Is there free will?

Can we freely decide on our own actions? This question has been latent since humanity could be considered as such. Philosophers like Plato already explored these concepts centuries ago with the means at their fingertips.

It seems like a simple question to answer, but it should not be so when it comes to an unknown that is latent in the entire legal structure that shapes modern societies. In order to decide if someone is responsible for an action or not, the first thing to determine is whether he had the right ability to understand what he was doing, and then whether he had the ability to make a different decision. The principle of innocence derives from that precept. What seems to be clear is that it is not so easy to know the answer. Perhaps neuroscience can help us clarify this question a bit.

• Related article: "Parts of the human brain (and functions)"

Libet and his research on decisions

A few years ago, a researcher named Libet tested people's ability to identify the decision that has been made in real time. His conclusions were clear; until almost a second before the subject became aware of his own decision,

the researchers already knew which one it would be based on the activity of their neurons.

However, Libet also discovered that, before executing the decision, there was a short period of time in which that action could be “vetoed”, that is, it could not be executed. Libet's experiments They have been expanded and refined by some of his disciples over the years, having repeatedly confirmed his findings.

These discoveries shook the foundation of what until then was considered free will.. If my brain is capable of making decisions before I am aware of them, how can I be responsible for anything I do?

The problem of free will

Let's take a closer look at the neuroscience behind this problem. Our brain is an evolutionarily selected machine to process information, make decisions based on it and act as quickly as possible, efficiently and with the least consumption of resources possible. For this reason, the brain tends to automate as much as it can the different responses it encounters.

From this point of view there would appear to be no free will and we would be more like an automaton; a very complex one, yes, but an automaton after all.

But, on the other hand, the brain is also an organ with the capacity to analyze and understand its own internal processes, which, in turn, time, it would allow him to develop new mental processes that would act on himself and modify the answers he already had automated.

This approach would thus transfer the possibility of the existence of free will to the greater or lesser capacity that we have to acquire knowledge of ourselves, and new habits capable of modifying our own responses. This approach, therefore, would open the door to the possible existence of free will.

The importance of self-knowledge

Here, the reflection that we would have to do then is: if we want to be freer and make better decisions, we should be able to start with "Make the decision" to try to get to know each other better and, in this way, have the opportunity to develop new mental processes that act on our own mind and allow us to better manage our own responses. In a word, self-knowledge.

This is quite similar to the famous saying that crowned the entrance to the Temple of Delphi in Greece, "Nosce te ipsum", or "know yourself" and you will know the world. True freedom is only achieved when we manage to free ourselves from ourselves.

But, giving the subject one more twist... What does it depend on that we decide to start the process of self-discovery? Does it depend on something external, like the opportunity for someone to make us think about it? And if that doesn't happen... So does our free will depend on luck?

I think this is a good point to leave reflection open for discussion and exploration in future articles.