FREE WILL VERSUS DETERMINISM

Does behaviour result from forces over which we have no control? Or do we have free choice to behave as we wish? Do we really choose our actions? Free Will versus Determinism is one of the major debates within psychology and also within philosophy. Free will What is freewill? What determines its definition? As for any concept, two questions provide the key to a valid identification: "What aspects of reality give rise to the concept?", and "What is its purpose?" According to Voss (1997), what freewill tries to account for is our introspective conviction that we are in control of many of our choices, and thus our destiny - that we are free to think and decide. We contrast this flexible, conscious control that we enjoy with the involuntary action of, say, our heartbeat or digestion, and with the instinctual imperative of a bird's nest-building or a dog's conditioned response. Our decisions are far more independent of nature and nurture than any animals; we are aware of our ability to think and of the consequences of our choices - we can claim responsibility for our actions. These are the meaningful differences that give rise to the concept of freewill. Free will must account for our undeniable experience of freedom of choice. However, it does not necessarily need to conclude that our choices are free from antecedent factors - empirical evidence. It must also account for the flexible, conscious control that we experience in everyday life - the fact that we deliberately select goals, values, and optional plans of action (Voss 1997). In free will, there is something or someone who will choose and choice is an action, therefore there should be an actor, and this is our mind which is the totality of our mental processes. This aspect of our mind knows and aware of the self that recognizes the free will. Many of us believe that we choose to think or not, what to think about or which options should we choose, etc and this also includes

the higher level of choices such as our goals and value. According to Voss, freewill pertains to choices that we can monitor and influence, and therefore must exclude subconscious and unconscious choices. This does not mean that such unaware choices are ultimately beyond our control - beyond freewill - but only that they must be controlled indirectly. We can control them through explicit change of values and beliefs, and through conscious modification of habits. In contemporary philosophy, the question has concerned, rather the relationships of freedom to determinism, which is understood as claiming the each state of the world, including therefore our actions, is a strict causal product of earlier states of the world. In fact, According to Crayling (1995), there is no reason to take the obscure and over-ambitious doctrine of determinism, which few now believe, as setting the question. It was traditionally taken to do so because it was only at such a general level that there was no reason to think that our thoughts and actions had strong causal explanations. With increasing knowledge of the brain, we have stronger reason to believe that there are such explanations of our thoughts than that of universe is a deterministic system, and the question should now be taken to be set by the relations between freedom and the strongest version we can imagine of psychophysical science, a version which would represent our experience as a function of brain-states explained as a function of brain-states explained as products of earlier brain-states.

Determinism Over the centuries, the doctrine of determinism has been understood, and assessed, in different ways. Since the seventeenth century, it has been commonly understood as the doctrine that every event has a cause, or as the predictability, in principle of the entire future (Routeledge 2000). To assess the truth of determinism, philosophers have often looked to physical science: they have assumed that their current best physical theory is their best guide to the truth of determinism. It has most believed that classical physics, especially Newtons physics, is deterministic.

"Determinism is the view that, for everything that happens, there is a condition or set of conditions which are causally sufficient for that thing happening." -Oakley (2001). Determinism applies even if there is a "mind-substance", different from the physical stuff of our brain (and everything else). It seems to imply that there is no freedom for human beings (or for anything else, for that matter). The consequences of determinism seem grave. If no one chooses freely, how can we blame, praise, or punish? How would you look upon another, who acted friendly towards you, if you knew that the person had no choice in the matter? And wouldnt you yourself feel trapped, knowing you could not control your actions (even though you had the feeling you could control your actions)? Some people believe determinism is compatible with free will. Compatibilism says that "if determinism is true, then we still can have free will". It does not commit itself to any of these views ("determinism is true", or "we have free will"), it only states that they are compatible. The view that both statements are true is called "soft determinism". The incompatibilist view is that both statements cannot be true; they point out that if determinism is true, then everyones actions was determined to happen as it did before one was born. They hold that one cannot be held to be truly free and finally morally responsible for ones actions in this case (Routeledge 2000). Hence an incompatibilist would either be a hard determinist or a libertarian. Hard determinism is the view that determinism is true and that we do not have free will. The libertarian view is that we have free will, and as such, determinism must be false. Libertarians basically think we can tell that we have free will, just by introspecting at the time we make choices.

Free will and Determinism In psychology, Free Will versus Determinism refers to the question of whether an individual has control over his/her behaviour and understands the motives behind it (Free Will), or if his/her behaviour is determined by some force over which he/she has no control (Determinism), such as his/her genetics or upbringing.

The debate surrounding free will and determinism is one that has occupied psychologist and philosophers for centuries. Those who believe in determinism believe that all behaviour is determined by external and internal forces acting on the person. An example of an external force would be parents rewarding certain type of behaviour, therefore further encouraging it, at the same time as an internal force would be that of hormones. Those who believe in free will believe matters are slightly more complex. They agree that external and internal factors do exist but that people have free will to choose their behaviour. The argument of freewill and determinism can be summed up by the questions could a persons behaviour have been different in a certain situation if they willed it? Those who believe in determinism would argue no whilst those who believe in free will would say yes. According to one article of the studentroom.com, Determinism is espoused by more theories in psychology than in free will. Behaviourists are strongly determinists. Determinists claim that the nature of the universe is such that it is governed by certain universal scientific laws, so that each action is caused by a specific prior cause, and human action is no exception. They believe that precise prediction of human behaviour is possible if an individuals current stimulus situation is known and if there conditioning history is also known. Skinner argued that all behaviour is determined by environmental events and that humans tend to repeat behaviours that are rewarded. Skinner stated that free will was simply an illusion. Albert Bandura, a neobehaviourist, emphasized some flaw in Skinners approach. He stated that people have long term goals and we usually strive to achieve it rather than following others. Skinner focused exclusively on the nation that our behaviour is determined by the external environment however our behaviour also determines our environment. There are a number of different multi determinants of behaviour and Skinner largely ignored these (The Student Room). Freud also believed in determinism. The concept of psychic determinism is one of psychoanalysis's major assumptions. Freud (1940) asserted that everything we do, think, or feel has a meaning and purpose, and that gestures, slips of the tongue, mistakes, everything, has a meaning, and nothing is accidental. These

