HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND FREE WILL
Contents:
The relationship between reality and consciousness is a central question in philosophy, since it defines how knowledge of reality must be gained and how actions in reality must be taken, i.e. it defines the fields of epistemology and ethics. Hence, apart from metaphysics, every branch of philosophy requires an answer to the question: what is the nature of man and his actions? In essence, since man’s distinct kind of consciousness is his fundamental feature (i.e. the feature that integrates every philosophically relevant attribute of man), the question becomes: what is the nature of human consciousness and what decides/determines its actions?
The question of free will is the central question…
In epistemology, I went over the basics of the relationship between reality and consciousness. However, implicit in the discussion on concept-formation was the idea that we can direct our own awareness toward the factual and away from the false and arbitrary. After all, reason depends on such an ability. Hence, we see that validating free will is central to reaching and validating the principles of human cognition. In ethics, I take for granted that we have the capacity to choose our course of action (i.e. not everything is within choice, but choices are present and relevant). Without such a capacity, no code of values, virtues and principles would be necessary since no choice would be possible. Hence, we see that validating free will is central to reaching and validating the principles of human action, and thus, it is central to validating ethics. Of course, before getting to free will, we have to first establish the facts about human consciousness on which free will is predicated.
Perception:
The process by which an entity interacts with and retains interactions between the external environment and itself to use toward goal-directed behaviour. The use of the retained interactions for goal-directed behaviour is key; without this aspect, perception is indistinguishable from mere marks or imprints. “Meaning” is only found with respect to a goal or purpose, and hence, perception without goal-directed behaviour is meaningless and becomes the same phenomenon (in essence) as mere marking or imprinting.
Awareness:
The state of sustained perception of that which exists. Hence, perception is the start of awareness.
Consciousness:
The faculty of awareness, i.e. the faculty of perceiving that which exists. Consciousness implies consciousness of something. A content-less state of consciousness is a self-contradictory idea.
LEXICAL NOTE: The use of “conscious” and “aware”:
The adjectives “conscious” and “aware” will be used synonymously when referring to state of mind. The term “conscious” does have broader uses, however, such as when referring to the nature of an entity possessing the faculty of awareness.
Some other key definitions…
Factor:
A factor is a fact that is a cause for one or more results.
Fundamental feature:
A fundamental feature is the feature of an existent X that unites all of X’s features in the given context. Hence, the fundamental feature of X in a given context is the fundamental factor in the nature and behaviour of X in the given context (because by the law of causality, what a thing does is an extension of what it is).
Finding the fundamental feature…
Since the fundamental feature of X in a given context is the fundamental factor in the nature and behaviour of X, the effects (e.g. actions or implications) of the fundamental feature are the only effects that can uniquely identify X in the given context, and thus, they can be the necessary and sufficient validation of X in the given context. Conversely, if something is the necessary and sufficient validation of X in the given context, then it uniquely identifies X in the given context, and thus, it is the effect of the fundamental feature of X in the given context. Hence, to find the fundamental feature of X in the given context, we can find an action or attribute that is the necessary and sufficient validation of X in the given context and find out which feature causes the action or implies the attribute (note that the attribute may itself be the fundamental feature).
NOTE: The fundamental feature can consist of a set of essential attributes, not necessarily a single fundamental attribute.
Back to the discussion…
The metaphysical context draws from Metaphysics.
Existence exists, and we are conscious of it. Furthermore, everything that exists is something in particular, i.e. something that has a particular identity — this also applies to our consciousness, i.e. our consciousness also has a particular identity. In other words, we are conscious of something through a particular form of awareness. Furthermore, as discussed in metaphysics, existence exists independently of consciousness because consciousness is the faculty of awareness, i.e. the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
NOTE: Existence, identity and consciousness are self-evident facts, i.e. their validation lies in the fact of existence itself; trying to refute them would be a self-defeating exercise.
Locus of X ⇒ Core source of the identity of X
When I refer to myself, what am I talking about? In essence, I am talking about the fact and faculty of my awareness of existence. Now, note that it is self-evident that I exist, i.e. I am aware of existence. What is necessary and sufficient to validate my own existence? Firstly, awareness is necessary to do so, because without awareness, I cannot identify anything, let alone the fact that I exist. Secondly, note that my awareness of the fact that I am aware gives me the direct knowledge of my own existence, i.e. the fact of my existence is self-evident to my awareness. Hence, my awareness is also sufficient to validate my existence. Since my awareness is necessary and sufficient to validate my existence, and since awareness is the active state (i.e. the state of sustained action) of consciousness, the fundamental feature of my self is consciousness. By “fundamental feature” here, I mean the feature that unites all of the features that form my identity as a conscious being. Also note that “consciousness” does not refer to a disembodied abstraction but a faculty, i.e. a capacity of an entity (hence, an action of consciousness is an action of the entity using the capacity given by consciousness).
