What I am about to write has already been decided. I don't know it yet, but the Universe, on the other hand, is fully aware of it. Will I be engaging? Will I conquer your minds? Will I use words as only the best writers can? Will I juxtapose terms artfully by sublimating the meaning of some thoughts? Perhaps I could answer that, whichever way it goes, it could only go like this.
I can already imagine your confusion and, in part, puzzlement. "Gerd has gone mad," you will think. But no: once again the basis of my claims remains science-or at least an attempt at it.
A 2021 article by Oliver Burkemann published in "The Guardian" is the primary source of this theory I am about to expound. It is an idea put forward by many philosophers and neuroscientists (a strange juxtaposition but judged fruitful) who seem to believe that human beings do not possess "free will": all our choices result from specific forces beyond our control. Thus, each individual act would become the ultimate consequence of a cascading series of events governed by physical laws and would, in turn, be the initiating principle of future situations.
We are well aware, however, that science is made up of replicable and provable theories: the proponents of these thoughts are, therefore, moving into a field of research that has yet to arrive at actual demonstrations. Certainly, it would be a real revolution if it were to come to that.
An actual dogma could collapse, as has happened many times before (dogma means a universally accepted theoretical model until someone proves otherwise). The greatest ruptures in history have occurred when these archetypes have found their end thanks to the work of thinkers and scientists: I am talking about figures who have undoubtedly become well known (and here I mention only the two, perhaps, most famous but certainly not to take credit away from the many others) such as Galileo Galilei who, taking up Ptolemaic studies, unhinged the idea of an earth at the center of the cosmos or Charles Darwin who hypothesized the evolution of living species thanks to the theory of natural selection. These examples illustrate how scientific discoveries can challenge long-held beliefs and reshape our world understanding.
Suppose indeed the world were to prove this idea. In that case, we might risk going into much more disturbing ethical and philosophical chaos than the previous revolutions mentioned above. We would be forced to conclude that even praising or blaming someone for one's actions might be unreasonable. Exactly the same way that feeling at fault for one's misdeeds or inflicting punishment on criminals should be deemed unjustifiable. All this is because no one would turn out to be the master of his own actions. What has been done could not have gone in a different direction.
Some experiments conducted in the 1980s by the American neuroscientist Benjamin Libet, for example, were used precisely to substantiate these theories. He, by connecting subjects to a brain-pulse recorder, seemed to demonstrate how their choices (implemented by means of predetermined tests) were detectable in brain activity up to 300 milliseconds before conscious decision making.
In short, as much as we fear the illusion of complete freedom regarding the future ahead, in truth, we are not free to choose whether to start the day with fruit or chocolate.
Despite everything, there is one aspect that remains focal: that of not confusing 'determinism', which suggests that all events, including human actions, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will, with 'fatalism ', which is the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable. Even if we admitted the fact that we could never be fully self-aware since actual free will would depend not only on will but on a range of geographical, temporal, social, character, environmental, and welfare factors, this would not mean that our choices would cease to matter. In fact, they would continue to matter in our lives as they always have, along with their consequences.
Never surrender then to the whirlwind of events. Never be passive and inept in the face of fate. "It is necessary to have the courage to tell young people that they are all sovereign, for whom obedience is no longer a virtue but the most insidious of temptations, that they should not believe that they can shield themselves from it either before men or before God, that they must each feel that they are solely responsible for everything," said Don Lorenzo Milani in one of his best-known texts.
Even surrender before the laws of the cosmos, then, cannot be a protection toward the choices we decide to make. However daughters of physical forces, our actions will continue (for now) to be attributable to us alone. This is at least until we resolve that never-fully clarified relationship between biology and consciousness, will and intellect. On the other hand, the Universe and the human brain are by far the most difficult things to study. And sometimes science no longer has an entirely understandable and unambiguous way and is forced to give way to interpretation. This suggests that while science can provide valuable insights, there may always be a need for interpretation and philosophical reflection to fully understand complex phenomena like free will and determinism.
It is then difficult to pull the strings of this discourse. In fact, interpretation is often random and unmeasurable, often conditioned, and often piloted or misrepresented.
We have no choice, then, but to play the compromise card: so between science and interpretation, we wittily insert ourselves through our stories and try to generate reflections. Indeed, today's is also a rather peculiar tale, capable at least of shaking thoughts: after all, choosing remains perhaps the most thankless of human tasks. But also the one that can give us the most satisfaction.
References:
- Burkemann, O. (2021). Do we have free will? The Guardian.
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
- Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529-539.
- Kane, R. (2005). A contemporary introduction to free will. Oxford University Press.
Post a Comment