A common mistake associated with the idea of free will not existing is people thinking such follows to the conclusion that consciousness doesn’t exist either (Yes, I’ve had numerous people argue consciousness can’t exist without it). This, however, does not follow. There’s mounds of evidence for consciousness, and none for free will (the ability to have, of one’s own accord, done otherwise), and the lack of free will does not implicate a lack of consciousness.
Consciousness, though complicated in regards to why or how it comes about, is just the fact that we experience: that we experience the redness of an apple, or experience the smell of dog feces, or experience the texture of sandpaper on our fingers, and that we are “aware” of these experiences. It doesn’t follow that because free will is an illusion, that consciousness is as well.
In fact, the very idea of consciousness being an illusion is self-contradictory, as conscious experience is implied within the word “illusion”. So rather than the illusion of free will implying consciousness doesn’t exist, the fact that we experience the illusion of free will (or any “illusion” for that matter) actually implies that consciousness does exist. An illusion is a conscious experience, which means that the illusion of free will that we experience also exists. Our experience of an illusion exists “as experience“.
In other words, free will doesn’t exist because we don’t have that particular ability (it’s logically incoherent), but our intuitive experience of it does exist (even if its wrong about the ability). It’s important to point out the distinction between these two existence claims (ontology) of “free will” and “the illusion of free will”. Once we recognize that free will doesn’t exist, we expose the illusion that does.
And that illusion can’t exist without conscious experience!
Another thing that leads people to believe that consciousness doesn’t really exist is if they hold to a more “extreme” reductionistic view of determinism. In other words, the assertion that the only thing in existence is the minuscule parts that play out causally. It’s important to point out here that determinism isn’t necessarily reductionistic, nor does reductionism (even if we were to accept such) preclude emergent phenomenon. Consciousness can exist and can still be reduced down to it’s parts if it does.
This is uncontroversial in the fields of evolutionary biology, psychology, behavioral science, and neuroscience. Sure, there are different theories on how consciousness happens (part of the so-called “hard-problem”), but most scientists (even most particle physicists) recognize that consciousness actually does “exist”. For example, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins writes this about the experience of pain in his book “The Greatest Show On Earth”:
“Even if a ‘red flag’ system in the brain could be made effective, there seems to be no reason why natural selection would positively favour it over a real pain system just because it is less unpleasant. Unlike our hypothetically beneficent designer, natural selection is indifferent to the intensity of suffering – except in so far as it affects survival and reproduction.”
But of course I’m not making an argument from popularity here. Most recognize such due to a preponderance of evidence (which I’d suggest is hardly even needed unless you are yourself an unconscious p-zombie).
And more importantly, such processes do not require any sort of free will. Conscious experience does not require free will. Conscious actions do not require free will. Pain doesn’t require free will. Me writing this article and the conscious thoughts needed for such did not require free will.
Perhaps it’s the idea of choice that makes people associate free will with consciousness. If I have a banana, apple, and a bowl of strawberries in front of me, and I only want to eat one fruit, I might observe and think about those options before me. I might see that the banana is too brown, the apple is rotten, and opt for the strawberries. Or I may see that the strawberries are growing mold, and the banana is too green, and opt for the apple. The decision stems from the conscious experience I have due to the neuro-structure of my brain at the time: the color I see, the texture I feel, what I’m in the mood for, and so on. Conscious experience and decision seem to go hand in hand. That, of course, does not mean that if I decide on the banana after my conscious experience parses all three options, that I could have (of my own accord) chosen the apple or strawberries instead (which is the free will ability of concern).
So regardless of one’s own ideas about how consciousness arises and what it is exactly – free will is not needed for it to exist.
So let’s start there. Free will is logically incoherent, has no evidence for it, and much evidence against it. Consciousness, on the other hand, even though we have yet to explain everything about it, has sufficient evidence for, at the very least, it’s existence. And the lack of free will does not imply that our conscious thoughts and actions aren’t a part of causality (though this article isn’t about mind causation, a topic for a later discussion).
The lack of free will doesn’t imply consciousness skepticism, fatalism, and a number of other things. It just implies a type of constraint that removes things like blame, deserve, egoism, hatred, inequality and so on – from the table of conscious rationality.
Click Here
'Trick Slattery
Latest posts by 'Trick Slattery (see all)
- Semantic Shift Day, August 31 – REMINDER! Mark your calendar! - August 1, 2020
- Debunking Dennettian Diatribe - May 2, 2018
- Compatibilism: A Parable (comic) - December 7, 2017
5 Responses to “Consciousness Can Exist without Free Will”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You are spot on with this essay/post. I am trying to remember if any Free Will supporter ever came back with a if we don’t have Free Will then how come we are conscious… but it could have happened. The source of this is the illusion that consciousness has the power of libertarian control.. which it doesn’t. The Free Will illusion itself is tied in with the feeling that we make conscious choices via our consciousness. Too much in the brain happens that we are not conscious of,hence we are deluded.
Exactly Steve (and thanks for the visit). The only reason I’ve written this post is because I’ve had multiple people (one very recently) suggest to me that if free will didn’t exist than neither can consciousness (probably as an attempt to suggest that the idea of free will not existing is absurd considering we are conscious). The point for this post is that they are mutually exclusive existence assessments.
I appreciated your article. I would maybe even go further and say consciousness is tied to the illusion of free will. When you pick between the 3 fruits you can’t actively understand all the variables that go into your decision and baring an obvious choice this inability to understand the computation that led you to the apple makes you feel more then a passive observe of the computation (i.e. illusion of free will). Just my thoughts but if you could trace every element and its mathematical weight that lead you to the apple (immediate variables like room temp and a million others, past experiences and genetics) it seems more like running script then being an “active participant” or conscious. Therefore maybe consciousness is tied intrinsically to our lack of clarity.
Love to hear your take 🙂
First thanks for the visit. 🙂
I’d suggest that the illusion of free will is tied to the output of consciousness. In other words, our conscious thoughts play a key role in the causal output of our decisions. In this way we are conscious and an active participant, but as you say…we never see all of the variables, and the way we act is entirely constrained. But due to those variables, the way we consciously decide is, as you suggest, a computation. Consciousness, I’d suggest, is a causal part of the computation itself. I’m a proponent of mental causation:
Mental Causation – A Case for Mental Causation
And at the same time a physicalist:
Consciousness – An Output of Brain States
Anyway good thoughts. Much appreciated!
Hey thanks for your quick reply,
Your article on mental causation makes a lot of sense, I didn’t think of it that way before. My comments above steamed from thinking about AI. It crossed my mind that given we never fully grasp the “why” of our actions maybe the key to consciousness is a duality between what we actually compute and our limited ability to understand said computation. Obviously wild speculation and I am not a physicist or a programmer, a lawyer actually lol. I just think that given this strange duality is a product of evolution there must be an important reason for it. After all if you knew exactly how you would react to any external stimuli (the underlying code), why would you need consciousness, there would be nothing to ponder. BTW what made me look into this subject was an HBO show “Westworld” if you haven’t seen it there is a scene where someone asks, “why do the robots talk to each other when no one is around” the response “they are error correcting”. Thinking on this it made me realize in a clinical kind of sense all of our interactions with the world from the day we are born could also be seen as error correction (i.e. most of us never burn our hand on a pot more then once or twice). Lead me down a path… but anyways find this subject really interesting.