The Paradox of Free Will

One of my earliest ventures into philosophy, back in high school, concerned the question of “free will versus determinism.” If the world unfolds according to fixed laws, then everything that happens is determined by events that have gone before. Since our brains are part of this world, their state is also determined by preceding events. Hence, so are our thoughts and experiences, and, most significantly, the decisions we make.   On the other hand, we all experience making choices from small things like what to eat, to bigger issues like career and marriage.   We live our lives on the assumption that we do indeed have free will. The two views seem incompatible. Hence the paradox. And the question: Which is right?

I suspect most of you will have pondered this question at some time or other. Many may have landed on the free will side of the conundrum, believing that we do make choices of our own volition. Some on the other side, believing that free will is an illusion. Others, seeing validity in both sides of the paradox, may remain baffled or uncertain.

Over the years I have revisited this paradox many times. In my mid-twenties I wrote a magazine article entitled “And the Opposite is Also True.”   There I argued that it was not a question of whether free will or determinism was correct. I postulated that they were like two sides of a coin; two very different perspectives of the same reality. From one perspective determinism is true; from the other free will is true. But as to what these two complementary perspectives might be, I wasn’t clear.

Then last year, in one of those moments of insight, it all fell into place. I realized that the two fundamentally different perspectives stemmed from two fundamentally different states of consciousness.

But before I explain how this may resolve the paradox, we should first go a little deeper into the evidence for both “determinism” and “free will”.

The Evidence

Determinism, in its original form, holds that the future is determined by the present state of affairs. But this does not imply that the future is fully predictable. For a start, we could never know the present state of affairs in sufficient detail to calculate the future precisely. Even if we could, chaos theory shows that even the slightest uncertainty in the current conditions can, on occasions, lead to wildly different outcomes. Quantum theory added its own challenge to strict determinism, showing that events at the atomic level can be truly random. Today, scientists and philosophers alike accept that the future is neither predictable nor predetermined.  

But even though the future may not be fixed in a classical sense, this does not necessarily give us free will. The activity in our brain is still determined by preceeding events—some random, some not—and so are our experiences, including our apparent experience of free choice.

In recent years, neuroscience has found interesting evidence to support this conclusion. In one oft-quoted experiment, subjects were asked to make a flick of their wrist at a time of their own choosing, and to note the position of the second hand of a clock at the moment of choosing. However, simultaneous recordings of the subjects’ brain activity showed that preparations for movement were occurring about half a second before the conscious decision to move.

Subsequent experiments have confirmed these findings. Scientists have been able to detect associated brain activity occurring as much as a second or more in advance of the conscious experience of making a choice. They conclude that our decisions are being driven by unconscious brain activity, not by conscious choice. But when the decision reaches conscious awareness, we experience having made a choice.  

From this perspective, the apparent freedom of choice lies in our not knowing what the outcome will be. Take, for example, the common process of choosing what to eat in a restaurant. I first eliminate dishes I don’t like, or ones I ate recently, narrowing down to a few that attract me. I then decide on one of these according to various other factors—nutritional value, favorite tastes, what I feel my body needs, etc. It feels like I am making a free choice, but the decision I come to is predetermined by current circumstances and past experience. However, because I do not know the outcome of the decision-making process until it appears in my mind, I feel that I have made a free choice.

Yet, the other side of the conundrum persists. The experience of making choices of our own volition is very real. And we live our lives on the assumption that we are making decisions of our own free will, and directing our own future. It is virtually impossible not to.

A Self that Chooses?

Implicit in the notion of choice is the existence of a “chooser”—an independent self that is an active agent in the process. This, too, fits with our experience. There seems to be an “I” that is perceiving the world, making assessments and decisions, and making its own choices. This “I” feels it has chosen the dish from the menu.

The experience of an individual self is so intrinsic to our lives that we seldom doubt its veracity. But does it really exist in is own right? Two lines of research suggest not.  

