ABSTRACT: In this essay I explore the metaphysical nature of transcendental meditation and its applicability to the concept of free will. Presenting a framework I call Transcendental Free Will (TFW). I share what I consider to be a genuine transcendental meditative experience I had over twenty years ago. I offer a detailed analysis of this event, arguing that it provides a logical and anecdotal foundation for interpreting free will. To address potential skepticism regarding personal testimony, I ask the reader to imagine the experience as a thought experiment. This should enable broader philosophical engagement. I argue that TFW offers a robust and coherent model for affirming compatibilist free will on its own merits, whilst also enriching and synthesizing traditional definitions. In addition, TFW incorporates and provides responses to both deterministic and indeterministic objections, serving as a critique of all forms of traditional determinism—whether grounded in naturalistic, atheistic, or theistic causal frameworks.
Introduction
The concept of free will seems to be nebulous and hard to definitively pin down. At once it is similar and intrinsically related to the direct experiential concept of phenomenal consciousness. What is free will and do we somehow have free will is a perennial question and ongoing conversation with seemingly no unified consensus or satisfactory answer. On the surface the debate seems simple yet it has puzzled philosophers, theologians and mystics for over a thousand years. There are a handful of conceptual frameworks for free will– existing on a general spectrum that ranges from hard determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. Each paradigm has convincing arguments for either side of the debate, advocating for and against the existence of free will. My aim is not to thoroughly examine each framework or to systematically present the problem of free will. This essay assumes a foundational basic understanding of the subject and is written as to be intuitively grasped by the layperson. It can currently be observed that it is popular amongst the zeitgeist populist influencers among the intelligentsia of present day, to deny the existence of free will and affirm a primitive and basic causal determinism. This essay is primarily concerned with undermining and countering this claim with a plausible alternative view and conceptual framework of free will.
1.0 – Arguments For Determinism
The determinist argument typically runs as follows: the scientific method is founded on the crucial philosophical assumption that every event or cause is preceded and caused by a prior set of events or causes. This would mean that all causes and events are predetermined by prior causation. The stance is taken that science is the only methodical key to interpreting and understanding this predetermined data. Consequently, if we were to ever have a complete scientific knowledge in this field and endeavor, we could in principle predict the outcome of all causal systems. Including human nature and the illusion of personal volition. This is a form of scientism in that it presupposes that science is the only valid solution to not only empirically but adequately present a working framework to define the reality or perception of free will.
1.1 – The Philosophical Argument For Determinism
An alternative and loose philosophical argument can also be made by the derminist. This is based on the assumption that agents always and can only act in their own self-interest. Arguing that we only ever do what we want to do because it is ultimately what we want to do. This Essentially reduces the irreducible complexity of human nature and choice to the base level of what we desire most. Blindfolded agents weigh one desire over the other no matter their justification. This supposition argues that presented with the same situation of choice again, the agent can still only choose what they initially wanted most under the same particular identical circumstances, invalidating alternative choice. Thus the problem is pointed out that one can want what they want but cannot will what they want. This thesis was first famously stated by Arthur Schopenhauer when he said: “A man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.”
1.2 – Initial Critiques Of The Philosophical Argument For Determinism
The problem with this definition of free will is that it in some sense defines free will in such a way as to invalidate the concept. The arguments for this paradoxical position can seem logical, concise, and simple for anyone to apprehend. For those that hold this position, it’s easy to interpret any denial of determinism and waver it as a form of cognitive dissonance whilst (as their own position is determined free from their own apparent choice) adorning the belt of authority and excusing oneself of selective bias; the idea that we don’t have free will is counter-intuitive and difficult to easily or convincingly accept. For some, if it is the case that determinism is true it will simply be subjectively impossible to personally accept.
Furthermore, determinism even has a rhetorical aura of virtue that surrounds its adherents. Claiming that if one is a determinist it is somewhat easier to accept wrongdoing or slight upon one’s personal character, this is because the offender cannot help but follow a pre-causally initiated causal chain beyond their own control. Under determinism they are, as are we all deterministic mindless automata.
