1

Free-Will, Feelings and Consciousness by Anirban

Chakraborty
Abstract
Is free-will a reality or an illusion? Why can’t machines feel like we do?
Can machines be made to feel as well? All these speculations are
approached here by presenting arguments which place absolute faith in
an atomic view of the world (where everything is made up of atoms
following the laws of physics).
 2

Free-will, Feelings and Consciousness: An atomic view

Is free-will a reality or an illusion (part I)? Why do machines not feel like
we do (part II and III)? Can machines be made to feel as well (part V)?
All these questions are considered here from an atomic view of the
world.
The atomic view
The atomic view I use here claims that everything is composed of some
basic particles, interacting through some basic forces. Thus, considering
this is the way of the world, all my thoughts, emotions, desires,
decisions are a great game of the particles going on. Explaining it in
terms of neuronal activity is just an approximation, as chemistry is of
quantum mechanics. Although, the atoms follow the laws of quantum
mechanics, we cannot apply it to the billions of atoms taking part in a
reaction, to predict what will happen; but by using the laws of
chemistry (which are often empirical) we can.

Part I: Free-will
Free-will, we might say, is the ability to impose our desires on our body-
mind complex. Now take the below situation into consideration.
Scenario 1: Two clusters of charges sit separated. There are forces of
interaction amongst them guided by laws of physics (which take them
towards certain inevitable ends). Now, suppose I take some charges
from one pile and dump them into the other. The forces amongst the
charges will change. If I have enough mastery over the intricate details
of the interactions between the particles, I can give rise to whatever
forces I want, by moving the charges accordingly. Thus I can lead the
 3

charges towards a future of my wish. In a way of speaking, I have

imposed my wish on the inevitable fate of the charges.
The collapse of free-will
The case in scenario 1 shows, that a closed system of a pile of charges
could be altered from their destiny only by the interference of our
hand. But, if all our physical and mental activity is some interplay of
particles, where is the “hand”, so to speak, to interfere with this
ongoing drama. By “hand” I am referring to free-will, which we believe,
gives us control over our lives saving it from some predestined
inevitable future.
To better demonstrate this argument we present a second scenario
Scenario 2: Make an attempt to raise the hand. Some molecular
changes within us, called “decision”, cause another set of molecular
changes, called “muscular activity”, which cause our hand to be raised.
Now, what caused the “decision” to raise the hand? The event of going
through this passage. Thus, the “hand” to interfere with the molecular
drama, seems to be external influences. This should not be surprising,
as experiences, memory, preferences etc., which give rise to internal
mental activity, can ultimately be traced back to external causes.
In this model our closed system is our body-mind; everything else is
external. Hence, we can speak of external influences as being the
determining factors of our future. But, if we increase the periphery of
our system, to include our home, neighborhood, office etc. the external
influences become a part of the interplay going within the system. If we
keep increasing the system boundary, we lose our “hand” (to interfere
with this interplay) altogether. It looks like an atomic drama on a
universal scale.
 4

Where, in all this, “free-will” figures? From a strictly atomic point of

view, “free-will” does not seem to be present at all.
At this point one might counter by introducing the probabilistic model,
rising from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, to oppose the
deterministic model presented here. But, a probabilistic model, simply
replaces one inevitable predetermined future by many futures, each
having a certain probability. That does not bring in “free-will”.

The revival of the concept of “free-will” by understanding “I”

There is a way to understand free-will by taking a closer look at the
concept of “I”, which rises from this atomic approach. One might argue,
that one’s initial (present) atomic patterns determine, to a large extent,
what his/her successive (future) patterns will be. These initial patterns
might contain one’s acquired knowledge, preferences, memories,
physical state (at the current moment) etc. But don’t all these together
form our idea of “I”? The transition from the statement “successive
patterns are a result of initial patterns” to “my future is a result of my
choices, preferences etc.”, seems to happen, due to this association of
the present patterns with “I”. Thus, “free-will”, or the feeling of “my
choice”, emerges naturally from this model.
But, this kind of “free-will”, although justified, seems more of an
illusion than a reality. A deep enough understanding unveils this illusory
nature of “free-will”, and shows it to be a matter of perspective (what
“I” means to us). The present patterns (“I”) are a result of earlier
patterns and external influences, which are a result of even more
distant past. Thus even this “I” can be traced back to external world.
And why should it not be so? “My body” is an outcome of my genetic
past, food, habitat etc. “My mind” is an outcome of my culture,
 5

environment, books I have read etc. Even the clear reference to

“external” exists only because we place the system boundary to enclose
the “body-mind”. This distinction, we already showed, can be blurred
by increasing the boundary.
The conclusion, which we therefore reach in this part is, we have as
much “free-will” to act, as the earth has, in going round the sun. As long
as we don’t know gravity, we can safely personify earth and sun and say
that Earth chose to go round Sun for eternity. But, as soon as we
discover gravity, we see that the earth has no choice.
Why then, is this illusory nature of “free-will”, so hard to look through
(unlike the earth-sun scenario)? There are probably two reasons.
Firstly, our body-mind system is enormously more complicated, and is
capable of showing much more variations than the earth-sun system.
Thus, it is hard to grasp in terms of atomic patterns following laws of
physics. Hence, we need gross approximations like “free-will”,
“thoughts”, “desires” etc.
The second reason is more subtle. The system boundary separating our
body-mind from the external world can’t be easily removed; it is
already embedded somewhere deep within us. A deeper analysis of
why this is so will be taken up in part III (Consciousness).
 6

