Due to the large scope of this essay and the fact that this is a blog, not a graduate school term paper, I have broken it down into four parts. For this post, I only include the first:
Part I: Conceptual foundation of “Free will” – a result of two false metaphysical theories: 1) Essentialism and 2) Mind-body dualism
In Part II, I discuss how psychology and linguistic confusion cause us to mistakenly believe that we have “free will”.
Next (you guessed it) is Part III: How neuroscience debunks the existence of any common interpretation of “free will.” Finally, Part IV is a discussion on how the illusory concept of “Free will” is an impediment to psychological health, learning, interpersonal relationships and social justice (That was a mouthful!).
I implore the reader to hold off on comments or objections until I have had the opportunity to offer the meaty Part III where I will explain why free will is an illusion because of what neuroscience tells us.
I. Conceptual foundation of “Free will” – a result of two false metaphysical theories: 1) Essentialism and 2) Mind-body dualism
The concept of “free will” partly originated from the theory of essentialism, the idea that there is an essence to a substance, some “thing” or “things” that make(s) an entity itself. More precisely, it is the view that there is some limited set of properties or characteristics that belong to any entity, and said properties and characteristics give an entity its “essence.” A version of this idea was famously advanced by Plato then Aristotle (both c. 400-300 BC.) They understood the soul as the essence of a person; however, Plato’s version was spiritual and Aristotle, as a tremendously accomplished scientist, especially for his time, fittingly believed the soul was a life-force that does not persist after death. Of course, Plato’s conception of the soul is “essentially” (pun intended) how it is understood by religionists today, as some distinct “thing” over and above the brain that ultimately resides in a spiritual realm. It isn’t necessary of course to believe in a soul to believe in free will, but a mind (or self) that possesses free will would have to be metaphysically similar to a soul in that it, too, would have an essence – even if it’s not immaterial – that exerts control over the body, specifically the brain.
Free will also emerged as a direct result of the ancient, very pre-scientific theory later to be referred to as mind-body dualism: the widely-purported idea that the mind (or soul, by some interpretations) is a distinct substance from the body. This theory posits that the mind (or soul) resides in a non-physical – or sometimes understood as spiritual – realm in contrast to the brain (or body) which resides in the material, or physical realm. This notion that there is one substance, mind (or soul) separable from another substance, body, was championed by some of the greatest and most influential western European dualistic philosophers, from Plato and Aristotle (c. 400-300 BC)* to Descartes in the early 1600s. ** Along the very same lines, to believe in free will necessitates a belief in a separation of mind from body, i.e., brain. The expression, “Mind over matter” is the perfect illustration of this (false) way of thinking. The implication of mind-body dualism for free will is that a subject can somehow separate himself from his beliefs, feelings, and impulses and direct his behavior by his own volition.
The idea that the mind and body are two distinct substances in some kind of causal relationship which gives rise to the phenomenon of “free will” is scientifically wrong (as any neuroscientist will tell you). This notion was hammered into western culture for centuries, long before neuroscience was understood at all – much less how well it’s understood today. The most obvious problem with this theory is that there is no conceivable way that a purportedly non-physical substance (i.e., a mind) can causally interact with states of a physical substance (a brain). Yet, despite this glaring problem and despite everything neuroscience tells us about how the brain actually works (thanks to ever-increasing advancements in brain imaging technology), free will is still a culturally persistent concept.
The ambitious goal of this essay to give an explanation of why it doesn’t make sense to say we have free will, what we have in lieu of any common interpretation of free will, how language and subjective experience misguide us into buying “free will” as a real phenomenon, and how belief in free will is an impediment to psychological health, learning, interpersonal relationships and social justice.
* Plato believed the soul exerts control over, or has a “willful” relation to, the body, whereas Aristotle believed the soul shapes the body, or gives it its “form”. Plato and Aristotle had very different conceptions of the soul (and certainly of “form”). Descartes believed the mind exerts control over, or has a “willful” relation to, the body.