This supposition brings into question crime and punishment, questioning the coherence or need of the judicial system, a kind of intellectual activism calling for a reformation of rehabilitation. It is claimed by some respected determinists that the prison system would not disappear altogether but would be modified in order to coddle and eventually curb the impulsive behavior and deliberate flaunting and breaking of the law with a duty of care and kindness. Thus, if such behavior can be curbed, it seems to me that there is an ambiguous and insistent incoherence in the pre-causal arguments for hard determinism.
2.0 – Introducing The Origins Of Transcendental Free Will
In response to these arguments I will be introducing a new, or rather a repackaged framework for understanding free will uncovered through the practice of transcendental meditation. I have intuitively chosen to call this model for free will Transcendental Free Will, which henceforth will be referred to as (TFW).
The framework is the realized result of what I consider a genuine transcendental meditative experience I had over two decades ago. I have only recently digested this experience and this is my first time writing about it. I am sharing it publicly and personally for the first time. It will be detailed with a little bit of background information and yet concise as possible. I will share my thoughts that I observed during the experience as I recall verbatim. This upcoming part of the essay, due to its personal nature, is likely to be read unlike any usually expected academic literature. Due to its subjective, anecdotal and conversational nature, potential skepticism may naturally entail. Because of this possibility I will ask the reader to alternatively translate the experience into a thought experiment to better enable abstract contemplation.
2.1- The Transcendental Meditative Experience
This is a personal experience. Until recently, the only people that knew about this were my mother, father, and a woman I had come to know and love. I will cut right to the chase. When I was between twenty and twenty-two years old I had committed to a practice of daily meditation in order to explore and learn how to practice detachment. One day I went to my local lake.
This lake is called Ham Green Lake. It is a small man made lake divided into sections. It is about 50-65 feet in width and about 150 + in length. It is a beautiful spot. According to my limited knowledge, the locals (I no longer live in the village) barely ever catch any fish there, but there are Pike and possibly Perch fish that dwell within its waters. Some unnecessary local lore-this lake once allegedly exchanged hands during a poker game in one of the local pubs.
One summer day I walked to the lake. I first attempted to meditate in a field with my back to what might have been an oak tree. I was asked to leave the field by the landowner and I did so. I made my way to an overgrown part in the main area of the lake. I sat half lotus on the small fishing jetty. I was bare chested and closed my eyelids absorbing the at first painful warmth and orange glow of the sun. I settled into my breathing routine and after approximately 20+ minutes I opened my eyes.
I was greeted by an unusual sight. The first thing I recall seeing was the lake, and it was indistinguishable from objective reality. It was identical, however there was what might be considered an unusual anomaly. Right before me, close enough to touch and not swimming about, but hovering calm and serene just below the surface of the lake water was a school of Pike or Perch fish. As it was a beautiful sunny day I could see them just below the surface. Their dark eyes were watching me and their lips were opening and closing. They were just calmly hovering in place and watching me.
At this moment I passively observed my thought process whilst each thought and premise simultaneously occurred to me. I had the thought “If I had a net I could scoop these fish up.” Almost alarmed by this thought I also realized “The fish know I mean them no harm. This can’t be real, this is an illusion, my aim is to learn detachment.” And with that thought I drew the conclusion that I had identified an illusion by the seeming anomaly of the fish’s behavior. I made the active and conscious decision to close my eyes and returned to the meditative state. Some time later, once I surfaced from this meditation there were no more unusual occurrences and the fish, if they had actually been there, had quietly disappeared.
2.2- Post Meditation Analysis
This experience stayed with me post meditation. For many years I pondered what this meditation was supposed to mean and what had possibly happened. I initially thought I had most probably experienced a vision whilst in a deep meditative state. This would have meant that when I thought I opened my eyes, I would have actually still been sitting in deep meditation with my eyes closed. Thus, this would have been a false awakening. This was quite incredible to consider, as the vision I saw looked and felt like a complete sensory experiential mimic of reality. Indubitable if it hadn’t been for the fish anomaly.
2.3- Post Meditive Possibilities
This made me wonder about the potential possibilities of the experience. Whilst in that state, could I have chosen to have leaned forward and touched the fish? Could I have slipped into the lake and drowned? Could I have flown? These were all possibilities that did not cross my mind during the experience. But I did consider scooping the fish with a net if I had a net, which if considered carefully, might give you an idea of how real the illusion may have seemed and first appeared to me. Initially and for a long time I considered this an illusionary meditative state conjured by my mind. From the illusionary perspective and post meditation contemplation, it seems these different desires to interact with the vision could have been actualised in the moment.
