In this blog post, we will explore in depth whether human choices are free will or simply the neural activity of the brain, based on a materialistic view of humanity.
There are two different perspectives on human nature. According to the religious view of humanity, humans have a soul, which is a non-physical entity, in addition to their physical bodies. The soul is completely separate from the physical body and is the source of human decisions. On the other hand, according to the materialistic view of humanity, humans are nothing more than physical bodies. There is no soul other than the physical body. Therefore, human decisions are merely neurological events that occur in the brain. Assuming the materialistic view of human nature, can humans make free choices? In other words, do humans have free will? For example, suppose that when Mr. A opens the refrigerator, he finds only strawberry milk and chocolate milk. Can Mr. A choose one of these two drinks of his own free will?
In relation to this question, the anti-free will argument concludes that Mr. A does not have free will. First, arbitrary choices are either predetermined by previous events or occur randomly. Here, occurring randomly means that they are not predetermined. Based on this premise, the anti-free will argument considers both the predetermination assumption and the randomness assumption. First, let us assume that arbitrary choices are predetermined by previous events. The anti-free will argument concludes that we do not have free will in this case. For example, if Mr. A’s choice of strawberry milk was predetermined even before he was born, it would be difficult to consider that he chose it of his own free will. Second, let us assume that random choices occur randomly. In the anti-free will argument, we conclude that we do not have free will in this case as well. For example, if Mr. A’s choice of strawberry milk is merely a random neural event in his brain, it would be difficult to consider it a product of free will.
However, there are various criticisms of this argument. According to one criticism of the anti-free will argument, while the conclusion is acceptable when considering the predetermination assumption of the anti-free will argument, it is not necessary to accept the conclusion when considering the randomness assumption. Therefore, it is argued that the conclusion of the anti-free will argument is also not necessary to accept. The reasons are as follows.
In order for an arbitrary choice to be the product of my free will, the following two conditions must be met. First, I must be the subject of that choice. Second, my choice must not be predetermined by previous events. However, if a choice is predetermined by previous events, this conflicts with the second condition for free will. Therefore, considering the predetermination assumption of the argument against free will, we must accept that we do not have free will. Of course, there may be other meanings of free will that are different from this. If the phrase “I chose freely” simply means “I did what I wanted to do,” then whether or not my choice was predetermined by previous events, it can still be a product of my free will. However, this kind of free will is different from the free will that satisfies the two conditions we are considering here.
Next, even if a choice is random, the subject of that choice can still be me. According to the materialistic view of human nature, “A chose strawberry milk” means that “a neural event occurred in A’s brain at the moment of choice.” Let us assume that this neural event in A was not predetermined by previous events. Even under this assumption, A can still be the subject of that choice. This is because this assumption does not change the fact that “A chose strawberry milk” as a neural event that occurred in the brain at the time of the choice. Ultimately, when considering the randomness assumption of the argument against free will, the conclusion is not necessary.
To understand this debate more deeply, it is necessary to consider various research results and philosophical positions that support the materialistic view of human nature. For example, advances in modern brain science provide detailed explanations of how human decision-making processes are related to neural activity in the brain. Some studies show that activity in specific areas of the brain can predict human choices and behaviors. Such studies provide important clues for understanding free will from a materialistic perspective. On the other hand, much debate remains about how these neuroscientific explanations can be reconciled with the empirical experience of free will.
Furthermore, the debate over free will is not merely a philosophical speculation, but is also closely related to ethical and legal issues. If humans do not have free will in the true sense, this would have a significant impact on the concepts of responsibility and punishment. For example, if a criminal did not freely choose their actions, but they were merely the result of neural events in the brain, how could punishment be justified? These questions suggest that the debate over free will extends beyond philosophical debate to social and moral issues.
Ultimately, the debate over free will requires a deep understanding of human nature, which must be explored from various perspectives, including philosophical, scientific, and ethical. Although materialistic and religious views of humanity have different starting points, they both play an important role in the quest to understand the essence of human existence. Through this, we will be able to gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be human and what human life is all about.
