A common understanding amongst Philosophers of the mind is that ‘free will’ is an illusion. It took me some time to come around to this idea but after many failed attempts to refute it, I eventually succumbed. The idea that we don’t truly have free will is, on its face, unappealing. However, once accepted, the absence of free will doesn’t need to change much of one’s considerations other than enabling a more compassionate understanding of others. I’ll explain this but first, let me explain the concept of free will and then give the short version of the no free will argument for those who are not convinced.
Think, for a moment, about how we came to be; we didn’t get a say as to which body we were born into or who we got as parents, which country, which ideas we got exposed too etc. It’s no more than chance that you were born who you are. We are then raised and influenced by our unchosen environment. Everything about our creating happens without us having a say but there is a subjective sense of self that feels like it’s making its own choices.
Once having made a decision, upon reflection, the belief that you could have made any choice other than the one you did is enabled by the belief in free will. Not just that once something is done it cannot be undone but that in the moment of choosing there is something within us that stands separate from all the causes that led up to the moment and enables us to choose independently. This is a basis for the idea of free will.
If you reflect on any thought, you might notice it’s impossible to discover where that thought came from. It simply appears in your mind. You can try this for yourself right now; think of anything at all and pay close attention to where that thought originates. Perhaps you thought about something relating to this blog post or something you’ve seen nearby and that makes sense as there is an external catalyst for the thought. This cannot really be considered ‘free’ will as the thought is simply a response to the environment. If you thought of something truly random, when did you first become aware of the thought and where did it come from, what part of you had the thought? Could you not have had that thought?
We have a limited capacity to think, meaning we’re not omniscient. To have true free will we would need to be able to consider all possibilities but we frequently forget things and shut out information. Draw your attention to your feet. At least for a moment, you’ll be aware of sensations in your feet that weren’t there seconds earlier. Is this because when we’re not paying attention to them, our feet cease to exist? Unlikely. There is a limited amount of information that we can process and sometimes the thoughts, memories or decisions that would we want are amongst those left out. What mechanism focuses our awareness? ‘Concentration’? What controls our concentration? If we dig deep enough into the processes of thought it becomes clear that there is no space for free will to operate.
Through the process of mindfulness meditation; one can realise this phenomenon. By paying close attention to where thoughts arise and where they go it becomes apparent that it operates beyond our volition.
The neuroscientist Benjamin Libet discovered that the brain patterns that precede an action occur before the subject becomes consciously aware they’re going to act. This is as if the brain decides what to do and then informs consciousness of this decision. Libet wasn’t trying to debunk free will and actually tried to fit free will into his findings; suggesting that perhaps we don’t have a say over all the thoughts that arrive in our minds but once they’re there we have the option to veto them; a sort of “Free won’t”. However, the same reasoning can be applied to the thoughts behind the free won’t veto. The thoughts that decide to veto another idea come from the same place the original idea came from.
Where does consciousness come into all this? Perhaps that is the purpose of consciousness; to conceive one's volition. The question of how consciousness comes about and why it exists is known as the “The hard problem of consciousness”. In contrast; the easy problems are in understanding the processes which enable humans and other species to perceive sensations and interact with the world - including making rational decisions. We can write computer code that makes basic decisions by emulating the configuration of neuronal cells. I don’t have an answer to the hard problem but all the processes required to sustain our lives, including decision making, can be explained with answers to the easy problems. Consciousness could simply be a by-product of information processing.
It seems that free will and consciousness are separate. One can be conscious and not have free will. As for the other way round - can one have free will without consciousness - it’s unclear; as we don’t understand what a mind with true free will would be like.
People can often find this understanding challenging and that it robs life of its meaning. However, this need not be the case; we are beings with the capacity to experience and there is a great many worthwhile things to experience. Films might be an illustrative analogy here - life is like a movie that you have a front-row seat to - despite not being able to control the main character's thoughts you can still be completely immersed and invested in the story and enjoy the ride. Just as a lack of control over the story of the movie doesn’t take away the enjoyment, the absence of free will doesn’t take away any value in life.
I’m not contributing anything new to Philosophy with my understanding of the absence of free will but I find this concept important to express as it serves as the philosophical foundation of my ethical understanding. Traditionally ethics have been grounded in one or another form of revelation; because God says it’s good, it is good. My morality is not bound by theology so I need naturalistic explanations for ethical imperatives.
It seems, to me, that in a world without free will the propensity for compassion comes much easier. When you witness someone who is suffering you know that you could just as easily have wound up in their position as opposed to your own. Compare this to a world where we do have free will; in that world, someone who is suffering is in part responsible for being in that situation. They are in some way at fault. This makes it easier to be uncompassionate and blame them.
This doesn’t give a free pass to negative behaviours; if someone commits a crime then society is still justified in punishing the person for their crime. The usual reasons still apply; lawful incentives enable civil society and we want to live in a civil and safe society because that’s how we maximise our experience of well being.
Let me propose a hypothetical: presupposing that reincarnation is real and somehow I can accurately tell you that at the moment of your human death you will be reborn into the next chicken egg that hatches. Given that the vast majority of chickens alive on earth are cage or barn raised and live objectively terrible lives, would this information make you nervous about the upcoming respawn lottery? Would you want to use your capacity as a human today to improve the lives of farmed chickens? The desire to create a fair and equal society where everyone gets equal opportunities in life now has a clear incentive. The people that society leaves behind or the animals that humans torture could have been us.
This is the foundation of my ethical understanding. We are all sentient beings with the capacity for pleasure and suffering. We ultimately didn’t have a say over how we got here and don’t control what will happen to us. In the future, we could find ourselves suffering and desire the help of those around us. It’s important to live in harmony and help other people because we are the other people or, at least, we could have been.
Harry Chrisp
10th December 2021
Comments