Since Ajeesh wants to discuss this issue, I thought I will start a brief survey of this area and write something. Below is given the link to one article as a beginning. This article does not address the central issues of the dispute about 'Whether neuroscience refutes the idea od free will ?', but still is worth reading.
Does Neuroscience Refute Free Will?
Daily Article by Lucretius Posted on 10/20/2005
http://mises.org/story/1943
ഇന്ത്യ
2 weeks ago
18 comments:
thank you for showing us the article..
word verification is causing some problem on comments.i think it is better to avoid that.
Hi, all, and ajeesh. The confusion about free will arises only because we think of free will a little too literally. Freedom, and so free will, is a relative thing, we are free only in comparison to something that is not ' free'r ' than us. Why should we assume that a free will exists ? There is no need for it, why do we, without any basis for it at all, assume that absolute freedom exists ? If everybodys neurons ( short for neural networks, harish ! ) fire before they think, then any tampering with it would constitute a huge intervention in nature's order. On the other hand, if it occurs only in some patients, it can be manipulated to the patients advantage.
I assume, harish, that its a stimulus, of whatever nature, that initiates firing of neurons,in the subconscious or the consciois mind. Is that true ? Neurons are firing randomly throughout our lives, does it have direct correlation to our activities ? Can the exercise of control by the conscious mind, the cortexx, be defined as the free will of a person ? If that control can be achieved, by training or treatment, does the firing pf the subconscious networks have any relevance, except as an academic point ? Thank you
Hi friends,
I read the article. The author Lucretius is talking more about ‘responsibility’ than free will. I do not deny the fact that we have some sort of responsibilities in our actions but it is a highly relative thing. We get injured in accidents, war or earthquake but the degree of our responsibility of injury vary in each case, we are more responsible in the war than in an accident and the degree of our responsibility is almost zero in an earthquake. We can’t kill a person and blame it on the neuroscience. But the neuroscience has something more important to teach us. Look at animals, they are moving, playing or fighting like ourselves. Can we say that they are conscious of their actions like human beings? Can we say that their “will” to do something is like ours? Not exactly, but the nature of consciousness or will changes according to their genetic make up or neural networks found in their body. I still argue that the “momentary will” to do some “simple actions” is an illusion created by brain. We may feel the “will” before an action because necessary neuronal messaging system for thoughts is acting faster than neuronal messaging systems for the motor actions. There is an experiment we used to play in our childhood. A friend drops a coin between the thumb and index finger from some levels above. We know exactly when he drops the coin and we know that we need to catch it. We will not be able to catch the coin if we try, we close the fingers after the coins passes. Our thoughts act quickly but there is a delay in motor actions. So it is possible that the brain may create the “will” after that “action” but the will reaches our consciousness before the action happens in our body. And we get an illusion of free will. We should not confuse the biological concept of free will with the social – philosophical model of free will.
As a reply to your SMS, I agree with you what you said about Nature vs. Nurture issue and here is what I think about it.
Nature vs. Nurture: We don’t have a perception to the world, our perception is only to a model of the world that is in the brain. So nurture is a property of nature. No absolute – independent environment is not possible in human perception. An unnecessary dichotomy like brain vs. mind, as you know mind is a property of brain. We are a pack of neurons or a vehicle for successful passage of genes. We are and we can only aware of an environment that is provided for us by genes or neurons. A dog and a man sitting in the same room have different environments, and they act differently to same stimuli, only because they have different genetic makeup. The same example is also applicable to two human beings sitting in a same room. They have slightly different environments because of their slightly different genetic make up compared to dog and a man. A moving shadow may frighten one person while other person may not feel anything at all. What I want to say aloud is there is no environment that is independent of brain, environment is a model in our brain and it is dependent upon our genetic makeup. I am not rejecting the idea of an absolute reality or environment. But currently we have no tools or ways to identify or understand it, our current system of knowledge and science depends on human - animal perception. So the debate of Nature vs. Nurture ends here with the conclusion that Nurture is a part of, a property of Nature.
Something related to our subject here.
http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm
Benjamin Libet may be the first person to talk about this subject. Later, others also confirm his experiments with fMRI.
I was away for 2 days and hence read the posts only today. I do not know what is the word verification problem mentioned by Vrajesh. Can you me help by giving more details and hoe to avoid it ?.
The point raised by Sashi is complex. We may have to go deeper in to neurophysiology. There are random firing of neurons taking place at differnt locations. One theory points to the role of sweeping thalamo-cortical electricsal oscillations occuring at specified periods. All neural events occuring during on such sweep (they are called gamma band oscillation if I remember correctly) are temporally united (time locked0 creating the apparent unity of consciousness. There are other theories and explanations as well. I think treatments are aimed at increasing consious control over the subcortical events and therby empowering one to be in charge of oneself.
