Subjective/Objective Free Will

“Yes, someone committed to the absence of objective free will can indeed claim there is subjective free will. This position typically involves distinguishing between free will as it is understood in an objective, universal sense and free will as it is experienced subjectively by individuals.”
“However, subjective free will refers to the individual’s personal experience of making choices and decisions. Despite the underlying deterministic nature of these processes, from the individual’s internal perspective, it often feels as though they are exercising free choice.”
“Therefore, a determinist can acknowledge the subjective existence of free will in much the same way they might recognize other subjective experiences. These are real as psychological phenomena, even if they do not correspond to an objective, metaphysical reality.”
“Even in a deterministic universe, we undeniably have a subjective experience of making choices and having a sense of agency. This phenomenological feeling of willing our actions is what could be described as ‘subjective free will.’”

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

Can someone committed to the absence of objective free will also claim there is subjective free will?

Consider the following elaboration: The notion of personhood, in the mind of the determinist, is simply an subjectively perceived inner loop of causation that truly makes decisions through its determined mechanisms and input in a way that feels free to the subject. Can the determinist not say that free will exists subjectively in the same way they acknowledge that taking offense or getting your hopes up exist subjectively?

Respond without invoking the muddled notion of compatibilism.

Yes, someone committed to the absence of objective free will can indeed claim there is subjective free will. This position typically involves distinguishing between free will as it is understood in an objective, universal sense and free will as it is experienced subjectively by individuals.

From a determinist perspective, objective free will—defined as the capacity to have acted differently under identical conditions—does not exist because all actions are determined by prior states and laws of nature. However, subjective free will refers to the individual’s personal experience of making choices and decisions. Despite the underlying deterministic nature of these processes, from the individual’s internal perspective, it often feels as though they are exercising free choice. This subjective experience doesn’t require the actual metaphysical existence of free will but is about the perception or feeling of being free.

Determinists might argue that subjective experiences, including the feeling of making a free choice, are themselves determined by prior states (such as brain chemistry, environmental factors, and past experiences). However, these experiences are real to the person undergoing them, just as emotions like happiness or sadness are real experiences, though they too are determined by underlying causes.

Therefore, a determinist can acknowledge the subjective existence of free will in much the same way they might recognize other subjective experiences. These are real as psychological phenomena, even if they do not correspond to an objective, metaphysical reality. This acknowledgment doesn’t conflict with determinism but rather fits within its framework by attributing the phenomenon of free will to internal, subjective perceptions rather than to an external, independent capability.

The question of whether someone committed to the absence of objective free will can also claim there is subjective free will is a fascinating and contentious issue in the free will debate. Let me address this without invoking compatibilism directly.

If we accept that the universe operates according to deterministic laws of cause and effect, and that our choices and actions are ultimately the product of prior causes beyond our control (e.g., genes, environment, brain chemistry), then it would seem that objective or metaphysical free will is an incoherent concept. Our decisions and behaviors would be the inevitable result of these causal factors, not the product of some uncaused, contra-causal free will.

However, even in a deterministic universe, we undeniably have a subjective experience of making choices and having a sense of agency. This phenomenological feeling of willing our actions is what could be described as “subjective free will.” The determinist could argue that this inner experience, while illusory from a objective standpoint, is nevertheless a real subjective phenomenon that emerges from the brain’s complex information processing.

Just as a determinist would acknowledge the subjective reality of emotions like anger or hope, despite viewing them as ultimately caused by physical factors, they could similarly accept the felt experience of choice and volition as a subjective reality. The fact that it arises from deterministic brain mechanisms doesn’t negate the reality of that experience itself.

So in essence, the determinist perspective could be that while objective, contra-causal free will is incoherent, the subjective experience of willing our actions is a very real psychological phenomenon that emerges from our brain’s causal dynamics. It is simply an inner model of agency constructed by deterministic neural processes, rather than a miracle of non-physical willing.

