FREE WILL: DO YOU HAVE IT?

December 17, 2024 Rebecca Sivyer

A CONUNDRUM

You are reading this blog post, but did you choose to read it?

If you believe you did, let me ask why it was a free choice. Trace back the steps that brought you here. For example, did you consciously turn on your phone or computer, open this website, and stop at this post? Was it a habit, or were you actively making choices at every stage?

If you think your actions were deliberate, explain them.

Most of your daily actions are driven by your subconscious. You didn’t consciously notice the feeling of your feet on the floor or your breath until I mentioned them, right? Much of your work is on autopilot, part of an automated routine.

Now, why did you stop scrolling and start reading this post? Would this even cross your mind if I hadn’t written it?
Here’s a thought: the fact that you’re now thinking about Free Will and Determinism wasn’t entirely your choice. A long chain of events led you here.

If you don’t believe me, stop thinking about Free Will now.
Try to empty your mind and push the topic out of your thoughts.

DID YOU MANAGE TO STOP THINKING ABOUT IT?

The answer is a resounding no because:

You are still reading this essay
Trying not to think about something inherently keeps the thought alive. This is because of the paradox of thought suppression, which shows that our minds are wired in a way that makes intentional "not thinking" almost impossible. We cannot dictate what we do or do not think about.

Still sceptical? Read my explanation below.

HABITUAL BEHAVIOUR AND AUTOMATION

While it may feel like you consciously decided, many actions are performed out of habit. Habitual behaviour operates outside conscious awareness. When you engage in behaviours like scrolling social media, the brain often works on autopilot using System One thinking, a fast, automatic, and subconscious process described by Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast, and Slow.

For instance:

PICKING UP YOUR PHONE: If checking your phone is a daily habit, it’s triggered automatically by cues like boredom, notifications, or simply seeing your phone. Your brain recognises these cues and initiates a routine before you’ve consciously decided to do it. The action occurs as part of a habit loop—cue, routine, reward—embedded in the basal ganglia, a part of the brain responsible for habits.
CLICKING ON A POST: Your brain’s reward systems (linked to dopamine release) anticipate something engaging, such as a blog or updates. This makes the habit feel irresistible, reinforcing the automated behaviour. Neuroscience shows dopamine fires before the reward (like reading an interesting post) is achieved, meaning the drive to open an article is subconscious, not deliberate.
STOPPING AT A POST: Your attention wasn’t necessarily a conscious choice either. The brain’s salience network, which directs focus, prioritised this post among countless others. Why? Because questions like " Free will: do you have it?" spark curiosity, an emotional reaction tied to the limbic system. This means the post grabbed your attention subconsciously—your brain "chose" for you based on its inherent filters and the content’s emotional or cognitive appeal.

DECISION-MAKING BEFORE AWARENESS

Research using brain scans (fMRI and EEG) reveals that decisions occur before you become aware of them. In 2008, neuroscientist Benjamin Libet showed that activity in the brain’s motor regions begins milliseconds before participants know their decision to move. This pre-conscious brain activity challenges the idea that judgments like stopping at this post are deliberate.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Your brain begins processing visual cues (like the words "Free Will") before you consciously recognise them.
Subconscious processes determine whether a post looks interesting enough to engage with. These processes involve a combination of personal experiences, emotional triggers, and neural associations—all of which occur outside your awareness.
When you become aware of the choice to stop and read, it feels deliberate, but the action was already initiated subconsciously, giving you the illusion of intentional control.

THE ILLUSION OF FREE CHOICE

Feeling control over these steps is an illusion created by your conscious mind. This illusion arises because the brain integrates actions post hoc (after the fact) and creates a narrative that makes it feel like you consciously made these decisions.

FOR INSTANCE:

You rationalise picking up your phone ("I just wanted to check something") when, in reality, it was driven by habit or impulse.
You justified stopping at the post ("It looked interesting") when your brain’s salience network and reward systems were reacting subconsciously.

When you "decided" to stop and read a post, your brain had already made that choice. In this case, free will was simply an after-the-fact rationalisation of a process that occurred automatically and subconsciously.

The question remains: Did you still believe that you chose to read this post?

Feeling control over these steps is an illusion created by your conscious mind. This illusion arises because the brain integrates actions post hoc (after the fact) and creates a narrative that makes it feel like you consciously made these decisions.

AS YOU’RE STILL HERE, LET’S DISCUSS THE TOPIC IN MORE DEPTH

DO YOU BELIEVE IN:

Free Will
Determinism
Something in between, for example, Soft Determinism/Compatibilism or System Two Thinking

Whatever your answer, how did you even become aware of this debate? Did you independently conceive both the topic and your ideas about free will and determinism, or have your beliefs been shaped by what you’ve learned, read, or been taught?

Can your beliefs indeed be “free” if they’ve been influenced by external factors such as your upbringing, education, or the ideas of others?

NEXT QUESTION…

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?

Below is a breakdown of philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical arguments about free will, determinism, and how thoughts arise. Each section highlights the core beliefs, clarifies misconceptions, and ensures accuracy.

METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENTS

Metaphysical arguments about free will explore the fundamental nature of reality, often positing that human agency arises from non-physical entities (like a soul or immaterial self) or subjective experiences independent of deterministic or purely physical processes

DUALISM

Famously proposed by René Descartes, dualism suggests that the mind and body are separate entities. In this view, thoughts and consciousness exist independently of the brain, potentially in a metaphysical or spiritual realm.
Dualism underpins many religious and philosophical traditions, positing that the mind or soul operates beyond physical constraints.

LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL

Libertarian free will asserts that humans possess an autonomous, immaterial “self” capable of initiating actions or thoughts independently of deterministic causes.
This position often aligns with dualism but doesn’t always require a soul. Some versions focus on emergent properties of consciousness that enable choice free from causality or randomness.

PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON (PSR)

The Principle of Sufficient Reason, attributed to Leibniz, states that everything must have a reason or cause. In this view, choices are not random but have internal reasons rather than being imposed externally.
Misconception: PSR aligns with determinism, not libertarianism, as it requires every action to have a cause, whether internal or external.

EXISTENTIALIST FREE WILL

Existentialist free will focuses on the human experience of freedom. It posits that the perception of choice is a psychological necessity, even if constrained by external factors.
Thinkers like Sartre argued that humans are “condemned to be free,” meaning they must choose within their circumstances, regardless of deterministic influences.

THEOLOGICAL FREE WILL

This argument holds that free will is divinely given, allowing moral accountability and justice. Within this framework, individuals are responsible for their actions because they are believed to act freely within divine constraints.