seemingly innocuous gaffes, he theorized, are in fact a result of unconscious area of the mind, a "deep, inaccessible repository of urges or drives that are the major determinants of behaviour" , of which all individuals are unaware (Freud, 1938). Also supporting the notion that psychoanalysts tend to believe in determinism rather than freewill are Freud's tripartite model of the psyche, his belief in instincts, and his concept of the five psychosexual stages. Freud (1923) theorized that the mind is composed of three sections that cut across the conscious/unconscious/preconscious regions, the id, the ego, and the superego. An unconscious internal battle between the ego and superego, and the id is said to determine one's behaviour and personality (ibid.). Additionally, Eros and Thanatos, the life and death instincts, are believed by psychoanalysts to be an influential unconscious factor in determining one's behaviour. Finally, as aforementioned, Freud theorized that one's personality partially shaped by the five psychosexual stages, over which one has very little control (Schultz and Schultz 1998). In contrast, the humanistic approach believes that individuals have free will. Humanistic theories emphasize that people are freely choosing beings, who consciously exercise control over their own destinies. Two pillars of humanistic psychology are that "Human beings have choices and responsibilities and that Human beings are intentional" (Bugental, 1964). Maslow and Rogers argued that the notion that peoples behavior is at the mercy of external forces is inaccurate and that people have free will in that they can choose how they will behave. On the issue of free will versus determinism, Rogers position is clear. Fully functioning persons have free choice in creating themselves; no aspect of personality is determined for them (Schultz and Schultz 1998). On his client-centered therapy, the psychologist was known as the facilitator whose role was to help the client exercise free will and to increase the benefit of life. For Maslow, all of us are capable of choosing how best to satisfy our needs and actualize our potentials. We can neither create an actualizing self or hold back from that supreme achievement, thus we are responsible for the level of personality development we reach (Schultz & Schultz 1998). With regards to mental illness, it is a result of the patients for not able to accept themselves or others around them. Therefore, humanistic approach believes illness is due to free will and personal decisions.

Other components of humanistic theory are similarly pro-free will. They do, however, acknowledge that the mind is strongly influenced by societal, biological, and subconscious forces, contending that "human beings [make] significant personal choices within the constraints imposed by heredity, personal history, and environment" (Elias & Merriam, 1980). Nevertheless, they emphasize "the independent dignity and worth of human beings and their conscious capacity to develop personal competence and self respect.

Summary FREE WILL

Assumptions The free will approach assumes that humans are free to choose their behaviour, i.e. they are essentially self determining. Free will does not mean that behaviour is uncaused in the sense of being completely random, but assumes that influences (biological or environmental can be rejected at free will) Soft determinism (William James, 1890) suggests that free will is not freedom from causation, but freedom from coercion and constraint. If actions are voluntaryin line with conscious desired goals then they are free. The deterministic approach assumes that every physical event is caused, and since human behaviour is a physical event, it follows that it is too caused by preceding factors. If all events are caused and perfect knowledge is gained of the current state of the universe, it follows that future events are entirely predictable. Determinism: emphasis on causal laws -basis of science aims to reveal laws to provide prediction and control of the future.

DETERMINISM

In Psychology Humanistic psychology: strongest advocate of human free will -we are able to direct our lives towards self chosen goal. Free will most apparent in humanistic therapies (non-directive). Cognitive psychology: soft determinism in e.g. problem solving and intentional mechanisms as the The majority of approaches in psychology adopt a fairly strict view of human behaviour. Behaviourism favours extreme environmental determinism (blank slate). Watson: deterministic lawsof learning can predict and control future behaviour -his claim that he could take any infant at random and turn them into any type of specialist he might

choosers of thought and behaviour. While it seems that we select what we pay attention to, these mechanisms operate with the parameters of their innate capabilities and our past experience (just as the computer cannot choose to do something it was not built or programmed for), e.g. perceptual set suggests that we are not free to choose what we see and many cognitive processes operate on a more or less automatic basis (e.g. schema processing).

select. Skinner: free will is an illusion created by our complexity of learning. Psychoanalysis Freud took the view of unconscious determinism (psychic determinism)-behaviour is controlled by forces of which we are unaware- the reasons for our actions are merely rationalized by our conscious minds but neo-Freudians (Erikson) looked at more conscious ego processes.

Bibliography
Duane Schultz, Sydney Ellen Schultz. (1998). Theories of Personality. United States of America: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Grayling, A. (1995). Philosophy a guide through the subject edited by A.C Grayling . United States of America: Oxford University Press Inc, New York. Larkin, M. (2007). Helium. Free will vs. Determinism , 1-3. Routeledge. (2000). Concise Routeledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. United States of America.

Online Sources: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1420996/free_will_versus_determinism_d ebate.html?cat=72 http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/Revision:Psychology_model_answers__free_will_vs_determinism http://myclass.peelschools.org/sec/11/20135/Homework/Papers%20Review/Freewill %20and%20Determinism%20Review.pdf