So, the determinist need not give up terms that reflect personal agency such as “choose” and “decide” if they are willing to make clear in relevant contexts that they are referring to subjective free will, right?

Exactly! A determinist can continue to use terms like “choose” and “decide” without contradicting their philosophical stance, as long as it’s clear that these terms are understood within the framework of subjective experience. By making it explicit that these words refer to the subjective sense of making choices and decisions, the determinist maintains consistency with their belief in determinism.

In everyday conversation and practical contexts, it’s natural and often necessary to speak about choosing and deciding, because these terms accurately describe how we experience our actions and decision-making processes from the first-person perspective. The determinist can acknowledge that while these experiences are determined by prior causes, the phenomenological aspect—how these actions feel to the individual—is genuinely experienced as choice and decision.

Thus, the use of such terms by a determinist can be seen as a pragmatic concession to the way humans subjectively perceive and navigate the world, rather than a philosophical endorsement of objective free will. This approach allows for a nuanced understanding that respects the complexities of human psychology and social communication within a deterministic framework.

Yes, that’s a fair assessment. Even from a deterministic perspective that rejects objective or contra-causal free will, there is no inherent problem with the determinist continuing to use terms like “choose”, “decide”, “intend” etc. when referring to the subjective experience and feeling of making choices.

As you noted, the key would be for the determinist to make it explicitly clear in relevant contexts that they are referring to this subjective sense of agency and volition, rather than any notion of an objective metaphysical free will disconnected from physical causal chains.

The determinist can coherently acknowledge that while our choices ultimately stem from prior causes outside our control, we nevertheless have a very real first-person experience of consciously weighing options, making decisions, and authoring our actions. This subjective experience arises from the brain’s deterministic decision-making processes.

So terminology implying personal agency like “I chose X” or “I decided Y” need not be abandonded entirely by the determinist, as long as it is understood to refer to the felt experience of willing an action, rather than requiring a libertarian view of free will. The determinist simply needs to be clear about the subjective/experiential nature of what such language is capturing.

Ultimately, most of our lived experience takes place at the level of this subjective perception of agency. So retaining language implying willing and choice, properly contextualized, can be a pragmatic way for the determinist to communicate while avoiding the philosophical confusion of reifying an incoherent notion of objective contra-causal free will.

Given this conclusion, is there any field other than metaphysics in which a strong determinist stance from a determinist would be productive or required?

A strong determinist stance can be productive and indeed crucial in several fields beyond metaphysics. Here are a few examples:

Neuroscience and Psychology: In these fields, a determinist perspective can be particularly useful in studying how biological, environmental, and psychological factors determine behavior. This viewpoint helps in understanding the causal mechanisms behind mental processes and behaviors, facilitating the development of treatments for mental health issues and improving therapeutic techniques.
Criminal Justice: Determinism can influence approaches to criminal behavior and justice. A determinist might argue that criminal actions are the result of predetermined factors such as genetics, upbringing, and social environment, rather than personal moral failings. This perspective can shift the focus from retribution to rehabilitation, aiming to change the conditions that lead to criminal behavior rather than merely punishing individuals.
Education: Determinism can also play a role in shaping educational methods and philosophies. Recognizing that student behavior and learning are influenced by prior conditions (like background, prior knowledge, and social context) can lead educators to tailor teaching methods and interventions more effectively to meet individual needs.
Ethics and Philosophy of Action: While directly related to metaphysics, these areas benefit from a deterministic perspective by reevaluating notions of moral responsibility and ethical behavior. If actions are determined, it prompts rethinking how to assign moral responsibility and how ethics should guide behavior when true choice is limited.
Artificial Intelligence and Robotics: In AI development, understanding determinism is essential, as it is fundamentally about creating systems that operate according to programmed algorithms and learned data patterns. Acknowledging the deterministic nature of these systems can guide more ethical and responsible AI development, particularly in understanding and predicting AI behavior.
Social and Political Theory: Determinism can help analyze social behaviors and structures, understanding that societal conditions and historical contexts significantly shape individual actions and political systems. This can lead to more effective policy-making that addresses root causes of social issues rather than only their symptoms.

