Ian Fuqua

Mrs. Thomas
UWRT 1103
18 Apr. 2016
Reflection: After completely losing my first rough draft because of my computer automatically
updating itself and deleting all four pages of my saved work, I was upset and demotivated to
rewrite about this slightly confusing topic. Now that I have made more progress, I feel confident
in how I have begun to create a well-organized discussion surrounding the different perspectives
of free will. I feel as if my understanding of the topic has expanded a lot, and my ability to try to
clearly convey and merge my thoughts with other perspectives has improved. After my peers
gave me some good advice, I revised my paper some and I tried to simplify some areas.
WOD: My thesis has improved a lot, thanks to the advice I have received from my peers.
Does Free Will Exist?
Having free will or the ability to act and make decisions without the constraints of fate or
any other external forces is a very complex concept that has been pondered amongst human for
thousands of years. Although this concept is quite confusing, it is very important to anyone
trying to better understand themselves and what makes them who they are. Free will pertains to
just about everyone as it can relate to an individuals thoughts, actions, beliefs and their entire
existence. Because of its significance, this controversial subject has led to many varying
philosophical, religious and scientific perspectives. This includes views like determinists who
believe that all events including human action are ultimately determined by causes external to the

will, and Christian Calvinists who believe in predestination, where God has complete control
over everything, knows everything that will happen and is all a part of his plan.
Often times when we first ask ourselves if we have free will or not we immediately get
defensive and think of course we do. It seems intuitively correct to make the assumption that
we are independent and autonomous, but that does not mean we should not try to analyze the
reality of the situation. At first it appears obvious because if we are given the option between
something random like deciding to clap our hands or not, it seems as if we can clearly chose
between one or the other and that we have full control over that choice, but regardless of what
that choice is, you had to of ultimately chosen it for some reason or another. No matter how
insignificant or buried in our subconscious (the part of the mind that is not fully aware but
influences ones actions and feelings) the reasoning behind some of our choices may be they are
still there and are still determining factors behind what we chose to do.
Addressing whether we have free will or not is important so that we can make up our
minds on whether we are in complete control of ourselves or if we are simply slaves to our
bodies and the forces of the universe. Before researching this topic I had the general idea that we
are either just our brains and thats all, or we are what controls our brains such as a soul or level
of consciousness in the mind that has control.
One interesting perspective on free will was created by Mark Balaguer, a Professor in the
Department of Philosophy at California State University. In the introduction to his book, Free
Will, Balaguer explains how scientists like Daniel Wegner (a Harvard psychologist) and Sam
Harris (a neuroscientist and the author of various philosophical books) argue that science shows
us that free will is an illusion. As Balaguer states, this would be surprising due to the fact that It
seems that what we do from moment to moment is determined by conscious decisions that we

freely make. Balaguer insists that we must take a look for ourselves at neuroscience to decide if
we want to believe that we have free will or not. Because of the fact that neuroscience (the study
of the structure and function of the nervous system and the brain) is key to studying in order to
learn about the brain and how it works, many believe it holds the answer to the question of
whether free will can exist or not.
Balaguer then gives us two views on humans; the spiritual, religious view of humans and
the materialistic, scientific view of humans. He argues that these two perspectives play a very
important role in how we look at free will and what the determining force behind our actions is.
Although these perspectives often clash with each other in everyday beliefs, they both hold
convincing evidence that explain the backbone forces of our free thinking and decision making.
When searching for this evidence one must remember as Balaguer said, Just because
someone with a PhD and a lab coat tells you that science has established some nutty conclusion
doesnt mean its really true. Of course, it doesnt mean its false either. My claim is simply that
we have to check it out for ourselves. Finally, Balaguer suggests that the real reason whether or
not we have free will is important is because we want it, and having it is good and not having it
is bad. This shows that concluding that we do in fact have free will is the only truly impactful
answer. This is because if you learn that you do not have it then nothing will change and your
decisions can not be affected because they are already determined, but if you learn that you do
have it then you will likely feel more responsible for all the decisions you make. For example if I
thought I didn't have free will and I was to wake up in the morning and wonder if I should go to
class or just skip it then I could just lay in bed and skip class and then reason with myself that I
had no control and say that was what I was going to do no matter what. On the contrary, if I
believe I do have free will then I know its up to me to make the smart choice and go to class.

Another intriguing perspective on free will is the video uploaded to YouTube in March,
2015 by Prager University, Do We Have Free Will? The video begins with a simple explanation
of cause and effect. Object A acts upon object B with force x. This concept applies to just
about everything. The main question this video begs is what causes our thoughts? It then
emphasizes how some of these causes are external causes such as environmental, biological,
genetic, chemical and neurological factors, where something fires the instruction for us to do
something involuntarily. This brings up the question of whether we are in control of our thoughts
or if these external forces control them.
Another cause for our thoughts the video presents is internal causes, which is when the
thoughts are caused by our internal feelings and emotions. These feelings and emotions would
come from things like our experiences, relationships and hormones. Then the video presents a
third cause that is called our conscious choices thoughts. Conscious choices thoughts are
created when we attempt to contemplate things rationally. This kind of thinking endorses that
being just a brain makes you a complex machine, but if we are more than a brain then we way
out reasons and deliberate.
Being something more than a brain makes us a mind, self-awareness or a spirit. The
narrator of the video reaffirms this point by saying Surgeons can have access to my brain, but I
am the only one with access to my mind. Some atheists and determinists may argue that free
will cannot exist because in order for us to have free will there must be something nonphysical to
us which also means there must be something nonphysical that accounts for our nonphysical
minds. This shows us how establishing your religious standpoint is necessary before you can
logically deduce if you possess the liberty to act how you please or if you are ruled by
predestination. For example, if someone believes in a God who is all knowing then it would only

