Humans Do Not Have "Free Will"

I am looking forward to reading what Con has to say on this issue and I hope that I will be able to learn from this experience. Introduction To start off, I would like to agree with Con on two things: 1. My opinion on this issue is indeed an extreme one. 2. The crux of my argument is indeed my lack of belief in the existence of souls or some sort of “higher being”, for I would have no problem with the concept of free will if I did believe in such things. Rebuttals/Responses Human behavior cannot be compared to a “biological computer” Con began his response by stating that “human behavior cannot be reduced to merely actions consistent with a ‘biological computer’. I would disagree with this statement, as I believe that the two can most certainly be compared to one another. I believe that Con is underestimating the sheer power that computers hold and I would attempt to explain my belief in a more thorough way. First off, I am both a scientist and programmer myself, and so I have first-hand experience with the topic of ai and biological computers. The brain is already being mimicked in ai across the world using what are called neural networks. They replicate the way that our brains learn using neurons and said ai perform extraordinarily well. In time, an ai will be created which has the ability to replicate not only the learning processes of the human brain but the emotional ones as well. It is all a matter of programming. This clearly demonstrates that human behavior CAN be, as Con put it, “reduced” to actions consistent with a biological computer, for, in essence, that is what humans truly are. I believe that Con, and in no way am I attempting to ridicule, insult, or look down upon him, just doesn’t understand enough about ai and how they function, to properly make the argument that humans cannot be thought of as biological computers. This issue is one of a philosophical nature, not a scientific one While I would indeed agree that the debate on free will is generally considered to be within the realm of philosophy, I believe that before it should be allowed into a philosophical debate, it should first have a scientific basis, which in my belief it does not. Con stated that “trying to impose physical rules on the entirety of the human mind, with its moral decision, empathy for others, etc. , is a failed effort from its beginning”. I believe that this assertion is absolutely preposterous because science already accurately does this. Empathy can be quite easily explained by science and morals are not a part of the human mind, they were created by humans due to the fact that human societies would fall to ruin without them. We needed morals because, without them, man would steal, rape, and kill his fellow man. I realize that Con is Catholic, and therefore likely has a different view on the concept of morality than I do, but I hope that he will be able to come to the agreement that morality is not inherent, for even within the confines of religion I believe that morality is said to have been created by God and taught to the human race through prophets. If I am wrong, which I very well may be, I hope that Con will correct my misinformed beliefs. Furthermore, I would like to disagree with Con on his belief that disciplines have their own “spheres of operation”, and that various issues must reside within only one of these “spheres”. If I were to continue with Con’s idea of using spheres, I would make the assertion that these various spheres actually intersect with one another and that issues can reside within multiple spheres at one time, free will being one of these issues. Free will being attributed to the brain Having read Mr. Cave’s article in the Atlantic, I would have to respectfully disagree with several of his statements. His main point within this article is that free will does exist in the form of the decisions that we make, and that said free will is attributed to our brains themselves. My view on this is that the decisions we make aren’t truly “decisions”, they are just results of the various chemical reactions occurring within our brains. Our life experiences, particularly those that occurred within our childhood, have already been proven to mold our personality and change how we react to various circumstances. Many, if not all, serial killers have had traumatic childhood experiences which warped their brains and literally changed the biological makeup of their brains. When certain areas of the brain are damaged, particularly the amygdala, it has been found that violent impulses all but vanish and people begin to have great trouble even recognizing the emotion of anger on the faces of other people. Yet another example of our brain deciding how we react to choices is the fact that when we hold cold drinks we tend to interpret the personalities of others as being colder. All of these examples are evidence that free will does not exist and that our brains are what cause us to act as we do. Conclusions As I have stated throughout my various rebuttals of Con’s statements. I believe that: 1. Human beings can indeed be described as biological computers and Con’s belief that they cannot stems from what I believe to be a simple case of not fully understanding the subject. (Yet again, I mean no disrespect towards Con, I am only stating what I believe to be the case). 2. I do not reject the discipline of philosophy, in fact, I have GREAT respect for it, but as I said, the issue of free will is first and foremost a scientific one, and only after it has a scientific basis can it move on into the realm of philosophy. 3. Even though people such as Stephen Cave say that free will DOES exist and that it is based within the brain, I would make the statement that the decisions which occur within our brains are based entirely on chemical/biological reactions, that our decisions aren’t truly “decisions” which we are making. I look forward to hearing Con’s response, and I would thank him again for carrying out this debate in both a civilized and intelligent manner.