Is There Free Will? Finally an Answer (Alfred Barrios)

Is There Free Will? Finally an Answer

Alfred A. Barrios, PhD

Copyright © Alfred Barrios.  Reproduced by kind permission of the author.

Compass[The original version of the article is available from Dr. Barrios’ Self-Programmed Control Center (SPCC) website and from The Great Debate website.  See also the NCH article on Dr. Barrios’ theory of hypnosis and this article on Pavlov and hypnosis.]

The question of whether man does or does not have free will has been debated down through the centuries by some of the greatest minds but has never been fully answered. There are those, call them idealists, who say that of course we have free will; we can control our own destiny; we can choose between misery and happiness. Then there are the realists who point to all the miserable people in the world and ask did all these people freely choose to be miserable?

Do we really have free will? Do we really have control over our own destiny? Can we change our behaviors at will if we see that they are detrimental to us? Or is everything set in stone, pre-determined? In order to finally answer this question, we must first properly define our terms. Although there are currently many definitions of free will, I believe the most correct one is: Free will is the ability to control our automatic side, our subconscious behavior, by means of the power of sufficiently concentrated thought. And by concentrated thought I mean the ability to block the interference from any negative automatic behavior or thought that would tend to contradict the action or change we wish to empower.

If you stop to think about it, most people’s behavior is of an automatic nature: habits, attitudes and beliefs that have been so deeply programmed in over the years as to be so automatic that they are very hard to change. In this sense then you could say that many people are automatons, governed and slaves to this automatic (subconscious) behavior. [The “subconscious” is to be differentiated from the “unconscious” here. I define the subconscious as behavior that has been so deeply programmed as to occur automatically, below conscious awareness and often beyond conscious control. The unconscious can be defined as engrams or memories beyond immediate conscious recall.]

So from this definition of free will we can see that the answer to the question of whether there is free will or not is that all humans have the POTENTIAL for free will because all humans have the potential to enter this state of concentrated thought and thus have the potential to re-program themselves at will (an ability that differentiates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom). But not everyone has learned how to do this. Consequently, people differ from one another in the amount of free will they have.

However, there is a way of achieving this state of sufficiently concentrated thought and that is by developing a heightened state of belief in the outcome or change you are trying to program in; for I define belief as concentration on a thought to the exclusion of anything that would contradict that thought. Or another way of putting it: a state of heightened belief includes a strong inhibitory set which can suppress the existing negative program you are trying to replace sufficiently so as to keep it from interfering with the re-programming you are attempting.

This is why hypnosis is such a powerful tool for facilitating change since I define hypnosis (as did B.F. Skinner) as a heightened state of belief. This is strongly supported by the evidence showing that hypnotherapy is the most effective form of psychotherapy. I refer the reader to the review of the literature I presented in my article “Hypnotherapy: A Reappraisal” (Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1970). It was found that the average success rate for hypnotherapy was 93% after an average of 6 sessions; this compared to 72% after an average of 22 sessions for behavior therapy, and 38% after an average of 600 sessions for psychoanalysis.

This is also one of the reasons why religion is so deeply entrenched in the hearts of many since religion offers another way to a heightened state of belief. It also explains why the placebo effect in medicine (both standard and alternative) and psychotherapy plays such a big role in facilitating positive changes in humans since the placebo is based on the power of belief.

Those among you who are adherents of determinism need not feel that this approach to free will contradicts your beliefs – if you define determinism in terms of the lawfulness of nature instead of the opposite of free will as some mistakenly do. What is the opposite of free will is fatalism. If you believe that your life i pre-ordained or pre-destined and that you cannot change it from that, then you are a fatalist and do not believe in free will.

We should also clearly differentiate between the terms “heightened belief” and “beliefs”. When I refer to the power of heightened belief, I am referring to the power of concentrated (unhindered) thought. When I refer to the term “beliefs”, I mean specific attitudes, ideas, ways of seeing things a person might have.

I also feel it is important to differentiate between the concepts of faith and belief. Faith I define as a form of guided or directed belief. And I like to point out that belief alone is often not enough for positive change. If it is directed in a negative direction, it can be harmful and dangerous.

Finally, with regards to how thoughts can directly affect human reactions I refer you to Pavlov’s writings on the power of speech (as well as inner speech which is how Pavlovians refer to thoughts) to affect humans:

Obviously for man speech provides conditioned stimuli which are just as real as any other stimuli… Speech, on account of the whole preceding life of the adult, is connected up with all the internal and external stimuli which can reach the cortex, signaling all of them and replacing all of them, and therefore it can call forth all those reactions of the organism which are normally determined by the actual stimuli themselves.

