The Grand Design: Part II, Free Will

In The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking sets out his argument that everything, including the human mind, is controlled by scientific determinism. As I said earlier, in science, scientific determinism does not mean preset. Instead, it means "as a consequence of" or "as related to." Hawking points out that on a cellular level some animals are so simple that it is unlikely that they have minds, that many animals operate on instinct. Humans oftentimes do as well. He also points out that certain parts of the human brain can be stimulated to cause various types of physical responses, such as blinking, kicking, etc. He argues that if various responses can be so easily caused by various types of manual or electrical stimulation, then how can we have free will? What Hawking asks us to do is concede that we are not any different than other physical forms found throughout the universe, that the same laws that govern the universe governs us. Hawking commits a number of fallacies: conjunction, necessity, dilemma, negation, and equivocation.

I believe that there are also other fallacies in his argument. First off, Hawking just simply asks us to concede that if one set of natural laws define the physical universe, and if we are part of that universe, then we too must be defined by those laws. His commonsense approach asks us not to make an exception for ourselves. However, he really doesn't provide much of a reason for us not to do so. I tried to suspend belief in the idea that we are different from other types of physical phenomena while I continued to read, expecting for Hawking to provide ample evidence to support his argument. He failed miserably. Instead, he asked us to take a leap of faith. How does that type of faith differ from any other kind, including the religious kind that he tries to debunk as superfluous? Faith is relatively simple and requires a leap; science is supposedly incremental, redundant, and requires evidence. Hawking's reliance on faith supports the argument he is trying to debunk: there is a God. That is a fallacy of necessity as well as one of negative proof (God or no God, neither argument can be logically debunked), because a leap of faith is necessary to make sense of his argument. In other words, without a leap of faith, his argument essentially makes no sense, especially given that he really makes no argument. Therefore, he creates a false dilemma, since no true dichotomy exist within a request.

Attempting to equate or conjoin two things that are not equal constitute fallacies of equivocation and conjunction. Although I cannot (and I believe no one can) make the argument that everything that is in this world is not part of the physical world, I can make the argument that the physical world has multiple dimensions. Now I think this idea of multiple dimensions is used by Hawking as a unified theory later in the book and has a scientific name. I believe it is part of string theory, but don't quote me on that one just yet. (I've read summaries of the book--The Grand Design. I haven't read far enough into the book to talk intelligently about Hawking's concept of multiple dimensions.) It's likely that I'm thinking about multiple dimensions and am using it differently than Hawking will. What I'm arguing is that the human mind falls into a dimension, sui generis--not causa sui. That is, the human mind is a physical phenomenon and is a part of the physical world, but is in its own category and not the result of scientific determinism. The mind is a creation that consists of the physical brain, thoughts, and experiences. It is a social construction and, therefore, living largely constructs it. It exists because and for itself. The mind alone can create reality and that reality can indeed be very objective to those who create it. The human mind can also often understand things outside of it. Gravity, for instance. How did Newton know that gravity was the same everywhere? No one had traveled outside of earth's atmosphere. To make sense of this world (and to make life easier), the mind gravitates toward absolutes as it struggles with unknowns or variables. As a matter of fact, each mathematical equation must consist of at least one constant and at least one variable to be solved. We may label our factors--variables and constants--however we please, as long as we are consistent. Well, this is how I believe Newton knew that gravity was consistent throughout the universe: He held gravity constant within his equation and allowed mass to vary. Simplicity is elegance I was once told by a math teacher. The Pythagorean Theorem (what a beauty) posits that C^2=A^2+B^2 (^2=squared), but the mind also knows that C^2-A^2=B^2. It knows that multiplication is complex addition and that division is complex subtraction. There are many paths to truth and sometimes rules are broken along the way. Within many algebraic equations, for example, zero is often a placeholder and division by zero often takes place and then zero is quickly factored out. The mind is a truly ingenious creation.

However, there are other dimensions as well, and at least one of those dimensions is a physical world that exist outside of individual minds. Everything is interactive, including all of these dimensional realities. Some of these realities both exist separately from us and are created by us. For example, the reader, you, by bringing your mind to this essay are helping create the text, the meaning, the significance of it. But even if someone has never viewed this essay, it would still exist. The question is, As what exactly? As I intended it? Or do I just simply create it and then let it go? Also if you walk out of your front door--blindfolded, ears and nose plugged, gloves on, with your hands tied behind your back--it is not likely that just because you cannot hear, see, touch, smell (since you cannot smell you probably cannot taste either) that you won't walk into anything, such as traffic. That traffic would be there regardless of your perceptions of reality. However, your perception would help to create the contours of the roadway. That is why there are road signs and why roads are sometimes angled... Those things are there to control or alter our perceptions, to bring our perceptions in line with what the developers or designers envisioned, so that their concepts will work, and we'll all end up on the same page.

Hawking's argument that just because our limbs, for instance, can easily be controlled by physical and deliberate stimulation of our autonomic nervous system is ridiculous. That being the case is not an example of the lack of free will. It's an example of a "jump-start." We could not will ourselves into being. There had to be a catalyst. Other than a sperm meeting an egg that catalyst is something that set off a chain of events and is hard coded into our minds and bodies, in much the same way as firmware operates within a computer to control other computer programs. Something has to tell the system how to behave. That "jump-start" is a protocol, and protocol is unrelated to free will. Further, the brain is not the mind, which is composed of the physical part, the brain, but also our thoughts and experiences as well. I also believe that our feelings feed our minds, too. (That however will probably require another paper to explain.)

