At 3:47 PM on a Tuesday, I decided to quit my job and start a company.

Or did I?

Maybe the decision was already made by unconscious neural processes seconds before I became aware of it.

Maybe my genes, my upbringing, my brain chemistry, and the exact configuration of neurons firing that afternoon determined that choice, and the feeling of choosing was just a story my brain told itself afterward.

Maybe “I” didn’t decide anything. The universe unfolded according to physical laws, and a cluster of atoms arranged as “me” mistook causation for choice.

This is the free will problem, and it’s one of the most unsettling questions in psychology and neuroscience.

Do you have free will? Or is it a convincing illusion?

The short answer: It’s complicated.

The longer answer: The question itself might be wrong, the experiments are messier than they seem, and the practical implications are profound.

Let me walk you through the science, the philosophy, and what it means for how you should live.

The Experiment That Started a War: Benjamin Libet’s Study

In 1983, neuroscientist Benjamin Libet conducted an experiment that’s been haunting philosophers and psychologists ever since.

The Setup

Participants were asked to:

  1. Sit in front of a clock with a fast-moving dot
  2. Flex their wrist whenever they felt the urge
  3. Note the exact position of the dot when they first became aware of the intention to move

Meanwhile, Libet measured:

  • EEG brain activity (especially the “readiness potential”-a buildup of neural activity before movement)
  • The exact moment of the movement (via muscle sensors)
  • The reported moment of conscious intention

The Shocking Finding

The sequence:

  1. Readiness potential begins (~550ms before movement)
  2. Conscious intention reported (~200ms before movement)
  3. Actual movement occurs

In other words:

Your brain started preparing for the action about 350ms before you became consciously aware of wanting to do it.

The Interpretation (That Everyone Ran With)

“Free will is an illusion. Your unconscious brain makes decisions, and consciousness is just a spectator noticing them after the fact.”

This finding exploded into popular culture:

  • Sam Harris wrote Free Will arguing we have none
  • Neuroscientists declared consciousness a “post-hoc rationalization”
  • Determinists celebrated
  • Philosophers had existential crises

But here’s the problem: the interpretation is way more controversial than the finding itself.

Why the “Free Will Is an Illusion” Interpretation Is Questionable

Let me explain the problems with taking Libet’s experiment as proof that free will doesn’t exist.

Problem #1: The Task Was Arbitrary and Meaningless

Participants were asked to flex their wrist whenever they felt like it.

This isn’t decision-making. It’s:

  • Random timing of an arbitrary action
  • No deliberation
  • No reasons
  • No consequences

Is this what we mean by free will?

When I decided to quit my job, I:

  • Deliberated for months
  • Weighed pros and cons
  • Imagined futures
  • Consulted people I trust
  • Evaluated values

That’s a radically different kind of process than “flex your wrist whenever.”

Libet’s experiment might show that spontaneous motor impulses begin unconsciously. It doesn’t show that deliberate, reasoned decisions are predetermined.

Problem #2: What Does “Conscious Intention” Even Mean?

Participants had to report the moment they became aware of intending to move.

But:

  • How do you introspect on the exact moment of intention?
  • Is there even a discrete “moment” of intention?
  • Might the timing judgment itself be unreliable?

Research shows:

  • People are terrible at introspecting on timing of mental events
  • The act of reporting might distort the experience
  • The “moment of intention” might not be a real, discrete event

We might be measuring the limits of introspection, not the absence of free will.

Problem #3: Unconscious ≠ Unfree

Just because a process is unconscious doesn’t mean it’s not “you.”

When I type this sentence, I’m not consciously controlling each finger movement. Motor programs run automatically.

But I’m still the one choosing what to write.

When you catch a ball, unconscious neural processes calculate trajectory and control muscles.

But you chose to play catch.

Your unconscious brain is still YOUR brain. Unconscious processing doesn’t negate agency.

Problem #4: The Readiness Potential Might Not Mean What We Thought

Recent research has cast doubt on the entire interpretation.

2019 study (Schurger et al.):

Researchers showed that the readiness potential might just be random neural fluctuations, not a “decision.”

The idea:

  • Your brain has constant random neural noise
  • When noise crosses a threshold, it triggers action
  • Timing feels random to you (“whenever you feel like it”)
  • But EEG shows buildup (because you catch it at the threshold)

It’s like watching a stock price drift randomly upward until it crosses a sell threshold.

