Brain Study Calls Free Will Into Question

siddster notes an account up at Wired of research indicating that brain scanners can see your decisions before you make them. "In a study published Sunday in Nature Neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them... Caveats remain, holding open the door for free will... The experiment may not reflect the mental dynamics of other, more complicated decisions... Also, the predictions were not completely accurate. Maybe free will enters at the last moment, allowing a person to override an unpalatable subconscious decision."

Comments

Predict the prediction.

[0100010001010011]

So there's a 7 second 'thought to action' lag. When they start predicting what the scanner is going to say call me.

Re:Predict the prediction.

[zappepcs]

This is decision making through trained thought processes. We hit the ball with some expectation of where the opponent will return the ball, or at least most professional tennis players do. Given that we have already predicted the likely return path of the ball, reacting to visual signals based on the other players body actions gives us quite a large lead time in terms of milliseconds in that process. By the time the other players racket hits the ball we are already headed toward the most likely direction of the return of the ball. You will see in pro games where a player totally fucks up that process and just lets the ball go. It is the high tension precision of play/guess/play/guess that makes sports the exciting thing that brings fans. The ability to mentally guess based on available knowledge where to be and when is what amazes us, though to the players it's as much reaction as it is a trained instinctual movement.

I write code, and some of it relies on the predictable processes of other code. That is how things work. We all use the best information we have to make decisions of free will. What was painful decision making process becomes trained reactive processes after time and practice. Some people seem to have a 'knack' for some things... they usually become professionals. This happens in every walk of life. Sales people are different than engineers and both are different from sports players. Each has a set of decision making processes that are honed to a certain group of tasks. There is a reason that sports players don't generally retire to become insurance sales people.

Free will is the ability to use available information to arrive at good outcomes of any decision. This, at it's most basic, is seen in survival situations. This, survival situations, is what I like to call failure-mode analysis. It works for code, it works for anything. Break it down to failure mode and see what happens, how each component reacts. In sports we see failure mode use repeatedly. Tennis is basically run that way the entire match. Each mistake is a failure. Each failure leads to one of two outcomes: further failure or success. This is survival mode.

In that mode, we have to use free will as simply repeating what we have done before leads to failure. We have to learn and use free will to assert that learning to gain success... unless you simply wish to surrender, and that is free will also.

I choose not to replace main bearing seals on my car's engine... I surrender. If I had to, I could learn how and do it, but I CHOOSE not to.

In most cases in life where there seems to be no free will, we simply have chosen to surrender or not learn what is needed to complete the task or defeat the puzzle.

500ms is a long time in some respects, yet it is a very short time. It has been scientifically proven that when adrenaline is pumping, our body clocks (sense of time) is sped up. That is, 500ms under physical duress seems like it was 3-4 seconds, giving our brains time to react faster than what we normally perceive.

The measurements of 500ms are common in vehicle safety parlance. Seldom does anyone speak of that 1/2 second lag under duress. In sports, it's all under duress. Predictive analysis of the current events gives us the ability to see and react faster than the 500ms being discussed.

Re:Predict the prediction.

[ultranova]

The general theory he puts forth in the book is that human consciousness only happened 3,000-3,500 years ago. He suggests that before this change (over a great deal of time, not instantly) humans had split minds where one half would communicate it's type of information to the other half via auditory and visual hallucinations.

Well, that's one theory which is absolutely impossible to prove either way. It is, after all, impossible for anyone to prove that they have subjective consciousness, rather than being puppets being guided by hallucinations - which, I presume, would still originate from a consciousness of sorts, but whatever.

Then again, it might be easy to disprove: if it happened so recently, long after the current main groups of humanity split from each other, there should still be plenty of people in this split-mind state today. So make predictions about the difference between us and them, and go find them.

To support his theories he uses early written language examples which lack the concept of free will, let alone will at all. He argues that it was much more than just a literary device, but was in fact an accurate representation of human thinking in that time.

Of course, it could simply be that writing at that time was mainly used for bookkeeping, not to mention philosophy hadn't yet developed to the point of making this a problem... And besides, as far as I can tell, my dog has free will, and stubborn one at that.

Anyway, this theory is very likely rubbish, because plenty of old kingdoms - such as ancient Egypt - already existed far before 3000 years ago, and it's hard to imagine how merely following hallucinations without conscious forethought could build and upkeep large and complex societies; for that matter, it is hard to imagine just how the heck such a double-mind could develop. Getting sudden hallucinations while you're hunting woolly mammoths is not a good thing.

