Chapter 1: The Dilemma of Free Will

The concept of free will has long been a topic of debate among philosophers, but its significance is increasingly recognized within the realm of physics as well. Although a universally accepted definition of free will is elusive, a commonly agreed-upon interpretation might be: “the supposed power of individuals to make choices or take actions independently of any preceding events or states in the universe.”

Photo by Milad Fakurian on Unsplash

While this notion is appealing, it raises the possibility that it might merely be an illusion. If one subscribes to the idea that humans function as biological machines, where consciousness emerges from biochemical and neurological processes, one might find this perspective troubling. This viewpoint, known as physicalism, dismisses the notion of a human soul or any medium for consciousness beyond the brain itself. Allow me to clarify the predicament:

To grasp the argument against free will from a physicalist standpoint, we must first understand the workings of the human brain. Broadly speaking, the brain comprises three main parts: the cerebrum, brainstem, and cerebellum. Each section communicates through chemical and electrical signals, facilitating the transmission of information that the brain interprets. This organ is responsible for coordinating movement, regulating body temperature, and controlling essential human functions such as speech, reasoning, balance, and sensory perception.

What truly piques our interest in unraveling the mystery of consciousness is how our brain receives information. We understand that this occurs through neurons, which consist of a cell body, dendrites, and axons. When an external stimulus, such as pain, interacts with our body, neurons convey an electrical impulse containing the information about that stimulus to the brain, where it is interpreted as pain. The decoded information is then relayed back to the original site of the stimulus, triggering the typical response of saying “Ouch!”

Interestingly, individuals suffering from third-degree burns may not experience pain because the severe heat can destroy the neural pathways responsible for transmitting pain signals from the affected area. While this may not seem particularly enjoyable, it is certainly intriguing.

So, why does this matter in relation to our understanding of consciousness and free will?

Let’s revisit this concept.

If a stimulus generates an electrical impulse, which I provocatively termed “code” in a previous illustration, and this code is processed by the brain before being sent back through neurons, then there must be a single output each time our body responds to a sensory experience. If there is just one output, where does free will fit in? Physicalism posits that humans are biological machines and that consciousness arises from neurological processes that operate according to the laws of physics. Do all physicalists then have to reject the notion of free will? Are our daily choices determined solely by our biological makeup?

Physicist Werner Heisenberg may have provided insight into this dilemma in the 20th century with his uncertainty principle. In classical physics, objects possess a specific location and velocity that can be measured. For instance, while driving, GPS can pinpoint your location, and a speedometer reveals your rate of speed. However, the quantum realm operates differently:

"Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we determine a particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa."

Imagine if this quantum uncertainty also manifests in the brain.

We still experience a stimulus from the external environment that produces an electrical impulse, but due to the uncertainty principle, we cannot definitively track the path that the “code” takes. While we can measure the electrical impulse received by the brain, we cannot simultaneously ascertain where that information is processed. This uncertainty introduces at least two possibilities, and thus two outputs.

While this may not equate to absolute free will, it suggests a degree of autonomy in decision-making. For example, I can choose whether or not to indulge in that piece of chocolate sitting on my table. I retain the capacity to refrain from causing harm or to accept a marriage proposal. The uncertainty creates a small space for decision-making, where minimal variations in output occur due to quantum effects in the brain, allowing a choice between two alternatives: I will do this or I will not.

This remains a theoretical framework, yet it could resolve our conundrum. It prompts the intriguing idea that we process information and execute biomechanical commands in a binary fashion. In this light, we could indeed be seen as biological machines. Since the uncertainty principle is a physicalist phenomenon, it could also be incorporated into neural networks, suggesting that AI could possess a limited form of free will. However, to delve deeper into this argument, we would need to examine neural networks more closely, which warrants a separate discussion.

References:

Chapter 2: Consciousness and the Uncertainty Principle

In this chapter, we will explore how the uncertainty principle relates to the philosophical question of consciousness.

The first video titled "63 - The Question of Consciousness (Ft. David Chalmers) | Why This Universe" discusses the intricate relationship between consciousness and the uncertainty principle, featuring insights from David Chalmers.

The second video, "The Meta-Problem of Consciousness with David Chalmers," further delves into these topics, examining the complexities surrounding consciousness and its implications in both philosophy and physics.