Meaning of a Dream

Is free will is an illusion?

On the surface, this seems like an odd question to ask. Everybody feels like they have their own free will - whether it's a significant decision like choosing their life partner, or a minor choice like whether to keep reading this article or click away.

But when you break down the neurological process of conscious decision making, there is a distinct lack of evidence for free will. What's more, scientific and philosophical theories about cause and effect frequently rule out any need for a conscious decision maker at all.

Is conscious will limited to humans and perhaps a few other primates? Do dogs, pigs or dolphins possess the ability to choose? How about mice, stick insects or jellyfish? If you have a pet, take a close look at him now. Is he exercising free will? Does your dog willfully choose to sit on your lap or is he acting on instinctive and conditioned needs for bonding?

Some argue that only humans have free will, because we possess the ability to consciously weigh up the alternatives and therefore become responsible for our actions. If so, is it a moment-to-moment influence or do we only call upon it during critical decision-making times? When do you feel it kick in? Is it when you get an urge to take action? What about inaction?

The idea that free will is an illusion is difficult for most people to accept because it implies that we no longer need to take responsibility for our actions. Murderers and rapists are suddenly off the hook. What kind of a world is this?

Philosophers have long sought to pull apart the issue, and many have found it isn't nearly as clear cut as it seems...

The problem of free will goes all the way to back the ancient Greeks, who held many conflicting views about the nature of free will:

Democritus taught that all events occur by necessity, and the Greek atomists believed in a mechanical theory of the universe, that all future events could (theoretically) be predicted with no room for spontaneous decision-making. Socrates focused on the moral aspect: we all will our greatest good - and those who commit evil acts do it out of ignorance as to how they can do good. Plato held a similar view: that the wicked man is a slave to his ignorance. Aristotle held the view that our future is not set in stone, and that we can choose to act against the greatest good. Vice is a voluntary action. For him, at least some free will was needed to justify the laws of crime and punishment.For millennia, there was no unified theory - and by the 18th century, the philosopher David Hume referred to free will as the most contentious issue of metaphysics.

At the heart of the issue lies determinism, the original mechanical theory first taught by Democritus. Many modern scientists and philosophers believe the universe is deterministic: that, due to predictable laws of cause and effect, all future events are already logically determined by previous events.

In other words, the starting conditions of our universe (ie, the Big Bang) have already determined the entire future of the universe and, as such, every outcome in your life is inevitable. There is no room for your free will to change things.

Indeed, determinism states that (theoretically, at least) given accurate information about the start of the universe, mathematics could be used to predict everything in the future. In the land of science fiction, Isaac Asimov depicted a variation of determinism called Psychohistory in his Foundation universe.

Meanwhile, quantum mechanics defines probabilities to predict the behavior of particles, rather than determining the future and past with certainty. But because the human brain is composed of particles, and their behavior is governed by the laws of nature, Stephen Hawking still maintains that free will is "just an illusion".

Determinism is a powerful theory that explains the mechanics of our universe. If true, argue its proponents, then free will cannot logically exist. Despite this, there are two other groups of philosophers who still believe in free will:

The polar opposite of determinism is metaphysical libertarianism. They argue that we do have choices in life, and the fact that we are able to take more than one possible course of action constitutes free will. This, in turn, denies determinism.

Further sub-branches of libertarianism, known as non-physical theories, insist that we have a metaphysical mind or soul which overrides causality. This makes way for the core beliefs of most of the world's religions, such as the Christian God giving man free will, or the widespread belief that we have eternal souls.

Philosophers like David Hume claim to have found a middle ground: a way to make determinism and free will compatible. This is known as compatibilism.

Compatibilists believe humans, animals and even computers make complex decisions in a determined world, creating a good enough representation of free will.

Computers with free will? Just how does this new definition of free will work?

The compatibilist theory says that some deterministic processes are chaotic and have extremely complex outcomes that can't be predicted, even in principle. Though this doesn't mean that a person can choose differently in a given situation, it does suggest that there are, hypothetically, alternative choices.

A compatibilist can say "I may die on June 4th, 2044; I may not". He is simply saying he doesn't know what the determined future will be.

Critics of compatibilism say they are meddling with the definition of free will. There is a difference between having the freedom to act and having the conscious volition that can change a pre-determined course of events. Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery".

For compatibilists, at least, this offers a basis for moral responsibility and the law.

With conflicting theoretical models, perhaps practical science can help out.

Neuroscience gives us the opportunity to study the biological processes that surround free will. Performing a voluntary action involves a lot of brain processes. To flex your wrist, activity begins in the prefrontal region, sending connections to the premotor cortex, which programs the desired action in the primary motor cortex. Instructions are sent out to move the wrist muscles and the flex occurs.

We can identify which neurons are responsible for making this action happen from start to finish, and there is no room in this process for conscious free will to be enacted. This was illustrated further by Benjamin Libet in 1985:

The conclusion of Libet's experiment is controversial. And yet, it makes perfect sense. The idea of a conscious decision arising before any kind of brain activity would be nothing short of magic. It would imply consciousness comes out of nowhere to influence physical events in the brain. (Indeed, if the free will decision (A) had arisen first, this would be evidence for a metaphysical mind or soul. But it didn't; it came much later.)

However, there is a twist. Libet did not conclusively say that free will is an illusion. In the course of the experiment, he noticed something peculiar occurring.

Some subjects said they aborted the conscious decision to flex their wrist at the last moment. In these cases, the motor cortex activity fired but then flattened out again at -200 milliseconds. This implies the existence of a conscious veto: the ability to consciously override impulsive or automatic actions if we choose.

Libet's conclusion was that consciousness can't create the wrist flex action, but it can act to prevent it. It's not free will - but rather free won't.

This extraordinary experiment provides evidence for the condemning of murderers since they failed to consciously veto their impulses. However, there remain some criticisms of Libet's experiment, and there is doubt that we can generalize the results of a trivial decision making experiment to criminal behavior.

Ironically, most people impulsively accept that free will exists. Yet we now have a growing number of theories and experiments which state free will is an illusion.

If you're bored of your work, you might start browsing job vacancies. If you're sick of being a smoker, you might vow to kick the habit. These feel like expressions of your own desires, based on your personality, your likes and dislikes, and your individual choices based on your own specific life circumstances at this time.

But what if all of these decisions are based on deterministic needs which you would have attempted to fulfil regardless of your conscious justifications? Is it possible that all your choices are pre-programmed responses - and any sense that you are controlling the course of your life is an illusion created by consciousness?

So what do we make of this revelation, if we even "choose" to accept it?

One study has found that volunteers cheated more on tests when they believed they weren't responsible for their own decisions. Meanwhile, another study found that subjects showed more aggression when their belief in free will was suspended. However, such studies are merely controlled projections of human behavior and may not even hold true in real life.

A more optimistic outlook is that, if free will is technically an illusion, it is still a very powerful one. That feeling does not disappear overnight. People continue to live "as if" free will exists; for others the feeling slowly disappears altogether and they get on quite happily with their lives knowing they don't hold on to this falsehood.