For instance, if it is the case that it was an illusion then it is conceivable that I could have freely chosen to take off in flight or dance across the surface of the lake. Just in passing I will call these hard illusionary possibilities, and alternatively it is also conceivable that I could have watched the fish for a longer period of time and reached out into the lake and attempted to touch the fish. I will call these desires soft possibilities. Both latter options would have been a natural response and activity even if the event was non-illusionary.
I infer from this that the commonly accepted definition of free will “to select an otherwise alternative action if presented with the same situation again” may have been a truly present potential within the meditation. Even though, knowing what I know now, I’d have still made the same detached choice. By not entertaining the possibility of illusion with either hard illusionary possibilities or soft activities I was able to preserve the indeterminacy and mystery of the experience. As we will see, this is important. What I wish to relay now is if it were an illusion and I did in fact dance across the water, I’d have nothing of any value to explain to you now other than I once had an interesting and vivid vision during a meditative experience. If I’d reached for the fish and they scattered this too would have broken the indeterminacy of the illusion. I will now examine different ways in which the mechanics of this meditative experience can be interpreted. First I will further explore the illusionary interpretation. I have chosen this order because it is the chronological evolution of my understanding of the experience.
2.4- The Brain Manufactured Illusion
There are several different ways that this could have been an illusion. As touched upon above, in one version of this illusion I opened my eyes, and in normal reality they would have actually still been closed. If I were hooked up to an fMRI scanner it would have likely shown a correlation of activity or an absence of activity in the visual cortex. I will deal with the speculative entailments of this position first. If this was the case then one option is that my brain worked in accordance with my initial intention to meditate with the quest to learn and practice detachment.
As I opened my eyes my brain made perceptual predictions on my intention to learn detachment. Consequently manufacturing an identical reality to a supposedly familiar objective reality. However, it created an anomaly in order to either hint to my conscious observing mind that what I was seeing wasn’t in fact reality. This anomaly came in the form of the fish. However, the fish themselves are also the subtle foundation that allowed for the emergence of this learning opportunity.
This interpretation seems to imply some kind of two way mind-body distinction and compartmentalisation, even if grounded in a physicalist or non-reductive physicalist paradigm. If this is the case it would suggest that our conscious intentionality prior mediation can program our brain’s behavior during the meditation, and the brain can similarly respond to this input with its own beneficial output for the conscious self consumption. One common example that might lend further credence to this is the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.
This is an observed and confirmed phenomena which many of us have experienced ourselves. It involves something along the lines of learning a new word or considering the purchase of a new red car. As the new expression or thoughts of the red car occupy our awareness, the frequency of red cars or the encountering of the new word increases in our normal conscious experience. This is because the brain filters out this selective information as it is informed by our current field of intentionality. Even if the brain absorbs a wealth of causally deterministic sensory data; the unification of that data is processed and accessed in a way that aligns with our conscious and subconscious intentionality, aligning with our wants and will.
This suggests that both our subconscious and focused intentions can influence brain mechanics, potentially shaping how we perceive external reality and any internal illusions. I’ll discuss this further as we progress with illustrations of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon and optical illusions. Additionally, it’s worth noting that this feedback loop isn’t limited to our waking states; our daily conscious experiences and underlying subconscious concerns also emerge in the dream state.
2.5- Interpreting The Nature Of The Illusion
There are several ways to describe the illusionary aspect of the transcendental meditative experience (TME). So far I have offered only the above brain manufactured illusion. This however comes in several different possible forms of which I will now describe. There is the initial type of full blown cognitive brain manufactured illusion, this we have already touched upon above. However, it could very well be the case that the illusion was only partial, and in other words was more of a hallucination.
2.6- The Partial Illusion
In this version of the event when I opened my eyes and looked upon reality, I was really viewing the reality of the situation and it was no simulation. However, when I saw the fish, I was both partially perceiving objective reality with a dash of illusion, the fish were never really there at all. If this was the case then I was the participant of a trancelike waking illusion. This would explain the indubitable feel of the experience, simultaneously it would lessen the incredible ability of the brain to construct and mimic an identical copy of perceptible reality. We might say that it would be more resourceful and parsimonious for the brain to insert the fish pooling around me then to manufacture an entire realm and the fish to go with it. If this were the case then it just pushes back and redefines the illusion as only partial.