NOTE: Consciousness is the fundamental feature of the self because though there are many necessary conditions for consciousness to exist (e.g. a brain, neural and chemical activity, etc.), none of them by themselves are sufficient conditions for consciousness to exist. Rather, consciousness is a feature which is only necessitated by the particular integration of particular factors. By contrast, take the example of skin colour, which (given normal health and normal lighting) is necessitated by genetic factors. Here, the skin colour is an effect of genetic factors, not an integration of something new.
As an entity, I am not only my consciousness since my consciousness, my mind and my body are parts of an integrated whole. Hence, I am a being of integrated mind (i.e. consciousness and its apparatus) and body (i.e. the physical components integrated with my apparatus of consciousness). Nevertheless, given that my consciousness is my fundamental feature as a conscious being, the locus of the self lies in consciousness, i.e. the faculty of awareness.
NOTE: Consciousness being the fundamental feature of the self does not mean it is not affected and shaped by other factors; indeed, it is very clearly affected and shaped by a variety of factors, both internal and external. Furthermore, while consciousness implies everything else about a human being in a philosophical context, in other contexts, it may too broad to single-handedly describe human beings in relevant depth and detail. For example, the fact that human beings have consciousness tells us nothing about their anatomy, bodily functions and common tendencies, which are relevant in many contexts (e.g. fitness, medicine, psychology, etc.) while not being relevant in a philosophical context.
Note on “philosophical context”:
A context is a set of interrelated facts. A philosophical context is the broadest possible context, which means it contains (mostly implicitly) every actual and potential fact about reality. In other words, it is a context that deals with (1) reality as such, (2) the broadest nature of consciousness and (3) its broadest relationship to reality. In other words, a philosophical context omits everything but the most essential and foundational facts of reality as a whole. Hence, defining the “self” in a philosophical context means defining the most essential and foundational facts about myself, and everything else I learn about myself is integrated by these facts.
NOTE: Right now, the discussion is more introspective. I do not mean to generalise for all kinds of consciousness, only the kind that I possess. Since my own consciousness can be grasped by me by direct observation, it is the right epistemological starting point to understanding consciousness. Such an understanding would form the basis by which I can differentiate between different kinds of consciousnesses and thereby get a more generalised view of what consciousness involves.
Consciousness is a fundamental feature of the self, and hence, one’s awareness of reality is a key factor in one’s actions as a conscious being. Furthermore, the recognition of the fact that one is conscious demonstrates self-awareness, i.e. awareness of one’s own consciousness. Hence, if one is capable of self-awareness, one’s awareness of one’s own consciousness is also a key factor in one’s actions. Given that I am aware of my awareness (which is how I validate my existence), my consciousness is a self-aware consciousness.
Consciousness is not self-identified by its physical apparatus but by the processes that sustain it, the most fundamental of which is awareness itself. Furthermore, I observe that I have inner motives that guide my conscious processes and actions. Since I can be aware of my own conscious processes, I can observe my motives through their effects on my consciousness (e.g. thoughts, feelings, impulses, etc.).
Consciousness, i.e. the faculty of awareness is finite, and thus, awareness of something is necessarily the awareness of some thing or things in particular while omitting other things from awareness. In other words, my awareness is focused. What directs this focus? This is the topic of the next section.
LEXICAL NOTES:
1.
I consider “volition”, “free will” and “self-determination” as synonymns.
2.
“Conscious actions” means actions made with consciousness, while “actions of consciousness” refers the workings of the consciousness itself.
The precondition for awareness and hence consciousness is perception, which is automatic and cannot be first initiated by awareness since it is the basis of awareness. However, after perception, we observe that we act based on our awareness, our other conscious processes and our motives. Further, we also observe that we are self-aware, i.e. that our conscious processes and our motives are themselves open to our awareness. In other words, the actions of our consciousness are themselves subjectable to consciousness. Hence, since our consciousness is the locus of the self, and since a self-aware consciousness can guide its own actions, our self can guide our consciousness. In short, self-awareness gives consciousness the power to guide its own processes, i.e. it makes consciousness not just reactive but also proactive. Now, note that our self as whole includes the physical and mental apparatus of our consciousness as well as the body integrated with our consciousness, and we observe that our conscious physical actions are based on our conscious mental actions (which are based on our awareness). In other words, we are self-determined both cognitively and physically.
