Biology of free will

[Beth]

I realise this was not aimed at me, but we, as a whole, do make choices all the time, it's just that, all things equal, you couldn't have chosen differently at any point.

I don't think that's true. It appears to me that I could easily have made different choices. Further, it's an unfalsifiable premise; we can not determine whether we could, or could not, have chosen differently at any point in time, so any firm belief one way or the other is a faith-based belief.

Why do you think that we could not have made a different choice?

 

[Her Dark Star]

Her Dark Star- Why does this interest you?

Short answer? I'm a geek

I'm not looking for answers to existential angst but it is an interesting area, the neurology came up in another thread about free will and it struck me as something I don't know as much about as I'd like to. Though from the material I've looked at no one else seems to have a good answer yet either, I guess it is kind of waiting on the answer to how does that lump of grey matter produce consciousness at all.

 

[Beth]

Short answer? I'm a geek

I'm not looking for answers to existential angst but it is an interesting area, the neurology came up in another thread about free will and it struck me as something I don't know as much about as I'd like to. Though from the material I've looked at no one else seems to have a good answer yet either, I guess it is kind of waiting on the answer to how does that lump of grey matter produce consciousness at all.

Yeah, nobody's quite figured that out yet. The most interesting theory I've heard to date, with some experiment evidence supporting it, is that consciousness is not localized within specific parts of the brain, but is, instead, an emergent property of various concurrent actions going on within the brain and the interactions of those concurrent actions.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't think that's true. It appears to me that I could easily have made different choices.

<snip>

I agree. There is randomness and feedback within the brain, so it will probably always be impossible to predict what the output will be for a given set of inputs and initial conditions.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I don't think that's true. It appears to me that I could easily have made different choices. Further, it's an unfalsifiable premise; we can not determine whether we could, or could not, have chosen differently at any point in time, so any firm belief one way or the other is a faith-based belief.

Why do you think that we could not have made a different choice?

Yeah, it probably appears intuitively like that to most of the people around, and it did for me too for a long time. Personally, I'm way more impressed and convinced by the idea and data that all of our actions have a cause, or rather long intervening chains of different causes, than the idea that we could somehow break the chain of causes that demonstrably guide our feelings and actions.

I'm not trying to dodge the question, my answer continues below, but where do you think your particular decision comes from if not from previous causes and experiences? Could you give me the simplest example of a case where you feel that you could've chosen otherwise? I would like to discuss this in order to challenge my own thinking about this, maybe you too would get something out of it.

To continue my answer, in brief, if we accept that we live in a natural world where things are causally connected, there seems to be no way out of the chain-game. The other explanation (contra-causal free will) would require the breaking of the causal chain. It is also important to understand that truly random causes (the quantum of the gaps argument of free will) for our actions does not help the case for free will - in those situations the relevant actions would just be random. Anyways, my understanding is that those effects are very weak / non-existent in our everyday life, certainly they are very weak compared to the multitude of concrete causes that we can track down ourselves, everything "from blinks to winks". Contra-causal free will would mean that we could somehow break the causal "chains" (or random "chains") of everything that happens in and around us. I haven't seen any good evidence or solid reasoning to support this view.

On the other hand, I've seen much good evidence and solid reasoning that points to the naturalistic conclusion. For example various priming studies in psychology that actually show how the actions of the subjects are predicted and changed with good accuracy without the subjects ever being conscious of the real influences that guided their actions. Or the neurological studies that show how our decisions are made before we are actually aware of making them.

I just bumped into this post at Jerry Coyne's blog when I was looking for something recent to reference you about those kind of studies:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/the-free-will-experiment/

And, you're probably already familiar with some of the priming studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)#Priming_In_Daily_Life

Or what about how different hormones such as oxytocin affect some of our most valued behaviours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin#Actions_within_the_brain

Female rats given oxytocin antagonists after giving birth do not exhibit typical maternal behavior.[39] By contrast, virgin female sheep show maternal behavior towards foreign lambs upon cerebrospinal fluid infusion of oxytocin, which they would not do otherwise.[40]

Are you familiar with the www.naturalism.org site that I linked a few posts back? I find it a great resource on all things free will.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Short answer? I'm a geek

Fair enough.

I find Benjamin Libbet's research re action potentials intriguing.
At one level , the answer to the consciousness question is "Hardware all the way down" - but that fails to satisfy.
I suspect brains have many processes running in parallel, any of which may / may not be conscioius within itself- ie aware of itself as a process- only one of which is the one we think of as "us". Communication between them varies and is not always visible to "us". That bleedover of experience and data is (to my guess) what some interpret as intuition or even psychic awareness. For example, the presence felt in hypnogogic dreaming , I suspect is "us" becoming directly aware of a normally subconscious neural process. All guesswork and hypotheses.

I find "free will" a concept of questionable value, to be frank, and would be happy to see it dumped. How much that's influenced by my innate distaste for philosophy and religion, I dunno.

When you are freefalling towards a rock you have few choices. Free will or not, you are in free fall and you will hit the rock. Standing still, you are equally subject to the constraints of gravity / spacetime. So do you choose that ? Or does the universe care no more for your will than for the will of the rock?