2.7- The Alternative Realm Hypothesis
We have two further possibilities to consider. One is that the experience was some kind of alternate underlying mind independent local parallel reality of the lake and surrounding area, both external to my mind and brain. A reality not normally perceptually accessible. Whether this was the case or not seems to be trivial to me. I could not tell if the experience was an illusion or a different place. It would however entail that my mind or brain for that matter didn’t generate any kind of illusion under its own steam; but rather accessed a different underlying reality altogether, connected somehow to the objective realm. This hypothesis could also mentally integrate with forms of idealism.
2.8- The Naturalistic Self Deceptive Illusion
The final illusion provides a naturalistic answer. Under this hypothesis there was no visual illusion or partial hallucination. There is a logical and naturalistic explanation. When I opened my eyes everything I perceived was part of our normal and familiar objective reality down to the hovering fish within arms reach. It was just the case that reality aligned with my will to learn and practice detachment. The fish themselves were simply responding to a learned behavior. Perhaps whoever usually fishes at the jetty I was meditating upon usually throws fish food to the fishes. To some this may provide a sufficient reason for why the fish had gathered. However, I am not a fisherman of fresh water. It still seems to me that if one were feeding the fish, or the fish expected to be fed then the fish should be excited. I have seen Koi about to be fed and they get animated and excited. So although this explanation is appealing it still doesn’t completely explain the experience as one definitively grounded in objective reality. What does this leave us with and what are the implications?
2.9- Indeterminate Epistemic Uncertainty
Having explored what seems to be all the possibilities, it seems that although we can draw inferences for our favored explanation of the experience, if we are honest with ourselves we cannot say hand on heart which one of these explanations is most likely or even which one is definitively the case. Thus, it seems to me that the event transcends all explanations. This is why I have come to understand this as a genuine TME. The best abductive explanation is that the experience is epistemically indeterminate. However, there is an important thing to note about the indeterminacy involved.
All explanations outlined above have an illusionary aspect to them. The naturalist explanation is a self deceiving illusion. This is what might be described as a psychological illusion. If the naturalistic explanation were the case then an extremely rare set of circumstances perfectly aligned. Reality aligned in such a way as to allow for the practice of detachment. The determinist would insist that the presence of the fish “caused me to assume I was experiencing a fabrication of reality, which in turn caused me to close my eyes” to this I would reply that although it seems that may be the case, it is important to acknowledge that my prior motivating intentionality before the meditation was to learn how to practice detachment. It follows that I may have closed my eyes and continued the meditation regardless of any external conditions. I will not deny that the fish provided the ideal circumstances to learn and practice this goal. But they cannot be considered the sole reason or purpose for my continuation with the meditation.
It should be subtly noted that I made the active decision to continue with the meditation in line with my prior intention to learn and practice detachment. Thus, and in summary, if the actual state of the reality in which detachment was practiced cannot be determined as illusionary or actual, it seems these alternatives merge together as epistemically indeterminate. From this indeterminate conclusion it therefore follows that detachment can plausibly be learned and practiced in any of the hypothetical transcendental meditative experiences outlined above. In other words, no matter how we choose to ground the experience it is irrelevant whether the event was an illusion or objectively actual.
3.0 – Does Wanting To Learn Detachment Make A Difference In A Deterministic Universe?
First I should finally define and clarify what I mean when I use the word detachment. Detachment does not mean eliminating and purging oneself from ever wanting anything else ever again. To learn detachment is to learn how not to attach and identify one’s wants with one’s identity. In other words it is to passively observe and mentally disengage oneself from the circular enslavement of desire. It has to be noted that this intuitive stance can seemingly be seen to presuppose a form of mental causation. Establishing a distinction between the mental decision to act or not act and the volitional action or inaction itself. If one can step back from this enslaving loop of desire and instead pursue the desire to learn detachment, then it necessarily follows that when it is learned the methods of detachment can actually be practiced in any form of grounded reality and not just indeterminate situations. There is no logical contradiction in this thesis. I have not defined detachment as the ability to not want what you want. This would be a logical contradiction that the determinist has already identified.