make sense to assume that persons God already knows the decisions they will make, therefore
those decisions are the only ones that can be made. This is an example of just one of the many
paradoxes that can revolve around this complex subject.
The video ends with the narrator saying, now when you exercise your free will and
choose to think about all this you are probably going to reason just like I did that there is a great
mind that accounts for the origin of your mind but again thats your choice, its evidence for your
free will. Ending the video with this statement is interesting because it almost traps viewers into
believing they have free will because without it you lose the ability to choose if you think you do
or not.
In an Article by George Dvorsky, Scientific Evidence that you Probably Dont Have
Free Will, Dvorsky claims that there are recent discoveries with scientific evidence that show
our brain begins making decisions before we are actually aware of them. This is believed to show
that we are less in control of our choices than we think. After explaining evidence presented by
neurologists, Kornhuber and Deecke's electroencephalogram (EEG) scans that had to do with
performing basic movements and when we are aware of performing them. Dvorsky concludes
we have no free will as far as the initiation of our movements are concerned, but that we had a
kind of cognitive "veto" to prevent the movement at the last moment; we can't start it, but we can
stop it. This would mean we have some form of control over our actions but not complete
freedom.
The science writer, John Mccrone wrote a similar article on free will and pointed out,
The determinists will assert that in a Newtonian world there is no escaping cause and effect.
One physical event leads inexorably to the next. Well, the brain is just an arrangement of
molecules, no matter what thoughts the arrangement encodes. So, in principle, you could

measure the state of the entire brain at a particular moment and predict exactly what thoughts it
will have next. The behaviour of every molecule will be predetermined, leaving no room for free
will. Those who believe in free will can easily argue back as McCrone stated, determinism,
forgets that quantum mechanics and chaos theory allow for random fluctuationsevents
without apparent causes. So maybe our brains have managed to harness the forces of randomness
in some way, allowing them to soar above the rigid framework of their circuitry. The thing that
is important to take from this is that because of the fact that our reality is so complex and not
fully understood on all levels by our brains, there are so many uncertainties and counter
arguments that can be made to support just about any theory on free will.
Even with it being impossible to come to an absolute conclusion, it is still important to
speculate what is most likely true because of how much it pertains to everything we do and what
matters in life. For instance if free will does not exist then one may ask if we can hold prisoners
accountable for their actions. The problem with this is if we can not hold them accountable for
their actions then we can not hold ourselves accountable for our action of punishing them
because by that logic we have no control over the situation anyways.
Stephen J. Morse, a Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School,
explains why the problem of free will is irrelevant when it comes to the law and forensic
thinking. He proclaims that free will is only a metaphysical problem and should be avoided in
regards to legal responsibilities, doctrines and practices. Morse argues that applying theories on
free will to law only causes confusion and is unnecessary. The explanation he gives for this is
because The laws view of the person is a creature capable of practical reason, an agent who
forms and acts on intentions that are the product of the persons desires and beliefs. The law does
not treat persons generally as non-intentional creatures or mechanical forces of nature. This

leaves him with the recommendation that Forensic psychiatrists and psychologists should avoid
all mention of free will in their reports, testimony, and scholarship. This makes sense because
when dealing with a subject with this much uncertainty and controversy it should be left out of
the way a society creates and carries out its concrete concepts like laws.
The well-known theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking once said, I
have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined and that we can change
nothing about it still look both ways before they cross the street. The thing that I found very
interesting about this quote is that if everything were predestined, then even those who believed
that to be true would still not have control over choosing to look both ways before they cross the
street. His observation is somewhat of a contradiction in itself and is a perfect example of how
even a mind as intelligent and great as Hawkings cant completely wrap their mind around this
baffling topic.
When it comes to whether we may have free will or not, although some believe that intentions,
choices, and decisions are made by the subconscious mind, and then the conscious mind
becomes aware afterwards, it only makes sense to me to hold ourselves responsible for our
decisions that way we feel empowered enough to dictate the direction of our lives and also have
the motivation to make the right choices that benefit others, ourselves and our future.

Works Cited
Dvorsky, George. "Scientific Evidence That You Probably Don't Have Free Will." Io9.
N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Mark Balaguer. Free Will. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2014. Project MUSE. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
McCrone, John. "Shibboleth Authentication Request." Shibboleth Authentication Request.
N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.
Morse, SJ. "The Non-Problem of Free Will in Forensic Psychiatry and
Psychology."Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 25.2 (2007): 203-20. Print.
PragerUniversity. "Do We Have Free Will?" YouTube. YouTube, 30 Mar. 2015. Web. 29 Mar.
2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDkLUBdvOkw>.