Business Security

This is long, I know. Thanks in advance for your patience.

Much of our behavior is driven by nature and environment. Consider mental disorders, which are undesirable difference in how our brain responds to outside stimuli. Take chronic depression for example: How do you know you or someone else suffers from that disorder? Because their reactions (whether internal or external) to outside stimuli fall within the range described by the description of that disorder. This implies a non-disordered, normal range of prescribed reaction to stimuli. As in, a ‘normal’ person reacts within a certain range, while an ‘abnormal’ (no insult intended) person reacts within a different, often overlapping range.

Many mental disorders are inborn, or a predisposition towards them is, implying that the ‘normal range’ is as well. So, our reactions to outside stimuli depend on the stimulus itself and on our inborn ‘reaction range’. Environment, of course, also plays a part. Most people will not pursue a course of action that is objectionable to their culture or upbringing, unless of course, other priorities override environment i.e. stealing in order to eat. Humans are rational creatures. Our priorities may not always be ordered as they should (by ‘should’, I mean to imply a cultural or environmental ‘approved’ list of priorities, like country over self, or employment over entertainment), but we do make rational decisions based on those priorities, whatever they may be.

Now, my cat for example, also has a normal and abnormal ‘reaction range’ prescribed by her instincts and environment. Her sense of self-preservation makes her desire food. If she were wild, she would hunt. Her environment, however, is different. She is a pet, so when she wants food she whines. If she suddenly had to fend for herself, she could. But is that free will? Can her actions (switching to hunting) be considered voluntary when they are necessary for survival? What if we consider what we all know, that she will definitely make the choice to hunt. If the other option is impossible, is her choice voluntary?

When I react to my environment (a description that any decision can be reduced to), what would lead me to believe that my choices are any more voluntary than hers? I find myself unable to think of any decision a human being makes in the course of their life that can not be reduced to environment and that inborn ‘reaction range’, coupled with rational pursuit of priorities (which, are also dictated by environment and inborn traits).

That is, save one. Humans make one decision that animals never do: to suicide. That action goes against our natural inclination to survive and even against most environments (most societies consider it cowardly). Is that all there is to free will? Self-destruction or self-preservation? Keep in mind that self-destructive impulses are not confined to suicide. Staying out too late at the bar and coming to work hung over is self-destructive (and rational, since you pursued your immediate desire to be drunk while sacrificing a longer term desire to be employed).

I know this is really long and I hope I’ve made myself understood. Just bear with me for a little longer: Why do you suppose humans have the ability to make a self-destructive choice, but other animals do not?

Here’s my theory. Some cultures do not have a word for ‘zero’. Thus, they do not have the concept. ‘Nothing’ doesn’t occur in nature. But, ‘I’ does. Humans have a concept of self, and necessarily ‘not self’. We also have an advanced concept of death. I f we can comprehend both ‘self’ and ‘death’, it follows that we can comprehend ‘death of self’. Is that what gives us our unique ability to act contrary to instinct? And, can free will truly be reduced to that one choice, between self-destruction and self-preservation?

Thanks for reading all this. What are your thoughts??
I DID trim it down. I couldn’t shorten it more without sacrificing understanding. It only really takes a minute to read.

4 Responses to “How much free will do we actually have?”