Download - Philosophy Term Paper: Free Will
Rowland 1Robert RowlandPhilosophy 101McGuinness
Free Will
The philosophical problem of free will has remained in the mind of man since our
sentience first emerged. Philosophers as early as Aristotle noted that one of man’s strongest
thirsts is for knowledge. As humanity throws itself towards the stars, unravels it’s own genetic
material, and collides subatomic particles, our knowledge of the universe deepens. However
when these feats of intellect are truly reflected on, one cannot help but realize we are toddlers
just beginning to wet our toes in the lapping waves of a vast ocean of information.
As man first saw the Hubble Deep Field images, he was humbled. A new depth was
added to what already seemed boundless. Our brains neural network had to recalibrate in order
to account for this new vision of space. All the while, our insatiable thirst for knowledge is
merely stoked, not quenched. This begins to reveal something remarkable about a commonly
overlooked and little understood aspect of the human mind, the “will”. The astrophysicist who
finds himself inundated with a flood of new questions after laying eyes on images from the
surrounding cosmos, can little account for his cognitive recalibration after viewing the Hubble
Deep Field images than I can account for my decision to not attend my Philosophy class in the
nude. Surely both of us could offer reasons why we choose to do or act in a particular way.
However through the inquiry of modern neuroscience we are being forced to consider the
possibility that our most coveted command over our own “free will”, is entirely illusory.
To even entertain the idea that we are not in command of our thoughts and choices,
forces many to consider a proposition which is deeply incompatible with how most of us feel.
For instance, my decision to come to class clothed appropriately seems an obvious choice to
me. However when I began to inquire as to the reasons behind my reasoning, and the reason
Rowland 2which precede even those, the origins of choice become murky.
The philosophical debate over “free will” persists not so much because it is an interesting
idea, but because as a notion “free will” emerges from a felt experience we all have. Two main
divisions of thought to examine on the subject of “free will” are those of “determinists” and
“Compatibilists”. The latter group believes a person is free in choice as long as there are no
outer or inner compulsions preventing action of these desires. If I want coffee instead of tea,
and it is not due to my being deathly allergic to tea, or a gun to my head forcing the choice, then
this should be demonstrative of my freedom of will. The determinists argue on the contrary.
Every aspect of our behavior is determined by preceding causes of which we have no control.
While the deterministic view makes me feel less of a savvy fashionista for my choice in clothing
this morning, it is the only philosophical view on “free will” which remains congruent with what
we know about the neurophysiology of the brain.
3Noted physiologist Benjamin Libet famously demonstrated some deterministic aspects
of cognition using an EEG. By asking participants in his research to report which letter they saw
on a random letter “clock” the moment they chose to push one button or another, Libet was able
to find two distinct brain regions that contained information about which button a subject would
push a full 7 to 10 seconds before they consciously made the decision. These finding have
been extended by a more recent experiment in which the activity of 256 neurons was sufficient
to predict with an 80 percent accuracy, a persons motor actions 700 milliseconds before they
become aware of it themselves. This means, in the moments before you are aware of what you
will do next, and space in which you feel as though you have the choice to do anything, your
brain has already made the decision. As some philosophers and neuroscientist point out, this is
hardly reconcilable with the belief that we author our own actions.
1Some compatibilists such as Daniel Dennett argues that even if our thoughts are the
product of unconscious causes, they are still our own. He makes a point to show that while
Rowland 3these processes may be unconscious, they are still a part of us. While in a broad sense this is
true, we must realize that as conscious creatures we feel identical to a stream of information in
our mind. Dennett asserts that we are more than this, but in doing so, trades the psychological
fact of being a conscious agent having a subjective experience, for a conceptual understanding
of ourselves. It similar to the statement “we are made of the cosmos”. While it is true the
subatomic particles that make us were born in the cosmos, we don’t feel like the cosmos. We
also do not let this knowledge of the extraterrestrial origins of the atoms in our bodies drive our
morals.