PHYSICAL ARGUMENTS

STOCHASTICITY (RANDOMNESS)

Stochasticity refers to randomness or unpredictability in physical systems, including the brain. For instance:
- Random firing of neurons or chaotic processes may contribute to behaviours like mind-wandering or generating novel ideas.
- Quantum mechanics introduces probabilistic events constrained by physical laws and do not grant free will.
Key Point: Randomness is not freedom. While stochasticity adds unpredictability, it doesn’t allow for intentional, autonomous actions or thoughts.

HARD DETERMINISM

Hard determinism argues that all thoughts and actions result from prior causes, leaving no room for free will.

BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM

Thoughts and emotions emerge from physical processes, such as neural firing, neurotransmitter release, and brain structure.
This view is rooted in materialism, asserting that mental states are products of the brain’s physical activity.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM

Behaviour is shaped entirely by environmental factors, such as social, cultural, and historical influences. Thoughts and actions are determined by the context in which a person exists.

PHYSICAL DETERMINISM

Everything in the universe, including human decisions, is governed by physical laws. Human actions, therefore, are no exception and are subject to the same deterministic principles as any other physical process.

PSYCHIC DETERMINISM

This perspective, rooted in Freudian psychology, suggests that unconscious drives, instincts, and past experiences determine human behaviour. Processes outside conscious control shape thoughts and actions.

SOFT DETERMINISM/COMPATIBILISM

This perspective reconciles free will with determinism, suggesting that while prior causes shape decisions, individuals can act freely if their actions align with their internal desires.
Free will acts without external coercion, even if internal motivations are causally determined.

SYSTEM TWO THINKING

Popularised by Daniel Kahneman, System 2 thinking is deliberate, rational, and slow. This mode of thought allows for logical reasoning, structured problem-solving, and long-term planning.
Under soft determinism, System Two Thinking provides a framework for how deliberate actions can coexist with deterministic influences

DUALISM

Dualism is the idea that the mind and body exist independently of the brain, possibly in a metaphysical or spiritual dimension. In other words, your mind (thoughts, consciousness, feelings) is separate from your body (the physical brain and other bodily elements). It’s like saying your brain is the hardware of a computer, while your mind is the software—operating on the hardware but not the same thing.

Dualists often view consciousness as evidence of free will because it feels intangible and profound—something beyond mere biology. This perception arises from consciousness being the source of our identity, emotions, and thoughts, leading many to believe it must originate from a divine or metaphysical "soul." Its elusive nature reinforces the assumption that it transcends physical processes.

This means that dualists believe the mind is somehow abstract and must lack a physical form.

AN EVERYDAY ANALOGY

Think of a driver in a car:

The car represents your body—mechanical, physical, and composed of parts.
The driver represents your mind—the decision-maker with thoughts and feelings guiding the car’s actions.

Dualists believe the two are connected but fundamentally different. The driver (mind) can steer the car (body), but they remain separate entities.

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND DUALISM

In contrast, neuroscientists argue that consciousness emerges from the brain's physical properties, shaped by evolution to enhance survival. Rather than being divine or supernatural, consciousness is seen as a product of natural selection, enabling humans to predict others' behaviours (theory of mind) and reflect on themselves in their environments. Therefore, the brain functions as a processor of thoughts and sensations and as an observer of itself, providing the self-awareness necessary to navigate a complex world.

More importantly, If thoughts lack a physical form, where exactly do they reside? How can they be immaterial? Thoughts, memories, and learning depend on physical changes within the brain. Neurons form synaptic connections to encode information, which are strengthened with repetition and weakened when forgotten. If thoughts were truly abstract or independent, neurological conditions like Parkinson’s disease or brain injuries would not affect them. Yet diseases such as Alzheimer’s demonstrate the physical basis of thoughts: damage to the hippocampus and cerebral cortex disrupts memory, personality, and reasoning.

This highlights that consciousness, thoughts, and identity are intrinsically tied to the brain's physical structure—not to an immaterial soul or separate entity.

Without the brain’s physical processes, there would be no mechanism to store, access, or modify thoughts. Neuroscience reveals that our most profound experiences—self-awareness, identity, and reflection—arise not from something intangible but from the highly organised architecture of neurons and synapses working in harmony.

Let’s explore this more scientifically..

ARE THOUGHTS INDEPENDENT OF NEURAL NETWORKS?

The claim that thoughts can arise independently of synaptic or schematic networks also aligns with specific metaphysical frameworks, such as libertarian free will or dualism. These theories suggest that the mind operates beyond physical constraints, allowing ideas to emerge freely or without causal links. However, both frameworks fail to align with neuroscientific evidence, consistently demonstrating that all thoughts are rooted in neural activity.

HOW SYNAPTIC FRAMEWORKS CONSTRAIN THOUGHT
Synaptic frameworks highlight the deterministic nature of thought. Every decision or creative leap arises from pre-existing neural patterns. For instance, you cannot think of a concept you have never encountered—like imagining a new primary colour or an animal that doesn't resemble anything you've seen. Even when thoughts appear novel, they combine previously stored elements within the brain’s networks.

Consider the illusion of randomness. When neurons fire unpredictably, such as during an epileptic seizure, they may activate unrelated memories or thoughts. However, the brain's architecture still constrains these “random” thoughts. They arise from existing neural pathways, not independent or free processes.

LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL

Libertarian free will proposes that humans can generate actions or ideas entirely independent of prior causes. Applied to thought, this implies that the mind can think of something entirely new or unconnected to prior knowledge or experience.

DUALISM

Dualism posits that the mind exists separately from the brain. In this framework, ideas are intangible and not bound by neural structures, allowing for thoughts independent of synaptic networks.

THE PROBLEM WITH RANDOMNESS

Some may argue that thoughts can arise randomly, as seen in conditions like epilepsy or in moments of spontaneous creativity. However, randomness is not freedom. Even when thoughts seem to emerge unpredictably, they are still constrained by the brain’s neural organisation:

Epileptic Discharges: Irregular firing of neurons in epilepsy may activate unrelated networks, but these networks are still pre-existing and shaped by prior experiences. For example, an epileptic patient may suddenly think of “ocean” because disrupted firing activates water-related areas.
Creativity and Random Jumps: Creative leaps that feel random (e.g., jumping from “dog” to “kitchen renovation”) are still guided by associative links in the brain.

SYNAPTIC FRAMEWORKS: THE PHYSICAL BASIC OF THOUGHT

All thoughts and ideas are physically encoded within the brain’s synaptic networks. These frameworks consist of neurons connected by synapses, which act as pathways for transmitting information. When we learn or experience something new, these connections strengthen or weaken through processes such as synaptic plasticity. This adaptability ensures that every idea, memory, or decision is deeply rooted in pre-existing neural architecture. Without these networks, there is no mechanism to store, connect, or generate thoughts.