Re:Predict the prediction.

[zmollusc]

I would see that as a 500ms lag between wanting to press a button and your muscles pressing it(if that is the way the experiment recorded when the person felt the stimulus). Like when you play a game and see imminent disaster, you want to press shield or hyperspace or whatever (and may have a finger over that button throughout the game) but cannot press it in time. Apologies if it was done differently.

Re:Predict the prediction.

[Weedlekin]

"To support his theories he uses early written language examples which lack the concept of free will, let alone will at all. He argues that it was much more than just a literary device, but was in fact an accurate representation of human thinking in that time."

I also have a theory which says that pissing and crapping didn't happen in ancient times because the texts that we have don't say things like "And the Pharoah Ramses said unto the Hittites, Lo, I have marched many a day eating of dried dates and figs, so hold ye the battle, for my bottom runneth over."

Only a tiny fraction of the documents written in the remote past have survived, and many of the ones we have are both fragmentary and difficult to decipher due to the fact that the people writing them didn't bother to waste space on stuff that they reckoned was obvious to the rather small number of people who were educated enough to read it. Building a theory about the emergence of consciousness in our species around such sparse and possibly non-representative evidence is akin to judging the consciousness of modern man from a couple of worm-eaten pages from a scientology text, a 17th century recipe for making bread, a nearly complete version of "Hansel And Gretal", and some bricks with fragments of graffiti on them.

How does this eliminate Free Will?

[mudetroit]

Just because there is a delay in the person being able to be cognizant of making the decision doesn't eliminate the potential that there was free will in making it. To put this in terms the programmers among us can relate to. This is the difference between generating a result and outputting the result. They aren't necessarily directly tied together.

Re:How does this eliminate Free Will?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." -- Morpheus

Re:How does this eliminate Free Will?

[Anguirel]

In programming terms, it's exactly that difference. However, the person thinks their conscious decision is 1 second before the press. Consider that an I/O interrupt request after the output has been generated but before it can be displayed. The conscious mind (the OS in the metaphor) thinks it is making the decision to output something specific, but that decision was made by the subroutine well before the OS got involved. In flow chart terms...

(unconscious decision is made in background processes) -> (person thinks they make a conscious decision using their own Free Will) -> (action occurs which matches the unconscious decision)

Under that model, Free Will is "eliminated" because the final result matches activity that occurs before they consciously deliberate on it and can utilize conscious Free Will. Essentially, Free Will becomes an unconscious process of some sort.

Re:How does this eliminate Free Will?

[bug1]

My subconscious is still a part of "me", if _my_ subconscious exercises free will, then i exercise free will.

I dont have to know i have free will to have free will.

Re:How does this eliminate Free Will?

[khallow]

This is opinion. I notice lines such as:

Minimally, to say that an agent has free will is to say that the agent has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. But animals seem to satisfy this criterion, and we typically think that only persons, and not animals, have free will. Let us then understand free will as the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions.

Unfounded assumptions, artificial distinctions between "animals" and "persons". And we haven't even started discussing free will.

Re:How does this eliminate Free Will?

[Martian_Kyo]

I disagree with that definition of free will.

I think the problem here isn't the existence of 'free will' but with out definition and our perception of it. Just because a definition exists it doesn't mean it can't redefined or proclaimed as invalid.

So maybe the title should be 'Brain Study Calls current definition of Free will into question.', but that's not as sensational.

Um, not so much of a newsflash

[NIckGorton]

Um, not much of a newsflash. Hell the major monotheistic religions figured this out way back. If God is omniscient, then he knows what I am about to do and everything I will do in my life. If he knows that, than I can't truly have free will. (Even if you try to weasel out that God decides to blind himself to my future, if it is knowable then its pre-ordained.) So unless you are willing to say God isn't omniscient, then there is no free will, kids.

The only chance we have of any free will at all is in quantum weirdness which is not much free will to speak of, and certainly not enough to be palatable to the average American who thinks his success or failure is a product of his own decisions rather than the sum total of a very complicated system that he has little control over and basically just experiences as the phenomena of his mind. We think we are in control, but largely we are along for the ride.

