Free will
I write this post first because it is the most important concept in my personal philosophical framework. It is by no means a solved question, but there is a fair amount of scientific and philosophical inquiry that converges on the same conclusion. Whether or not an individual has agency over their own actions is perhaps the most important question in structuring a coherent and consistent view of the world. Implications abound in economic policy, prison reform, climate, art, innovation, anything that involves humans.
The question as to whether free will exists is not a new topic, philosophy has been trying to deal with it since the ancient Greeks. It has since had a resurgence in modern philosophy as the availability of hard scientific evidence has grown with the advent of new technologies that give better insight into the inner workings of the brain.
First, without getting into the science, it is useful to think practically about the question. Think about a decision you made. Why did you make that decision? Did you have an experience that informed it? Did you encounter information that informed it? Is it similar to a decision your parents made at one point in their life? If you had different life experiences do you think you would have made the same decision? If the experiences that you’ve had shape your decision, than it logically follows that the decision is not a result of conscious choice but a sum of experiences. If you find that your parents behaved similarly in a similar situation, the role of genetics begs investigation.
Imagine a hyper powerful computer. In that computer, there is a virtual reality simulation that models every atom of you as an individual in a room. It also models every atom in that room, and their quantum fluctuations perfectly. If it could perfectly model, it could predict the interaction between each atom, and thus every amino acid and protein, thus every cell. If you could predict the state of every cell, than you could predict the brain state and track the firing of neurons to outputs in muscle movement. If you could predict what a person is going to do perfectly, there is no room for free will. Designing a system that could accurately (not perfectly) predict human action without this level of resolution is not out of the realm of possibility in the coming decades.
A common objection to this thought experiment is the unpredictability of quantum states of atoms. Fixation on this is a capitulation to a different argument that also supports the hypothesis that free will doesn’t exist. If the actions of the person are determined by the random fluctuation of atoms, that is not freedom either. Determinism vs. non-determinism is almost orthogonal to inquiry into free will.
A common experiment that is discussed in conversations on free will is the Libet experiment (1980). Libet measured brain activity of participants in the study, and asked them to note the position of a dot traveling in a circle, and to note when they decided to stop. In each case, the volunteers had a spike in brain activity when they actually did the action, followed by a decision 0.5 seconds later. Actions precede the decision to do the action by a measurable amount. This experiment has been replicated many times in multiple contexts. The feeling of making a decision happens after the action has already been taken.
Another relevant phenomenon is called Transient Global Amnesia. This makes the brain function like a tape recorder with 90 seconds of time, which then resets. The patient still has their memories, but is unable to integrate short term memory. A great example is linked below.
In this video, the patient is laying in a hospital bed, and has the same conversation over and over again. If the person having the conversation with her said the same thing, the patient would say the same thing. It’s uncanny to watch, but suggests that a person is like a computer, fed a certain input, they give a certain output. (This condition is temporary, don’t worry.)
Consciousness lags behind reality and is not necessary for human existence. Say you were blackout drunk, and got punched. Did it hurt? When you’re blackout drunk, or on meds that affect memory, you still exist in the world. Your body makes decisions, you send regrettable texts, buy pizza, but the conception of “you” is absent. That feeling of making the decision isn’t necessary for the actual decision making. If a ball is thrown at your face, you duck, but the feeling of deciding to duck never comes. Every decision is like that, but we add the feeling of decision after the fact.
The influence of genetics and epigenetics on personality traits provides further direct evidence against free will. Identical twins separated at birth have similar IQ, cigarette smoking habits, taste in movies, examples of this can be easily found searching youtube. Time and time again, identical twins have similarities that are uncanny, and don’t fit in a world where “decisions” drive tastes. From these studies it is estimated that 30-60% of personality is heritable. The roles of genetics in preferences like being a morning or night person is well documented. Genome wide association studies are gaining precise prediction power in predicting personality outcomes. If someone can predict what decisions you’re prone to make with just genetic information, that is not free will. There is certainly room for variation within the confines of genetics, but the bounds seem set by the genes.
The idea that free will is an illusion troubled me for some time. Many neuroscientists and physicists I’ve spoken with have the same conception of free will. This idea has been formative in my interpretation of everything. No one is responsible for what they believe, or their actions. There are no bad people, only flawed systems and perverse incentives.
One more common objection is a subjective one. If free will is an illusion, does that mean love can be reduced a chemical reaction and brain state? Yes, it can. (Sorry baby, I feel it too.)