Yes, You *Do* Have Free Will. So *Choose* to Read This Post

Photo by Vladislav Babienko on Unsplash

Like millions of others, my family and I have spent part of this year’s Christmas holiday watching some version of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Actually, we watched two, starting with Bill Murray’s mad-cap Scrooged and following-up with a much darker made-for-TV film from 1999, starring Patrick Stewart. The production was inspired, in part, by Stewart’s one-man stage performances as the character, and Stuart gives a powerful, tragic interpretation of Scrooge, a man so consumed by his traumatic past that he is unable to experience any emotion other than anger, manifested as a chronic, toxic misanthropy.

A Christmas Carol is, of course, an unabashed Christian parable, perhaps the most influential in history outside the Bible itself. Scrooge is visited by ghosts over three nights (the same number as Christ lays dead in his crypt), until his “resurrection” on Christmas morning, having seen the error of his ways. But the story resonates with people of all faiths, or no faiths, because of its theme of hope. Scrooge is old, but he ain’t dead yet. There’s still time to fix his life. To change. To choose.

I have always thought that the power to choose–the divine gift of free will–lies at the heart of A Christmas Carol, as it does with all great literature. Of course, it’s hard to imagine Scrooge, after seeing the tragedies of his Christmases past, present, and future, to wake up on Christmas and say, “Meh, I’d rather keep being a ruthless businessman. Screw Tiny Tim.” But he could. He might. The ultimate choice given to us is the option to change the nature of our own hearts, our way of thinking.

This matter of free will seems particularly salient this year–this holiday season–because the very concept is under attack. If you Google the term “free will,” you will be presented with a barrage of links with titles like “Is Free Will an Illusion?” and “Is Free Will Compatible with Modern Physics?” Along with the rise of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, a parallel trend has arisen among theoretical physicists who doubt that free will is even a meaningful concept. After all, if our consciousness is merely an emergent phenomenon of electrical impulses in our brains, and if our brains are, like everything else, determined by the laws of physics, then how is free will even a thing? Every idea we have—every notion—must somehow be predetermined by the notions that came before it, the action and reaction of synapses in our brains.

Our brains, in other words, are like computers. Mere calculators, whose order of operations could be rewound at any moment and replayed again and again and again, with exactly the same results.

Patrick Stewart as Scrooge

Ah, but what about quantum mechanics, you say? The principles that undergird all of quantum theory would seem to imply that human thought, even if you reduce it to electrons in the brain, might be on some level unpredictable, unknowable, and therefore capable of some aspect of free will. Not at all, reply the physicists. The scale at which Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle applies—the level of single electrons and other subatomic particles—lies so far below that of the electrochemical reactions in the human brain that their effect must be negligible. That is, a brain with an identical layout of neurons to mine would have exactly the same thoughts, the same personality, as I do. It would be me.

It’s this kind of reasoning that leads people to hate scientists at times, even people like me who normally worship scientists. The arrogance of the so-called “rationalist” argument—which comes primarily from physics, a field that, in the early 1990s, discovered that it could only explain 4% of everything in the universe—seems insufferable. But more to the point, I would argue that the rationalist rejection of free will leads to paradoxes—logical absurdities—not unlike those created by the time-travel thought problems that Einstein postulated over a hundred years ago.

For instance, imagine that one of our free-will denying physicists wins the Nobel Prize. He flies to Stockholm to pick up his award, at which point the King of Sweden says, “Not so fast, bub. You don’t really deserve any praise, because all of your discoveries were the inevitable consequence of the electrical impulses in your brain.”

“But what about all the hard work I put in?” the physicist sputters. “All the late nights in the lab? The leaps of intuition that came to me after countless hours of struggle?”

“Irrelevant,” says His Majesty. “You did all that work because your brain forced you too. Your thirst for knowledge, and also your fear of failure, were both manifestations of mechanicals in your brain. You had absolutely no choice in the matter.”

“Well, in that case,” replies the now angry physicist, “maybe YOU have no choice but to give me the award anyway, regardless.”

“Hmm,” muses the King. “I hadn’t thought of that.”

“So, can I have it?”

“I dunno. Let’s just stand here a minute and see what happens.”

As many critics have pointed out, this kind of materialist thinking inevitably leads to a kind of fatalism of the sort found in some eastern religions. If human beings really have no free will—that is, if we are basically automata in thrall to the physical activity of our brains—then what’s the use of struggle? Why bother trying to improve yourself, to become a productive member of society, or become a better person?

Straw man! scream the physicists. No one is advocating we give up the struggle to lead better lives. That would be the end of civilization. No, we simply mean that this struggle is an illusion, albeit one that we need to exist.

