In my last article I stated that we are bound by past, present and future influences which come from external physical, metaphysical, mental and psychological factors. Having shown already with common sense logic how our bodies are under the illusion of free will. I now want to present some evidence as well as some reason behind my argument.
The human brain is estimated by scientists to process 50 bits of information consciously a second. This is in comparison to the sub-conscious that processes around 11,000,000 bits of information a second. This amazing difference is mostly because the senses in the human body contribute so much data. Even this very basic fact should at least beg the question; am I really in control? Further evidence by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences found a rather shocking discovery disproving free will. By measuring activity in the frontopolar cortex they were able to correctly predict the decisions participants took when given the choice to push a button with their left or right hand. This is remarkable but the most fascinating part was that the scientists could predict the outcome up to 7 seconds before the participant was conscious about their own decision. Moreover, the famous psychologist Benjamin Libet was able in his experiment to display that decisions had been made by the unconscious mind over half a second before the participants had realised. These massive and controversial results stand as a challenge to Rene Descartes’s phrase “I think, therefore I am” as well as pushing ahead the notion that we have no free will.
Now I would like to include the philosophical topic of ‘cause and effect’ to show that we have no free will. As first described by Aristotle; we are all the effects of a cause. For example, if I knock over the glass next to my computer the effect will be water across my laptop. This could cause me problems with writing my degree assignments and effect my chance of getting the next one in on time or a good grade - hopefully you see where I’m coming from. This process ties in directly to the influences that cause our brain to make decisions. Causes and effects are the only contributing factors to our influences as they create an influence. A Buddhist way of looking at this is called ‘Karma’ which essentially means that an action by an individual will influence that individual in the future. Though this may not be directly true the idea that your actions create future influences is true.
One of the biggest criticisms I’ve found of determinism and the argument against free will is a fixation people seem to have with the human soul. I know there are many religious, spiritual and delusional people who believe in such things but in reality there is no room for a soul in the human body and especially in the brain. The brain is made of neurons, blood, nerves, tissue and cells. It is all connected and controls your body leaving no space - and with no need - for a soul. Another counter-argument to the ‘soul’ is by using mental health. Amnesia is a great example. If you were to forget everything about you would you still be you? Or, if your partner forgot everything they’d ever done would they still be your partner? What amnesia shows us like many mental illnesses is that we can essentially ‘lose ourselves’ and gain new/different personalities due to influences outside our control. Sometimes you will hear people comment on ill friends/relatives with “they’re just not themselves”. It is this that shows us we are very much beyond free will as our conscious personalities can’t overpower the human brain. If an individual was really in control we could theoretically ‘switch off’. However this can’t be done because it is not in our brains interest to do so. Therefore, we must be determined and not free.
Free Will is something that as a species we crave because it makes us feel in control of our own destiny. To think that we don’t have any control presents many problems and especially moral issues. Think about this: Is a serial killer guilty if all their past experiences and influences led them to commit the crime? Well we and the courts would say they are guilty. Whereas if you swapped into their position with all their memories, experiences, pressures and influences you would've acted in the same way. An interesting side example to this is lung cancer. If a person was to smoke their whole life and ended up with lung cancer we would be able to point to smoking as the cause. A doctor would never say, “You have lung cancer because you just do”. Instead they’d ask you if you'd smoked previously or had any family history with cancer. Why is it then that we approach crime differently? Surely if a rapist was abused as a child the guiltiest people are the ones that abused them? The real guilt may in fact lie decades in the past. I personally think that the causes of crime are as important if not more important than the person committing the crime and that it is immoral to think otherwise. Most people will counteract this with ‘but people know crime is wrong’ and yes I totally agree but it leads me onto “the brain veto”.
