Become a supporting member to watch the full conversation
Humanity is entering the Transformation Age, a new era of human civilization, with Integral Consciousness rising at its leading edge. Our members don’t use Integral Life as just another media subscription they use weekly or discard. Instead, most stay with us for years, using Integral Life to learn Integral Philosophy and build an integral mind slowly, methodically and when they need it. We’re here to help you shape the future that’s emerging no matter where your life takes you.
Get Full Access For $1 (30 days)* Or explore all membership plans → * Trial price for the first 30 days, then $20/month. Cancel or switch plans in 2 minutes at any time.In this episode of The Ken Show we explore one of the oldest and, in many ways, most profound and consequential philosophical questions in history: what is the nature of “free will”, and is it ultimately just an illusion?
It is an absolutely massive question, with implications that range from philosophy to spirituality, to psychology, art and creativity, neurobiology, evolutionary theory, morality, ethics, and all the way to the very foundations of our legal system. And it is a question that clearly requires an integral perspective in order to even begin to untangle.
The debate between free will and determinism is one that has raged in religious, philosophical, and scientific circles for millennia, and has more recently come under fire from modern thinkers like Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris (Sam’s recent appearance on the Star Talk podcast is discussed in this conversation) who tend to frame “free will” as little more than an illusion, noting that recent discoveries in neurobiology seem to indicate that our brains often know what we are going to do before our conscious mind is able to register the decision. Which seems to imply that our very notion of free will is just a phantasmal after-image produced by the chemical soup between our ears.
And yet, if you have ever painted a canvas, written a novel, named your child, or engaged in any other creatively intense process, the argument for free will seems self-evident.
So what do you think? Are you truly responsible for your own choices, or are you simply following the waves of physical, biological, and/or metaphysical determinism wherever they may take you?
Who is more right, Calvin or Hobbes?
Stay tuned in coming weeks for future installments where Ken and Corey discuss:
- the many different limitations and constraints on our will
- practices to help us cultivate and exercise our free will
- the nature of things like fate, destiny, and synchronicity
- how spiritual enlightenment influences our free will
Image: Power of Vision by De Es Schwertberger [+view gallery]
Previous Episodes of The Ken Show
Putting the “Art” in Artificial Intelligence
November 1, 2022 
The Momentous Leap to Integral Consciousness
START YOUR INTEGRAL LIFE FOR JUST $1
All content, practices, videos, and more — just $1 for the first 30 days.
Only $15/month after that.
CLICK HERE TO START YOUR INTEGRAL LIFE
The Ken Wilber Biography Series
(retail price $75)
The Integral Vision
free eBook
About Ken Wilber
Ken Wilber is a preeminent scholar of the Integral stage of human development. He is an internationally acknowledged leader, founder of Integral Institute, and co-founder of Integral Life. Ken is the originator of arguably the first truly comprehensive or integrative world philosophy, aptly named “Integral Theory”.
About Corey deVos
Corey W. deVos is Editor-in-Chief of Integral Life, as well as Managing Editor of KenWilber.com. He has worked for Integral Institute/Integal Life since Spring of 2003, and has been a student of integral theory and practice since 1996. Corey is also a professional woodworker, and many of his artworks can be found in his VisionLogix art gallery.
This was a prime discussion, very substantive, highly vibrant, and I in fact felt lit up like a rainbow. And nature seemed to have a similar response, as after the program, I went outdoors to see two gorgeous rainbows, one atop the other, the bottom one touching ground to ground, one end of its arc being near enough to my yard that I could actually see rainbow light sprawling on the ground. Stunning. Of course, I like rainbows so much that I once (unconsciously) conjured one. It was so “real” that I didn’t realize I had conjured it until I started walking to get a better view, and the rainbow walked with me! I felt silly, but trans-rationally magically powerful too.
From this discussion on free will or “the unmoved mover” (a phrase I love and which will probably show up sooner or later in one of my ‘lousy little poems,’ to paraphrase Leonard Cohen) I now understand that most likely the interiors of quarks lack intentionality; prehension only. Ken’s comments about being a “pan-interiorist” (and all that that means) were reinforced when I read a particularly long end note on the same subject matter just a day or two later in “Integral Psychology.” For anyone who wants to check that out, it’s End Note #15 for Chapter 14: The 1-2-3 of Consciousness.