Used to freak me out, and it was hard to swallow since I have that Horatio Algeirs kind of narrative: Grew up on welfare in a house without indoor plumbing and now have a doctorate and am typing this on the toilet I picked (the best... I loves me a good quality toilet) in the house I just remodeled. It would feel very nice to think that I did all of this and deserve this wonderful throne. And to be honest my experience is that I think I have free will in my day to day life. But that's probably because the sum of my experiences also made me, after gaining understand that I don't have free will, accept that I live my life with that illusion and navigate life in such a way that I feel comfortable with the 'moral decisions' I think I make. So I pretend I have free will, and think I make moral choices based on that understanding.

Now I've given myself a headache. No. Wait, I was destined to have this headache as long as that electron spun to the left last Tuesday in Portugal. I'm going to go pretend to decide to take an ibuprofen.

Re:Um, not so much of a newsflash

[CodyRazor]

I'm god. You just cant tell because your notions of what god is dont apply to me.

Re:Um, not so much of a newsflash

[focoma]

Let me get this straight: our actions can be predicted beforehand (by other people), and is in fact known beforehand (by an omniscient Creator), ergo we do not have control (i.e. free will) over our actions?

I think there is some sort of confusion going on here, caused by the fact that people are using a useless definition of free will, one that is either overly ambiguous or obviously contradictory (making the "refutation" of free will a piece of cake). Let me explain:

Suppose there is a person Bob who actually does have free will according to your definition. (Go on, think of your definition of free will right now, and assume that Bob has it.) So he goes on with his life deciding things for himself. Now suppose you recorded every action he made in his life, then time-traveled back to when he was born. At that point, if your time-traveling self does not actually interact with Bob, you could certainly observe all his actions being played out as you recorded them. So, for example, you'll know that he will punch a school bully in the face at exactly 12:30PM, three days after his 10th birthday. You'll know that he will decide to marry his least favorite female co-worker after a particularly productive team-building exercise. You'll even know what his last words will be.

Now you have to ask yourself: since you know what Bob is going to do next, are you contradicting your previous assumption that he has free will? If so, your definition of free will is flawed.

In other words, I would like to ask: is there really a valid reason to doubt free will just because we can know with certainty what someone will do a few seconds from now? Or is it possible that, while others can predict my decisions, my decisions are still my own because I still made them? God knows what we will do, yes...but does that make him a Puppeteer, or could we see him as a wise Father, giving his children instructions, but letting them explore and discover what lies ahead on their own, sad that some of them will fall on the wrong path due to their own unfortunate flaws, yet happy to see those who will triumph?

Free will is simply someone's ability to decide what to do. That others can see in advance what he'll decide does absolutely nothing to question the ability.

Rigged

[yomology]

Personally, I don't see how this experiment can even remotely call into question "free will." You see, free will and conscious rationality are very nearly the same. Now, when choosing between using the left or right button, there is little to no information to be considered rationally, or consciously, and so this experiment is only testing a choice that is already devoid of free will. The choice is, in effect, subconsciously decided making it easy to predict.

Re:Rigged

[monoqlith]

Not at all. 'Conscious rationality' is the deterministic(or if you wish, probabilistic) process of the biochemical reactions of your brain. Why would your brain be exempt from the physical laws of the universe? Having had a neurological disorder myself, which has affected the workings of my frontal cortex at times(thankfully not permanently), I have become acutely aware of this. I have come to the opinion a priori that even my most conscious thoughts merely feel spontaneous - but my apprehension of them is no different than my apprehension of my sense perceptions, and I have very little control over my sense perceptions. Even though qualitatively my thoughts are diffferent than, say, my vision, in the end, everything I see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and think is a mere representation of my mind - and I cannot locate the origin of these representations no matter how hard I try. My best hypothesis(since I take my sense representations to originate in empirical reality - that is something that we must assume, for philosophical proofs of this fact have been scandalously weak) is that they are the workings of my brain. Thus even my concept of myself is an elaborate orchestration of my brain's physical functioning. The sentence "I will choose by own free will to open the bathroom window" is not incorrect because there is no "will" - it's meaningless because there is no intelligible "I" that we can locate as separate from physical reality. Now, I know this admission opens me up to criticisms - most problematically, how can you rely on the word of someone who admits to having had a brain disease? To this I answer: how can you rely on the word of anybody? You can't. You have to reason from first principles yourself.

