Ignition System From The Brain To The Nerves

The existence of free will has been debated for hundreds of years. Science works to clarify this controversial issue which is one of the biggest subjects of philosophy. Despite the things science have not been proven, it makes more sense than explanations of religion. There are two basic explanations for free will which are religious and philosophical notions. Besides, there are diverse thoughts about it in the world of science. Subdisciplines of science made different comments about whether free will exists or not. Although free will has been proven according to religious, philosophical and some scientific views, the idea of the existence of free will should be questioned. Opinions that the will is not free are related to the nervous system and the laws of physics. However, the crucial thing is how environmental impacts should be considered. Thus, the idea that freedom of will is an illusion higges on: the correlation between the brain and the nerves and the view of modern physics.

Those who advocate the presence of free will generally have two types of arguments, which are religious and philosophical . If the story of creation and the arrival to Earth as a punishment told to humanity is true, it is Eve’s idea to eat that apple. She decided with her free will and she was punished by God. Because of this existential idea of religion, people’s actions and behaviors are their own responsibilities and they are either rewarded or punished (Harari 2). In the monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam and polytheistic religions, in order for the concepts such as belief, sin, reward, and punishment to make sense, the will must be free. For example, if this concept will be started to see as an undeniable fact, there is a big difference between a person who goes to hell and another person going to heaven. Secondly, philosophy argues that free will can exist or cannot exist and that both can happen at the same time(Kane 12). Because the universe of philosophy is broad, every idea is feasible. The idea that free will is an illusion due to factors determined in advance, which is called determinism, says that the behaviors and the actions of individuals have been decided by internal and external factors. Internal factors can be biological, neurological and psychological, whereas external factors are upbringing and sociocultural environment (Mc Leod 1). The person thinks that he didthe action; but, he did not do it with his will, since he did an action which had already been decided by not him. Another view is compatibilism which means free will and determinism do not conflict (Kane 12). In other words, the two are compatible with each other. This concept refers to what Kane describes as ‘freedom to do otherwise’ (14). In compatibilism, the link between determinism and free will is consistent and logical, it indicates that people have choices- if all choices are feasible- and, they have freedom of will, however, it is obvious that what they will do. For instance, a man choose to take the bus, so he has the power to choose but, the man could choose not to take the bus, because two alternatives of choices are under his will. If people can choose to do something, they can choose to do otherwise. Religious and philosophical notions explain the presence of free will in different ways. However, it is the conclusion that free will is not an illusion.

The issue about free will, which has been the subject of philosophy for millennia, is undoubtedly one of the most interesting and exciting research fields in neuroscience. An ever-increasing pile of data demonstrates that humans’ will is no more free than that of any animal, only that the perception of decision ma making is functioning more comprehensively, so people feel as if they had more control. The brain makes decisions automatically, depending on the stimuli; but, people think they do it themselves (Mc Leod 1). A brain is like a processor that continuosly processes billions of data from internal and external sensors. It is not known exactly where or how the perception of ‘self’ occurs; however, it is clearly known that when certain nerves are put to sleep, the person loses himself completely, thus this feeling is purely a mechanical feeling. So, concepts such as ‘soul’ or ‘metaphysical self’ are just made-up terms. They are just masks that people make up for issues they do not know and cannot answer, which makes avoiding the question unnecessary and get to the real answer. The perception of self, which people experience while reading this article right now, is a product of nerve activity in the brain. İt is probably found in every animal, but it is much more complex and developed in humans. Therefore, humans feel that they have control of everything and assume that animals with lower levels of intelligence behave like automatic machines. The nerves that nourish this sense of ‘self’ are ignited before, during or after the realization that decisions are made by that sense of self. If it is fired first, it means people do not make those decisions. In which case, a dreaded truth will show itself, people will notice that is not ‘themselves’ who makes decisions which they currently experiencing. It is humans’ brain weighing 1.5 kilograms and the nerves in it that make decisions, which consists of reading 1 and 0’s in a purely mechanical way, almost like a computer. Therefore, the ‘self’ is only an observer by the time people realize they have made decisions that have already been made for them. Self is only about perceiving and implementing those decisions when a stimulus comes from the environment, the brain reacts with a chain of neurochemical reactions (Kane 10). In the meantime, decisions are made and implemented. In the short period between the decision being made and its implementation, the self is aware of this decision. If a human is a biological machine, no God is governing it from inside. The decision-making process is provided by physical and mathematical rules and the relationship between nerves and the brain. However, it is a fact that one is affected by his or her environment. This affects the humans’ memories as a result of being influenced, which means that when the brain asks for memory when the decision is made, the memory is affected by the environment, family and friendships responds to the brain accordingly. While one’s experiences shape the memory, memory shapes the mechanism of decision making indirectly.

