Free will is an illusion, but a useful illusion
Humans have evolved to have many false ideas
The notion of human beings having the autonomy to make conscious decisions unimpeded is deeply ingrained in human thought, permeating cultural narratives like the American dream. However, despite widespread belief in its existence, humans lack such free will. The notion of free will is one of many illusions stemming from our inflated sense of self-importance. While humans may think themselves special in the universe, they are subject to the same scientific laws of not just other animals but all of the universe.
Renowned scientists, such as cosmologist Stephen Hawking, physicist Brian Greene, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, physicist and philosopher of science Sabine Hossenfelder, and computer science polymath Stephen Wolfram have argued persuasively against the notion of human free will. The great philosopher Baruch Spinoza wrote, “Men are deceived because they think themselves free. The sole reason for thinking so is that they are conscious of their own actions, and ignorant of the causes by which those actions are determined."
Greene, of Columbia University, emphasizes that, as with everything else, human beings are composed of particles governed by physical laws and do not escape the deterministic nature of the universe. He says that at no point do physics’ laws governing these particles stop to ask a human being, “What do we do next?”
While humans may acknowledge that their bodies are governed by the laws of physics and science, they often perceive their brains or minds as uniquely special and independent entities. However, human brains are also composed of particles subject to the same scientific laws. Studies have demonstrated that conscious human thoughts are preceded by unconscious neurological processes. These findings highlight the illusion of free will, as they indicate that decision-making is influenced by unconscious activity before individuals are consciously aware of their choices.
Wolfram, a MacArthur Fellow, says that human behavior is deterministic, but that the complexity of often unpredicted human behavior gives the impression of free will. He points out that the inability to predict or fully explain phenomena or behavior does not prove the existence of free will. It only proves the lack of our understanding and ability to predict.
Even those who still cling to the idea of free will must concede that it operates within strict confines dictated by science, unconscious biases, cultural influences, genetics, and other factors. Even if autonomy existed, it would be severely limited by these constraints.
The viewpoints of Greene and Wolfram are encapsulated in the first two brief videos below. A more extensive discussion in the third video by Hossenfelder, of the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, provides additional insights into the topic.
.
Humans have all sorts of illusions formed by evolution
Humans have a myriad of illusions ingrained by evolution. These illusions, including the fallacy of free will, serve as distortions and self-deceptions crucial for human functioning and survival. Their deep-seated nature within our brains renders them difficult to escape and psychologically acknowledge.
Human intuitive perceptions of time, space, geography, and categories are constructs of the human brain, lacking objective existence. Nonetheless, the need for organization and categorization of information has rendered these constructs indispensable for human function. While scientists acknowledge the arbitrary nature of the concepts of time they use, they rely on them as functional tools. Despite the absence of free will, the illusion has proven important in navigating daily life.
In other words, the notions are false but practically useful. Hossenfelder opines that if the illusion of free will serves as a helpful functional tool in one’s life, aiding in navigation and decision-making, then it is acceptable to maintain it.
.
Concerns about the knowledge of lack of free will
Many vehemently reject the notion of lacking free will and struggle to accept it.
Free will is an integral component of the belief systems of many organized religions. For instance, Christianity teaches that individuals are judged and assigned to heaven or hell based on the choices they make.
Opponents argue that acknowledging the absence of free will could lead to societal chaos, undermining ethics and morals. However, similar concerns were expressed regarding disbelief in God, yet studies have shown that atheists often exhibit higher ethical and moral behavior than the religiously devout.
.
Accepting the absence of free will offers advantages
Rejecting the notion of free will discourages harsh judgment of individuals for circumstances beyond their control, fostering a more empathetic and understanding society.
Understanding mental illness as biological disorders rather than moral failings or caused by unfounded external influences helps destigmatize these conditions and encourages appropriate treatment.
Acknowledging the absence of free will promotes a shift towards rehabilitation over retribution in the criminal justice system, viewing lawbreakers as individuals in need of support rather than solely morally deficient.
Appreciating the impact of genetics, family background, economics, and societal factors on behavior allows for targeted interventions to address underlying issues. This aligns with contemporary social justice efforts to help the socially marginalized and underprivileged.
.
How important is this issue?
The illusory realm that humans inhabit is the mental landscape we have evolved to navigate. While our conceptions of time, space, and free will are illusions, they form the foundation of the mental world essential for our survival and functioning as a species. The questions of the objective existence and nature of time hold importance in the realm of knowledge but do not impact our daily functioning. Similarly, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss argues that the debate about the existence of human free will is a mostly question for philosophers and is not of significant practical importance.
.
Like the question of consciousness and whether it fits into a monist, dualist or pan-psychic theoretical structure, I believe the question of free-will, in Dennett's sense that "it could have been otherwise" is too speculative to be much more that a parlor game. Science needs to explain why we experience pain as unpleasant before we can start to answer either question and currently we don't even have a theoretical framework to form a testable hypothesis. Even though I believe that we cannot directly think of anything, I still believe conscious content may be underdetermined and subject to human origin.
"The existential question of whether time truly exists holds importance in the realm of knowledge, but does not impact our daily functioning." Interesting that this sentence couldn't avoid referencing the passing of time.