Okay. So, you’re saying that we all have to pretend to have free will in order to keep the trains running? We must maintain the illusion of free will in order to continue the orderly procession of existence? But doesn’t this position, itself, imply a kind of choice? After all, if we have no free will, it really makes no difference whether we maintain the illusion or not.

Doesn’t this very discussion represent a rejection of passivity and the meaningfulness of human will?

My fear is that many young people today will be overexposed to the “rationalism” I describe above, especially when it is put forth by otherwise brilliant people. For those who are already depressed by such assertions that free will is an illusion, I would direct you to the great stories of world history. All the enduring mythologies, from the Greek tragedies to the Arthurian legends to the Hindu Mahabharata, revolve around the choices made by their heroes, their triumphs and failings. As a fiction writer, I would argue that the concept of “story” itself is almost synonymous with choice. A boy is confronted by the wolf. Will the boy run left or right? Will he lead the wolf away from his friends back at the campsite, or will he lead the wolf to them, hoping they can help scare it away (or, more darkly, that it will eat one of his friends instead)?

One can also take hope in the fact that not only can physicists still not explain what 96% of the universe is but they can’t explain what consciousness is. Of course, some would argue that consciousness, itself, is an illusion. But this leads to an entirely new set of paradoxes and absurdities. (As David Bentley Hart once replied, “An illusion in what?”)

Personally, I suspect that consciousness comes to exist around or about the same moment in a specie’s evolution when the individual can choose. That is, consciousness implies a kind of choice. It might be a very elemental, even primal kind of choice—perhaps simply the choice of whether not to swim harder, or fight harder, which I believe even minnows and ants can make—but it’s still a choice, and not merely a matter of pure instinct.

One of my favorite TV shows from my childhood was Patrick McGoohan’s “The Prisoner”, whose every episode begins with the titular character proclaiming “I am not a number! I am a free man!” This assertion, shouted on a beach by the mysterious village in which he has been imprisoned, is followed by the sinister laughter of Number 2, the Orwellian figure who has been tasked with breaking the prisoner’s will. Number 2 is, of course, an awesome and terrifying figure, armed with all the weapons of modern society: technology, bureaucracy, and theory. But he’s still wrong, and he’s ultimately unable to grind the prisoner down.

That’s the hope I cling to, the Christmas message I espouse. Namely, that we’re all able to choose to resist the fatalism of rational materialism. That we can all, eventually, escape the village and be better human beings.

Anyway, that’s my Christmas Eve rant.

(Author’s Note: this is an updated version of a post that originally appeared on my old blog, Bakhtin’s Cigarettes.)

Shameless Plug

Well, it’s official. My book is now available for pre-order (make that pre-pre-PRE-order) on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-a-Million, etc. (Yes, even Walmart.com.)

I’m not asking you to buy it (although it would make an excellent gift for that special someone in your life; or for your boss, co-worker, distant relative, crazy uncle, etc.). But if you want to help me out, please request that your local library buy it. Most public libraries have a “Suggest Materials” link on their website. Or you can just ask a librarian. (Duh!)

Here’s a link to the book on the publisher’s distribution site:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/741923/twice-the-trouble-by-ash-clifton/

Jehovah vs. The Force

Yoda

I find it ironic that, here in America, we have only two socially acceptable ways to identify ourselves with regard to religion: you’re either a believer, or an atheist.

Yeah, this is crazy. For all kinds of reasons.

We all know that the first category—believer—really describes a vast spectrum of religious faith, from rigid practitioners of an orthodox religion (which, in the U.S., probably means some brand of Christianity or Judaism), to non-practicing believers (i.e. lapsed Catholics, lapsed Jews, etc.), to people who believe in God but don’t correspond to any formal religion (we had a whole class of such people in the middle of the 19th Century—the Transcendentalists.)

But what most people fail to realize is that the category of atheism also includes a spectrum, one that is almost as broad and diverse as the believer category.

Continue reading “Jehovah vs. The Force”

My Personal Super-Practical Hurricane Prep List

Down here in Florida, we know a thing or two about hurricane preparation. So, for all my friends out on the west coast about to face down their first-ever hurricane, I thought I’d offer my personal short list of things to do and have on-hand before the storm hits.

