I want to tell you about one of the most liberating philosophical shifts in my life: coming to see “free will” as an illusion.
Before that shift, I tended to get tangled up in complex debates about free will (with both books and people, in both religious and non-religious settings).
Then I read Sam Harris’s small but powerful book Free Will—and finally, the tangles began to clear.
And, even better, so did thickets of anxiety and shame inside me.
Stories and Science
We feel like we have free will. We feel ourselves making choices, acting on them, and seeing their consequences.
We also feel a sense of identity—a self—an ego—a consciousness—a “me.”
But there’s no physically findable thing that is the “self” or the “free will.”
Our brains, adapted for survival, construct stories of self and of personal agency to help us navigate the world. But believing that those stories are literally true requires believing in what some have called a “ghost in the machine”—a separate non-physical entity (like a “spirit” or “soul”) inside our physical bodies. And of course, we have no evidence for such a thing, despite the claims of religion and pseudoscience.
What actual science shows is that when it comes to our feeling of making decisions, there’s way more going on in the vast arcs of reality and time (see: physics) and way more going on in the intricacies of our brains and bodies (see: neuroscience) than what we subjectively, consciously experience as a decision.
Little Mind and Big Mind
My egocentric little-mind thinks that I am personally on the hook for getting things right, keeping things together, figuring out the answers, achieving my goals, and so on. Enter anxiety, stress, frustration, shame, blame, ambition, discouragement—and so on.
But in the big-mind view, what’s going to happen will happen anyway, without my consciously willing it to happen and then making it happen. So I can relax as I walk along my path, following where my conditions and inclinations lead.
(Little mind and big mind are concepts from Zen philosophy, which has also lent quite a lot to my current perspective.)
Less Suffering, Please
Some people seem to think that believing in free will is necessary to prevent laziness and immorality. (This is akin to the viewpoint that we need religion to keep us moral.) That looks to me like more of “little mind” thinking.
The “big mind” model of free will and self as illusions implies that we operate just as we would anyway—we still passionately pursue our goals (or not) and uphold our values (or not)—but we can do so without suffering from the stress that comes from thinking we’re in control.
And, bonus: this “big mind” model leads to less suffering not only inside us, but also in the world around us—because we view others’ behavior with compassion instead of blame.
Outsmarting My Brain
I’m not saying it’s all enlightened equanimity for me now. I’m still a human meat-creature with messy feelings and an egocentric bias.
But, being human, I have the benefits of a large cerebral cortex—so I can sometimes outsmart my animal brain and take a larger view of things. Then I get to experience benefits like equanimity!
So, I Write about This a Lot
I work hard to regularly practice this “big-mind” view, as you’ll see if you take a look through my old poems here (imported from my old blog), especially the “Alphabet Meditation Verses.”
In fact, part of why I’m writing this post is because these concepts tend to end up in a lot of my poems and songs, and I want to provide some context for that.
“I’m Just a Droplet of Awareness”
For example, my song “Droplet” is specifically about this liberation from free-will-based thinking. (My family and friends say it’s my best song, and it’s certainly my favorite.) I lean on it pretty heavily to help myself practice “big mind” thinking.
So I want to share the lyrics again here:
It appears to my little mind
that I make things happen all the time.
Every choice that I make carries brutal weight
to save or to sink—but I’m starting to thinkthat life is far bigger than what I know,
with complex connections in constant flow.
It’s like a great river going where it will go,
and the drop that is me can only follow.So there’s no truth to shame or blame;
they are only tools in ego’s game.
It may fail to console, but I’m not in control;
and the saner I’ll be the sooner I see… (chorus)So set down these burdens and yield to the flow:
as the river goes on, just breathe and know
that I’m not what happens; I’m not even a “me.”
I’m just a droplet of awareness in the river of reality.
Connections
Does this model make sense to you, and do you share my views? If not, would you like to share more about your own viewpoint, or some other point of connection (or disconnection) with what I’ve written here? I welcome any discussion.
I had to really let this one marinate and noodle on it for quite a while. I'm not very well read on the subject but I'll try my best to put together some coherent thoughts.
I don't think we can dismiss the self/soul/spirit/ghost/whatever as being nonexistent just because we can't measure it. The best analogy I can come up with is computer software. Software isn't really a tangible thing; it is technically observable as magnetically stored instructions and data, and you could measure the electrical impulses between and within chips while it's running, but none of that really depicts the experience of the running software.
There might be a few geniuses out there who could look at millions of instructions or watch electrons bounce around a scope and go, "Ah! That's a word processor!" It's a heck of a lot easier to just start the program and observe the experience created from all that low-level stuff. But you can't really touch or measure it.
I think that's what the "self" is: it's webs of signals that exist on top of our neurobiology, like an app that's always running, and when we power down (i.e., die) all its data is lost forever. There is no permanent storage. At least, not yet... but that's a moral quandary for another day! LOL
All that said, I think there is value in the philosophy you've presented here. Because in the vastness of existence, our selves are so infinitesimally small that there's no possibility we aren't influenced by billions of other factors. We can't even fully comprehend or control what's happening in our own bodies, let alone the world.
So yeah, physics and neuroscience and all that low-level stuff is probably what makes 99% of everything happen, with little to no input from our selves. But I believe that at some level, that self inside us does have a little agency. After all, we have to be able to interpret our experiences somehow (and endlessly philosophize about them, as humans do).
Maybe at the self level, we can influence our neurobiology a little. Reroute a signal here and there. Choose to shift a small behavior or two. Flip a couple bits, so to speak. And when our physical brains kick in to take care of the rest, maybe those little changes make a difference.
So maybe we don't really have "free will," but just "loose will" or "limited will." We shouldn't beat ourselves up for our inability to make things happen exactly how we want or hope to. But we also shouldn't stop trying.
Thanks for sharing this and really getting my brain going! 😁
I have to admit I need to read your thought-provoking "Freedom from 'Free Will'" more deeply, but I am immediately compelled to share my thoughts about related content.
I consider myself a spiritual soul. And I am definitely a scientist. Free will is one of my favorite philosophical rabbit holes to wander in. Science, is another rabbit hole as well - I live there often.
When someone suggests something doesn't exist because science cannot prove it, I always catch myself to think how we often forget what science can and cannot do. For instance, the scientific method tells us what science can and cannot 'find.' It cannot prove that something is --- it can only prove something that is not.
Science has not yet proved that spirit or consciousness exists, but that is not to say that it doesn't. The only way spirit or consciousness can be removed from the realms of probability is by proving they do not exist. And that also is not the case.
Science can suggest all they want that something does not exist, but until they prove so, then perhaps it does.
Anyway, I ramble, but I do love a good look at free will, science and all sorts of ponders. Thank you for letting me share this space with you.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.