THE BRAIN’S CHAIN REACTION: HOW ONE IDEA TRIGGERS A NETWORK

Imagine you hear the word "dog." The word enters your auditory cortex, where the brain processes the sound. Almost instantly, your brain retrieves the word's meaning from your semantic memory, occurring in the temporal lobe, particularly in regions like Wernicke’s area, which is responsible for understanding language.

The word "dog" triggers neurons connected to related ideas like "bark," "tail," "puppy," or personal memories of dogs. For instance, if you’ve owned a Golden Retriever, the neural pathways linked to the schema of Golden Retrievers will fire. These ideas reactivate a schema—a structured information framework about "dogs." The schema includes physical traits like fur and four legs, behaviours like barking or wagging tails, and emotional associations like affection or fear.

However, the brain doesn’t have to stick to concepts directly related to "dog." Your thoughts can trigger connections that extend far beyond the original stimulus. For example, you might see a dog and recall the Golden Retriever you had as a child. This memory reminds you of a camping trip with your dog and your best friend, Jane. Thinking about Jane might bring up memories of when you both lived together in Earl's Court, which leads you to believe about south-west London and how much you like the area.

From there, you might consider moving back to that part of the city. You start browsing houses in the area online. This thought makes you realise that your current house could use some sprucing up to sell, so you begin looking at IKEA furniture and home décor ideas.

In this example, a single initial idea—the word "dog"—sets off a cascade of thoughts, memories, and decisions across unrelated concepts. This happens because the brain’s neurons are connected through synapses in vast, pre-existing networks. These connections are not random but organised based on your experiences, memories, and learned associations.

Each idea activates nearby neurons, spreading to distant ones and allowing thoughts to jump between topics. The richer and more interconnected your neural networks are, the more diverse and creative these thought processes become. For example, someone with varied experiences might jump seamlessly from "beach" to renovating their kitchen: seeing an image of the beach reminds them of a favourite holiday, which leads to thinking about the meals they enjoyed there and then to the idea of upgrading their kitchen to recreate those dishes at home.

The brain is not random but deeply organised to draw upon prior associations and extend them. This ability to move from one thought to another—seemingly unrelated—demonstrates how our neural connections shape the flow of our ideas, guiding us down pathways that often feel natural but are built on years of experience and learning.

HOW SYNAPTIC CONNECTIONS ORGANISE THOUGHT

The brain doesn’t stick to concepts directly related to "dog." Your thoughts can trigger connections that extend far beyond the original stimulus. For example:

This cascade of thoughts demonstrates how the brain activates connected ideas within synaptic networks. Even seemingly unrelated thoughts are not random; they follow the brain’s organised pathways.

IDEAS CAN NOT BE INDEPENDENT AS THEY REQUIRE EXISTING NEURAL NETWORKS

For any thought to exist in the brain, it must first be encoded within a neural network. Without prior exposure to a concept, the brain cannot represent or generate it. For example:

You cannot think of an animal you’ve never seen or imagine a colour that doesn’t exist in your environment.
Even when thoughts seem unrelated (e.g., jumping from “dog” to “kitchen renovation”), they are guided by your neural architecture and past associations.

RANDOMNESS DOES NOT EXPLAIN INDEPENDENCE

As mentioned earlier, randomness is often misunderstood as a form of freedom. However:

Epileptic or disrupted activity may activate unrelated pathways, but these pathways still depend on pre-existing structures.
Apparent randomness in thought reflects a breakdown in causal pathways, not the emergence of independent ideas.

IDEAS ARE NOT INTANGIBLE

Thoughts feel intangible because they represent abstract concepts, but they are physically encoded in the brain:

Without neural encoding, an idea cannot exist. For example, a person who has never encountered the concept of “justice” cannot independently generate it.
Creative ideas, such as imagining a “purple giraffe,” combine pre-existing elements already present in the brain.

TESTING THE CRITIQUE

Imagine someone claiming: “Just because the word ‘dog’ makes you think of ‘puppy’ doesn’t mean you can’t think of something completely unrelated.”

Here’s why this fails:

Challenge: Think of a completely unrelated idea without connection to your prior experiences or knowledge.

Outcome: Any idea you generate will still rely on pre-existing neural connections. For example:

Inventing a word like “blorg” reflects phonetic patterns from your language.
Imagining a creature combines traits of animals you’ve encountered (e.g., “purple giraffe”).

Conclusion: The brain cannot escape its network; it can only recombine existing connections in novel ways.

CONCLUSION: THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF INDEPENDENCE

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that thoughts and understanding depend on the brain’s synaptic and schematic networks. While synaptic networks provide the physical infrastructure for associations and ideas, schemas supply the organisational frameworks that give these associations meaning and context. Together, these systems underpin every aspect of cognition, from interpreting abstract information to making decisions.

Whether viewed through deterministic, random, or metaphysical lenses, the claim that ideas or understanding can arise independently of these structures is untenable. The structured organisation of the brain ensures that no thought or interpretation arises in isolation.

SCHEMAS AND THE LIMITS OF UNDERSTANDING

To illustrate the indispensability of schemas, carefully read the following passage and try to make sense of what it describes:

“The procedure is actually quite simple. First, you arrange things into different groups. Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities, that is the next step, otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may not seem important, but complications can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive as well. At first the whole procedure will seem complicated. Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the necessity for this task in the immediate future, but then one never can tell. After the procedure is completed, one arranges the materials into different groups again. Then they can be put into their appropriate places. Eventually, they will be used once more, and the whole cycle will then have to be repeated. However, that is part of life.”

Please take a moment to reflect on it. What is the passage describing?

REFLECTING ON THE CHALLENGE

Did you figure it out?

How did you find the passage? Confusing? Vague? Perhaps even frustrating? You are not alone. Despite its clarity in grammar and vocabulary, the passage feels impenetrable without additional context. This mirrors participants' experience in the original Bransford and Johnson study, who also struggled to decipher its meaning.

Let me reveal the missing context: the passage is about washing clothes.

Now, go back and re-read the passage with this in mind. It should immediately dissipate any confusion. The “procedure” transforms from an abstract riddle into an entirely logical sequence of sorting laundry, washing it, and putting it away. What changed? The words didn’t. What changed was the introduction of a schema—a mental framework that provides structure and meaning. With the schema in place, the passage becomes comprehensible and straightforward. This is the transformative power of schemas.

WHY SCHEMAS MATTER FOR UNDERSTANDING AND FREE WILL

Schemas provide the organisational framework that allows us to interpret information. The passage remains inaccessible and confusing without the “washing clothes” schema. With the schema, the same passage becomes simple and intuitive. This demonstrates that comprehension is not a free or independent act but entirely dependent on prior knowledge and learning frameworks.