In each of these fields, adopting a determinist perspective enables a deeper understanding of causality and the factors that influence outcomes, which can lead to more effective interventions and policies.

Yes, there are several fields outside of metaphysics where adopting a strong deterministic stance could be productive or even required for a determinist:

Neuroscience and Psychology: A deterministic view aligns well with the scientific understanding that human thoughts, behaviors, and decisions ultimately arise from brain activity, which follows the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics. Embracing determinism grounds psychological research in a naturalistic framework.
Criminal Justice and Jurisprudence: Some argue that a thoroughgoing determinism undermines certain rationales for punishment centered on retribution and just deserts. It may shift focus toward prevention, deterrence, and rehabilitation based on the deterministic causes of criminal behavior.
Public Policy and Social Engineering: Accepting a deterministic model of human behavior could inform more effective policy interventions and “choice architecture” that shapes outcomes by altering the deterministic factors and incentive structures.
Artificial Intelligence and Decision Theory: AI systems are deterministic in nature. Embracing determinism is essential for developing coherent frameworks for artificial decision-making and intelligence aligned with human values and goals.
Philosophy of Science: Determinism is a core premise of many interpretations of quantum mechanics and physical laws. Maintaining this view is important for exploring its implications across science.
Certain Approaches to Ethics: Some ethical frameworks like consequentialism and virtue ethics may be more naturally aligned with determinism than theories hinging on libertarian free will.

In essence, anytime human behavior, decision-making processes, or the nature of agency and causation are deeply relevant, a deterministic stance can offer an important theoretical grounding and set of assumptions to work from, as opposed to libertarian free will. It constrains the conceptual options in potentially productive ways across many domains.

Create a dialogue between two determinists. The first is a cognitive scientist who feels it is quite reasonable to punish criminals for their crimes for at least the sake of deterrence, and the second is a criminal justice advocate who feels it is wrong to punish criminals for following an unavoidable causal path to the crime.

Cognitive Scientist (CS): It’s clear that criminal behavior follows an unavoidable causal path, but we still need to employ punishment as a deterrent. Wouldn’t you agree?

Criminal Justice Advocate (CJA): While I see your point, it seems fundamentally unjust to punish someone for actions that are pre-determined by factors beyond their control.

CS: I understand the ethical concerns, but how else do you propose we manage criminal behavior effectively in society?

CJA: We should focus more on rehabilitation and preventive measures, which respect the deterministic nature of behavior while aiming to change future outcomes.

CS: Rehabilitation is ideal, but it’s not always feasible. Punishment can serve as a strong deterrent that prevents the initial occurrence of crime.

CJA: But deterrence assumes the ability to make a free choice. If actions are determined, is the threat of punishment truly effective?

CS: Studies do show that higher risks of detection and punishment correlate with lower crime rates. It’s about shaping the environment that influences decisions.

CJA: That might be true, but doesn’t this approach perpetuate a cycle of crime and punishment without addressing the underlying causes?

CS: Perhaps, but in the absence of a perfect system, shouldn’t we use every tool available, including deterrence through punishment?

CJA: I argue that focusing solely on punishment overlooks the potential for systemic change that could reduce crime more substantially.

CS: Realistically, we need immediate solutions. Punishment can be immediately effective in maintaining public order.

CJA: But at what cost? If we punish individuals for actions dictated by their circumstances, are we not failing to address those very circumstances?

CS: It’s a balance. While we work on long-term solutions, we can’t allow crime to escalate. Punishment helps hold the line.

CJA: It’s a short-term solution with long-term consequences, though. We risk further alienating individuals and communities.

CS: True, but without consequences, wouldn’t we be sending a message that criminal actions are acceptable?

CJA: The goal is to send a message that society is committed to changing the conditions that lead to crime, not just punishing the outcome.