Ajeesh has made a correct observation regarding free wil and responsiblity. At neural level, free will refers to the inveitability and irreversibilty of an action, once the necessary neural processes have started. The issue of responsiblity of one's action etc are at the level of social / philosophical interpretations. But in cases of addictions and certain compulive behaviors (shop lifing, sexual offences etc), the dividng line is very marrow. Animals are not 'conscious' in the way we use the term in neurosciences. They are controlled by instincts. Man is the only organism that engages in sex for pleasure. Also we do it in a face to face position that helps to increase bonding. For animals sex is only or mostly for procreation. No bonding is involved. The issue of catching the coin involoves aspects like eye sight, psychomoter speed and control, hand eye coordination, speed of reflex actions etc. It may not be the best example to illustrate free will. The failure may be due to above mentionedvariable alone.
I agree with Sashi on his concepts of free will and freedom. Those things are relative and there is actually no need to assume that a free will exists. Freedom and free will are abstract concepts used to convey some ideas. It is like a ghost, an idea of a ghost is here but no ghost in real.
I can speculate that consciousness in human beings is an improvement upon instincts of animals, in evolution. A genetic mutation transferred to next generations can be considered as transfer of learning or knowledge from one point in evolution to another point in the future. Genes/brains are plastic in nature and those genes/brains that are moving from a level of instinct to a higher level should be favoured by natural selection. It is possible that animal instincts can be evolved to human consciousness. I like to reject any idea of consciousness that is independent of evolution. We are simply an improvement on ants, cats, dogs or monkeys. It is absurd for me to think of a completely and absolutely new capability of consciousness emerged in evolution all of a sudden only for us, the human beings. We do not need any consciousness (the word used in philosophers or laymen’s meaning) to walk, cross the road, eating or driving. We do all those things and those very actions fool us into believing that we are consciously doing it. A will is created for us by our brain. For our comfort?
hi, i think ajeesh is right in assuming that human beings are more evolved, rather than a flash-in-the-pan creation. I would like to point out to harish that it is perfectly possible to assume and consummae in an amimal like position in human sex, the only constraints being our physical situation. It is only a function of our physical structure that we have sex face to face. We may like to assume that position with somebody we like, we may not think it mandatory in a random situation so I would not like to place it on a psychological level as a significant factor, there could be cultural and physical issues like our eyes being in front, our noses in the front, our ears orientated anteriorly etc etc. Even the pleasure part is a rapidly waning phenomena, a person might even refuse sex a 3rd or 4th time in quick succession, so is it not a function of certain physical attributes than a purely psychological one ? What we need to know basically is, how we can help a person to assume a mental state as similar to that obtaining in a majority of the population existing at that time. but will that not kill creativity, intuition, invention ? Probably to an extent. I would like to know harishs opinion on that. Thank you
Ajeesh, I fully agree with your point. Nothing in biology including human consciousnes can be understood properly without considering the angle of evolutionary or survival advantage. Human beings like us or rather our brains, have evolved this special property of consciousness over centuries of evolution. It is here as a reality whether we like it or not. We cannot recede backwards in evolution and become animal like. The difference is in conditioning of behavior. The bee or spider builds its nest or hive in a very artisitc manner. We will find it difficult to do this with such precision. But a bee or spider can only do this same thing repeatedly. It cannot suddenly decide to change its style of building or use different materials. Such changes do occur as part of adaptaion to changes in environment on an evolutionary time scale. It is in this sense that we have to discuss the idea of free will. But there is no free will in an absolutes sense. As Sashi rightly pointed out we have to accept a relativistic position. But we humans also function at the reflex level at times, that is when we are overwhelmed by sudden fear etc. I always think that animals especially the higher ones up the evolutionay ladder might be having some rudimentary forms of consciousness.
