Free will?

I've opined in the past about my love of the semi-consciousness right before one becomes completely lucid from sleep and the crazy thoughts one can have in this state. I've composed many a story and many an essay from these disentangled mess of thoughts. So it should come as no surprise that this morning my thoughts went to tackle the problem of free will in a deterministic universe. (If you're a LOST fan as I am, then perhaps it really is no surprise it was this morning, what with free will being perhaps the most prominent theme of the show and with the final season premiere tomorrow.)

It wouldn't surprise me if every first year philosophy student in pretty much every university around the world will tackle this issue. Not only is it supremely old problem and therefore has an extensive literature for newly matriculated students to peruse, but I find it a useful heuristic to discern the actual philosophy students from those that will never get it. It's really a matter of properly understanding the different arguments that have been proposed and whether or not people can ask meaningful questions of these positions and arguing a point.

Very basically, you've got two sides to metaphysics: Determinists and non-determinists, most people falling into either category or at least leaning towards one pole on a spectrum. Determinism argues that people are merely extensions of the basic laws of physics that govern our universe and therefore one could theoretically, given all the variables, know how another person will behave. Non-determinists, I would define, are those that argue that there are at least some instances in which these physical laws can be defined, for instance, human free will.

Of the determinists you can further dichotomise. Compatibilists  and Incompatibilists. The latter argues that free will and determinism are incompatible and therefore if the universe is determined then free will is but an illusion. Compatibilists, on the other hand, argue they are compatible and most variations of the argument try to change the definition of free will, which escape the initial problem entirely and I've always found to be quite weak.

Given current scientific literature, it seems to indicate quite strongly for a deterministic universe. Advances in physics but also in neuroscience showing how fundamentally our perception of reality and rational thought can be usurped by a handful of damaged neurons (I am talking about, of course, Anosognosia, one of the most interesting conditions I've read about) all push towards determinism.

Anyway, deep in my semi-lucid state, I started thinking about the implications of quantum physics on this deterministic view. Things like the double-slit experiment, in which an electron will randomly pass through one of two slits, also seem to indicate indeterminism. Plenty of attempts to explain away this random behaviour (many worlds theory, for example) and no doubt more attempts to search for some underlying deterministic principle/law that governs where the electrons will go.

Interestingly, there is some correlational evidence to suggest the results of these random generators are heavily skewed to one side given mass global events (such as 9/11), which gives credence to some psychic form of phenomena.

After I had my thought I did a quick and brief search out there to see if there was any kind of theory out there similar to mine and I found some related, but nothing definitive. But then again, it might've been the physics jargon that completely went over my head.

The brain has an immense density of neurons, it's actually quite ridiculous when you read about the numbers. But each one of these neurons is made up of atoms and subatomic particles and even smaller ones (quarks etc). And at this quantum level, things such as spin and movements and such all have some level of randomness.

What if the human free will, or the soul if you will, were able to influence this randomness? If a bunch of electrons and their wave functions all collapse in a certain way then a certain neuron will fire or a certain chemical imbalance is created which then causes the behaviour. At least to me this idea does not seem implausible. What excites me about it is that you are able to retain the notion of a deterministic and scientifically valid universe AND that of free will. (Though I suppose you could argue that my acceptance of the premise of a fundamental randomness already undermines that of determinism. In which case you probably have a good point, and I would ask you to think of this rather as me trying to reconcile a scientific universe and free will)

Thinking of free will as directly acting on the universe will always cause problems (think mind-body problem). But recasting it as an indirect influence ... I think this reconciles the two seemingly opposite notions. Not having this idea would leave one with still the quantum randomness in the brain (and indeed the rest of the body) which indicates that humans were inherently totally random and capricious. At least this way we retain some semblance of a soul and can understand that very strong belief I think we all have of actual free will. That is, it's clear to everyone that they first want to do something and then have the brain chemical reaction which then causes the actions, which contradicts most scientific models that the neuronal impulse occurs which both causes your conscious awareness of it and the action at the same time (which would definitely be an exercise of determinism).

Amazing how in a semi-conscious state I would've thought something like this up. Usually my ideas lack any tangible logic, as far as I can see, this seems to have a logic throughline. Then again, you might argue that it's not amazing at all and I was always going to think this up in that state ...