Re:Jedoc

[NIckGorton]

Except that since I know free will is an illusion, when the kid last night took a swing at me in a drunken stupor, I understood that as no more his decision than my decision was to treat him decently, and make sure he didn't injure himself or others as he metabolized himself to freedom in the morning.

Its more of a Buddhist concept of suffering and the necessity of working to end the suffering of others (or at least think you are doing so) that motivates moral action in people who don't believe in free will. How much better of a world would it be if when someone broke into your car to steal, you saw that person as someone less fortunate than you and felt it was your responsibility to, instead of punishing him, make his life better?

Though lucky for us, people who have the insight to understand a world without free will are also people who are more often endowed with that kind of sentiment.

Study doesn't define free will

[Anonymous Coward]

The study mentions implications for free will but doesn't define what "freewill" means. Conscousness is merely the state of percieving time and being self-aware, all decisions are made by some form of pre-determination.

Re:Study doesn't define free will

[Anonymous Coward]

But what if your "self" is the way it is because of forces beyond your control?

Define god and free will again, I missed that part

[moteyalpha]

If you can define free will, then you could prove it or disprove it. It is such an open ended concept that it cannot be considered until all facts about the process is known and it is premature to study the psychological effects of using a tele-port until you have one. --Absolute stupidity, disrupts absolutely--PLM

Please define free will.

[Vellmont]

If you actually wanted to answer that question, you'd have to define what "free will" is, in a concrete, scientific way. That means defining what choice is, likely what "you" are, and other things that are essentially undefinable except using other non-concrete definitions you can't nail down.

This experiment raises some interesting questions about the nature of existence, consciousness, and being. I don't think it's going to give us any answers on whether we have "free will" though, whatever that means.

Re:Please define free will.

[CokeJunky]

Total agreement here. I suspect that the whole free-will angle is just a great way to get press. Sure it might have been the goal of the experiment to study decision making and the impact of will, but the conclusion drawn is pure sensationalism and has nothing to do with science.

Re:Jedoc

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you think those terms are mutually exclusive just shows you are either ignorant or simply trolling.

Re:7 seconds

[Metasquares]

But who says the unconscious decision process isn't an exercise of free will? The big assumption in the article is that free will cannot exist in the subconscious. I think that free will is a property of the whole mind, and all they're doing is demonstrating that they can predict decisions by reading the choices already made within the brain.

Oh, and since this is a binary classification problem (left/right), 50% accuracy means you're not doing any better than guessing - 60% isn't very good in that light.

Determinism does not invalidate free will.

[Repossessed]

The idea that physical forces control us is silly unless you believe in dualism, we *are* those physical forces.

Re:Jedoc

[Anonymous Coward]

If we take the concept of free will out of the decision-making process, even if it is only as a theoretical construct not backed up by neuroscience, we remove one more barrier to society-damaging behavior.

Billiard balls affect each other but they don't have free will. If a society implements a system of rewards and punishments then there will generally be an effect on individual behavior. The notion of free will is only relevent if you want to claim that people "deserve" to be rewarded or punished rather than taking the pragmatic approach of affecting individual behavior regardless of "deserving".

WHAT is exactly free will ?

[aepervius]

On the lowest physical level there are only individual atoms the link they form with their neighbors, or not, forming molecules and electrodynamic interaction. A level higher we have molecule interacting each other forming protein, and various substance. A level higher we have neuron which discharge their neurotransmitter if they reach a certain level, neuro-transmitter which lead to lower or higher the level of other neurons. Up to now I described only physical process which don't per see have any "free will". Then comes a level higher with even more complexity where neuron form complex path and mass, and that is the brain. Show me an ounce of free will. All I see is a very complex system, which accept information from outside, and using chemical pathway, send output to the outside. There is no reason to imagine that for the same input, at the same state, the system would react otherwise , except if some physical phenomenon change subtely the potential of some neuron : aka brownian motion make more or less neurotransmitter reach their target site. Again a physical phenomenon. I contend that free will is an illusion. I contend that it should be called non-deterministic will. Or chaotic will. Or anything. But we aren't really "free" to chose. All those neuron with their potential and physical reaction do it.

Re:7 seconds

[Belial6]

That's what I was thinking. The news article should read. "People subconsciously think ahead" I'm not sure that this should be a big surprise, and I don't see what it has to do with free will.

