Many scientists think that free-will is an illusion. That is, intentions, choices, and decisions are made by subconscious mind, which only lets the conscious mind know what was willed after the fact. This argument was promoted long ago by scholars like Darwin, Huxley, and Einstein. Many modern scientists also hold that position and have even performed experiments since the 1980s they say prove it.These experiments supposedly show that the brain makes a subconscious decision before it is realized consciously. In the typical experiment supporting illusory free will, a subject is asked to voluntarily press a button at any time and notice the position of a clock marker when they think they first willed the movement. At the same time, brain activity is monitored over the part of the brain that controls the mechanics of the movement. The startling typical observation is that subjects show brain activity changes before they say they intended to make the movement. In other words the brain issued the command before the conscious mind had a chance to decide to move. All this happens in less than a second, but various scientists have interpreted this to mean that the subconscious mind made the decision to move and the conscious mind only realized the decision later.
In a paper published in Advances in Cognitive Psychology, I challenge the whole series of experiments performed since the 1980s purported to show that intentions, choices, and decisions are made subconsciously, with conscious mind being informed after the fact. These experiments do not test what they are intended to test and are misinterpreted to support the view of illusory free will.
My criticisms focus on three main points: 1) timing of when a free-will event occurred requires introspection, and other research shows that introspective estimates of event timing are not accurate, 2) simple finger movements may be performed without much conscious thought and certainly not representative of the conscious decisions and choices required in high-speed conversation or situations where the subconscious mind cannot know ahead of time what to do, and 3) the brain activity measures have been primitive and incomplete.
I point out 12 categories of what I regard as flawed thinking about free will. Some of the more obvious issues that many scientists have glossed over include:
- Decisions are not often instantaneous (certainly not on a scale of a fraction of a second).
- Conscious realization that a decision has been made is delayed from the actual decision, and these may be two distinct processes.
- Decision making is not the only mental process going on in such tasks.
- Some willed action, as when first learning to play a musical instrument or touch type must be freely willed because the subconscious mind cannot know ahead of time what to do.
- Free-will experiments have relied too much on awareness of actions and time estimation of accuracy.
- Extrapolating from such simple experiments to all mental life is not justified.
- Conflicting data and interpretations have been ignored.
My paper concludes with a series of suggestions that scientists can use to test free-will issues. Equally important, the research I suggest would not only help identify reliable markers of conscious decision-making but would also help scientists learn what the brain does to achieve consciousness in the first place.
The implications of this debate are profound. It determines our world view of whether we are victims of genetics and environment or bear responsibility for our intentions, decisions, and choices. I contend we are responsible for what we make of our brains and for our choices and decisions in life. In a free-will world, people can choose to extricate themselves from many kinds of misfortune — not to mention make the right choices that can prevent misfortune.
In the real world, subconscious and conscious minds interact and share duties. Subconscious mind governs simple or well-learned tasks, like habits or ingrained prejudices, while conscious mind deals with tasks that are complex or novel, like first learning to ride a bike or play sheet music. Most deliberate new learning has to be mediated by free will, because subconscious mind has not yet had a chance to learn.
Reference
Klemm, W. (2010). Free will debates: Simple experiments are not so simple Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 6 (-1), 47-65 DOI: 10.2478/v10053-008-0076-2
W. R. Klemm, DVM, PhD
Dr. Klemm is Professor of Neuroscience and Professor of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences at Texas A&M University. He has written several books including Improving Everyday Memory, Core Ideas in Neuroscience, Blame Game. How To Win It, an Armadillos.20 Responses
- [...] influenced. But with lots of conflicting points of view (just check out this in depth discussion on Brain Blogger) it’s not always easy to draw simple [...]
- [...] at brainblogger there was a post recently (Free Will is NOT An Illusion) which argued against the idea that free will is an illusion. The author argues that the idea that [...]
- [...] saying, “Is your glass half empty, half full, or too big?”Shaheen E Lakhan presents Free Will is NOT An Illusion posted at Brain Blogger, saying, “Many scientists think that free-will is an illusion. That [...]
Could you not have posted this comment? If yes, why didn’t you then?
Also, let’s assume you’re faced with a certain choice and you’re trying to figure out what to do by thinking about the consequences, by remembering and extrapolating from your past experiences, by evaluation your current mood, etc.
Let’s now also assume that the EXACT same situation exists in a parallel universe (faced with the same choice, having had the same experiences, remembering the same things, etc). Could this ‘you’ come to a different conclusion that you in this world?
