George Ortega,

Nick Vale

Chandler Klebs


Creating a world without blame and guilt

The world's first, and already successful*  initiative, including two TV shows, to popularize the refutation of free will 

*How it happened 

Our World's top four minds, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein each rejected the notion of a human free will.

John Searle, the13th ranked post-1900 philosopher, says that our world overcoming the free will illusion "would be a bigger revolution in our thinking than Einstein, or Copernicus, or Newton, or Galileo, or Darwin -- it would alter our whole conception of our relation with the universe." 

The Washington Post, The New York Times, Psychology Today, Los Angeles Times, The Huffington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, USA Today, The Telegraph, Time Magazine, Scientific American, NPR Radio, The Economist, and Science Magazine  all affirm that free will is an illusion.



Exploring the Illusion of Free Will is two TV shows - WHITE PLAINS NY TV and NYC LIVE CALL-IN TV,  several books - Mine and  Enel's,  and Chandler's one meetup - NYC, this website, Internet video and audio -  YOU TUBE  iTUNES AUDIO PODCAST  PUBLIC DOMAIN VIDEOS & MP3s, and a blog - EXOGENOUS AGENCY

Quick Links to the YouTube Episodes: 01-10  11-20  21-30  31-40  41-50  51-60  61-70  71-80  81-90 91-100  101-110  111-120  121-130  131-140  141-150  151-160  161-170  171-180  181-190  191-200  201-210  211-216

Quick Links to the 2013 Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, 2nd Edition Chapters: ( by titleIntro. to 2011 edition  Intro. to 2013 digital edition 1  (2 omitted)  3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   Epilogue  Books Refuting Free Will...


Home    Contact

 iTunes Audio Podcast
 Public Domain Video at Internet Archive
RSS  Mp3 Audio at Internet Archive

Episodes on YouTube
Full YOU TUBE Collection

Site Features

Free Will Refutations in Major Publications


Free Will Refuted in the Blogs


Free Will Refuted on YouTube


Recent books for the public and academia refuting free will


Edited and Revised Transcripts of the First Eighteen Episodes


Quotes Disaffirming Free Will and Affirming Determinism by the Famous


Absurd Free Will Defenses by Major Institutions and Publications Who Should Know Better


Claiming credit for public awareness that free will is an illusion


More Featured Episodes

10. Why Change as the basic Universal Process Makes Free Will Impossible

13. Overcoming Blame, Guilt, Envy and Arrogance by Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will

16. Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will as an Evolutionary Leap in Human Consciousness

17. Revitalizing Religion through Transcending the Illusion of Free Will

26. Because Essential Elements of Every Decision are Stored in Our Unconscious, Free Will is Impossible.

38. The Messenger and I Have Evolved Human Consciousness

50. Freud Popularized the Unconscious.  Ortega is Popularizing Unconscious Will

60. Ten Ways to Refute Free Will


Landmark Coverage Refuting Free Will


USA Today - "Why you don't really have free will by Jerry Coyne January 1, 2012

"The debate about free will, long the purview of philosophers alone, has been given new life by scientists, especially neuroscientists studying how the brain works. And what they're finding supports the idea that free will is a complete illusion."

Time Magazine - "Think You're Operating on Free Will? Think Again" by Eben Harrell July 2, 2010

"In an intriguing review in the July 2 edition of the journal Science, published online Thursday, Ruud Custers and Henk Aarts of Utrecht University in the Netherlands lay out the mounting evidence of the power of what they term the 'unconscious will.'...John Bargh of Yale University, who 10 years ago predicted many of the findings discussed by Custers and Aarts in a paper entitled "The Unbearable Automaticity of Being," called the Science paper a "landmark — nothing like this has been in Science before."

The New York Times - "Your Move: The Maze of Free Will" by Galen Strawson July 22, 2010

"Some people think that quantum mechanics shows that determinism is false, and so holds out a hope that we can be ultimately responsible for what we do. But even if quantum mechanics had shown that determinism is false (it hasn’t), the question would remain: how can indeterminism, objective randomness, help in any way whatever to make you responsible for your actions? The answer to this question is easy. It can’t."