  • Water (obviously). Bottles. Buy a big (like a disperser sized) bottle if you can’t find any smaller ones.
  • Bleach. You can use this to treat water if you know what you’re doing and don’t poison yourself. You can also use it to help wash dishes.
  • Flashlights/Lanterns/Candles. Duh.
  • Charge everything. Cell phones, laptops, tablets. If you have an external or backup battery (I like camping batteries), change those, too.
  • Gas up your car. I don’t care if you aren’t planning on bugging out. Gas will be short for a week or two. Plus, you can use your car to recharge your phones, etc.
  • A radio. Yes, an honest-to-God, battery powered radio. If you don’t have one, download an app to turn your cell phone into an FM receiver. (You’ll need wired-headphones, however.)
  • Canned food. Beans are great. Soup is great. Anything you can cook on a grill is great. Also, sardines, tuna, etc are good to eat cold (buy crackers!).
  • A barbeque grill. You can use this to make coffee if nothing else.
  • Charcoal.
  • A coffee pot you can use on the grill.
  • A deck of playing cards. (Trust me.)
  • Board games.
  • While you have power, freeze as many water bottles/jugs as can in your freezer. The more your freezer resembles a solid block of ice, the longer your food will stay good.
  • Freeze a cup of water and leave it in the freezer. Once it’s frozen, drop a quarter on top. This will let you see how much your freezer has thawed after the fact.
  • Medicines. (Duh.)
  • Declutter your yard.
  • Secure your garage door (weight it down).

Good luck!

My Rex Stout Shout-Out

DoorbellRang

It’s a well known fact of life that the older you get, the more you find yourself drawn to old things. This has always been true for me. I find myself particularly entertained by the classic pop culture of the twentieth century.

A few years ago, for instance, I was working my way through the works of two great pop writers: the James Bond thrillers by Ian Fleming, and the Nero Wolfe mysteries of Rex Stout. I would alternate between them, tearing through each series in no particular order.  Each of them offered a different kind of thrill, and also a window into the past.

Young people today are familiar with the Bond stories thanks to the great and continuing set of movies based on them, the latest incarnation being the fine English character actor Daniel Craig. The Nero Wolfe novels are, of course, less well-known. To sum them up briefly, they recount the adventures of a reclusive, brilliant, and enormously fat detective who seldom leaves his Manhattan brownstone, preferring to solve his cases remotely. To do the actual legwork of investigation, he sends out his much younger, hipper assistant, Archie Goodwin (who narrates the novels). It is Goodwin who does most of that sleuthing required (as well as some frequent romancing of the numerous femme fatales). He brings the information back to Wolfe, who then solves the case by virtue of his sheer intellect.

I regard both series—the Bond novels as well as the Wolfe novels—as gems of pop literature:  clever, witty, sexy, and (most importantly) sharply written. And so you can imagine my delight when, in the early chapters of Fleming’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, I came upon the following exchange between Bond and his craggy, avuncular boss, M.

Bond automatically took his traditional place across the desk from his Chief.

M began to fill a pipe.  “What the devil’s the name of that fat American detective who’s always fiddling about with orchids, those obscene hybrids from Venezuela and so forth.  Then he comes sweating out of his orchid house, eats a gigantic meal of some foreign muck and solve the murder.  What’s he called?”

“Nero Wolfe, sir.  They’re written by a chap called Rex Stout.  I like them.”

“They’re readable,” condescended M.

This was the literary equivalent of having two good friends from separate areas of your life and inviting them both over for dinner, only to discover that they already know each other.  More to the point, I found my love of Rex Stout vindicated by Fleming’s obvious approval. Had I looked, I could have found lots of other sources of vindication: Kingsley Amis also loved Stout, as did Isaac Asimov. (Asimov, in fact, was a life-long member of Stout’s fan club, The Wolfe Pack.)

wolfe1
Maury Chaykin as Wolfe

But the more I thought about it, the more Fleming’s Rex-Stout-shout-out made perfect sense. The character of James Bond bears more than a passing resemblance to Archie Goodwin. Both are tough guys—street-smart and wise-cracking anti-heroes—who would rather deal with a shot of a whisky than a shot from a gun. Like Bond, Archie is a brilliant operator, not to mention a rampant womanizer (although without Fleming’s darker, misogynistic overtones).

In retrospect, Bond seems like a more British, post-modern version of Goodwin—meaner, hornier, and drunker. Both characters lend a vicarious thrill to nerds like myself (and, I would bet, to Amis and Asimov). They represent versions of the tough guys we would like to be.

If there are strong echoes of Archie Goodwin in James Bond, then there are somewhat fainter echoes of Nero Wolfe in M. Like M, Wolfe is a mastermind who seldom leaves his office, preferring to send Archie to do the actual leg-work. Also like M, Wolfe is a bit of a cipher. We know he is of Eastern European descent, and that his youth was both violent and tragic, but nothing more. Beyond this, he exists only in the present-time of the stories, the genius with no intimate connection his fellow man—except perhaps in his dependence on (and grudging friendship with) Archie himself.

