By Dr. Steve Wyre
Faculty Member, Philosophy, American Public University
A growing number of philosophers and neuroscientists have joined a movement called neuroexistentialism. There is no need now to go too far down the explanatory road, but suffice to say they are joining forces to figure out the best ways to live with the knowledge that free will, as it is normally depicted, is a myth. The 2018 book edited by Gregg Caruso and Owen Flanagan, “Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals & Purpose in the Age of Neuroscience” is a good source of more information.
Regardless of your ability to accept this notion, my goal here is to promote the idea that whatever our wills are, they are not as free as we would like to believe. After laying out a simple fact about our brain, I will present two scenarios that illustrate this point. I also want to apply the notion of free will skepticism to justice reform.
Our Brains Depend Upon Our Vocabulary and Experiential Knowledge
If someone were to walk up to you and ask you a question in Swahili, there is a good chance your reaction would be a puzzled expression, unless you happen to know Swahili. For any given situation, one can only respond from our supply of memories. We humans are limited to our known vocabulary and even if we create a “novel” reply or response, it can only be composed of bits and pieces of our own experiences.
This is just a fact of the way our brains function. It is possible to argue whether any instincts or insights are innate, but even then, any insight drawn can only come from experiential knowledge. One must first learn that the squiggly line “3” stands for three objects before one can reason that it is also the square root of nine or the cube root of 27.
While there are detractors, the experiments of Benjamin Libet and later Chun Siong Soon and others have been seen as evidence that, at least on some occasions and for some actions, the brain will begin the process to move the body. This process occurs, perhaps by several seconds, before we become consciously aware that we’ve made a choice to move.
For example, when we’re asked to raise one arm or the other, our brain activity, as observed with fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) begins the process to move one arm before we become conscious of a decision to move that arm. The brain makes the choice and fills us in later.
With the second scenario, imagine you realize you want a snack. That you want a snack is an outcome of either the body or brain, depending on whether you are hungry or are eating out of stress, boredom, or some other psychological reason.
You go to the kitchen and while reaching for the bag of chips, you are flooded with memories about needing to lose weight, wanting to look better at the beach, or needing to reduce your cholesterol. Then perhaps myriad thoughts lead you to grab an apple or banana instead. Michael Shermer calls this “Free Won’t.”
You think it was a conscious choice, but was it? Not really — it was the sum of your initial desire for a snack and competing memories that caused the outcome. Sometimes the chips win.
No matter how you evaluate it, we live in a causal world and the brain is no different. Whether talking neurotransmitters, hormones or any other physical component, they are all just that — physical components and subject to the laws of causation.
The bottom line is that we are not nearly as in control as we like to think. Even if you are not willing to go this far to abandon free will, then it is good to consider the work of Leonard Mlodinow on subconscious conditioning. His research details how unconscious cues trigger responses and how unnoticed suggestions cause us to act and react in certain ways.
But the key here is causation. The brain is a physical organ and subject to the laws of cause and effect.
Regardless of what we do, there was a causal chain that involved employing synaptic circuits, memories, and parts of the brain like the amygdala to lead us, step by step, to a certain outcome. It’s not fate, because there are many parts involved in the process, but caused nonetheless by the brain, not an immaterial mind or anything other than our brains. Free will is a myth.
Free Will and Criminal Justice Reform
So what can neuroexistentialists do with these facts? One beneficial goal is to take on criminal justice reform. Say “Bob” gets caught selling marijuana to supply a constant personal desire to be high or steals a pack of diapers because he cannot afford to buy what his baby needs. Or say he robs a convenience store because he needs the cash to buy the drugs to which he is addicted.
“Bob” may be involved with gang violence because it is the only existence he knows. (“Bob” can also be “Bobette” as women do these things as well.)
What the free will skeptic promotes is the idea that jail or prison may not be the best place for these individuals. There is still a need to take personal responsibility and “pay” for crimes. There is also a need to take into consideration the person’s memories and brain functions and then to design a program that will change that person’s behavior.
What is better — sending Bob to jail where he will learn new ways to create chaos or order drug counseling and treatment? Or job training and helping him find a more productive way to earn money, a way where he can be proud of who he has become? There are, of course, some individuals and some crimes when removal from society is the best outcome.
Free will skepticism is not about claiming it is all up to fate or that we are just puppets. It recognizes that there is no divine will guiding our behavior, and we are not predestined to any established outcome.
But our experiences shape the memories that provide the only cogs in the causal machinery of our brains. To get better outcomes, we need to provide better cogs.
About the Author
Dr. Steve Wyre received his B.A. and M.A. in philosophy from the University of Oklahoma and his Ed.D. from the University of Phoenix. Steve has been teaching various ground-based philosophy courses since 2000 and online since 2003. He has served as SME for courses in ancient philosophy, ethics, logic and several other areas.
