A huge number of people believe that they control their own destiny, but is this true? Can such seemingly unremarkable factors, such as the smell of chocolate chip cookies or spoiled meat, turn out to be decisive at the most crucial moment? Oddly enough, they can. Scientific research has shown that the smell of chocolate chip cookies can actually make you more generous (assuming you're at a charity event), and smelling the foul smell while making an important political decision can make you more likely to be conservative. But we are surrounded by hundreds and thousands of different smells every day; is it really because of them that we make certain decisions? Fortunately, no, because our decisions are influenced by a huge number of different factors, some of them, for example, odors, are external factors, while others, invisible to us, are internal.
Can all our decisions be predetermined or do we have free will?
Thus, according to the results of recent scientific research, genes to some extent influence our behavior and decisions. So do we have free will and are we really in control of our own lives?
Between illusion and faith
A series of studies initiated by Benjamin Libet et al over 30 years ago argued that free will may be illusory. Many more attempts will be made to both confirm and refute this idea.
Freedom has always been perceived as a state opposite to limitation. This view divided free will theorists into two groups. Here is what the philosopher Rudolf Steiner wrote about this in his work “Philosophy of Freedom” [1]: “There are people who, in their moral pathos, declare everyone who is capable of denying such an obvious fact as freedom to be a limited mind. They are opposed by others who, on the contrary, see the height of unscientificness in the fact that anyone believes that the laws of nature are interrupted in the field of human activity and thinking. The same thing is often declared here either as the most precious property of humanity, or as the worst illusion.”
The position of some philosophers largely overlaps with the point of view adopted in modern neuroscience. For example, Nietzsche argued that man lives in illusions about free will, while in reality everything comes down to pure mathematics, needs, and determinism.
Research from cognitive neuroscience shows that the concept of “illusion” does indeed apply here. Free will as an illusion created by the human mind - such a scenario, of course, can hardly be called pleasant for humanity. Is it possible that, by forcing us to choose between metaphysics and science, neuroscience completely recognizes free will as an incomprehensible concept ? And can we come to terms with such a verdict? Will we be able to understand what “big scary science” offers us as answers?
Early research. Libet's experiment
In the late 1970s - early 1980s. B. Libet conducted a series of experiments as part of the study of free will. The volunteers were in a room with a clock and a button next to them. Participants could press the button randomly whenever they wanted - Libet only asked to record the time when such an idea came to mind. All this time, the EEG device recorded the activity of parts of the brain.
Comparing the timing, Libet's team found that about 200 ms elapsed between the conscious desire to press the button and the actual action. But Libet was more surprised by the EEG results: the area of the brain responsible for initiating movement was activated 500 ms before the button was pressed. Consequently, brain activity was recorded 300 ms before the subject realized his desire to press the button. In the world of science, this experiment was regarded as the first demonstration of the illusory nature of free will .
Researchers J.D. Haynes, M. du Sautoy, P. Haggard repeated Libet's experiment. They noted an even longer pause between brain activity and the moment of decision making. According to a 2008 study by the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, the pause between a decision and its realization was as much as 7 seconds. Repeated experiments confirmed that a decision is made before a person realizes it .
Some scientists, for example, A. Papanicolaou [2], argue that such experiments do not provide logical conclusions and, therefore, cannot be considered objective. According to critics, the actions presented in the studies are nothing more than chaotic movements. Although such movements are the result of the functioning of the nervous system, they cannot be considered an act of free will.
In response to criticisms, other authors introduced the concept of methodological determinism . They noted that it is necessary to question scientific ideas about free will - after all, the statement “free will determines behavior” is unfalsifiable according to K. Popper’s scientific criteria. Thus, it is more appropriate to speak here of a metaphysical statement rather than a scientific hypothesis.
“People are mistaken in thinking that they are free. Therefore the idea of their freedom is that they know no reason for their actions; as for the fact that they say that human actions depend on freedom, these are words with which they do not connect any idea.” — Benedict Spinoza. ("Ethics")
What is I?