Even when schemas are available, they constrain how information is interpreted. For instance, when encountering the word “dog,” one person’s schema might evoke images of a family pet, while another might evoke stray dogs or fear, depending on their experiences. These schemas enable understanding and restrict it to what is encoded within the individual’s framework.

SYNAPTIC NETWORKS AND THOUGHT CREATION

While schemas determine how information is organised and understood, synaptic networks form the foundation for how ideas are physically represented and generated. The brain cannot escape these networks; it can only recombine existing connections in novel ways. Even seemingly creative thoughts or new ideas result from recombining familiar concepts encoded within neural networks.

This recombination is shaped by synaptic activity patterns reflecting years of experience and learning. Without these physical structures, the brain could not generate coherent thoughts or connect ideas. The reliance on both synaptic networks and schemas reinforces the deterministic nature of cognition.

SYNAPTIC AND SCHEMATIC DEPENDENCY: THE FINAL LINK

The integration of synaptic and schematic networks underscores the impossibility of libertarian free will. Thought creation and comprehension are not independent processes—they are constrained by the physical architecture of the brain and the frameworks of knowledge it has encoded over time. Synaptic networks determine what thoughts are possible, while schemas dictate how those thoughts are interpreted and understood.

From being independent agents capable of thinking freely, humans are bound by these deterministic structures. Libertarian free will, which assumes independence from prior influences, cannot account for the interconnected and constrained nature of thought and understanding.

A HOLISTIC CONCLUSION

The Bransford and Johnson passage exemplifies the indispensability of schemas, while the structured organisation of synaptic networks reinforces the deterministic basis of thought. Together, these systems make true independence in thinking and understanding not only improbable but impossible. Claims of independence—whether rooted in libertarian free will, dualism, or randomness—fail to account for the deeply interconnected and causally bound nature of the brain.

Human cognition is the product of these deterministic systems, leaving no room for ideas or comprehension to arise freely, independently, or without influence.

SUMMARY: THE DEPENDENCE OF THOUGHTS ON NEURAL AND SCHEMATIC NETWORKS

All thoughts and understanding are intricately shaped by the brain’s dual systems of synaptic and schematic organisation:

They are rooted in pre-existing neural networks, creating physical pathways for generating and connecting ideas.
They are organised by schematic frameworks, which provide meaning, context, and structure, shaping how information is interpreted.
They are limited by the brain’s physical architecture, which constrains both the range of possible thoughts and how they are processed.

These deterministic systems ensure that no thought or interpretation arises in isolation. Claims of independence fail to account for the causal and interconnected processes that underlie cognition, demonstrating that prior influences and physical structures bind all mental activity.

METAPHYSICS IS DEAD; LONG LIVE NEUROSCIENCE

FROM METAPHYSICS TO NEUROSCIENCE

Historically, the brain was a “black box”—its workings mysterious and inaccessible. Philosophers, lacking tools to investigate it directly, relied on abstract reasoning and logic to grapple with questions of autonomy, moral accountability, and the nature of the self. For much of history, debates about free will and determinism remained firmly within the realm of metaphysics.

Science, however, is only as good as its tools. As these tools evolved, the study of free will transitioned from philosophical abstraction to measurable, observable processes. Modern neuroscience has shattered this metaphorical black box, transforming free will from a metaphysical argument into a scientific question.

SCIENTIFIC TOOLS THAT DISMANTLE METAPHYSICAL FREE WILL

Brain imaging techniques such as fMRI, PET, and MEG reveal active brain areas during decision-making, highlighting neural pathways involved in moral judgements and impulse control. Electrophysiology tools like EEG provide millisecond-level insights into brain activity, identifying pre-conscious processes that precede decision awareness. Genetic and molecular analysis shows how DNA variations and gene-environment interactions influence behaviour and decision-making through neurotransmitter function. Neurostimulation techniques such as TMS allow direct manipulation of brain activity, providing causal evidence of neural mechanisms underlying decisions. Post-mortem studies examining deceased brains link structural changes to behaviours, revealing how damage impacts decision-making and free will.

WHY METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENTS FAIL

Metaphysical arguments rely on abstract reasoning without empirical support. While helpful when tools to explore the brain were lacking, they are now obsolete in areas where science provides measurable evidence. Dualism, for example, posits a non-material mind, but neuroscience consistently demonstrates that mental processes are tied to physical brain activity.

Metaphysical claims lack falsifiability, meaning they cannot be tested or disproven. A valid scientific theory must be capable of being proven wrong, but ideas like an immaterial mind or libertarian free will offer no observable evidence to support or challenge their existence.

Epistemologically, metaphysical arguments struggle because they lack rigorous methods for determining truth. Without observable evidence, they rely on inference and logic, which are insufficient in light of modern empirical science.

Metaphysical explanations also violate the principle of parsimony, favouring the simplest explanation that accounts for all observed phenomena. Neuroscience explains decision-making as an emergent property of brain activity without invoking non-material entities. Introducing a soul or immaterial self unnecessarily complicates this process.

Metaphysical claims about free will fail to align with empirical data. Findings in neuroscience, such as pre-conscious brain activity in decision-making, challenge the idea that consciousness initiates actions. Studies like Libet’s experiments show that decisions are shaped by neural activity before individuals are aware of them, undermining metaphysical arguments.

THE END OF METAPHYSICAL MORALITY

This shift has profound implications for how we view morality and responsibility. If free will is an illusion, holding individuals fully accountable for their actions becomes ethically questionable. Charles Whitman, whose violent behaviour was traced to a brain tumour, exemplifies this shift. His actions were not the product of inherent evil but deterministic biological processes.

Similarly, moral concepts rooted in metaphysical dualism—such as eternal punishment or divine judgment—are increasingly complex to justify in light of determinism. Evidence suggests that individuals are shaped by factors beyond their control, such as genetics, brain structure, and environmental influences.

THE ROLE OF METAPHYSICS TODAY

While the study of free will has transitioned to the scientific realm, metaphysics retains relevance in areas beyond empirical investigation. These include the existence of God, where questions about the divine or ultimate cause of the universe remain unfalsifiable, and the meaning of life, where the subjective experience of purpose transcends measurable processes.

CONCLUSION

Metaphysical arguments once provided the only framework for grappling with free will and determinism. However, advancements in neuroscience and empirical methodologies have rendered these arguments obsolete. Today, free will is a scientific question grounded in observable data and measurable processes. Metaphysics, while still relevant for unfalsifiable questions like the existence of God, no longer holds sway in explaining human thought and decision-making.

STOCHASTICITY

HOW STOCHASTICITY AND LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL DIFFER

STOCHASTICITY

Involves randomness, often at the neural or quantum level.
Does not provide control or intentionality over thoughts or actions.
Example: A random epileptic discharge leading to unrelated thoughts.

LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL

Requires agency—an ability to choose freely, independent of randomness or causality.
Assumes that the conscious mind is the originator of decisions.
Example: Choosing to think about "dog" rather than "cat" without external or internal influences

Stochasticity means that some brain processes involve random or unpredictable elements that can spontaneously generate thoughts without a clear cause or pattern, adding an element of randomness to how our minds work. Advocates of free will believe this demonstrates agency because these random, unpredictable elements in brain processes could create opportunities for genuine choice, breaking the strict chain of deterministic cause-and-effect and allowing for spontaneous, independent decisions.

Imagine flipping a coin to decide between a sandwich or a hamburger. While the outcome is unpredictable, the decision-making process itself isn't a result of deliberate free will—it's dictated by chance. Similarly, if brain activity includes stochastic elements, these random events wouldn’t reflect intentional decision-making.

Albert Einstein famously opposed the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, saying, "God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein believed that randomness could not explain the universe's workings because uncaused or random events lack meaning or purpose. If quantum mechanics is probabilistic, events might occur without cause, and decisions could emerge from pure randomness. However, randomness does not grant us free will. Instead, it strips decisions of intentionality, leaving them to chance.

Free will is often tied to personal accountability. If stochastic processes drive decisions, they are inherently unpredictable and beyond the individual’s control. This undermines moral responsibility. Holding people accountable is difficult if they act aggressively due to random neural noise affecting their brain activity. This randomness might make their behaviour less deterministic, but it doesn't make it freely chosen or purposeful.

SOFT DETERMINISM

SOFT DETERMINISM AND FREE WILL: REFRAMING THE DISCUSSION

Soft determinism, or compatibilism, suggests that our actions, while shaped by deterministic factors such as biology and environment, can still be considered intentional due to the brain's reflective and evaluative processes. It redefines free will as the ability to act by one’s internal desires and motivations, free from external coercion, even if those desires are causally determined. This view contrasts libertarian free will, which asserts that humans can make decisions independent of any prior causes.

While free will is commonly associated with libertarianism, soft determinism offers a redefined version of free will. It posits that free will exists when a person’s actions align with their internal goals and values, even if prior causes determine those goals. Importantly, this framework does not reject determinism but instead integrates it with the experience of intentionality.

Soft determinism aligns with Daniel Kahneman’s concept of System Two thinking. This slower, more deliberative mode of thought integrates automatic responses with deliberate, goal-directed processes, creating the impression of autonomy. Within this framework, decisions feel free because they reflect our goals and values, even though they are determined by prior causes.

DELAYED GRATIFICATION AND WILLPOWER: A CRITIQUE

Willpower is often viewed as the ultimate evidence of free will because it feels like a conscious effort to override impulsive desires. However, soft determinism interprets willpower differently. Instead of viewing it as a fully autonomous process, it considers willpower a reflection of internalised motivations and desires, which themselves are shaped by prior causes like genetics, upbringing, and experiences.

THE LIMITS OF WILLPOWER

Biological and genetic constraints demonstrate that willpower is not entirely "free." No one willingly aspires to be lazy, addicted, or unhealthy, yet personal change remains elusive for many. For example:

The A1 variant of the DRD2 gene impacts dopamine regulation, making some individuals more susceptible to alcohol dependence.
Variations in the CHRNA5 gene intensify nicotine withdrawal symptoms, making quitting significantly harder.
The thrifty gene predisposes specific individuals to store fat efficiently, complicating weight loss despite equal effort.
Super-tasters perceive bitterness more intensely, often struggling to eat healthy foods like vegetables.
Differences in brain structures, like the ventromedial hypothalamus, influence appetite control, while dopamine variations affect focus, motivation, and reward-seeking behaviours.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOFT DETERMINISM

If willpower were purely evidence of free will, why would these biological differences dictate such uneven outcomes? Soft determinism accounts for these disparities by recognising that actions, even those requiring willpower, are shaped by a combination of internal desires and external factors.

For instance, the decision to quit drugs may feel autonomous but is influenced by personal experiences (e.g., witnessing the negative impact of addiction), environmental support (e.g., rehab programs), and biological predispositions (e.g., sensitivity to withdrawal symptoms). While the choice appears free, it reflects the deterministic interplay of these factors. In this view, willpower is not the rejection of determinism but rather the enactment of determined goals that align with one’s internal motivations.

HOW SOFT DETERMINISM FUNCTIONS

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The prefrontal cortex plays a key role in processing sensory input, memories, and goals to weigh different courses of action. For instance, deciding between a healthy meal or indulgent junk food involves balancing immediate desires with long-term consequences. This evaluative process creates the perception of free will because it appears deliberate and reflective.

GOAL-DIRECTED PROBLEM SOLVING

Complex tasks, such as planning a project or solving a puzzle, require setting priorities and adapting strategies. These behaviours feel deliberate because they involve reflective thought and intentional effort. However, soft determinism recognises that prior experiences and neural mechanisms determine the underlying motivations and cognitive processes driving these actions.

THE LIMITATIONS OF SOFT DETERMINISM

Both System Two and soft determinism are celebrated as foundations of rational decision-making, offering a sense of deliberate control over our actions. However, this perception is challenged by evidence that many decisions are initiated pre-consciously. Studies reveal that brain activity often triggers thoughts or actions before we know them.

PRE-CONSCIOUS DECISION-MAKING

This framework's reality of free will is far more constrained than it initially appears. Pre-conscious processes frequently dominate decision-making, shaping choices that only later feel deliberate. For example, neural activity in the motor cortex can begin a split second before you "decide" to move your hand, demonstrating that the brain often leads while conscious awareness lags.

AUTOMATIC OVERRIDES IN SURVIVAL SCENARIOS

In high-pressure or survival situations, the limits of reflective thought become even more apparent. The amygdala triggers stress responses that bypass the prefrontal cortex, prioritising speed over deliberation. This automatic override ensures immediate reactions—like slamming the brakes to avoid a collision—without the time or need for conscious evaluation.

These findings challenge the idea that we control our decisions based on how we perceive them. The brain’s intricate interplay of automatic and reflective systems creates the illusion of autonomy. However, much of what we experience as "free will" is determined by processes outside our conscious awareness.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES: A CRITIQUE

The prefrontal cortex weighs sensory input, memories, goals, and external influences to make decisions, creating the illusion of free will. Consider choosing an ice cream flavour: while it feels deliberate, your brain unconsciously processes past experiences (e.g., enjoying chocolate before), sensory cues (its appearance or smell), and external influences, such as seeing someone else order chocolate. By the time you "choose" chocolate, these factors have already shaped the decision, leaving you with the perception of intentional control.