The “buildup” isn’t a decision. It’s noise accumulating until a trigger point.

If this is right, Libet’s experiment doesn’t show that decisions are made unconsciously. It shows that arbitrary timing of spontaneous actions involves random neural fluctuation.

Not even a decision at all, unconscious or otherwise.

Problem #5: Veto Power

Libet himself noted:

Even if the unconscious initiates actions, consciousness can veto them.

Participants could abort the movement after feeling the intention but before acting.

Maybe free will isn’t about initiating actions. Maybe it’s about vetoing them-conscious control over unconscious impulses.

This is “free won’t” rather than “free will.”

  • You can’t control the impulse to eat the cookie (unconscious)
  • But you CAN decide not to (conscious veto)

This aligns with everyday experience:

  • Intrusive thoughts pop up (unchosen)
  • Impulses arise (unchosen)
  • Emotions emerge (unchosen)
  • But you choose how to respond

Agency isn’t about initiating every mental event. It’s about guiding behavior in light of values and goals.

The Determinism Argument: Physics, Causation, and Control

Forget Libet for a moment. Let’s look at the deeper argument.

The Hard Determinist Position

Argument:

  1. The universe operates according to physical laws
  2. Your brain is physical matter
  3. Physical matter follows deterministic laws (or quantum randomness)
  4. Your thoughts, feelings, and decisions are the result of physical processes
  5. Those processes are determined by prior causes (genes, environment, brain state)
  6. Therefore, you couldn’t have done otherwise
  7. Therefore, free will is an illusion

This is the neuroscience/physics argument against free will.

And honestly, it’s hard to refute on its own terms.

Why This Is Unsatisfying

The problem isn’t that determinism is wrong. The problem is that it’s trivial and irrelevant to the things we care about.

Yes, my decision was caused by prior states. But:

1. Those prior causes include ME-my values, beliefs, goals, and reasoning.

I didn’t choose in a vacuum. I chose based on who I am, what I care about, and what I believe.

If my choice reflects my authentic self, isn’t that freedom?

2. “Could have done otherwise” is philosophically incoherent.

“Could I have chosen differently?”

Under identical circumstances (exact same brain state, environment, history)? No, probably not.

But so what? Real life doesn’t rewind and replay with identical conditions.

What matters is: Did I deliberate? Did I act according to my values? Was I coerced?

3. Determinism applies to everything, so it explains nothing specific.

“Why did you start a company?”

Determinist answer: “Physical laws.”

Useful answer: “I wanted autonomy, impact, and creative control.”

Both are true. But only one is meaningful for understanding human behavior.

Compatibilism: Free Will and Determinism Can Coexist

Most philosophers (and increasingly, psychologists) are compatibilists.

Compatibilism: Free will doesn’t require breaking physical laws. It means acting according to your desires, values, and reasoning without coercion.

You have free will when:

  • You deliberate and choose
  • Your choice reflects your values
  • You’re not coerced or manipulated
  • You could have chosen differently if you’d wanted something different

You lack free will when:

  • Someone forces you at gunpoint
  • You’re brainwashed
  • You’re acting on addiction or compulsion against your values
  • Your brain is damaged in ways that impair reasoning

This is the kind of free will that matters for:

  • Moral responsibility
  • Legal culpability
  • Personal growth
  • Meaning and purpose

And this kind of free will is compatible with determinism.

What Psychology and Neuroscience Actually Show

Let’s look at what research really tells us about decision-making, control, and agency.

Finding #1: Much of Behavior Is Automatic

Experiments show:

Priming effects:

  • Exposure to words related to elderly → walking slower (though this failed to replicate)
  • Exposure to money images → acting more selfishly (mixed evidence)

Implicit bias:

  • Unconscious associations affect judgments (e.g., IAT tests)
  • Biases can contradict conscious values

Habits:

  • 40% of daily behaviors are habitual
  • Habits run automatically in response to cues

Cognitive biases:

  • Anchoring, availability heuristic, confirmation bias
  • Operate unconsciously, influence decisions

Takeaway:

A lot of your behavior is on autopilot. Unconscious processes influence choices.

But this doesn’t negate free will. It just means free will operates at a different level:

  • You choose which habits to cultivate
  • You choose which environments to enter
  • You choose to slow down and deliberate when it matters
  • You choose to examine and counteract biases

Automaticity doesn’t eliminate agency. It just makes agency higher-level.