But does this mean that all our actions are predetermined, and we only experience the feeling of choice? Maybe our Self is just a by-product of chemical and physical reactions in our body, which does not affect their course in any way?
It can be argued that we are thinking (for example, right now) about consciousness, which means it still somehow influences our behavior. However, it can also be assumed that everything that the subject experiences as a conscious experience is also subject to physical laws, and then everything again becomes predetermined.
Some researchers object that there are many more mechanisms at work in our world that make the outcome of certain events uncertain. For example, quantum effects, which always have a probability of happening or not happening, create uncertainty around the outcome of the phenomena associated with them.
However, does this solve our problem? Yes, we got rid of predestination, but we did not get rid of obedience to laws. What exactly am I? What impact does it have on decision making? It would be strange to define one’s Self as indeterminism, caused by the influence of quantum effects on the reactions occurring in our heads.
Free will and quantum physics
The quantum nature of consciousness has been of interest to the scientific world for several decades. The topic of the fusion of two seemingly incompatible components - human consciousness and quantum physics - has literally captured a whole layer of specialized literature.
G. Stapp, a prominent theoretical physicist and proponent of the theory of quantum consciousness, explains the concept of free will from the point of view of the “orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics.” In his theory, he assigns an important role to free conscious choice. Stapp emphasizes that quantum mechanics will help to objectively study the relationship between thought and action, which were previously considered unrelated.
The idea was developed in the work of R. Penrose and S. Hameroff “Consciousness in the Universe: Neurobiology, Quantum Geometry of Space-Time and the Orch OR Theory.” Some scientists, such as D. Chalmers and W. J. Stenger, disagree with the theory. However, this is the very dispute in which the truth can be born - regardless of who is right.
Psychology does not quite fit into the new, “quantum” paradigm of studying consciousness and free will. By the standards of quantum physics, the observation method cannot be considered objective - as Bohr and Heisenberg wrote, the very fact of observation affects the quantum state of the observed system. However, this is not just a matter of the observer effect. Psychology at its methodological level is not capable of providing answers to questions about free will. At least, in isolation from other sciences.
How does God's will fit in with human free will?
Answer:
I've answered similar questions many times on my site, so I'm just pasting the previous answers in hopes that they will help you understand this topic. Briefly, I will say that God “hardens” the hearts of those people who have already turned away from God and made their choice not in favor of God. By this, He is trying to use their example to show others, those who can still repent, how not to behave. On a couple of occasions in history, God hardened the hearts of Pharaoh or Judah, but He did so because those events were intended to save others. But even in these cases, Pharaoh and Judah had freedom to repent.
Was Judas predestined to betray Jesus? If so, how can this be understood and combined with human free will? It looks like Judas betrayed Jesus so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
Answer:
You have raised one of the most difficult theological questions one can ask. I believe there is no simple answer to this question. Your question touches on major themes in Christianity and theology and may even seem to raise a tension between two aspects of the character of God.
- Although the term “Free Will” itself is not mentioned in the Bible, God certainly gives us a choice whether to follow Him or not. God leaves us the right to decide what to do with our freedom.
- Second, it is obvious that God intervenes in the world He created, through people, to fulfill His will.