The question must be entertained, of whether or not our current paradigm needs
adjusting meriting these recent insights into “free will”. This area of inquiry is delicate as it
pertains to our deepest convictions. Most of us look down on criminal behavior with utterances
such as, “He shouldn’t have done that.”, or “I wouldn’t have done that.” The fact is, where you
to trade brain, body, and life events piece for piece with any psychopathic killer. You would act
as a psychopathic killer no matter how free of aversive pathologies you feel you are now. These
make the former statements of “He shouldn’t.” and “I wouldn’t” as empty as declaring, “Had I
been born in Canada, I would be Canadian.” It seems luck has a larger role in our thoughts and
actions than previously thought. While I would love to take credit for my ability to live my life to
this point without murdering anyone for fun, I was merely lucky in my genetics, environment,
and life experiences.
1If we examine four theoretical criminal cases, something very telling is revealed about
how our sense of morals and “free will” are tied to our understanding of the brain.
Case 1: A 7 year old boy, after finding a loaded gun in his father’s closet, accidentally
discharges it killing his playmate.
Case 2: A 15 year old boy, who was abused physically and verbally at home, brings his
Rowland 4father’s gun to school and shoots another classmate who has bullied him all year.
Case 3: A 25 year old man buys a gun and murders a stranger “just for fun.”
Case 4: A 25 year old man buys a gun and murders a stranger “just for fun.” During his
subsequent psychological evaluation. Doctors learn a tumor ravaging his medial
prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for complex cognitive functions,
decision making, and moderating social behaviour.
In each instance one person's life is ended by actions which originated in another
person's brain. However our sense of moral outrage varies given the specifics of each case. In
Case 1, most of us recognize that a 7 year old does not possess the necessary mental functions
to recognize the true consequences of his actions. In Case 2, the history of abuse, as well as
age, seem to partially mitigate the responsibility of the killer. Case 3 would be labeled a
psychopath without hesitation by the majority of the population, however the exact same
scenario, played out in Case 4, is only viewed differently when the murderer’s medical condition
is revealed. This shows that despite the popular notion of “free will”, we all inherently recognize
that our ability to make decisions is largely dependent on the neurophysiology of our brains.
It seems futile to try and remain attached to our prevailing ideas about “free will” given
what we now understand about the neurophysiology of the brain and the processes by which
thoughts arise and give way to actions. A famous case from the annals of psychology, which
demonstrates how very divided our concept of “free will” is from the actual mechanics of
cognition, is that of Phineas Gage. 2While working as foreman of a work gang blasting rock for
a railroad, a mishap during an explosion sent a tamping iron upward into Gage’s face, behind
one of his eyes, and out the top of his skull. While the body of facts surrounding the rest of his
life and that actual accident remain somewhat small, they make an interesting statement
towards the correlation of the physical state of the brain and our thoughts and actions. To the
Rowland 5surprise of physicians, Gages made a full recovery. His personality however, changed
dramatically following the accident. A once highly sociable person and competent worker, Gage
became disagreeable, profane, and inconsistent, ultimately resulting in him being terminated
from his job as foreman.
Should the future bring about a complete understanding of the human brain and what
actually causes our thoughts, it easy to imagine violence becoming as easy as treating a
nutritional deficiency. It would shift justice from a punishment and vengeance mentality, to an
approach focused more on treatment. While this is currently not the case, we cannot ignore
constantly surmounting evidence stripping away the illusion of “free will”. This should certainly
not lead us to stay in bed all day doing nothing since we have no control over our lives. Not
only would you be unable to do this (Due to the endless casualties which would drive us to
some action), but our actions are still important. Whether or not we are the conscious authors
of our thoughts and actions, they still carry weight. No matter the reason for my writing this
paper, it would not have written itself If I did not. We must not be afraid to abandon paradigms
that are comforting, like “free will”. Instead we must press forward with more and more
questions as man has, and will continue to do. It seems, as many philosophers have pointed
out, that this is the nature of man. Albeit this nature is the greatest gift granted to man, what
freedom is this?
Rowland 6
Works Cited:
1. Harris, Sam. Free Will. Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster. New York, NY 2012. E-book.
2. Gazzinga, Michael. Psychological Science 3rd Edition. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, New York, NY 2010. Print.
3. some thing i read one time and internet