Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

August 20th, 2008 | Tags: , , , ,

Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Many scientists and philosophers are convinced that free will doesn’t exist at all. According to these skeptics, everything that happens is determined by what happened before—our actions are inevitable consequences of the events leading up to the action—and this fact makes it impossible for anyone to do anything that is truly free. This kind of anti-free will stance stretches back to 18th century philosophy, but the idea has recently been getting much more exposure through popular science books and magazine articles. Should we worry? If people come to believe that they don’t have free will, what will the consequences be for moral responsibility?

In a clever new study, psychologists Kathleen Vohs at the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler at the University of California at Santa Barbara tested this question by giving participants passages from The Astonishing Hypothesis, a popular science book by Francis Crick, a biochemist and Nobel laureate (as co-discoverer, with James Watson, of the DNA double helix). Half of the participants got a passage saying that there is no such thing as free will. The passage begins as follows: “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. Who you are is nothing but a pack of inevitable .”
The passage then goes on to talk about the neural basis of decisions and claims that “…although we appear to have free will, in fact, our choices have already been predetermined for us and we cannot change that.” The other participants got a passage that was similarly scientific-sounding, but it was about the importance of studying consciousness, with no mention of free will.

After reading the passages, all participants completed a survey on their belief in free will. Then comes the inspired part of the experiment. Participants were told to complete 20 arithmetic problems that would appear on the computer screen. But they were also told that when the question appeared, they needed to press the space bar, otherwise a computer glitch would make the answer appear on the screen, too. The participants were told that no one would know whether they pushed the space bar, but they were asked not to cheat.

The results were clear: those who read the anti-free will text cheated more often! (That is, they pressed the space bar less often than the other participants.) Moreover, the researchers found that the amount a participant cheated correlated with the extent to which they rejected free will in their survey responses.

  1. The Barefoot Bum
    August 20th, 2008 at 11:47
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Part of the problem is that “free will” as a philosophical concept is undefined. Given that both a causal account and a random account both are taken to undermine “free will”, it is difficult to understand what kind of account would support the concept.

  2. Mike Deuerling
    August 20th, 2008 at 19:35
    Reply | Quote | #2

    The mechanism of willpower is determined by the operation of natural laws (behaviorism); but the development of the mechanism is programmed by chance events that occur in our lives.

  3. Spoonman
    August 21st, 2008 at 09:43
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Are they really chance, though? If you go back, every event is tied to every event that preceded it, and given sufficient knowledge of the variables involved you can predict precisely what is going to happen next. They simply seem random because we’re incapable of contemplating all of the variables involved.