Q&A: Free Will and Unified Consciousness
Free Will and Unified Consciousness
Question
Hello Honorable Rabbi,
I watched the lecture about the meaning and place of free will, and now I understand why a proof of the nonexistence of free will, given the possibility of actions without a cause but with a purpose (or reason), is not possible.
But I have a question about the nature of these actions. I am willing to accept the fact that they have no cause, even though intuitively that seems no different from complete randomness, since I have no way to refute it, so it is indeed a possibility.
My question concerns the purpose of the actions. I will assume that there is no unified consciousness (this is not the issue I want to discuss right now, but if it needs to be discussed in order to answer the question, I'd be happy to) (: ) (By unified consciousness I mean that there is no one particular thing, like a soul, that one can say, "that thing is you"; human consciousness has no place where it becomes unified, rather consciousness is a collection of all the things that compose it, and their unity is a kind of illusion.).
Given this assumption, where would the purpose behind free will come from? As I understand it, the purpose behind actions that come from free will has to be consistent, because if it is not consistent and has no causes, then it is random, and we are saying that free will is not random.
So if the purpose is consistent, and it differs from person to person, that means there has to be some thing that is the person, which in some way contains that purpose and acts accordingly.
To sum up all this rambling, my question is this: in your opinion, in such a worldview that denies the existence of unified consciousness, is free will still possible? And if so, is the question of free will even relevant at all?
Thank you very much,
Amit.
Answer
I'm not sure I understood what "there is no unified consciousness" means. That there is no self? I don't accept this strange claim, and in any case I see no point in discussing its implications. Whose free will is the discussion about?
Discussion on Answer
Sam Harris is a well-known confused person, and his decisiveness and eloquence sometimes cover that up. I don't know what the discussion is about—if there is no self, then there is also no free will of mine (it's almost the reverse cogito: I do not exist, therefore I do not think). Materialists and atheists, true to form, get tangled up in meaningless verbiage that sometimes creates a deep and intelligent impression. Words, words…
I understand. I do indeed see truth in what you are saying, and I agree that materialists and atheists tend to look for explanations that drain existence of any meaning whatsoever. But I still see something in Harris's words, and I would be glad if you could direct me (or explain yourself) to a place where I can understand the confusion in his position.
Again, thank you very much for your response so far and going forward.
I haven't seen anything of his for many years already, and I don't remember. What you quoted in his name is an excellent example.
Precisely in what I quoted in his name I don't see confusion or lack of logic, but I admit that I did not present the claim in a way that allows sufficient understanding for someone who hasn't heard it before, and for that I apologize. I will keep thinking, and perhaps one day I will return with another question on the matter, but I hope that if there is a hole in the idea I will manage to find it on my own, and soon.
I don't think there is anything more to discuss on the matter, only room for further inquiry.
Thank you very much for your time and for the quick response. I wasn't completely satisfied with your answers, but I believe that here the blame lies with me.
Have a good week and a wonderful evening,
Amit.
What I mean by there being no unified consciousness is that there is no particular thing you can point to and say that it is you; the idea is that there is no experiencer of your experiences, only experiences, and what is called "you" is really the space in which the experiences occur.
The claim is not that there is no you, but that your consciousness is a combination of many separate elements.
I got the idea from a man named Sam Harris, and I'm currently studying it more deeply, so I'm sorry if the explanation is vague.
I understand now that my grasp of the idea is not yet complete, since I am unable to explain it properly, so I will keep investigating, and perhaps come back to ask the question in a proper and understandable formulation (if I don't find an answer as I continue learning, of course).
Thanks in any case,
Amit.