Finding #2: Consciousness Lags Reality

Research consistently shows:

Conscious awareness of events lags the actual events by ~100-500ms.

Your brain:

  • Processes sensory input unconsciously
  • Makes predictions and fills in gaps
  • Constructs a coherent narrative
  • Presents it to consciousness as “real-time”

You’re always experiencing the past, but it feels like the present.

Implications for free will:

Your experience of “deciding” might be slightly after the neural processes that implement the decision.

But again, so what?

The neural processes are still YOUR brain implementing YOUR values and reasoning.

It’s like saying “you didn’t write this code, your fingers did.” True in a sense, but missing the point.

Finding #3: The Illusion of Introspection

Classic experiments (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977):

People confabulate reasons for their choices.

Example:

Show people four identical pairs of stockings. Ask which they prefer. Most choose the rightmost.

Ask why: “It felt higher quality.”

Actual reason: Position bias (people prefer rightmost items).

They have no introspective access to the real cause, but they confidently generate reasons.

Implications:

You don’t have full access to why you choose what you choose.

  • Some reasons are unconscious
  • Some reasons you invent after the fact
  • You’re a storyteller, narrating behavior you don’t fully understand

Does this mean no free will?

I don’t think so. It means:

  • You’re not fully transparent to yourself
  • Reasons you give might not be the real reasons
  • Self-knowledge requires effort and external feedback

But you still choose, even if you’re not always sure why.

Finding #4: Belief in Free Will Has Consequences

Surprising finding:

People who believe in free will behave more ethically and take more responsibility for their actions.

Studies show:

When you reduce belief in free will:

  • People cheat more
  • People help others less
  • People feel less responsible for their actions
  • People are less willing to learn from mistakes

Vohs & Schooler (2008):

Participants read essays arguing free will is an illusion.

Result: They cheated more on a subsequent task.

Interpretation:

Believing in free will (even if philosophically debatable) has prosocial effects:

  • Increases moral behavior
  • Increases sense of agency
  • Reduces fatalism
  • Promotes growth mindset

Practical takeaway:

Even if free will is “technically” an illusion (whatever that means), believing in it makes you a better person.

This suggests the concept is psychologically real and functionally important, regardless of metaphysics.

Finding #5: Mental Effort and Executive Function Are Real

Neuropsychology shows:

Prefrontal cortex (PFC) damage impairs:

  • Planning and decision-making
  • Impulse control
  • Reasoning
  • Weighing future consequences

Famous case: Phineas Gage

Railroad worker, iron rod through his PFC. Survived, but:

  • Became impulsive
  • Lost ability to plan
  • Made poor decisions
  • Personality changed

His capacity for self-control and deliberate choice was physically damaged.

This suggests:

There IS a neural basis for executive function-deliberate, effortful control over impulses.

When it’s damaged, you lose something we’d call “free will” in the practical sense.

When it’s intact, you have the capacity for:

  • Effortful deliberation
  • Overriding impulses
  • Long-term planning
  • Value-based decision-making

This is the neuroscience of agency.

The Practical Implications: Does It Matter?

Okay, after all this, what should you believe? And does it matter?

What I Believe (And Why)

Metaphysically:

I’m agnostic about libertarian free will (the idea that you could have genuinely chosen otherwise in identical circumstances).

I suspect: The universe is deterministic (or quantum-random, which doesn’t help), and in that sense, yes, everything is “caused.”

But I also think: This question is meaningless for practical life.

Practically:

I have compatibilist free will:

  • I deliberate about decisions
  • My choices reflect my values and reasoning
  • I’m not coerced
  • I learn and grow through choices
  • I’m responsible for my actions

This is the kind of free will that matters:

  • For ethics
  • For law
  • For meaning
  • For growth

And this is clearly real, whether or not it fits a particular philosophical definition.

How This Changes How I Live

1. I Take Responsibility (But With Compassion)

Yes, my actions are caused by genetics, upbringing, and circumstance.

But they’re also caused by my values, which I can examine and refine.

