Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Free will and neuroscience
What does neuroscience reveal about the concept of free will?
Overview
[edit | edit source]|
If you were asked if you had free will, would you say yes? More specifically, would you be able to name a scenario when you acted of your own free will? And if you could name a scenario, how does the biological functions of your brain fit into it? |
This chapter considers the neurological relationship to free will. Neuroscience and the idea of free will have been around since the early Greeks. The cross over between these two topics is relatively recent. It is surprising that there is not a large number of connections between free will and neuroscience considering how long neuroscience and the idea of free will have been coexisting. Theorists have started to investigate the connection between neuroscience and free will. Neuroscience is used to help people understand both conscious and unconscious actions, how they relate to decisions, and how these decisions relate to free will. Free will, however, is relatively difficult to measure due to the neurological processes involved in movements. Most of the theories referenced, use physical measures in order to understand free will. Only one of the theories uses a report measure where the participant can choose to withhold or volunteer information. The examination of these theories assist in understanding how neurological processes relate to the idea of free will.
Background
[edit | edit source]There have been many famous cases since the establishment of neuroscience. Many philosophers and scientists have attempted to understand free will. Understanding what neuroscience does and how it might assist in learning about free will along with examining the early theorists and philosophers to juxtapose ideas of free will and highlight how these have changed over time.
What is neuroscience?
[edit | edit source]Neuroscience is any science relating to the brain and nervous system (Nordqvist, 2013). It has been recorded that neuroscience had originated with the understanding of the brains role of behaviour (Getz, 2014). The case of Phineas Gage is one that is discussed within psychology due to the implications of the frontal lobe on behaviour. Phineas Gage, Mr. Tan, and H.M. are historical cases in neuroscience.
The case of Phineas Gage
[edit | edit source]Phineas Gage is a memorable figure in the history of both neuroscience and psychology. Gage was a railroad worker when a long iron rod shot through the front of his skull and went straight through his frontal lobe (Damasio et al., 1994). Doctors noted changes in his behaviour after the accident. Gage had what seemed to be a personality flip, he was no longer able to act within the bounds of societal expectations and was unable to work (Getz, 2014). Phineas Gage's study helped scientists understand what the frontal lobes role was within behaviour and the impact of damage (Damasio et al., 1994).
|
The case of Mr. Tan
[edit | edit source]A French physician and neurosurgeon, Dr. Pierre Paul Broca, was involved in understanding the idea of localisation (Getz, 2014). The case of Mr. Tan provided publicised documentation regarding localisation of the speech function (Papazoglou & King, 2011). Mr. Tan was examined by Dr. Broca as he was losing his speech and he could only say "tan" (Getz, 2014). During the autopsy of Mr. Tan Dr. Broca found that there was a legion in the left of Tan's frontal lobe (Getz, 2014). Mr. Tan's brain underwent neuroimaging studies posthumously confirming the damage to exist within Broca's area (Teive et al., 2011). This case is important to understanding the function of Broca's area within the brain.
The case of H.M.
[edit | edit source]H.M. was an important case within neuroscience as it assisted in the understanding of how the brain may function without the hippocampus. H.M. had been experiencing seizures, as a result of this he had surgery to remove his hippocampus (Getz, 2014). The removal of H.M.'s hippocampus controlled the seizures and gave him anterograde amnesia, meaning that he could not make new memories (Getz, 2014). The case of H.M. is helpful in understanding the use of the hippocampus in memory (Eichenbaum, 2013).
What is free will?
[edit | edit source]Free will is defined as the ability to choose one's own actions and act voluntarily without feeling necessity or the constraint of fate (Britannica 2024). The idea of free will has been alive for a very long time. Dilman (1999/2013) outlines the historical and philosophical roots of free will. Many popular and well known psychologists are discussed by Dilman in his book, names like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, and Freud all have a place in the history of free will.
