "Right."

Beth: "How does it do that? Receive and transmit information between the natural and the supernatural, that is."

Alex: "I know what you're getting at: Descartes thought that the pineal gland is some kind of 'radio' or 'command centre', but that is now known to be false. You won't get me that easily. I don't know how the communication is done, but somehow it has to, because I know we have Free Will and besides, you don't seriously expect me to believe that I am just some kind of a brain? I could just as well then be in a vat instead of a body..."

Beth, smiling: "I suppose you could. But then, if you were a soul, what reason would you have to believe that anything in the natural world, or indeed, the natural world itself, even exists? This was a big problem for Descartes, who actually failed to solve it properly. At least that's my opinion. But returning to the point, you make the assertion that you know that you have Free Will and that you find it unbelievable that we could be just brains (in vats or otherwise). I have a feeling that these claims are connected... Perhaps we'll see if they are, if you start by arguing for the first, that you _know_ that you have Free Will. How do you know that?"

Alex: "Everyone knows it, if they just reflect their actions a little."

Beth: "But I don't. Is there something wrong with me?"

Alex: "Well, you know that at any time you could do anything. Unless someone is forcing you to stay still or something."

Beth: "But that doesn't mean that I'd be Free in the sense you use the word. If I remember (and have understood you) correctly, your idea of Freedom is 'total' and 'positive' in a sense: you claim that you are outside causality even. And thus you claim to be able to do anything. But all that I am aware of at any moment - ceteris paribus, of course - is my limitations, I have no experience of Freedom, other that freedom of chains and psychoactive drugs, perhaps. I know I can't fly or walk through walls. I know my skills and abilities, to some extent. I know therefore, most of what I _can_ do and what I _cannot_ do. But there is a serious limit here: I can't do anything I can't think of. So I am limited by my imagination. And my imagination is limited by my experience, isn't it? Perhaps you disagree with me here. Perhaps you claim that we have endless imagination. But where does that come from, then? Even if I'm really a soul, I still have this problem. Where do these imagined ideas come from? Does their source not determine us? The ability to generate them is based on something - if not experience and a kind of biological computer, then what?"

Alex: "I don't know the details, but somehow the soul just comes up with new ideas ex hinilo. At least this is as plausible as the idea that our brains somehow do it. How could a mechanical object, even a biological one, really think?"

Beth: "Epistemically, I think our intuitions should be on the side of the brain rather than the soul. After all, none of us has even seen anything like the soul. We all know about computers, robots and other mechanical gadgets that we sometimes even mistake for having minds of their own. Thus, we have no real idea - no way to describe, for example - a soul (or any non-causal or supernatural phenomenon, for that matter), while we are very well accustomed to complicated causal mechanisms that can be used to do things, even cause illusions of willed action. Based on these experiences (or lack thereof) it should not be difficult for a contemporary person to imagine a machine that thinks."


And so forth went the discussion, as long as there was plenty to drink - which I no longer do not, so here comes
THE END

Future sequels _may_ be forthcoming.