The reason nearly all of us presume we have free will is because when faced with a choice we more often than not deliberate (or as I call it a ‘brain veto’). However; this conscious deliberation is in fact actually a conflict of strong influences battling for 1st place. Sometimes this can take a long time. For example when buying a house or a car you have many external factors surrounding the decision. In contrast if faced with the option to jump out of a 5 floor window you’d say no. Survival kicks everything out the way. 'So how can this be applied to crime?'. Well the reason people commit crime is because their desires to commit are much stronger than the threat of punishment or capture. Here is a simple fictional example of this from the film 'Taken'. Liam Neeson. A good guy security guard wanting to get back with his ex-wife suddenly turns into revenge crazed psychopath gong against everyone to get back his daughter. Yes a very fictional scenario but one that you can hopefully understand (I know that Liam was in fact fighting evil but still against the law).
If at this point you still believe we have free will. I’d like to ask the following:
If we have free will. Why does marketing and advertising exist? Surely advertising is rendered useless if we have free will. However it works the opposite way. Advertising is essentially brain washing you subconsciously to buy into a particular brand when presented with the right choice - I need some cheap socks I’ll go to Primark etc. The same concept can be applied to celebrities and fashion. Surely Vogue and Hello Magazine would be out of business if we had free will? Yes you can bring up the fact people want to be fashionable but this is a useless argument because the reason people want to be fashionable is because of the external factors influencing them to be fashionable e.g. peer pressure, looking attractive for opposite sex (or same sex).
Living under the belief of free will is comforting and it is true that determinism is quite depressing. But, determinism can be positive. When you accept that everything influences your future you can approach life with a more open mind. Scientists actually suggest you should let your subconscious make your decisions as it’s normally your favourable one (often commonly referred to as ‘instinct’). Accepting that everything is beyond your control should make life easier. Philosophers that write about determinism say that we should act optimistic and in turn will create our own luck and opportunity.
To conclude; free will is scientifically non-existent in the human body and there is much evidence stating that your decisions are made subconsciously. Moreover, morality and determinism shouldn’t be an issue especially when debating crime. Crime is an effect and more should be done to tackle its root causes. Knowing you know nothing should make you more open, questioning and laid back about the world. To quote Socrates, “True wisdom comes from knowing you know nothing.”
T
The human brain is estimated by scientists to process 50 bits of information consciously a second. This is in comparison to the sub-conscious that processes around 11,000,000 bits of information a second. This amazing difference is mostly because the senses in the human body contribute so much data. Even this very basic fact should at least beg the question; am I really in control? Further evidence by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences found a rather shocking discovery disproving free will. By measuring activity in the frontopolar cortex they were able to correctly predict the decisions participants took when given the choice to push a button with their left or right hand. This is remarkable but the most fascinating part was that the scientists could predict the outcome up to 7 seconds before the participant was conscious about their own decision. Moreover, the famous psychologist Benjamin Libet was able in his experiment to display that decisions had been made by the unconscious mind over half a second before the participants had realised. These massive and controversial results stand as a challenge to Rene Descartes’s phrase “I think, therefore I am” as well as pushing ahead the notion that we have no free will.
Now I would like to include the philosophical topic of ‘cause and effect’ to show that we have no free will. As first described by Aristotle; we are all the effects of a cause. For example, if I knock over the glass next to my computer the effect will be water across my laptop. This could cause me problems with writing my degree assignments and effect my chance of getting the next one in on time or a good grade - hopefully you see where I’m coming from. This process ties in directly to the influences that cause our brain to make decisions. Causes and effects are the only contributing factors to our influences as they create an influence. A Buddhist way of looking at this is called ‘Karma’ which essentially means that an action by an individual will influence that individual in the future. Though this may not be directly true the idea that your actions create future influences is true.
