In defence of free will

The Spectrum of free will and determinism 

Introduction

The age old philosophical question of the spectrum of free will verses determinism is one I have tended to argue in the past as having irrelevance to existence. 
That is because I think one lives a life as if one has that freedom of choice, for to entertain otherwise, I think risks falling prey to either a lack of motivation or hope. Our society and western legal system is of course based on the premise we are responsible for our actions and therefore have that freedom, barring health issues. 

However, there are valid reasons to put the case for determinism, or more particularly to argue they are not mutually exclusive, for maybe you can have a mixture of both.

Some philosophers hold the view that universal, (with no possible exceptions) laws of nature simply don’t exist. But the topic comes with a lot of baggage, so I have attempted to limit the analysis to free will versus casual determination, which is explained under the heading of types of determinism. 

Ultimately, one cannot say whether one view is true or not, nor the effect either would have, if one was found to be true, on human agency.
In the end I think it boils down to what makes most sense to us from our particular perspective in support of a meaningful existence. 

Different types of Determinism    

There are those neuroscientists in modernity that contend the brain and all of its outputs, including one’s choices, are beyond one’s physical control. 

Hence they believe the idea of free will is illusory, just as a computer is always subject to its programing. 

From a psychological viewpoint the argument is put that abandoning the notion of freewill provides a release from the burden and agony of decision making. They claim, paradoxically, that it gives impetus to respond positively to their fate but still live a life to the fullest. But I think this is more of a matter of how one responds to outcomes, as in a way of coping. The way we respond also infers a degree of freedom, just as to decide not to make a decision, remains an alternative choice.

There is also the ancient idea of casual determinism which gained traction in the 18^th century along with the advancement in mathematics, understanding of the mind and the laws of nature.  

Casual determinism is the idea that every event is as a consequence and preceded by antecedent events and/or conditions, together with the laws of nature.
For instance we might have different tastes for things as a consequence of prior neural activity favouring one choice over another to give way to different structures. That idea envisages those antecedents would stretch back in time to creation.

That in itself seems to me to be a highly implausible idea, which I will talk about later.  
Determinism is also associated with fate, as in fatalistic determinism which suggests our existence and its outcomes are predetermined.
But even so in a general sense one can propose certain things are fated to happen given the way this has happened in the past, as in history repeats.
So that in summing up, as in that general sense, we can imagine that certain things are fated to happen. This does not in itself reference deterministic natural laws or universal deterministic laws. Rather, it is a matter of discerning the way that history tends to be repeated.
However, to the extent it remains true under a proposal of determinism, as in all future events are destined to occur, than that is determinism.

But for the purpose of this paper, I will talk about the idea of free will versus casual determinism.

 
In search of self 
The idea of free will is inextricably tied up with how we view our self; what we hold ourselves to be in terms of the relative freedoms or otherwise assumed in that selfhood. For what is at stake is the layered representations of our minds and the degree of freedom we believe is inherent in the choices we make.
The idea advanced in modernity of our present state of consciousness is it will be the product of the mind’s eye. That is, in effect the amalgam of our minds layered representations (representations of representations), as a consequence of our past and present experiences, coupled with our stored set of values. In other words what you know, what you know you know, and the equivalent of a filing cabinet full of representations pertaining to the values that make up that selfhood.
But as such, it is also a moving feast.
For those stored layers of representations in the brain are constantly being updated to interact with incoming stimuli and everyday communications. There is the hope, given all of that flexibility and complexity, that there is an overarching purpose, to allow one to respond as one sees fit. How much of that decision making is made for us within the brain, before we mentally come to grips with a choice, remains (as in awareness) a moot point.
But for those who argue the case for determinism, I think most still act for all intents and purposes as if they are making real choices. For regardless of that belief, one’s self always gets involved, whether determined for us or by choice[.

The Problem of time

A limiting factor attributable to the laws of nature and other material theories favouring determinism, is that they are viewed in relation to the state of the world at that time.

Our natural inclination is to think about things relating to the past as over and static, to be observed from the lens of our current world, whereas they actually profoundly influence what is our present state, to which we may not be privy. 

Hence, we have the concept of bi-directional determinism. That is, the specific state of the world at any time, combined with the laws of nature, determine both how events go after and equally before. So that conceptually, we could have periods when the world was imperfectly deterministic. Say for example determinism was interrupted for thousands of years by events such as spontaneous particle creation events (of which we are not privy) which say occur only once every thousand years in say a thousand-light-year-radius volume of space. Others might argue this is speculative and the laws are unbreakable.   

A repetition over evolution involving huge time periods, could suggest changes in those laws adapting to an entirely different world, beyond our current mental grasp.

For instance, what might conceivably still be heavily influenced by things that occurred prior to our existence as modern humans, believed to be somewhat late in the evolutionary cycle, roughly about 200,000 years ago?
Along that prior evolutionary journey, there are many tumultuous and seismic events that shaped our evolving consciousness. At various developmental stages for instance, our survival may have been severally threatened due to, say, severe climatic changes. 

Anthropologists for instance believe there is evidence for this to the extent we very nearly became extinct. The world then, in recovery mode, may have operated in a non-deterministic way, where spontaneous growth lasted, say, for thousands of years. So that the laws of nature no longer operated in a way we understand today. That change may not be discernible to us looking back in time.  

Hence the weakness of those arguing for Determinism is that it requires a world that remains always in a well-defined state, to  ensure such laws are not only true, but they have always remained so. That seems to me to be somewhat implausible.    

A scientific perspective

Hence there is a growing number of physicists who believe determinism is false. One substantive lever against determinism lies in the family of quantum mechanics which clearly demonstrates a non-deterministic world.
There are many theories that serve us well in general terms, some of which might be regarded as deterministic and others not, ranging from mechanical to quantum and general relativity, but they don’t add much to the debate, as clearly in totality we are a long way away from a theory of everything. We would need to come up with a quantum theory of relativity as a good starting point which remains elusive.  

Furthermore, to reiterate, there is nothing special in relation to our past, which is oft erroneously considered over, and/or as past history which has little influence on the present and the future. Indeed, in respect to the question of time (considered by some to be illusory), if we try to relate it to the universe as in past present and future it becomes meaningless since it depends upon what space you occupy. Hence all we have is the concept of space-time.  
To reiterate then, in physics, the idea of the past being fixed, as distinct from the present (now) and the future (predictive), must be regarded as a false premise.

Conclusion

If we shake off the shackles of the past, wedded to unbreakable laws of nature, it may lead us to consider rationally a more fruitful world view. One that leaves open the possibility we are mostly free, but there remains an element of determinism.     
So that from my perspective, existence can be partly deterministic according to the specific time frame we occupy.  But I think existence affords us the necessary free agency or just that feeling as the circumstances dictate. 

---