Rowland 1 Robert Rowland Philosophy 101 McGuinness 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 mans strongest thirsts is for knowledge. As humanity throws itself towards the stars, unravels its 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

Rowland 2 me. However when I began to inquire as to the reasons behind my reasoning, and the reason which 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.
3

Noted 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.

Rowland 3 Some 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 these 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 dont 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 shouldnt have done that., or I wouldnt 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 shouldnt. and I wouldnt 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.
1

If 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.

Rowland 4 Case 1: A 7 year old boy, after finding a loaded gun in his fathers closet, accidentally discharges it killing his playmate. Case 2: A 15 year old boy, who was abused physically and verbally at home, brings his fathers 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 murderers 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 Gages face, behind

Rowland 5 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 surprise 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. E-book.

Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster. New York, NY 2012.

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