Subdisciplines of science about free will have different ideas among them. Whereas classical physics pursues a determinist approach, modern physics is indeterminist, which means quantum physics defends that events are determined beforehand (Kane 8). However, both approaches do not know everything. There are some questions in themselves. Determinism is accepted by classical physics. For example, Laplace’s Demon would have known all details about the universe and future with the knowledge of Newton’s laws of motion. For modern physics, even the smallest materials in the universe move unpredictably, their positions and momenta are not known at the same time, which is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Kane 8). Therefore, determinism converts into indeterminism in the physics world. The pursuit of science world did not end, the inquiry is continuing. While physicians try to enlighten the question of modern physics, they have some concerns. Firstly, whereas the behavior of elementary particles is not always determined and accepted that they are indeterministic forms and these arguments are accepted, large physical systems and complex physical systems behave predictably and regularly because their higher energies tend to do it (Kane 8). Secondly, the jumps of quantum physical events bring to mind the question of how the will is free. These undetermined effects in the brain would occur by chance or uncontrollable and unpredictable thoughts (Kane 10). While reflexes of the body are uncontrollable and unpredictable, people would not have had control mechanisms over their actions if the case is real (Kane 10). Thirdly, whereas the control of humans’ actions decreases, the issue about free will raises the question of the indeterminist view being more unpredictable than determinism due to the minority of likelihood of chance in indeterminism. However, other subdisciplines of science argue about the link between determinism and the body. Because other sciences such as biology and psychology support the idea that people’s actions have been controlled by an unknown power, maybe while their actions are happening, their genes had already influenced them about what they would do (Kane 10). Here, a controversial issue comes to mind: How do humans’ behaviors happen if they are controlled by others? Others can be biochemical influences on the brain such as hormones and neurotransmitters are known to affect humans’ behaviors and moods ( Mc Leod 1). Also, if people believe in the Big Bang Theory, the continuous expansion of the universe is the biggest sign that this theory might be true, the starting point of the universe was a singular point that expanded into what humans now know and perceive including themselves. If so, there is a causal relationship between the Big Bang and humans. In other words, free will is not possible and all people’s actions are simply the result of this first event, which means determinism. This concept started new debates about the chaos of the universe. This chaos is represented by rational or irrational numbers and local or global predictability. However, people know that the universe is chaotic. This means that free will is an inevitable illusion because of the subjective perception of humans rather than the nature of the universe.

To sum up, the bases of people’s thoughts are concerning their education and upbringing styles, although people’s decisions are not in their hands. That “I do not have free will, science says it, I am not guilty of it.” does not mean this will not be valid and sufficient reason for a court hearing or in a brain. Thus, the judge will likely say: “So, I do not have free will to find you innocent, science says it, I am sorry.” Besides all these arguments and examples, people say that according to some, there is a free will as much as the limit of atomic particles allows and to others as much as God allows, in both cases, the will is not free, there is always something that limits the freedom of will.

Works Cited:

Harari, Yuval Noah. “Yuval Noah Harari: The Myth of Freedom.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 14 Sept. 2018, www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/14/yuval-noah-harari-the-new-threat-to-liberal-democracy.

Kane, Robert. A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Kane, Robert. “The Free Will Problem.” Kane, pp. 1–11.

Kane, Robert. “Compatibilism.” Kane, pp. 12–15.

McLeod, Saul. “Freewill vs Determinism.” Freewill and Determinism | Simply Psychology, 2019, www.simplypsychology.org/freewill-determinism.html.

Pinker, Steven. “Fear of Determinism — Oxford Scholarship.” Fear of Determinism — Oxford Scholarship, Oxford University Press, 7 Nov. 2014, www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195189636.001.0001/acprof-9780195189636-chapter-17.