The Devil Made You Do It. Again
Lisa Kirchner
It wasn't the sexiest event that day -- Alan Alda was touting new inventions over at Baruch while our favorite Paul Miller (aka DJ Spooky) was putting in his time exploring parallel universes at NYU. But it wouldn't be fair to say World Science Festival's debate at the 92 Street Y was the opposite of sexy. If nothing else, taking on one of the most vexing questions of all time -- do humans have free will? -- in front of a New York audience took chutzpah.
As part of a weeklong series of events, the second annual World Science Festival brought in Nobel Laureate Paul Nurse to moderate a panel that included distinguished scientists from the three fields that overlap in this area: Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist, Alfred Mele, a philosopher, and Dan Wegner, a psychologist. The four entered, sat and crossed their legs in the same direction (as Wegner pointed out immediately when asked about free will), but there was clearly division among them.
Haggard re-framed the issue by talking about constructed actions versus reflexes, and touted the human brain's ability to deal with complex situations when "it's not obvious what response is required." He described studies that prove the brain reacts before the individual is conscious. His implication was that the brain relies almost exclusively on memory, even at birth.
Mele agreed that we have free will, whenever multiple decisions are possible and so long as we are acting without compulsions or disorders of any kind. Conditions that all but negate the possibility, except in the most trivial of circumstances, such as which pant leg to pull up first. (Though it's been suggested elsewhere that task order is determined by a person's disposition -- right-handed people, if they're optimistic, do the right side first -- quashing notions of free will under this model entirely.)
And finally, Wegner argued convincingly that feeling we have free will is as good as having free will. Which might lead some to ask, why should we care? After all, despite the staggering brainpower of the panel, it was hard not to look at them all and wonder just how silly and small these conundrums might one day seem. Once upon a time, scientists believed that rotting meat "transformed" into maggots.
Why you should care
If we accept that our actions are predictable based on our genetic code as opposed to free will, the sociological implications are vast. In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a landmark essay ("Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died"), eloquently describing the challenges. For those of you who might not get through its thousands of words, here are two quick examples. If there exists a "gay gene," then hindering gay rights is a futile attempt to legislate nature. Conversely, if men and women are hardwired differently, attempts to engender equality fly in the face of natural law. And this is but one aspect. The science is yet young, but the fear it engenders has been around for ages.
"Maybe we're not all interested in being wonderful machines," Nurse quipped after a couple of theories about enhancing human performance were trotted out. For now it's drugs you can take -- according to your own free will and your doctor's prescription-but surgical enhancements can't be far off. Who will be "The Decider" defining appropriate human performance? George Bush or his ilk? Or worse? (Yes, it could be much much worse.)
The Story
One of the most fascinating comments of the night was tossed off by Haggard when he described the brain as a post-dictive device. He likened free will to a confabulation, a story we tell about our actions, after the fact. The question that was never dealt with -- who's telling the story? And why?
Wegner pointed out historic mistakes in causality -- the belief that A causes B, when there's always X, Y or Z-but none of it touched his own real-life experience. A few years back he'd had an operation that caused him to lose his cognitive ability to monitor his actions. For several weeks after the surgery, Wegner would find himself moving his right hand without being aware he'd told himself to move his right hand. From there the discussion morphed into one of intentions, but the idea of the mind building a sense of itself was lost. Too bad, because this is where this quandary gets sexy.
Buddhists have been talking up the idea of a clingy ego for thousands of years. Was not Siddhartha the original quantum physicist? (Though another break for humor came when Wegner dismissed applying quantum theories to the free will question as an attempt at using one unknown to explain another.)
What all the studies described that night at the Y indicate is a collective human capacity for cohesion. Action, however, is an innate yearning regardless of the size, makeup or even existence of the clump of cells called the brain. Every living being is connected by action, whether it fits into the storyline or not. No matter who is telling the story or why, humans have evolved because of our capacity to foster this mutual interdependence. This is the very essence of hope. Without hope, there would be no chutzpah.
Image by Hljod.Huskona, courtesy of Creative Commons license.
- Lisa Kirchner's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Tags:
- Philosophy
- Psychology
- Science
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket
An eternal paradox...
"Free Will," like other rationalist metaphysical constructs, breaks down when pressed upon with much mental force. The most spirited analytic style (Western) philosophical defense of such a notion are almost comical in their self-delusion, if the rationalizations weren't so sad.
The "truth" is that when "Free Will" is examined from an "objective" point of view, there is no such thing. There is no "you" to exert such "Will," no individual, self-originating agent at all. Everything that composes and constitutes us as individuals originates from outside of us. (Western) continental style philosophers (try Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger) are much more apt to point out the paradox of "Free Will." It is an inescapable fact of our existence that we experience "freedom of will." This is just the type of creatures we are; this is part of being sentient/sapient (self-aware and aware of time). Thus the paradox: "Free Will" makes no sense, yet we experience it every moment.
