Is Free Will Incompatible with Neuroscience?

[Rational Agnostic]

It seems to me that the concept of "free will" or the idea that we have control over actions is incompatible with a materialist understanding of neuroscience. We know that our neurophysiology is what determines our actions, and no one chooses her/his neurophysiology, therefore, no one is ultimately in control of her/his actions. If you were to replace all of my brain cells, neuron for neuron, with those of a psychopath, I think it's safe to say I would make vastly different decisions. So how can one believe in the notion of "free will" while simultaneously believing in modern neuroscience? How can a person truly be in complete control of their actions if their brain is what makes their decisions and they did not choose the physical makeup of their own brain?

 

[George-ananda]

It seems to me that the concept of "free will" or the idea that we have control over actions is incompatible with a materialist understanding of neuroscience. We know that our neurophysiology is what determines our actions, and no one chooses her/his neurophysiology, therefore, no one is ultimately in control of her/his actions. If you were to replace all of my brain cells, neuron for neuron, with those of a psychopath, I think it's safe to say I would make vastly different decisions. So how can one believe in the notion of "free will" while simultaneously believing in modern neuroscience? How can a person truly be in complete control of their actions if their brain is what makes their decisions and they did not choose the physical makeup of their own brain?

This is an infrequent time I pretty much agree with you Hubert. In a materialist paradigm free will is only an illusion but seemingly real.

Something truer to free will requires belief in there being something more to a person than physical matter such as a 'soul' concept.

But I'll add not all neuroscience has to be materialist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It seems to me that the concept of "free will" or the idea that we have control over actions is incompatible with a materialist understanding of neuroscience. We know that our neurophysiology is what determines our actions, and no one chooses her/his neurophysiology, therefore, no one is ultimately in control of her/his actions. If you were to replace all of my brain cells, neuron for neuron, with those of a psychopath, I think it's safe to say I would make vastly different decisions. So how can one believe in the notion of "free will" while simultaneously believing in modern neuroscience? How can a person truly be in complete control of their actions if their brain is what makes their decisions and they did not choose the physical makeup of their own brain?

What are we supposed to do about it?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

What are we supposed to do about it?

Nothing I guess. I'm just pointing out that neuroscience pretty much proves free will is an illusion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Nothing I guess. I'm just pointing out that neuroscience pretty much proves free will is an illusion.

It may be but I just don't know enough about physics, especially quantum physics, to inform me, such that I tend to leave it open and accept that my decisions are actually mine, even if they aren't.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It may be but I just don't know enough about physics, especially quantum physics, to inform me, such that I tend to leave it open and accept that my decisions are actually mine, even if they aren't.

I don't see how random quantum events could imply free will either. Even if quantum events affect our actions, we still don't have control over them, at least I can't see how we could. @Polymath257 is probably the most informed forum member when it comes to this stuff. I'm curious what his thoughts on free will/determinism are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that the concept of "free will" or the idea that we have control over actions is incompatible with a materialist understanding of neuroscience. We know that our neurophysiology is what determines our actions, and no one chooses her/his neurophysiology, therefore, no one is ultimately in control of her/his actions. If you were to replace all of my brain cells, neuron for neuron, with those of a psychopath, I think it's safe to say I would make vastly different decisions. So how can one believe in the notion of "free will" while simultaneously believing in modern neuroscience? How can a person truly be in complete control of their actions if their brain is what makes their decisions and they did not choose the physical makeup of their own brain?

So...

- "free will" means having control over our actions,
- our brain has control over our actions,
- and therefore, we do not have free will?

Seems that this only works if we assume that we are not our brains, which I think is an assumption that should be justified if you're going to rely on it.

 

[joe1776]

It seems to me that the concept of "free will" or the idea that we have control over actions is incompatible with a materialist understanding of neuroscience. We know that our neurophysiology is what determines our actions, and no one chooses her/his neurophysiology, therefore, no one is ultimately in control of her/his actions. If you were to replace all of my brain cells, neuron for neuron, with those of a psychopath, I think it's safe to say I would make vastly different decisions. So how can one believe in the notion of "free will" while simultaneously believing in modern neuroscience? How can a person truly be in complete control of their actions if their brain is what makes their decisions and they did not choose the physical makeup of their own brain?

Maybe I'm missing your point but it sounds like you're confusing neuroscience, which explains causes but can't, on its own, cause anything, with the nervous system, which can.

The psychopath can, by force of will, choose not to behave like a psychopath. This however would not prove that freewill exists because it could be the illusion of freewill and we can't tell the difference.

 

[Nakosis]

It seems to me that the concept of "free will" or the idea that we have control over actions is incompatible with a materialist understanding of neuroscience. We know that our neurophysiology is what determines our actions, and no one chooses her/his neurophysiology, therefore, no one is ultimately in control of her/his actions. If you were to replace all of my brain cells, neuron for neuron, with those of a psychopath, I think it's safe to say I would make vastly different decisions. So how can one believe in the notion of "free will" while simultaneously believing in modern neuroscience? How can a person truly be in complete control of their actions if their brain is what makes their decisions and they did not choose the physical makeup of their own brain?

I disagree. I believe we can alter our neurophysiology through an indirect process. Consciously you may not be in full control but the conscious self is only a small part of the brain. I think the mistake most people make is to assume the conscious self is the entirety of who we are. Whereas I see myself as basically a central nervous system wearing a meat suit. There is a lot more to us than just the conscious self. Sure most of the time the subconscious self is a reactive system but consciously, we can alter how the subconscious reacts. So if somehow you were able to program your conscious awareness into the mind of a psychopath you would likely begin to alter your subconscious responses.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I disagree. I believe we can alter our neurophysiology through an indirect process. Consciously you may not be in full control but the conscious self is only a small part of the brain. I think the mistake most people make is to assume the conscious self is the entirety of who we are. Whereas I see myself as basically a central nervous system wearing a meat suit. There is a lot more to us than just the conscious self. Sure most of the time the subconscious self is a reactive system but consciously, we can alter how the subconscious reacts. So if somehow you were able to program your conscious awareness into the mind of a psychopath you would likely begin to alter your subconscious responses.