 

[Her Dark Star]

Thanks Kuko 4000, I am familiar with the priming studies and I've started checking out naturalism.org, does look like a good place.

The first link to the MRI based study, I've heard of similar results but found it interesting. However it is of absolutely no surprise to me to find that the subconscious is working on the problem of which button to press (or actually decided) 10 seconds before you need to press it. The subconscious is a very powerful thing and is why I talked about a person being subject to all kind of influences, I'd be interested to see more on that study, for example have the subject make a conscious decision to only press with one hand throughout or call out a conscious decision each time rather than leaving it to the subconscious and see if the process still happens the same way.

Thanks for the links (again) I'll definitely have to keep an eye on them, they mention that a more complex decision process (while more complex to interpret) could reveal more and I hope they do. I've seen a few things about the power of oxytocin and I think no one would be surprised to learn about the effects of things like adrenaline and testosterone on behaviour either. At no point do I question that the brain is a physical process or that it is effected by such things, it is fascinating.

Perhaps I have to admit to having my own brand of woo when it comes to free will, the evidence is pushing me towards a purely deterministic view but my ego isn't ready to let go of the idea of having some conscious control yet

 

[Her Dark Star]

I suspect brains have many processes running in parallel, any of which may / may not be conscioius within itself- ie aware of itself as a process- only one of which is the one we think of as "us". Communication between them varies and is not always visible to "us". That bleedover of experience and data is (to my guess) what some interpret as intuition or even psychic awareness. For example, the presence felt in hypnogogic dreaming , I suspect is "us" becoming directly aware of a normally subconscious neural process. All guesswork and hypotheses.

I would certainly agree that the brain has many processes running at the same time and I guess to many people that may seem strange, especially if you only identify with one conscious process as being you. You may be using guesswork but I think it fits with the data so far and certainly with my own experience. I have often been aware of competing values and drives going on in my head and it is possible to become aware of the 'background noise' if you like (at the risk of sounding schizoid).

I agree that many psychic delusions, 'sixth sense' feelings and such are due to the delay and or limited bleeding of information from the sub to the conscious.

When you are freefalling towards a rock you have few choices. Free will or not, you are in free fall and you will hit the rock. Standing still, you are equally subject to the constraints of gravity / spacetime. So do you choose that ? Or does the universe care no more for your will than for the will of the rock?

Of course the physical forces don't care for your will at all, they don't care for anything they just are. Perhaps subconsciously you say 'few choices' implying that you still have a choice Just kidding. No of course your will cannot influence gravity or rocks but you do have a choice about what you do until you hit the ground or pass out. Do you think about death? Make a phone call (not that they'd be able to hear you most likely), think happy thoughts, recall a memories, flail about screaming?
A comical example but just because will can't influence the external world doesn't mean it can't play a part internally.

Shrug, as I've said, perhaps free will is an ego based woo that the evidence will dissuade me off, I think that I'm changing or better defining my ideas on it. We'll see. Thanks for the input Soapy Sam.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Kuko 4000,

I don't think Beth was disputing the causal chains you describe, but rather the fact that what we actually choose to do at time T=t is not entirely predictable from the inputs and initial state of the brain at T=0. This lack of predictability is what gives us the illusion of having free will.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Kuko 4000,

I don't think Beth was disputing the causal chains you describe, but rather the fact that what we actually choose to do at time T=t is not entirely predictable from the inputs and initial state of the brain at T=0. This lack of predictability is what gives us the illusion of having free will.

Yeah, I think I understood her correctly, that's why I asked her to give me an example so we could discuss it and compare our arguments:

Could you give me the simplest example of a case where you feel that you could've chosen otherwise? I would like to discuss this in order to challenge my own thinking about this, maybe you too would get something out of it.

Right?

 

[Her Dark Star]

Been reading quite a few articles linked from naturalism.org and other sources and it seems that I'm actually much further down the path towards to naturalism or determinism than I might have thought. From a very young age I was aware that people are heavily influenced by emotional reactions, chemistry and cultural programming, constant media bombardment and it always annoyed the hell out of me. I didn't want to have my conceptions of beauty programmed into by adverts, I didn't want my notions of other social groups to be preconceived by gossip so I always strived against it. But I never believed in the metaphysical puppeteer, that ghost in the machine, I was aware that my mind was a reflection or summary of the processes in my brain. I'm actually quite startled to find that a common assumption in these articles is that alot, if not most, people seem to hold the belief that consciousness is somehow separate from the brain. I guess its why the 'soul' is such a common idea then.

I am beginning to understand the subject better now, its actually far more interesting to look at it from a neurological point of view than the purely philosophical, so thanks to everyone for your input. Nice to be able to challenge a notion that I'd forgotten I even held

Edit - The difference between determinism and fatalism is also key to some of my discomfort as is the issue over whether lack of free will implies lack of any responsibility. I think I actually misunderstood the importance of the question in the original thread.

