Searle’s Argument against Free Will

1849 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Determinism and free will

Searle’s argument is one against humans having free will. The conclusion comes from his view on determinism and his view on substances. His view on substances is a materialist one. To him, the entire world is composed of material substances. All occurrences can be explained by these materials. This is a view that is very attuned with (accepting) determinism. Determinism states that necessary causes must be for the occurrence to be. This deterministic cause and effect relationship is apparent in the physical world. Hard believing determinists see determinism as being exclusive of free will. Searle, being a materialist, views humans as just another material substance. He accepts determinism and rejects (libertarian) free will.

1. The behavior of every material composite substance is either completely deterministically caused by the nature of the material parts making it up or is partially randomly caused.

2. If (1) then, if a human being is a material composite, her behavior is either completely deterministically caused by the nature of the material parts making her up or it is partially randomly caused

3. If a human being is a material composite, her behavior is either completely deterministically caused by the nature of the material parts making her up or it is partially randomly caused. (1,2)

4. No being having the behavior of which is either completely deterministically caused by the nature of the parts making it up, or is partially randomly caused, has freedom in the libertarian sense.

5. If a human being is a material composite substance, she does not have freedom in the libertarian sense. (3,4)

6. Human beings are material composite substances.

7. Human beings do not have freedom in the libertarian sense.
...

... middle of paper ...

...is pretty solid. The most accessible way to argue against it is to argue against materialism. Arguing against materialism with a dualist view is only partially successful because it entails that there still is a material self that is determined which can’t be free in the libertarian sense. The only way to successfully unravel the argument is with an idealist—mind only—substance view. It you viewed humans in this way, humans would not be determined and able to have free will (even in the libertarian sense!) Even more daring would be trying to reject determinism and accept libertarian freedom using a material viewpoint. Although it is possible, it leads to quite a conflicting view. However, the view that makes the most sense is the argument. This seemingly valid argument says that humans are materials which make them determined which disallows their freedom.

Show More
Related

  • The Ideant Of Peter Van Inwagen And The Consequence Argument

    1173 Words  | 3 Pages

    Compatibilist like Peter van Inwagen believes that freedom can be present or absent in any situations. One of the famous Consequence Argument on compatibilism is by Peter van Inwagen who says: “If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us."1 The contradiction here is that human cannot refrain from performing free will. Therefore, determinism cannot abolish free will. He also mentions that if determinism is true then no one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature. Therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future, and, also, have no control over the consequences of one’s behavior. For example, he expresses how compatibilism has been in existence before laws were even made. Since laws put certain restrictions on human’s free will, it should not stop humans from doing what he or she wants to do. He also expresses how society and nature should not determine one’s own free will because it can never be taken away from humans. Humans are incapable of knowing what the future looks like, therefore they cannot be morally responsible for the

    Read More

  • Roderick Chisholm on freedom of the will

    694 Words  | 2 Pages

    There is much debate over the issue of whether we have complete freedom of the will or if our will caused by something other than our own choosing. There are three positions adopted by philosophers regarding this dispute: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinists believe that freedom of the will does not exist. Since actions are events that have some predetermined cause, no actions can be chosen and thus there is no will to choose. The compatibilist argues that you can have both freedom of the will and determinism. If the causes which led to our actions were different, then we could have acted in another way which is compatible with freedom of the will. Libertarians believe that freedom of the will does exist.

    Read More

  • Chisholm and Free Will

    1262 Words  | 3 Pages

    Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a compatibilist argument in "Freedom and Necessity".

    Read More

  • John Searle's Chinese Room Argument

    1990 Words  | 4 Pages

    Searle's argument delineates what he believes to be the invalidity of the computational paradigm's and artificial intelligence's (AI) view of the human mind. He first distinguishes between strong and weak AI. Searle finds weak AI as a perfectly acceptable investigation in that it uses the computer as a strong tool for studying the mind. This in effect does not observe or formulate any contentions as to the operation of the mind, but is used as another psychological, investigative mechanism. In contrast, strong AI states that the computer can be created so that it actually is the mind. We must first describe what exactly this entails. In order to be the mind, the computer must be able to not only understand, but to have cognitive states. Also, the programs by which the computer operates are the focus of the computational paradigm, and these are the explanations of the mental states. Searle's argument is against the claims of Shank and other computationalists who have created SHRDLU and ELIZA, that their computer programs can (1) be ascribe...