Another example is the illusion of deliberate, goal-directed thinking. The central executive of the brain’s working memory manages and allocates mental resources automatically without conscious input. This process illustrates determinism by highlighting how decisions and focus are not always deliberate. For example, when skiing down a mountain, you don’t consciously decide to concentrate on your balance or process the terrain. Your brain instinctively prioritises the visual and spatial information required to keep you upright and navigate obstacles. This happens unconsciously because the brain’s survival mechanisms override deliberate thought, ensuring you react quickly without " choosing” what to focus on.

CONTRAST WITH LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL

Soft determinism differs fundamentally from libertarian free will. While libertarianism asserts that humans can act entirely independently of causal influences, soft determinism acknowledges that all actions are causally determined but can still feel autonomous if they align with an individual’s internal desires and motivations.

For example:

A libertarian might argue that quitting drugs demonstrates true independence from external and internal constraints.
A soft determinist would argue that the desire to quit drugs is itself determined by prior experiences, genetic predispositions, and environmental factors, even though the act aligns with the individual’s reflective goals.

CONCLUSION

Soft determinism provides a nuanced perspective on free will, acknowledging the deterministic nature of human behaviour while preserving the meaningfulness of reflective and intentional actions. However, its limitations become evident when examining pre-conscious processes and biological constraints, highlighting how much of our behaviour is shaped by factors beyond our conscious control. While this framework redefines free will in a way that aligns with determinism, it ultimately underscores the importance of understanding the complex interplay between automatic and reflective systems in human decision-making.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM

THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENT: EDUCATION, PARENTING, AND CULTURE

Environmental influences further undermine the notion that free will represents deliberate and independent change. Factors like education, parenting, and cultural norms profoundly shape behaviour, often without conscious awareness.

PARENTING

Parenting is critical in shaping early behaviour, from emotional regulation to coping mechanisms. Behaviours rewarded through reinforcement, like perseverance or critical thinking, are more likely to persist into adulthood. In contrast, neglect or instability limits a child’s ability to override destructive impulses, highlighting the profound impact of early environments on decision-making.

EDUCATION

Access to education is essential for fostering critical thinking and deliberate decision-making. Without a strong foundation of knowledge, System Two reasoning lacks the resources to function effectively. Newton’s famous phrase, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants,” illustrates this point. Progress—intellectual or otherwise—is rarely the product of isolated effort. It depends on the accumulation of knowledge handed down through generations. Education connects individuals to the wisdom of those who came before, providing the scaffolding for their reasoning and achievements.

CULTURE

Cultural norms determine which behaviours and values are rational or desirable. For example, individualistic cultures reward self-determination and autonomy, while collectivist cultures emphasise societal harmony and fulfilling group roles. These cultural frameworks subtly shape the options people see as available and the behaviours they choose to pursue.

ZEITGEIST

The era you live in fundamentally influences your beliefs and values. Would you hold the same perspectives if you lived 200 years ago or even 200,000 years ago? Your beliefs about morality, science, and religion are not entirely your own—they are products of the time and place you inhabit.

You might have believed in witchcraft or feared divine retribution in medieval Europe.
In ancient Egypt, you may have worshipped Ra, the sun god.
Modern education and technological advancements today shape your views on science, religion, and ethics.

Newton’s phrase reminds us that progress rests on the collective achievements of humanity. Your thoughts and beliefs are no exception. You inherit ideas from the culture, history, and people who came before you. Far from being purely deliberate, free will operate within boundaries set by reinforcement, cultural norms, and historical forces long before you consciously engage with them.

BIOLOGICAL DETERMINSIM

Congratulations—you’ve aligned with the perspective most strongly supported by modern neuroscience! Let’s explore why this view holds weight and examine some of the most compelling evidence showing how biology fundamentally determines our thinking and behaviour.

First up on the hit list are studies investigating precognition—the idea that decisions are initiated in the brain before we consciously experience making them. While Libet’s experiments are the most well-known in this area, they are far from the only evidence supporting this claim. Recent advancements in neuroscience have expanded upon Libet’s findings, using more sophisticated tools and methodologies to demonstrate the brain’s pre-conscious activity in decision-making. Let’s examine these studies:

STUDY: SOON ET AL. (2008)

What they did: Researchers used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to investigate the neural processes involved in voluntary decision-making. Participants were asked to press a button with either their left or right hand while their brain activity was monitored.
What they found: Brain activity in the prefrontal cortex and parietal lobe predicted the participant’s decision up to seven seconds before they reported being consciously aware of their choice. This extended Libet’s findings, showing that decisions are initiated not milliseconds but seconds before conscious awareness.
Implication: Free will is not the origin of decisions but rather an after-the-fact narrative that gives us the illusion of control.

STUDY: HAYNES ET AL. (2007)

What they did: Using multivariate pattern analysis of fMRI data, researchers studied participants' brain activity, choosing between two visual patterns.
What they found: Activity in the medial prefrontal cortex and posterior cingulate cortex predicted the participants’ choices several seconds before conscious awareness.
Implication: This study supports that conscious decision-making arises from earlier, unconscious neural processes.

STUDY: BENGTSSON ET AL. (2009)

What they did: This study investigated the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in decision-making. Participants were given tasks requiring deliberate choices, and their brain activity was measured.
What they found: Activity in the DLPFC indicated decisions forming before participants became aware of them, showing that even seemingly deliberate "System Two" decisions begin pre-consciously.
Implication: Even higher-order reasoning processes are subject to deterministic neural activity, challenging the notion of libertarian free will.

CONCLUSION:

These studies demonstrate that conscious awareness of a decision is preceded by neural activity that predicts the choice. This aligns with the deterministic view that our actions originate in pre-conscious processes shaped by biology, environment, and past experiences. While consciousness plays a role in monitoring and narrating these choices, it does not act as their originator.

This growing body of evidence makes a strong case against libertarian free will, reinforcing the perspective that the brain operates as a deterministic system. With each study, the illusion of independent agency becomes more problematic to defend and invites us to reconsider what it truly means to “choose.

THE BIOLOGY OF LANGUAGE: WHY HUMANS CAN SPEAK BUT ANIMALS CAN’T

Humans cannot escape the limitations of their biology. We are at the mercy of factors like DNA, neurotransmitters, hormones, and upbringing. Brains operate as intricate hardware systems that, by design, cannot be truly free. A species functions within the constraints of its biological framework.

For example, humans possess the unique ability to produce complex speech, a feat entirely determined by biology rather than free will. Dogs, no matter how much human language they hear, cannot speak because their vocal anatomy and neural wiring do not allow it. Similarly, humans cannot perceive ultraviolet light, no matter how hard they try. The hardware of our biology dictates these abilities and limitations.

No animal can defy its biological programming, and this extends to humans. As complex as they are, branches operate within deterministic boundaries, leaving no room for autonomy.