And the brief comments on morphogenetic fields reminded me of reading Rupert Sheldrake years ago, an article in which he wrote that when a snowflake melts, the field is just waiting for the right kind of conditions for another snowflake to manifest in the same spot. I believe that’s what he was saying. Later, visiting my mother, sitting in her backyard looking at the iris stalks in her garden whose blooms had already passed and been cut back, and thinking about Sheldrake’s snowflake, suddenly in just a flash but definitely there, blooms appeared! I felt I was seeing the morphic field of the the iris blooms; maybe I’m wrong, maybe that’s not what a morphic field is, and maybe someone reading this will correct me.
Regardless, Reality truly is wondrous and inspirational. Thanks Ken and Corey for helping to make it so.
Frank, I am not in a position to comment on Prigogine in the context of your claim. However, I do know that Kauffman incorporates the semiotics of CS Peirce in his reasoning. Whether or not this implies a spiritual narrative… it’s not clear, but the semiotics of Peirce introduces possibilities for narrative in that direction. Given this, I suspect that your charges of misrepresentation and co-opting of concepts might perhaps be excessive. I recall that Wilber also subscribes to the thinking of Peirce… in this regard, Wilber and Kauffman share common ground, so they will share some common narrative. Cheers.
Frank, I think I know where you’re coming from.
I take it you’re referring to systems/complexity theory, in which I’ve also been involved for some time. But I’ve changed my tune in the past couple of years. The problem is entropy, with emphasis on the tendency to disorder. No, not the over-intellectualized entropy of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but the tendency to disorder as per Shannon entropy. Here is an excellent summary of the entropy issues as they related to evolution by natural selection:
You get an intuitive appreciation of the scale of the problem from this video, Inner Life of the Cell, which is a simulation of the incredibly complex goings-on inside the cell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzcTgrxMzZkMy beef with the reliance on the complexity/mathematics approach is the persistence of complexity across time. Incredible complexity is one thing. But it is the persistence of complexity across time, despite the forces of entropy arrayed against it, that is the deal-breaker. There’s something else going on, and my thinking relates to a systems application of the semiotics of CS Peirce. As does Wilber’s. And I suspect Kauffman… perhaps he’s also changed his tune on the purely complexity/mathematical approach. At Home In The Universe was published around 1995… that’s plenty of time for Kauffman to do a rethink.
Intelligent Design addresses the most relevant issues, such as irreducible complexity AND entropy. But then they go and spoil it all with their human exceptionalism. Human exceptionalism is not scientific, it entertains the god-as-skydaddy (man made in god’s image) narrative. So disappointing, as they otherwise showed considerable promise.
I think there is much more to Wilber’s thinking than he’s been letting on, at least publicly. He’s packaged his thinking for a particular popular market, but he’s demonstrated an astute awareness of more complex issues… for example, in the context of Warren Farrell’s involvement with Integral.
This is an interesting topic. But I’ve been having technical issues with my Integral membership. My membership expires today, and their glitchy system is not allowing me to renew. Until Integral support gets this sorted out, I won’t be able to post again after today.
This is a frustrating subject. It always seems like you could say “but where did the thought that presented you with options come form” or “but where diid the thought to choose a particular option come from?”. However, I would suggest that there is an activity we call making a choice, whatever the composition of that high level phenomena might be. I can say “engage in the process we call deliberation and make a choice among these options” and you’ll know what I mean and be able to do so.
I like to think of it as the phenomena of free choice vs. theories about what causes the phenomena - such as “free wIll” theories.
We might also talk about relative freedom that is agnostic about absolute freedom. We could say, we should make a choice without intentionally applying force to one another - whatever the ultimate cosmic origin of the thoughts we both have may be - and this would be intelligible to one another. Perhaps we could even make it explicit what forms of coercion are not allowed and say that the choice is free relative to those forms of coercion.
You said: Crucial in these cases, and actually, the cause of being out of equilibrium in the first place, were energy flows through matter.
What causes the energy to flow through matter?
What is the spontaneously in
_It is very convenient just to call “spontaneously” to the unkown and at that point spirit is as good an explanation as “spontaneously”