So theoretically if Charles Manson and Mother Theresa traded brains, what do you think would have happened?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

So...

- "free will" means having control over our actions,
- our brain has control over our actions,
- and therefore, we do not have free will?

Seems that this only works if we assume that we are not our brains, which I think is an assumption that should be justified if you're going to rely on it.

Well, "we" didn't choose our own neurophysiology. That is, our brains did not create themselves. So they/we don't choose how they/we control our actions. I think the argument still holds.

Another question: If we could somehow "rewind" the universe, would it be possible for us to have done anything differently? If the big bang was repeated with the exact same initial physical conditions, nothing would turn out differently. At least that is what many prominent scientists including Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, and Richard Dawkins think and I tend to agree. But ultimately I suppose it is unprovable either way.

 

[sun rise]

The brain makes decisions before you are aware of them but that does not mean that free will is an illusion - only that free will might happen out of conscious awareness

Brain activity predicts decisions before they are consciously made.

Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it, according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make before they themselves were even aware of having made a decision.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The brain makes decisions before you are aware of them but that does not mean that free will is an illusion - only that free will might happen out of conscious awareness

Brain activity predicts decisions before they are consciously made.

Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it, according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make before they themselves were even aware of having made a decision.

If the choice is already made before you're aware of making it, then how are you in control of that choice in any sense?

 

[Polymath257]

My basic position is that I have never seen a good definition of the concept of free will.

If your neurology determines your actions, then *you* determine your actions because you *are* your neurology. The neurology determines what you will choose, in other words *you* determine what you will choose.

And yes, we can indeed change our neurology over time. That is, after all, what happens whenever we learn something new, whether it be information or a new skill. We can train ourselves to do new things and think in new ways. That is 'changing our neurology' by changing ourselves. Then, hopefully, decisions afterwards will be more informed (by the neurology). We will 'want' different things because of our different knowledge and skills, in other words, because of our different neurology.

if you replace each neuron by those of a psychopath, you will gradually be changing *yourself* into that psychopath.

As for quantum mechanics, I don't see a lot of relevance for neurological phenomena: the scales of size are just too different. QM tends not to have a big role in anything above the size of molecules.

 

[Tambourine]

What exactly do you think a "free" will should be free from?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, "we" didn't choose our own neurophysiology. That is, our brains did not create themselves. So they/we don't choose how they/we control our actions. I think the argument still holds.

Another question: If we could somehow "rewind" the universe, would it be possible for us to have done anything differently? If the big bang was repeated with the exact same initial physical conditions, nothing would turn out differently. At least that is what many prominent scientists including Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, and Richard Dawkins think and I tend to agree. But ultimately I suppose it is unprovable either way.

I guess I'm not understanding your objection.

Are you saying that unless we have control over all aspects of ourselves, then we don't have free will?

Even the belief systems that assume some other source of free will (e.g. a soul) don't generally argue that we have control over that source.

 

[Polymath257]

If the choice is already made before you're aware of making it, then how are you in control of that choice in any sense?

You *are* making it. Just not consciously and not at the time you think you are.

 

[Nakosis]

So theoretically if Charles Manson and Mother Theresa traded brains, what do you think would have happened?

IMO it is not just the hardware. It is also the information stored by the hardware. All of the memory, knowledge, experiences. I don't know that Mother Theresa had any greater control over her subconscious desires than Charles Manson had. Her information was different and she was simply reacting to that information. If we were able to remove all of the memories, knowledge, experience of Charles Manson and upload that of Mother Theresa you'd have something more similar to Mother Theresa. Though I suspect a lot of dysphoria.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You *are* making it. Just not consciously and not at the time you think you are.

I agree, but if you're not aware of your choice, then how are you in control of it in any sense? To me, being in control of a choice requires awareness.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

My basic position is that I have never seen a good definition of the concept of free will.

If your neurology determines your actions, then *you* determine your actions because you *are* your neurology. The neurology determines what you will choose, in other words *you* determine what you will choose.

And yes, we can indeed change our neurology over time. That is, after all, what happens whenever we learn something new, whether it be information or a new skill. We can train ourselves to do new things and think in new ways. That is 'changing our neurology' by changing ourselves. Then, hopefully, decisions afterwards will be more informed (by the neurology). We will 'want' different things because of our different knowledge and skills, in other words, because of our different neurology.

if you replace each neuron by those of a psychopath, you will gradually be changing *yourself* into that psychopath.

As for quantum mechanics, I don't see a lot of relevance for neurological phenomena: the scales of size are just too different. QM tends not to have a big role in anything above the size of molecules.

The definition I've heard before for free will is the "ability to have acted differently." So, if it were possible to "rewind" the universe to the exact same physical state as it was at a previous time, would we have made the same decisions? If our decisions are purely determined by predictable physical processes (much like the behavior of stars and planets on a much more complex scale), then wouldn't our decisions turn out to be exactly the same if the physical composition of the universe was the same? I'm not a physics expert by any means, so I don't know. Sam Harris has used this argument to basically claim determinism as a scientific fact. I don't know if he's right or not, but the argument seems reasonable to me. But, I'm a physics ignoramus. So you'd know much better than I.