#61 - Debating Free Will: Frankenstein's Monster and a Filmstrip of the Universe (with Lucas Smalldon)
Jan 17, 2024
auto_awesome
Lucas Smalldon, a blogger and critical rationalist, dives into the intriguing debate of free will versus determinism. He unpacks whether our thoughts are genuinely our own or shaped by genetics and environment. Drawing on the metaphor of Frankenstein's monster, he explores how instinctual desires influence moral decision-making. The conversation critiques traditional views on morality, urging a deeper understanding of human behavior and accountability, all while illuminating the complexities of mental health and societal influences.
The podcast discusses the coexistence of free will and determinism, illustrating that both concepts can be contextually relevant at different levels of explanation.
Lucas Smalldon introduces critical rationalism, arguing that while determinism frames fundamental actions, free will retains significance in moral and human behavioral discussions.
The conversation emphasizes rethinking moral responsibility in society and suggests a shift from retributive justice towards rehabilitation based on an understanding of human behavior.
Deep dives
The Free Will Debate
The discussion centers on the philosophical tension between free will and determinism, sparked by an earlier conversation between the hosts. They delve into a critique of Sam Harris’s perspective, which posits that human decisions are the result of prior causes beyond one's control. The conversation highlights that while individuals may feel they have the ability to make free choices, their options are often shaped by an array of antecedent factors, such as upbringing and genetics. The guest, Lucas Smalden, argues that free will and determinism can coexist and suggests that our understanding of choice might vary at different levels of explanation.
Critical Rationalism and Free Will
Lucas Smalden introduces critical rationalism as a lens through which the free will debate can be reframed. He explains that although determinism may accurately describe physical events at a fundamental level, the concept of free will may still hold significance in higher-level discussions about human behavior. This perspective encourages a nuanced understanding of agency, positing that choice can exist even within a determinist framework, as individuals navigate complex societal structures influenced by prior conditions. The conversation also acknowledges that meaningful discussions about morality and accountability can still take place despite philosophical disagreements regarding free will.
The Role of Moral Criteria
The guests explore the implications of their philosophical stance on moral responsibility by contrasting two types of decision-making scenarios: those motivated by a genuine desire to do good and those characterized by malicious intent. They recognize that while consequences from actions may be similar, the underlying intentions differentiate the moral weight of each choice. This distinction prompts a deeper dialogue on whether moral criteria should be tied to concepts of accountability when exploring human behavior. The overall consensus implies that understanding the intentions behind actions may help navigate moral discussions about both celebrated and condemned behaviors.
Consequentialism vs. Free Will
The discussion touches on how recognizing the non-existence of free will impacts individuals’ moral decision-making processes, specifically regarding the balance between consequentialist thinking and instinctual morality. A key point raised is that while many moral systems evoke notions of personal responsibility and choices, it's often our gut feelings and social norms that guide everyday behavior. This reflective stance allows for compassion toward others’ actions, both negative and positive, as it discounts the arbitrary nature of personal accountability. Additionally, a more rehabilitative approach to criminal justice emerges as a preferred alternative to traditional punitive measures.
Impact on Society and Law
The conversation concludes with an examination of how societal norms should adapt based on perspectives about free will and moral responsibility. One guest emphasizes that using responsibility as a societal meme remains beneficial, encouraging law and norms that shape behavior positively. However, they agree that the legal system could be enhanced by moving away from a retributive framework towards one that focuses on rehabilitative principles, utilizing a deeper understanding of human behavior. These insights affirm that a shift in moral consideration can help cultivate more empathetic and effective societal structures.
Navigating Future Decisions
A significant aspect of the dialogue involves how understanding the lack of free will shapes future decision-making. The hosts acknowledge that acknowledging determinism does not inherently decrease an individual’s ability to deliberate and choose their future actions carefully. Instead, it allows for a model of introspection that centers on analyzing the consequences of decisions rather than imposing guilt or blame. This shift in perspective fosters a proactive approach to decision-making, meaning individuals can focus on the impact of their actions on themselves and society without being burdened by the outdated framework of moral blame.
While you're reading this you're having a thought. Something like "wow, I love the Increments podcast", or "those hosts are some handsome" or "I really wish people would stop talking about free will." Do you have a choice in the matter? Are you free to choose what you're thinking in any given moment, or is it determined by your genetics, environment, and existing ideas? Is the universe determined, are we all Frankenstein's monster? How does one profitably think about that question? Today we have Lucas Smalldon on to help us think through these questions.
We reference Lucas's blog post titled reconciling-determinism-and-free-will. Because it's is barely more than a tweet, we've included the entire post here as well:
Reconciling Free Will with Determinism
Free will and determinism seem to conflict with each other. But the apparent conflict disappears when we understand that determinism and free will simply describe the world from radically different perspectives and at fundamentally different levels. Free will makes sense only within the context of the physical world, whereas determinism makes sense only from a perspective that is outside the physical world. Consider the determinist statement, “The future exists and has always existed”. It seems like a contradiction in terms, but only because our language forces us to express the idea misleadingly in terms of the past and future. If we assign special meanings to the temporal words in the statement—namely, if by the future we mean “objectively real events that from the perspective of our present have not yet happened”; and if by always we mean “transcending time itself” rather than the usual “existing across all time”—then the contradiction resolves. Assigning these special meanings allows us to express determinism as atemporal and objective: as a description of a physical reality of which time is an attribute. Conversely, free will, which is by far the more intuitive concept, is needed to explain certain kinds of events (i.e., choices) that occur within time, and thus within the physical world that determinism describes from the outside. Determinism and free will are compatible. We really do make choices. It’s just that, from an atemporal determinist perspective, these choices have “always” existed.
The (in)compatibility of different levels of explanation
Why the lack of free will does not hinge on reductionism
Memetic arguments for the non-existence of free will
Whether we can have moral responsibility without free will
The universe as a filmstrip
Whether we're all just Frankenstein's monster
Socials
Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
Help us find freedom and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here.