There are many examples of the second aspect of the nature of God. The situation with Judas is definitely one of these cases. The book of Zechariah says:
And I said then: “If you want to pay Me, then pay. If you don’t want to, don’t!” And then they paid Me thirty pieces of silver. (Zech. 11:12)
It is clear that God knew long ago that Judas would deliver Him into the hands of His enemies. If God knew, then He did something bad for not stopping him? Isn't He then responsible for the evil we do? In fact, this is an even more difficult question. In a sense, Judas' betrayal was caused by God. Jesus Christ told Judas, “Do quickly what you are about to do” (John 13:27). And after this Satan entered Judas. In a sense, Jesus motivated Judas to do evil so that something better could happen—so that all mankind would be forgiven for their sins. Is it so? The issue of hardening the human heart is discussed in Romans chapter nine. Here God puts the following words into Paul's mouth:
“So, God shows mercy to those whom He Himself chooses for His mercy, and hardens those whom He Himself chooses for this. You may say to me: “If God directs our actions, then why, in this case, does He blame us? Who will resist His will? Yes, but who are you, man, to ask such questions of God? After all, a clay pot does not ask the potter: “Why did you create me like this?” And isn’t clay subject to the will of the potter when he turns a piece of clay into a special vessel or into a simple jug?” (Romans 9:18-21)
Perhaps an even stronger statement in the same chapter:
“What can I say now? After all, God is never unjust, is he? Of course it doesn't happen! For He said to Moses: “I will have mercy on whomever I myself decide to have mercy on, and I will have compassion on whomever I myself decide to have compassion on.” This means that God chooses which people to show mercy to, regardless of human effort. But, according to Scripture, God said to Pharaoh: “I made you king so that through you I would show My power to everyone, and My name would be preached throughout the whole earth.” (Romans 9:14-17)
When we read this passage, it may seem that God's will causes people to do different things and behave unjustly. But God behaves fairly. How can we reconcile the idea of human free will and God's sovereign power and will?
All research leads to neurobiology
And this is not surprising. “Not philosophy, not physical determinism—only neuroscience can put an end to the free will debate,” writes neuroscientist W. R. Klemm in his book The Scientific Foundation of Consciousness and Free Will. Klemm argues that some human behavioral characteristics can only be explained by free will, which is the result of processes occurring in the brain [3].
Dr. Eric Racine, in continuation of the theory, proposed the dynamic concept of free will [4]. It stems from recent research in cognitive science and social psychology that has conceptualized free will as a psychological phenomenon with unusual dynamic and intrinsic properties. Dynamic properties reflect changes in response to internal (physiological) and external (physical and social) stimuli. The study suggests that free will is not static, but is influenced by psychological needs and external factors. Thus, dynamic changes in free will will have consequences: oppressed will will lead to disappointment, while a strong will will shape socially responsible behavior and business success.
As R. Baumeister wrote: “The relationship between consciousness and behavior... is empirically provable. However, the influence of the conscious is often indirect and delayed and largely depends on unconscious processes.”
Experiments
In 2007, Berlin neurologist J.D. Haynes found using MRI that he could determine with a 60% probability which of two buttons a subject would press. The scientist determined this 6 seconds before realizing the desire to press the button and 7 seconds before the actual action.
Neurologist Itzhak Fried also conducted an experiment [5], but with the participation of patients with epilepsy. The scientist found that 1.5 seconds before making a decision, individual neurons in a certain area of the brain are activated in the subjects. According to Fried, some predetermined ideas are simply accepted by our consciousness. Thus, the conscious can be considered as one of the later stages of choice.
Neurobiological explanation
G. Frankfurt and D. Dennett suggest that free will and determinism can be compatible (the so-called concept of compatibilism ). Frankfurt argues that during an intrapersonal conflict, a person experiences equal desires - to perform / not to perform an action [6]. From a neurobiological point of view, at this moment there is a conflict between the pleasure center and inhibitory control. Dennett developed the idea of the evolutionary development of free will and decision making (for example, through altruism, the desire to help others).
H. Fuster proposed a cyclical model of decision making [7], according to which action and the decision to act can begin and end at any stage of the perception-action cycle. Here, free will is born as a result of the relationship between the brain and the surrounding world (more precisely, ideas about this world stored in the cerebral cortex). Fuster believed that such a complex system as the brain develops due to its plasticity and adaptability. In the course of adaptation to new conditions, new functions appear - and, accordingly, freedom of knowledge.
However, we should not assume that free will resides only in the prefrontal cortex of the brain. Fuster called it only a “neuromediator” in the more complex relationship between the inner and outer world.
Another point of view on free will is multi-determinism . According to this theory, the more motives there are, the fewer restrictions there are on free will. At the other pole here is reductionism, which searches for only one, the most important motive for action. However, as neuropsychologist R. Sperry said: “Trying to crack the biomolecular code of cognitive processes is like deciphering a note by studying the chemical composition of ink.”