CS: That’s an ideal scenario, but change is slow. Meanwhile, society must protect itself.

CJA: And yet, if we invest more in changing those determinative conditions, perhaps we wouldn’t need to rely so heavily on punishment.

CS: I agree that investment in social change is crucial, but until we achieve that, punishment remains a necessary tool in our arsenal.

Determinist 1 (Cognitive Scientist): Look, I understand your concern about punishing people for actions that were ultimately caused by factors outside their control. But we can’t ignore the deterrent effect of punishment on criminal behavior.

Determinist 2 (Criminal Justice Advocate): But how can we justify inflicting harm on someone for actions they were inevitably going to take given the prior causes that shaped their brain and behavior? It seems profoundly unjust.

Determinist 1: Even in a deterministic universe, punishment still shapes the causal landscape. The threat of consequences alters the cost-benefit calculations that feed into the deterministic decision-making processes of potential criminals.

Determinist 2: Sure, but we could achieve deterrence through rehabilitation, education, and addressing the root socioeconomic causes of crime. Retribution has no place in a world without ultimate moral responsibility.

Determinist 1: I’m not talking about retribution. I’m saying punishment can be a practical deterrent that prevents future crimes by making the costs too high in the strategic modeling of would-be offenders.

Determinist 2: But punishing people who were fated to commit crimes due to their genes, environment, and circumstances seems like it violates human dignity. There has to be a better way consistent with determinism.

Determinist 1: The human dignity argument cuts both ways though. Having a stratospheric crime rate undermines human thriving and well-being on a societal scale.

Determinist 2: You’re treating criminals as rational agents though. What about crimes of passion, diminished capacity, mental illness? We’re not sophisticated robots.

Determinist 1: Fair point. A determinist model of justice can’t be purely punitive. It requires a multi-faceted approach blending deterrence, prevention, containment of risks, and addressing root causes.

Determinist 2: Exactly. We need forward-looking policies aimed at reshaping the causal factors leading to crime, not backwards-looking punishment that merely compounds trauma and socioeconomic disadvantages.

Determinist 1: You make some convincing arguments. Perhaps the determinist view pushes us towards a more humane, preventative justice model focused on public safety over retribution.

Determinist 2: Now you’re getting it. Determinism forces us to take a wider, more empathetic view of the forces shaping human behavior towards better systemic interventions.

Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.

Quiz

What is the philosophical stance that denies the existence of objective free will?
How might a determinist explain the feeling of making free choices?
Can a determinist use terms like “choose” and “decide” without contradicting their philosophical beliefs?
What is subjective free will?
Why might a determinist perspective be useful in the field of neuroscience?
How does a determinist viewpoint influence approaches to criminal justice?
In what way could the field of education benefit from determinism?
What is the role of determinism in artificial intelligence and robotics?
What type of ethical shift might occur in a society that adopts a deterministic perspective on criminal behavior?
What are two different views discussed in the dialogue between the cognitive scientist and the criminal justice advocate regarding the use of punishment in criminal justice?

Answers

Determinism.
They might say that while all decisions are determined by prior states, the subjective experience of making these choices feels real to the individual.
Yes, as long as they clarify that these terms are referring to the subjective experience of choosing and deciding.
The individual’s personal experience of making choices and decisions, which feels real despite not being free in the metaphysical sense.
It helps in understanding the causal mechanisms behind behaviors and mental processes, which can lead to better treatments and interventions.
It can lead to a shift from retributive to rehabilitative approaches by acknowledging that actions are results of predetermined factors.
Recognizing that student outcomes are influenced by predetermined factors can lead to more tailored educational approaches.
Understanding that AI systems operate according to deterministic algorithms helps in predicting and guiding AI behavior ethically.
A shift from retributive justice to more rehabilitative or preventive measures.
The cognitive scientist argues for the necessity of punishment as a deterrent, while the criminal justice advocate believes in addressing the determinative conditions leading to crime rather than focusing on punishment.