All articles and quotes referred to above can be found in the “Dr. Barrios Articles” section of my website, including my theory of hypnosis. See especially my articles: “Science in Support of Religion: From the Perspective of a Behavioral Scientist” and “Hypnotherapy: A Reappraisal”.

Copyright © Alfred Barrios. Reproduced by kind permission of the author.

[The original version of the article is available from Dr. Barrios’ Self-Programmed Control Center (SPCC) website and from The Great Debate website.]

About the author

  1. Donald Robertson

    Dr. Barrios’ kindly gave his permission for us to reproduce his article on freewill. This is a thorny philosophical question, made more difficult by the ambiguity of the word “freedom”, which can refer either to freedom from obstacles to action or freedom from antecedent causal factors. In my book The Philosophy of CBT, I wrote at length about the Stoic concept of freedom in relation to modern psychotherapy, particularly the writings of Paul Dubois and Albert Ellis’ REBT. There I emphasised the value of a deterministic outlook for mitigating guilt or anger and cultivating empathy, a notion already forwarded by Joseph Wolpe, one of the founders of behaviour therapy.

    Dr. Barrios here refers to freedom in the sense of behavioural self-regulation, or self-control and autonomy. The freedom of the individual to modify and regulate their own behaviour (thoughts, feelings, and actions) in response to their environment is a central assumption of behaviour therapy, and other psychological therapies. This self-control may even be enhanced and extended by means such as self-hypnosis and autosuggestion training of the kind described elsewhere by Dr. Barrios.

    Hypnosis is defined here as a state of concentrated or heightened belief, which I think is consistent with James Braid’s original definition of hypnotism as focused attention (“mental abstraction”) concentrated upon a “dominant, expectant idea”. Dr. Barrios, elsewhere, in his own Pavlovian-inspired theory of hypnosis has emphasised the cortical inhibition and high-level conditioning processes involved in hypnotic induction and suggestion.

    Questions that might arise from this model include the potential role of “classical extinction” in relation to suggestion, i.e., whether the effect of negative suggestions (or autosuggestions) may be extinguished for therapeutic purposes through repeated exposure to them, according to conditioning principles. In the CBT treatment of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD), by comparison, repeated exposure to distressing automatic thoughts or worry is sometimes employed as a means of extinguishing anxiety responses to them. Further, in Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Skinner talked briefly about the Socratic method in psychotherapy and the effect of clients being encouraged to view insights and changes, controlled indirectly by the therapist’s questioning, as the result of their own efforts. The process of teaching clients self-hypnosis, rather than directly hypnotising them (“hetero-hypnosis”), in a similar manner to Socratic questioning, shifts the perceived attribution for changes on to the actions of the client, who assumes more responsibility for the therapeutic process, although it is still the therapist who guides those actions through questions and instructions. One benefit of adopting a “self-hypnosis” orientation is that it increases client autonomy and may improve the longer-term maintainance of improvement and help prevent relapse. By contrast, the client who attributes their improvement solely to the actions of a hypnotist, rather than their own use of self-hypnosis skills, potentially becomes more dependant upon returning to the same source for further assistance when setbacks and obstacles are encountered in the future. For this reason many modern hypnotherapists, influenced by behavioural psychology and cognitive therapy, place greater emphasis on training clients in the use of self-hypnosis as a coping skill for use after treatment has been completed. Braid always argued, in contrast to the Mesmerists, that all hypnotism was essentially self-hypnotism, and he provides the first documented account of the use of self-hypnotism proper, which he employed to cope with his own rheumatic pain. Braid likewise taught his patients to hypnotise themselves without his continued presence being necessary.

    Since the dawn of European civilisation, great thinkers have worked to develop systematic models of personal empowerment and self-control, which the Greek philosophers called the virtue of “sophrosyne” or self-mastery. Like Barrios, the Stoics, who represent the closest approximation to modern psychotherapy, saw heightened belief as integral to self-mastery and developed a psychological system based upon modelling the wise (especially Socrates), formulating verbally their strengths as “dogmata” or precepts (such as “know thyself” or “endure and renounce”), and rehearsing contemplation of them until they became “ready-at-hand” and psychologically integrated into the personality and behaviour of the novice philosopher. I consider this to constitute an important precursor of modern self-hypnosis, and other psychological therapies. Pavlovian theory provides one possible framework for understanding the neurological and physiological basis of these self-control strategies, as described by Dr. Barrios.

Comments are closed.