The Atlantic - "The Brain on Trial" by David Eagleman July/August 2011

"In modern science, it is difficult to find the gap into which to slip free will—the uncaused causer—because there seems to be no part of the machinery that does not follow in a causal relationship from the other parts."

The Telegraph - "Neuroscience, free will and determinism: 'I'm just a machine'" by Tom Chivers October 12, 2010

"The philosophical definition of free will uses the phrase 'could have done otherwise'... "As a neuroscientist, you've got to be a determinist. There are physical laws, which the electrical and chemical events in the brain obey. Under identical circumstances, you couldn't have done otherwise; there's no 'I' which can say 'I want to do otherwise'."

The Guardian - "Guilty but not responsible?" by Rosiland English May 29, 2012

"The discovery that humans possess a determined will has profound implications for moral responsibility. Indeed, Harris is even critical of the idea that free will is "intuitive": he says careful introspection can cast doubt on free will. In an earlier book on morality, Harris argues 'Thoughts simply arise in the brain. What else could they do? The truth about us is even stranger than we may suppose: The illusion of free will is itself an illusion'"

Psychology Today - "Free Will Is an Illusion, So What?" by

If you think carefully about any decision you have made in the past, you will recognize that all of them were ultimately based on similar—genetic or social—inputs to which you had been exposed. And you will also discover that you had no control over these inputs, which means that you had no free will in taking the decisions you did.

Complete List


A brief history of determined vs. free will ideas

Cause and Effect – At about the 5th century BC, in his work On the Mind, the Greek Philosopher Leucippus penned the earliest known universal statement describing what we today understand as determinism, or the law of cause and effect

“Nothing happens at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity.”

Human Will – The concepts of will and free will are actually Christian in orgin. It was Saint Paul in his Letter to the Romans, which is dated at about 58 A.D., who first discovered this thing we call human will. He came to it by recognizing that he could not often do as much right as he wanted. Saint Paul wrote in Romans 7:15 that:

“I don’t understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can’t.” I do what I don’t want to – what I hate.” (Translation – The Living Bible)

Free Will -- Nothing new was said on the matter for the next few hundred years until St. Augustine grappled with the concepts of evil and justice. Saint Augustine wrote in his book De Libero Arbitrio, 386-395 A.D., (translated as “On Free Will”)

“Evil deeds are punished by the justice of God. They would not be punished justly if they had not been performed voluntarily.”

The problem he saw was that if human beings do not have a free will, it would be unfair for God to arbitrarily reward or punish us. St. Augustine concluded that God could not be unfair, and so he created the concept of a human free will, whereby we earn our reward or punishment by what we freely do.

Scientific concepts relating to the determined will vs. free will question

Classical Mechanics -- In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton publishes his “Laws of Motions” that mathematically describes the physical universe as acting in a mechanistic manner according to the principle of cause and effect.

Classical Mechanics is a completely deterministic theory

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- In 1925 Warner Heisenberg describes mathematically that…

We can measure the position of a particle or the momentum of a particle (momentum meaning its direction and velocity), but we cannot simultaneously measure the position and momentum of a particle.

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics -- Niels Bohr and others make the following assertions;

1) Particles do not have a simultaneous position and momentum.

2) Elementary particles behave indeterministically, and are not subject to the principle of cause and effect.

Believers in free will saw the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as providing a possibility for free will to exist. They asserted that if elementary particles behave indeterministically, they are not subject to the principle of cause and effect that prohibits free will.

But, as noted above, it eventually became apparent that indeterminism also prohibits free will.


Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, 2nd Edition Chapters

Intro. to the 2011 1st. edition 

Intro. to the 2013 2nd. edition (digital version)

1 How I came to see my causal will

2 Proving causal will in real time (omitted)

3 Morality within a causal will perspective

4 What it all means

5 We Do Not "Experience" Free Will

6 How the Hedonic Imperative Makes Free Will Impossible

7 How the Unsolicited Participation of the Unconscious Makes Free Will Impossible

8 Asking When a Child Gains it Illuminates the Incoherence of the Concept "Free Will"

9 Overcoming our Reluctance to Overcome the Illusion of Free Will

10 Why Change as the Basic Universal Process Makes Free Will Impossible

11 The Absurdity of Varying Degrees of Free Will

12 Why the Concept of Free Will is Incoherent

13 Overcoming Blame, Guilt, Envy and Arrogance by Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will

14 Why Both Causality and Randomness Make Free Will Impossible

15 Why Frankfurt's “Second Order Desires” Do Not Allow for a Free Will

16 Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will as an Evolutionary Leap in Human Consciousness

17 Revitalizing Religion through Transcending the Illusion of Free Will

18 Why Humans Cannot Circumvent Natural Law to Gain a Free Wil

Epilogue: How Refuting Free Will Went From  Academia to the Public Spotlight – with hyperlinked  articles in major publications – 2004-2012

Books Refuting Free Will and  Fundamental Moral Responsibility


YouTube Collection

Site Map


Chapters of the 2013 Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, Second Edition


Chapter 13.  Overcoming Blame, Guilt, Envy and Arrogance by Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will

When we believe we have a free will, we hold each other and ourselves accountable. To the extent that we can overcome this illusion, we will not blame each other, feel the pain of guilt, and envy others. When we do good, we won’t feel arrogant; we’ll feel grateful. That’s on a personal level. Consider how overcoming the free will illusion would affect how we treat each other as countries, and groups of people. This illusion of free will has profound and global consequences, which is why it is important that we take steps to re-construct our society in a way that will adhere to the reality of our causal and unconscious human wills, and thereby help us in many ways. When we say we have a free will, basically what we’re saying is that what we do – what we decide, think, feel – is completely up to us without anything that is not in our control compelling us to do what we do. For example, let’s say we claim that our feelings are completely up to us. If free will means that we can freely choose to feel what we want – then who among us would choose to feel negative feelings? Who among us would choose to feel anything but blissful every hour of every day? If having a free will means that we could make our moral decisions completely up to us – that we could be as good as we would want to be – who among us wouldn’t be a perfect angel? Who wouldn’t be good, and do good, all of the time, especially toward the people in our lives?

Considering those questions is a very good way to understand why we obviously do not have a free will. Free will is an illusion. It’s something that we’ve actually been predetermined to believe. It hasn’t been up to us that we believe this. Nature had us hold the illusion that the world is flat. We held that illusion for a long time, and now we know we’re living on an orb. But this free will illusion is much more important. We can conduct our every day affairs very well, regardless of whether or not we believe the world is flat. The belief in free will affects us much more profoundly. Under this illusion of free will, we hold ourselves accountable. When we or other people do what is wrong, we blame, and indict, and prosecute, and condemn, and punish ourselves, and each other. When we do good, we take pride. But pride often leads to arrogance, and comparisons. “Because I did this, I’m better than you,” we boast. We look down on others, and that’s not good for our personal relations. When other people do good, we sometimes envy them. We don’t realize that what we’re envying them about wasn’t really up to them. They were lucky, in a certain sense. That is simply the way nature compelled them to be.