Fatalism is what happens when we consciously abandon our "responsibility of freedom"; when we try to "opt out." Fatalism also happens to be the Western caricature of Eastern philosophy and other forms of "mysticism." Yet the smug Western philosopher is mistaken because the Mystic sees that their small body/mind/ego is an illusion which is a mere vehicle for (or manifestation of) the Great body/mind (God, Tao, Brahman, emptiness, no-thingness, or whatever). Yet how to discern between the two? Are we getting a taste for the paradox yet?
No matter how much science breaks down our silly metaphysical notions of objective "Free Will" (and it is sure to), this will not change the fact that we experience it as concretely as a root canal (if not more concretely). Is not the conscious experience of reality just as real (if not more real), than scientifically "objective" reality? If "Free Will" is an indispensible illusion, does this hypothetical fact make it any less indispensible for "us" as individuals? "Free Will" is a perennially great, human issue which has been covered up (almost completely now) by the contemporary obsession with scientific "objectivity".
What are "we" if not the emptiness, staring at itself through our individual eyes and exacting its "One True Will" through the average, net actions of all of us (plus non-human forces). Wouldn't it be awesome if everyone woke up and got on the same page? If everyone knew that we were all God, then what could we not accomplish? Yet how do we balance our "objective" union with our indispensible "subjective" experience of individuality..? This last question seems like a different facet or angle of the same paradox... anyone up for a good challenge?
"Sanity is Madness put to good use. Waking life is a dream controlled." -George Santayana
Free Willing
They willed to discuss .... and they willed to show up ... end of discussion ... lol
The "relativity" of the Human "free will" could be contemplated such ...
In each species of birds {for instance} one hears the same few notes ... with only a few variations ... as far back as one looks.
The more "brainy" human ... having discovered "causal principle" ... {do re mi fa so la ti do} [keys/chords etc] ...
Can create his individual song "anew" each and every moment ...
Yet on the other hand ... from the "Quantum" perspective ... something as "apparently repititious" as a crickets constant chirping ... if "slowed down" 60 times, which now matches the human vibrational sequence {similar to how there are seven dog years for each human year ... or how the God created the known world in 7 days {from biblical version}... are celestial years ... not the more micro-cosmic human version}
Well the "so-called" constant chirping within an "apparent" limited range sounds exactly like a Christian choir doing progressive warm up scales ... virtually identical ... I have played an old cassette version of this for many people ..not a one could really distinguish.
Does one really know beyond ones apparent relativity.
Each entities free will could "simultaneously" fall into a larger collective pattern {like instruments in a symphany} to where there is no longer distinction between free will and pre determination ... not from the quantum perspective ... just "mind play" really
Mere secular supposition above and beyond any actual shared inherent insight
In Sanskrit there is a term term called "acintya-bhedha-abhedha-tattva" ... inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and difference"
When the symphony is warming up it sound like total chaos ... each musician individually making adjustments{difference to the point of chaos} ... then the maestro taps his wand ... an "wa-la" ... order to the point of oneness ... each moment has such potential for all beings ... although the humans have the most capacity to evolve this ... they also can create the most chaos ... if they refuse to play together according to higher causal principles
Us or God, or both?
"In Sanskrit there is a term term called "acintya-bhedha-abhedha-tattva" ... inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and difference""
This is precisely the sense in which I'm using the term "paradox."
"although the humans have the most capacity to evolve this ... they also can create the most chaos ... if they refuse to play together according to higher causal principles"
From our point of view, this seems highly accurate. But from an "objective" (God's eye) view (the view from nowhere), are "we" the ones who are creating chaos through our illusion of seperateness; or is that God? Isn't whatever we will, by definition God's will? That would seem to strengthen personal responsibility, not weaken it..? That would also facilitate forgiveness, since all individuals are merely playing out the will of God, no?
"Sanity is Madness put to good use. Waking life is a dream controlled." -George Santayana
the insect musicians
That's very interesting, Pippa, about the cricket songs. Where did you acquire that tape, and is at all available? Back in the early '90s, an avant-garde guy named Graeme Revell (I think that's how it was spelled?) did an album called the Insect Musicians, pieces that he assembled from insect sounds recorded all over the world. The only processing he did was to speed some up or slow some down (to make them audible) and then layer them atop each other to make some amazingly beautiful music! If you can find it ( I don't know if it's still in print) I think you'd dig it, man!
Your comment about the symphony reminds of something, and this is not argue but to stir the pot (because music, as sound, is the fountainhead!). In Xinjiang province of China (although I've heard a similar practice in Korea and Vietnam and parts of Africa) there's a people called the Dolan who have a very special sort of ...'classical' music, their maqam, that begins with the ensemble playing what sounds like a chaotic tuning-up, except it is really the overture. Then one hears the drummer or ensemble leader tap the drum, and everyone falls into the rhythmic pattern...but everyone is playing something totally different! It's a bit like Central Asian 'free jazz', but it's really very tonally organized, and is a rather deliberate practice to facilitate an altered state of consciousness. I suspect it comes from the brain's engagment with the music being taken in so many directions at once, that eventually it goes into a 'different mind' where all the different musical parts snap into a pattern. Not at all like a symphony orchestra, but a delightful other-way of making music. Thougt you might like to know :)
Cosmic Law
I present this with humor and non-attachment as I feel there is something powerful about accepting the UNKOWN.