If yes then what made the difference? And how could you get a different result with exactly the same parameters?
Thank you.
“the subconscious mind cannot know ahead of time what to do”
Is that true?
Or:
“subconscious mind has not yet had a chance to learn”
Is that true?
How do you know? It is called “subconscious” after all, isn’t it?
This is a complicated subject … great to keep investigating it!
That’s my two cents, but obviously more research is required.
> Is all art merely the result of the past influencing what we create, or is true innovation spontaneous?
Could you give an example of ‘spontaneous true innovation’? Innovation doesn’t just come out of the blue. Even innovative things or ideas rely on stuff or ideas that existed before. Nothing is created ex nihilo. How could it?
And spontaneous ideas aren’t the result of a conscious decision anyway. They just ‘creep up’. And once there they’re not any different from any other stimuli we’re exposed to (and we react to).
Also, people can’t imagine what they haven’t experienced, in some way, first. A blind person can never come up with ‘blue’. A person that doesn’t know that elephants exist can’t just come up with one. Etc.
So that goes to show, even in the most human fields of art such as music improvisation, computers can be taught to be creative.
i do support the idea that it’s not an illusion.
though i ‘m a little bit against the title of the subject, because i think there is a difference between “free will” and “conscience”
there is always this race between the subconscience and conscience minds where subconscience is trying to take over the conscience one.
why i assumed there is this race, because i remember at some point of time, one could get to the result of a mathematical operation before performing the calculations.
or generally can think ahead without going through the proper sequence for analysis.
eventually the learning process is very much affecting the outcome of this “battle”.
subsconscience is definitely faster than the conscience one which by any means is reliving for the conscience who becomes lazy and less responsible and the “free will” as well is benefiting from the fact that it wants to reach a conclusion for an issue that fastest possible.
that’s why again i make a difference between the free will and sub and consc. minds.
so basically subconcsience acts like a database, very unique one, because it has this powerful combination of memory storage of one’s personal experience and human kind experience.
at the end the database needs to be filled with information to operate.
and this happens in someone’s conscience.
Two children – identical twins – grow up in the same house, same environment, and both are sexually abused. One grows up to perpetrate the same kinds of abuse as an adult, the other abhors the very thought of it.
or, two boys who grow up in the same neighborhood, both with a single mother who is a drug addict. Both end up joining gangs in their early teens in order to belong. Both are faced with the dilemna – say at the same exact age – of having to commit an abominable crime. One makes the choice to go ahead with the crime, one does not.
I have a hard time believing we have no free will because I know I personally am presented with decisions constantly. I know there are primitive urges that creep up that I will not entertain if the time or place is not right. I know that I am able, for instance, to think, “this child is misbehaving and it is making me angry” and then I am able go through a series of choices in my mind, ranging from the urge to smack the child reactively to trying to restrain the child from what they are doing in a very non-violent, uninvasive way.
It seems to me, the brain activity which is noted in the experiment could be this kind of process. A person given the choice of pushing a button whenever they want to may be thinking:
Has it been long enough?
How long was it between the last two times I pushed to button?
I wonder what it will tell them if I wait a moment before I push it?
Oh yeah, the button. (I got distracted)
We have no way of knowing what the split second “subconscious” thoughts may have been, therefore any conclusion drawn from this is speculative.
While I find this interesting, I’m not certain it falls in the right category to be included in the Steppers Wisdom blog carnival. Free will is certainly a twelve-step consideration, so for that reason I am still considering including your entry.
> Two children – identical twins – grow up in the same house, same environment, and both are sexually abused. One grows up to perpetrate the same kinds of abuse as an adult, the other abhors the very thought of it.
That’s not a proof for free will though. The children surely have NOT experienced the same things (or met the same people) 100%. So of course there can be a difference in reaction to a certain event: different input, different output. Doesn’t mean that either had a choice.
…and by the time their nervous system starts to develop they are already different. The connectivity in their brains will differ. Their experiences in the womb will differ, even according to how much of the blood supply and nutrient supply they receive.
The amazing thing is that twins are as alike as they are. Difference should be expected.
I started a new blog recently and was motivated to write up a more detailed response. Check it out!
http://cognitivephilosophy.net/consciousness/free-will-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/
What would it feel like to us if we didn’t have free will, if we were just very complex automata that bumbled along in the world, doing some stuff, and behaving ‘as if’ we had free will? Wouldn’t it be just like this?