Free Will: Fact or Wishful Thinking?

Probing the dynamics of personal choice and self control.


Most people believe they have 'free will'. However, is this belief based in empirical fact or just wishful thinking? The problem in answering this is that our belief in 'free will' influences how we weigh the evidence. Thus, it's important to examine our belief in 'free will' before considering whether it exists. How does having a belief in 'free will' benefit us?

Like Santa Claus, believing in 'free will' serves a purpose, whether or not it factually exists. Santa makes kids feel happy. Likewise, 'free will' makes us feel happy with the notion that we can control our lives. The belief in such self control also boosts our faith in the viability of a responsible and chaos-free society.

A responsible society means that its members, by and large, conform to their culture's ethical standards. Such standards are strongly linked to our sense of fairness, one of humanity's strongest emotions. Few things upset us more than being denied our fair shake. Interestingly, resent research (see sidebar) shows that other species share this instinct with us, which attests to its primal origin. It is reasonable to suppose that our ethical standards emerged, at least in part, out of this instinctive sense of fair play.

This sense of fairness probably evolved naturally as a way to motivate social animals to interact in ways that contribute to social bonding. Thus, for us, there is a strong social motive behind espousing our group's ethical standards. As social animals, we need to feel connected to our social group/family. Embracing our group's beliefs makes us feel part of the group. Our need to win social approval further motivates us to exercise our 'free will' and do the right thing as defined by our group.

Ethical standards, along with our notions of 'free will' and responsibility, form three interlocking pillars of society. However, without ethical standards, the other two aren't needed; who needs 'free will' if all behavior is of equal moral value? This suggests that ethical standards drive our need to believe in the possibility of the other two: 'free will' and responsibility.

Presumably, our instinctive sense of fairness stimulates the mind to conceive of ethical standards. Once we deem these true, i.e., whether the Ten Commandments or just our own personal moral concoctions, we have a strong emotional incentive to next invent and then put faith in notions of 'free will'. The idea of 'free will' is essential for believing that the 'self' can control 'moral' or any other behavior. It also gives us a very effective rationale for judging other people's behavior.

In summary, our concept of and belief in 'free will' could simply be a consequence of espousing ethical standards. They in themselves arise from an innate sense of fairness. Because we believe we can only guarantee fairness through the power of 'free will', our faith in it is unassailable. Nevertheless. . .
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case against 'free will'

We've seen what could bring about a belief in 'free will', but we have yet to address its existence. Alas, it is difficult to prove that something so intangible as 'free will' exists, and impossible to prove that it doesn't. While we can cast doubt on its existence, as we can for UFOs and Atlantis, in the end, it's in the eye of the believer.

For example: Your life is motivated by core instinct, but you believe 'free will' is guiding you. The odd result of this is that 'instinct' becomes essentially synonymous with 'free will'. In other words, when there is no conscious awareness of whence your underlying motives arise, your instinct-driven notion of 'self' concludes: "I am in control, I choose to do it". In short, belief prevents you from perceiving anything other than itself, which makes all beliefs a reality in their own right -- anything outside the belief becomes simply incomprehensible. The blinding effect of this lies in, of course, how fervently you hold a belief.

What happens when the 'reality of instinct' doesn't mesh with the 'reality of free will'? Generally, a believer of 'free will' will find excuses for any exceptions to the reign of 'free will'. Is this not a rather naive desire to have it both ways? If 'free will' were real, like pregnancy, it would either be there or it wouldn't: period! An honest look at history, whether personal or world, is a record of the lack of 'free will' in the face of core desire, e.g., diets, drugs, adultery, dishonesty, bigotry, shopping, gambling, war . . . the list is endless. Yet, we blithely excuse ourselves while eagerly pointing to the bad choices of others. How different our lives and the world would be if we actually had 'free will'. Certainly, hard or even soft, evidence for 'free will' is as scarce as that for UFOs.

Finally, what is the cost of doubting the existence of 'free will'? On a personal level, it throws you back to being just another one of earth's animals. That is a blow to any elite idea we have of ourselves, e.g., 'created in God's image'. Next, our judicial system is based on the principle of 'free choice'. How can we condemn the guilty if they have no 'free will' to choose right from wrong? If criminals have no 'free will' then their actions reflect more about human nature in general than on them as individuals. Here, society overall, along with the instincts that drive it, bears the responsibility. . . yikes, there is no one in charge! There is no one to blame! That is scary!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case for 'pseudo-free will'

Does instinctive need determine everything? One answer might be fortunately no . . . and regrettably yes. The causative force of need implies a kind of 'pseudo-free will'. In this more plausible version of 'free will', free choice occurs when the wiser need prevails and motivates us. If we deem wiser need and 'free will' as rather synonymous, we have more to consider if we wish to retain any of our treasured 'free will'.

The nature of this 'pseudo-free will' choice lies in how deeply you consider what you really want/need in the long run. First, you must pause long enough to contemplate and review what's really important in a given situation. If that view has deep emotional backing, it will direct what you do.

We have numerous sets of opposing instinctive forces which work in concert to move us through life. These contrasting needs often fall into two categories: short and long term. Seeing the consequences of each is the key. If you can see the long term consequences of various desires and weigh them against what is in your long-term best interests, the wiser need invariably prevails.

How can you pause long enough to reflect on the consequences of action? Only when your impulsive short-term needs don't overwhelm those which really bring long-term benefit. When you really know 'in your gut' the consequences of an action, you can make wiser choices. The wisdom lies in the depth of experience - past remembrances. Furthermore, as the years pass, short-term needs lose some of their punch, allowing us to consider consequences before acting.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

It is likely that the need for, and belief in, 'free will' arises out of an instinctive need for fairness among others. This suggests that the popular version of 'free will' is mostly wishful thinking. The real force here is biologically-based need! We can not freely choose our core instincts, like the need for fairness, which foreshadow our conscious desires. At best, we choose between the various conflicting forces we feel, e.g., selfish vs. altruistic, fight vs. flight, binge vs. purge, love vs. hate etc., with the strongest need commanding our attention and controlling our action. Clearly, instinct-based need, in concert with circumstances and experience, determines the course of our lives. 'Free will', or rather, 'wise will' is not part of our genome, nor can we learn or teach it. We simply earn it as we stumble through life, fall down, pause, ponder and remember what really makes us happy.

I remember thinking about this.

kinda crazy, and kinda sucks

It makes me interested in "losing my ego" through psychedelic drugs...(if you don't know what I mean, wiki: ego disintegration).

I would not condone the use of illegal or legal drugs for the use of effective self-examination... I do not believe it is necessary, having pursued the goal without... of course, it is all a personal choice... or is it?

I believe one must walk in their own path driven by their own 'purpose'... according to where they have been and where they want to be...