If someone committed a crime using a computer, could we hold the computer accountable? No one would think so, but perhaps that might reflect our own nature. Here is an image that seems like a mere blur. However, now, here’s a hint. The image will become clear. What exactly did the brain do? The brain’s unconscious system adjusted its perception model of the world based on the hint. This is a powerful demonstration of how the brain constructs reality rather than merely recording it. In fact, studies in cognitive neuroscience suggest that up to 95% of our daily decisions occur unconsciously (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). This means that much of what we assume to be conscious thought is actually a product of underlying automatic processes. From visual perception to moral judgment, the unconscious mind influences nearly every aspect of human behavior. Once this process occurs, there is no way to reverse it (Cherry, 2023).
The Unconscious and Our Perception
We often think of ourselves as conscious beings who have complete control over our thoughts and actions, but in reality, the role of conscious decision-making is surprisingly limited. Most of what we think, perceive, do, like, or dislike is shaped by unconscious brain mechanisms that operate beyond our awareness. This unconscious system functions like a democratic society, where neurons in different subsystems compete, presenting various interpretations of the world before selecting what seems to be the most accurate one. Based on these interpretations, our brain constructs a model of reality rather than perceiving the external world directly. The reason we rely on this intermediary model is to move beyond being biological robots that merely react to stimuli. Instead, this system allows us to test possibilities, predict future events, and respond more efficiently to changing situations. Research has shown that even in cases where people lose sensory input, their brain continues to generate perceptions based on prior experiences, demonstrating how deeply ingrained this model is (Ramachandran & Blakeslee, 1998).
Our sensory organs—eyes, nose, tongue, and others—serve merely as tools to collect data that refine and update this internal model. This explains why some patients who have lost their vision still believe they can see; their brain continues to produce visual experiences based on stored perceptions rather than real-time input. Conversely, when a person who has been blind regains sight, they often struggle to interpret visual information immediately. For example, they may not understand how a long hallway tapers toward a vanishing point because their previous tactile-based model of space consisted of parallel walls extending infinitely. When conflicting interpretations arise within the unconscious system, illusions or misperceptions can occur. A common example is the motion aftereffect, where staring at a moving object for an extended period can make a stationary one appear to move. Similarly, damage to the brain’s motion-processing region can result in a condition where a person sees objects clearly when stationary but cannot perceive them in motion. Studies on perceptual illusions and brain damage cases continue to highlight how our perception of reality is not a direct reflection of the world but rather a constructed experience shaped by unconscious processes (Eagleman, 2011).
The Role and Limits of Consciousness
“Consciousness can be seen as a CEO reading a newspaper filled with the final outcomes meticulously selected by unconscious interpreters.” This analogy captures the fundamental role of consciousness—it does not generate decisions but rather accepts and processes the final results of unconscious deliberation. For example, when observing ambiguous images like the Necker Cube, consciousness can perceive only one interpretation at a time, switching back and forth but never holding both perspectives simultaneously. This highlights a key function of consciousness: its ability to enable clear and decisive judgments in uncertain situations. Without consciousness, humans might be reduced to beings driven purely by instinct, reacting automatically to stimuli without reflection. However, consciousness is not just a passive observer; it also facilitates collaboration among unconscious subsystems by directing attention and prioritizing information. Studies on attention and working memory suggest that consciousness plays a crucial role in integrating complex information, allowing for problem-solving and long-term planning (Baars, 1997). Additionally, research on split-brain patients—individuals whose brain hemispheres have been surgically separated—demonstrates that different regions of the brain can operate independently, reinforcing the idea that consciousness is not a singular, unified entity but rather a collection of processes working together (Gazzaniga, 2011).
As scientific understanding advances, discussions surrounding free will continue to evolve. Findings from physics and neuroscience increasingly suggest that free will, at least in the traditional sense, may be an illusion. The famous Libet experiment, for instance, revealed that unconscious neural activity precedes conscious decision-making by several hundred milliseconds, indicating that what we perceive as a “conscious choice” is actually the final stage of a pre-determined process. This challenges the notion that humans have full autonomy over their actions. Moreover, additional studies using brain imaging techniques have demonstrated that even complex decisions can be predicted several seconds before an individual becomes aware of making a choice (Soon et al., 2008). These findings suggest that consciousness is not the originator of our actions but rather a mechanism that narrates and rationalizes decisions after they have already been made. If true, this raises profound ethical and philosophical questions about personal responsibility, moral judgment, and the nature of human agency (Osman, 2021).
Free Will and the Limits of Human Behavior
Consciousness may simply be another tool for problem-solving rather than the true originator of our choices. For free will to exist, there must be something beyond the deterministic causal relationships governing the brain’s physical processes. This idea, sometimes referred to as “non-causal” free will, suggests that human decisions should not be entirely dictated by prior states of the brain or external influences. However, if our thoughts and actions emerge from the brain’s material structure, what kind of decision-making could exist that is truly independent of these factors? Some researchers argue that quantum mechanics, with its probabilistic nature, might offer a foundation for free will. The idea is that, unlike classical determinism, quantum events introduce randomness into the system. But even in a quantum-mechanical brain, it is ultimately the probabilities of quantum processes that determine the outcome, rather than a consciously willed decision. Neuroscientist Christof Koch suggests that while quantum mechanics may introduce unpredictability, it does not necessarily translate to meaningful, volitional control over one’s actions (Koch, 2012). Furthermore, research on brain lesions and neurological disorders has shown that when certain areas of the brain are damaged, individuals exhibit drastic changes in personality and behavior, indicating that our choices are tightly linked to brain function rather than an abstract concept of free will (Damasio, 1994).
