Aaron Ostler

Project 1

The Death of Choice

Introduction:

One of the first things Sam Harris stated in his book, Free Will, was Either our wills are

determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of

chance and we are not responsible for them (26). This has stuck with me ever since. This book

was what not only first piqued my interest, but more specifically this quote embodies the spark

that ignited my desire to study free will. Philosophy examines the truths of the world through the

study of knowledge and thinking, in which many philosophers question why things operate the

way they do and try to understand them, by exploring various thought processes. My interest

began with understanding the various stances of the degree to free will that humans have, and

how many well-respected philosophers can take differing stances on the subject. This paper will

demonstrate how to take part in the discussion of free will - by entering the field of philosophy

and what this discussion of free will entails. Understanding the spectrum of views regarding the

degree to which humans possess free will is imperative in order to understand what free will

encompasses.

Some of the most notable philosophers that shaped my initial interest in the field were

Sam Harris and Tamler Sommers. My father referred me to Sam Harriss book Free Will, and

after reading it, my mind was entranced by the subject and yearned to learn more. The more I

researched free will, the more questions I had. I wanted to know how I dont have free will when

it feels as though I am the agent of my thoughts and actions. For months, countless questions

such as these have swarmed my mind which lead me to want to do even deeper research into the

field. So, then I wondered how to get to the point where philosophers, such as Tamler Sommers
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

and Sam Harris, are at. Nearly every published work they come out with encapsulates other

philosophers.

Since this topic has been an interest of mine for some time now, I had an idea of how the

field operated and the theories being presented. However, I underestimated how difficult it

would be to participate in the discussion on free will. Before my ideas become well recognized

in the philosophical community I first need to establish credibility through debates, academic

journals, and books. There are a multitude of stances about free will with some philosophers

even straying from the traditional views on it such as Stephen Kearns in his article about free

will agnosticism (Free Will Agnosticism). The philosophical community operates in a way where

I need to come up with a different, revolutionary method of looking at free will to attract and

grab their attention. Hopefully my work is then seen with respect, which would earn me

credibility, and a platform to present future views.

The research I conducted revealed that in addition to publishing ones findings, it is also

common to publish articles or books that directly and purposefully critique someone elses work

as a peer review. For example, the entire article by John Ostrowick about the Libet timing

experiments is a critique and examination of his experiment. At the end of the article Ostrowick

then draws his own conclusion based on Libet and Walters work (284). This peer review system

that is prevalent in philosophy is a system that allows for open discussion of different theories

and allows for only the most robust ideas to be popularized.

Methods:

When beginning my research, I used the FSU database to find credible philosophical

texts that discussed free will. Furthermore, I looked for books and academic articles that were
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

written by respected philosophers that I recognized and were well published. For example, I used

books and articles published by Sam Harris and Tamler Sommers who I know are respected in

the field and are well versed in the topic I am investigating. I was careful in choosing my sources

in order to get a diverse group of references in which each brought a different perspective on the

issue.

To the same effect, the people I chose to interview were carefully chosen. Tamler

Sommers was chosen because he has many articles published, he has a radio show where he

discusses various topics in the philosophical community, he is a professor teaching on the

subject, and he specialized in free will and moral responsibility. In addition to Sommers being

extremely qualified, I also chose to interview him since he is one of the philosophers whose

work I personally enjoy engaging with. The questions I asked revolved around the various

stances philosophers take on free will and the ways philosophers convey their theories in the

field. I asked Sommers, How did you go about getting recognition in your field initially, to get

an idea as to how I might be able to enter the discussion of free will. Additionally, I was curious

as to what medium I should use to publish my work so I asked Sommers, What do you think is

the most effective medium to present your views? Furthermore, in order to publish my work

and have it become well-read I need to gain recognition within the field, so I asked Sommers,

How did you go about getting recognition in your field? After reading many articles I noticed

that there are vast number of opinions regarding free will. But I was curious if most philosophers

have adopted a certain opinion. So, I questioned Sommers, Have you noticed a trend of people

adopting a particular stance on the subject of free will? Lastly, I asked Sommers Do you think

that Libets timing experiment is strong evidence, or evidence at all, of the absence of free will?

