We tend to think of our behaviour as being a result of our desires and intentions. Thus, for example, in waking up in the morning I might have the choice of having either porridge, or eggs and bacon for breakfast. I am immediately aware of having the power to choose which to have. I might choose eggs and bacon because I prefer the taste. Or I might choose porridge,maybe not because I prefer the taste, but because I am concerned with my weight or health. But whatever I choose it seems for all the world that it is my choice, and it is ultimately my choice even though I might be heavily influenced in making one choice or the other. Thus I may have no problems with my health and weight, have no ethical problems with eating meat, and vastly prefer the taste of eggs and bacon. Therefore it would seem I have no reason to choose to eat porridge for breakfast and every reason to eat eggs and bacon instead. Yet, notwithstanding all of this, I nevertheless still appear to have the power to choose to eat porridge. This power to choose between alternatives is what most of us tend to refer to as free will.
However, on the face of it, there is a difficulty here. An implicit assumption of science is that all physical processes and events follow physical laws. By physical laws we are simply referring to the regularities that we observe in nature. A boulder rolling down a hill; the Earth moving around the Sun; the various interactions of subatomic particles – all these processes follow physical laws and these laws can be described using the language of mathematics. Likewise it is implicitly supposed that the physical processes in our own bodies, including our brains, follow physical laws too. But this means that the entirety of our mental lives, plus everything we ever do, is simply a result of physical laws playing out. Thus, assuming that the neuronal processes underlying consciousness are distinct from consciousness itself, then the seemingly inevitable conclusion is that it is these physical processes rather than consciousness per se which is responsible for our thoughts and behaviour.
I want now to present my proof that, contrary to the above, consciousness in and of itself must play at least some role in our thoughts and behaviour. It is a Reductio ad absurdem (Latin: "reduction to the absurd"). In other words I will assume that science is correct in its supposition that all physical events follow physical laws, including those physical events occurring in our brains. I will then show that an absurd consequence is entailed.
So to reiterate: the implicit assumption of science is that all physical processes and events follow physical laws. If this assumption of science is correct then all the physical processes occurring in my brain follow physical laws too. It follows then that, according to science, everything that a person ever does, and indeed everything a person ever thinks, is wholly caused by determined events in the brain which form links in a chain of physical cause and effect.
So all the thoughts I have ever entertained have their immediate cause in particular physical events occurring in the brain. This also includes the thought and conviction that I am in fact conscious!
Now the following is the crucial contention. I maintain that each and every one of us has incorrigible certainty of their own consciousness. I would further maintain that we cannot possibly be in error in this conviction. After all it requires consciousness to believe anything at all. So when I believe that I am conscious it is not something I could possibly be in error about (3). Or, to put it another way, if I am not in fact conscious, I cannot possibly believe I am, because, not being conscious, I cannot believe in anything whatsoever!
However, since according to science it is not consciousness in and of itself which is responsible for the complete certainty of our own consciousness, but rather particular physical events in the brain, then it is at least logical possible that someone might think that they are conscious, and yet not be! But, as I mentioned in the preceding paragraph, this is an absurdity. So we have our refutation. In other words science is in error in its supposition that it is not consciousness in and of itself which is responsible for the complete certainty of our own consciousness.
Moreover, if it is consciousness per se which plays a direct role in our conviction of our own consciousness, then presumably consciousness also plays a direct role in many, if not all, of our beliefs and hence behaviour.
(1) I have presented the essence of my proof on various discussion boards. Not one person appears to understand it! Possibly this might have something to do with the fact that the discussion boards I participate in are predominantly peopled by philosophical materialists. Or it could just be the case that my argument is hopelessly flawed! However, I don’t think it is :-)
(2) I am aware that many people would regard “free will” as amounting to more than the notion that our consciousness is causally efficacious in its own right. But, for the sake of this discussion, I shall be using the term “free will” in this minimalist sense.
(3) When I say I cannot possibly be in error in my belief in my own consciousness I mean it is logically impossible I could be in error – I do not mean it is merely naturally impossible. In other words it is conceptually incoherent to think I am conscious when I am not. This can be contrasted with natural impossibility such as not eating any food whatsoever yet not losing weight. Clearly this is impossible. But the impossibility here is due to physical laws – that is it is a natural impossibility. It is not conceptually incoherent to suppose I could fail to lose any weight even though I do not eat food. For example it would merely require that the physical laws describing the Universe had of turned out differently. But no matter how different the Universe might have turned out to be, I still could not think I am conscious and yet not be.