Even romanticised concepts like "true love" are shaped by biology. While often seen as an intangible, transcendent force, love is better understood as a biological mechanism shaped by evolution to ensure the survival of offspring. Love serves a purpose in humans, but it may be irrelevant in other species. For instance, some fish eat their young, and male cats provide no paternal care. Love, like all behaviours, reflects the need for survival rather than free choice or autonomy.

These limitations are also evident in decision-making. A person under the influence of alcohol, drugs or psychosis cannot "decide" to think clearly. In these cases, the limitations imposed by biology override any illusion of free will. Similarly, conditions like Down syndrome affect intelligence in ways that no determination can overcome, further underscoring that our thoughts, decisions, and consciousness arise from physical processes.

CONSCIOUSNESS AND BRAIN PROCESSES

Consciousness research provides further evidence that free will is an illusion. Sperry’s split-brain experiments, for example, demonstrate how consciousness and decision-making are entirely tied to physical processes within the brain.

When the corpus callosum, the structure connecting the brain’s two hemispheres—is severed, two distinct streams of consciousness emerge. For example, the right hemisphere might perceive an object. Still, because the left hemisphere controls speech, the person cannot verbalise what the right hemisphere sees because they can no longer speak to each other through the corpus callosum. Nevertheless, the person can act on the perception, such as drawing the object without knowing why. This shows that consciousness is not a unified entity or an independent soul but an emergent property of physical brain processes.

THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ONE’S BRAIN

CASE STUDY: CHARLES WHITMAN—THE TEXAS TOWER SNIPER

Charles Whitman’s case is a chilling example of how biological determinism can override even the most vigorous efforts at self-control. Whitman, a former Marine, carried out one of the deadliest mass shootings in US history in 1966, killing 16 people at the University of Texas Clock Tower. However, his diary, letters, and actions leading up to the event reveal a man acutely aware of his deteriorating mental state and desperately trying to resist his impulses.

SELF-TALK AND REFLECTION: In his diary, Whitman wrote extensively about his violent urges and attempted to reason with himself, hoping to suppress his growing aggression. Despite this, his behaviour became increasingly erratic, suggesting that his biology was exerting control over his actions.
SEEKING HELP: Whitman sought out a therapist, telling them about his intrusive thoughts and asking for intervention. Yet, his biological impulses intensified, seemingly immune to his conscious efforts.
EXPRESSIONS OF REMORSE: Before the shooting, Whitman killed his mother and wife. He expressed deep regret in his letters, describing them as wonderful people he loved dearly. Despite his remorse, he carried out these killings, reflecting an internal conflict between his desire to behave morally and the overwhelming compulsion to act violently.
CALLING THE POLICE: In a final attempt to prevent his massacre, Whitman contacted law enforcement before the shooting, asking to be arrested. Tragically, his pleas were ignored.
POST-MORTEM REQUEST: Even before his death, Whitman suspected that his actions were driven by something in his brain. In a handwritten note, he requested an autopsy, stating: “I don’t understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average, reasonable, and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can’t recall when it started), I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.”

The autopsy revealed a glioblastoma (brain tumour) pressing against his amygdala—an area critical for emotional regulation and aggression. This finding supports the view that his actions were not purely a matter of choice but heavily influenced by biological determinism.

THE IMPACT OF NURTURE ON NATURE

EXPERIENCE-EXPECTANT AND EXPERIENCE-DEPENDENT PLASTICITY CHALLENGING FREE WILL

If we examine the brain’s remarkable adaptability, we see that even this process is shaped entirely by external forces and biological constraints.

EXPERIENCE-EXPECTANT PLASTICITY refers to the brain’s reliance on specific, expected experiences during critical developmental windows. For example, a child’s brain is primed to learn language early in life. The brain's language pathways usually develop if exposed to spoken language during this critical period. However, if these inputs are absent—such as in cases of extreme isolation—the child may never fully acquire language, even with later effort. This process, which happens automatically, highlights how essential abilities depend on external experiences outside our control.

EXPERIENCE-DEPENDENT PLASTICITY, in contrast, describes how the brain adapts and changes in response to learning and repetition throughout life. For instance, learning to play an instrument strengthens neural pathways in the brain that are responsible for movement and hearing. These changes occur gradually and unconsciously, driven by external factors like education or practice rather than through deliberate choice.

NEGATIVE PLASTICITY

Even the brain’s natural pruning process supports this deterministic view. Neural connections that are frequently used are automatically strengthened, while unused ones are eliminated. This mechanism shapes our abilities, habits, and preferences in ways we rarely notice, let alone control.

CASE STUDY 1: BABY P—THE DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES OF ABUSE

Peter Connelly, tragically known as Baby P, was subjected to severe physical and emotional abuse at the hands of his caregivers before his death at just 17 months old. His story raises an important question: had he lived, could he have overcome the profound effects of such early trauma and "free will" himself to be good?

The answer lies in the concept of negative plasticity. Abuse, especially during critical developmental periods, fundamentally alters the brain's structure and function. Chronic exposure to stress hormones such as cortisol can impair the amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex—critical for emotional regulation, memory, and decision-making.

Early trauma disrupts the brain's capacity for empathy and impulse control, increasing the likelihood of aggression, emotional instability, and antisocial behaviour in adulthood. While interventions might have helped Baby P heal, his ability to "choose" goodness would still be limited by the extent of damage to his developing brain. This highlights how the interplay of nurture and nature shapes behaviour, often leaving individuals trapped by deterministic patterns established in early life.

CASE STUDY 2: ROMANIAN ORPHANS—THE ABSENCE OF LOVE AND ITS LONG-TERM EFFECTS

The plight of Romanian orphans in the 1980s and 1990s underscores the profound impact of deprivation on brain development. These children, raised in overcrowded institutions with little face-to-face interaction, touch, or affection, suffered severe developmental delays. Sir Michael Rutter’s studies on these orphans revealed the following:

COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT: Children adopted after six months often exhibited lower IQ scores, with many failing to catch up to their peers even years after adoption.
ATTACHMENT DISORDERS: Prolonged deprivation resulted in difficulty forming emotional bonds, with many showing indiscriminate friendliness or an inability to trust caregivers.
EMOTIONAL DYSREGULATION: A lack of early attachment disrupts the development of the prefrontal cortex, impairing emotional control and decision-making.

Rutter’s findings highlight the lasting damage caused by the absence of nurturing care during critical developmental periods. While some orphans showed remarkable recovery in supportive environments, others remained permanently affected, unable to "choose" healthy behaviours due to the structural and functional changes in their brains caused by neglect. This case demonstrates how the absence of nurture can irreversibly alter nature.

