What does science currently support: free will or predeterminism? Do humans have free will and a role in their own future, or is everything already decided? Could it be a little of both?
What does science currently support: free will or predeterminism?
Contents
Free will has already been scientifically discovered and established. The problem was that the discovery’s meaning was initially misunderstood.
The “discoverer” & scientist is neuroscientist Benjamin Libet. Libet’s research story is very interesting. In fact, Libet’s specific research appears to shade the concept of free will. His findings suggest that the subconscious makes decisions and begins action before consciousness is aware of the driving sensory input or the subconscious thinking responding to it. Some in the science world, including neuroscientist Sam Harris THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL, reacted by concluding that humans don’t have free will. In defense of free will, Benjamin Libet later suggested that humans also have something called FREE WON’T.
The above conflict is the “free will” misunderstanding.
However, FREE WON’T (a singular decision) is free will. That’s the solution. Free will is thus scientifically established.
The Long-Running Free Will Debate
All sides have made compelling observations.
The free will perspective of others
- (THE LENGTH AND SCOPE OF DEBATE) “Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?) […] have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- (NO FREE WILL) In this 1994 article, Strawson defends what he calls the “Basic Argument.” According to it, we have no ultimate moral responsibility for any of our actions, so praise or blame, reward, and punishment for our actions cannot be ultimately just. Galen Strawson: Basic Argument
- (NO FREE WILL) Author Sam Harris against free will: “And there is no way I can influence my desires—for what tools of influence would I use? Other desires? To say that I would have done otherwise had I wanted to is simply to say that I would have lived in a different universe had I been in a different universe.” Harris, Sam. Free Will (p. 20). Free Press. Kindle Edition.
- (FREE WILL EXISTS BUT IS NOT PROVEN) Philosophers (e.g., Reid 1788 [1969], Swinburne 2013) sometimes claim that our belief in the reality of free will is epistemically basic or reasonable without requiring independent evidential support. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- (FREE WILL EXISTS BUT IS NOT PROVEN) Philosophers have long claimed that we have introspective evidence of freedom in our experience of action, or perhaps of consciously attended or deliberated action. Augustine and Scotus are two examples among many. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- (FREE WILL PROVABLY EXISTS) This document.
Concisely framing the free will question
From Eliezer J. Sternberg’s My Brain Made Me Do It: The Rise of Neuroscience and the Threat to Moral Responsibility (quoting):
- If neurobiological determinism is true, everything we do is completely caused by prior biological events, so we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions.
- If indeterminism is true, our actions are random, and we cannot be held morally responsible for them.
- Either neurobiological determinism or indeterminism is true.
- Therefore, we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions.
In his book, Eliezer J. Sternberg is troubled with contemporary neurology research with its free will implications. Sternberg nevertheless still believes in free will. However, one can sense his doubt in his negative framing of the ‘free will’ issue above. Nevertheless, his doubt is misplaced. Sternberg’s free-will framing is merely incomplete.
Neurobiological determinism is indeed either true or false (NOTE: this is TRUTH DETERMINISM—truth can be established). In graphical form, Sternberg and others stated:
Image detailed discussion:
- If neurobiological determinism is false (indeterminism), “our actions are random, and we cannot be held morally responsible for them“;
- AGREED. Everyone concurs that human decision-making is not random and cannot be random. Neurobiological indeterminism does not exist.
- If neurobiological determinism is true (according to most, the only other possible option other than false) then “everything we do is completely caused by prior biological events, so we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions“;
- NO, Sternberg’s (and others’) view is incomplete.
Human neurobiological determinism is not one thing; it is two: (1) decisions in the service of the self (subjective truth) AND (2) decisions in the pursuit of truth (absolute truth). They are distinct and separate processes. Across the ages, philosophers and scientists have put (1) and (2) together or seemingly ignored (2) altogether. As a result, the solution to the free will question was beyond their philosophical reach.
Including TRUTH INDETERMINISM
The bigger picture is:
Moreover, the pursuit of truth is a process without end. The definition of reason requires it. Here also, if the pursuit of truth accepted eventual decision-making, or, deciding what is absolute truth, then (1) and (2) would again collapse into a single concept. Free will would again disappear.
Consequently, humans require a tool to move between the two viable neurological deterministic systems (FREE WON’T—one free will decision):
Benjamin Libet and FREE WON’T
Through some revolutionary work in the 1980s, Benjamin Libet changed how the world looks at free will. In his experiment, subjects were asked to note the time (second hand) on a clock when they decided to flex their wrist. Researchers also monitored the subject’s brain activity using an EEG. The experiment apparently revealed that the brain begins building electrical potential to flex the wrist 350ms before consciousness is aware of the emerging decision. The action, the actual flex of the wrist, happens 200ms later. Therefore, apparently, the individual had 200ms to reject the decision to flex the wrist.
Follow this link to a short, excellent video on Libet’s work and experiment: The Libet Experiment: Is Free Will Just an Illusion?
FREE WON’T is a person’s one free will option — After that, a person engages in reason through TRUTH INDETERMINISM
This power to reject a decision made by the deterministic brain was famously labeled free won’t by Libet. Free won’t is thus how a person moves between the part of the brain deciding in the service of the self, to the other part, the brain deciding in the pursuit of truth. Note that decision-making in the pursuit of truth is not free as it relates to the SELF.
Understanding and models are developed in reason. Models are predictive and will later govern the SELF and its decision-making. Understanding is the pursuit of truth (no free will). Therefore, FREE WON’T your one free will choice. That is, free will was there all along, and Benjamin Libet both characterized and demonstrated it.