by I M Probulos
Encourage yourself to stick to your plan.
Get more sleep to help your brain better manage energy.
Meditate (for as little as 8 weeks).
Better exercise and nutrition: The most ignored route to higher willpower.
Postpone things for later to gain focus on what’s important now.
Now, you might ask that if I am a determinist, and all my actions are determined by the motions of molecules at the moment of the Big Bang, why would I recommend a book that explains how to improve willpower, aka self-control and therefore free will?
And you don’t believe in any of them! Gotcha! Checkmate!
No, you’ve got it all wrong. Let’s review.
Every input before a given decision manifests itself as a choice. You decide to read the Willpower Instinct or you decide, ah, what’s the use and go crawl back into bed. Even deciding “not to choose” is still a choice.
Since we don’t know how the story of our life will unfold, we must always, always act as if we have control of our life (with an allowance for chance) even if we accept that we don’t.
Based on the Statistical Theory of Everything, there will always be that 10% of the population, for example, that overcomes impossible odds and achieves great things–in spite of a genetic or nurture deck stacked against them.
That is who we want to be–to the far right of the STE line.
Therefore, I have combined both concepts, the STE and the illusion of free will to create a deterministic call to action.
Don’t be a victim.
Be a positive causal ramjet.
Don’t make excuses, act today.
Don’t live with blame, regret, jealousy, envy, or pride. Technically, events unfold so the feelings are useless.
Don’t blame yourself for what you did ten years, yesterday or a minute ago–it is over and you could not have acted differently.
Even in a determinist world, what you do matters.
Just because you’re a skeptic, just because you don’t think everything happens for a reason, just because you accept that free is an illusion–that does not mean you cannot dream big, be successful and make a difference in this world. On the contrary, you have more incentive now because you realize we have this one life and this one opportunity to earn the right to be the dominant species on this remarkable planet. Let me paraphrase that:
We were not given this planet by a deity; we have to earn the right to be the dominant species. It is a privilege that should not be squandered.
Let’s celebrate the billion-in-one, or hundred-billion-in-one chance event of intelligent life to reduce human suffering and move all of humanity to the right of the STE line. Now you have purpose in life. This is the direct opposite of the apologist claim of determinism lead to loss of purpose and nihilism.
What is past is past; you can act differently this next second–even if you are unaware of all the processes that form you decision. You still must act. Seek positive consequences in favor of negative ones.
Further reading is at the two links below:
The Willpower Instinct outline [Link]
Kelly McGonigal TED Talk on Stress [Link]
In contrast, I came across another self-help book You Are Not Your Brain by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. Of course the title intrigued me, since I am arguing you are your brain. Your mind is the product of your brain, not vice-versa as he asserts. The author is an American psychiatrist specializing in neuroplasticity and its impact on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). He is also a Jewish evangelical Christian, with a history of Buddhist studies. (Wrap your brain around that one.) It is very clear his spiritual awakening has colored his scientific thinking. The emphasis below is mine.
“Operating on the highly rational perspective that we are not our brains, but rather, substantial free agents who exercise control over our brains, Schwartz and Gladding develop a simple, yet profoundly insightful approach for developing a flourishing life. The result is truly life-giving, and it will bring healing and hope to all who read it and practice its wisdom.”
—J.P. Moreland, author of The God Question
Here is a YouTube video concerning his book. [YouTube Link]. If neurobiology offers consistent and credible evidence that we can systematically strip away key components of our conscious mind and personality from very specific areas of our brain, where does this purported mind exist?
Your mind is your brain; your brain is your mind.
Read the rest of this book, work my exercises and thought experiments then watch the YouTube video above and decide for yourself.
Responsibility
Taking responsibility for your decisions and actions is the ultimate goal of accepting the illusion of free will. We need to accept the fact that many people are influencing our decisions, every day, with far superior knowledge of social psychology. This creates a very disturbing world that could result in paranoia. But the answer is knowledge. We must soberly assess what motivates us and reflect on what has shaped our decision-making. It is an examination of the facts using our human reason to survive in an increasingly complex and often contradictory world.
We must question if we have accepted a truth based on assertions of authority or popularity, fear, or reason. How do you decide which car or house to buy? How do you choose your friends or your spouse? How did you select your religious faith? On what basis do you reject other faiths?
We now know so much more about human behavior and the structure and function of the human brain than we did just twenty-five years ago. Our ability to treat depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and numerous other psychological disorders has been transformed by SSRI’s (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors), NSRI’s (Norepinephrine Selective Reuptake Inhibitors), MAOI’s (Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors), and a host of other compounds.