BELIEF IN DETERMINISM IS NOT SO BAD

Belief in determinism is a disheartening affair. Voltaire captured this tension by saying, “Liberty, then, is only and can be only the power to do what one will.” In other words, we want to believe that we are more than sentient meat, that our consciousness is something profound, not merely brain-dependent processes or, worse, something potentially "downloadable." Our existence feels too meaningful to be reduced to the workings of a biological robot. We don’t want to be that pointless, that nihilistic. We cling to the illusion of having a self, that we are each somebody, when in truth, perhaps, everybody’s nobody.

Decisions feel like conscious acts, but we are not their true originators. We experience them as they surface, not as we create them. How can we claim freedom when every intention is the product of neural events we neither initiated nor controlled? Freedom in the traditional sense—where choices arise independently of prior causes—is a comforting myth. Yet, this does not strip choices of significance. The fact that decisions are determined does not make them trivial. Refusing to act is itself an action, carrying its consequences.

Our choices, though constrained, are still consequential. Each decision emerges from an intricate web of influences—events, conversations, and ideas we neither selected nor orchestrated. This prompts the unsettling question: Where did those wants originate if you are free to want? The answer lies buried in circumstances beyond your reach, the ripple effects of genetics, upbringing, and chance.

This perspective can feel alienating because it dismantles the illusion of autonomy we hold so dear. Yet, this realisation offers a kind of liberation. If we are not solitary agents but interconnected parts of a more extensive system, then our shared history and experiences matter more than individual pride or blame. Talents are gifts shaped by forces beyond us, but they still demand our effort to use them well. Weaknesses may not be our fault, but addressing them is our responsibility. Determinism does not excuse us from action; instead, it reframes our understanding of accountability. Pride and blame, in this view, lose their weight—they are hollow remnants of a worldview that assumes absolute freedom.

While determinism explains how biology and the environment shape us, existentialism offers a way forward. Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy—“Man is nothing but what he makes of himself”—captures the essence of existential freedom. Even within constraints, humans must act as though they are free. Consciousness, for all its burdens, allows us to create meaning and purpose, turning deterministic realities into opportunities for self-definition.

Deterministic processes shape us, yet we are wired to love, compete, connect, and grow. These innate drives define what it means to be human. Evolution has instilled a need for relationships, creativity, and fulfilment. When we deny these drives or focus solely on what we cannot control, despair takes hold. Existentialism insists that meaning is not something given to us—it is something we must create. While we may not control the conditions of our existence, we can shape how we respond to them. Consciousness, though it reveals our limitations, grants us the unique human capacity to find meaning despite them.

ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF HARMFUL BEHAVIOUR

The belief that we, as conscious beings, are fully responsible for the character of our minds is incompatible with reality. We must rethink our assumptions to ground our understanding of free will in truth rather than inherited myths. Within a deterministic framework, blame becomes a hollow concept. To single out individuals as solely accountable ignores the intricate web of influences—genetics, environment, and circumstance—that shape their behaviour. Instead, a meaningful response lies in a commitment to well-being—for ourselves, others, and society. Compassion, understanding, and love take centre stage in this vision, illuminating a path to reducing harm and improving lives.

This shift in perspective emerges from the recognition that our sense of control over our thoughts and actions is an illusion. Even the most appalling individuals are, in many ways, unlucky to be who they are. When we grasp this, the logic of hatred begins to unravel. Fear may remain, but hatred becomes harder to sustain. Replacing it with empathy and compassion is morally enriching and pragmatically transformative. In this light, accountability shifts away from moral condemnation and toward a deeper understanding of the causes of behaviour.

This perspective does not absolve harmful actions but demands that justice prioritise societal safety, prevention, and rehabilitation over retribution. For severe crimes such as murder, trafficking, or rape, the imperative to protect society remains vital. Determinism recognises that such acts are rooted in biology and the environment, but this does not diminish the need for containment. Justice, however, must go further—seeking to dismantle the conditions that foster such behaviours and prevent future generations from falling prey to the same patterns.

For lesser offences, deterrence retains a role. Measures like penalties or restrictions, which shape behaviour through consequences, can still be effective. Yet these must exist within a larger framework that tackles systemic issues such as poverty, trauma, and neglect—the hidden architects of destructive behaviours. Prevention, as determinism underscores, is far more powerful than punishment. Early interventions and cultivating healthier environments are key to reducing harmful actions at their source, ensuring a society that nurtures well-being over vengeance.

This understanding transforms determinism from a source of despair into a framework for hope. By recognising the root causes of behaviour, we can build systems that empower individuals to thrive, reduce harm, and create purpose. Sartre’s insight resonates deeply here: “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.

The broader challenge lies in creating systems supporting individuals from birth to adulthood, addressing the factors contributing to harmful behaviours. Environmental and lifestyle influences significantly shape brain development and well-being, often triggering epigenetic changes that alter gene expression without modifying DNA.

Substance use during adolescence disrupts neural development, altering brain chemistry and weakening impulse control. Excessive screen time rewires attention systems, reducing the ability to focus and diminishing social capacities. Early exposure to pornography reshapes reward pathways, leaving enduring impacts on sexual behaviour. Poor diets and sedentary lifestyles impair cognitive function and exacerbate mental health issues, while chronic stress and childhood trauma reshape the brain’s plasticity, embedding emotional and behavioural challenges that can persist for a lifetime.

Addressing these root causes requires systemic, proactive government, institutions, and society intervention.

CONCLUSION: A CHOICE TO EMBRACE REALITY

The human experience is defined by paradox. We feel free yet are bound by biology, environment, and the infinite ripple of past events. The illusion of free will is deeply ingrained in our consciousness, offering comfort and a sense of agency in an unpredictable world. Yet, recognising its illusory nature is not a loss but an awakening.

To understand that deterministic forces shape our thoughts, behaviours, and choices does not render us powerless. It liberates us from the false burdens of pride and blame, replacing them with compassion—for ourselves and others. It reframes morality not as a vehicle for punishment but as a call for understanding and systemic change. A person's failures are, more often than not, the failures of their context, their biology, or the society that shaped them.

And still, within these deterministic constraints, we create. We love, connect, and strive for meaning. This is humanity’s triumph—not in its independence but in its capacity to build, adapt, and transform within the boundaries of its existence. Determinism does not rob us of purpose; it reminds us that meaning is not bestowed but forged. The irony of determinism is that, in acknowledging our lack of freedom, we become genuinely free: free to act with intention, free to create systems of justice and compassion, and free to embrace the truth of our interconnectedness.

Ultimately, determinism is not a story of despair but hope. It reminds us that understanding the forces that shape us is the first step to shaping the world we want to see. Perhaps, in accepting the limits of our autonomy, we might finally grasp the power of our humanity

Finally, consider this: your nature, upbringing, and the time you were born are all part of fate’s design. Whether you’re an angel or a psychopath, it’s not your fault. So, you might as well stop feeling guilty about... anything.