The definition of detachment I have outlined is applicable even to the paradigm of hard determinism. It challenges the paradoxical semantic definition and takes a step back in the logical formulation of Schopenhauer’s maxim and all common reformulated modern versions of this position. The phrase, “you can only want what you want and you cannot choose what you want to will” is examined through a deeper and perhaps more meaningful question: Who is this ‘you’ that participates in the wanting? It does not even deny that there is a ‘you’ identifiable with our sense of self. Transcendental Free Will allows for an observational self to exist without attachment and identification to any of these desires. This subtle distinction sidesteps determinism and thereby preserves a relative space for a rational and volitional mental causation, a genuine, coherent, and plausible sense of freedom, a freedom which I intend to show can be cultivated even in a purely deterministic universe. But where does this detached observational self appear or reside?
3.1- Transcendental Free Will And Integrated Information Theory.
In order to answer this question it will help to become familiar with the principles of IIT otherwise known as ‘Integrated Information Theory’. This is a theory of consciousness with practical and empirical methods of application. If it is the case that IIT is true then consciousness can be quantified. Thus the qualitative qualia of phenomenal consciousness, in the most basic sense possible, is already being quantified and translated descriptively with mathematical equations. It isn’t necessary for us to go into detail on how this is done, and it is very complex and beyond the scope of this essay and my realm of applicable knowledge. However, it will help to have a rudimentary understanding of IIT and its fundamentals.
At its core, IIT is built on five axiomatic principles, these serve as necessary conditions for attributing consciousness to an entity. These principles define how parts of a system integrate into a whole, such that the system’s combined properties exceed the mere sum of its individual components. IIT quantifies consciousness using the Greek letter Φ (phi), representing the “maximally irreducible conceptual structure” (MICS) of an entity. This clarifies the degree to which an entity exhibits a low or high level of integrated information, and, consequently, the degree of consciousness it can be said to possess.
The five axiomatic principles of IIT are summarised below and form the basic foundation for evaluating and attributing consciousness.
- Intrinsic Existence: A conscious being must have intrinsic existence within itself, thereby possessing a unique form of subjectivity. Consciousness is experienced in and of itself from within.
- Structure: Consciousness must have a relationally structured sensorium of modalities. When a dog picks up a scent, it doesn’t experience this scent in isolation. Instead, sensation is organized and structured. For instance, if the dog can sense sour, it can also sense sweetness; if it can look left, it can likewise look right. Each sensory modality is structured in relation to others, allowing a coherent arrangement.
- Informative: Consciousness is informative, meaning it helps differentiate between different states of experience. This enables the subject to distinguish between specific details of conscious life.
- Integrated: All sensory modalities of consciousness are unified into one integrated and cohesive synthesis of experience. For example, imagine looking at a tree in the autumn. The coolness of the air, the orange tinge of colors and the earthy scent carried on the breeze. These all combine into one unified and integrated multi-modal experience.
- Definite: Consciousness is described as definite. This seems very abrupt and concise. What this means is that every integrated conscious experience is experientially particular to the being that processes it. A particular greenfly has a specific and minute limited view of the world compared to other greenflies. Furthermore, the conscious experience of a greenfly is radically different when compared to the enriched and often overwhelming sensory modalities of human consciousness.
3.2- The Human Brain As A Deterministic Reality Machine
Now that we have the basic fundamentals of IIT within tangible grasp, I want to tackle how I conceive of the brain approaching to where TFW fits into this puzzle. To me it seems that the sensory modalities are interpreted by the brain and its main functionality is to transmute the external and fundamentally indeterminate microcosmic and the highly deterministic macrocosmic reality into a sensorium of perceptually and internally representatively mapped cognitive neurological phenomenological experiences. Initially as the brain developed all that was necessary was for the perceptions to integrate in such a manner as to necessitate every day survival and reproduction of the species.
I speculate during this period of evolution that consciousness as we know it hadn’t yet emerged though art and descriptive language. This is because the architecture of the brain had not mutated and developed to the complex and unfathomable system we have come to recognise and experience today. In other words the brain hadn’t yet become self-aware and had yet to generate its own self-referential feedback loop to house the unified intentionally detached observer. Thus, I believe it follows from this reasoned assertion that early proto-humanity was a being of wantant attachment and identification with its environment. Enveloping itself in sensory experience and coming to know its environment through itself, yet unable to differentiate between any external or internal world.
