Slashdot Mirror


Study Suggests Free Will Is An Illusion (iflscience.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from IFLScience: A new paper published in the journal Psychological Science has attempted to define and investigate the subject of free will. By asking participants to anticipate when they thought a specific color of circle would appear before them, something determined completely by chance, the researchers found that their predictions were more accurate when they had only a fraction of a second to guess than when they had more time. The participants subconsciously perceived the color change as it happened prior to making their mental choice, even though they always thought they made their prediction before the change occurred. They were getting the answers right because they already knew the answer. "Our minds may be rewriting history," Adam Bear, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Psychology at Yale University and lead author of the study, said in a statement. The implication here is that when it comes to very short time scales, even before we think we've made a conscious choice, our mind has already subconsciously decided for us, and free will is more of an illusion than we think.

7 of 386 comments (clear)

  1. Bullshit conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The conclusion is bullshit. Free will isn't an illusion and life isn't a game that plays us. (Anyone catch the reference there?)

    On short time scales, reaction time is probably faster if the brain does some processing in advance. The decision is already made so the mental processing need not be done instantly and, instead, can just be acted upon almost right away.

    At longer time scales, though, there probably is free will. There's no clear advantage to intelligence if free will doesn't exist to make use of it.

    Maybe at short time scales, free will doesn't really exist. Instincts and reflexes take over, though these can be conditioned. At longer time scales, though, free will surely does exist. The brain has more than one way of processing information and deciding on a course of action.

    1. Re:Bullshit conclusion by Maritz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is how to define 'free will'. You're certainly free to choose your choice... I think anyone who suggests that the output is completely divorced from the input is a bit of a wacko. At the same time, I think our available degrees of freedom are so large that you might as well just take it that we have a good approximation of free will. Makes the question almost boring to be honest. Who cares if we have true philosophical free will? Isn't that the same as arguing that the future does not depend on the past, in the context of humanity but in no other context?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re: Bullshit conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Choice is a conscious process"

      Prove it. And then once you've done that, try to wriggle out of the next logical conclusion which is that animals are also conscious since they also make choices. And then try to explain how insects and computers are not conscious.

      Free will is most definitely an illusion, and consciousness is not what you think it is. It's more akin to a sense than anything. If free will is not an illusion, then where does it come from? Why do humans have it, but not chimps? Why do chimps have it, but not rabbits? Etc... If every physical mechanism in the universe is probabilistic and fuzzy, where does free will come from?

    3. Re:Bullshit conclusion by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or to put it differently: Free will may well require thinking about things for a while, while reflex-like fast decisions are just that. Just as most sane people would probably have expected anyways.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re: Bullshit conclusion by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If free will is not an illusion, then where does it come from? Why do humans have it, but not chimps? Why do chimps have it, but not rabbits?

      I've never thought this was a very interesting question to ask. It seems reasonable to assume that free will could be an emergent condition that arises out of the physical complexity and number of connections in the brain. This isn't so different from other traits such as language, self-awareness, empathy, etc. As to whether say, chimps or dolphins exhibit it I don't know, but I'd expect that once you start moving towards rodents the likelihood (or maybe level of, if it's not binary) of free will diminishes. Most would probably reason that insects and bacteria are completely hardwired to behave via instinct.

      Other posters have mentioned that actions requiring an immediate response may be more derived from instinct rather than conscious thought and consideration, and that seems to make sense. Perhaps once a physical brain has evolved to a certain level of complexity, it can start running advanced software whereas before that it's limited to the ROM burned into the circuitry, but when there's not time available it falls back to the real-time hardware :)

      If every physical mechanism in the universe is probabilistic and fuzzy, where does free will come from?

      Oddly enough, the existence of quantum mechanics seems to make free will more likely, rather than less. In a fully Newtonian universe, you could argue that by knowing the position and vector of every atom you might predict the future, which sounds a lot like fate, where all future action is based on the past. However, the apparent fuzziness of our reality seems to leave the door open to much more complex probabilistic, entangled, and parallel behaviors.

      Or we're all just brains in a jar plugged into the Matrix.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
  2. How is this a test on free will? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Our primitive mind designed for a world where we are constantly under attack or will need to attack others, is the product of 500 millions years of evolution. Our higher brain functionally only 2 or 3 million years. So yes in term of making quick decision our primitive brain kicks in. We use it while driving, and every day living. That is why magicians are able to pull off their tricks on us. They get the primitive brain distracted on something else while they do something else. The higher human brain is much slower however it will try to process more information. Such as the question to the volunteers of this study if they want to do it or not. There is no immediate danger there is no pressure of instant response they can stand back and think about it. Factor in what rewards would they get, what are the risks, what trade offs from the action will occur. That is free will. However if someone tried to get volunteers and is a natural sales man would apply pressure on them to make a decision far more quickly. Because they will avoid them trying to think about it, they will keep their minds occupied with idle chit-chat, and implying the positive images of what will happen.
    The study shows our primitive mind makes a lot of decisions for us. But nothing about free will.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. "Free Will" is entirely incorrect... by Pollux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the abstract... Here, we explore the possibility that choices can seem to occur before they are actually made...The experience of choice is susceptible to “postdictive” influence and that people may systematically overestimate the role that consciousness plays in their chosen behavior.

    Free will is too heavy a term for what's at play here. These methods of study simply show that our freedom of choice does not mean that we choose at random. And that's been studied and experimented with, debated by philosophers throughout human history, and has popped up even on Slashdot. As my first source clearly says, "One of the worst ways to generate 'random' numbers is to ask somebody to write down some numbers 'at random'. It won't work...The human mind is built for patterns; it doesn't like boring repititions." Just because we have the freedom to choose, a.k.a. "free will," does not guarantee our choices is random.

    This experiment just shows that, when we aren't given enough time for the "consciousness circuitry" within our minds to make its choice, other circuitry in our minds take over and make for some interesting results. Maybe, instead of debating whether or not free will exists, we should instead attempt to analyze what cranial pathways are taking over. I'd be very interested to know what portions of the mind take over when it's forced to make split-second decisions, then measure whether or not these decisions are more accurate, or in what ways, compared to the "I've had time to think about it, and I've concluded..." choices.