Psychology Today blogs

Neuroscience Blogs  

The Greatest Magic Trick Ever, Part I

There's one magic trick we are fooled by consistently, every day. It's so convincing that most people don't even believe it's a trick, and even those who do are STILL fooled by it. What is it?

It's the illusion of free will.

Yes, free will is an illusion. But wait, every time you consciously decide to lift your arm, it happens. And you can also choose not to lift your arm, and it doesn't happen. That's evidence of real control over your behavior, right? Well, not exactly. Evidence suggest that your brain makes these kinds of decisions without you ("you" being your consciousness), and then informs you of it later. You're just along for the ride, pretending that you're calling the shots.

The first startling evidence of this phenomenon came in the 1980s when Benjamin Libet asked people to press a button at a time of their choosing, and to note the exact moment they chose to press it. Meanwhile measurements of electrical activity in their brains indicated that their brains actually set their fingers in motion a full third to half a second before the subjects had any conscious awareness of what they were about to do. More recent fMRI work published last week in Nature Neuroscience shows that the brain makes up its mind whether to press a button with the left or right hand up to 7 seconds before you're aware of your decision. The machine knows what you're doing before you do.

(About 7 years ago I wrote a treatment for a movie screenplay that incorporated this concept. My Matrix-like fighting skills were based not on incredible reflexes but on anticipation. Through some fuzzy quantum entanglement scheme I could consciously read my adversaries' neural activity before they could and would, say, put my arm up to block a punch before it was even thrown. The movie was to be called Godspeed.)

If you think about it, the idea that your thoughts can lift your arm is just as crazy as telekinesis, the idea that your thoughts than lift that lamp over there. Oh, but your brain is physically connected to your arm through nerves. Sorry, that doesn't explain much. Neurons are made of matter too, so what translates the nonphysical mindstuff of your psyche to the physical substance of your neurons? How is such causality from one realm to another ultimately implemented? It's still mind over matter, pure magic.

In one sense, the idea that mind can causally influence matter is no crazier than the idea that matter gives rise to mind, and there is good evidence for the latter. That is, I am not denying the existence of consciousness--really, it's the only thing in the supposed universe for which I personally have any direct evidence at all--and of course doing stuff to the brain does stuff to the mind. But, while we can't fully exclude the possibility that mind affects matter--that, say, we have free will and can control our behavior with it--no research has ever provided even a shred of evidence to prove it.

In my next post I'll tell you why you still believe.

UPDATE: Here it is. I already know that you will click on it. 

Comments

me, myself, and my mind

Doesn't this just mean that you may have free will, but that the "you" who's in control is not your conscious mind but your unconcious one?

If you broaden the definition of "you" to include not just your brain but the whole person, including your conscious mind, your unconscious mind, and your arm, then do you have free will?

Does your conception of free will imply a deterministic universe?


Re: me, myself, and my mind

Broadening the definition of "you" to include your whole body doesn't make you an "uncaused cause" because you are at the mercy of everything in the universe that led up to you and that influences you now.

I'm assuming a universe that has no supernatural causes, but it needn't be deterministic. Even if you interpret quantum unpredictability as true randomness inherent in the physics of the universe, randomness by definition can't be controlled. Various physicists have suggested "hidden variables" behind the unpredictability, opening a window for free will, but as of yet there's no evidence for them.


I think you're missing the point

But what would that have to do with free will? Choosing to do something is a cause as well. And the only reason to narrow the definition of "you" to solely the conscious self is to specifically eliminate the concept of free will. But that makes it more of a semantic argument that an actual conceptual one.

Have you studied Buddhism? One of the ideas inherent in buddhism is that this "you" that the author speaks of is in fact an illusion. So the premise that this illusory "you" doesn't have free will would be in line, in some way, with Buddhism, but doesn't address the fact that we can in fact become "free". But it has to do with getting in touch with one's sub-conscious, learning how to "consciously" operate those aspects of the body that we don't normally operate, allowing us to not be slave to our desires/memories, and destroying the illusion that we don't have free will.


