Chapter 1: Introduction to Free Will

The concept of free will often leads to binary thinking, which can be misleading.

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

A prominent voice against the notion of free will is Sam Harris. He revisits this theme frequently on his podcast and has authored a concise book laying out his arguments against it. Harris, alongside other determinists, argues that free will is illusory. In his 2012 publication titled "Free Will," he asserts, “Free will is actually more than an illusion (or less), in that it cannot be made conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them.”

To support his argument, Harris cites extreme instances of abnormal behaviors, such as mass shootings and violent crimes, which he discusses extensively in both his book and podcast. He highlights cases where offenders were later discovered to have brain tumors or brain scans revealing psychopathic traits.

However, these examples represent what psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist refers to as “limit cases,” where the essence of the phenomenon is at its minimum without being completely absent. McGilchrist describes this in his work, "The Matter With Things," suggesting that such examples should not be seen as typical.

By emphasizing these extreme cases, critics like Harris utilize scenarios where human behavior is significantly constrained. There is consensus among medical professionals and philosophers that individuals with severe neurological conditions possess minimal free will compared to the general population. But what about the rest of us? Are our choices as restricted as those of someone with a psychopathic disorder? Are we as helpless as an individual with a brain tumor compelled to commit violent acts, even if our own actions are usually much less severe?

For Harris, the answer is a definitive YES! He argues, “Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions, and you would need to have complete control over those factors.” He further posits, “But there is a paradox here that vitiates the very notion of freedom — for what would influence the influences? More influences? None of these adventitious mental states is the real you. You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm.”

This statement encapsulates Harris’ viewpoint, echoed by biologist Robert M. Sapolsky, who also addresses the connection between criminal behavior and free will in his 2017 book "Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst." Despite his extensive analysis, even Sapolsky admits that he struggles to envision living life without the concept of free will, concluding, “Perhaps we’ll have to settle for making sure our homuncular myths are benign, and save the heavy lifting of truly thinking rationally for where it matters — when we judge others harshly.”

Returning to Harris, he insists that to genuinely possess free will, one must “be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions” and “have complete control over those factors.” This describes an idealized version of free will, assuming a state of total freedom from all biological and environmental influences — a condition that no one can realistically achieve. In doing so, Harris constructs a strawman argument that is easily challenged.

This raises the question: why is it essential for an individual to comprehend all the influences affecting their thoughts and actions to have any degree of influence over them? In everyday life, we manage various devices—from computers to cars—without needing deep knowledge of their mechanics. Why should the brain be any different?

Understanding the operational mechanisms behind actions is often unnecessary for purposeful use. For example, before the discovery of gravity, people instinctively understood the consequences of dropping a stone from a height and used this knowledge for practical purposes, such as defense or hunting. The intricate physics explaining why this action leads to a particular outcome was irrelevant to their intentions.

Next, Harris introduces a so-called “paradox” that he claims undermines the very idea of freedom, asserting that every influence is preceded by another influence.

Here, Harris makes two significant errors. First, he misinterprets paradoxes as dilemmas. A paradox consists of two seemingly contradictory statements that are both true, and they do not necessarily negate anything apart from our intuitive perceptions of reality. His assumption that we either possess complete free will or none at all is misguided.

Secondly, he suggests that a chain of influences negates the possibility of exercising any form of free will in the present. It’s evident that none of us chose the universe to exist post-Big Bang, nor did we select our parents or educational paths. These uncontrollable circumstances limit our choices later in life, but they do not erase our ability to reflect and act upon the conscious choices we encounter.

Harris himself acknowledges this in his book: “And the fact that our choices depend on prior causes does not mean that they don’t matter. If I had not decided to write this book, it wouldn’t have written itself. My choice to write it was unquestionably the primary cause of its coming into being.”

Here, Harris correctly attributes the decision to write a book on free will to himself as a biological being constrained by various factors. The fact that his existence is contingent upon a series of prior events does not diminish his capacity to choose to engage his mind and body for writing. The natural laws afforded him the option to act otherwise.

Despite their assertions, neither Harris nor Sapolsky, nor other critics of free will, fully grasp the origins of the limited choices we experience. The truth is, no one has conclusive answers. The notion of free will may not stem from a singular origin; it is likely that it is a product of numerous interactions that make it irreducible. The mystery surrounding free will often eludes definitive scientific or theological conclusions. While some may find this ambiguity unsettling, it is an inescapable reality.

The first video, "The Great Free Will Debate," features discussions among notable figures such as Bill Nye and Michio Kaku, providing diverse perspectives on the complexities of free will.

The second video, "Arguments For and Against Free Will," dives into the various arguments surrounding the topic, offering insights and counterpoints from different viewpoints.