freewill1

       Edward O. Wilson argues that human behavior is influenced by both our genes and our environment and Darwin argues that humans evolved by natural selection. I plan on arguing that not only are E. O. Wilson and Darwin right, but that both arguments together imply, correctly, the non-existence of free will. First we must ask, what is free will? Is it the ability to choose to do one thing or the other? Is it the ability to be one type of person or another? Is it short-term choices or long-term? Seymour Benzer, a geneticist at the California Institute of technology in Pasadena, says "free will means, if you are subjected to identical stimuli, you don't necessarily do the same thing (Weiner 252)." Of course this can not be tested because even if you could produce two identical stimuli you can't subject the same person to them because the person will remember the first time. And you can not subject two different people to them because they are coming from different backgrouds (different genes and experiences.) Although there is no clear definition of free will I am going to adopt Seymour Benzer's definition that it is the posibility that, given identical stimuli and identical genes and experiences, more than one behavior can result. My goal is to illustrate how both behavior and responsibility for actions can be explained without free will; only genes and thier interactions with the environment are required.
        The first thing that needs to be understood is that the brain is a "purely biological instrument (Wilson 272)." Wilson argues that "if the brain evolved by natural selection," which is the case if Darwin's theory is correct, "even the capacities to select particular esthetic judgements and religious beliefs must have arisen by that same mechanistic process (Wilson 272)." In other words, if our brain is the product of natural selection and our brains determine our behaviors then it can be deduced that our behaviors are also a product of natural selection, an interaction between genes and environment. Every one of our actions is a reaction to an external or internal stimulus. It could be a reaction to something someone said or did, an event in nature, a thought and so forth, but the main point is that we do not act for no reason; there is always a precursor or stimulus.
         This reaction to internal or external stimuli is a result of a combination of genetic and environmental tendencies. An external stimulus is an environmental stimulus and an internal stimulus could be hormone levels or neurons firing, et cetera. Some examples of how genes can cause behavioral tendencies are: brain structure, and hormonal and neurotransmitter levels. Genes, no doubt, guide the development of the brain and it is with this brain that we make our decisions. (Of course there are environmental factors in brain development as well, such as toxins present in the mothers blood stream.) Genes also are involved in neurotransmitter and hormone levels. Neurotransmitters and hormones are produced by multi-step chemical reactions involving numerous enzymes whose production is initialized by the transcription of DNA material. Any errors in the DNA sequence can increase or decrease the levels of these enzymes and thus cause increases or decreases in the levels of neurotransmitters and hormones. Since all neurons use neurotransmitters to relay their messages, and without neurons there would be no thought or action, changes in the levels of neurotransmitters would effect behavior. One example of how both brain structure and neurotransmitter level cause changes in behavior is in the case of manis depression. It is found that a part of the brain called the subgenual prefrontal cortex (PFC), located inferior to the corpus collosum, is decreased in size and activity in many people diagnosed with manic depression (Nemeroff). The subgenual PFC is implicated in serotonin and norepinephrine levels. Low activity in the subgenual PFC leads to low serotonin and norepinephrine levels and thus to depression. high activity leads to high serotonin and norepinephrine levels and a manic episode. Of course this mechanism involves many more biological pathways, for example the hypothalamic-pituitary axis is also involved. The point is that the behavioral pattern of unstable mood, fluctuating between depression and mania, has a biological explanation. The biological or genetic component tot his behavior is so strong that an individual with this behavior pattern can not act against it. During a manic episode a person can not make themselves depresed and vice versa. No amount of will can break this pattern. But it can be argued that this is an extreme case. A person with manic depression has a disease, a part of the brain isn't working correctly, but a person without a mood disorder might be able to will themselves to change a behavior pattern. I argue that, no they can not, not without an external or internal stimulus beyond their control. The key here is "beyond their control." It can be easily understood why an external stimulus is out of one's control but I would argue that internal ones are too. Thoughts just come to people. Neurons fire in succession to produce continuous thought. Try to stop thinking. Can you? If you try you start thinking things like; "Am I thinking now?", "Is this what it feels like?", "Am I doing it?." If you're not thinking words then youre observing things. Even if you close your eyes you observe the dots left like negatives on your eyelids, how your neck kind of hurts in this position, that itch on the tip of your nose. We just can't will ourselves to think nothing and the thoughts we think while trying not to are impulsive and if anything against our will.