Unfortunately, we don’t know exactly how some of them work or why some work with certain patients and some do not. We have much to learn about the human mind but that does not diminish the notion that our concept of free will is increasingly challenged by the data.
In an American Scientist article, “Evolution, Religion and Free Will,” respondents were questioned whether:
A) All organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment, but humans still possess free will.
B) All organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment, and humans have no free will.
To the surprise of the poll takers, 79 percent of the respondents chose “option A” for this question. One reason for the high percentage, I believe, is the way the question was worded. If one states that we have “no free will,” then this also assumes we have “no responsibility” for our actions.
How many people believe, today, that mental illness is the result of demonic possession? Strangely enough, there are still many. The Catholic Church still believes in exorcism. The Rite of Exorcism was revised as recently as 1999. As powerful as demons may be, the Catholic Church maintains that the possessed persons retain their “free will,” though the demon may hold control over their physical body.
I find this distinction puzzling, as where does free will begin and demonic possession end? If someone murders or steals or lies while possessed, is the person responsible? Did their possessed body commit the crime but not their consciousness and free will? The problem for the Catholic Church is that they cannot admit, at any time, that human beings do not have free will.
In philosophy, free will is considered a necessary condition for responsibility. Randolph Clarke writes:
It is generally recognized that freedom of the will is but one of several necessary conditions of morally responsible agency.
He further explains that:
“although we can be responsible for actions that are performed without free will, I will be considering only instances in which an agent acts with free will.”
Without free will, the mores of virtually all societies would not change; all societies have laws that must be followed or there are c
onsequences. An honest appraisal of free will should make us more responsible. If someone, based on functional MRI imaging, is shown to be completely "dead" in the areas of the brain associated with moral judgment, compassion, and impulse control, then they should not be in the general society for the safety of others. There are consequences; we just no longer need to hate them or cry out for revenge.
The Warrior Gene
It is a known fact that deprivation (poverty, hunger, inattention) can have significant effect on future behavior whereas the incremental value of wealth past an average or mean amount becomes negligible. It is also clearly documented that both physical and mental abuse during childhood can have long lasting and even permanent effects on future behavior. These are all beyond our control. And combined with the "warrior gene" or other genetic predispositions, this is the worst combination of a perfect storm of potentially anti-social and deviant behaviors.
Free will proponents will always point to the anecdotal evidence of those who transcend their environment and succeed in life as evidence of free will. Statistically these are outliers and should be expected based on the laws of probability. To ignore the fact that a statistically significant number of those individuals will end up dead, in jail, or on the run, is dangerous. What others see as a choices I see as a probability distribution. Once again, I am not saying they are not responsible for their actions–but they, everyone who knows them, and society–has to do what is necessary to prevent them from impacting the rights of others.
Neuroscientists have identified 12 genes related to aggression and violence. There is, for example, a low-aggression variant of the “warrior gene” or MAO-A gene (monoamine oxidase A). This gene regulates the neurotransmitter serotonin, which affects mood. The implications are profound: some scientists believe if one has a certain version of this warrior gene, the brain will not react to the calming effect of serotonin. From an evolutionary viewpoint this would be a good thing for a warrior nation but a very bad thing for a peaceful, agrarian society.
Dr. James Fallon is a neuroscientist at the University of California-Irvine and has studied the brains of psychopaths. He studies the biological basis for behavior, and one of his specialties is to try to figure out how a killer's brain differs from normal people. The most fascinating part of Fallons’ research is that he researched his own family and discovered that he, the researcher, had both low orbital cortex activity plus the “warrior gene.”
He noted how truly disturbing this discovery was and the question remained, “Why was he not a sociopathic murderer?” The answer appears to lie in genetic expression, and abuse as a child. The mind is a very complex organism. The environment has an undeniable effect on the formation of both our physical brain and our ability to have compassion and empathize. Thoughts and behavior based on this data must be considered and we must question our traditional concept of free will.
Therefore, three components, the orbital cortex, the “warrior gene,” and a person’s upbringing, all combine to determine whether one lives a normal, peaceful life or becomes a serial killer. If it could be proven that a person’s moral compass is a function of these factors and they no longer have free will, it would be an enormous threat to our legal system and current concepts of criminal justice. Now, absolute morality and whether we are good or evil is based on electrical, chemical, and physical connections in the brain and child abuse.
Look at the strides in pharmacology and our ability to positively impact millions who suffer from depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorders, schizophrenia, and many other conditions. Fifty years ago the mentally ill had fewer options: Freudian analysis, lobotomies, and electroconvulsive therapy. While it is relatively easy to convince a jury that a murderer who had a golf-ball-sized tumor in his brain was “not responsible” and should be considered “mentally incompetent,” it is not as easy to use complex, jargon-laced explanations of neurotransmitters, neurons, and electrical functions of brain centers to prove that the murderer was incapable of making a correct, moral decision.