If our consciousness were determined only by factors outside our control, then we would be unable to control the focus of our awareness inward in any way, and thus, unable to control our conscious processes in any way. Then, since the locus of our self is our consciousness, its active state, i.e. awareness cannot be a factor in the actions of our consciousness. But this violates our identity as self-aware conscious beings and thus cannot be true.
NOTE: By free will, I do not mean the ability to “transcend causality”, i.e. act apart from causality; metaphysically, nothing acts nor can act apart from causality. Rather, free will is a kind of causation wherein our self is an essential cause in the chain of cause-and-effect that leads to our thoughts and actions.
If we have no free will, nothing we do is determined by us, including the basic act of focusing our awareness. Every thought is the result of influences beyond our control, and thus, its validation is also beyond our control. If so, we are then unable even to tell truth from falsehood, and hence, validation becomes impossible (meaningless, in fact). In short, the very idea of validation presupposes the ability to direct one’s focus toward the truth and away from the arbitrary and the false; knowledge beyond the perceptual level is not automatic. Even to “prove” determinism you need to accept and use free will as a given, which makes determinism a self-defeating position.
How do you know we have no free will? Ultimately, your knowledge — as all knowledge — is reducible to self-evident experience. But so is the experience of your own volition. You cannot deny the basis of knowledge while claiming knowledge yourself.
Experience of illusion presupposes experience of reality first — without experiencing reality, the mind cannot rearrange the elements it experiences into something that does not exist as a whole. Furthermore, an illusion is ultimately not perceptual but a misinterpretation of the perceptual. On what perceptual basis lies the claim that the experience of volition is an illusion? If there is such a perceptual basis, how can it contradict the perceptual basis of the concept of volition itself (which is based on direct observations of personal mental and physical efficacy)? Contradictions cannot exist in reality, and the perceptual is the given (i.e. given by reality). Hence, the error must lie not in the perceptual basis of volition but in the interpretation of other facts that supposedly disprove it.
Back to the discussion…
There is a view that the actions of our consciousness are determined but not self-determined, since (1) they are the result of the actions of the entities that make up our consciousness, and (2) the actions of these entities are not determined in any way by our consciousness. But this is a misintegration of the facts. If consciousness is an integration of its components, its actions are the actions of its components in some form. To say that the actions of consciousness are determined by the actions of its components in some form is to say that the actions of consciousness are determined by its identity. Thus, if being self-aware is a part of its identity — which it is — then the actions of consciousness are at least partly determined by its awareness of itself and hence are self-determined. In this light, to say that a self-aware consciousness does not determine the actions of its components contradicts its very identity by disintegrating the parts from the integrated whole, i.e. disintegrating the components of our consciousness from our consciousness itself. We control our thoughts and actions based on the integrated whole that we are, not as directors of each component that makes us up.
Reality does not rest on your beliefs. But the grasp of reality is crucial in order to act in reality. If you think free will is not real, you may act accordingly, i.e. either passively or impulsively, refusing or failing to see the self-evident facts about the nature of your own mind. On the other hand, if you think free will is something it is not, like the total hold of will over matter or the total hold over the mind and body by mere intent or whim, you will act accordingly and suffer the frustration, misery and despair that ensues from your refusal or inability to deal with reality as it is.
To understand free will is to properly identify where it lies and what it entails. You cannot make yourself be or do anything you desire by mere intent or whim, but you can choose to direct your focus to some extent, grasp the reality facing you and then choose to act within your knowledge and capacity. The grasp of this fact is crucial if you want to learn to use your mind and body to their fullest extent.
If something can happen within a system, that means that it would happen given the right causes enacted within the system. Now, our awareness is necessarily focussed in some way, and being aware of what we focus on enables us to direct, expand or constrict our focus. Through the direction of the awareness of facts, ideas, conclusions, etc., our focus serves to direct our actions. With the right focus on the right facts, ideas, conclusions, etc., we can do something instead of something else. This is how the potential for human action is defined; we could have done differently given the right conditions, and by our nature, part of the right conditions is our own awareness, self-awareness and deliberate focus.
One may argue that since we can only do something given the right conditions, no one is responsible for their conscious actions because they did not have the right conditions. To that, I say — to assign someone the responsibility of a conscious action is to recognise the role of the person’s free will in pursuing that action. In other words, responsibility is a concept that identifies a person’s free will as a factor in his conscious action, and thus, as a key condition among the “right conditions”. It omits the deliberate focus of one’s own mind, considers the other factors in one’s action, and then evaluates if one could have done otherwise. By omitting the deliberate focus of one’s own mind, i.e. by omitting free will as a precondition of one’s conscious actions, it identifies free will as a vital variable in the conscious actions of a self-determined being (note that omitting does not mean denying, it only means leaving out of consideration). The concept of responsibility is important due to the fact that a self-determined being must recognise itself as self-determined to realise its free will. This means the only way a self-determined being can be what it is and act accordingly is by taking responsibility for its own choices.