Let’s examine these matters one by one, and the actual harm that the illusion of free will causes every day at both personal and societal levels. Somebody does something wrong. The belief in free will leads us to blame them. It leads us to say that they, of their own free will, did some wrong toward us. With the illusion of free will, if we are ascribing complete accountability to that other person, and we’re blaming them, we very likely see them as our adversary. We’re in competition with them. We may seek vengeance and retribution. We may seek to punish them because they did wrong. That’s what happens when we ascribe free will to others. So, what happens when we understand that the other person who did whatever they did toward us had absolutely no choice in the matter? They were completely compelled in what they did. It wasn’t up to them. To the extent that we can understand that, we become more compassionate. Let’s say, for example, that someone takes another person’s hand, and pushes it so that the hand knocks into you. Are you going to blame the person whose hand someone else took and knocked into you, or are you going to blame the person who took the other person’s hand and knocked it into you? Naturally, it’s the latter. When you understand that nobody has a free will, and that free will is, and always will be, an illusion, if you become angry, you’re not going to become angry with that person. You won’t wish to punish that person, or seek vengeance. You may become angry with the universe, or God, but you’re not going to be angry with that person. When you don’t become angry, and don’t blame that person, you suddenly find that they and you are on the same side of the equation. If both the other person and you realize that neither of you have a free will, you might then ask yourselves “why would fate, or God, or the universe, or the causal past, do this?”

What happens is that your relationship with the other person is preserved. You and they are no longer adversaries. You’re on the same side, trying to figure everything out. I’m not saying that understanding that we don’t have a free will will lead to everyone being open to aggression by others. For example, if someone aggresses toward us in a certain way, we may have to take certain measures, like separating ourselves from them, or whatever. But we would do this with understanding. It’s a completely different experience to hold someone responsible for something, and address the situation from that perspective, than to understand that both they and you are victims of this fate. Another way to understand this is by considering a young child. When a young child does something wrong, we don’t ascribe free will to them. They just don’t know any better. They’re obviously doing the best they can. So, what happens? We treat that young child with compassion, and kindness, and caring. If we take that same understanding that we naturally ascribe to young children, because we don’t believe they have a free will, and we apply it toward each other, that becomes the more intelligent and compassionate way of addressing the matter. From a religious perspective, it makes forgiveness far easier because, in the final analysis, there is nothing to forgive. If the person really wasn’t to blame, we might want to “forgive” them, but the understanding that they are not blameworthy truly means there is nothing to forgive. We now understand how coming to the understanding that free will is an illusion can help us to not blame each other, and help prevent the kind of conflict that blame causes.

Let’s consider guilt. When we do wrong, we tend to blame ourselves. When we blame ourselves, we sometimes unconsciously punish ourselves in some way or another. That’s the free will perspective. What happens when we understand that free will is an illusion? We do something wrong. Like in the first case, we come to realize that it was wrong. Our conscience can recognize that we may have transgressed against someone else, or against ourselves, and make that determination without our punishing ourselves. In other words, we can say to ourselves, “Fine, I realize that I did wrong, but it wasn’t my fault. I remain innocent.” That, of course, doesn’t mean we’re going to continue to do that wrong, because once we understand that we’ve done something wrong, it’s good, and right, and in our best interest, to correct ourselves. We don’t have to punish ourselves. It would, in fact, be wrong to punish ourselves for what we could not help but do. Let’s go to envy. Let’s imagine you’re watching someone do something, and you say to yourselves, “wow. I wish I could do that.” With our free will perspective, we conclude that they did what they did of their own free will, and we just can’t compare. That person is just much better at this. What does that lead to? It leads to feelings of lower self-esteem. It leads to our devaluing ourselves. Self-esteem is one of the four personality traits that correlate most strongly with happiness. To the extent that we diminish our self-esteem, we likely diminish our general well-being and happiness. What’s the alternative? When someone has done something wonderful – a great discovery, or an amazing athletic performance – and we don’t ascribe a free will to that person, we’re much less likely to envy them. We might say to ourselves “I wish that fate, or nature, or God, had given me those kinds of qualities,” but we wouldn’t compare ourselves with the person in the sense of ascribing those qualities to the person’s free will, and holding ourselves in lower regard as a result. It wouldn’t make sense.