I think my tone was a little harsh in my last post...

I'm still confused as to how one needs to be an "uncaused" cause to have free will. Is free will being defined as making decisions with absolutely no input from external circumstances? That makes what seems like an artificially narrow definition of free will.

I will agree that most people live their lives mindlessly, simply reacting to the world. Which means that many people do not exert free will. So is your argument that people generally don't exert free will, or that people can't possible exert free will? I ask because this is a question that Eastern systems have been asking for a long time.


reply to interested observer

If everything you feel yourself deciding has actually been caused by something else, set in motion without any guidance from consciousness, then you don't have free will. You say that definition is artificially narrow, but I'd say it's anything but arbitrary. There's a clear line. Either consciousness influences behavior or it doesn't.

(The term for this view that consciousness is a powerless spectator to the workings of the brain, by the way, is epiphenomenalism.)


Retroactive free will

Why does free will have to be the start of an action or choice? Can't the process be circular? Even though we may not have conciously made the choice to move our arm can't we conciously place value on the movement once it has occured and set of a new chain of events based on that concious appraisal? A better example for something we may conciously evaluate comes from Jeffrey Schwartz's book "The Mind and The Brain." Schwartz challanges the idea that subconcious impulses are unable to be conciously controlled through his work with OCD patients. The OCD patients re-value compulsive thoughts after they occur, forming new nueral wiring ( that can actually be seen in brain scans)so that future compulsive thoughts lose thier power to promote compulsive behaviors. Isn't the choice to re-wire our brains so that we have a different response pattern an example of free will?


Re: Retroactive free will.

"Isn't the choice to re-wire our brains so that we have a different response pattern an example of free will?" Not necessarily. How do you know that your brain didn't modulate its own functioning (which is not so hard--even unconscious single-celled organism can self-regulate) and then, as a side effect, produce the conscious experience of resisting an impulse?


confused

Maybe this topic is over my head but I'm still confused why the OCD example would not be an incidence of free will. The brains of these patients were not self-regulating until they were told to actively think, placing a new value on thier impulses. These efforts produced changes in the brain while those who dropped out of the study continued to show malfunctioning brain circuitry. Are you saying that previous events all led up to these particular people being involved in the study and pre-determined who would stay with the study based on the brains own random determination to self-regulate?


Re: confused

Yeah, sorry if I've been cryptic. You've pretty much got my drift.

Let me also riff on this: "The brains of these patients were not self-regulating until they were told to actively think". Another way to put that is this: Their brains received signals from the ears that activate representations of people, places, events, etc. (i.e. they heard words and understood them) and these activated patterns of neural activity led to further cascades of neural firing that lead to changes in behavior.

Actually, behavioral modification doesn't even require consciousness, let alone free will. We learn from and react unconsciously to stuff in our environment all the time. Look at subliminal priming, for example.


a clarification

I think there may have been a misunderstanding of the point that I was making. I'm saying that the narrow definition of free will was creating by using an definition of consciousness that allows that argument to be made, making a self-serving and circular definition. I'm commenting that the illusory self that you call conciousness is exactly that--illusory. The fact that you are using different, more modern words, doesn't hide the fact that buddhists have been saying this for a long time.

The crux of my statement is that you are calling your definition of consciousness the sum total of consciousness instead of using it as an example of the limitations of that definition of consciousness. The comments about OCD run along this same vein--by being mindful of the damaging thoughts and acknowledging that they needn't be controlled by them, patients are able regain control of their life and no longer be constrained by what has previously controlled them--they have gained the ability to willfully act.


Free Will

This makes perfect sense. I have no free will because if I did I could choose to get rid of free will or excercise free will at will. And this is not possible. We are just observing what is going on.


Re: perfect sense

"I have no free will because if I did I could choose to get rid of free will..."
Exactly. Read the very end of Part II.


Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
minus three equals six
Solve this math question and enter the solution with digits. E.g. for "two plus four = ?" enter "6".

Blogger  

Find a Therapist
Choose the best match from
thousands of profiles.