The Illusion Of Free Will

Sometime ago I wrote a post called The Limits Of Free Will In Human Action in which I outlined my view that humans lack free will where unalterable, instinctual behaviors are in play. For example, I believe doing something truly significant about mitigating climate change is and will remain impossible because the instinctual drive to grow (in numbers or consumption) would have to be overridden at the level of human populations. (Some individuals can exercise "free will" in this matter, choosing to downsize, but only a very few.)

Consequently, people concerned about global warming (e.g., climate activists like Wen Stephenson or Bill McKibben) invent delusional stories which allow them to maintain the illusion of free will in this matter, which in turn keeps their hopes alive, gives them a sense that their lives have meaning and purpose, allows them to socialize often with like-minded people, etc.

You know, the human circle jerk (metaphorically speaking, of course ).

Specifically, these activists make the usual move by creating a story about "good guys" (people like them) and "bad guys" (usually, fossil fuel companies). Not only does this happy story maintain the illusion of the possibility of strong, concerted action about the climate, but it also explains why such activism fails over and over again to achieve any significant result (e.g., because the wealthy drug-dealing fossil fuel companies are almost politically omnipotent). All of this is mildly psychotic.

I was listening to a Radio Lab program last week which explains a famous experiment which seems to imply that free will does not exist at all, even in small things like wiggling your finger. The hosts enlisted neurologist V.S. Ramachandran to explain what's going on. I've included the broadcast and a partial transcript. The relevant part starts at about the 15 minute mark.

Partial Transcript

People were invited to participate in an experiment. Their heads were hooked up to some equipment, and they were told:

"At any time you wish, wiggle your finger."

To wiggle your finger takes two steps, first you have to decide to wiggle and then you wiggle, so you have to think about it before you do it.

When they did this experiment and they looked back at the brain graphs of all the people who wiggled their fingers, what they found was this:

Your sensation that you asked your finger to wiggle, your will, happened a second after the brain kicked in. First you see a blib indicating your brain getting ready to wiggle, and then a blip when you wiggle.

A second before you decide to wiggle, mysteriously, your brain is already getting ready.

You think you are willing the brain to do something, but it's your brain which is willing you to will. It's thinking ahead of you, and your so-called thinking is a post-hoc rationalization.

So you don't have any free will — that was the implication the philosophers came up with.

This experiment, which has been replicated over and over again, is entirely consistent with my Flatland model of human cognition, in particular my points #4 and #5.

4.  Such an "architecture" could only arise by means of standard evolutionary processes working over the period of idiosyncratic brain expansion (encephalization) in the human animal—our lineage among the hominins—which occurred over (at least) the last 2.5 million years. If you think about it, you will quickly conclude that there is a fundamental integration problem regarding awareness and the unconscious. In short, these two mind components are poorly integrated in accordance with the observations in note #2 above.

5.  If this "architecture" of the mind is conceptually correct, it implies that consciousness itself (awareness, the Ego, the sense of self) arose as an evolutionarily useful byproduct of bigger, better connected, unconscious brains. If that were so, we would expect to observe the basic illusion that awareness is running the show, whereas it is actually the poor dependent in a master/slave relationship.

You may want to review that post now

Given the disturbing nature of all this, it may be a good time to listen to some good music.

 

Comments

[Andy]

I enjoyed that. I've thought for a while that we can't be much different from other animals, what we have is a rationalising brain that gives meaning to our instincts. Instincts could be termed as subconscious, either way they are what guides our behaviour. Thanks Dave for explaining why we are, what we are.
I don't find it so disturbing. Obviously the same mechanism that gives babies the instinct to suckle or calves the instincts to walk are not as limited as many would believe.

All the best