Can reason exist without free will?

Joseph R. Larsen, learned tao philosophy for two years

Answered May 28, 2018

Can reason exist without free will?

Let us discuss this question from an “analytic” point of view (i.e., from the viewpoint of a supposed analytic philosopher or, more precisely, a wannabe amateur philosopher like myself).

The above question can be rephrased to the following proposition: “Reason can exist without free will.” This proposition likely suggests that there is at least one type of reason or person/entity having the power of reason that exists independently of free will. Assuming that there is no free will and considering that reason does exist, one can naturally decide that the truth value of this propositional statement is TRUE – i.e., the proposition is simply correct. However, since nobody has ever decisively shown that there can be no free will, we will assume for the sake of meaningful discussion that free will does exist (in this case, free will applies only to humans). Then, what does “free will” exactly mean in this context?

If someone exercises free will, it means that he does something the way he wants to. However, because determinists will claim that this very want or desire originates from some preceding causes – whether we can have knowledge of them or not – we will assume that this free will entails the notion that there is something about us humans that can make decisions independently from all the stimuli/events that happen outside or inside of us (the “outside” meaning external events happening to us, like sensory inputs; and the “inside” meaning, for example, some biochemical occurrences in our brain, etc) – despite the fact that human thoughts are only enabled by the working of the material brain. Simply put, we all have some inner core that makes a rational judgment with little influence/intervention – if there is any – from the things that are external to the core. In this case, the only cause of the inner core – which some may call a “soul” – is itself. (Again, although this is disputable, I will dismiss the viewpoint of determinism for convenience’s sake.)

The “reason” mentioned by the questioner most likely indicates the ability of human beings to think unlike animals. For example, the power of philosophy – and I don’t think animals can philosophize at all – is that it enables humans to think out of the box. Unlike a bull that always dashes towards a red cape, humans have the discernment to analyze why a particular event occurs. In addition, notwithstanding many evolutionary models that explain the behaviors of a human agent, not every human trait can be reduced into the terms of evolutionary theory; in fact, some of the evolutionary explanations may have committed an error of hindsight bias.

If we humans can act the way we want to because we have free will and at the same time have the ability to reason, this easily leads us to surmise that there may be a close relationship between the two – namely, free will and reason.

Then how can we distinguish between those that have free will and those that do not? It is my bold assumption that every human being has a free will unless s/he is in a coma. Then how can we identify the existence of free will exercised by the others? It is hard to say. I am only inclined to say that you can say that someone has free will if you feel like s/he is a real human being.

It is my belief that we can easily tell whether someone that is talking to us is a genuine human being. We have some ability to discern a real human being from any potential artificially made human being that was only designed to closely mimic the behaviors of humans. As Slavoj Zizek notes in his book, “How to Read Lacan,” some ETs that appear in a film are very close to us human beings but are different in very subtle ways. This difference does appear to exist, but we cannot quite definitively describe the difference. Simply because we cannot perfectly verbally describe something does not mean that the “something” cannot exist at all in principle. We humans, although we cannot quite lay out some concrete proof for every event that happens, often have a consensus on what can be reasonably described as a cause of a particular event despite the lack of solid evidence. Historical events, for example, can be explained reasonably well based on common sense though we are not sure if this method is comparable to the rigor of science.

Because we have not seen anybody – or animal – that can reason like us but does not have something within him that makes us feel or think that he has “free will,” as of yet, I personally do not think that “reason” and “free will” can be separated from each other (although this idea is debatable.) In addition, the reasoning power that may be showcased by artificial intelligence, however similar it may appear to be that of humans, will be in a way subtly different, I believe. It is my bold belief that the missing “gap” between machine and humans cannot be bridged through artificial means.

Our reason may be something that belongs in the “divine” – i.e., something that cannot be reduced into deterministic calculus. Therefore, I personally conclude that “human” reason cannot exist without free will. (Please visit my blog at: http://taoprep.blogspot.com)