Biological Determinism: Is Free Will Just “Inference”?
Thank you for the detailed response. I understand the compatibilist argument presented: that determinism simply sets the boundaries, and that our “conflict of thoughts” when choosing an option within those boundaries is empirical evidence of Free Will.However, from the perspective of neuroscience, determinism, and my own professional background in designing artificial intelligence systems, this explanation still relies on a critical logical gap. Philosophers like Alex O’Connor and neurobiologists like Robert Sapolsky have rigorously debunked this exact premise through the following points:1. “Conflict of Thoughts” is Just Biological ComputationThe argument suggests that if we lacked free will, we would not experience internal conflict. Biologically and computationally, this is incorrect. The “friction” or guilt we feel is not the signature of an independent soul; it is simply the biological computation of competing neural networks.When a person feels a base urge (driven by the amygdala) but hesitates out of a sense of morality or long-term consequence (driven by the prefrontal cortex), they are simply experiencing a neurological calculation. In AI engineering, if I program an autonomous agent with competing reward functions (e.g., immediate resource gathering vs. long-term system safety), the system experiences computational “friction” while it calculates the optimal path. The psychological agony we feel is just the biological equivalent of a system taking extra milliseconds to weigh competing neurochemical pathways. The “conflict” is a biological process, not a spiritual one.2. The Mechanism of Choice is Also DeterminedThe compatibilist view states: “From the given options, we choose.” But modern determinists ask: Why did we choose the option that won?If a person overcomes a bad urge and makes the “good” choice, they did so because their specific genetic predisposition toward empathy, combined with their early childhood training, created a neurochemical state where the desire to be good outweighed the urge to do bad. As Arthur Schopenhauer noted, “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.” We do not choose which of our desires is the strongest. We simply observe the strongest biological desire win the internal calculation, and then falsely take credit for it by calling it “Free Will.”3. The 1% “Ghost in the Machine”Traditional theology concedes that our formative environment, our genetics, our baseline neurochemistry, and the exact options available to us are entirely determined by God’s decree. Yet, it insists that there is a tiny, unobservable gap—a “Ghost in the Machine” or intellect—that sits outside the laws of physics and operates as an independent decider. If human neurobiology completely accounts for 100% of our behavior and decision-making processing, why introduce this unobservable gap just to make moral accountability justifiable?If our “conflict of thoughts” is just neurological weight calculation, and the final “choice” we make is mathematically guaranteed by the architecture and training data we didn’t choose, how does the Ghamidi framework scientifically or logically distinguish human Free Will from a highly advanced, deterministic biological algorithm?