The Case for Free Will

Photo: Unsplash/Denys Nevozhai

Free will has been a long standing debate across various fields–from religion to quantum mechanics. In that regard it is unique, a singular touchstone connecting subjects that are involved in the contemplation of humanity's role in the universe. Consciously, we disavow free will. But we subconsciously accept it. 

One of the dominant arguments against free will is that it is being replaced by modern neuroscience. Historically one's choices could not have been produced by the body (how could matter make decisions?), decision making was conveniently relegated to a corresponding body of spirit.

Not only was it convenient but it was wrong. While the idea of a soul has not been disproved (certainly not in the more abstract sense of the term), it is now known that at least a substantial portion of our decision making originates in the neural connections in the brain. That is not to say that the soul doesn’t exist, but it certainly doesn’t fully account for the entirety of human consciousness. Hence it has been argued that the individual chemical events in the neural synapses are responsible for human decision making. At face value this argument seems plausible, even probable. But it ignores one crucial x factor.

We are the sum of our neural synapses and their chemical reactions. Our existence can be partially quantified by our traits; our personality, our hopes and fears, the entire manifold of our memories. These traits do not exist in some alternative reality, they are seemingly tangible and stored in our body. If we try to place our existence in different vessels, something almost automatically appears wrong. Even if our organs outside of the brain hold some of our being, our consciousness does not seem to reside there. 

If we are indeed the sum of the chemical reactions in our brain then there is no contradiction between modern neuroscience and free will.

Thank you for choosing Inflection Magazine and human authorship.