Is Free Will an Illusion?
A response evoked by (not directed at) this essay published in Nature
Our editor for The Axon, Jeremy Biane had idea for an appropriate definition of free will, that I am going to expand upon. Let's call this theory the “everything being equal - test," which could be both the definition and the experiment. It’s my contention that it would prove humans, and probably most animals, have free will. But I can only imagine this two-option choice test that I have in mind, being anything other than theoretical. It would be one in which the test apparatus could adjust to balance the sum of the antecedent forces influencing the test-subject. Lets assume the test is measuring whether an entity can chose to go right or left. Suppose the apparatus is a round platform that slides along a track; a computer is used to control the movement of the platform. Say, a rock is released from 3 feet above the platform, at which point the computer calculates for the necessary adjustments, and a sliding mechanism puts the platform on the direct coordinates crunched by the computer. The rock should land on the sloped platform at end up in equilibrium. At this point, it is likely that the rock is not going to make any further decision about which way it should go, so it is assumed that a rock does not have the ability to choose left over right, and thus does not have free will. If you could make a similar apparatus to test humans, one that takes into consideration a far greater number of antecedents beyond gravity, normal force, velocity, etc. - such as handedness, emotional state, hunger, tiredness, and every other minuscule physical property – then it might be possible to run an appropriate test. These factors could be entered into the computer controlling the round platform. The human participant jumps onto the platform from above but not before the computer slides the platform into place, at the exact point where all antecedent variables influencing a decision between left and right have been taken into consideration. This would create a sort of ultimate equilibrium between the participant and its two options. It is predicted that, if the human does not have the capacity of free will, it would be incapable of choosing left or right (much like the stone). You can recognize this dilemma in home computers as a kernel error, followed by your operating system crashing. The human, I foresee, simply making a random choice. It is necessary that the choice be random, otherwise it would be predictable, and our computer program failed to consider every variable influencing the decision.
Things I’m left musing about:
We are affected by events that do not contact us physically. The manner by which a rock will tumble down a slope is determined by its shape; which was formed by forces of direct impact. Humans, however, have a shape that is formed by forces that I do not contend to be “direct impact.” A man gets stung by a bee (direct). A boy witnesses it (light), processes it (electrochemical), writes it down (symbolic), a friend reads it (light)(interpretive), and stores it (electrochemical). The bee sting took energy to directly impact the man, but that energy did not emit light, the light was simply available from other sources. Thus, the impact of the bee sting on the boy, was merely gleaned through symbolic interpretation – something uniquely intrinsic to this sole boy. The energy that went directly into the bee sting would not be useful for predicting future behavioral decisions of the boy (even though the boy is likely to have learned from the event, and to modulate his future behavior based on this information). I think life, then consciousness, stems from the incalculable efficiency by which conscious organisms are able to transduce and manipulate energy. A complex understanding can be awakened by several photos borne before the human eye. Discuss