Can our choices be both caused by prior events and still be genuinely free? Compatibilists answer yes, arguing that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
Hard determinists argue that, if our actions are determined by prior causes, free will is an illusion. Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil offers a distinctive compatibilist response, arguing that complex systems can produce meaningful freedom even within a deterministic framework. Read on to understand the compatibilist view and how it compares to hard determinism.
Table of Contents
What Is Compatibilism?
According to Sam Harris’s description in Free Will, compatibilists define free will as an ability to act in ways that are consistent with your preferences and reasoning, without outside forces stopping you. In other words, compatibilists believe that, while your actions are caused by prior events, they’re also free as long as they accord with what you consciously decide and desire.
Robert Sapolsky offers a similar explanation in Determined: Compatibilists believe the universe is deterministic and runs according to unchangeable laws of nature, but people are still able to make decisions within the constraints of those natural laws. In short, the compatibilist view is that determinism narrows your options, but it doesn’t narrow them down to just one option. For instance, you can’t flap your arms and fly to the grocery store, because doing so would break the laws of physics. However, you’re still free to choose whether to walk, bike, or drive to the store.
| Stoic Philosophy and Compatibilism The compatibilist view of free will closely parallels some elements of Stoic philosophy. In The Discourses of Epictetus—one of Stoicism’s foundational texts—Epictetus teaches that the only thing you can completely control is your own mind. Everything else, from your physical body to your surroundings, is out of your control to varying degrees. Epictetus discusses the time he spent as a slave in order to illustrate this point. He says that even though someone else owned his body, nobody could ever own his mind. Therefore, even though he wasn’t in control of his own circumstances, he was in control of how he responded. Epictetus explains that he chose to obey his master; not because he had no will of his own, but because the consequences of disobedience were simply not worth it. Compatibilists would agree with this interpretation of events. |
The Hard Determinist Challenge
However, not everyone accepts the compatibilist position. Harris rejects the idea that choices can be both caused and free because he says that this point of view can’t be reconciled with what scientists have discovered about the brain. In particular, he writes that compatibilism doesn’t make sense if our thoughts and choices are caused by unconscious processes, which in turn are influenced by myriad external factors. He argues that simply becoming aware of a choice after it’s been determined by the brain and then acting on it isn’t the same thing as freely and consciously choosing it.
(Shortform note: Harris presents a succinct overview of compatibilist free will, but some experts view this theory in ways that differ substantially from Harris’s interpretation. According to philosopher Daniel Dennett, compatibilism is a point of view that’s separate from determinism and indeterminism, so Harris makes a mistake in rejecting compatibilism just because he believes that determinism is true. Dennett also criticizes Harris’s portrayal of the compatibilist idea of free will as doing what we want to do, as well as Harris’s rejection of the idea on the grounds that this isn’t absolute freedom {a theoretical form of free will where we could choose our desires]. Dennett writes that in arguing that this is a failing with compatibilism, Harris has created a straw man version of compatibilism so he can dismiss it.)
Sapolsky takes an even stronger determinist position. He believes that your brain determines what you do, and countless influences determine what your brain does. Therefore, what you experience as “making a choice” is really your brain processing all of the things influencing you at that moment and calculating a response.
Let’s return to the example of the trip to the grocery store. Sapolsky says that it seems as though you’re deciding what mode of transportation to use, but you’re really being influenced by countless factors such as convenience, how much energy you have, how much time you can spend on this trip, and how much storage space you’ll need. After considering all of those different elements you come to a single conclusion, which he says is the only conclusion you could possibly have reached under those specific circumstances.
(Shortform note: Conversely, a strict determinist such as Sapolsky would argue that Epictetus’ obedience was predetermined by the very thought process which led him to conclude that obedience was the rational choice. From this perspective, Epictetus’ decision to obey may have felt like a free choice, but it was really the inevitable result of his situation.)
Kurzweil’s Compatibilist Framework: How Complexity Creates Freedom
In How to Create a Mind, Ray Kurzweil proposes that intelligence arises from hierarchical pattern recognition, with the human brain using approximately 300 million basic “recognizers” to identify patterns ranging from simple shapes to complex abstract ideas. Kurzweil argues that, by understanding this brain mechanism, achieving human-level artificial intelligence is unavoidable.
Kurzweil’s framework offers a compelling compatibilist perspective on free will. If our decisions emerge from complex pattern recognition processes influenced by inputs from older brain systems, are we truly making free choices? Research shows that brain activity associated with decisions begins several hundred milliseconds before people report being aware of their intention to act. According to Kurzweil, this suggests that unconscious processes initiate actions before conscious awareness, which many people consider a challenge to the idea of free will.
But Kurzweil argues that this doesn’t eliminate free will in any meaningful sense. Drawing on Stephen Wolfram’s work with complex systems, Kurzweil contends that, even if our decisions are determined by prior causes, they remain impossible to predict without running through every step of the actual process. The system is so complex that even we can’t predict our own decisions in advance, and no external observer could simulate our choices without duplicating our entire mental process. In practical terms, Kurzweil suggests, this means our decisions are functionally equivalent to free will even if they’re technically determined.
| Can Our Choices Be Both Determined and Free? Kurzweil’s approach to free will aligns with compatibilism—the view that free will and determinism can coexist. Determinism is the idea that all events, including our thoughts and decisions, are caused by prior events in an unbroken chain stretching back through time. In Free Will, philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris takes a position you can think of as “hard determinism”—he argues that, because our decisions are caused by factors beyond our control, free will is completely illusory. Like Kurzweil, Harris acknowledges that brain activity associated with decisions begins before we’re conscious of them, but Harris concludes this proves we have no real agency. Kurzweil’s compatibilist position represents “soft determinism”—accepting that our choices may be caused by prior events while maintaining they can still be meaningfully “free.” Harris dismisses this view, arguing that simply becoming aware of a choice after it’s been determined by unconscious brain processes isn’t the same as freely choosing. The difference lies in how they interpret complexity and predictability. While Harris focuses on the causal chains that determine our thoughts, Kurzweil emphasizes that these systems are so complex they remain functionally unpredictable. This echoes how many people intuitively think about free will: Even if we accept that we live in a deterministic world, we still feel we’re making genuine decisions. |
(Shortform note: Some say that the point of compatibilism is to offer a solution to the problem of free will: to reconcile our sense of free will and moral responsibility with determinism. Philosopher Gary Gutting writes that compatibilism provokes debate because freedom is hard to define and test. To illustrate, he contrasts two scenarios: staying at home because you’re having a panic attack and staying at home because you don’t want to stop reading a good book. In both cases, your decision to stay home has a cause, but free will seems to be more active in one scenario than the other. Gutting says that scientists and philosophers must work together to come up with a more precise account of free will that incorporates these nuances.)
Wrapping Up
The compatibilist view, as articulated by Kurzweil, offers a nuanced understanding of free will that accepts determinism while preserving meaningful human agency. By emphasizing the unpredictable complexity of our decision-making processes, Kurzweil shows how freedom can exist, not as an escape from causation, but as a natural consequence of sophisticated cognitive systems operating within causal chains.
Explore Further
To further explore free will and the specific viewpoints of compatibilism and determinism, read Shortform’s guides to the books that these ideas come from:
- Free Will by Sam Harris
- Determined by Robert Sapolsky
- How to Create a Mind by Ray Kurzweil