Consequently, if it is the case that the brain is a biological deterministic reality checking machine, at this stage of evolutionary development it was set to a protective dissociated autopilot. This would mean that pre-causal deterministic factors pushed and carried humanity into the dawn of the new age of self illumination. Thus, to sacrifice oneself in predatory decoy or by any other means for the continuation of the species. This would have been a painless non-experiential sacrifice, pre-causally determined without hesitation or decision and happening automatically without any switch. Humanity had a set path and purpose which was universally and deterministically guided every step of the way. Anthropological theological speculations may follow from this and are largely beyond the scope of this essay. One could speculate that theistic belief is a remnant nostalgic genetic memory of this time, where every footstep was safely guided and guarded, akin to walking in the garden of Eden. Even if this was the case it would not invalidate or disprove theism.
3.3- The Ghost In The Machine Revisiting The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon.
There came a time and a point when the brain developed, mutating to such a complex extent that the sense of ‘I’ was born, the self referential loop was created and man as a beast experienced the quickening and became aware of himself. From the paradigm of IIT all five axiomatic principles emerged into a unified whole. It should be noted that although we each have the same fundamental organic brain structure and architecture the neurons of each particular person form unique patterns. These patterns are different from everyone else who will ever exist because everyone has the sum total and ongoing integrated information from different spatial-temporal locations. Born in different times, places, with different memories and projected simulations and considerations of potential future circumstances we navigate and intend for ourselves.
If the brain is somehow damaged, the integration of this sensory data is scrambled. Through drink, alcohol, drugs or unfortunate life and behavior changing accidents– Phineas P. Gage as case and point. When the brain is temporarily affected by the intake of such consumptions or permanently and extensively damaged as in Gage’s case. Personality changes are observed. Inhibitions are set aside and we are driven by impulse and less by motivated and practical rational reason. In other words, It is here I wish to draw attention to the detached observer of TFW. In these alternative states of consciousness, it can be speculated that information integrates to a lesser degree. The detached observer becomes more primal and attached, identifying itself with wants and needs. The less integrated the information, the more primal and predictable we are, influenced by deterministic pre-causal and instinctive mechanical biological perceptual factors and less prone to the intentional faculties of agency. This is now the key and subtle part of the essay.
Once again I wish to bring to the reader’s attention the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. Please bear in mind we are under the presupposition that the brain is a deterministic biological machine (the argument here won’t be affected even if we consider reality on the micro level indeterminate). In other words the brain absorbs a wealth of data, the majority of which we don’t consciously engage with such neurophysiological processes like the firing of neurons and synapse in a purely raw mechanical sense. But that data when integrated and phenomenally transmuted can be accessed through both a conscious and an unconscious intentional filtering process.
As I have outlined above, what we might call the conscious mind of phenomenal experience, which is synonymous with the proposal of the detached observer, can in principle intentionally biohack the reservoir of deterministic data stored and processed in the brain. This is made evident by the empirically supported Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. If you are considering investing in that brand new dream car, your interest in buying that car hovers in your compartmentalized subconscious and waking intentionality. This in turn is integrated into your brain which then ensures that the perceptual make and model of your streetcar named desire appears with more frequency.
This is described as an illusion of selective attention and is similar to selective bias. It is explained that as you are considering buying this car, it only appears like you are seeing it with more frequency. In other words, the data was always there and you’re only just noticing it now. I would go one step further and suggest that your intention to buy the car has unified and integrated with the brain, consequently it has filtered a deterministic reality to align with your freely willed intentions. It, or rather you have filtered your own field of deterministic perceptions into a particular package that matches your Transcendental Free Will; transcendental because the deterministic nature of reality as filtered through the detached observational self’s feedback loop is effectively edited and transcended. It must be noted that under the paradigm of TFW you truly did not have to want that car. This is only for the trivial matter of when considering the purchase of a car. This demonstrates the plausibility that we can filter deterministic reality and transcend its hard determinist and simplified and fatalistic casual chains with our own intentionality. Intentionality welded by the detached observer is the ghost in the machine.