Its your CHOICE to believe in free will or not. Paradox indeed.
"The human being is incapable of DOING anything, all is happening according to Gods Cosmic Law"
Free will, for me presents the idea of a belief structure that can stimulate the idea of control. If I have free will, I have choice and there for can exercise a degree of choice that may perhaps give me the illusion that I have some sort of control.
I think ultimately the only free will we have is on a deeper-subtle emotional/psycho-spiritual level. The only free will we have is how we choose to respond. *And in the article this is being presented... did WE choose to respond? So even this response is limited in choice.
Is the real us... the witness of these automatic responses of the multi-layered complexity of our being... as karma ripens. OR do we truly have a choice?
Some schools of yoga say that the only free will we have is to seek god or NOT seek god. And so that has all its infinite potentialities as that manifests in smaller choices.
Ex: how I respond to an angry friend.
If we are programmed so to speak. I feel that we have the choice to UNprogram ourselves. Meditation is the cure for Neurocies. If I am neurotic... IF I respond only in reaction on impulse conditioning... then where is the free will?
Interesting. No matter the literature its nice to discuss free will.
Blessings
-Alok
"When the power of LOVE overwhelms the love of power, the world will know peace" - J.H
no need to shout... ;O)
Its your CHOICE to believe in free will or not.
au contraire... choice is just another illusion... Rational Mystic's rational comments and my crazy wisdom reply, below...
crazy rudyrudys very big tent
I've never really understood the concern with this question...
Wut he sed
EXACTLY!
It's like a person with a genetic predisposition towards diabetes. The choice is theirs: to eat that big old chocolate glop or to abstain and keep their toes. Yes, it's a tough choice, but occasionally someone does opt in favor of their toes.
The same holds true for any genetically (or socially or culturally) imprinted impulses (which ultimately are karmic in origin, right?)
It's all fair game for Evolution which is steered on a local level by Free Will. To believe otherwise is to root for bigotry and the defeat of the human spirit.
Rational Mystic...
how do we balance our "objective" union with our indispensible "subjective" experience of individuality..?
That would seem to strengthen personal responsibility, not weaken it..? That would also facilitate forgiveness, since all individuals are merely playing out the will of God, no?
just about out of the woods and you snag on the very notion that got you into the woods in the first place... subjective experience of anything is just that... subjective... demanding ipso facto, an object of that experience... you assume a split where there is no split... a difference where there is no difference...
The "truth" is that when "Free Will" is examined from an "objective" point of view, there is no such thing. There is no "you" to exert such "Will," no individual, self-originating agent at all.
then you go ahead anyway and assert that "subjective" experience is indespensible and even further, that this strengthen[s] personal responsibility... who's personal responsibility?... you can't have it both ways...
the 'paradox' is only a paradox from a dualistic subject/object perspective... and from a dualistic perspective it can never be resolved... it can only sell tickets to meaningless debates...
as you seem to be applying the same confusion in your reply to me on Evolver, where you cite a passage from Tao Te Ching, I will respond here and on Evolver with the same observation...
from the Lau translation: "Hence constantly rid yourself of desires in order to observe its subtlety; But constantly allow yourself to have desires in order to observe what it is after."
same passage from Hamill translation: "Emptied of desire, we see the mystery; filled with desire, we see the manifestation of things."
Notice the absence of admonition from the latter translation. I believe Lau was reading a subject/object imperative into Tao Te Ching that was in fact, not there. In the same way, I believe that you are positing a subjective entity that simply is not...
(please excuse the confusion of quotes and my comment... it just got too cumbersome...)
crazy rudy
rudys very big tent
what about planning, then?
easy...
thinking happens... contrary to what Rene Descarte 'thought'... there is absolutely no need for there to be a 'thinker'...
similarly, 'planning' happens, with no need for a 'planner'...
'building' happens, with no need for a 'builder'...
'willing' happens... with no need for a 'willer'...
'happening' happens, with no need for a 'happener'...
and so on... ad infinitum...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLdjpdBzuO8
hint: who is rowing the boat and who is wisely just relaxing and enjoying the trip?... and humans think they're the smart ones...
crazy rudy
rudys very big tent
so what's happening here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpoNeSI6L1E
Got to LOVE the how they've dubbed this--the MIND CONTROLLED wheelchair.
'you asked for it... you got it...'
which 'here?' do you mean... here or Here?...
here, commenting is happening...
on Evolver.net, "Spiraling Out of Control" is happening...
while, in the Great Here and Now, Nothing is happening ... nothing but shadows... the show is over... time to go home, carry wood and split water...
crazy rudyrudys very big tent