Part II: Feelings

Consider a digital computer, capable of performing complicated
(mental!) actions, like mathematical problem solving. Even if they
surpass our mental capabilities, we say, what separates us from them
(rather makes us superior) is that, they don’t have feelings, while we
do. They do not feel joy on solving a problem; at least that is what we
hope. To take a closer look at the cause of this contrast, we take an
example of “love at first sight”.
Extremely intelligent machines, can be made to rate the beauty of a
face, depending on certain preset benchmarks. A beautiful face is
provided a very high rating. What that same face does in us is,
depending on our preferences (initial patterns), a certain amount of
liking arises. This is equivalent to providing a high rating, albeit on an
enormously complex scale. But the real difference starts after this.
This high rating starts a series of events within us, like hormonal
changes, chemical imbalances (or chemical mischief), increased
heartbeat etc. This is what we call “feelings of love”. But what are these
if not molecular pattern changes, in an enormously complex body-mind
system.
If such complexities are introduced in machines, where one event leads
to another, like a domino effect, they might start loving as well. Or can
they? A closer take on this issue forms the subject of the third part.
 7

Part III: Consciousness

What I just stated as “feelings of love” (the chemical changes, rapid
heartbeats etc.), are actually chemical changes of love. These alone,
don’t cause love. It is, feeling those changes, which make mere atoms
in motion into passions of love. This “feeling” might simply be, being
aware to the changes (it might include an interpretation of these
changes as well). This awareness seems to give rise to the feel of
anything. The joy on solving a problem, the impatience on not being
able to see through an equation, would go unnoticed, or un-felt, if not
accounted for, somewhere within us (which I refer to here as
consciousness). Careful consideration reveals, this might be the reason
we don’t feel what others do. The changes within them go unaccounted
for in our system. The Indian Vedanta texts use a good term for it-
“witness”; in the sense, that it simply stands witness to everything
within me.
How much is the range of this consciousness? Can we be conscious of
only a limited number of things within the body-mind system, or
everything within it, and maybe even of events outside of this system?
That remains debatable. But some notion can be gained by taking
meditation for example.
If you just quietly observe your breath, you will be aware of its rhythm,
its movement through the nostrils, what sensations it produces as the
air flows through the nose etc. You don’t ordinarily observe that much;
range increased. At the same time, while you are at it, you are not
aware of each and every momentary skin irritation (like itching); range
decreased. This might have happened if you are engrossed in this
passage. So, it seems pretty obvious, that the periphery of
consciousness can be increased and decreased.
 8

All this leads to another question- why is it, that we can be aware of
some events in the body-mind system better than others? The reason
for that might be, that, some events are more readily transmitted to
the brain than others, due to neuronal connectivity. Now, why do we
not feel things outside our body? Because external environment cannot
avail the service of the neurons unless it interacts with the sense
organs. This is why we see a pot of water boiling but don’t feel it;
however, we would surely feel if our blood started boiling.
At this point I would like to refer back to the last paragraph of part I.
This intimate interaction within the body-mind, through the endless
neuronal connections, maybe the reason that it is so difficult to get out
of the “my” feeling. We become easily aware of changes within us, but
not so for external changes. This forms a clear distinction between two
regions- one is “us”, the other is “external to us”. The patterns within
“us” get interpreted as “my likes”, “my dislikes” etc. From there the
journey to “my choice” seems natural. Had we been equally aware of
everything, this “me” and “not me” boundary would not have existed.
The distinction between “my choice” and “not my choice” (i.e. “outside
my control”) then seems to fade.
Is consciousness due to a particular site at the brain? Is neuronal
connectivity absolutely necessary for that? Or, is this whole notion of
awareness a result of some illusion created by the brain? These
questions are for the neurosciences and related fields to tackle.
 9

Part IV: The role of the Atomic view

The atomic or molecular model, presented here, is used in a very
rudimentary form, without any of its rigorous scientific conclusions.
What is the use of it, then? First, the atomic approach enables us to
speak in terms of particles, and their interactions, system boundaries
etc.
Second, the experimental verification of these claims long ago, and
their remaining valid even today, gives an inescapable nature to
arguments centered on them. Long ago, the concept was there but one
might have argued that, probably the atomic concept was false, after
all. But, that argument is almost dead now.
 10

Part V: Artificial Feelings!

As was said earlier, chemical changes, and events induced by them, can
be replicated in a machine, by making them enormously more
complicated. But to give rise to feelings, one has to introduce the
“noticing” portion. It is this portion that introduces a major challenge.
Ensuring connectivity from all portions of the digital circuit, to a single
center, makes some sense. But, how to get them “noticed”. It is here,
that the relation of “interpretation” to “awareness” might be of some
use; every change being interpreted uniquely, might be a workable
option.
But, why try applying this to digital circuitry- because, trying to replicate
human facets by digital machinery gives us a deeper understanding of
the human system. There is another side to this approach.
 11

By replicating the “Body-Mind Complex” block, in the above figure, we

have the enormous field of artificial intelligence. By introducing the
witness portion, who can say, we might end up with “Artificial Feelings”
as well. Or, introduce the “Witness” block successfully, and the word
“Artificial” might become unintelligent. On what grounds, will these be
“not real”, anymore?