Next, I interviewed Dr. Simon Cabulea May, who is a professor at FSU and specializes in
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

philosophy of ethics which is very intertwined with philosophy of free will. I chose Dr. May over

other professors at FSU since his specialty closely aligns with free will and he was one of the

few professors that I was able to get in contact with. Lastly, I interviewed Mr. Kurt Schumacher

who is a philosopher and high school teacher that is well studied in the field. I wanted to

diversify my interviewees which is why I chose to interview a high school teacher specializing in

philosophy, as opposed to another professor at FSU. The interview with Mr. Schumacher was

helpful to understand philosophy in the context of a high school instructional career path, but not

for one entering the field as a more academically inclined philosopher. By having a diverse

group of interviews, I thought it would provide insight into the field from many different angles.

Since philosophy uses so many different media to communicate, I felt it necessary to broadly

conduct my research to include this variety of platforms. I gathered information through the form

of books, articles and podcasts.

Results:

Before I started my research, I had some prior knowledge on the subject so I was able to

answer some questions regarding my field initially. From the research I conducted though, I

discovered the intricate process of entering the field of philosophy and discussion of free will. To

really have a voice in any conversation in the philosophical community you must establish

yourself as credible and make a name for yourself. When I questioned Sommers about gaining

recognition in the philosophical community he explained that when he was entering the field of

philosophy his primary way of networking was to bounce ideas off other philosophers and gain

recognition through the sites Flickers of Freedom and Garden of Forking Paths. These sites were

blogs where young philosophers could present their ideas and get constructive feedback without
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

being bogged down with technicalities. Likewise, he believed that the best way to present his

work to his field is through books. But if he is trying to reach a different audience, such as the

public, he uses his podcast. When I asked Dr. May about establishing credibility in the field of

philosophy he said, dont argue what you cant support and make your argument focused and

good. Additionally, Dr. May gave great insight into how to develop original perspectives in

philosophy by saying, you must recognize the fundamental truth that you are uninteresting and

boring but that philosophy is interesting. I interpreted Dr. Mays words to mean that you must

be immersed in philosophy and fall in love with your work. In philosophy you cannot try to force

your own personal agenda into your work, rather you must set aside personal bias and let the

evidence speak for itself.

There are various theories on free will, such as libertarian free will, incompatibilism,

compatibilism, and determinism in addition to there being subgroups of each. While the sheer

number of theories on free will is daunting, Sommers stated in his interview that most

philosophers are compatibilists. Despite this fact Sommers considers himself a skeptic and that

free will is limited because of the combination of genes and environment and we are not in

control of genes or DNA. One thing that shocked me about the interview with Sommers was his

view on the Libet timing experiments. Sommers thinks the timing experiment says nothing

about free will and in order for the experiment to be valid you must think it is above and

beyond the brain to consider them. Conversely, in John Ostrowicks article in the South African

Journal of Philosophy he states that:

We know that we can control ourselves in some sense, and veto our decisions. But I

believe that what we decide and what we veto (if Libet's interpretation stands) is a non-
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

conscious result of our non-conscious self-structures (see e.g. Dennett, 1993:199 et seq.).

Hence, I believe that Libet's results are strong evidence against free-will. (285)

Although Sommers described in his interview as the Libet experiments being not necessary or

sufficient for an argument against free will, Ostrowick believes that the experiments are strong

support against free will.

After thorough reading of many academic journals and books, I was able to decipher

what each view really meant and decided that Russel Waller and Robin Waller in their article

best explained the difference between the three main views on free will by stating:

We take determinism to be the thesis that a complete, true description of the laws of

nature and the state of the world at a time entails all other truths about that world. We

will leave open what is meant by laws of nature here (e.g., necessitarianism).2

Compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with the truth of determinism. It is

important to note that most compatibilists do not think that the truth of determinism is

required for agents to act freely, but merely that there is at least one possible world in

which determinism is true of that world and some agent acts freely in that world. In

contrast, incompatibilism is the thesis that the truth of determinism is incompatible with

free will. That is, if determinism is true of a world, then no one ever acts freely in that

world. (1200)

Conclusion:

After all my research, I figured out what I need to accomplish in order to enter the

philosophical field, what the various stances on free will are, and how philosophers communicate

their findings for the rest of the philosophical community to evaluate. In order to get to the point
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

where I can publish my own thoughts and have the rest of the philosophical community consider

and respect my work I must first accomplish three main things. First, I must graduate college

receiving a degree in philosophy. Secondly, I need to start researching a topic that I can fall in

love with and dedicate immense amounts of time to, such as free will, and publish original

thoughts on that subject that that I can support and explain. To best convey my work though, it is

ideal to present my view in multiple fashions. Lastly, I must develop multiple platforms on

which to publish, such as academic journals, podcasts, and books. Each medium for publishing

my work would allow for a new approach to appeal to various audiences. To reach the point in a

career in philosophy where someone, such as Sommers is at, I need to be willing to dedicate my

life to a cause that I love and publish on it, in a fashion that is meticulous in its reasoning, that

earns me respect and notoriety in the philosophical community.

 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

Annotated Bibliography

Harris, Sam. Free Will. New York: Free, 2012. Print.

1)This is a professional text for people in the psychology community with the purpose of
supporting the theory of causal determinism and demonstrating the logic behind the theory. Sam
Harris also addresses and refutes other theories such as incompatabilism and forms of
determinism such as theological determinism. The text is direct and to the point but is not as
formal as academic journals that discuss this topic.

Griffith, Meghan. Free Will: The Basics. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
2)This is a professional text with the purpose of displaying the pros and cons of each theory
regarding free will for the philosophical community. Meghan Griffith analyzes forms of
compatibilism as well as libertarianism but does not say which is right or wrong, rather she
presents objective facts about each. However, Griffith does comment that there is not enough
scientific evidence at this time so this topic is more of a philosophical topic for the time being.

Balaguer, Mark. Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT,
2012. Print.
3)Mark Balaguers book is intended for psychologists to inform on the neural and scientific lens
that free will can be perceived through. This text argues that there is not enough scientific
evidence to make a decision for or against free will but thinks that the answer lies in the
metaphysical component of the issue. Furthermore, the question of whether humans have
libertarian free will is the one Balaguer finds the most important.

Ostrowick, John M. "The Timing Experiments of Libet and Grey Walter1." South African
Journal of Philosophy, 1 Jan. 2007. Web. 13 Sept. 2017.
4)This is an academic source analyzing the Libet study concluding that people are not practicing
free will when making decisions but rather observing the decision that their subconscious made.
It is very formal and contains scientific jargon that is precise in meaning. The critique is very
objective and only relays facts to the reader. Additionally, it uses charts and diagrams to display
the findings of the experiment. I think that the use of diagrams reinforces the arguments in a
clear manner.
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

Sommers, Tamler. "More Work for Hard Incompatibilism." Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research 79.3 (2009): 511-21. Humanities Source. Web.
5) Tamler Sommers is arguing against incompatabilism by refuting two of the four main
requirements for incompatabilist reasoning. This article is written in response to the growing
incompatabilist community and their views. Sommers goes point by point to clearly demonstrate
the inconsistencys with incompatabilism.

Harris, Sam. Interview by Tamler Sommers and David Pizzaro. Audio blog post. Very Bad
Wizards. Stitcher, 15 Dec. 2014. Web. 15 Sept. 2017.
6) This is a episode from a podcast where Tamler Sommers and David Pizzaro discuss their
varying opinions on free will with Sam Harris. This format of discussion is informal and meant
for people not in the philosophical field but those who still have an interest in the field. Very Bad
Wizards intends to discuss issues in the field of philosophy for your average, educated person to
listen to.

Waller, Robyn Repko, and Russell L. Waller. "Forking Paths and Freedom: A Challenge to
Libertarian Accounts of Free Will." Springer. Springer, 21 June 2015. Web. 15 Sept.
2017.
7)This articles title is precise in what it aims to argue and discuss. Waller and Waller present
both sides to the incompatabilist view without stating if it is right or wrong. The purpose of this
text is to purely inform and raise questions about the incompatabilist view. The structure is very
formal and objective to avoid injecting personal bias into the article. Furthermore, the use of
diagrams is utilized to further demonstrate and provide a visual of the points being made.