Welcome Sashi. I saw your comment only after I posted the previous reply to Ajeesh. Even if the face to face position evolved for physical reasons. my contention is that repeatedly having sex in this postition, watching each other giving and taking pleasure, definitely helps to foster strong bonding. Since both physical and psychological factors are importany in sex, I have no difficulty in accepting your statement on repeated sex, pleasure etc. Variation is a basic feature of property of biological world. It is the basis of evolution as well. Creatures with variations best suited to environment survive and reproduce more. In statistics, they use a term variance. It is the square of the standard deviation. One great teacher who taught me research methodology used to say that even if the mean scores of different samples vary (be it about IQ or blood chemistry levels etc), the variance observed between these samples will be almost same. That is the tendency to experiment with variation is an inherent property of living world. Be it in sex or for survival advantage, variations are a relief. I do not want to deviate from the main topic and hence full stop.
hi harish, thank you for your opinions. By the way, is psychology a science or an art ? It seems to be too elastic to be a science, and too scientific to be an art form ! one is seized by the hopelesness of the situation, having the knowledge but absolutely useless in a practical manner. It seems absolute contradictions can be admirably reconciled only in psychology ! Harish, as a doctor, i find it difficult to follow most of the technical issues, anybody from the general public would feel too intimidated to post on this blog. Maybe we can find a way to simplify these uery complex topics. Thank you
Thank you Sashi for pointing out a real possibility. I too want this blog to give basic information on mind, brain, their disorders and treatments. But unfortunately we are getting engrossed in issues which need deeper philosophical and scientific explanations. I shall try to keep away from using technical jargon as much as possible. I wanted to answer your query whether it is possible for the majority to be in similar mental state. This will be against the basic biological property of variations to improve chances of survival. I had to use the statistics analogy to explain this. That's all.
Psychology is a subject that has been gradually migrating from the fold of humanities to that of science. Earlier all universities were offering B A and M A degrees in Psychology. Now majority have made it B Sc and M Sc, Some even use the term Applied Psychology and clinical Psychology. Now the job of psychologists is to give psychotherapy and do the tests and measurements of the mental functions for the neuroscientists. In future, they may become nueroscientits themselves.
thanks harish for the clarifications. I think it is the metaphyrical nature of the subject that tends to lend it complexity, the abstractness of which allows even novices like me to advance opinions with a reasonable chance of not being contradicted ! What i mean to say is, i dont think you are jargonising, it is in the very nature of the beast you are riding that in the absence of concrete evidence, jargon is the only way of explaining the subject. If you are guilty of that charge, we are equally guilty of the same ! Thank you
We have agreed that 'free will' is a relative thing. So I am going for a specific example. Suppose, you bought a soft drink from a shop and took a sip, you like it and decide to take another sip. Can we say that the decision to take another sip on the soft drink is 'free will'? I like all of you to comment about this.
The situation gets more complex when we decide to watch a movie again, or planning for holidays abroad. I think the underlying neurological processes are the same but get more or less complex according to different situations. It may be that we have difficulty in explaining the more complex forms with the current knowledge of neurology. I like to think of 'free will' as a collective - organised - sustained form of neural activities with the concept of plasticity included. In the first example I have given, it looks like that we have a 'veto' against the urge to sip the soft drink second time. The concept of 'veto' does not enhance the concept of an 'independent free will' as some philosophers think. The 'veto' is nothing but brain plasticity.
Thank you.
Dr.Harish says in one of his comments that a bee or spider cannot suddenly decide to change its style of building or use different materials when constructing a hive or nest. We, humans are able to do all those things. So he wants to discuss the idea of free will in that aspect. I agree with him completely but it may be better to avoid such words like 'free will' there. A lot of philosophical, religious, sociological and psychological meanings are attached to the word 'free will'. I like to use the word 'brain/mind plasticity in the discussed case. It is simple and beautiful when we say our brain is more plastic than a bee or spider.
We can make better homes only because we have a much better brain. The conditioning of behavior also becomes different when applied to a highly plastic brain/genes compared to a bee or spider. Everything looks crystal clear and simple but it becomes so complicated an issue when we integrate heavy words like ‘free will’ to evolution or neurology.
All these discussions may look like mental gymnastics but I hope it may contribute to our understandings of life and existence. Exercise is also good for the mind?
Thank you.
First I shall write about the soft drink example. We do amny things again and again - eat same food, love same persons etc. Doing again does not go against the idea of free will. In these situations we are consciously willing to do the same act, because it we liked its outcome when we did it earlier; we also expect a good outcome this time too. Such repititions are not violation of ree will, though there may be some conditioning involved. But conditioning helps to reduce workload on the brain.
hi ajeesh, if free will is defined in the relativist way that harish says, then i think whether you take the next sip or not is of your free will. We need be bothered only about the business end of the neurological transaction, which is the effector organs and their actions. There might be a welter of neural networks firing in different areas, but its the cortex that mans the gates, and decides what passes through. So what we percieve as free will is actually the cortex making a decision. Since we are what our cortex is, the decision made by it is accepted as the free will of that cortex. It is not technically ' free ' , and the term can be hugely misleading to anybody who takes it literally. But for want of a _' free'r ' will, i take this as the freest available at present to my knowledge. Thank you.
Post a Comment