As we understand that we don’t have a free will, we also prevent arrogance. It’s good to feel good about doing something well, even when we know that it was not truly up to us. For example, when many sports stars are interviewed, they talk about how they were lucky in certain ways. They thank God, whom they consider to have worked through them. They are very humble in that way. But when many of us do something great, we think to ourselves “wow, I’m special! I did this of my own free will. I deserve the credit and rewards.” The problem with that kind of attribution is that it naturally leads to our comparing ourselves with others. “I’m better than that person.” “I deserve more than that other person.” To the extent that we do that, we get disconnected from each other. This arrogance separates people. When we understand that free will is an illusion, we understand that if we do something of value, we can feel grateful that fate is using us as an instrument for this act. But, there would be no logical reason for any kind of pride or arrogance. It is not “we” who are doing these things. We’re a vehicle, or instrument, of God, or fate. We recognize that we don’t have a free will, and although we did something great, we recognize that it’s really fate’s doing. Through this understanding, we remain humble. Our interactions with others remain on a more equal footing. We don’t sense ourselves as any better than others, and that helps keep us closer together.

Because there is cause and effect, and because we have an unconscious, and because if we had a free will, we would be completely happy and completely moral, we don’t have a free will. Then who, or what, are we to hold accountable and responsible? There’s an irony in this. Within the Judeo-Christian tradition, when something good happens, or we do something good, the proper response is appreciation and gratitude. “Thank God.” “Thank Goodness.” We say to ourselves that this good could not have been done without God. When we do good, we understand that, but when we do what’s not so good, all of the sudden it’s not God’s or fate’s fault. These religious traditions teach us that when we do bad, it’s our fault. That is the harm of the belief in free will. What’s the reality? When something good happens, it is the result of God, or fate, or the causal past, or the universe. When something not so good happens, again, it’s the result of God, or fate, or the causal past, or the universe. The remaining question is whether or not God, or the universe, has a free will? Personally, I hope that God or the universe is as completely compelled in what s/he does as we human beings are. Before I get into why I hope that, let’s get a bit into the idea of God.

I was raised in the Judeo-Christian religion, and I believe in God. I like the belief in God. However, some teachings certainly don’t make sense. Let’s say our belief is that God is all-good. We could then ask ourselves whether or not God can decide whether or not to be good. If s/he is all-good, it would seem that s/he would have to be all-good. S/he therefore can’t have a free will. Or, ask yourself whether God, if s/he so decided, could suddenly cease existing? Can God say “I don’t want to be God anymore. I’m outta here,” and then everything just disappears? I don’t think so. If God is compelled to be good, and if God is compelled to be God, then maybe God doesn’t have a free will either. This question may be beyond our reasoning ability, at least for the time being. But if God, or the universe, doesn’t have a free will that would be good because there are some things in this world that are really bad, like the way we treat farm animals. You would not believe it. We basically torture them. To the extent that we don’t have a free will, we don’t have to blame ourselves for this atrocity, but I would hope that through compassion we would come to their rescue. Although we don’t have a free will, it seems that God, or nature, tends to reward us when we do good, and punish us when we don’t. Therefore, it would be wise for us to stop torturing those animals, along with lab animals and animals raised in pet mills. If God, or nature, doesn’t have a free will either, then we cannot justly blame God or nature for this cruelty. Granted, if we don’t blame God or nature, something must be responsible, and this prospect leads us into a conundrum wherein God would have to be responsible if God created everything. But to the extent that we hold God blameless, it would help us to be closer to, and less judgmental of, God. The illusion of free will does far more harm than good. Without it, we wouldn’t blame each other and ourselves. We wouldn’t feel that we were better than others. We wouldn’t feel arrogant. We wouldn’t punish ourselves when we did wrong. We would understand that we did wrong, and would hopefully try to correct ourselves. We also wouldn’t feel envious toward others. This would all translate to a much kinder, and better, world.

Next chapter


List of Chapters

Intro. to 2011 edition  Intro. to 2013 digital edition 1  (2 omitted)  3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   Epilogue  Books Refuting Free Will...