This essay is the first in a series on aspects of free will and consciousness, and the implications for how we live in a metacrisis that, understandably, challenges our assumptions, beliefs and emotions. In this essay, I show how the increasingly popularised view that science has disproved relative free will is actually neither true nor scientific. I then explore other forms of knowledge on the matter. Thanks, Jem (PS: this is not written by AI ;-).
Science has not proven there is no free will – almost the contrary.
In the last few years, you might have casually seen a few science magazines, or heard the commentary of a YouTuber or Tiktoker, and assumed that many people now think that science has proven there is no free will. If you have more than a passing interest, you might have noticed new books, from major publishers, which claim the matter is concluded – there is no free will and we can be grateful for it. A widely-quoted author on the topic, Robert Sapolsky states, “we are nothing more or less than cumulative biological and environmental luck, over which we had no control.”[1] Possible reasons and implications of an increase in the volume of arguments against free will is something I’ll explore in the second essay in this series on free will, consciousness and philosophy in an era of ‘metacrisis’ and societal collapse. In my book Breaking Together, I advance a freedom-based response to the predicament of humanity as an alternative to the various strands of either panicked authoritarianism or numbed disengagement. Therefore, the matter of whether freedom exists at all is rather important. In the book I included a brief discussion of the nature and existence of free will [2]. That was before the uptick in content claiming that our thoughts, feelings and actions were predetermined since the moment of the big bang (which is not a flippant summary of ‘determinism’). In response, with a series of essays, I will go deeper into the sciences, philosophy and social sciences on the matter. That is because this is not a mere intellectual and unending discussion; rather, it has very real ramifications for whether powerful people will accelerate the damage to humanity and the environment – and how we might organise ourselves for better outcomes.
Continue reading “Science has not proven there is no free will – almost the contrary”
