We watched Samuel B. "Sam" Harris an American author, philosopher, and neuroscientist on Youtube then read this article I found on the web dealing with the same subject.
The Paradox of Free Will
One
of my earliest ventures into philosophy, back in high school,
concerned the question of “free will versus determinism.” If the
world unfolds according to fixed laws, then everything that happens
is determined by events that have gone before. Since our brains are
part of this world, their state is also determined by preceding
events. Hence, so are our thoughts and experiences, and, most
significantly, the decisions we make. On the other hand, we
all experience making choices from small things like what to eat, to
bigger issues like career and marriage. We live our lives on
the assumption that we do indeed have free will. The two views seem
incompatible. Hence the paradox. And the question: Which is right?
I
suspect most of you will have pondered this question at some time or
other. Many may have landed on the free will side of the conundrum,
believing that we do make choices of our own volition. Some on the
other side, believing that free will is an illusion. Others, seeing
validity in both sides of the paradox, may remain baffled or
uncertain.
Over
the years I have revisited this paradox many times. But before I
explain how this may resolve the paradox, we should first go a little
deeper into the evidence for both “determinism” and “free
will”.
The Evidence
Determinism,
in its original form, holds that the future is determined by the
present state of affairs. But this does not imply that the future is
fully predictable. For a start, we could never know the present state
of affairs in sufficient detail to calculate the future precisely.
Even if we could, chaos theory shows that even the slightest
uncertainty in the current conditions can, on occasions, lead to
wildly different outcomes. Quantum theory added its own challenge to
strict determinism, showing that events at the atomic level can be
truly random. Today, scientists and philosophers alike accept that
the future is neither predictable nor predetermined.
The
apparent freedom of choice lies in our not knowing what the outcome
will be. Take, for example, the common process of choosing what to
eat in a restaurant. I first eliminate dishes I don’t like, or ones
I ate recently, narrowing down to a few that attract me. I then
decide on one of these according to various other factors—nutritional
value, favorite tastes, what I feel my body needs, etc. It feels like
I am making a free choice, but the decision I come to is
predetermined by current circumstances and past experience. However,
because I do not know the outcome of the decision-making process
until it appears in my mind, I feel that I have made a free choice.
Yet,
the other side of the conundrum persists. The experience of making
choices of our own volition is very real. And we live our lives on
the assumption that we are making decisions of our own free will, and
directing our own future. It is virtually impossible not to.
A Self that Chooses?
Implicit
in the notion of choice is the existence of a “chooser”—an
independent self that is an active agent in the process. This, too,
fits with our experience. There seems to be an “I” that is
perceiving the world, making assessments and decisions, and making
its own choices. This “I” feels it has chosen the dish from the
menu.
The
experience of an individual self is so intrinsic to our lives that we
seldom doubt its veracity. But does it really exist in is own right?
Two lines of research suggest not.
Neuroscientists
find no evidence of an individual self located somewhere in the
brain. Instead they propose that what we call “I” is but a mental
construct derived from bodily experience. We draw a distinction
between “me” and “not me” and create a sense of self for the
“me” part. From a biological point of view, this distinction is
most valuable. Taking care of the needs of this self, is taking care
of our physical needs. We seek whatever promotes our well-being and
avoid those that threaten it.
They
find that what we take to be a sense of an omnipresent “I” is
simply consciousness itself. There is no separate experiencer;
there is simply a quality of being, a sense of presence, an awareness
that is always there whatever our experience. They conclude that what
we experience to be an independent self is a construct in the
mind—very real in its appearance but of no intrinsic substance. It,
like the choices it appears to make, is a consequence of processes in
the brain. It has no free will of its own.
Complementary Perspectives
Nevertheless—and
this is critical for resolving the paradox—in our everyday state of
consciousness, the sense of self is very real. It is who we are.
Although this “I” may be part of the brain’s model of reality,
it is nevertheless intimately involved in the making of decisions,
weighing up the pros and cons, coming to conclusions, choosing what
to do and when to do it. So in the state where the self is real, we
do experience our selves making choices. And those choices are
experienced as being of our own volition. Here, free will is real.
On
the other hand, in what is often called the “liberated” or
“fully-awake” state of consciousness, in which one no longer
identifies with the constructed sense of self, the thought of “I”
is seen as just another experience arising in the mind. And so is the
experience of choosing. It is all witnessed as a seamless whole
unfolding before one.
When
I appreciated the complementary nature of these two states of
consciousness the paradox dissolved for me. Whether or not we
experience free will depends on the state from which we are
experiencing the world. In one state of consciousness there is free
will. In the other, it has no reality.
Free
will and determinism are no longer paradoxical in the sense of being
mutually exclusive. Both are correct, depending upon the
consciousness from which they are considered. The paradox only
appears when we consider both sides from the same state of
consciousness, i.e, the everyday waking state.
I
like to illustrate this with Hamlet pondering the question of “To
be or not to be?” The character in the play is making a choice. And
if we have not seen the play before, we may wonder which way he will
choose. This is the thrill of the play, to be engaged in it, moved by
it, absorbed in its reality with all its twists and turns. However,
we also know that how the play unfolds was determined long ago by
William Shakespeare. So, we have two complementary ways of viewing
the play. At times we may choose to live fully in the drama. Other
times we may step back to admire his creative genius.
So
in life. We can be engaged in the drama, experiencing free will,
making choices that affect our futures. Or we can step back and be a
witness to this amazing play of life unfolding before us. Both are
true within their respective frameworks.
A Will Free of Ego
Although,
in the liberated state of mind, there may be no free will in the
sense in which we normally think of it, there is instead a newfound
freedom far more fulfilling and enriching than the freedom of choice
to which we cling.
The
will of the individual self is focused on survival. Its foundation is
the survival of the organism, fulfilling our bodily needs, avoiding
danger or anything that threatens our well-being. In other words,
keeping us alive and well, fending of the inevitability of death as
long as possible. Added to this are various psychological and social
needs. We want to feel safe and secure, to be feel stimulated and
fulfilled, to be respected and appreciated. We believe that if we can
just get the world to be way want it—and here the world includes
other people—then we will be happy.
In
the liberated state, the ego no longer drives our thinking and
behavior. When it drops away we discover that the ease and safety we
had been seeking are already there; they are qualities of our true
nature. But it is the nature of the ego to plan and worry, to seek
the things it wants, avoid the things it doesn’t want. In so doing
creates it tension and resistance, which veils our true nature,
hiding from us the very peace of mind that we are seeking.
The
life-changing discovery of the liberated mind is that it is already
at peace. Nothing needs to be done, nothing needs to happen, nothing
needs to change in order to experience peace. There may still be much
to do in the world; helping others, resolving injustices, taking care
of our environment, etc.. But we are free from the dictates of the
ego; we are free to respond according to needs of the situation at
hand rather than what the ego wants. Here our will is truly free.