          I should correct myself here by saying that it is incorrect to refer to thoughts as internal stimuli when they too are products of both genes and environment. They are neurons firing because of an external stimulus. All behaviors have an environmental component. In the case of manis depression, it can be a traumatic event that causes the initial depressive episode, a hallucinogenic that can cause a manic episode, or any other sort of neuronal stimulus. Lord Byron, a British poet who was manic depressive, wrote in his journal that in order to get himself manic he would go to a party and socialize (jamison). Lord byron recognized a pattern where whenever he would socialize with people in a happy setting his mood would change from depressive to manic. He did not will his mood to change but put himself in an environment that would change his mood. the stimulus caused a physical change in the structure of his brain. Now, we run into the problem of whether or not Lord Byron went to these parties by his own free will. If I use my previous argument that thoughts are just neurons firing in response to environmental stimuli, then the answer is no because he would have to have thought about going to the party which is out of his control. The thought "I am going to that party tonight," is still a succession of neurons firing in response to an external stimulus. If it was anything else there would have to be a non-physical part to the self, a soul or higher power governing our thoughts. My argument is base on the assumption that there is no higher power or soul as would be expected if humans evoled from lower animals by natural selection.
          One problem is where does responsibility lie when no one has the free will to control their actions. The only possible answer to this question is the responsibility lies with no one. If someone murdered another person it is not the murderer's responsibility that someone is dead because he or she lacked the free will to not do it. It also is not the responsibility of the person who died, although they most likely provided the stimulus that brought the murderer to kill, because he or she also has no free will. This of course does not mean that the murderer should not be placed in jail. He or she is still a danger to people. This person, provided a stimulus, is capable or murder. Jail, theoretically, is both a place to keep dangerous people away from others and a behavioral patern changer (an environmental stimulus). jail is supposed to change the brain enough so that, if provided that stimulus again, they will not act the same way. Sometimes it works, and other times it does not. To return to the statement about "dangerous people," it can be argued that if a genetic behavior pattern in conjuction with certain experiences can produce someone capable of murder then we run the risk of people trying to find these genes and using strategies such as eugenics and sterilization to eradicate the "murder gene." The likelihood of this happening is very small. A behavior as complex as murder can be determined by both hundreds of genes and thousands of experiences. Every person with this capability requires a different stimulus to set the behavior into motion. A person can go all through life and never receive the right combination of stimuli to drive them to murder.
           Regardless of whether there is free will or not, "each of us feels like an "I" (Weiner 253)." We feel we are acting on our volition. Yet, the concept of not having free will is a horrible thing for most people. When I debated this topic with my Uncle the other day he told me that the idea of having no say in where he will be or what he will be doing in twenty years depressed him. What is the point in doing anything at all if you don't control it? In this case the stimulus (learning there is no free will and that you are, in a sense, at the mercy of your genes and environment) causes a physical change in your brain that makes you feel a sense of hopelessness. You will do nothing because you have learned you have no free will not because you have no free will. to others, like myself, the idea of no free will is not a scary idea. I don't see it as an excuse to be lazy or as a sanction to be below average. So in a sense whether or not we have free will does matter to some people. To some it is a reason to strive to be the best person they can be. Some people will do that regardless of the existence of free will. I think that believing there is no free will helps me understand the world a little better. it simplifies things, making life quantifiable and easier to study.

Lea Cefalu
9/26/00

Jamison, Kay Redfield. Touched With Fire; Manic-depressive illness and the Artistic Temperment. New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1993.
Nemeroff, Charles B. "The Neurobiology of Depression." Scientific American. June 1998, 11.
Weiner, Jonathan. Time, Love, Memory. New York: Vintage Books, 1999.
Wilson Edward O. "The Study of Human Nature." On Human Nature. Ed. Leslie Stevenson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.