Plato
[edit | edit source]Plato's view was that being evil created a lack of free will, likewise, achieving self mastery is what helps someone have autonomy or free will (Dilman, 1999/2013). Why is it that someone who is evil does not have free will while someone who has 'self mastery' does? It seems there is a flaw in the idea of good, evil and self-mastery. Plato's idea of evil may be based off someone who is acting in a way that would not have been deemed societally acceptable. If someone was acting out of societal expectations and doing whatever they want or even breaking the law does that not appear to be free will? It appears that anyone can have self mastery when they choose when and what to do and not do.
Aristotle
[edit | edit source]Aristotle's was more analytical than the philosophical basis of Plato's (Dilman, 1999/2013). Aristotle believed there is reasoning behind human actions (Dilman, 1999/2013), they were not just put on this earth to seek food and sensation. Dilman (1999/2013) states that Aristotle believed that Plato's ideas of evil and self-mastery were flawed, instead Aristotle believed that when a person makes a choice of any kind they are using their will. This theory provides further understanding of humankind's abilities to make choices and enact our motivations within our behaviour.
Descartes
[edit | edit source]Descartes separated the mind from the body in his theory of dualism (Dilman, 1999/2013). Dilman (1999/2013) stated that Descartes theory relates involuntary movements and the voluntary "act of will". Movement being involuntary seems to make sense. Looking at reflexes and how quick they are in response to say a hit to the knee, it would appear that there was little time to think about them. Likewise, some people can be shocked that a reflex happened in response to such a small tap to the knee. Descartes is describing neurological processes as involuntary movements.
Kant
[edit | edit source]Similar to Aristotle, Kant believed that reasoning determines will (Dilman, 1999/2013). Dilman (1999/2013) stated that Kant had difficulty accepting his own ideas as he had opposing concepts of, free will, and causality, of which he did not believe could exist at the same time. The idea of Kant's free will theory is once again different from the other influential names in history and furthers the idea of motivations and reasoning behind behaviour.
Freud
[edit | edit source]Freud's theory is that free will can exist in the mind of someone who believes that there is decision with very little hanging on it (Dilman, 1999/2013). Under this banner would fall small choices made in day to day life, like, what shirt you choose to wear or what time to eat lunch. Freud's theory is fascinating as he doesn't say whether free will does or doesn't exist. Instead, he relies on when a person may believe they have free will.
|
Theories
[edit | edit source]According to Brass et al. (2019), the function of neuroscience in the free will debate is the prediction of conscious decisions from brain activity. Burns and Bechara (2007) explain that there are two systems involved in will. These systems being impulsive and reflective, which could also be labeled as impulsive and inhibition systems as the reflective system controls the impulsive system (Burns and Bechara, 2007). These systems could help explain the free will of neuroscience. Roediger and colleagues (2008), outline conscious control of behaviour with four studies, tying neuroscience to psychology.
The response - choice paradigm
[edit | edit source]The first of the studies is the response – choice paradigm utilised by Benjamin Libet and colleagues. Libet noticed a difference in electrical charge on the scalp prior to movement which is known as the readiness potential (Roediger et al., 2008). He studied the relationship between the readiness potential and conscious thought to understand how they create a motor movement (Libet et al., 1983). Libet et al., (1983) conducted an experiment to understand the conscious intuition to act. Six right-handed university students were involved in this study (Libet et al., 1983). During his study Libet had his participants read off of a specially made clock and note the time they became aware of the intention to move (Roediger et al., 2008; Pockett, 2007; Cardoso, 2021). But how does this study tie into free will? Libet's experiment had to do with the idea of "vetoing" our intentions, making the idea of free will, in this case, free won't (Mele, 2014). Libet's response-choice paradigm aligns with Descartes perspective of free will.