One of the biggest criticisms I’ve found of determinism and the argument against free will is a fixation people seem to have with the human soul. I know there are many religious, spiritual and delusional people who believe in such things but in reality there is no room for a soul in the human body and especially in the brain. The brain is made of neurons, blood, nerves, tissue and cells. It is all connected and controls your body leaving no space - and with no need - for a soul. Another counter-argument to the ‘soul’ is by using mental health. Amnesia is a great example. If you were to forget everything about you would you still be you? Or, if your partner forgot everything they’d ever done would they still be your partner? What amnesia shows us like many mental illnesses is that we can essentially ‘lose ourselves’ and gain new/different personalities due to influences outside our control. Sometimes you will hear people comment on ill friends/relatives with “they’re just not themselves”. It is this that shows us we are very much beyond free will as our conscious personalities can’t overpower the human brain. If an individual was really in control we could theoretically ‘switch off’. However this can’t be done because it is not in our brains interest to do so. Therefore, we must be determined and not free.
Free Will is something that as a species we crave because it makes us feel in control of our own destiny. To think that we don’t have any control presents many problems and especially moral issues. Think about this: Is a serial killer guilty if all their past experiences and influences led them to commit the crime? Well we and the courts would say they are guilty. Whereas if you swapped into their position with all their memories, experiences, pressures and influences you would've acted in the same way. An interesting side example to this is lung cancer. If a person was to smoke their whole life and ended up with lung cancer we would be able to point to smoking as the cause. A doctor would never say, “You have lung cancer because you just do”. Instead they’d ask you if you'd smoked previously or had any family history with cancer. Why is it then that we approach crime differently? Surely if a rapist was abused as a child the guiltiest people are the ones that abused them? The real guilt may in fact lie decades in the past. I personally think that the causes of crime are as important if not more important than the person committing the crime and that it is immoral to think otherwise. Most people will counteract this with ‘but people know crime is wrong’ and yes I totally agree but it leads me onto “the brain veto”.
The reason nearly all of us presume we have free will is because when faced with a choice we more often than not deliberate (or as I call it a ‘brain veto’). However; this conscious deliberation is in fact actually a conflict of strong influences battling for 1st place. Sometimes this can take a long time. For example when buying a house or a car you have many external factors surrounding the decision. In contrast if faced with the option to jump out of a 5 floor window you’d say no. Survival kicks everything out the way. 'So how can this be applied to crime?'. Well the reason people commit crime is because their desires to commit are much stronger than the threat of punishment or capture. Here is a simple fictional example of this from the film 'Taken'. Liam Neeson. A good guy security guard wanting to get back with his ex-wife suddenly turns into revenge crazed psychopath gong against everyone to get back his daughter. Yes a very fictional scenario but one that you can hopefully understand (I know that Liam was in fact fighting evil but still against the law).
If at this point you still believe we have free will. I’d like to ask the following:
If we have free will. Why does marketing and advertising exist? Surely advertising is rendered useless if we have free will. However it works the opposite way. Advertising is essentially brain washing you subconsciously to buy into a particular brand when presented with the right choice - I need some cheap socks I’ll go to Primark etc. The same concept can be applied to celebrities and fashion. Surely Vogue and Hello Magazine would be out of business if we had free will? Yes you can bring up the fact people want to be fashionable but this is a useless argument because the reason people want to be fashionable is because of the external factors influencing them to be fashionable e.g. peer pressure, looking attractive for opposite sex (or same sex).
Living under the belief of free will is comforting and it is true that determinism is quite depressing. But, determinism can be positive. When you accept that everything influences your future you can approach life with a more open mind. Scientists actually suggest you should let your subconscious make your decisions as it’s normally your favourable one (often commonly referred to as ‘instinct’). Accepting that everything is beyond your control should make life easier. Philosophers that write about determinism say that we should act optimistic and in turn will create our own luck and opportunity.
To conclude; free will is scientifically non-existent in the human body and there is much evidence stating that your decisions are made subconsciously. Moreover, morality and determinism shouldn’t be an issue especially when debating crime. Crime is an effect and more should be done to tackle its root causes. Knowing you know nothing should make you more open, questioning and laid back about the world. To quote Socrates, “True wisdom comes from knowing you know nothing.”
T