Does Free Will Exist? Is Fate Predestined?

You may not have free will! Everything is your illusion! Indeed, from a historical perspective, philosophers have had much to say on this topic. Their speculations gave rise to various schools of thought, such as cosmic determinism (i.e., everything develops over time in a predictable manner, making free will impossible), indeterminism (which holds that the universe and our actions within it are random, also denying free will), and cosmic libertarianism or compatibilism (which argues that free will is logically compatible with a deterministic view of the universe). Humanity has debated for thousands of years whether free will exists. However, in recent years, while philosophers continue to debate the metaphysical foundations of human decision-making, an increasing number of neuroscientists have begun to tackle this issue head-on (yes, literally with their heads). Some of these neuroscientists believe their experiments suggest that the human subjective experience of free will may merely be an illusion. While these research streams are undoubtedly important, one cannot help but feel that the viewpoints of these factions are unhelpful and poorly argued. The debate surrounding this issue calls for some real science—some testable theories. And indeed, this is happening. Preliminary results from scientific brain experiments suggest that decisions seem to be made before a person is actually aware of them, sometimes with a significant time lag. This observation is unsettling and leads some neuroscientists to conclude that human control over their choices is not as great as imagined, at least regarding certain basic movements and tasks. Meanwhile, not everyone is convinced. Perhaps more time is needed to truly prove that free will is an illusion. In the mid-1960s, neuroscientists first realized that there were some quite peculiar things happening in the brain. German scientists Hans Helmut Kornhuber and Lüder Deecke discovered a phenomenon they called "bereitschaftspotential" (BP), which translates to "readiness potential" in English. They found that the brain enters a special state in the instant before conscious perception arises, a discovery that opened up an entirely new branch of science. Kornhuber and Deecke asked their subjects to move a finger (this movement was spontaneous), and subsequent EEG scans showed that just prior to the voluntary movement, a slow negative potential change appeared in the activity of the motor cortex. They were forced to conclude that the subconscious causes spontaneous behavior. This observation was completely unexpected and counterintuitive. Note: A slow negative potential change appears first in the motor cortex, indicating that voluntary conscious movement will still occur; that is, the emergence of voluntary consciousness is first determined by the subconscious. Everyone believes they possess free will, but in this case, free will is only a feeling of freedom; in reality, it is still subject to the subconscious. From an Eastern perspective, this is actually nothing unacceptable. Undoubtedly, this discovery troubled many in the scientific community, who, since Freud, had largely accepted a strictly deterministic view of human decision-making. Most scientists dismissed it without much thought. However, later experiments by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s corroborated the pioneering work of Kornhuber and Deecke. Similar to previous experiments, Libet asked participants to move their fingers, but this time, they had to watch a clock with a dot rotating around its exterior. (Participants could decide when to move their fingers on their own, rather than in response to an external signal, but they had to report to the experimenter the relative position of the dot and the clock at the moment they became aware of the intention to move their finger.) His data showed that the readiness potential began approximately 0.35 seconds before participants reported conscious perception. Libet concluded that, regarding the initiation of one's own actions, humans have no free will; however, we possess a power akin to a cognitive "veto," allowing us to stop an activity at the last moment. We cannot start an action, but we can stop it. Neurologically, Libet and others believe this phenomenon arises from the supplementary motor area (SMA)/pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) and the anterior cingulate motor area of the brain, regions that enable individuals to focus attention on spontaneous actions and execute voluntary movements. The tools have advanced, but the conclusion hasn't changed much. Recently, the technology used by neuroscientists to study this phenomenon has become more advanced, namely functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and implanted electrodes. However, if anything, these new experiments suggest that the BP effect is more significant than previously thought. In 2008, a study by John-Dylan Haynes revealed an effect similar to Libet's findings. After placing participants in an fMRI scanner, Haynes asked them to press a button with their left or right index finger at any time they chose, but they had to remember the letter displayed on the screen at the moment they intended to make this movement. The results were shocking. Haynes's data showed that the BP appeared a full second before subjects became conscious of the intention, and in other cases, this time lag could be up to 10 seconds. After publishing this paper, he told Nature News: "Our first thought was: 'We have to check if this is real.' We did more sanity checks than any study I've seen before." Haynes pointed out that cognitive delay might be caused by the operation of networks in higher control areas, which must prepare the impending decision before entering a state of conscious perception. Fundamentally, the brain first begins to operate unconsciously to brew a decision; once all conditions are ripe, consciousness comes into play, and then movement is generated. Note: Cognitive delay is a necessary behavior; humans cannot act immediately upon thinking of something. There must be judgment first, followed by the choice of action. This is often a manifestation of higher intelligence. For example, when a dog forages, if you don't give it food, it may bite; this is direct. Humans, however, may first estimate the situation of the target, deciding whether to endure or use violence. Often, appropriate delay is more beneficial for advantageous choices. Before taking these actions, an individual's personality is determined by fate, so ultimately, an invisible hand is controlling things. In another study, neuroscientist Itzhak Fried did not use an fMRI scanner but drilled directly into the brain: he implanted electrodes into the brains of experimental participants to record the state of individual neurons. This procedure allowed him to understand with extreme precision what was happening in the brain when decisions were made. His experiments showed that neurons became active up to 1.5 seconds before the subject made the decision to press the button. When there were 700 milliseconds left before the decision was made, Fried and his team could predict the timing of the decision with nearly 80% accuracy. In some cases, his prediction accuracy reached as high as 90%. Fried speculated that will only emerges after the change in the firing rate of impulses within neuronal clusters exceeds a threshold, and the medial prefrontal