** Subscription to this theory is not limited to western thinkers. I name only western philosophers because the U.S. is most heavily influenced by western (European) thought, not to imply that subscription to this theory is limited to western thinkers – it certainly is not, as there are many spiritual traditions and religions, characteristic of East Asia, for example, based on dualism.
To be continued…
Jeff Randall
Sarah Hippolitus
Brian Gregory
Luis Reinoso
Matthieu Guibert
I’m curious if there is a purely materialistic “version” of free will that is suggested by any philosophers or neuroscientists today…
You may be already planning to go into that in parts 2, 3, and/or 4, so I won’t expect an answer right away, but I do hope you delve into that concept a bit (i.e. if some people posit such an idea, how do they explain it’s plausibility and mechanism).
Hey Jeff, I know youuuu. I think I may know what you are asking so here is my shot at an answer: My claim is the concept of free will is incompatible with a materialist world view. If everything is matter, which it is, there is nothing over and beyond matter, which is what the concept of free will implies, as it’s commonly understood (this is tricky b/c there isn’t “consensus” among philosophers on one explanation).
As I discuss, it evolved from this idea that there is a separate “essential” substance from the material body/brain. So I don’t know what a picture of free will would look like that is materialistic. There are certainly neuroscientists who say we make choices and decisions but this is not tantamount to free will. So, no, I’m 90% sure a neuroscientist is not going to invoke free will to describe what is going on when we make a decision (unless he’s a quack). So, we can make choices and decisions (in a sense) without subscribing to the belief in free will. I will explain the process in Part 3 – basically the decision process involves the Pre-Frontal Cortex, limbic system, and amygdala, and there ain’t anything “free” about it. Does that help at all? Thank you for your question. Please let me know if I didn’t answer it.
I just want to add “decision” and “choice” are VERY dicey words…. arguably there is a connotation of some element of “freedom”, but I use these words minus that connotation, and I think that’s okay. Neuroscientists do it.
I choose to not believe in free will…
Er, re: “there is nothing over and above matter” Welllll yes and no. Consciousness is real. It is not matter. It is a phenomenon and it’s really there. However, it is caused by matter and wouldn’t exist without it. Free will implies some “thing” doing the “willing,” and not only is it doing the “willing” but ultimately it has the freedom to will this way or that. So this thing doing the willing has to be separate… AHHH, you want to know if it’s a part of the brain that can will freely as opposed to having to say the mind wills freely. Well, no because there is no such phenomenon as freedom in our brains. It is a deterministic process. Also, note even if there were brain firings that happen by chance, and are not determined, that is not freedom – in fact it’s the opposite (b/c I had no “say” over it – it just happened by pure chance.) We have veto ability via our Pre-frontal cortex, but it is constrained by the nature of our limbic system and amygdala…. this process is not the same thing as a self willing a behavioral outcome….and I will try my darndest to show this in part 3.
Perhaps I need a section 1.5 to say more about free will, not just the history of the concept…
I should have written about my thoughts on TAM
BTW, if you have not already listened to them, check out the 3 (I think it’s 3, could be 4) episodes from Reasonable Doubts on free will and determinism.
I learned more about free will and determinism from those few hours than I think many people (well most people who are not into neuroscience and/or philosophy at least) learn in a lifetime…
Everything they said made sense, and agreed with my previous understanding, but I learned much more about the details than I had ever considered before…
“I should have written about my thoughts on TAM.
”
Hey, that’s what I’m doing next!
I think, perhaps, that your idea for a “1.5″ is a good one…I think that most people do not understand the concept of free will in the neurological sense.
YES. I’ve been meaning to listen to them! Will do! Thx.
I’m very much looking forward to Parts II, III & IV, especially since, after our brief discussions at CFI’s “Religion Under Examination” I think I have a little better idea than I had previously of what is meant by the term “free will,” at least in the world of philosophy. I certainly do not believe that there is an essence, spirit, soul, or mind separate from the physical brain. The brain is meat like the rest of us and its neurons operate in accordance with deterministic chemical and physical processes.
