I just ran across an article in The Atlantic called A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked. I accept the result. What Benjamin Libet thought he was measuring was something else (he had found reliable brain activity prior to a subject's conscious decision to lift a finger, called the unconscious "readiness potential"). Read the article for details.
That said, the new study does not make a case for free will. It merely debunks an argument that was meant to support the position that free will does not exist.
In the Flatland model, I hypothesized that when there is something important is on the line, free will does not exist. In that model, the phrase "something important" means an actual existential threat to a person or an event (action, speech) which that person's brain interprets as an existential threat. The claim is that this is how the mind works, i.e., it is part of Human Nature according to the model.
In short, the reaction to existential threats (real or interpreted) is automatic and spontaneous in all or virtually all cases. I make the usual allowance for the vanishingly rare exception because variation in the human population may countenance a few exceptions. You will very likely never encounter one.
Note well that asking an experimental subject to voluntarily raise a finger whenever they want and then recording the results does not constitute an existential threat to the subject in any way. In fact, most of our day to day existence does not involve such threats (or otherwise we would go crazy). So the flatland model allows for free will to exist in those cases (e.g., perhaps you freely make a "decision" to eat X instead of Y for breakfast).
Let's consider a non-trivial example where something important is on the line. This is a very common kind of example, especially in the politically polarized times we live in. I'll lay it out simply below.
- political belief X is integrated into P's "internal self" (see the 4th Flatland essay). So belief X forms part of P's self-identity.
- in conversation with P, another person asserts political belief Y
- Y contradicts X in some fundamental way
How does P react to the assertion of Y? My lifetime of experience, and yours too, if you trained yourself to notice, has always given one of two answers—
- person P reacts as if he has been assaulted. He becomes defensive or angry in varying degrees.
- person P reacts as if he didn't even hear Y, or he dismisses the importance of Y, or he casts doubt on Y, etc., regardless of whether Y is verifiably true. In the flatland model, these are types of filtering reactions.
The key to these behaviors is the well-supported assumption that "the belief X forms part of P's self-identity." The assertion of Y is thus interpreted by P as an existential threat, i.e., a threat to P's sense of self. Of course, contradicting someone's beliefs does not constitute an actual existential threat, but that doesn't seem to matter.
Humans deal with existential threats instinctively (by reacting to Y, or filtering Y). These behaviors are automatic and spontaneous. Some people will filter, others will get furious. It depends on the cognitive "style" of the person in question. Options are limited regardless of style.
Note that if the belief X does not form part of P's self-identity, there is nothing at stake and therefore no existential threat. Or perhaps the assertion of Y does not contradict X. In either case, no conflict or filtering ensues.
There is a boatload of evidence from psychology, cognitive science and neuroscience to back these assertions up, though you won't find that evidence framed the way it is in the Flatland model. All four Flatland essays contain material bearing on this subject.
Lately when I am out in public I do not talk about politics (or other "controversial" things like climate change) with people known to me whose political beliefs clearly form part of their identity. Or I will agree with them to avoid conflict. Non-political people avoid political discussions because there is a very high risk of uncomfortable social friction.
Welcome to America in 2019.
So I don't much care about silly experiments where experimental subjects are told to raise a finger or not. Such experiments tell you nothing at all about Human Nature. Behavior didn't evolve over millions of years based on finger lifting. Humans only passed their genes on based on how they responded to existential threats. The descendants of those using effective strategies are still with us. Those who used flawed strategies left no descendants.
So simple, yet so hard for humans to understand.
