Appendix One
Free
Will and the Evolution of Consciousness
David Center
Spiritually
speaking, free will or
the ability to make meaningful choices is a critical concept for the
evolution of consciousness or enlightenment. The panentheistic
principle of the primacy of Consciousness
and its expression through the quantum monad, which has been
discussed elsewhere is assumed. Implicit in this view is the
necessity of multiple physical manifestations in the material world
for the evolution of personal consciousness. Multiple manifestations
or reincarnations serve the purpose of allowing one the opportunity
to overcome karmic errors and limitations as well as to develop
talents and abilities using the experiences made possible by the
material world. Thus, acceptance of the above construction of the
nature of reality requires the ability to make meaningful choices or free will. How then
might the requirement for free will be construed in a manner that
meets the necessary conditions for the evolution of consciousness?
Simple
determinism asserts that everything we do is predetermined and
therefore our apparent choices are really an illusion. From that
point of view, we have only what appear to be choices and all the
outcomes that follow from such imaginary choices are predetermined
and beyond our ability to influence. In short, the chain of causality
that began in the distant past, perhaps with the origin of the
material universe, set in motion a chain of cause and effects that
still continues and will continue into the future. That chain of
causality passes through us and determines what we think, feel and
do. Clearly, there are no real choices that might allow for the
operation of free will in such a dismal conception of life. Further,
such a conception renders impossible any meaningful conception of
moral responsibility. If one's behavior is wholly determined and
outside of one's ability to influence, how can an individual be held
accountable for his or her actions? Finally, if simple determinism
governs everything then a spiritual vision that entails the evolution
of consciousness (or the soul if you prefer) cannot be valid.
Indeterminism
(a.k.a. absolute free will) is the opposite of simple determinism.
Absolute free will means one can by choice affect an outcome that is
not predictable from its antecedents. In short, one can do things
that violate the principle of causality as it is commonly understood
(a.k.a. magic). For example, someone walking on water would both
violate the principle of causality and demonstrate producing an
outcome by choice that is not predictable from its antecedents.
Interestingly, the principle of causality or simple determinism has,
at the quantum level, been experimentally demonstrated to be
untenable. This suggests that reality almost certainly does not rest
upon simple determinism. The quantum world appears, however, to be
governed by statistical determinism, which includes all
possible outcomes and even some that might be considered "magic."
However, "magical" outcomes, while possible, are extremely
improbable. It is clear that no mere mortal is likely to ever observe
or experience one of these highly improbable outcomes. Thus,
indeterminism is not suitable for our purposes because meaningful
choices leading to systematic consequences are not possible and such
choices are necessary for the evolution of consciousness.
The
libertarian philosopher Richard Taylor proposed an alternative to
simple determinism that he calls complex determinism, which
recognizes that human agency is a primary factor in causation. That
is, human agency or in the case of an individual self-agency
can alter a chain of causality and initiate a new branch in an
unfolding sequence. This brings us back to free will. In this view,
free will is no longer absolute but rather is probabilistic, which is
similar to the statistical determinism of quantum physics. Free will
then, for me, is equivalent to complex determinism. Complex
determinism suggests that in any given situation there are usually
multiple possible outcomes, none of which require magic; i.e., they
have a basis in antecedent events. Each of these possible outcomes is
more or less probable than another. The most common outcome is the
one with the highest probability. This is what is sometimes described
by the phrase "the path of least resistance."
When
one arrives at a meaningful decision point in life, the complex and
tangled web of antecedents that have led to the decision point
generally allow for more than one possible consequence or outcome.
Suppose that the decision point contains five possible outcomes or
choices. Each has a probability of expression. If the path of least
resistance is followed, the choice made will be the one most closely
associated with one's habitual and conditioned pattern of behavior.
This default choice, in fact, is not really a choice so much as it is
an acquiescence. Default responses that follow the path of least
resistance are very common and give the appearance of following from
simple determinism.