If free will is an illusion, it raises critical ethical and philosophical questions regarding responsibility and morality. Many of the decisions we believe to be personal choices—such as our taste in music, food preferences, cognitive abilities, and even personality traits—are largely shaped by unconscious processes and biological factors. Studies on genetic influences suggest that traits like impulsivity, aggression, and even political preferences have significant heritable components, further diminishing the idea of an entirely autonomous self (Ebstein et al., 1996). Moreover, changes to the unconscious system can dramatically reshape one’s actions and sense of self. There have been documented cases where individuals developed aggressive or criminal behaviors following brain tumors or injuries, highlighting the extent to which neurological conditions can override what is perceived as conscious decision-making. One well-known case is that of Charles Whitman, who exhibited uncharacteristic violent tendencies due to a brain tumor pressing against his amygdala, a region involved in emotional regulation (Swaab, 2014). If our actions are dictated by neural mechanisms beyond our control, does it make sense to hold people morally accountable for their choices? And if legal systems are based on the assumption of free will, should they be reevaluated in light of modern neuroscience? These questions challenge fundamental beliefs about justice, ethics, and human agency, suggesting that the concept of moral responsibility may need to evolve alongside our understanding of the brain (Susie, 2020).
Conclusion
Neuroscientist David Eagleman argues that free will never existed rather than simply ceasing to exist upon discovery. Yet, the justice system still operates as if people are fully responsible for their actions. He suggests shifting its focus from moral responsibility to public safety and offender management. Research shows that brain abnormalities, such as dysfunctions in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, can lead to impulsivity and antisocial behavior (Blair, 2008). Neuroscientist Wolf Singer supports this, stating that committing a crime may itself indicate brain dysfunction. Studies on psychopathy reveal structural and functional brain differences that affect decision-making and emotional regulation (Kiehl, 2014).
This raises ethical concerns. Should sentences be based on the likelihood of reoffending rather than the crime itself? Brain diagnostics and statistical models could predict recidivism, but this concept risks resembling dystopian scenarios like Minority Report. Eagleman suggests prioritizing rehabilitation for reformable individuals and isolating those unlikely to change. This shifts justice away from punishment toward prevention. However, can neuroscience accurately predict behavior? Should a person receive a longer sentence due to brain structure? In Incognito, Eagleman argues that the brain is not a single entity but a collection of competing unconscious systems. Our identity is fluid, shaped by shifting neural processes and external influences (Osman, 2021). As neuroscience advances, society must reconsider justice through a scientific lens.
well-known case is that of Charles Whitman, who exhibited uncharacteristic violent tendencies due to a brain tumor pressing against his amygdala, a region involved in emotional regulation (Swaab, 2014). If our actions are dictated by neural mechanisms beyond our control, does it make sense to hold people morally accountable for their choices? And if legal systems are based on the assumption of free will, should they be reevaluated in light of modern neuroscience? These questions challenge fundamental beliefs about justice, ethics, and human agency, suggesting that the concept of moral responsibility may need to evolve alongside our understanding of the brain (Susie, 2020).
Conclusion
Neuroscientist David Eagleman argues that free will never existed rather than simply ceasing to exist upon discovery. Yet, the justice system still operates as if people are fully responsible for their actions. He suggests shifting its focus from moral responsibility to public safety and offender management. Research shows that brain abnormalities, such as dysfunctions in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, can lead to impulsivity and antisocial behavior (Blair, 2008). Neuroscientist Wolf Singer supports this, stating that committing a crime may itself indicate brain dysfunction. Studies on psychopathy reveal structural and functional brain differences that affect decision-making and emotional regulation (Kiehl, 2014).
This raises ethical concerns. Should sentences be based on the likelihood of reoffending rather than the crime itself? Brain diagnostics and statistical models could predict recidivism, but this concept risks resembling dystopian scenarios like Minority Report. Eagleman suggests prioritizing rehabilitation for reformable individuals and isolating those unlikely to change. This shifts justice away from punishment toward prevention. However, can neuroscience accurately predict behavior? Should a person receive a longer sentence due to brain structure? In Incognito, Eagleman argues that the brain is not a single entity but a collection of competing unconscious systems. Our identity is fluid, shaped by shifting neural processes and external influences (Osman, 2021). As neuroscience advances, society must reconsider justice through a scientific lens.
Reference
Cherry, K., 2023. What Is the Unconscious? [online] Verywell Mind. Available at: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-unconscious-2796004 [Accessed 01 February 2025].
Osman, M., 2021. How Unconscious Forces Control Our Actions. [online] www.bbc.com. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210527-how-unconscious-forces-control-our-actions [Accessed 01 February 2025].
Susie, A., 2020. Making the unconscious, conscious. [online] Human eSources. Available at: https://www.humanesources.com/making-the-unconscious-conscious/ [Accessed 25 January 2025].
