Free Will Via Emotion
Randomness has been shown to exist in the world of supposed predictability. We are going to take the unexpected example of radioactive elements, and compare it to emotions, and apply this to the utilized definition of free will. Free will being that if you were in the same situation, could you have done something different. I plan to explain how our emotions could show this to be possible.
Radioactive elements shoot off particles randomly (but generally at a predictive rate). Our emotions arise randomly (but generally predictively) in a similar way. We can know, generally speaking, how long it will take for a radioactive element to decay, but we cannot predict when the next particle will fly off. Isaac Physics says “Radioactive decay is the random process in which a nucleus loses energy by emitting radiation.” emphasis on the word “random.” If other things in nature can be random, so too, possibly, can our emotions. We may expect a certain set of emotions for a given situation, but we do not know when the next emotion will arise, or which emotion it will specifically be.
Think of a time someone wronged you, you are more likely to have a certain set of emotions for various reasons. Ranging from anger to sadness, or even equanimity. However, that emotion was an impulse and had a random chance from anger to sadness, or equanimity as well. Though generally we can guess which emotion it will be, it doesn’t always seem to be the case. Emotions sometimes cannot be controlled, and arise randomly. (try a meditation session where you observe your emotions and you might see this in action)
This, I think, proves, at least a limited, free will.
If emotions are impulses, and impulses are random, then the emotions we have had in the past could have been different emotions. If the emotions we have had in the past could have been different ones, then we have, at least a limited, free will. Therefore, if emotions are impulses, and impulses are random, then we have, at least a limited, free will.
I have attempted to show the first premise as correct and true. Emotions are impulses, and impulses are random. The second is true by definition, since free will is often cited as the means to have done something else if one was put back into a previous situation. Though my argument really only goes to show that you still have no free choice in having done something different, just that something different could have happened due to emotions being a little random. Is this even free will? If not, maybe we need to ask about the agents choice in the matter of having done something different instead of just having done something different full stop.
The only question now is, since we know we can at least sort of control our emotions, should we? If we do, we lose some of our already limited free will, but if we don’t, we embrace all of the issues (unpredictability) that emotions can bring, building our free will, as opposed to rational thinking. Another question is along these lines, is this version of free will even any good or worthwhile?
Want More?
If you like what you read, or just like Philosophy memes, you can always find me on Facebook at Five Minute Philosophy, of course, right after following me here on Medium. I post articles every Wednesday, and memes daily.