I’m responsible for:

  • Recognizing harmful patterns
  • Seeking growth
  • Making amends for harm
  • Building better habits

But I’m also compassionate with myself:

  • Some struggles are harder due to brain wiring
  • Some patterns are deeply ingrained
  • Change is hard, and that’s okay
  • I’m doing my best with the brain and history I have

2. I Extend Compassion to Others

When someone acts badly, I think:

“They’re a product of their genetics, upbringing, and current brain state. In their exact position (same brain, same history), I’d act the same way.”

This doesn’t excuse harm. But it reduces moral outrage and increases understanding.

People are doing the best they can with the brains they have.

(Even when their best is harmful and needs consequences.)

3. I Focus on Environment and Systems

If behavior is caused by brain states, and brain states are caused by genetics + environment, then:

To change behavior (mine or others’), change the environment.

Instead of: “I just need more willpower to stop scrolling.”

Better: “I should delete the app and design an environment where scrolling is harder.”

This is more effective and less morally loaded.

4. I Appreciate the Mystery of Consciousness

Even if my choices are determined, the fact that I experience choosing is profound.

Consciousness-the felt experience of deliberation, decision, and agency-is real, even if it’s not what I think it is.

I don’t need to understand it fully to appreciate it.

5. I Act As If I Have Free Will

Because functionally, I do.

When I deliberate about a decision:

  • I weigh options
  • I imagine futures
  • I consult my values
  • I make a choice

That process is real. The phenomenology is real. The consequences are real.

Philosophical determinism doesn’t change the fact that I experience agency and must make choices.

So I act as if free will is real, because in every way that matters, it is.

The Paradox: Free Will Is Both Illusion and Reality

Here’s my synthesis:

Free will is an illusion in the sense that:

  • Your choices are caused by prior states (genes, environment, brain chemistry)
  • Unconscious processes heavily influence decisions
  • You don’t have complete access to why you choose
  • In identical circumstances, you’d choose identically

Free will is real in the sense that:

  • You deliberate, reason, and choose based on values
  • Your choices reflect your authentic self
  • You can learn, grow, and change patterns
  • You experience agency, and that experience is meaningful
  • The concept of responsibility and growth depends on it

Both are true.

The question isn’t “Do I have free will or not?”

The question is: “What do I mean by free will, and does that kind exist?”

If you mean “magic soul that breaks physical laws,” then no.

If you mean “capacity to deliberate and act according to values,” then yes.

And the second definition is what actually matters.

A Developer’s Perspective: Deterministic Systems with Emergent Agency

Let me offer an analogy from software engineering.

A program is deterministic:

  • Same inputs → same outputs
  • Follows fixed rules
  • Can’t “choose” to do otherwise

But a sophisticated program can:

  • Take in data and learn
  • Optimize toward goals
  • Adapt to environment
  • Display complex, seemingly autonomous behavior

An AI agent:

  • Is deterministic (or probabilistic)
  • Has no “free will” in the libertarian sense
  • But displays goal-directed, adaptive behavior

We don’t say “the AI didn’t really choose that strategy.”

We say “the AI optimized for X given Y constraints.”

Humans are vastly more complex, but similar:

  • We’re learning, adaptive systems
  • We optimize for goals (often unconsciously)
  • We’re shaped by inputs (genes, experience)
  • We display autonomous, goal-directed behavior

Is that free will?

Depends on your definition.

But it’s the kind of agency that matters for building, learning, and growing.

Final Thoughts: The Freedom That Matters

Do you have free will?

I don’t know. It depends what you mean.

What I do know:

You can:

  • Reflect on your values
  • Deliberate about decisions
  • Learn from experience
  • Change patterns
  • Create meaning

These capacities are real.

Whether they fit a particular philosophical definition of “free will” is interesting but ultimately not that important.

What matters is:

1. You experience agency

You feel like you make choices. This feeling is real, even if it’s not what it seems.

2. Your choices have consequences

What you do affects your life and others’ lives. Responsibility is inescapable.

3. You can grow and change

You’re not a fixed program. You’re a learning system. You can examine patterns and build better ones.

4. Meaning comes from choice

Even if choices are determined, they’re still yours. They still reflect who you are. They still matter.

The question isn’t “Am I free?”

The question is “How will I use the agency I have?”

And that question is inescapable, whether or not free will exists.

So choose wisely.

Or don’t choose at all-because you never had a choice.

Either way, live as if it matters.

Because it does.

What do you think? Do you believe you have free will? Does it change how you live? I’d love to hear your perspective.