Nonetheless, I can understand that the term “free will” is very confusing to the probably 99+ percent of us who don’t operate with a purely philosophical world view. In the real world, if I am offered a choice between two alternatives (A and B, let’s say) I have a probability between zero and one of making choice A and one minus that probability of making choice B (given that I can’t opt to defer). To me (again, speaking in real world terminology, not that of philosophy) that represents free will. (I won’t even get into the idea that each of the two alternatives may lead to some sort of alternative future reality.) Certainly, it argues for a moral responsibility on the part of the individual making the choice.
I think I see, now, that the term “free will” in the context of philosophy is not synonymous with “freedom of choice.” That being said, though, it leads me to question the relevance of the free will discussion to life. It seems to be a matter purely of academic interest–not that that’s bad. I find academic arguments fascinating and ultimately potentially enlightening, but I wonder if you can shed light on whether and why the existence of “free will” should matter in our day-to-day existences. The reason I ask is that I’ve heard it addressed on several podcasts and read a little about it in books, blogs, etc, but until now haven’t even grasped its philosophic essence (and thank you for that edification). But, fundamentally, why do you think we should care? Is the argument over “free will” really a major factor nowadays in determining moral responsibility for an individual’s actions, or is our culpability a given (as it seems to be considering most of the world’s systems of justice)?
Of course, if you already plan to address these questions in future sections, feel free to tell me to wait. Thanks.
Pingback: God and the Problem of Suffering | Thinking Critically
Brian- Thanks for your comment. Yes, I do plan to address why it matters that we ditch the concept of “Free will.” Yes, belief in free will often makes us blame each other for things that weren’t really our fault. Our justice system makes a distinction between “mad” and “bad” that isn’t really there (I’ll explain that in one of my forthcoming posts). I do think we can hold on to moral responsibility even in the absence of free will because we still have control – it just isn’t limitless as “free will” implies – there are very real limits. Yes, I will explain this in the post, too. Sorry!
Aside from the ramifications it has for moral evaluation, this false belief in free will gets in the way of people getting treatment for cognitive and emotional disorders. People think they have control or should have control – that they should be able to “will” themselves into a certain cognitive state, and it’s just sad b/c that is not how the brain works. They often don’t seek necessary treatment and beat themselves up for not controlling themselves, which only makes things harder for them.
“Free will” allows us to so quickly ascribe negative judgments to others, and once you appreciate how powerful the chemicals are in your brain, you develop more tolerance for people. I have found this to be helpful in my relationships.
Please forgive the very quick response. I hope to get back to writing on this topic soon! I have one more post I have to do before I can get back to it.
Thanks for taking time to respond, Sarah. I’m glad to hear you’ll be addressing all those concepts. I particularly like your point about how appreciation for the physical nature of thought can (dare I say, should?) lead to freedom from bigotry in our dealings with one another. I look forward to reading more.
Thanks, Brian
Firstly, I see in this article, and in the article “Crime Vaccine”, a dangerous trend. You’re building a case that a belief in free will is dangerous to society. That’s oppression. If you said this about a religion, especially an underdog religion like Islam, you’d be torn to pieces. The real danger is that campaigns like yours encourage people to make arbitrary changes to society — a degree of change that critical thinkers would rightly be furious about if it came from the other side.
Free will is the only belief endorsed by American law. And it’s this belief that prevents American government from interfering in any other belief.
Secondly, your argument can easily be turned against itself:
Neuroscience shows no evidence of non-physical activity in the brain. True, but meaningless. Every experimental result is physical. That proves nothing.
The big flaw in arguments against free will is the unchallenged assumption that it would require something outside of physics. This gives a predetermined result of finding that it doesn’t exist before anything else is considered.
Matter is not deterministic on a small scale. The only reason a computer behaves deterministically is because it’s designed to suppress randomness. A brain is not designed. It has randomness simply because matter has randomness. Every process in which small-scale randomness is amplified to a classical level could be said to have free will, even if it isn’t even alive.
We are free to be ourselves because there’s no supernatural essence controlling us. So the more you argue for a physical cause of brain function, the more you demonstrate that a brain is indeed free from spooky influence.