I try my hardest to avoid these discussions on free will. They tend to be very popular and get quite heated in the atheist “community”, but for the most part, I feel they really go nowhere. Most of the time, I think the people having the debate are just talking past each other, they are using different definitions that are mutually incompatible, making it absurdly unlikely that they’ll ever reach a satisfactory conclusion. However, someone suggested I watch a Sam Harris talk on the subject, which I did. I like Sam, I think Sam’s books are always a good read, but I just don’t agree with Sam’s take here.
Immediately at issue, I don’t care for how he defines the self. He seems, and someone can correct me if I’m wrong, to only consider the conscious, waking mind to be the “self”. He argues near the beginning of the talk that we can measure the subconscious decision a second or so before the conscious mind is aware of it, that proves that there is no free will.
No, it just proves that free will doesn’t operate the way he asserts that it does. I don’t pretend that all of human being exists solely in the conscious mind. Everything we are, our bodies, our physical brains and all of our brain states constitute what we are. Now I don’t pretend to be an expert on brain chemistry or physiology or anything else, it just makes sense to me that to single out one particular piece of the puzzle and pretend that it constitutes the whole puzzle isn’t a particularly rational way of looking at things. Why isn’t it more rational to think that a question begins in the conscious mind, it is transferred to the unconscious mind for processing and then the answer is brought back up to the conscious level once a decision has been reached? All Sam’s studies have done is demonstrate that the decision isn’t made in the conscious mind, it doesn’t show that a decision isn’t made at all.
In fact, it makes a lot more sense to understand it that way. You literally make millions upon millions of decisions every single day that you are totally unaware of. It must be so or you’d go insane with all of the things that would have to rise to the conscious level. There’s a system in your body called kinesthetics, which allows the brain to be aware of the precise position of every part of the body at all times. If you close your eyes and tell your body to touch the tip of your nose with your finger, most of us can do it over and over and over again without having to think for a second “where is my finger and do I have to move it a quarter-inch in a certain direction to get it in the right position?” If you’ve lived where you live for any amount of time, you can easily move around in the dark, assuming no one has put something into an unexpected place, because your mind is constantly making unconscious decisions about where you should move. Clearly, the conscious mind works in concert with the unconscious mind to make decisions.
That seems like a long way to go to make a simple point, but I also think many people mis-define what free will is to begin with. As far as I’m concerned, free will can only be defined as the ability to make an unrestrained choice between two available options. Clearly, I can’t decide to flap my arms and fly, it’s not a possible option. I suppose I could decide I wished it were possible, but wishing and doing are two different things. It seems obvious to me, given that definition, that free will clearly exists, we observe it every day. Even the hard-determinists who claim that because we are simply a product of the electro-chemical interactions in our brains and therefore everything we do is pre-determined, wouldn’t have a problem deciding between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. They are not restricted from choosing one or the other. They may have a preference for one or the other, but in order to have the choice pre-determined, they would have to be physically incapable of walking up to the counter and ordering the other choice. Clearly that’s not the case. Are they saying that the decision to order vanilla, just this time, was pre-programmed in the brain? What about next time? This really starts looking like the Will of God claim that many theists make. You can only do what is within the Will of God! So God willed me to order vanilla ice cream this time instead of my regular chocolate? God’s Will looks strangely like my own human free will and determinism doesn’t seem to take in the clear and present evidence. I get so tired of armchair philosophers who want to noodle their navel and argue that free will only takes place when it has no influence whatsoever from the physical brain. Um… dumbshit, without the physical brain, you aren’t real!
To be honest, in looking over the various arguments for and against free will and how it applies to morality, I can think of nothing more than “these people are idiots”. Clearly we have free will, unless you bog it down with all kinds of ridiculous and unnecessary qualifications, and whether people like it or not, morality is an artificial concept that just doesn’t exist in nature. We are not inherent moral beings and that has nothing to do with our free will, it has to do with nature. We simply choose, as biologically social animals, to adopt rules which we call moral in order to better live together in a peaceful coexistence. That’s all there is to it, at least from where I’m sitting.
Anyhow, here’s what Sam Harris has to say on the subject. Enjoy.