Well, really it should read "Sometimes people subconsciously think ahead"

Re:Jedoc

[MightyYar]

How much better of a world would it be if when someone broke into your car to steal, you saw that person as someone less fortunate than you and felt it was your responsibility to, instead of punishing him, make his life better? It makes for a nice platitude, but your question (which is rhetorical) makes a lot of assumptions.

The major assumption is that the thief is indeed less fortunate than the victim by some measure. He may very well be stealing a Honda Civic from a recently divorced single mother living out of a Super 8 motel and working the night shift at Arby's.

Free will is an incoherent concept

[Ardeaem]

Free will is not a coherent concept. It is rooted in the idea of dualism, that something is "controlling" our body/brain, that is somehow separate from our body/brain. It used to be called a soul, now it is called a mind. The "mind" has free will to somehow control the body. This makes no sense.

The brain is a complex physical system like any other, and is subject to the same rules as any other physical system, like weather. There is no free will. There is only the interaction between our bodies/brains and the environment. Free will is just an illusion caused by the fact that humans are self-aware and that the brain is an extremely complex, dynamical system.

Re:Jedoc

[wellingj]

Just because he is less fortunate does not automatically grant him the moral right to what I have done for myself. Being less fortunate does not automatically grant him any moral authority whatsoever to commit crimes against any one. Letting is slide does not make his life better, it only makes mine worse. Only him choosing to make his life better of his own accord will truly set him free from the life he now leads. Until he does so, he will be a parasite to those like you that allow yourself to be the willing victim. The only thing I ask of you is that when you are victimized, do not come to me and try to forcefully take away from me what was taken from you, I have no sympathy for any one who finds it proper and good to allow the theft of their property and uses that as moral justification to steal from me in turn.

Re:Jedoc

[crashfrog]

Besides, I feel a lot smarter as an an atheist, taking comfort in the fact that the greatest minds agree with me.

Really? As an atheist, I feel a lot smarter simply being right. (In all likelihood.)

Re:Its pretty simple, really

[colmore]

Give me a scientifically meaningful definition of "free will."

Something that could be tested as present or not in a defined experiment.

If such a definition cannot be found, then questions about "free will" are unscientific and better left to philosophy and religion.

The mystical associations people have regarding the very words surrounding the study of cognition is a great hindrance to meaningful research.

Marvin Minksy has a great deal to say about this.

Re:7 seconds

[node 3]

But who says the unconscious decision process isn't an exercise of free will? The big assumption in the article is that free will cannot exist in the subconscious. If it happens in the subconscious, then it *can't* be free will, it's merely will.

The *free* means you are making a conscious decision.

That's not what free will is

[SourGrapes]

No article I've ever seen on here relating to "Free will" has seemed to really understand anything about what the concept actually means. Probably the scientists involved in the studies or the journalists writing the articles didn't take enough philosophy in university. Nobody thinks that free will means that some of our actions are uncaused. Nobody asserts that free will requires that all our actions be fundamentally unpredictable; behaving in a way that follows no rational pattern is actually known as insanity, which generally is understood to mean the person behaving that way has something interfering with his or her ability to make free will decisions. It's also important to realize that not every decision we make is considered to be a free will decision, even by proponents of free will. Choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate is not a matter of free will if I just like vanilla better -- that's freedom of preference, and I suspect that's closer to what this experiment was actually measuring. Making an arbitrary decision between one button and another has nothing to do with free will. A free will decision is one where we cause ourselves to do something that we may or may not prefer, as a result of ascribing a superior value to following the principle that would command such a decision. So (continuing with the ice cream example) choosing vanilla over chocolate is not a free will decision; choosing not to get ice cream at all, even though you want to, but because you're a vegan for moral reasons and that principle overrides your strong natural preference -- that's a free will decision. They should try measuring that.

Re:Determinism and Free Will

[msuarezalvarez]

The only chance we have of any free will at all is in quantum weirdness which is not much free will to speak of Here's a thought experiment I've had in the past - I'd be interested in more mathematically inclined folks chiming in on whether it is valid or not. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem states that any sufficiently complex formal system cannot be both consistant and complete. Now if we were to assume a deterministic world, like Einstein and Newton believed in, then our universe is a consistant formal system, where the state of the universe is a statement in system, and the laws of physics are the rules for deriving other valid statements.