This study appears to disprove the idea of free will as there is an electrical charge that causes the action, Libet (1999) however, disagrees with that statement as there is a period of time between when the participants become aware of their intention to act and when the action happens where the participants could choose to stop the behaviour. Critiques of the response - choice paradigm have noted that Libet proved free will does not exist due to the unconsciousness of decision making (Mele, 2014). Future studies might choose to investigate the unconscious vs. conscious decisions made in order to understand the differences in brain activity between the two.
|
The stop signal paradigm
[edit | edit source]The second of the four studies is the stop signal paradigm created by Gordon Logan and his colleagues. Logan and colleagues measured reaction times in their participants. The participant were asked to undergo repeated trials, these trials involved distinguishing between and X and an O (the go stimulus) (Roediger et al., 2008). A small percentage of the trials (usually around 20%) had a tone discharged (the stop signal) post go stimulus and pre participant response (Roediger et al., 2008). This paradigm is best used to understand response inhibition within a laboratory setting (Verbruggen & Logan, 2008b). Verbruggen and Logan (2008a) believed that goal-directed behaviours can be directed with the cooperation of automatic and controlled inhibitions. Similar to the response - choice paradigm, the stop signal paradigm helps understand free will by understanding inhibitions and the use of free won't. The Roediger et al. appeared to make a connection between free will without a scientific basis to prove the statements made. Future research involving the stop signal paradigm should focus more intently on free will.
|
The process dissociation procedure
[edit | edit source]The third of the four studies is the process-disassociation procedure utilised by Larry Jacoby and colleagues. The process dissociation procedure measures the input of consciously and unconsciously controlled, or automatic, acts on memory tasks (Roediger et al., 2008). This procedure has to do with more multiple process working together than one single process by itself (Roediger et al., 2008). In order for this to happen, an opposition procedure needs to be used. An opposition procedure involves sending conscious vs. unconscious and controlled vs. automatic into a metaphorical boxing ring to fight it out, the boxing ring being a cognitive task to set the two mental processes against each other (Roediger et al., 2008). The process dissociation procedure helps understand free will by comparing conscious and unconscious thought. The process dissociation procedure was experiment three out of three done by Jacoby (1991). The concept of the experiment was that conscious control could be measured by a difference in performance (Jacoby, 1991). This can then be related back to other studies or theorists like Aristotle who believed that choice reflected will. Future research should have a wider study which involves understanding how free will is related to conscious or unconscious thought.
|
The forced report procedure
[edit | edit source]The final of the four studies is the forced report procedure utilised by Asher Koriat and Morris Goldsmith. The forced report procedure involves the decision to volunteer or withhold information, and its relation to performance on memory tasks (Roediger et al., 2008). Similar to the process dissociation procedure, the forced report procedure is split into three experiments (Koriat & Goldsmith, 1994). The experiments were all encompassed under the banner of the forced report procedure rather than only one of the experiments being related to it. Koriat and Goldsmith have provided a basis to which other theorists can build upon in the understanding of free will. While this study was not related to free will, it is helpful in understanding the possibility of choice as free will through volunteering or withholding of information. Like the process dissociation procedure this relates back to Aristotle and the free will of choice. Future directions for the forced report procedure should involve understanding how the decision to volunteer or withhold information can relate back to free will. Learning more about the neurological processes of volunteering and withholding information could assist in the understanding of free will.
|
Conclusion
[edit | edit source]This chapter explored the different definitions, histories and theories of free will and neuroscience both separate and combined. Free will is still a challenging idea, however it has become apparent that there are theorists trying to understand the idea through the lens of neuroscience. Within the theories, Aristotle's idea of choice in relation to free will and Descartes idea of voluntary and involuntary movements has become apart of a theme relating to the research. The combination of the two ideas of free will has been reflected in the conclusion that the theories have helped reach. This has been translated into choosing not to perform an action rather than the choice to perform said action. The response - choice paradigm and the stop signal paradigm both reflect the idea of free won't instead of free will. Free won't, as mentioned in Libet's study is the idea that one can choose to inhibit an action but not choose to perform the action due to the readiness potential. The findings of these theories have seemingly concluded that free will does exist only it has more to do with choosing not to do something which, by extension, means choosing which actions we will perform but not choosing to start performing them. There are still some questions within the studies that should be explored further before neuroscience determines the existence or non-existence of free will, however, based on the current theories the response-choice paradigm is the best to understand the concept of free will from a neuroscience perspective. Libet related his study back to free will giving it the most stable foundation to work upon to understand the topic.