Neuroscientists find no evidence of an individual self located somewhere in the brain. Instead they propose that what we call “I” is but a mental construct derived from bodily experience. We draw a distinction between “me” and “not me” and create a sense of self for the “me” part. From a biological point of view, this distinction is most valuable. Taking care of the needs of this self, is taking care of our physical needs. We seek whatever promotes our well-being and avoid those that threaten it.

The second, very different, line of research involves the exploration of subjective experience. People who have delved into the nature of the actual experience of self have discovered that the closer they examine this sense of “I” , the more it seems to dissolve. Time and again they find there is no independent self. There are thoughts of “I”, but no “I” that is thinking them.  

They find that what we take to be a sense of an omnipresent “I” is simply consciousness itself. There is no separate experiencer; there is simply a quality of being, a sense of presence, an awareness that is always there whatever our experience. They conclude that what we experience to be an independent self is a construct in the mind—very real in its appearance but of no intrinsic substance. It, like the choices it appears to make, is a consequence of processes in the brain. It has no free will of its own.  

Complementary Perspectives

Nevertheless—and this is critical for resolving the paradox—in our everyday state of consciousness, the sense of self is very real. It is who we are. Although this “I” may be part of the brain’s model of reality, it is nevertheless intimately involved in the making of decisions, weighing up the pros and cons, coming to conclusions, choosing what to do and when to do it. So in the state where the self is real, we do experience our selves making choices. And those choices are experienced as being of our own volition. Here, free will is real.  

On the other hand, in what is often called the “liberated” or “fully-awake” state of consciousness, in which one no longer identifies with the constructed sense of self, the thought of “I” is seen as just another experience arising in the mind. And so is the experience of choosing. It is all witnessed as a seamless whole unfolding before one.

When I appreciated the complementary nature of these two states of consciousness the paradox dissolved for me. Whether or not we experience free will depends on the state from which we are experiencing the world. In one state of consciousness there is free will. In the other, it has no reality.  

Free will and determinism are no longer paradoxical in the sense of being mutually exclusive. Both are correct, depending upon the consciousness from which they are considered. The paradox only appears when we consider both sides from the same state of consciousness, i.e, the everyday waking state.

I like to illustrate this with Hamlet pondering the question of “To be or not to be?” The character in the play is making a choice. And if we have not seen the play before, we may wonder which way he will choose. This is the thrill of the play, to be engaged in it, moved by it, absorbed in its reality with all its twists and turns. However, we also know that how the play unfolds was determined long ago by William Shakespeare. So, we have two complementary ways of viewing the play. At times we may choose to live fully in the drama. Other times we may step back to admire his creative genius.  

So in life. We can be engaged in the drama, experiencing free will, making choices that affect our futures. Or we can step back and be a witness to this amazing play of life unfolding before us. Both are true within their respective frameworks.

A Will Free of Ego

Although, in the liberated state of mind, there may be no free will in the sense in which we normally think of it, there is instead a newfound freedom far more fulfilling and enriching than the freedom of choice to which we cling.  

The will of the individual self is focused on survival. Its foundation is the survival of the organism, fulfilling our bodily needs, avoiding danger or anything that threatens our well-being. In other words, keeping us alive and well, fending of the inevitability of death as long as possible. Added to this are various psychological and social needs. We want to feel safe and secure, to be feel stimulated and fulfilled, to be respected and appreciated. We believe that if we can just get the world to be way want it—and here the world includes other people—then we will be happy.  

In the liberated state, the ego no longer drives our thinking and behavior. When it drops away we discover that the ease and safety we had been seeking are already there; they are qualities of our true nature. But it is the nature of the ego to plan and worry, to seek the things it wants, avoid the things it doesn’t want. In so doing creates it tension and resistance, which veils our true nature, hiding from us the very peace of mind that we are seeking.  

The life-changing discovery of the liberated mind is that it is already at peace. Nothing needs to be done, nothing needs to happen, nothing needs to change in order to experience peace. There may still be much to do in the world; helping others, resolving injustices, taking care of our environment, etc.. But we are free from the dictates of the ego; we are free to respond according to needs of the situation at hand rather than what the ego wants. Here our will is truly free.  