 

[Her Dark Star]

One of the articles I've come across that I like. Doesn't actually say much different to the others but I quite like how it characterises it, may appeal to a lot of people on the board as it couches the believe in free will in terms of an atheist argument. It's not very long but it is interesting.

http://www.naturalism.org/atheism.htm#littlegod

 

[Beth]

Yeah, it probably appears intuitively like that to most of the people around, and it did for me too for a long time.

Yes. My question is what changed your mind regarding why you think that it is not as it appears.

Personally, I'm way more impressed and convinced by the idea and data that all of our actions have a cause, or rather long intervening chains of different causes, than the idea that we could somehow break the chain of causes that demonstrably guide our feelings and actions.

I don't find the idea that our actions have causes to be incompatible with the idea that we are able to choose our actions from a plethora of possible actions.

I'm not trying to dodge the question, my answer continues below, but where do you think your particular decision comes from if not from previous causes and experiences?

That's not what I think. What I think is that there are various options that are available to us us based on our past experiences and current situation and we choose among those options. Previous causes and experiences constrain the possibilities we choose from, but do not determine what choice we ultimately make.

Could you give me the simplest example of a case where you feel that you could've chosen otherwise? I would like to discuss this in order to challenge my own thinking about this, maybe you too would get something out of it.

I decided to respond to your post this morning. I decided to type these words. I could have chosen to respond differently. In fact, I made changes to this post prior to submitting it. Do you believe that each and every letter I have typed was deterministically set prior to my starting it? Prior to my waking this morning? Prior to my birth? It seems to me as if I choose each word as I type them and they are not set because I go back and change them as I write more.

To continue my answer, in brief, if we accept that we live in a natural world where things are causally connected, there seems to be no way out of the chain-game. The other explanation (contra-causal free will) would require the breaking of the causal chain.

Perhaps I should point out that I am speaking of compatiblist free will, as Ivor correctly surmised.

It is also important to understand that truly random causes (the quantum of the gaps argument of free will) for our actions does not help the case for free will - in those situations the relevant actions would just be random.

I disagree with this. I think that truly random events, such as QM indicates, do allow us to escape from strict determinism wherein everything we do and say and experience are determined prior to our birth. If strict determinism does not hold, there is room for individual choice.

 

[Beth]

Kuko 4000,

I don't think Beth was disputing the causal chains you describe, but rather the fact that what we actually choose to do at time T=t is not entirely predictable from the inputs and initial state of the brain at T=0. This lack of predictability is what gives us the illusion of having free will.

You are right in that I'm not disputing causal chains. I don't agree about free will being an illusion though. Because part of those causal chains involve the inner workings of our brains - the thoughts we think - and because we can consciously direct the thoughts we think and make choices based on them, I think that constitutues free will, not an illusion of having free will.

 

[Beth]

One of the articles I've come across that I like. Doesn't actually say much different to the others but I quite like how it characterises it, may appeal to a lot of people on the board as it couches the believe in free will in terms of an atheist argument. It's not very long but it is interesting.

http://www.naturalism.org/atheism.htm#littlegod

I have a problem with the statement

We have, it is widely believed, the power to think, choose, and act in some crucial respect independently of those causal factors that create us as persons, and that surround us each moment of our lives.

from that article.

I don't think of free will as being independent of our past experiences and our physical state. Perhaps some do, but I've never met anyone who seriously claimed that humans had such an ability. It seems a straw man argument to me. Who claims that free will is independent of the causal factors that bring us to the point of making a choice and constrain the possible actions open to us at that point?

 

[bokonon]

I don't think of free will as being independent of our past experiences and our physical state. Perhaps some do, but I've never met anyone who seriously claimed that humans had such an ability. It seems a straw man argument to me. Who claims that free will is independent of the causal factors that bring us to the point of making a choice and constrain the possible actions open to us at that point?

You're right, free will is not an illusion. Our choices are shaped by our past experiences and current brain chemistry, and constrained by the laws of physics. Beyond that, if we are conscious, we still have the the power to choose.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You are right in that I'm not disputing causal chains. I don't agree about free will being an illusion though. Because part of those causal chains involve the inner workings of our brains - the thoughts we think - and because we can consciously direct the thoughts we think and make choices based on them, I think that constitutues free will, not an illusion of having free will.

It certainly feels like we consciously control our flow of consciousness. But what controls the "we"?

 

[Beth]

It certainly feels like we consciously control our flow of consciousness. But what controls the "we"?

We can control ourselves. Sometimes, anyway That, to me, is the essence of 'free will'. The ability to control ourselves and make conscious choices.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

We can control ourselves. Sometimes, anyway That, to me, is the essence of 'free will'. The ability to control ourselves and make conscious choices.

The problem with that is that experiments show brain activity significantly before we are conscious of our thoughts or decisions.

So when I think "I'm going to think about Beth", some part of my brain was already 'thinking' about Beth before I consciously became aware of wanting to think about Beth. I.e. consciousness appears to be an observation rather than a control of brain activity.

 

[KingMerv00]

I don't buy free will.

Beth, you said that chains of causation present us with options. To say we have options is to say that the chooser is outside the chain of causation and thus supernatural. I see no evidence for things outside of natural law thus I don't believe in free will.