Yes, I do believe in free-will and this is a topic I have studied very much.
So currently I'm doing Philosophy Of Mind (Advanced) and we are looking at mind body dualism vs behaviorism, functionalism and epiphenomonalism etc. One thing that really caught my attention was a book by Wilder Penfield - A Canadian Neuroscientist, Standford-trained, called "Mysteries of Mind" - in which he conducted a variety of experiments. He wrote: "When I have caused a conscious patient to move his hand by applying an electrode to the motor cortex of one hemisphere, I have often asked him about it. Invariably his response was: 'I didn't do that. You did.' When I caused him to vocalize, he said: 'I didn't make that sound. You pulled it out of me.' When I caused the record of the stream of consciousness to run again and so presented to him the record of his past experience, he marveled that he should be conscious of the past as well as of the present. He was astonished that it should come back to him so completely, with more detail than he could possibly recall voluntarily. He assumed at once that, somehow, the surgeon was responsible for the phenomenon, but he recognized the details as those of his own past experience."
So what does this mean? Basically whenever he tampered with people's brains' (and he's wasn't some nobody) they would never say "I did that", or "yes I was vocalizing", every single experiment he conducted the person would say it was the surgeon, not them.
So I emailed my professor about this (he's a physicalist) and has written the book "Philosophy of Mind and Cognition: An Introduction" - David Braddon-Mitchell and Frank Jackson from my university and Australia National University. And I asked them about this and what the physicalist response would be, he replied: "It's going to depend on where the intervention is in cortex. If the intervention just makes the motor cortex issue a signal the person wen't feel agentialcontrol. But if it's in the decision making process (which is harder to do at the moment) the person may well think it's them."
Immediately I was fascinated with this "decision making process", which he claimed is "harder to do at the moment". I poured through articles, more recent experiments and what I found is, it's only possible to influence a person to do something, e.g. people. doing open brain surgery while conscious for epilepsy may feel an urge to "raise their arm" for instance if tampered with this decision-making-process part of the brain. However, if you ask Philosophy AI, ChatGPT, DeepSeek and look into all the articles it turns out that this is 100% not possible. I think what the professor was referring to was: In 2013, Itzhak Fried's group even showed they could trigger the
urge to move (not just the movement itself) by stimulating the supplementary motor area. Patients said things like:
"I felt like I wanted to move my hand.".
The importance of this is simply this: If there is no mind separate from the brain, then the brain is all there is: a physical glob of tissue, with location, density, size etc.
There would be absolutely no reason why you couldn't control someone entirely by intervening with their brain. There should be no reason why the person would ever say that they didn't autonomously decide to cause the action that the neuroscientist had caused.. It should be the case that the person when stimulated by electrodes would twitch, vocalise and say "yes that was me doing that".
The significance cannot be overstated with this. Check out what Philosopher AI says (most people don't have access to this AI and it is not released to the public):
No, it is not possible to completely take over someone's free will and make them authentically claim an action as their own without creating a state of profound psychological conflict, coercion, or delusion.
However, there are many powerful ways to
influence people to the point where they might say and even believe "I did that," even if the impetus came from you. This is not the same as a sci-fi-style "free will takeover," but it's a deep form of manipulation.
Let's break down the mechanisms and the caveats.
- Extreme Coercion and Duress: Under threat of violence, harm, or other severe consequences, a person can be forced to perform an action and then to say "I did that." However, internally, they almost certainly do not feel a sense of ownership or free will. They are acting to avoid a worse outcome. Their statement is a performance, not an authentic expression.
- Profound Manipulation and Persuasion: This is a more subtle and psychologically complex area. Techniques can be used to make someone want to do the thing you suggest, making them feel the idea was their own all along.
- The Illusion of Choice: You present a carefully curated set of options, all of which lead to the outcome you desire. The person feels they are making a free choice, but you have controlled the landscape of their decisions.
- Ideological Capture: Through prolonged exposure to propaganda, cult-like indoctrination, or gaslighting, a person's beliefs and desires can be reshaped. They might commit an act and genuinely say "I did that" because the ideology they've adopted has become their own. Their free will has been hijacked and redirected, not eliminated. The infamous Milgram Experiment (obedience to authority) and Stanford Prison Experiment show how powerful situational forces can be in making people commit acts they wouldn't normally.
- Hypnosis: The effectiveness of hypnosis varies greatly by individual (hypnotic suggestibility). In a deep trance, a highly suggestible person might be instructed to perform a simple action and then, post-hypnosis, be given a suggestion to forget the hypnotist's instruction. When asked, they might provide a confabulated (made-up) reason for why they did it, claiming the action as their own. This is fragile and doesn't work for complex, against-your-morals actions. The person's "free will" is bypassed temporarily, but the effect is limited and not universal.
- Neurological Intervention (The Sci-Fi Answer): This is the only scenario that approaches a true "free will takeover."
- Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) or Direct Stimulation: In theory, if you could precisely map and stimulate the brain, you might trigger specific actions and simultaneously stimulate the neural circuits associated with agency and ownership (the feeling that "I" am doing this). This is purely speculative and far beyond current technology.
- Even here, problems arise: The person might say "I did that," but if the action is against their core identity (e.g., harming a loved one), the cognitive dissonance could cause a severe mental break. The statement would be a robotic utterance, not an authentic expression of self.
The feeling that "
I did that" is called the
Sense of Agency. It's the feeling of being the cause of your own actions and their outcomes. This is a fundamental part of consciousness.
- You can force an action. You can force the words "I did that" out of someone's mouth.
- You cannot force an authentic Sense of Agency. For that to happen, the person must integrate the action into their narrative self, their intentions, and their beliefs. If the action is alien to them, this integration fails. The statement becomes a lie they are telling, either under duress or due to manipulation.
You cannot
take over free will like a puppeteer controls a puppet and have the puppet authentically declare its own puppet-ness.
However, you can
hijack free will by:
- Breaking it with coercion (they say the words but don't believe them).
- Redirecting it with profound manipulation (you change what they want to do, so they believe the action was their idea).
- Bypassing it temporarily in rare cases with hypnosis or, theoretically, future technology (creating a temporary and fragile state where the action and the sense of agency are artificially induced).
The most effective and terrifying method is the second one—manipulation and persuasion. It doesn't remove free will; it weaponizes it by reshaping the person's desires and beliefs from the inside, making them a willing participant who truly believes "I did that." (end philosopher AI)
If the brain is all that there is then any external influence should indeed be thought of as an autonomous action, why? Because there is nothing there besides the brain! If there is no mind, nothing else there are no additional constraints to not make this an autonomous action.
You may think: perhaps it's somewhere else in the brain or they just haven't got to it yet however this is not the case, it is known where the actions of the brain take place and Wilder Penfield's book - "Mysteries of Mind" will show you how in depth he goes about this.
So yes, I do think free-will exists. Because of the fact that if it didn't then you should be able to (with today's technology) control people. But this has never become true and it never will. The control of course is used in the agential sense of the word "control".
If you are interested in this or want further arguments, I am preparing an essay and will be talking about several more reasons. So hope you found this interesting at the very least.