Now I'm not going to commit a fallacy. I'm not going to argue that just because I believe that a leap of faith has no place in science and is leading to many fallacies in Hawking's argument, that his argument is wrong. I think Hawking is essentially right. Now I was going to argue that we have limited free will. Perhaps we do. However, I'm beginning to think that arguing that point is illogical. That we can only have free will or not have it, that the concept of free will is dialectical. I think that as human beings, we need to feel that we are in control and we need to think that others have the control to manage living in a society. How can we believe in our own agency and the responsibilities (or liabilities) of ourselves or others if we do not have control? We are absolute control freaks and are constantly trying to get on top of whatever situation, sometimes to the point of developing various compulsions and addictions as a way to be in control of something, anything not to have that out of control feeling, if even for only a minute or two. We have emotions. Planets, gases... do not. Our emotions add a layer of subjectivity to the physical world. That subjectivity is what engages us in life, because we are essentially self-centered. I know that I do not have free will, and this is how I can tell: If I could will my life, I would not be living this one. I would be white, male, straight, and likely racist, sexist, and homophobic and comfortable as long as my world is not shaken by activists. My will is limited by the will of others. I can will myself to the doctor's office, but I cannot will the outcome of the visit. The outcome is decided by various factors, many of which exists outside of me. Further, we almost never admit that we rarely choose between good and bad. We have a tendency to think that anyone can just will a good outcome. Living proves that is also a fallacy. My free will is defined by the free wills of others. Therefore, free will is a social construction. We have as much free will as society allows. Free will is determined by the laws of human nature, which is a subcategory, a dimension within the physical world. The human mind largely defines (is that an aspect of construction?) the physical world. Yes, the world exists outside of my mind, but to my mind the world will die when my mind dies and what the world means to me is determined only by my mind. In the absence of my mind, life would still go on, but as what to me? Life differs as soon as we are no longer involved in it, because life is contextual. So if free will is an either/or proposition, then I agree with Stephen Hawking: We don't have free will.

Now the question is, How can we continue to live in the absence of free will? ...by living in the illusion of it, like we always have. We cannot will the outcome of our visit to the doctor's office, but we can influence it. By force of personality, we can often induce people to behave in various ways, and by eating right, getting enough sleep, etc. we can influence our health. I often argue that I am here to know God, to have fun, and to be God's entertainment. This is all theatre. Trying to know God, having a good time, and knowing that I do not have to be perfect, because God can laugh things off makes life worth living for me.

Comments

[Brenda Gaines Hunter]

Yes, Ron, Einstein's theory of special relativity turned traditional theories about not only perception, but also about what was really happening in the universe on its head. Until then, it was believed that perception was fixed. However, that seems odd, because it had to have been known for at least a millenium or more that people do not always see the same phenomenon in the same way. Those differences in perspective tend to be the most flagrant in criminal cases. Four people can can witness the same crime while standing equal distance from the crime on different street corners, but struggle to agree on what actually took place. Obviously, they did not all see the same thing. That's why there really must be physical evidence to corroborate eye witness evidence.

I'm no Einstein, but that warping of perspective seems to be caused by speed and the curvature of the universe, including the earth. You can see its effects in the desert on a hot day. As steam rises from the valley floor, the floor begins to look wobbly. Now add speed to that and the effect would be a warped surface. That warping is necessary to stay close to the surface of the earth, because of gravity. It could be that our minds and bodies are intuitively aligned with gravity or some degree of scientific determinism.

It could also be that our spiritual experiences are really physical experiences, our bodies intuiting or aligning with the universe, with things we really don't understand.

Now I know very little about dark matter. However, I think that dark matter is like loops, or knots, on a string. It is there as added support.

[Ron Krumpos]

In "The Grand Design" Hawking says that we are somewhat like goldfish in a curved fishbowl. Our perceptions are limited and warped by the kind of lenses we see through, “the interpretive structure of our human brains.” Albert Einstein rejected this subjective approach, common to much of quantum mechanics, but did admit that our view of reality is distorted.

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity has the surprising consequences that “the same event, when viewed from inertial systems in motion with respect to each other, will seem to occur at different times, bodies will measure out at different lengths, and clocks will run at different speeds.” Light does travel in a curve, due to the gravity of matter, thereby distorting views from each perspective in this Universe. Similarly, mystics’ experience in divine oneness, which might be considered the same "eternal" event, viewed from various historical, cultural and personal perspectives, have occurred with different frequencies, degrees of realization and durations. This might help to explain the diversity in the expressions or reports of that spiritual awareness. What is seen is the same; it is the "seeing" which differs.

In some sciences, all existence is described as matter or energy. In some of mysticism, only consciousness exists. Dark matter is 25%, and dark energy about 70%, of the critical density of this Universe. Divine essence, also not visible, emanates and sustains universal matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and cosmic consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). During suprarational consciousness, and beyond, mystics share in that essence to varying extents. [quoted from my e-book on comparative mysticism]