Where did you get this "the universe is a consistent formal system" from? Do you know what a formal system is, in the context of GÃdel's theorem?

Re:Its pretty simple, really

[rprins]

No ofcourse not. I don't know why this isn't general knowledge, but something like will can only be 2 things:

- Completely determined process, action -> reaction.
- Completely random process, governed by random quantum effects.

Our brain ofcourse is somewhere in between. I don't know how you define free will, but it can not be different from these 2 things.
If it were..
Then there would somehow be a reaction without an action, but it would NOT be random!
This is obviously impossible.

Everybody should know there is no such thing as free will.
One of the most interesting corollaries is the responsibility paradox:
- You have no free will.
- Thus you are not responsible for your actions; All your actions are the result of the total sum of your past, surroundings and genes.
- You could do whatever you like, because you are not responsible.

People say, "If I can not control what I do, I'm not responsible, so I can do anything."
They forget that 'they' are part of the action-reaction process. There is a part where you are conscious of the choices you make.
What this simply means is that you know you choose. But how you make that choice is determined but all kinds of factors you do not control.
"Will I eat this?"
-yes, because it looks tasty (instinctive)
-no, because it will make me fat (logic, cultural knowledge)
-etc..
Your choice process is then thinking of and weighing the factors, but again these weights are not controlled by anything like free will.
It's controlled by randomness, (neural) logic and cultural influences.

The "I can do anything" phrase is simply a loopback to the choice process, however as you consider the consequenses of this new factor, you realize you are bound by external factors in everything you do.

Re:Its pretty simple, really

[fbjon]

I think the definition is very simple. If the universe is entirely predictable, then there cannot be free will. If truly random events can occur, then "free will" is possible, though not necessary.

Re:Its pretty simple, really

[Omestes]

Thank you.

I always hated the cog-sci cultists (Dennet, mostly) attacking free will, as if it was his personal calling to do so. I think the very discussion is rather dumb.

If freewill isn't real, it doesn't matter, we subjectively must still act as if it is true. If free will is real, we must still act as if it is true. We must, too, in any case, also treat others as if they have free will (as it is the basis of law, society, and most human empathy and ethics). The idea of free will, if not it-itself, is built into our head, and all of our actions.

I think the freewill/not-freewill debate is just like the "God doesn't exist" debate, trite, and the grounds for amateur philosophers. It makes a good argument, but not much truth value. For one it isn't falsifiable.

In the current result (which isn't new), we could claim that the act of free-will happens with a seven second lag, or that certain potential centers are activated before the act of choosing a branch. Etc... I think, also, there is a large cultural element to the debate, the current trends in cultural interpretation is towards removing all individual culpability and responsibility (as we can see in the rise of psychotropic drug prescriptions, and "Twinkie" defenses).

As a philosophy buff, lets leave it to religion. It doesn't add to any argument.

Re:7 seconds

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

You present it as fact, but that assertion is in fact only your opinion.

Some (if not most) decision are made subconsciously. The 'free' part may only consist of an ability to override subconscious decisions.

And then again, the conscious/subconscious terms (AFAIK) originate with Freud and are only a model, and not a very usefull one at that, in my opinion.

Re:Its pretty simple, really

[professionalfurryele]

That is a little nieve, what if you are a dualist and believe every 'soul' gets a say in the initial conditions of the universe, enough that it affects what decisions they make while they are bound to thier mortal coil?

Besides unpredictability doesn't imply free will. Random events do not seem to me to offer any more opertunity for free will than non-random ones, that is if I cant influence either. What is necessary for free will is the ability to change events. If the universe always follows some prescribed rule over which I have no say, and I cant pick the initial conditions of the universe, then I have no free will.

Re:7 seconds

[node 3]

You present it as fact, but that assertion is in fact only your opinion. Close. I present it as a definition, because that's what it is. The idea of free will is that you get to make a conscious choice.

To illustrate what I mean, imagine our will exists entirely in the subconscious, and that by the time we're aware of our choices, we cannot alter them. In such a case, we'd still have a will (after all, we still make choices and act upon them), but that will is not free, because we are not free to consciously control it. The notion of freedom (in this context) is meaningless if it exists entirely outside the realm of the conscious mind.

Some (if not most) decision are made subconsciously. The 'free' part may only consist of an ability to override subconscious decisions. I suspect that you're quite right. But still, it's the ability to consciously alter our choices that constitutes free will.