In suggesting that Fleming may have been influenced by Stout, I mean no slur against the great spy novelist, nor to British popular literature in general. Indeed, a sharp student of British lit would be quick to point out that Stout, in turn, seemed to borrow heavily from that earlier colossus of the mystery genre, Arthur Conan Doyle. No less a figure than Edmund Wilson first pointed out the similarity between Wolfe and Sherlock Holmes; both are hyper-intelligent misanthropes whose stories are told by lesser men. Just as Watson’s narration humanizes Holmes, Goodwin’s voice filters Wolfe’s genius and makes him accessible to the reader.

In fact, I’ve often thought of the Nero Wolfe novels as a kind of fusion of the Sherlock Holmes with the grittier, wholly American sensibilities of Philip Marlowe and Sam Spade. If Wolfe is the inheritor of Holmes’ deductive powers, then Archie is the reincarnation of the hard-boiled American private eye.

Archie is also genuinely funny…

What Wolfe tells me, and what he doesn’t tell me, never depends, as far as I can make out, on the relevant circumstances.  It depends on what he had to eat at the last meal, what he is going to eat at the next meal, the kind of shirt and tie I am wearing, how well my shoes are shined, and so forth.  He does not like purple.  Once Lily Rowan gave me a dozen Sulka shirts, with stripes of assorted colors and shades.  I happened to put on the purple one the day we started on the Chesterton-Best case, the guy that burgled his own house and shot a week-end guest in the belly.  Wolfe took one look at the shirt and clammed up on me.  Just for spite I wore the shirt a week, and I never did know what was going on, or who was which, until Wolfe had it all wrapped up, and even then I had to get most of the details from the newspapers and Dora Chesterton, with whom I had struck an acquaintance.  Dora had a way of—no, I’ll save that for my autobiography.

rex_stout
Rex Stout

But while the works of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett often approached the level of  high art, Stout’s novels remain happily in the realm of great genre fiction—beautifully written and with a sharp edge.  Most of them involve snobbish, greedy rich people who need Wolfe to bail them out of some sort of trouble—a missing CEO, a murdered secretary, a looming scandal.  If the true villain of Chandler’s work is the city of Los Angeles and all its soul-destroying corruption, then Stout’s is the corporate America of the 40s and 50s (the period when he wrote his best novels).

As with any pop classic, the Wolfe novels render of a deeply imagined world, peopled with distinct and vividly drawn characters: the cigar chomping Inspector Cramer; Wolfe’s fastidious Swiss chef, Fritz Brenner; Lon Cohen, the delightfully corrupt magazine editor who supplies Wolfe and Archie with much of their information.  And, of course, there is Saul Panzer, the expert freelancer who represents a more cautious (not to mention Jewish) version of Archie himself.

But the real achievement of the novels comes from the sheer amusement of watching Wolfe demolish another fat-cat rich guy. It’s easy to detect a deep vein of progressivism running through all the Wolfe novels. Two of the main characters are Jewish, and Wolfe’s roster of clients often includes women, blacks, poor people, and (in one notable case), a victim of FBI harassment.

As the critic Terry Teachout writes

Like all good detective stories, the Nero Wolfe novels are not primarily about their settings, or even their plots. They are conversation pieces, witty studies in human character…less mystery stories than domestic comedies, the continuing saga of two iron-willed codependents engaged in an endless game of oneupmanship. Archie may be Wolfe’s hired hand, but he is also an undefinable combination of servant, goad, court jester, and trusted confidant. His relationship with Wolfe is by definition uneasy, intimate but never affectionate—it’s plain to see that he loves Wolfe like a father, but inconceivable that he would ever admit such a thing—and so the intimacy is transformed into a daily contest for dominance. At least half the fun of the Wolfe books comes from the way in which Stout plays this struggle for laughs.

The Wolfe novels have enjoyed a resurgence in the last twenty years or so, largely thanks to an excellent A&E television series from the 90s starring Maury Chaykin and Timothy Hutton.  The books underwent a really fine reprint from Bantam books, with great cover art (a campy combination of art deco and pulp luridness).  The price of these paperbacks is inflating faster than BitCoins, but fortunately Bantam has released most of them as Kindle editions for under ten bucks.  The penny-pinching Wolfe would be proud.

Quick Note on “Asteroid City”

Wednesday night I went to the movies for the first time in three years. I saw Wes Anderson’s Asteroid City, and I’m still trying to process it. It’s kind of like what might happen if David Lynch and Tim Burton teamed up to make a Pixar movie. It’s certainly very good, and very powerful, but hard to get a handle on. 

More on this, coming soon…

The Sun Will Come Out…Later Today

It’s June 17 here in Gainesville, and the reality of another Florida summer is starting to sink in. We’ve been having a lot of rain, which makes this time of year tolerable—until the sun comes out and the humidity seems to wrap around your face like a barber’s steam rag. Oh, well. I just need to keep telling myself that this is our winter, i.e., the season when you go outside as little as possible and when appropriate clothing is a must.

There. I’ve complained enough.