Consciousness and/or Free Will

1400 words, 6 minute read

It all seems pretty simple. My cue ball strikes the 8 ball at a particular angle, imparting a particular momentum and a particular spin et voila, the 8 ball drops into the corner pocket. Ignoring pesky details like the origin of the game of pool, the construction of this particular table, and the source of my cue ball’s momentum, this scenario does not require consciousness…or free will. How is it then that we place so much emphasis on aspects of experience that seem to be superfluous?

***

Various surveys have identified more than 100 different models of consciousness, each of which must account for the experience of volition (value + agency) and the experience of constraint (facticity, causality, or compulsion).

To date none of the proposed models has proven persuasive. But it turns out that almost all of them share structural elements that might explain why no one theory has been able to distinguish itself from the pack.

According to prevailing wisdom, consciousness (C) experiences the universe (U), evaluates it (V), wills a change (W), and acts to effect that change (A). We imagine a process diagrammed like this:

C

↗     ↘  

  U            U’

…where Consciousness is the product of Valuation (V), Will (W), and Agency (A):

(V → W → A) = C

But what if that’s wrong? (The model confuses Will with Consciousness.) What if the process is actually more like this:

C

↗        ↖

 U              U’

↘           ↗       

X

…where X is Will (W) and Agency (A) projecting Values (V) into U’:

X = (W → A → V)

What if the conscious faculty (C) has an ‘observe only’ license? What if it lacks agentic power (A)? Without the active participation of consciousness (C), how is there any room for free will (W)?

To answer this we need to define more clearly what we mean when we say an action is a function of will. I propose that two and only two criteria must be met: (1) the act cannot be predicted from a previous state with an acceptable level of reliability or accuracy and (2) the action amplifies selected values and projects those values back into the universe.

Note that there is no requirement here that the organism be conscious of selecting a particular set of values or devising a particular series of actions. We imagine that choosing requires consciousness. In fact, each of us makes choices every day without awareness. We’re just ‘stayin alive’ and that doesn’t normally require consciousness.

Actions require motives and motives disclose values. What we call personality, character, habit and instinct is in fact the set of universal values, weighted by us to function as a lure to action, i.e. as a goal. These values drive our actions even though we may not be conscious of them.

How can unconscious values drive action? Well, have you ever read a novel (or watched a movie)? Characters are regularly motivated by values of which they are dimly aware…at best. Decoding a character’s unconscious motives is a reader’s guilty pleasure.

***

Consciousness – David Chalmers’ hard problem! What is it anyway? IMO, Consciousness is the phenomenal manifestation of noumenal recursion; English please: “I am an object of my own actions, what goes around comes around, karma is a female dog.” I am aware of X, and potentially I am aware of being aware of X (X’), and I may be even aware of being aware of being aware (X’’)… ad infinitum, as if I lived in a Hall of Mirrors. 

Such ‘second order’ self-awareness (X’’) is an often reported consequence of mediation (or prayer), psychedelic drug use (e.g. LSD, psylocibin), and space travel (zero gravity).

Like the princess and her pea, the infinitesimal differance (Derrida) between the primary experience and its derivative (or the sum of its derivatives) creates a quantum of discomfort. One is reminded of Proust  balancing on uneven floor tiles. Consciousness fills the infinitesimal gap between primary experience and its echoes: “The music is not in the notes, it’s in the silence between the notes.” (Mozart et al.)

Every alternative model turns out to be either a reductive monism or a solipsistic dualism. The challenge is to account for an exchange of information (aka communication) within a single, uniform medium (monism) or between two disjoint media (dualism).

Our model addresses this challenge by separating consciousness from agency. The organism gathers sensations and transforms them into perceptions. The Will reacts to such input by applying a curated set of Values and then projecting that value weighted input back into the organism and through the organism (Agency) back into the Universe.

I am aware that I am doing these things but in no sense am I making a conscious decision to do them. I am observing the free but unconscious decision that I as organism have already made. This is consistent with recent studies showing that the brain makes decisions before the mind registers them. I have decided on French vanilla even as I scan today’s list of 31 flavors.

***

As I take my first sip of this morning’s Bloody Mary, I make a face, take my lips off the straw, and reach for my water glass, all in one highly choreographed and well-practiced gesture. In the shadow between straw and tongue, Value (pain avoidance) converts perception (spicy), via volition (Will), into evasive and remedial action (Agency). None of this requires or benefits from consciousness.

Independently however, I am acutely aware (consciousness) that this particular Bloody Mary is too spicy for my taste, and I am dimly aware of the steps I’m taking to remedy the situation.

My perception of my drink’s spice level and my ‘decision’ to remove my lips from the straw occur before I am conscious of my discomfort or of my evasive maneuvers. According to this model, consciousness is an artifact, not a catalyst.

But after the fact, my conscious experience becomes part of the Universe (U’) going forward and therefore serves as a data point for future unconscious decisions. My legacy is three pronged: that I chose (W) vanilla, that I ate (A) vanilla, and that I am conscious (C) of having chosen vanilla.

***

This new model, should you choose to accept it, introduces new uncertainty re the nature of personal responsibility. To wit, are we responsible for our actions even though we are only conscious of them after the fact?

In my view, the answer is yes. We freely choose the values we wish to project into the world and we freely design the actions we undertake to do so. We ourselves make those determinations, not God, not Fate, not Causality (Determinism); the Devil didn’t make me do it! Then if not us, who or what is responsible for our acts? The only alternative is to construe all behavior as random and that does not seem compatible with actual experience.

We are each one of Pavlov’s dogs. We choose an action, albeit unconsciously, and we are rewarded, or punished, accordingly. But as any parent knows, rewards and punishments do not determine behavior; at best they condition it. The element of free choice can never be entirely eliminated.

By definition, any ‘decision’ must be free, even if it is unconscious. Otherwise it would not be a decision. We make that decision, we formulate an action, we will it, and we execute it, all unconsciously. When that action and its immediate consequences become conscious, our underlying values are reinforced, positively or negatively.

***

Among other (more important) things, this new model will require us to rewrite every secondary school Latin textbook. Apparently, Julius Caesar was misquoted. Instead of “Veni, Vidi, Vici”, he must have said “Veni, Vici, Vidi” but that doesn’t make Caesar any less worthy of the honors bestowed upon him nor any less responsible for the atrocities he committed in Gaul.