Deery, Oisn, Taylor Davis, and Jasmine Carey. "The Free-Will Intuitions Scale and the
Question of Natural Compatibilism." Routledge, 1 Aug. 2015. Web. 16 Sept. 2017.
8)This academic text is objective in its delivery examining the discrepancies on both sides of the
natural compatibilist debate. Oisn Deery thinks that the debate cant be solved by an
experiment because of the experimental design in which according to Deery, decisions can be
forced.

KEARNS, STEPHEN. "Free Will Agnosticism." Nous. Wiley Blackwell, 2015. Web. 16 Sept.
2017.
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

9)This text develops a new stance on the free will issue called free will agnosticism (FWA)
which is intended for the philosophical community as an alternative to other theories such as
impossibilist or liberationists. Stephen Kearns presents this article in a factual manner that is
persuasive since it avoids bias and emotion in its objective delivery. Nearly all of these
philosophical articles contain little to no emotion but this one even contains less than others. This
technique makes the audience feel as though they are drawing their own conclusion opposed to
being manipulated.

Caruso, Gregg D. "Free Will Eliminativism: Reference, Error, and Phenomenology." Springer.
Springer, 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 16 Sept. 2017.
10)This text is written in a formal context which analyzes both sides of the issue by drawing on
the evidence and lack thereof for each argument. It concludes that there is too much lacking
evidence on either to make a definitive statement on the exitance or absence of free will. This is
intended for philosophers on both sides of the discussion in order to demonstrate that neither side
is absolutely right and that it is impossible to know who is right based on the information
available.

Sommers, Tamler. Free Will. Telephone interview. 14 Sept. 2017.

May, Simon Cabulea. Communication in Philosophy." Personal interview. 2 Oct. 2017.
Schumacher, Kurt. Philosophy. Telephone interview. 5 Oct. 2017.

Literature Review

These various sources each approach the topic of free will in a different manner. Each

source uses different formats to target various audiences, structure their arguments in different

ways, and examine a variety of different aspects revolving around the discussion of free will. In

order to understand how communication within the philosophical community occurs,

understanding how each source works off one another is imperative. Many books or articles are

either as a critique of another philosophers work, a response to a growing stance in the

community, or an informative piece on what they have deduced regarding free will.
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

The article by Gregg Caruso, article by Stephen Kearns, and book by Meghan Griffith

conclude that a decisive decision can not be made yet on free will, but they each arrive there in

different ways. While Caruso and Griffith think that there is just not enough evidence yet to say

whether libertarian free will exists, Kearns proposes a new stance on the topic called free will

agnosticism (FWA). Caruso and Griffith would be considered skeptics regarding free will but

recognize that people can reasonably argue for each stance. Kearns new stance called FWA uses

an empirical set of steps to conclude that it is impossible to definitively say there is or is not free

will. This source is particularly interesting and unique from all of these other sources since it is

proposing a new stance on free will instead of examining or defending a widely held stance. The

article from Kearns is additionally useful as an example of how to propose new ideas to the

philosophical community in order to get recognition.

Likewise, the article regarding hard incompatibilim by Tamler Sommers uses an

empirical set of steps as Kearns did but instead to refute a claim. Sommers proposes that hard

incompatibilism, the idea humans only have free will if determinism is false, hinges on four

points and his paper focuses on refuting the two most critical points. Sommers article is a great

example of articles published in the philosophical community in response to a growing opinion

within the community. This technique that Sommers uses for arguing against a stance is very

affective since it lays out what four points would need to be true for hard incompatabilism to

exist and then refutes two of them. By using this method of arguing Sommers is able to

acknowledge the premise of the opposing stance while also explain the errors in reasoning being

made by hard incompatabilists. The other sources dont use an empirical set of ideas that are

generally held to then convey their view, making the articles from Kearns and Sommers special.
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

The books by Griffith, Mark Balaguer, and Sam Harris present the topic of free will in a

format that discusses the views of others on the topics while the six academic articles approach

the subject as just presenting their findings and providing evidence. This is not the say that

Griffith, Balaguer, and Harris didnt provide evidence, rather they provided insight on the

different theories surrounding the evidence. Griffith does not take sides and merely just presents

the argument for and against compatibilism and libertarian free will. On the other hand, Balaguer

and Harris inject their own views into their books for the purpose of persuading others in the

philosophical field of their views. These sources are extremely informative regarding free will

due to their sheer length and amount of content. Free Will by Harris is possibly the most useful

of the ten sources since it discusses multiple views on free will and outlines the evidence

surrounding each theory.

