This blog post explores philosophical questions about human will and destiny, focusing on whether Neo’s choice in The Matrix was true free will or part of a pre-designed future.
In The Matrix, machines rebel and wage war against humans. Humans block the sky to cut off solar energy, which powered their computers. In response, the machines choose humans as their new power source. They imprison humans in a virtual world, preventing them from perceiving reality, and sustain their existence by using human bio-energy as fuel. Thus, humans unconsciously live lives where they become the machines’ power source. This setting can be read as a warning about technological advancement and carries a symbolic message denouncing the harms of virtual reality.
The Matrix’s protagonist, Anderson, initially lives unaware of reality as an ordinary employee at a software company. However, through illegal hacking activities, he meets figures like Morpheus and gradually awakens to reality. The story then unfolds as Anderson learns he is destined to become humanity’s savior, following his journey toward this goal. Throughout this process, the film poses philosophical questions about human identity and true reality. It particularly reflects on the boundary between free will and determinism through fundamental questions like “What is real?” and “Are humans truly free beings?”
The film features a mysterious old woman called the Oracle. True to her name, meaning prophet, the Oracle is a program that manages the Matrix, a virtual reality program, and knows in advance how the virtual reality will unfold. This is because, no matter how real it appears, it is ultimately a virtual world composed of computer code. Even before the Oracle, who knows everything, Anderson, chosen as humanity’s savior, appears to make his own choices and determine the future through his own will. This raises an intriguing question: Did Anderson choose based on true free will, or was he naturally guided by the Oracle toward a future where he saves humanity? This doubt leads us to the question of whether humans can truly choose their own future—that is, whether free will exists.
The debate over free will has long been a central theme for philosophers and scientists. With the advancement of modern neuroscience, the idea that human behavior can be explained by deterministic theories has gained widespread traction, and this belief is even influencing society. Amid this crisis facing the concept of free will, psychology and neuroscience have conducted various studies to understand what free will actually is. Indeed, many theoretical definitions have been attempted. Simply put, if a person acts consciously and attributes the cause of that action to their own will, it can be considered an act of free will. The term ‘conscious’ is crucial here because the action must not be an unconscious reaction. For example, the reflexive closing of one’s eyes when wind blows into them is clearly not an act of free will.
Research on free will is closely linked not only to scientific approaches but also to psychological effects. If free will is understood excessively within a scientific framework, a deterministic worldview is likely to dominate. This can induce human helplessness, and such helplessness can influence how one responds to problematic situations. If the apathy stemming from this understanding of free will spreads throughout society, it could lead to passive responses even in politically unstable situations. Indeed, symptoms of social apathy have been observed in people experiencing a sense of powerlessness amid persistent social and political unrest, demonstrating that its destructive power is by no means small.
Furthermore, some studies have observed an increase in immoral behavior when subjects were made to believe that human free will is negated from a neuroscientific perspective. These results demonstrate that belief in free will significantly influences human behavior, extending beyond mere expansion of scientific knowledge. While we must avoid overinterpretation, these studies suggest that excessive human understanding of our own actions and thought processes could potentially harm humanity. Consequently, some advocate halting research on knowledge that could compromise human dignity, akin to the controversy surrounding human cloning in life sciences.
However, I believe that the more accurately we understand free will, the greater the long-term benefit to humanity. I acknowledge that scientific understanding of free will, linked to a deterministic worldview, could cause short-term feelings of helplessness. Yet, uncovering theories about free will does not mean all human futures are predetermined. For example, even if someone tries to predict their own actions, they can consciously modify that prediction. This is because the prediction itself influences the choice, much like anticipating that someone will throw a fist and then throwing a paper instead in rock-paper-scissors. This circular nature makes it difficult to place absolute trust in deterministic theories.
Ultimately, understanding free will will serve as a foundation for humans to better understand themselves and develop adaptive self-regulation skills, rather than simply leading to helplessness. Conversely, some point out that public misunderstandings about science persist. For instance, just as the concept of ‘uncertainty’ in quantum mechanics has been overly mystified for the public, leading to misconceptions, scientific research on free will also carries significant potential for misunderstanding.
Nevertheless, in the long term, misunderstandings are bound to be resolved, and we should not abandon fundamental knowledge about humanity due to temporary social instability. People during Newton’s time did not understand the motion of objects, but today, anyone with a basic education understands the laws of motion. Similarly, understanding free will will one day make a significant contribution to human progress.
As science encroaches on the traditional domain of the humanities, psychology and neuroscience have begun to scientifically explain the abstract concept of human will, and free will is losing its mystique. However, if we understand that a scientific explanation of free will does not negate individual choice, this will instead lead to progress in our understanding of humanity.