NOTE: Not all actions are conscious (i.e. intentional), thus responsibility does not apply for all actions.
To be conscious is to be an integrated being of mind and body, wherein the components of consciousness are integrated into the inseparable whole that is the consciousness. Our consciousness is the locus of our self, and we are self-determined since (1) we are aware, self-aware and thus capable of focussing our awareness onto our own conscious processes (i.e. our conscious processes are fundamentally subjectable to the focus of our awareness) and (2) our awareness — being an essential capacity of our self as it is the fundamental capacity of our consciousness — is an essential factor (ultimately and potentially the fundamental factor) in our conscious thoughts and actions. The basis of free will is the focus of our awareness.
LEXICAL NOTE:
1.
I consider “self-determination” and “free will” as synonyms. I use “self-determined” as a more convenient way to say “driven by free will”.
2.
Focus is a self-imposed selectivity in the direction and scope of one’s awareness. Note that awareness is finite, which means the awareness of any part of reality is already selective due to its finiteness; however, focus refers to a selectivity imposed on top of the automatic selectivity of awareness itself. I define “inward focus” as focus on one’s own conscious processes, whereas “outward focus” is one’s focus on some part of reality outside our consciousness.
In “The law of causality” from Metaphysics, the law of causality is given as follows:
Causality is the law of identity applied to actions, and by extension, events (which are the result of the actions and interactions of two or more entities). An entity’s action can exist neither apart from its identity nor in contradiction to its identity, which is to say that an entity can only act according to its identity. By extension, a subset of existence can only change according to the identities of the entities acting and interacting within it.
Causality is inherent in the very fact of existence, hence no part of reality can exist apart from it. Now, consciousness is a part of reality, and thus, has a certain identity and can cause certain effects unique to it, effects that cannot exist apart from it. In other words, given other necessary conditions, the consciousness is the necessary and sufficient cause, i.e. the driving cause for a range of effects made possible by the necessary conditions. To be clear, anything that exists is such that its nature is the driving cause for a range of effects made possible by the necessary conditions: a rock acts in a way distinctive to a rock that no amount of outside factors could determine by themselves, a tree’s growth toward sunlight is inherent in its nature and not determined purely by outside factors, etc.
Now, consider a kind of consciousness whose fundamental feature is the capacity for self-awareness. Then, such a consciousness can and does act in a self-determined way, because its awareness of itself and its contents can be and often is an essential factor in its own actions (by “actions”, I mean actions of consciousness, rather than physical actions made with consciousness). Hence, given other necessary conditions, your nature as a volitional being is the driving cause in the nature of your conscious actions; your conscious actions are yours, self-determined. Note that free will cannot exist apart from causality, since without causality, the nature of one’s consciousness would have no effect on the nature of one’s actions. Free will is not at odds with causality but precisely its extension in the context of a self-aware consciousness.
A variety of factors play a role in shaping what is and is not possible to you, and what is and is not favourable or unfavourable with respect to some purpose. Given these factors and their effects, you are the driving cause for action toward realising one or some of the many possibilities. Free will is essentially the recognition of the fact that in the chain of cause-and-effect that leads to your actions, you yourself are an essential cause. You exist in reality, have a certain nature and have certain kinds of actions possible to you. The factors in the broader context in which you exist cannot be contradicted by you, but that is precisely the basis of the efficacy of your free will; if there were no definite results of definite factors, no action toward a definite potential would be possible.
To put it briefly, causality is precisely what makes free will possible.
Causality only states that everything that exists acts only according to its nature. Furthermore, its implication is that given the same conditions, an entity will act only according to what is possible to it in those conditions (I think if the conditions are given exhaustively enough, then only one action would be possible). I hold that if I rewind the clock to the exact same state, I would do the exact same thing (all else equal); that is just causality and I hold causality as an absolute. Yet, a determinist position that everything we do is predetermined is still not logically necessitated. The question here is: predetermined by what? Given that your self-determined awareness is an essential factor in your actions, you yourself (i.e. you with the fact and faculty of your awareness) are an essential factor that determines what you do.
Before moving on, a definition…
Predetermined:
A potential outcome is predetermined if past factors necessarily lead to it and nothing else.