Harris and John Ostrowick both share similar views on the Libet study and draw the

conclusion that the study is valid and supports a more deterministic view. While Ostrowicks

article only provides explanation of the details and meaning of Libets experiment, Harris uses

these conclusions to support his deterministic view of free will. The combination of these two

sources demonstrates how philosophers use each others work to draw conclusions.

Robyn Waller and Russell Wallers article is a very objective in their analysis

incompatabilism similar to Oisn Deery, Taylor Davis, and Jasmine Careys analysis of

compatibilism. In both articles the evidence for the view of incompatabilism and compatibilism

respectively was given for and against each stance. While most articles in academic journals and

books use the evidence to support the premise of their argument, these two sources are very

careful in avoiding injection of their own beliefs. These articles are meant to just provide all of

the information about each theory, leaving philosophers to weigh the evidence for each and come
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

to a conclusion. Each of these sources is essential despite their similar methods since being well-

versed in what compatibilism and incompatabilism is allows for a greater understanding of the

views presented in other texts.

The podcast by Tamler Sommers and David Pizzaro that features Sam Harris is unique

from the other nine sources in its display of information and target audience. The podcast is

targeting educated persons with an interest in philosophy or people aspiring to be in the field.

The other sources that are books and articles are designed to inform people within the philosophy

community. Since this source is not targeting people within the field this source is useful for my

understanding of free will in laymans terms. After acquiring a better understanding of

philosophy and the jargon regarding free will it becomes much easier to comprehend the ideas

being presented in the academic articles. Additionally, this source demonstrates the vast number

of mediums philosophers use to discuss hot topics in the community. While the podcasts target

audience is not philosophers it still includes them since Sommers and Pizzaro occasionally bring

on other philosophers to get there insight, for example Sam Harris.

For each source to be persuasive or accomplish its purpose the philosophers utilize a

variety of techniques. The medium of presenting the information, the decision to inject ones

own stance or adhere to pure facts, the subject that caused the authorship of the text all

contributes to the overall effectiveness of the source. By having a diversified set of sources that

either accomplishes a different purpose of accomplishes a similar purpose but in a different way

it makes understanding the operation within field of philosophy clear and easy to grasp.
 Aaron Ostler
Project 1

Works Cited

Balaguer, Mark. Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT,
2012. Print.
Caruso, Gregg D. "Free Will Eliminativism: Reference, Error, and Phenomenology." Springer.
Springer, 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 16 Sept. 2017.
Deery, Oisn, Taylor Davis, and Jasmine Carey. "The Free-Will Intuitions Scale and the
Question of Natural Compatibilism." Routledge, 1 Aug. 2015. Web. 16 Sept. 2017.
Griffith, Meghan. Free Will: The Basics. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Harris, Sam. Free Will. New York: Free, 2012. Print.
Harris, Sam. Interview by Tamler Sommers and David Pizzaro. Audio blog post. Very Bad
Wizards. Stitcher, 15 Dec. 2014. Web. 15 Sept. 2017.
Kearns, Stephen. "Free Will Agnosticism." Nous. Wiley Blackwell, 2015. Web. 16 Sept. 2017.

May, Simon Cabulea. Communication in Philosophy." Personal interview. 2 Oct. 2017.

Ostrowick, John M. "The Timing Experiments of Libet and Grey Walter1." South African
Journal of Philosophy, 1 Jan. 2007. Web. 13 Sept. 2017.

Schumacher, Kurt. Philosophy. Telephone interview. 5 Oct. 2017.

Sommers, Tamler. Free Will. Telephone interview. 14 Sept. 2017.
Sommers, Tamler. "More Work for Hard Incompatibilism." Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research 79.3 (2009): 511-21. Humanities Source. Web.
Waller, Robyn Repko, and Russell L. Waller. "Forking Paths and Freedom: A Challenge to
Libertarian Accounts of Free Will." Springer. Springer, 21 June 2015. Web. 15 Sept.
2017.