Free Will is the idea that we are in conscious control of our actions. That there is something called "I" that decides. Sam Harris argues eloquently that there is no such thing as "I". This is not a new idea. This has been explored in India millennia ago. According to this idea, there is no "thinker of thoughts" that sits in the head. There are just thoughts. And there is consciousness - the pure experience of just being. There is no coherent, continuos being that is consistently there from moment to moment. That idea of "I" is actually an illusion. An elaborate and extremely convincing one. The idea of self that we all have is just a construct of our minds. It is not real. It is more like a summary movie that the mind plays in creating the illusion of continuity and coherence. I think memory plays a big role in creating this sense of self. Think of it this way - there are multiple processes running in the brain and they all share the same memory space. The processes themselves are quite distinct from each other so technically they could be different "selves" i.e. different persons. But because they are in the same brain and share the same memory the net effect of this whole system is an emergence of a feeling of a coherent, continuos sense of self. Much like how an actual multi-threaded processor in a computer works. Different processes access the same memory space and say for e.g. play a video on the computer monitor. The video would not be smooth and wouldn't make sense if the different processes didn't have access to the same memory where the video file is stored.
But this coherent sense of self is not real i.e. the "one" self doesn't actually exist. If there was a way to separate the memory space for these processes i.e. different processes have their own memory - then that would be akin to having multiple people in the same brain. And that does happen sometimes in people with brain injuries (e.g. people whose corpus callosum, which connects the left and right brain, has been cut). But in these people the distinct "selves" can co-exist. And since they don't talk to each other the person might not "feel" something is wrong with them. Since there is no such thing as "one person". When one thread is in-charge that thread has its own memory space and feels coherent. When the other thread in the person's brain is in-charge it feels the same. So going back to the computer example imagine the different threads in the computer processor accessing different memory spaces. The resulting video played on the monitor would not be coherent. And this is the experience of people interacting with these patients. But the computer doesn't know that and it still works. (this is where the analogy is kind of limiting since the computer is not self-aware, but I hope you get what I am trying to get at there).
So if there is no real "self" or "I" then how is this "I" responsible for anything it does? So that means there is no such thing as free will? So it is me typing these letters on my keyboard or is it some process in my brain doing this, which is later getting attributed to the "I". In fact the "I" is attributing this action to itself. It is a very convincing trick, if it really is. I feel like I have still not made up my mind whether free will is completely an illusion or maybe 95% an illusion.
On a more broader level, I have no doubt that there are many forces unknown to the illusory self that play a part in my taking any action or any thought arising in my consciousness. And as Sam Harris says this can be a major source of compassion for others. So even someone who is a psychopath does not choose to be one. He was either born that way or some life experiences made him a psychopath. That person is not consciously deciding to act like a psychopath every-time he acts like one. So we can't attribute a psychopath's actions to his free will. So we can't hold him completely responsible for what he has done. That doesn't mean we don't take actions to prevent further harm to others if he is say a serial killer. We need to lock him up to protect others. But we can't blame "him" for what he is. Since he is a product of his past and his genes. And actually there is no such thing as "he" as I talked about before - "he", like "I", is an illusion.
There is consciousness and there are thoughts. Is there something else that makes up the real "self"? I somehow feel there is. And I think this is the same thing that pops up thoughts in the consciousness. Thoughts arise in the consciousness, the illusory "self" doesn't choose them. But there is something that throws the thoughts into consciousness. I can't believe that the thoughts just randomly pop up in consciousness. There is some process, some mechanism that chooses them. And I feel this process is the key to the question of free will and the idea of self. This process is the 5%.
Comments
Post a Comment