The fact that the person had diminished free will should not diminish the seriousness of a crime. For the protection of society, something must be done. The main benefit of this knowledge is not after the fact but in realizing its preventive potential. Denying the implications of this research and invoking emotional images of “pure evil,” Satan, sin, and wickedness does not add to the discussion or lead to positive solutions.
Case Study-Archetypes
Below are two contrasting examples of human behavior.
1
Gets Ph.D. after studying for 10-12 years.
Drops out of high school
2
Mother and father supportive
Mom was a meth user; never knew dad; joins street gang.
3
Got a ticket once and stopped speeding.
Was arrested dozens of times; behavior does not change.
4
Avoids fighting.
Enjoys fighting.
5
Slow to anger.
Quick to anger.
6
Forms relationships; long-term marriage
Distrustful of people. Poor relationships.
7
Moves earthworms off a sidewalk.
Put a man in in a coma; eventually kills someone.
8
Exercises daily
Out of shape.
9
Eats healthy
Eats junk food.
10
Social drinker
Alcoholic and drug user.
The common explanation would be the person on the left has self-control, willpower, and impulse control and the person on the right does not. It is considered a matter of character and, per religious lines, willfully disobedient and sinful behavior.
I will show how if all the factors preceding any individual choice were the same, the result would be the same. Just as we can have a causal ramjet for positive behaviors, we can also have causal ramjet for negative behaviors–which is clearly the case on the right.
Case Studies
Case 1: Daniel falls off a bridge unintentionally and lands on Danica and kills her.
Apply our list of questions to the case above.
1. Did he have free will at the moment of their action?
2. Should he be blamed for their action/decision?
3. Did he behave correctly, or incorrectly?
4. Is he good or evil?
5. Should he be punished? How severely?
6. Is he going to hell? Does he deserve hell?
7. Did this person act courageously or cowardly?
8. Could he have acted otherwise?
This is an easy one.
Case 2: Joshua jumps willfully wanting to kill himself, but instead lands on another human being, who is killed. Joshua lives.
1. Did he have free will at the moment of their action?
2. Should he be blamed for their action/decision?
3. Did he behave correctly, or incorrectly?
4. Is he good or evil?
5. Should he be punished? How severely?
6. Is he going to hell? Does he deserve hell?
7. Did this person act courageously or cowardly?
8. Could he have acted otherwise?
Case 3: Caleb, who is depressed, jumps off the building with the clear intent of killing someone. Same result but no one knows he intentionally wanted to land on someone.
1. Did he have free will at the moment of their action?
2. Should he be blamed for their action/decision?
3. Did he behave correctly, or incorrectly?
4. Is he good or evil?
5. Should he be punished? How severely?
6. Is he going to hell? Does he deserve hell?
7. Did this person act courageously or cowardly?
8. Could he have acted otherwise?
Is he culpable? Should he be punished? Yes, he had free will. He decided to jump and c
ould have chosen not to jump. This is a legal and in many ways a religious definition of free will. It implies intent, culpability, sin, evil guilt, and punishment. All of those concepts are wrapped around this version of free will.
Case 4: While driving, Susan texts someone and then inadvertently kills a young child.
1. Did she have free will at the moment of her action?
2. Should she be blamed for their action/decision?
3. Did she behave correctly, or incorrectly?
4. Is she good or evil?
5. Should she be punished? How severely?
6. Is she going to hell? Does she deserve hell?
7. Did Susan act courageously or cowardly?
8. Could she have acted otherwise?
Even though there was no intent, no conscious or act of will involved, they are still culpable–and will likely go to jail for negligent homicide.
Case 5: I hear "voices in my head" telling me to kill my children and I drown all five of them in a bathtub.
1. Did I have free will at the moment of my action?
2. Should I be blamed for my action/decision?
3. Did I behave correctly, or incorrectly?
4. Am I good or evil?
5. Should I be punished? How severely?
6. Am I going to hell? Do I deserve hell?
7. Did I act courageously or cowardly?
8. Could I have acted otherwise?
I am still culpable. The psychological and legal profession will jockey to determine if I "was in my right mind" or legally insane. They will perform a battery of tests to determine if I understand the scope of the charges against me. Did I plan my actions? Did I understand what I was doing?
Case 6: Bob, with an IQ of 70, and a violent past is in the charge of a caregiver. The caregiver is playing videogames and does not know that the man walks outside and sees a small child with a bicycle. Bob wants the bike and unintentionally breaks the child's neck as the child tries to pull away from him.