Determinism Vs Free Will Essay

Most people, if asked, would like true freedom of choice, proper free will, but can we really have it? This defines the idea of freewill, freewill is similar to the idea of moral responsibility; to satisfy the metaphysical requirement of being responsible for one's action. Free will is the ability to select a course of action and being able to fulfill one’s desire. But more complex than that, it allows people to have a choice in what power they want to hold in this world. Determinism vs freewill poses the question of how humans hold power in our world.
If all the laws of nature are deterministic and the initial conditions are fixed, then everything that point is then fixed. This puts a large problem on free will because it does allow people to choose how they want to act. This shows the strength that determinism has over free will. John Searle believes that we are nowhere near having a solution to free will. However, Searle looks closer at the idea of free come to the conclusion that there is 2 answers to the problem of free will. The problem of free will arises because of the conflict between two inconsistent impulses, the experience of freedom as well as the
the conviction of determinism.
According to John Searle, we have two convictions concerning the world and ourselves that can not be restored. The first conviction being, that any event that occurs in the natural world must have a causal explanation. Everything is nature must be determined, that is neurobiologically, which means that every event that occurs has sufficient causes. People would assume that that if this is true for nature, then it must be true for humans as well. However Searle argues that there is an exception to this, a lot of our behavior may be explained, but not in a deterministic fashion. We consider ourselves to have a free will, because we have the decision of conscious decision-making. Although we make these conscious decisions for ourselves, they do not always have causally sufficient sources (Searle 145). As humans have choices in our life, we have a sense of alternative possibles open to us.
These two convictions explain our problem with free will, is because we detect a gap between the causes of our decisions in the form of reasons and the actual happening of the decision. As well as another gap, between the making of the decision and the begining of the action. This gap means, that when we are making our own conscious decisions we still have to choose what decision we end up making. This gap exists because we detect several possibilities open to us, and within those possibilites are several genuine choices available. Free will complicates this idea because although it seems that free will simply seems to choose the best option available according to our desires, we have alternative possibilities open due to these gaps. Searle has pointed out that the gap is unavoidable (Searle 192.
Searle does not adopt a compatibilist understanding of free will.
He explains in his book about freedom and liberty, “instead asserting that “according to the definitions… that I am using, determinism and free will are not compatible” (Searle 47). Compatibilists argue that determinism is compatible with human freedom however Searle believes that these two have different meanings, as explained earlier. Here is the problem that Searle explains: are all of our decisions and actions preceded by causally sufficient conditions, conditions sufficient to determine that those decisions and actions will occur? (Searle 155). After hearing Searle’s two views on free will, we know that of course our decisions and actions are not answered by compatibilism. But instead, Searle more so argues if determinism even
exists.
Searle suggests that determinism is most likely false. Although he believes neurobiologically determinism is true, as explained in the his first conviction, Searle believes that that our psychological states are insufficient, therefor they can’t completely determine what we want to do.
Searle poses the question of, could this is all just an illusion? He believes that this gap is what truly drives decision making, and it is not possible to just get rid of or believe it is irrelevant. If we are to act freely then our experience of the gap cannot be illusory. The problem with Searle’s points are that although his thoughts are valid about the problems of free will, however he believes that the gap can not be an illusion. However, I believe that free will is an illusion. Although it seems obvious to us that free will gives us the option to choose what we want to do, I believe that free will is only a figment of our imagination. Rather our choices are determined, or they must be random. Although I disagree with a small part of John Searle’s argument on free will, his points providing the experience of freedom and the conviction of determinism I agree with and I think explain how free will and determinism implies a huge metaphysical problem.