Back to the discussion…
Hypothetically, if I know exactly what you are aware of, what you value and what your circumstances are, I may be able to predict exactly what you would do. But such a prediction is made possible only by knowing that your consciousness is self-determined and that its self-determined actions are based on mentally internalised factors (e.g. knowledge, values, etc.) that are open to change by means of your self-awareness. In other words, the direction of one’s focus (which is the basis of free will) is essentially (though not entirely) driven by mentally interalised factors which are themselves subjectable to one’s focus. Now, we cannot have an infinite regress, which means there must be a starting point of focus. If the starting point is such that our focus is determined by something apart from our self, then by extension (based on what the “self” is), our focus is determined by something apart from our consciousness. Now, focus is an action of consciousness. Thus, the nature of a consciousness is an essential factor in shaping the nature of its focus (note that this does not prove the focus is not determined by factors apart from consciousness; indeed, the focus of a reactive rather than proactive consciousness is determined, i.e. dictated by factors apart from consciousness).
NOTE: The starting point of consciousness is the direct awareness of something outside consciousness; such awareness is already selective due to the finiteness of awareness. However, focus is the imposition of on top of such automatic selectivity, which means focus presupposes consciousness.
Now, a self-determined consciousness is a fundamental (not just essential) factor in its own actions, and hence, its act of inward focus is also fundamentally self-caused. Hence, by extension (given that consciousness is the locus of our self), we are a fundamental factor in the direction of our own focus, both inward and outward. The actions of our consciousness, i.e. our conscious thoughts and decisions, can be influenced by other factors (since other factors do have real effects), but at the core of our being is a factor that is purely self-determined.
A self-determined being cannot be predetermined even if his actions can be predicted in a given context. Why? Because to be predetermined is to be necessitated by past factors, but a self-determined being’s actions are driven on some fundamental level by himself in the present and, by the nature of a self-aware consciousness, only he has access to that factor. Hence, since his actions are not determined purely apart from him and since he does in fact determine his actions on some level, his actions cannot be fundamentally predetermined. If his actions can be predicted in some context, it is because he is a definite part of existence and acts according to a definite set of facts, but this does not change his basic nature as a self-determined being.
I define the “self” as the faculty of awareness (i.e. consciousness) and the apparatus it rests on (mental and physical). A chain of cause and effect leads to my choices, but my self is an essential part of that causal chain. On some level, my thoughts, decisions and actions are necessarily both self-initiated and self-determined. I would act the same if in the exact same state in the past, but the past is never open to change; hence, free will is not about the past but the potential. I can do what I intend, I can be aware of my intentions and judge them, I can choose to be aware at all or evade reality. All this is my doing and nothing else, on some level.
That said, the capacity for free will is not unaffected by other factors and, of course, not everything is open to choice, but nonetheless, choice does exist. We may not be able to choose anything we want, but we can at least choose something over something else, even if the choice boils down to the mere act of acknowledging reality or rejecting it. I reject any proposition that says I am a pawn or a puppet of causes beyond me or that my free will is an illusion. I hold — as I held before — that determinism is a self-refuting idea not just by logic but by direct, perceptual experience (as my own agency is directly observable to me from a pre-conceptual level of development). I hold that free will — properly defined — is self-evident and irrefutable.
ADDITIONAL NOTE:
I posit that considering the unchangeable and inevitable nature of the past as proof of predetermination is a misuse of the concept of potential. We could not have done otherwise in the past, because the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to happen were present; in the case of volitional decisions, one of the factors is the particular exercise of will based on particular purposes and reasons. However, potential never relates to “what could have been” (which is speculation, i.e. imagining at least some of the deciding factors to have been different), but rather to “what can be”; since our volitional faculty is ours to direct on some level, the factor that is our own particular exercise of will is still open to change by our own awareness and self-determination, to some extent.
Firstly, I reject the necessary vs. contingent dichotomy (see: The Meaning of “Necessary” Versus “Contingent” Truth from website: Objectivism In Depth)
Secondly, I think contingency as applied to facts (metaphysical or man-made) brings no cognitive clarity, only cognitive confusion. “Metaphysical vs. man-made” clearly distinguishes the root causes of the facts we observe, while “potential” clearly identifies what can be changed and in what way. I think “contingency” as applied to facts is either useless when used as “possibility” or “potentiality”, or confusing when used to describe the nature of actual facts, because every actual fact is necessary (necessary in the sense that it had to be the case given other facts and/or factors).
Even the facts arising from choices of a free agent result from the purpose and context the free agent has at the time of making the choices; why would we act differently without a different purpose and/or a different context? We do have free will, but I think it makes much more sense (intellectually and practically) to think of free will as what we can do rather than what we could have done. At most, we could think of what we could have done as a hypothetical, i.e. as in “what could I have done if I were to face the same scenario again but with a different purpose and/or awareness that I did not have at the time”.