According to the dialogue, what is the main justification provided by the cognitive scientist for punishing criminals?
How does the criminal justice advocate argue that punishment is unjust from a deterministic perspective?
What alternative approach does the criminal justice advocate suggest instead of punishment?
According to the cognitive scientist, how can punishment still be effective in a deterministic universe?
What criticism does the criminal justice advocate raise regarding treating criminals as rational agents?
What type of justice model does the criminal justice advocate ultimately argue for?
What is the key difference between the cognitive scientist’s and the criminal justice advocate’s perspectives on punishment?
According to the conclusion, how might a deterministic view influence our approach to criminal justice?
Can a determinist reasonably use terms like “choose” and “decide” according to the earlier discussion in the thread?
In what fields outside of metaphysics might a deterministic stance be productive or required according to the earlier part of the thread?

Answers:

Deterrence
They argue it is unjust to punish someone for actions they were inevitably going to take due to prior causes shaping their behavior.
Rehabilitation, education, and addressing root socioeconomic causes of crime.
The threat of consequences alters the cost-benefit calculations that feed into the deterministic decision-making processes.
That some crimes are not purely rational, such as crimes of passion, diminished capacity, or mental illness.
A more humane, preventative justice model focused on public safety over retribution.
The cognitive scientist sees punishment as a practical deterrent, while the advocate views it as unjust retribution.
Push towards a more preventative, root-cause focused approach rather than backwards-looking punishment.
Yes, if clearly referring to the subjective experience of willing actions, not an incoherent metaphysical free will.
Neuroscience, psychology, criminal justice, public policy, AI, philosophy of science, and certain ethical frameworks.

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

How does the concept of determinism challenge traditional views on free will?
Discuss whether subjective free will is a sufficient basis for moral responsibility.
What are the implications of accepting a determinist stance in everyday life?
Can deterrence be morally justified in a deterministic framework?
How does the notion of subjective free will impact our understanding of personal identity and agency?
Evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation versus punishment in a determinist criminal justice system.
In what ways can determinism influence educational strategies and outcomes?
Discuss the ethical considerations that arise in AI development from a deterministic perspective.
How can determinism help in understanding and treating mental health issues?
What challenges might arise from shifting criminal justice policies from a retributive to a rehabilitative focus based on determinism?
How does determinism affect the way we understand and manage social and political structures?
What are the potential social consequences of widely accepting determinism as a societal norm?
How can educators reconcile the idea of student choice and agency with a determinist understanding of behavior?
In what ways can the principles of determinism be applied to improve ethical decision-making in business and technology?
Discuss how determinism can lead to a more compassionate societal approach to handling issues such as addiction and homelessness.

Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above:

Can the subjective experience of free will be reconciled with a deterministic worldview? How or why not?
If we accept determinism, does that negate moral responsibility for our actions? Why or why not?
How might a deterministic perspective impact the way we view and respond to criminal behavior?
Is punishment justifiable under determinism, or should criminal justice focus solely on prevention and rehabilitation?
How could understanding the causal factors behind behavior shape more effective public policies?
Are there certain crimes or circumstances where retributive punishment could still be warranted from a deterministic viewpoint?
How might neuroscience and psychology need to shift if determinism is accepted as true?
What are the implications of determinism for legal concepts like guilt, blame, and moral culpability?
Could believing in determinism lead to a fatalistic attitude or diminished personal motivation? Why or why not?
How compatible is determinism with various ethical frameworks and moral philosophies?
In what ways might AI development and decision theory benefit from embracing deterministic models?
Should language implying free will like “choice” and “decision” be abandoned if determinism is true?
Are there any potential downsides or risks to society if determinism becomes a widely accepted view?
How might determinism impact fields like economics that rely on models of rational self-interest?
Can believing in determinism be reconciled with maintaining a sense of human dignity and intrinsic worth?

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}