From everything we know about brain function, our experience of our own existence, including what we perceive and the apparent choices we make, are largely a constructed illusion. Many times we feel as if we are making a conscious choice, but we can see in the brain that the choice was actually made subconsciously before we are even aware of it.He acknowledges, however, that he can't really live consistently with this belief:
Even when the choice is made consciously, meaning we are aware of the factors that are affecting the decision, that does not mean we have truly free will. The brain is still a machine, and is dependent upon the laws of physics. A stone does not have free will to choose its path as it rolls down a hill. Its path is entirely determined by physics. Some argue that brain processes are no different, just orders of magnitude more complex.
Even though I am highly aware of what neuroscience has to say about the illusion of free will and decision making, I also recognize that we have to live our life as if we have free will. We do make decisions, and those decisions have moral and ethical implications.In other words, his basic outlook or worldview is one which he admits is unlivable. His materialist neuroscience tells him there's no free will, but he has to live as if there is:
We need, to some extent, to divorce our abstract thinking from our practical and emotional thinking about our lives. The abstract thinking is useful, and it informs how we approach things, but we cannot get lost in the weeds.This doesn't sound very scientific. If science says there's no free will, if the truth is that our "choices" are determined, then how is it rational to just pretend that that's not really the way things are at all?
The same dilemma presents itself to Novella when he takes up the question of meaning:
To give yet another example, is there meaning in life? From a purely abstract philosophical perspective, I would have to say no. There is no objective source of meaning. But from a practical point of view I say – humans have a need for meaning, and we can make our own meaning in life. Sure, it’s subjective, but so what? Everything depends on your perspective anyway.In other words, science reveals that there's no free will and no meaning to life. Novella accepts those conclusions because he's a scientist and believes that science is our best guide to reality, but the entailments of those conclusions are uncongenial so Novella chooses (his word, strangely enough) to ignore them and live according to his subjective preferences. How is that rationally consistent?
From an objective perspective we are a fleeting grain of dust in a vast universe that does not recognize or care about our brief existence. But from a human perspective, in both time scale and space, we have a great deal of impact on the people around us and our little corner of the world. I choose [?] to focus on the perspective that scales with my life, and not dwell on our ultimate insignificance.
He concludes by saying this:
In the same way, while I find the question of free will interesting, I focus on living a moral and ethical life as a free agent.But if there really is no free will pretending there is seems a bit delusional.
Moreover, if there's no free will there can be no moral or ethical duties. You can't have a duty to do something unless you also have the ability to choose to do it.
If there's no free will there's no moral obligation, no human responsibility, and no human dignity. If Novella believes there indeed are obligations, responsibilities, and human dignity then by implication he's affirming that there really is free will.
If, on the other hand, he wants to say that obligations, responsibilities, and dignity don't exist but that we should pretend they do, then he's living in a fantasyland.
That sounds to me neither scientific nor reasonable.