It seems to me that one of the best ways to deal with the issue of free will is to start with its opposite: dualism.
The idea of a mind-body separateness has been described in many ways. But, in essence, it's the idea that our physical self is distinctly different from some other controlling force which can operate the body independently of its natural functions. For example, if a person's body wants to scratch its ass or drink a pint of whiskey, the controlling homunculus can say no and order the body to do otherwise. Because the body can only operate within the natural laws governing the material universe and act accordingly, if there is a force that can alter those otherwise automatic reactions, it must be--by it's mere presence--supernatural. Any force that can change what would otherwise happen naturally is supernatural, meaning it doesn't have to live by the universe's governing forces and restrictions.
However, if we assume that there is a separate entity of some sort that can have the body operate outside the natural laws of the universe, then we can also assume that there really are no rules in play, at least when it comes to a person's body. The rules that govern the physical body would not actually be rules; they only become suggestions able to be tossed aside. This means that no rules for humans can ever truly be discovered because anything we observe could be the homunculus altering what would have otherwise happened--and we would never know when this was happening. Anything information we gather about ourselves would always have to have a asterisk pointing to a footnote that says when it comes to humans, nothing can ever truly be discovered.
Given what we continue to discover, can this be deemed a reasonable condition? Not really. We continue to discover new things about why we do what we do all the time. As we continue to gather more and better information, it'll not be the case that we will reverse course and move toward the idea that there are no rules in play.
The scary part about this idea is that it destroys free will, something we mistakenly think we, the disconnected homunculus, have. The sense of control free from the laws of nature we all innately feel is a deception, simply a byproduct of the nature of our existence. It's okay, though, because this misleading state of mind would have to be created if it wasn't already there. Otherwise, we would be a very sad species indeed. The point is that we shouldn't shy away from the situation and pretend our free will is real because if we do what we "discover" will be flawed if we start with this major falsehood.
Ironically, if this is true, then there is no choice for those who accept this falsehood--and for those who don't. The rules will always be in play and the results will always be based on whatever the universe dictates.
The idea of a mind-body separateness has been described in many ways. But, in essence, it's the idea that our physical self is distinctly different from some other controlling force which can operate the body independently of its natural functions. For example, if a person's body wants to scratch its ass or drink a pint of whiskey, the controlling homunculus can say no and order the body to do otherwise. Because the body can only operate within the natural laws governing the material universe and act accordingly, if there is a force that can alter those otherwise automatic reactions, it must be--by it's mere presence--supernatural. Any force that can change what would otherwise happen naturally is supernatural, meaning it doesn't have to live by the universe's governing forces and restrictions.
However, if we assume that there is a separate entity of some sort that can have the body operate outside the natural laws of the universe, then we can also assume that there really are no rules in play, at least when it comes to a person's body. The rules that govern the physical body would not actually be rules; they only become suggestions able to be tossed aside. This means that no rules for humans can ever truly be discovered because anything we observe could be the homunculus altering what would have otherwise happened--and we would never know when this was happening. Anything information we gather about ourselves would always have to have a asterisk pointing to a footnote that says when it comes to humans, nothing can ever truly be discovered.
Given what we continue to discover, can this be deemed a reasonable condition? Not really. We continue to discover new things about why we do what we do all the time. As we continue to gather more and better information, it'll not be the case that we will reverse course and move toward the idea that there are no rules in play.
The scary part about this idea is that it destroys free will, something we mistakenly think we, the disconnected homunculus, have. The sense of control free from the laws of nature we all innately feel is a deception, simply a byproduct of the nature of our existence. It's okay, though, because this misleading state of mind would have to be created if it wasn't already there. Otherwise, we would be a very sad species indeed. The point is that we shouldn't shy away from the situation and pretend our free will is real because if we do what we "discover" will be flawed if we start with this major falsehood.
Ironically, if this is true, then there is no choice for those who accept this falsehood--and for those who don't. The rules will always be in play and the results will always be based on whatever the universe dictates.
No comments:
Post a Comment