Are free will and the self just an illusion of the brain, and are we wrong to believe that we make conscious decisions?

We’ve come to take the existence of free will and the self for granted, but research in neuroscience and evolutionary theory is challenging these concepts, suggesting that the self and free will may be mere brain illusions. These findings force us to reevaluate moral responsibility and human behavior.

 

We are very familiar with the concept of free will and have taken it for granted that it exists. People generally assume that the decisions they make are the result of conscious thought by an entity called “I.” Some believe this entity to be a soul, others a decision-making part of the brain, but few question the existence of the self and its free will. However, research on the neurological system continues to deny the existence of free will, and even attempts to deny the self itself by introducing the concept of evolution. And I, for one, do not believe that the self and free will exist.
In 1985, a study by Benjamin Rivet, then a neurologist and professor at the University of California, supported this claim. Rivet asked subjects to bend their wrists whenever they wanted and recorded when they decided to do so. He attached electrodes to measure their wrist movements and brain waves throughout the experiment: when they actually bent their wrists, when they decided to bend them, and when the brain waves that occur when the brain prepares for action occurred. If free will exists, then after the decision to bend the wrist, the brain should prepare the wrist to bend, and then the wrist should actually bend. However, the experiment showed that the decision to bend the wrist was about 0.2 seconds earlier than the actual action, and the brain’s preparation to bend the wrist was about 0.55 seconds earlier than the actual action. In other words, the brain was already preparing to bend the wrist before the decision to bend the wrist was made. From this experiment, Rivet concluded that consciousness does not participate in the decision-making process.
A 2007 study by Haines and colleagues in Nature Neuroscience found similar results. The researchers found that the patterns in the frontal lobe are different for addition and subtraction, so they gave subjects two numbers and asked them to choose whether to add or subtract. The results showed that the brain actually started adding or subtracting earlier, before the decision to add or subtract was made. In an additional experiment, the team found that the actual preparation for the action was nearly 10 seconds faster than the moment the subject felt they had made a decision. A computer screen was placed in front of the subjects, the alphabet on the screen changed every half second, and the subjects were asked to press one of the buttons on either hand. They were asked to recall the alphabet that was on the screen when they decided to press the button, and the decision time was measured. Surprisingly, the part of the brain that governs decision-making was already active 10 seconds before the decision point, and the motor cortex, which gives motor commands, was active five seconds before.
Furthermore, for there to be a self that synthesizes information to make decisions, there must be a place in the brain where that information is gathered, but there is no part of the brain that does this. For example, when light enters the eye, it is first received by photosensitive cells, which then transmit information to the four layers of the retina. Each layer processes information such as color and brightness, compresses it, and sends it to the thalamus in the brain. The thalamus categorizes and processes the information and sends the results back to the visual cortex. The visual cortex sends this information to parts of the brain that perform functions like memory and object recognition. Given how the brain works, there’s no room for a “self” in the brain. It processes information in a sequence of steps, and there is no single place for it.
On these grounds, it could be argued that we don’t have free will. However, almost everyone feels that they have a self. We think we have our own thoughts, personality, traits, and preferences, and we believe that our decisions and actions are the result of our intentions. If we don’t have a self, why do we think this way? This can be explained by the “meme” theory.
The concept of memes was coined by Richard Dawkins and first mentioned in The Selfish Gene. In Chapter 11 of the book, Dawkins presents the concept of memes as a basis for viewing the human species as special and different from other species. One of the things that makes us unique is our culture, and the evolutionary unit of that culture is the meme. Like genes, memes are self-replicating, parasitic in the brain, and replicate by “mimicry” from one brain to another. Any idea, concept, idea, song phrase, recipe, or anything that can be passed on to another person can become a meme. Memes can be created in the brain, or they can be modified by mixing with other memes. Importantly, in the grand scheme of evolution, they are self-replicating, existing completely apart from genes. Because of this, behavioral patterns often arise in human society that are contrary to the interests of genes, such as celibacy. Dawkins concludes Chapter 11 with the example that memes have given humans the power to rebel against their genes.
Dawkins’ simple concept of memes was later formalized by Susan Blackmore. Blackmore goes further than Dawkins, arguing that the self we feel we have is actually a meme complex, and that we don’t have free will because the memes that parasitize our brains determine our behavior. Memes combine with each other to form meme complexes when they can benefit from doing so, such as “I believe that I am” or “I like that I am.” When a meme combines with the self-concept of “I,” it becomes entrenched in the brain and is more likely to be transmitted to other brains. Memes that combine with “I” form an ego complex, and memes that are compatible with this group are accepted into the complex, while those that are not are rejected.
So why, you might ask, do some memes combine with the self-concept to gain an advantage, while others fail? Blackmore doesn’t have a clear explanation for this, but he suggests that it could be because our genetically shaped brains are predisposed to be receptive to certain memes. However, given that genes are involved in many of the things we think of as personal traits, such as extroversion and sexual orientation, and that the process of adding new memes to a brain’s self-complex is dependent on the memes present in the social environment, it’s understandable that different brains form different self-complexes.
In the end, what we feel we are is just a collection of memes, and there is no single entity that determines our behavior. Our behavior is determined by the memes in our brains, so we don’t have free will. We think we make decisions, but what we do is predetermined. What we believe to be our bodies and minds are just the natural evolutionary result of self-replicating genes and memes that keep replicating.
But this conclusion raises a moral problem. If “I” am predetermined, can I not be held accountable for my actions? Blackmore argues that genes have created mutual altruism, love for children, spouses, and friends, and that genes work well independent of memes. Rather, he argues that if we learn that the self is a meme complex, we might stop acting out of a false sense of self that causes harm to others. While I agree that we don’t have free will, and I think Blackmore’s meme theory does a good job of explaining the findings of neuroscientists, I think it’s an irresponsible and convenient interpretation. Even if genes that drive altruistic behavior are evolutionarily advantageous, there will always be people who harm others and commit crimes. The question we need to ask is how to deal with them. As we continue to find evidence for the absence of free will, we should continue to think about this issue.
The idea of no free will is certainly uncomfortable and even offensive to many people. However, scientific concepts such as geodynamics and evolution were also met with strong opposition when they were first proposed, but over time, the scientific evidence in support of them has led many people to accept them.