cortex can send these decisions as signals before the person becomes aware of them. "At some point, decided matters can be accepted by consciousness," he told Nature, implying that consciousness may later participate in the decision-making process. In another study, researcher Stefan Bode conducted fine fMRI experiments. The experiments showed that it is possible to actually decode the results of free decisions several seconds before they enter conscious perception. Bode found that, chronologically, the activity pattern of the prefrontal pole cortex (BA 10, i.e., Brodmann area 10) was the first region to carry decision-related information, making it the primary candidate brain region for the unconscious generation of free decisions. His research dispelled much of the skepticism regarding previous experiments. Note: This principle is already present in many realities, including some practices in psychology, such as showing someone an object first and then proceeding with other activities; humans are often influenced by the previous consciousness. In advertising, beautiful images often impact visual perception first. Although most know those images are fake, more people still prefer to choose the beautiful-looking images for this reason. From the perspective of the general public, the masses must conform to these universal laws. Opposing Voices Not everyone agrees with the conclusions of these findings. Skeptics argue that the truth about free will has yet to be unveiled. In 2010, W. R. Klemm of Texas A&M University published an analytical paper pointing out that the way free will experiments interpret data is unreasonable and that the experimental process is too hasty. Others criticized the timing judgments, arguing that the time interval between action and movement is too short, and that focusing on timing may lead to data distortion. The brain regions studied, namely the pre-SMA/SMA and anterior cingulate motor area of the brain, may only participate in the late stages of motor planning; it is conceivable that the brain regions using will are more likely other higher-level brain systems. Similarly, due to the way the experiments were conducted, subjects may have been influenced by other "choice prediction" signals, so the measured brain activity may not be directly related to the experiment itself. It appears that the debate on the issue of free will has not yet been resolved. Although neuroscientists have indeed revealed some insights into human thinking and decision-making, more work is needed to make these insights more convincing. If neuroscientists can predict the actual outcomes of more complex decisions before the subjects themselves are aware of them, then the issue is resolved. That would truly prove that free will is merely an illusion. Moreover, neuroscientists also need to distinguish between different types of decisions. Not all decisions are the same; moving a finger or pressing a button is worlds apart from contemplating the meaning of life or斟酌字句 (pondering words) for an important speech. Considering the limitations of experiments so far (which have focused on voluntary limb movements), human decision-making is clearly a field very much worth exploring. Science, Philosophy, and Morality Are No Longer Clearly Boundaried A more important question is how we should reconcile these findings with daily life. Assuming we do not have free will, what does that mean for the human condition? What about responsibility for one's actions? Recently, Daniel Dennett tried to rescue free will from the trash heap of history, stating that human agency still has some room to maneuver, and these questions still need to be answered by science. Dennett admits that free will in the classical sense basically does not exist, but he attempts to redefine the topic, i.e., to still prove that free will exists, albeit under specific conditions. He wrote: Scientists have many naive ideas about free will. I have spoken about this topic a lot, trying to eliminate some bad ideas proposed by many scientists. I have achieved some success in this regard, but still need to work hard. I think scientists find it attractive to have a philosophical concept with thousands of years of history, such as free will, in front of them, and they can elegantly kick it out of the realm of philosophical thinking. I think it would be quite nice if this could become true. But this is not true. I think their motives are good. They are trying to figure out the facts, but they actually missed many key points. Like those people, I look forward to a naturalistic theory of humans, free will, and moral responsibility, but I think you need to think more thoroughly and comprehensively about this issue, which happens to prove that there is still solid work waiting for philosophers to do. As a major supporter of Sam Harris, Dennett has been criticized by those who believe he discusses the issue from an epistemological rather than a scientific perspective. In fact, Sam Harris presented a compelling view: We do not have free will, but that is not a problem. Moreover, he believes that the continued belief in free will is due for an end: The appearance of a person's conscious thoughts, intentions, and efforts at every moment is caused by reasons of which they are not aware. More importantly, their appearance has deep causes—genes, childhood experiences, etc.—and no one, not even the most vicious person, can be held responsible for this. Our ignorance of these two facts produces a moral illusion. However, many people worry that believing in free will is necessary, especially in the process of raising children. Harris does not believe the illusion of free will is an "ugly fact," nor does he believe it is something forever related to philosophical abstraction. This is science, he says, is what we need to face. "Consciousness has always been downstream of the deep causes of my thoughts, intentions, and actions, but recognizing this does not change the fact that all thoughts, intentions, and actions are indispensable for my happiness (or unhappiness)." He wrote. But, as Dennett correctly pointed out, this is far from a simple and clear-cut issue. Supporters of the view that "free will is an illusion" still must improve their experimental methods, and in the process, they also do the work of philosophers, evolutionary biologists, and even quantum physicists. For example, if consciousness is not the channel for exercising free will, why did humans evolve consciousness rather than unconscious zombie brains? Considering the nature of quantum uncertainty, what does it mean to live in a universe of vague probabilities? Note: If the exploration of free will ultimately reveals that there are still implicit laws controlling things behind the scenes, it suggests that the subconscious should be freer than explicit consciousness. Explicit consciousness is like a shell, an armor that fully protects the subconscious, and human thought, or explicit consciousness, is fully protected by the body as armor. True free will does not exist, but relative freedom does exist. If everything is predestined, humans would not continuously generate various new theories, and these new theories and philosophical reflections would deeply reflect on thought itself. This reflection itself would cause changes and disturbances to the self, leading to the fact that although there is no freedom, there is also no true unfreedom. So, from some perspectives, free will can still be considered to exist.