Some Arguments for the Existence of Free Will by Bryan Caplan

Some Arguments for the Existence of Free Will by Bryan Caplan

Bryan Caplan is a professor of economics. In this essay from The Libertarian argues against the assertion that free will is not real. 

Caplan appears to be arguing for the existence of free will. However, that’s not the issue. The argument is regarding the nature of free will, specifically the hypothesis that free will is an illusion.  Caplan’s essay is mainly a rehash of various philosophical arguments but is riddled with straw man arguments- created by Caplan so he can refute them. What a shame he didn't refer to actual arguments.

But the fundamental problem in Caplan’s approach is clear in his conclusion which asserts that free will is…

“a matter of “empirical fact. The most telling proof for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during our every waking moment.”

Caplan assumes that things we observe are what they seem. But of course, that’s not always the case. We observe rainbows and we observe the sun moving across the sky. Those things exist – they are phenomena.  But both of those phenomena are illusions and the fact is that we are standing on the surface of a globe that is spinning at 1,000 mph.  So observing free will does not tell us what’s actually happening. Observing free will does not address the issue that free will may be an illusion, that it may not be what it seems.  

Now let’s look at Caplan’s arguments in detail.

1. FREE WILL — WHAT IS IT?

Caplan says “a being has free will if given all other causal factors in the universe it nevertheless possesses the ability to choose more than one thing.”

The problem with this definition is that it is impossible to demonstrate that a choice is independent of all the causal factors in the universe.  (Try it).

2 THE OBJECTION FROM THE LAW OF CAUSALITY

Caplan presents a straw man: free will does not exist because it violates the law of causality.  He then refutes this by asserting that a free choice is not an effect, therefore it is not subject to the laws of causality (cause and effect).

Caplan begins his argument by assuming the existence of a “free choice” which he then uses to make an argument about the existence of a free choice.  (Begging the question). He then simply asserts that a choice has no cause.  Should someone suggest to Caplan that his choice did have a cause, his response is… “I simply deny that this is so.” Well, if that’s a valid argument then I simply deny the opposite!

3. THE QUANTUM CONFUSION

A somewhat confusing heading given that his argument here has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Caplan then provides an argument using dice, where each side of the dice represents a possible action and he explains that the random outcome of a dice roll does not demonstrate free will.  

This is a straw man – he’s invented an argument that no one has made so that he can refute it. I’m not aware of anyone suggesting the brain makes decisions based on random numbers and there’s plenty of evidence to show it doesn’t.

4. CHOICES, ACTIONS, CAUSALITY

Caplan begins by stating that “causality is necessary for free will, because an essential part of free will is the idea that I cause my actions.” There are two problems in that sentence. The first half contradicts his previous assertion regarding causality. The second half asserts that free will requires him to cause his actions, but he doesn’t explain why and ignores the many examples of human actions that even he would agree are not caused by free will.

Then he asserts that “Actions are effects of a cause known as the free will.” That’s his opinion, but he hasn’t even tried to justify it.

5. WHAT WE CHOOSE

Caplan states that “we choose our beliefs.”  But we don’t.  Our beliefs are a subjective form of knowledge involving emotions as well as reason. We can be led to believe, we can come to believe, but we can’t choose to believe.

He then states that we choose our mental processes. He doesn’t explain how or why so again this is just an assertion. He even goes as far as to say that we choose “whether we will think” which completely ignores the fact the brain never stops thinking, even when we sleep or even when we are unconscious.  The brain has to be physically dead for it to stop thinking.  

He tries to give examples of actions that are voluntary and others that are involuntary, but demolishes his own argument by saying “sometimes thoughts spring into our minds involuntarily.” Well yes they do – but not sometimes. All the time. It is not possible to prevent a thought. (Try it).

6. FOUR ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF FREE WILL

A. The Argument from Observation

Again Caplan asserts that free will is real because he “observes that he chooses freely, at least sometimes.” But simply observing something is not enough to define its nature. Observing a rainbow does not explain why it’s an illusion. He then asserts that “There is no reason to assume that these observations are illusory any more than there is reason to assume that vision or hearing is illusory.”  The first part of the sentence ignores the evidence from neuroscience that free will is illusory. The second part of the sentence ignores the fact that vision and hearing are the result of processes in the brain, and the brain doesn’t always get it right. Perhaps Bryan Caplan has never seen a rainbow, or a mirage, or had a dream.

He then goes on to make a case for introspective evidence (our thoughts) being just as reliable as physical evidence. So if I think Bryan Caplan is a criminal, there’s no need for CCTV or DNA or any physical evidence, He’s guilty because my introspective evidence is just as valid as physical evidence.

B. The Reductio Ad Absurdum to Skepticism

He begins by asking how we can determine what’s correct when people disagree, and how can it possible to double check his views. But he’s answered his own question – we determine correctness by double checking. Or triple, quadruple… and so on.

He then creates another straw man – “we are pre-determined to believe whatever we happen to believe no matter what” so that he can refute it. Our beliefs are not predetermined in the same way that the weather is not predetermined.

He then claims that determinism leads to scepticism, but this is obviously untrue. There are plenty of religious apologists who eschew determinism but also claim to be sceptical. The two things do not go together at all.