    Read More

  • Paul Rée's The Illusion Of Free Will

    1452 Words  | 3 Pages

    434). This is saying that the act of will cannot actually occur without something causing that action. If there is no cause, the will cannot act. This solidifies the idea that the will is not actually free. If the will were free, it would not be dependent on any cause or series of causes. Rée brings about a worthy argument involving a stone which aids in the illustration of the nonexistence of free will. In order for the stone to change position from where it sits at that very moment, whether it be by being thrown or by being kicked, its necessary cause must be present. As Rée states: “The stone will fly through the air if it is tossed” (Rée, p. 434). In this case, the cause would be the tossing of the stone, and the result would be the stone changing its position by flying through the air. This example proves that free will is nonexistent. The stone does not decide whether it is tossed or not. If the cause of the motion is present, then the will acts. However, if the cause of the motion is absent, then the stone would not move at all and would still sit at the same place. I agree with this argument. The motion of the stone is predetermined and there is nothing it can do about it. If the cause is present, the action will take place. Rée further argues that the will is subject to the law of causality and

    Read More

  • Free Will and Determinism of Ayer and Holbach

    1810 Words  | 4 Pages

    In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that this problem can be dissolved by the clarification of language usage and the clarification of what freedom is in relationship to those things that oppose freedom or restrain it. In either case, what is at stake is the free will of an agent, and whether or not that agent is morally responsible. What is to be seen from a discussion of these arguments is the applicability and validity of these two philosophies to situations where one must make a choice, and whether or not that person is acting freely and is thus responsible given his current situation. In this vein, the case of Socrates’ imprisonment and whether or not he acted freely in respect to his decision to leave or stay in prison can be evaluated by the discussion of the arguments presented in respect to the nature of free will in its reconciliation with determinism in the compatibilist vein and its absence in the causality of hard determinism.

    Read More

  • Libertarianism

    1135 Words  | 3 Pages

    To achieve this, Campbell first sets out the two pre-suppositions necessary to the Libertarian argument. Firstly, he defines which kind of freedom he is discussing when he speaks of free will. Campbell characterizes “the freedom at issue” as one that predominantly concerns a person’s inner acts and decisions (377). A person’s observable acts are important only as they show an inner “life of choice”(377). Therefore the moral freedom assumed is that freedom which concerns inner acts.

    Read More

  • Freedom and Determinism in Richard Taylor’s Metaphysics

    859 Words  | 2 Pages

    Determinism is the theory that everything is caused by antecedent conditions, and such things cannot be other than how they are. Though no theory concerning this issue has been entirely successful, many theories present alternatives as to how it can be approached. Two of the most basic metaphysical theories concerning freedom and determinism are soft determinism and hard determinism.

    Read More

  • Libertarianism is the Best Philosophy

    1632 Words  | 4 Pages

    The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three views, which refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote in the essay, I disagree with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campbell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it, as well as reject one main argument from the other.

    Read More

  • Free Will and Determinism

    1633 Words  | 4 Pages

    The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.

    Read More

  • John Searle's Can Computers Think?

    1300 Words  | 3 Pages

    In “Can Computers Think?”, Searle argues that computers are unable to think like humans can. He argues this

    Read More

  • Analysis Of John Searle's Arguments Of Computers

    496 Words  | 1 Pages

    I'll first talk about how Searle was lead to question the claim of computers being things that could actually think and were considered to have a strong sense intelligence based on the assumptions made by Alan Turing. He developed a test called the "Turing test" or, in other words, the "Imitation Game". The "Turing test" was a test that used a person (interrogator) who asked two subjects (a human and a computer) a series of questions that aided the integrator in determining which of the subjects was actually a human. (A.M. Turing, 1950, pg.) The assumptions based on the test included: If something has the ability to have thought then it is considered a thinker. The other assumption in question is that not only humans have the capability of having a mind, but other things including objects could also have a mind which makes them a thinking thing. These assumptions made Searle question on how the assumptions could be accurate, so in order to try to find a way to argue that the assumptions are not valid, so he created his experiment called the "Chinese Room Experiment". With this experiment, Searle was able to provide arguments that go against the claim proposed from the "Turing test" which I will discuss

    Read More

  • Dealing with Wicked Problems

    2218 Words  | 5 Pages

    What is the difference between a'smart' and a'smart'? The solutions to these problems are qualitative and not quantitative so they are not classified as true or false but as good or bad. 4. What is the difference between a.. The solution to these problems cannot be verified through time for its effects.

    Read More

  • Differences Between the Aristotelian Four Fold Theory and The Basic Theory of Modern Causation

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    The next form of causation is the material cause; this cause also focuses on the present. Material cause is based on Aristotle’s matter and the principle of individuation. This cause is synonymous to what literally appears substance wise. For example, Vogue magazine literally consist of picture, paper, and ink. When you see an average television, it is made up of plastic, glass, and/or metal substances. The house that someone might live in ...

    Read More

  • Freedom and Determinism

    2359 Words  | 5 Pages

    Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).

    Read More

More about Searle’s Argument against Free Will

Open Document