I guess a sign of confidence is the lack of wavering, the underpinning of an argument with resolve. Although I've been known to show a great deal of hubris from time to time, I try to keep it in check. One of the things I've realized is that the more I think I know, the less I actually know. I concede that I have few answers to most problems. The problem of free will is no exception. I do not believe that I can solve issues of which some of the most brilliant minds have struggled, but I do believe that I can stand in there and offer many solid arguments through the application of intelligence, creativity, and perserverance. In short, I'm not intellectually lazy.
The issue of free will intrigues me, for the idea that we have free will is the basis of our society. We mete out rewards and punishments based on the notion that we are free. Now Stephen Hawking tells us that we are not. I can't recall another Occidental scientist, religious figure, or philosopher arguing that our agency is so limited. The basis of most arguments is that humans are different from other physical phenomena, the argument I made in my original Part II critique. I believe that there is ample evidence that human beings are different. Look at our intelligence, our creativity, our sensuality. It could be that I need a new pair of lenses, that I'm just not attracted to tigers and lions and bears, but frankly I don't believe they are as enchanting as we are, because our hypocrisy is so interesting that we make this world go 'round--not creatures as boring as they.
The planets and stars offer their own intrigue, but part of that intrigue involves their mystery, rhythm and beauty--what is constant about them and what is variable. We need at least one constant and one variable to solve an equation because without at least one of each there is nothing to solve or the problem is unsolvable. Ambiguity is an integral part of the physical world. When I say the human mind largely creates the physical world, what I mean is that it does so via interpretation. That interpretation runs through our senses and are so filtered by them. Those interpretations guide us in deciding what to study and how to see what we see, hear what we hear, touch what we touch, taste and what we taste, and feel what we feel. To us, the physical world is highly sensual. Look at how babies put practically everything in their mouths, reach for whatever, gaze, etc.
I took exception with Hawking asking us to concede that we are no different than other physical phenomena because I believe that a leap of faith is a leap of faith. If we are to now argue that it is indeed okay for scientists to rely on a leap of faith to guide their scientific interpretations, then we need to concede that it is okay for people to rely on their religious faith to guide them through their daily lives, partly because science has yet to offer an alternative to religion. Let's be consistent, at least, until there is enough evidence to completely undermine the study hermeneutics.
I'm also questioning whether the universe can indeed be defined by only one law; perhaps there is no unifying theory. There is a beauty in oneness, a simplicity, a symbiosis, but I've found that often in life things are rarely an either or proposition. Both or many things are often true at the same time. That could be because truth is often a social construction. We construct our laws and theories via our internal filters. Finding a unifying law would likely be more of a result of our creativity and intelligence than true existence, since truth often has more than one path. We get to choose which path to take. In science, results just have to work and be replicable to be accepted as truth and, therefore, there can be more than one truth. However, the truth of the dominant culture usually wins out, and the culture of science does tend to win out over the culture (sometimes cult) of religion. One of the issues there may be that there are many religions and many have opposing arguments. That leaves truth in limbo--something of which practical, capitalistic societies can't deal. Also the constant fighting among religious groups has undermined their credibility. That's why the U.S. has a secular Constitution.
I said that I would look at whether environment can alter DNA. The answer is yes. But, of course, whether that argument is accepted depends on whether a belief in evolution is accepted. In short, the Theory of Evolution is based on the overwhelming evidence that environment can alter genes. Now I believe that Hawking's argument that the mind is a product of scientific determinism is faulty. However, what I should have said in the other essay is that the brain is an aspect of scientific determinism, but, of course, the brain is not the mind. Therefore, a part of the mind is an aspect of scientific determinism. I'm drawing a Venn Diagram right now and the outcome of it tells me this: A part does not define the whole. For instance, if you have someone (think in terms of the whole person) who is part African American, part gay, part disabled, do you have an African American person? a gay person? or a disabled person? Can you put one circle inside another (all the same size? different sizes?) or do they overlap? All of the above? Sounds simple. But it can also be argued, "What is this a case of?" That's my argument: "What is this a case of?" As a person who fits all of those categories, I'll tell you what you have--a different beast. The person is really none of the above, but all of the above at the same time and all of those different aspects define that person and play into each other. You have three circles of equal size lying precisely on top of one another, likely in random order or in the order in which the person chooses. For instance, it is often possible to hide a disability; sexual orientation sometimes can be hidden as well. So it's possible that the only visible trait the person may have is that s/he is African American, maybe. Some African Americans can hide, too. However, regardless of the order of observable traits, all of the traits are still present and, therefore, still define the person. The brain plays into the mind, but it does not define it.
The brain is under control of DNA, biochemistry, which can be altered by the environment. Changes to DNA can also occur without any apparent cause. An article regarding autism, for instance, that appeared in the January 7, 2011 edition of My Health News Daily states: "Research has also shown that the genetic changes that contribute to autism don't have to be inherited — they may also arise spontaneously." Perhaps we need to look at the issue of whether everything must have a cause. I think one of Hawking's arguments is that everything does not have a cause, that the universe happened spontaneously and that it's existence can be explained by science. English is a highly temporal language, which makes it difficult for speakers of English not to think in a causal or temporal modality. There are languages that are not causal or temporal, like the Hopi Indian language. It should be said also that many cultures have imported languages like English, because the causal and temporal connotations make it easier to think scientifically and technologically, which in turn makes invention easier in a world that has become increasingly capitalistic.
It should be pointed out that just as we have genotypes, which are an aspect of DNA, we are also composed of phenotypes. Phenotypes are observable traits--physical, biochemical, and behavioral. Aspects of the mind, and likely the brain, such as mental illness, can be inferred by observing phenotype. Others argue that even our choices are an aspect of DNA; our personalities are genetically based. For instance, the argument is that genotype causes me to choose differently than you do. The different personalities of babies are observable in hospital nurseries.
Now, environment does have the power to alter genes and genes, environment--either over a long period of time or as a result of drastic and fast environmental changes or via a leap in DNA to effect adaption to the environment. Some traits develop in the womb and may or may not be an aspect of genes. Some can simply be related to the amount of available space in the womb. That has been offered as an explanation for why when it comes to identical twins one can be right handed and the other left handed. It is also known that maternal stress, drug use, alcoholism... can affect phenotype and alter DNA and, therefore, genotype. So yes, some behaviors are biological, but not necessarily genetic. And some genes are hard coded (methylated), like firmware that controls other computer programs; others, pliable.
My argument that we do not have free will is based on the evidence that culture and society can also alter phenotype via its institutions, such as churches, schools, and prisons and, therefore, limit the influence of free will or human agency. What we usually get to decide is how to be within various circumstances. By extension, society can alter genes--via pollution, for instance; pollution can cause cancer, etc. So my argument still stands: We do not have free will. I'm now done with the issue of free will.
Comments