See also
[edit | edit source]- Willpower - (Book Chapter, 2015)
- Cognitive Dissonance and motivation - (Book Chapter, 2021)
- Compatibilism - (Book Chapter, 2017)
References
[edit | edit source]Burns, K., & Bechara, A. (2007). Decision making and free will: a neuroscience perspective. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.751
Cardoso, R. C. (2021). Neurolaw and the Neuroscience of Free Will: an Overview. SCIO: Revista de Filosofía, 21, 55–81. https://doi.org/10.46583/scio_2021.21.843
Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Frank, R., Galaburda, A. M., & Damasio, A. R. (1994). The Return of Phineas Gage: Clues About the Brain from the Skull of a Famous Patient. Science, 264(5162), 1102–1105. JSTOR. http://www.antoniocasella.eu/dnlaw/Damasio_1994.pdf
Eichenbaum, H. (2013). What H.M. Taught Us. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00285
Getz, G. E. (2014). History of Neurobiology. In Applied Biological Psychology (pp. 1–12). Springer Publishing Company. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/book/978-0-8261-0923-1/chapter/ch01
Ilham Dilman. (2013). Free Will An Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. http://www.amas.hk/pdf/shijianshenxue/6/388)Free%20Will%20-%20Historical%20and%20Philosophical%20Introduction%20(Ilham%20Dilman)%20.pdf (Original work published 1999)
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A Process Dissociation Framework: Separating Automatic from Intentional Uses of Memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541. https://www.larryjacoby.ca/images/a%20process%20dissociation%20framework.pdf
Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1994). Memory in Naturalistic and Laboratory Contexts: Distinguishing the Accuracy-Oriented and Quantity-Oriented Approaches to Memory Assessment. Journal Od Experimental Psychology, 123(3), 297–315. https://iipdm.haifa.ac.il/images/publications/Asher_Koriat/1994_Koriat_Goldsmith.pdf
Libet, B. (1999). Do we have Free Will? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(8-9), 47–57. https://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/Benjamin%20Libet.pdf
Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain, 106(3), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/106.3.623
Mele, A. R. (2014). Benjamin Libet: If Not Now, When? In Free: Why Science Hasn’t Disproved Free Will (pp. 8–25). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199371624.003.0002
Nordqvist, C. (2013). About Neuroscience - Department of Neuroscience. Department of Neuroscience. https://neuro.georgetown.edu/about-neuroscience/
Papazoglou, A., & King, T. Z. (2011). Tan. In J. S. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca, & B. Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Clinical Neuropsychology (pp. 2467–2468). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_655
Pockett, S. (2007). The concept of free will: philosophy, neuroscience and the law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.743
Roediger, H. L., Goode, M. K., & Zarombe, F. M. (2008). Free Will and the Control of Action. In J. Baer, J. C. Kaufman, & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Are we free? Psychology and Free Will (pp. 205–225). Oxford University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henry-Roediger-2/publication/285124681_Free_Will_and_the_Control_of_Action/links/586d271e08aebf17d3a717c1/Free-Will-and-the-Control-of-Action.pdf
Teive, H. A. G., Munhoz, R. P., & Caramelli, P. (2011). Historical aphasia cases: “Tan-tan”, “Vot-vot”, and “Cré nom!” Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 69(3), 555–558. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0004-282x2011000400027
Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008a). Automatic and Controlled Response Inhibition: Associative Learning in the Go/No-Go and Stop-Signal Paradigms. J Exp Psychol Gen, 137(4), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013170.
Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008b). Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 418–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005
External links
[edit | edit source]Neuroscience49. (2020). Neuroscience. In Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neuroscience.png
Interesting extras
[edit | edit source]- Determinism vs Free will (Crash Course)
- The Libet Experiment: Is Free Will Just an Illusion? (BBC radio 4)