So, free will from a neurobiological point of view is the freedom to exchange information in the cerebral cortex. From the point of view of cognitive science, it is the result of the functioning of the nervous system, taking into account the influence of the conscious and unconscious components on decisions. At the same time, the concept of free will is still not defined - especially in the context of a changing scientific paradigm and a multidisciplinary approach. Psychology can predict a person's choices; Cognitive neuroscience suggests neural patterns for learning to make decisions. Hebb's rule represents an "associative" view of learning and free will. After creating a neural network for the decision-making system, it became clear that a developed network would be able to predict choices that we considered arbitrary.
How will the problem of free will be solved when more and more disciplines study it comprehensively? So far this question remains unanswered.
Dualism of the Koran and free will
“Won’t they think about the Koran? After all, if it were not from Allah, then they would have found many contradictions there" (Sura 4 verse 84) (Further all quotes are translated by Krachkovsky)
And indeed, if you think about it, it turns out that you can find contradictions in the Koran; in one place wine is considered a sin:
“They ask you about wine and maysir. Say: “In both of them there is a great sin and some benefit for people, but their sin is greater than the benefit.” (Surah 2 verse 216)
But at the same time in Paradise it is promised:
“You will recognize the shine of prosperity . They are given wine sealed to drink." (Sura 83 verse 24-25)
That is, on Earth wine is a sin, but in Paradise it is goodness? (The word رَحِيق used in this verse is translated as nectar, in different contexts it can be either simply sugar-containing juice or alcoholic mead, but in most translations this word is translated as wine)
So, based on the Koran, is wine a sin or a blessed gift?
“Satan wants to incite enmity and hatred among you with wine and maysir and divert you from the remembrance of Allah and prayer.” (Sura 5 verse 93)
Thus, two mutually exclusive lines can be traced:
- in one, wine is sin, and the weapon of Satan turns away from God;
- in another it is a gift of prosperity that is given in paradise;
So which line should the reader choose?
What's wrong with you, how do you judge? Do you have a book that you teach? Truly, for you in it - what you choose for yourself ! (Sura 68 verse 36-38)
The compilers of the Koran made sure that people themselves chose what was closest to their real morality. In fact, the choice occurs between recognizing oneself as having free will, or recognizing the absence of free will:
Truly, God does not change what is happening to people until they themselves change what is happening to them . And when God wishes evil to people, there is no way to avert it; they intercessor besides Him! (Surah 13 verse 11)
Here one verse states the mutually exclusive fact that 1) people have free will and they themselves influence their destiny by changing their morals, 2) but at the same time people have no choice if God suddenly wants to cause them harm;
The next verse repeats the statement that God decides everything:
This <in the context of the Koran> is truly a reminder, and whoever wishes, chooses the path to his Lord, but you will not wish if God does not wish - truly, God is wise and knowledgeable! (Sura 76 verse 29-30)
And this does not fit with the statement from another verse:
There is no compulsion in religion. (Sura 2 verse 256)
So there is still no free will until God decides, will you not believe yourself or is faith a personal choice for everyone?
The next verse says that dialogue with God is voluntary:
“And when My servants ask you about Me, then I am close, I answer the call of the one who calls, when he calls Me. Let them answer Me and let them believe in Me , perhaps they will go straight!” (Sura 2 verse 182)
It turns out that there is free will, to independently cry out to God and respond or not respond to His signs?
The question is, why did the compilers of the Koran introduce two contradictory lines into it? Apparently to preserve freedom of choice. After all, if you convey authoritative information (God has the highest authority) in an unambiguous form: “you have no free will,” then the subject has no choice (since God said it, then it is so, this is not Vasya Pupkin, who can be wrong), if you convey information in a dualistic form: “maybe you have free will, maybe you don’t, decide for yourself,” then the subject has freedom of choice between two options:
1. either there is free will, and then prayer is a free dialogue with the Creator.
2. either there is no free will, then the individual is a servant of God, who, like Pushkin in “The Prophet,” must be fulfilled by the will of someone else.
The choice is yours.