3.4- How Optical Illusions Support Transcendental Free Will
Building on the above implementation of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon in support of TFW are the perceptual and intentional mechanics of optical illusion. If we take Louis Albert Necker’s form of the “Necker Cube” or the “Winson Figure” as developed by Elizaabeth Douglass and Ernst Gombrich. The Winson figure is both the portrait of an American Indian and the figure of a Eskimo entering an igloo as viewed from behind.
The viewer can only view one perception of these images at a time. Initially only one particular and default perceivable view of these images will appear. If it is the case that the brain is a deterministic biological machine, then I think we can make sense of these and many similar optical Illusions. The brain processes the indeterministic aspect of the data from these images, and depending on the ‘Readiness Potential’ of a person’s own background experiences determines which image first appears. When the viewer is told there is an alternative image, they can focus their intentionality upon the artifact and the secondary image will appear. Once both images have been seen they can almost be viewed and switched between at will. This can be seen to support the notion that the brain is a deterministic processing machine. Additionally, this can also be seen to directly support the notion that intentionality can “edit” and effectively filter and “control” the perception of this data and by extended extrapolation plausibly wield genuine agency.
3.5- Reinterpreting Libbets Experiment With TFW
The brain’s malleable deterministic data of these illusionary optical observations draws an important parallel to Benjamin Libet’s famous experiment. In 1983, Libet designed an experiment to capture hard data on human intentionality. Subjects were instructed to watch a clock with a flashing dot, when they felt the urge to move their wrist, they were to note and report the location of the dot. Meanwhile, an EEG recorded their brain activity. The experiment revealed that neural activity occurred before the subject consciously decided to move their wrist. In his own words Libet reported:
“The brain decides to initiate, or at least prepare to initiate, certain actions before there is any reportable subjective awareness that such a decision has taken place.”
Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). Brain, 106(3), 623-642.
Libet labeled this pre-conscious brain activity as “Readiness Potential” (RP), concluding that the brain is somehow aware of our impulse to act before we become phenomenally conscious of it ourselves.
“If the act-now process is initiated unconsciously, then conscious free will is not doing it.”
Libet, B. (1999). Do we have free will? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(8-9), 47-57.
However, he also observed that subjects could veto and nullify the urge to move, thereby overriding the brain’s RP.
Many determinists interpret this experiment as empirical evidence supporting the illusory nature of free will, implying that causal determinism governs all human behavior, decisions, and actions. However, TFW offers a different and arguably more plausible interpretation. The instructions given to the subjects prompted the brain’s deterministic and predictive mechanisms, much like how being told not to think of a “black cat” inevitably and unavoidably automatically calls a black cat to mind’s eye. In this way, RP could be seen as being “engineered” by Libet’s instructions, similar to how our brain is primed to see a particular image in an optical illusion.
Moreover, the fact that subjects could veto the wrist movement shows an active, intentional “editing” of deterministic brain data, in line with TFW. While determinists could argue that the veto is itself predetermined, TFW would suggest that this veto power demonstrates the agent has an intrinsic capacity for acting and transcending beyond deterministic processes. This can be read into Libet’s conclusion when he remarks:
“Our overall findings do suggest some fundamental characteristics of the simpler acts that may be applicable to all consciously intended acts and even to responsibility and free will.”
Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529-539.
Furthermore, it could also be suggested that this correlation does not necessarily infer any kind of preconscious causation. The brain may have intimate power to predict such basic and primed behavior. However, despite all the above examples (and I think more empirical investigations could be added), I have no doubt that the advocate for determinism can reinterpret all this data with a reductive deterministic plausibility.
3.6- Mental Causation
I have yet to frame the type of mental causation which TFW presupposes. I will contextualize the term ‘Soft Mental Causation’ below. TFW acknowledges that the agent operates within the confines of a universal macro deterministic structure. As discussed previously above, under the paradigm of TFW the brain’s primary function is to act as a biological deterministic reality machine. This endows the agent with the ability to bodily operate and survive within the constraints of a macro deterministic spatial temporal structure. Although this is a deterministic causal environment and the agent is pressed by many factors at times completely beyond their control. Even factors from within their own bodily and central nervous system, such as fine motor skills, neurochemical, physiological influences and organs, the pumping of the heart, cellular growth and decay ect. Many of these biological factors are causally influenced and can correlate with our own intentions yet some are automatic and beyond conscious control. Despite these environmental and embodied constraints I think there is still room for a soft mental causation that can operate within these bounds and interact physically within the theater of the macro deterministic causal structure. TFW therefore rejects epiphenomenalism. The below landslide analogy will help conceptualize mental causation and the macro deterministic environmental causal structure.
