Research in neuroscience has revealed a startling fact that revolutionizes much of what we humans have previously taken for granted about our interactions with the world outside our heads: Our consciousness is really not in charge of our behavior.
Laboratory experiments show that before we become aware of making a decision, our brains have already laid the groundwork for it. In a recent book, Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior, physicist Leonard Mlodinow reviews a wide range of psychological experiments that demonstrate the dominant role the unconscious plays in our behavior. This recognition challenges fundamental assumptions about free will and the associated religious teachings about sin and redemption, as well as our judicial concepts of responsibility and punishment. If our brains are making our decisions for us subconsciously, how can we be responsible for our actions? How can our legal system punish criminals or God punish sinners who aren't in full control of their decision-making processes?
Is free will an illusion? In his recent book titled Free Will, neuroscientist Sam Harris pulls no punches. He tells us in no uncertain terms: "Free will is an illusion." We don't exist as immaterial conscious controllers, but are instead entirely physical beings whose decisions and behaviors are the fully caused products of the brain and body.
Philosophers identify several different positions on the question of free will. Incompatibilists hold that free will is incompatible with determinism, the idea that our behavior is fully determined by antecedent causes such as fate, acts of God, or laws of nature. These split into two camps. Libertarians hold that we have free will since humans transcend cause and effect in ways that make us ultimately responsible. Determinists hold that we don't have free will because either determinism is true or indeterminism (randomness) doesn't give us control or responsibility. Both these groups are opposed by compatibilists, who argue that free will is compatible with determinism, or indeterminism for that matter.
What exactly is determinism? Two centuries ago, French physicist Pierre Laplace pointed out that, according to Newtonian mechanics, the motion of every particle in the universe can in principle be predicted from the knowledge of its position, momentum, and the forces acting on it. This is the Newtonian world machine. Since, as far as physics is concerned, we are all just particles, then this would seem to make free will an illusion indeed.
However, we now can say with considerable confidence that the universe is not a Newtonian world machine. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics showed that, deep down, nature is fundamentally indeterministic. But does quantum indeterminacy play an important role in the brain, and thus open a way for free will? Probably not, and here's why.
The moving parts of the brain are heavy by microscopic standards and move around at relatively high speeds because the brain is hot. Furthermore, the distances involved are large by these same microscopic standards. It is easy to demonstrate quantitatively that quantum effects in the brain are not significant. So, even though libertarians are correct that determinism is false at the microphysical, quantum level, the brain is for all practical purposes a deterministic Newtonian machine, so we don't have free will as they define it.
Although the brain is likely deterministic when it comes to the control of behavior, there's plenty of "pseudo-randomness" (as opposed to "pure" quantum randomness) in the thermal motions of our brains and in the environment that feeds us data. It's possible that this can provide sufficient uncertainty to give us the "feeling" of free will. Or, perhaps uncertainty plays no direct role and it is simply our lack of awareness about what causes our decisions that we interpret as being exempt from the causal laws of nature. Either way, this means that ultimately we do not have libertarian free will, even though we might be under the impression we do.
But here's some consolation. Even though at the quantum level there is no rigid determinism, the compatibilists are correct in viewing the operations of the brain as causal processes. They also make another good point when they argue that even if our thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious processes, they are still our thoughts and actions. In other words, "we" are not just our conscious minds, but rather the sum of both conscious and unconscious processes. While others can influence us, no one has access to all the data that went into the calculation except our unique selves. Another brain operating according to the same decision algorithms as ours would not necessarily come up with the same final decision since the lifetime experiences leading up to that point would be different.
So, although we don't have libertarian free will, if a decision is not controlled by forces outside ourselves, natural or supernatural, but by forces internal to our bodies, then that decision is ours. If you and I are not just some immaterial consciousness (or soul) but rather our physical brains and bodies, then it is still "we" who make our decisions. And after all, that's what the brain evolved to do, whatever role consciousness might play. And, therefore, it is "we" who are responsible for those decisions.
And that's what it all boils down to. Who cares whether we call an action "free will" or not? Calling it "free will" (as compatibilists do) is too confusing, since it suggests some form of dualism, supernatural or not; so let's call it "autonomy." The issue is: what is the moral and legal responsibility of an autonomous person, and how should society deal with wrongdoing?
Obviously, we cannot have a functioning society if we do not protect ourselves from people who are dangerous to others because of whatever it is inside their brains and nervous systems that makes them dangerous. Still, given that we don't have libertarian free will that sets us above causal laws, it would seem that our largely retributive moral and justice systems need to be re-evaluated, and maybe even drastically revamped.
So the unconscious mind does it all??? How do we measure the unconscious mind how do we measure the conscious mind??? That sounds like concepts of humans like god to me??? If you
cannot measure things with the rational side of the brain then it has no purpose?? It would appear to
me that we as humans are endowed with both subject where anything goes and an analytical part of
the brain where we use scientific principles to reach a decision on what is and what aint. Who is
to say what part of the brain is more important or what side is right.
A disembodied soul floating in outer space may have free will. A definition of autonomy: Independent, free from external control and constraint.
We don't make decisions in a vacuum, nor are we truly independent of our past and current situation, but more the notion of causal mutual interdependence; each moment conditioned by the previous moment and countless previous moments that make up what we call our self. The universe constructs the framework around which we believe we come to decision.
Another example is when "scientists" CHOOSE to ignore any evidence that may be contrary to their popularily held beliefs, ok well thats two examples in one sentence but i dun gut mee an edumakation.
Another example of free will is the last time I attended academia is I was told they didnt have high expectations of me and would prolly be better if i didnt attend at all, to save my self estem and money. That was entirely her choice to say that. Fortunately i was only there to study academia anways. I didnt actually expect much of them, but again "i chose" not to say anything.
LOL. It wasn't Sam Harris who decided to write the book, it was being written by his chemicals. He had no control over it at all. Even this article isn't written by Stenger, its written by his chemicals.
Why did my brain determine that it should write this comment to you Xoleuess? I will be waiting for your brain and chemicals to respond back.
Would you like to learn?
Free will.
(Not to mention, scientists don't know everything about the brain or the universe.)
Who are you when you are unconscious?
Now let's play some Skynard, man!
'My unconscious made me do it' is no excuse.
Since we can observe causation everywhere but at the very limits of our power to observe, the assumption that causation breaks down is unfounded.
1. Adam and Eve . Genesis 2:9, 16
2. Israel. Deutronmy 30:15
3. Humanity John 3:15, 1 John 5:9-12
Shalom
F and F
We were born into sin, meaning our example of our father was not the best. Seeing where he was to where he is, I made the choice to SKIP the pain of going through that struggle. My brother decided to test it out..
Sounds great to me.
I knew it was a waste of time to vote.
The number of unfounded assumptions necessary to justify a belief in free will is mind boggling.