Research
has provided evidence that suggests decisions are made at a
subconscious level before one is consciously aware of them. This it
is argued is evidence for simple determinism. An alternative
interpretation is that this research is evidence that habitual or
high probability responses are virtually automatic. Fortunately, the
research also shows that there is a small delay between the
subconscious decision, awareness and action. This delay is the window
of opportunity that provides room for free will. Self-agency effected
through intention and deliberate choice, based on forethought and
anticipation of consequences, can influence and change the
probability functions of potential outcomes. Thus, the first step is
to prevent the default or habitual response from occurring. The
second step is to undertake a deliberate effort to make manifest a
possible alternate response. In short, if one is willing to be
attentive and make the effort, it is possible to exert self-agency
and become a causal force in your own chain of causation.
In
this conception of complex determinism, there are three principle
contributors to human action: biological factors, environmental
factors and self-agency. It is important to recognize that all three
influences operate through predisposition, not predestination.
Consider two identical twins with virtually identical biological
inheritance who are predisposed to diabetes. Further, suppose that
the twins live in an environment that has varied dietary choices but
one that includes an abundance of readily available, tasty, high
carbohydrate foods. This environment is one that predisposes one to
the development of diabetes. The interaction of the biological and
environmental predispositions (what's known as an epigenetic factor)
make avoiding diabetes unlikely, especially given the predisposition
to follow the path of least resistance. Eventually, one twin develops
diabetes and the other does not. Clearly, this would never happen if
biological and environmental causation were predestination. We can
ask why did these different outcomes occur?
Very
likely part of the answer is that the twins created different
environments from the choices they made. Suppose that they took a
class in nutrition while they were in high school or college in which
they learned of the hazards of overeating a high glycemic diet. This
was not welcome news since both had become accustomed to eating a
high glycemic diet. Let's assume that one chose to continue eating a
diet rich in refined carbohydrates. This twin followed the habitual
pattern and took the path of least resistance. The other chose a diet
that minimized refined carbohydrates. This choice was clearly
available to both but only the second twin exercised self-agency and
took the more difficult path of resisting habitual patterns and
making healthier choices. Thus, these different choices in lifestyle
differentially influenced the possibility of developing diabetes in
the twins.
In my
view, we do have the ability to make real choices. We can, at least,
make choices from among those potential outcomes that are possible
given the antecedents. Our choices, reflected in our intentions and
actions, influence (but do not control) the probable outcomes
available in situations in which we are actors. Self-agency has the
potential to carry us to a tipping point that can set in motion a new
causal chain. Most of us, most of the time, fail to exercise
self-agency and simply follow the path of least resistance and
thereby give the impression of being controlled by simple
determinism.
Complex
determinism construed as self-agency then appears to meet the need
for the meaningful choices necessary for evolving consciousness.
Accepting self-agency as essential for evolving consciousness leads
to recognition of personal sovereignty as a natural right.
A sovereign individual is a free agent engaged in self-determination. Free agents set their own goals and choose
the means to those goals. Further, a community of sovereign
individuals represents a diversity of goals and methods for achieving
those goals. Evolution of consciousness can only be achieved by
freely taken choices. This means that it is incumbent upon anyone who
accepts the primacy of Consciousness, implicit in panentheism,
to avoid interfering with other people's choices to the greatest
extent possible. This is important because it is the intent behind
choices, not the acts in and of themselves that is important for the
evolution of consciousness.
There
are several ways in which one individual might attempt to affect the
choices of another individual. First, one can use force
to impose choices on another person. Second, one can use threat
or intimidation to impose choices on someone else. Third, one can
use contrived incentives
to influence another person's choices. Finally, one can use persuasion
to influence the choices of another person. Clearly, the first two
options are coercive and inconsistent with self-determination.
However, the third method is also coercive but in a more subtle way.
The use of contrived incentives to influence someone's choices is an
effort to manipulate them and therefore represents a soft form of
coercion. The final method may be the only method that is consistent
with self-determination and the evolution of consciousness.
Persuasion, properly conducted, appeals to the reason of another
person. Successful persuasion convinces a person of the correctness
of a particular choice and is thereby most likely to affect intention
as well as action. Persuasion is not coercive but educational and is
the only ethically acceptable method of influencing others in a
society of sovereign individuals. Thus, sovereign individuals in
their exercise of self-agency must accept some limitations on
personal behavior. Specifically, they must accept a prohibition on
the use of force or coercion directly or indirectly against others in
the pursuit of their goals, except when necessary for self-defense or
protecting others from harm.