And then again, the conscious/subconscious terms (AFAIK) originate with Freud and are only a model, and not a very usefull one at that, in my opinion. You're probably thinking more about the id, ego, super-ego, which constitute a psychological model which is of questionable validity. The idea of conscious and subconscious (while originating around the time of Freud, and being critical to his psychological theory) is fairly well established.

In order to discard the notion of a conscious vs subconscious would seem to require either showing that we are either consciously aware of everything that goes on in our minds, or that we are not consciously aware of anything that goes on in our minds. Neither of which seem even remotely defensible.

Re:Its pretty simple, really

[it0]

You could be more open minded.
Any discussion about anything seems sensible to me.

The free will debate or if god exists debate both seem to be though provoking. since a lot of people have a hard time understanding there own existence, doesn't mean it's food for amateurs only.

Re:Its pretty simple, really

[jotok]

Here's some questions for you since you seem to know what you're talking about...

One, I have a friend, an aero engineer, who believes wholeheartedly that any kind of free will can be boiled down to the deterministic movement of particles. However, there are two problems with this--first, it seems like he is making the philosophical mistake you pointed out: if you assume that free will does not exist, you will not find it (I think we're talking way beyond simple "null hypothesis" caution here). Second, while chemistry might be reducible to atomic interactions, is it useful or meaningful to discuss chemistry in this manner? Is it useful to reduce biology to Newtonian motion? Useful meaning, "Does it help us understand what's going on?" What's your take?

Second, I have noticed more and more lately people attacking the concept of "free will." Noted feminist and "Battlestar Galactica" fan Amanda Marcotte has been pushing this idea that free will is a meaningless concept, or at least not useful, and probably doesn't exist. Where is this coming from? Has there been an ongoing debate about this, or is this something new--something riding along with the scientific backlash against the religious conservatives, perhaps? If you can suggest any reading on the history of the debate, I would like to read it.

Finally...why so often do we see people dedicated to science who are completely unfamiliar with its philosophical underpinnings? I don't know how many researchers I know who don't really know what "empiricism" is, but who will deride religion as "magical thinking" when they themselves maintain question-begging tautologies all the time. It bothers me when I meet people who have their PhD, and so have supposedly been taught experimental design and have contributed to the body of knowledge, but who turn out to be glorified technicians :\

Re:Jedoc

[Weedlekin]

"It was by my free will that I avoided the situation that he is in"

This is only true if every human in a society is born in identical circumstances, all are biologically similar enough to be considered equivalent according to the standards of that society, and there is no possibility of random events favouring some individuals over others.

Re:Its pretty simple, really

[Eivind]

It's not that easy.

If the events are truly genuinely RANDOM, then they also aren't influenced by your "will" whatever the hell THAT means.

"free will" requires events to be NOT pre-determined, but also NOT random. It's a tricky one.

Re:Its pretty simple, really

[Devin Jeanpierre]

Actually, only some scientists believe that. Others believe that science is based on skepticism -- even if it possible to discover the truth, we would not be able to know if what we know was the truth, or something that just looks like it. As an example, what if we're all dreaming? More popularly, what if there is something similar to The Matrix going on? It's completely possible, and completely infalsifiable, and yet also a part of that philosophy of science. How fortunate that the philosophy of science isn't science, huh? These scientists believe that the purpose of science is to model what we observe, which may have absolutely no indication as to the truth of things, or may actually be the model of the truth of things. But there's no way to tell.

Re:Its pretty simple, really

[cromar]

Not really. There're plenty of things we don't understand to be deterministic. At least not yet. (E.g. the collapse of wave functions.) That's not to say they are deterministic, but don't go jumping to conclusions.

Uh, what?

[pclminion]

First, just because there is an inherent lag between the action of the brain and our conscious awareness of that action, doesn't mean the action is not willful. Second, even if the action was being planned by the unconscious brain, again, how does that make the action unwillful? I am not conscious of every calculation my brain performs when I decide to lift my coffee cup to my lips, but this does not mean I did not consciously decide to do it.

Our brains are chemical devices. Our sense of self has evolved to mask the fact that we are actually "lagging behind reality" by a little bit, because being aware of the lag would serve no purpose except to distract us. That a scientist could leap from this to the "insight" that we are not in control of our own actions is ludicrous.