3.7- The Landslide
Imagine you are potentially caught within a landslide. Boulders are cascading down the rockface. The fall of each of these boulders is determined by physical laws within the deterministic causal structure in which you are a participant. Watching the landslide happen, from your position there may only be a set number of possibilities in which you survive and avoid the path of the incoming rocks. You could remain where you are, in the path of a deadly falling rock or you can try and avoid it. Let us imagine you avoid the rock and survive. This isn’t something that is determined, the path of the rock was determined, it doesn’t move itself and there was a small time window to avoid it. Nevertheless it requires your active volitional participation. You have to mentally calculate how to avoid annihilation by landslide. This requires soft mental causation.
Alternatively the agent may instinctively automatically operate on a reflexive magnitude of higher order brain functioning. Under this instinctive reflexive avoidance the agent immersively reacts following deterministic laws without time for thought or hesitation. Both examples participate within the macro deterministic causal structure. The former exercises volitional mental causation with the capacity of the will to move the body into action to avoid the landslide. The latter is fully immersed within the deterministic causal structure acting on sheer reflexive instinct.
The determinist would claim that both examples are the latest links within a perennial unavoidable predetermined causal chain. It seems to me that this would be a convenient oversimplification. I do not mean to mischaracterize the hard determinist position. It seems to acknowledge that there is a deterministic causal environment but from this position it is imagined that the landslide is analogous to falling dominoes. One simple inevitable cause to the next. I think it is true that the entire environmental theater is deterministic but the variety of possible outcomes isn’t set. Especially when we consider the volition of agents, even if prompted to act by the many external causations. The ability to exercise mental causation enables conscious and creative contingent volitional responses. This opens a space for intentionality and moral responsibility for one’s actions. Combined with TFW this would lend support for the metaethical position of moral realism. Especially if morality is considered as existing beyond the mere whims and desires of individual or collective agency.
Conclusion: Why TFW Is A Different Kind Of Compatibilism
In conclusive summary, TFW necessarily emerges from deterministic processes. Synthesizing and integrating many existing frameworks of free will and is essentially a coherent pick and mix of the bunch. It acknowledges the fundamental background indeterminacy of the quantum world and extends this potential to the highly probabilistic and predictable macro deterministic causal structure of reality, commonly appealed to by hard determinism. Furthermore, the brain’s primary functionality is seen as the biological hardware that crunches and translates external reality into a unified and comprehensible set of deterministic data.
As specifically described in section 3.2 this data is then harvested and edited via the intentional consciousness of the “detached observer” into a subjective contextualized experience. TFW, because of its pragmatic adoption of indeterminacy does not fully accept or reject incompatibilism; rather it neutralizes the core incompatibilist claim that freedom is incompatible with pre-causal determinism.
Instead TFW conceptualizes the brain as a deterministic reality engine accessible to the intentional consciousness of the observer, enabling an open and unique, compartmentalized feedback loop. This loop allows the observer to bridge, access, and interpret a perceptual sensorium– a smorgasbord of indeterminate, deterministic, and intentionally malleable data unlike the traditionally closed predetermined reactive automata.
In this sense, determinism, rather than functioning as an unsurpassable barrier to freedom, is instead transformed into the necessary precursor for an authentic freedom of choice to emerge through the intentionality of mental causation. Although I have attempted to illustrate this through the physicalist framework of IIT and the paradigm of non-reductive physicalism, this stance is purely taken for explanatory power and to help reach the broader audience that may very well be in opposition to TFW.
However, it should be noted that TFW can be applied to the alternative metaphysical paradigms of substance dualism and various forms of idealism. TFW does not necessitate or rule out the existence of the soul. TFW, if coherent and plausible, would therefore be a new kind of robust compatibilist conceptual framework advocating for free will. The main thesis of which argues that free will exists because of and not in opposition to determinism.