9 Replies to “The Paradox of Free Will”

  1. I have thought about this paradox quite often and I appreciate how you wrote :”that the two fundamentally different perspectives stemmed from two fundamentally different states of consciousness.” I have often pondered on the thinking process. Do we chose what to think based on the same system of moving away from pain toward pleasure? Maybe we feel like we are chosing certain thoughts and turning away from other thoughts by chosing to think more skillful thoughts and attending to the thoughts that feel like they work better and are in alignment with the true nature of reality: everything is interdependently co-arising; everything is impermenent and “in process”, and everything is simultaneously empty of form (concept) and also containing form.

  2. I find it important to reflect upon what a free will is or would be. We have experiences of choice and also of responsibility for our actions and perhaps also to some extent for our thoughts. But if we think about it, we can not even imagine, logically, how a free will would work. To our thinking mind there must be causes behind every event, besides some room for randomness. So it seems the discussion about free will, if we believe it exists or not, is about something that we can not say or even guess what it is or could be. The more conscious we become of what goes on in our inner world and the more we in this way are liberated from the ego, we experience a sense of more “freedom” and often also find more options and at the same time feel more responsibility. The fully liberated person would, Peter says, be “truly free” and respond to the needs of the situation. But still, to my understanding, there must also here be causes behind the actions, although the causes are now of a different kind. So is there “freedom” there, unless we define freedom as piece etc? Or does freedom imply creation? But also creation must have its causes. It can not come from nowhere and of no cause. I think the thinking mind has to surrender here. We can work to become more conscious and thereby become more liberated. Still, we can know that there must be causes, which are unknown for us at their deepest level, for out starting and continuing this work.

  3. You are partially right.

    It is correct that determinism and free will are compatible. However, the resolution of the problem has nothing to do with your idea of a “will free of ego”. The much simpler and more profane solution is to define “free” properly and to arrive at the conclusion that free is something subjective. Free relates strongly to unpredictableness. The more free we are, the more options we have, and the less predictable we are. But unlike for freedom, it is obvious that predictableness is subjective. It depends on the subject that predicts. Thus, the world can be deterministic to an omniscient being, while it still appears free to us. We are like the audience of a movie that is emotionally involved with the protagonist and his/her decisions. Why did the protagonist do this? Why that? These are valid questions that are fun to discuss even though the ending is predetermined.

  4. ° Did you ever consider this ?

    For the workers at Google and Facebook and Microsoft (and basically for everyone of us) it appears as if they make their own choices. > But is that really so ?
    Maybe the are like ‘idiots savants’ who unintentionally drive things towards a bigger picture, similar to the consequences of animal instinct on nature ? Perhaps is it our DNA that holds the range of choices that we have ?
    Maybe we have a predetermined purpose in the bigger picture, without noticing this in our daily lives where we experience freedom of choice. To be or to become, that’s the question.

  5. Free will has come into question many times for me, and for a many years. There is free will, and there is free will rum amuk. Most of us have only witnessed the later. Look no further than our 3 headed monster in the West. Government, corporations, and religious institutions. These things are changing, and most who can “feel” are feeling it. We will begin to concentrate more heavily on our similarities rather than our differences. Our free will, in proper proportion, is the icing on the cake. Our capacity to be unique; our ability to sweeten the pie in a way that no one else can, not for the benefit of one, or some, but for all. When my daughter was growing up, playing in the school yard, I was compelled to remind her from time to time, “it’s not fun unless it’s fun for everyone.”

  6. We perform actions that maintain our existence.As the Zen Master says his teaching is simply eat when hungry and sleep when tired. Even men of satori will perform the tasks that give existence, what they don’t need to do is perform tasks which support the ego image.Men ,women of satori have penetrated to the depths of their consciousness and have seen where the problem resides and have overcome and escaped the clutches of ego.

Leave a Reply