He concludes by saying that determinism is false. I would argue that strict determinism is false (once again I use the analogy of the weather) but some things can be determined within certain ranges of probability. That’s why lotteries and casinos make a profit.

C. Moore’s Proof of the External World Extended

Caplan states that it is “not even coherent to argue against free will” and he does this by equating the existence of free will with the existence of a physical object, such as his hands. This is simply a repetition of his previous fallacy that thoughts are just as valid as physical evidence.  I can use the same argument about rainbows. You can see a rainbow and you can see my hand, therefore a rainbow is not an illusion because my hand is not an illusion.  This is a category error.

D. A Thought Experiment Showing the Freedom of the Will

This whole section is based on yet another straw man where “neurophysiologists come up with an equation that they claim will predict all of our behaviour.”  No such claim has ever been made except by Caplan, and he goes on to refute it.  This section also exposes Caplan’s inherent view that every argument about free will or the mind is black and white. It’s all or nothing, no shades of grey, 0% or 100% and of course it isn’t.

Again we can use the example of the weather. It can be predicted within a certain range of probability, and the shorter the timescale the more accurate the prediction is likely to be. So it is possible to predict if it will rain in a specific English village within the next 10 minutes, to a 99% level of confidence. But predicting the rainfall in that village at a specific time on a specific day two weeks into the future might only have a confidence level of 50% or less. We may as well just guess.  

So the weather is not strictly deterministic, it’s a bit deterministic sometimes. (I assume Caplan isn’t arguing that weather has free will).

The same is true of predicting someone’s behaviour. We can try to predict how someone will behave and the chances of our prediction being correct depends on how far into the future we make the prediction, the complexity of the behaviour, how much we know about human nature and how much we know about the person. The more we know and the shorter the timescale, the better the prediction.

So let’s use Caplan’s neurophysiologist example but turn it into real life. Using existing technology, with a person’s brain being scanned using fMRI,  the neurophysiologist would be able to predict that person’s action 200ms before they performed the action; he could detect the person’s decision to carry out the action 80ms before they became aware of the decision and he could detect the person’s intention starting to build 7s before the decision.

Caplan then argues that “Surely if human behavior were unfree, then science could in theory at least predict when I am going to raise my hand.” Well, science can predict that, but only by scanning the brain, and only a few milliseconds before it happens.  I assume if Caplan was to find out about the discoveries in neuroscience he would argue that such a prediction does not mean that human behaviour is “unfree”.

7. SOME OBJECTIONS TO AND MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL

A. Are some choices more difficult than others?

Caplan argues that an alcoholic chooses to drink alcohol because the choice to not drink alcohol is “too hard” for them to make. This demonstrates his ignorance regarding addiction and dependency. The brain of an alcoholic is in a specific state that has been caused by alcohol and in this state alcohol consumption becomes pleasurable and the right thing to do, leading to more alcohol consumption. The treatment is to re-programme the brain and there are several approaches: Forcible removal of alcohol to give the brain a chance to return to its pre-alcoholic state; rehabilitation to learn new coping skills and behaviours; counselling to address emotional problems that may have caused the initial drinking, support groups, medication and more.  So alcoholism tells us nothing about free will.


Caplan’s next example is “a button in front of you, the pressing of which would instantly exterminateall human life. You would not (I hope) want to press this button. But can you really say that you do not feel just as free to do so as you would to dial a phone number?”

Well, obviously I’m free to press the button but as Caplan points out, I don’t.  Suddenly he has become a predictor of human behaviour after he’s been arguing it can’t be predicted.

So Caplan gives example where choice is constrained as a means to demonstrate choice is free.

B. Is Choice Limited to a Select Few?

Yet another straw man argument – “Certain people have free will, but that the mass of people don’t because free will is a by-product of intelligence and education.” Caplan then goes on to refute this ridiculous argument that he’s invented.

The only sensible argument that is vaguely relevant is some brains are capable of making better decisions, and that is due to their nature and nurture. A damaged brain will have less ability to make decisions than a healthy brain (nature) and someone with experience of a situation is likely to make a better decision than someone with limited experience of the same situation because they are better informed (nurture).

This tells us nothing about free will.

C. The Objection from Regularity

Caplan uses examples here that tend to demolish his own arguments on free will. He explains “The typical criminal makes a long series of brutal choices over his life; there is a systematic pattern to his choices.” This is true and can be explained by psychology. The concept of “systematic choices” negates Caplan’s concept of free will.

D. The Objection from Inexplicability

Caplan introduces yet another straw man argument. This time he states that objectors to free will claim free will renders a person’s choices inexplicable. He then goes on to refute the argument that he’s invented.

Caplan then asserts that “a choice is necessarily, by definition, impervious to a causal explanation.” But of course it isn’t and Caplan has himself provided several examples which contradict his own assertion.

He states that “If there were a causal explanation, then the agent would have been determined to take his actions, and then they would not have been free.”  But a causal explanation does not mean determination to take actions. When a person takes an action, they are unaware of any causal explanation. Such an explanation can, obviously, only be provided after the event.

8. CONCLUSION

So finally, Caplan confirms that the proof for his view on free will is that he observes it.  

“The most telling proof for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during our every waking

moment.”

But he goes one step further which perhaps reveals his real motivation for his argument…

“The denial of our free will leads to the dehumanization of us all.”

Really? Why is that?