Philosophy and Cognitive Science
Does Free Will Exist? Knowledge, Bias, and the Limits of Objectivity
An examination of free will research, the blind loyalty fallacy, and the nuances between data, information, knowledge, & truth
Defining Terms
One of my cognitive science professors boldly stated, “The neuroscience community has proved that free will doesn’t exist.” His absolute certainty caught me off guard. His statement was definitive — as though there was a conclusive consensus within the scientific community and this was accepted as known information. Nevertheless, the study of cognitive science and statistics deepened my appreciation for the nuances between data, information, knowledge, and truth, an exploration necessary to navigate the intricate complexities underlying the debate surrounding free will.
Data in the simplest form is the raw collection of observations and statistics. Information organizes this collection into context and derives meaning from what is otherwise meaningless. Knowledge is unique to each individual and is the accumulation of past experiences with information collection, which alters how we interpret and organize both data and information.
Blind Loyalty Fallacy
My professor’s brashness can quickly lead to the Blind Loyalty Fallacy (otherwise known as the Blind Obedience, Nuremberg Defense, or Team Player Fallacy).
This fallacy refers to the invalid reasoning that an argument is correct because a person of authority deemed it to be correct. It’s the justification of arguments or actions due to blind obedience to authority. Instead of examining the data that led the authority figure to their conclusions, we accept the authority figure’s belief as evidence for our own.
Another name for this fallacy is the Nuremberg Defense, named after the Nuremberg trials held after World War II which aimed to prosecute the military leaders of Nazi Germany for the crimes committed during The Holocaust. They held their arms up as a symbol of vindication and reasoned, “A superior officer made me do it.”
Importance of Cross-Examination
One may say that each individual has a responsibility for their own beliefs, however, it’s much more disheartening to witness trust abused. That professor, among a few others during my studies, had misused their authority to mold the minds of vulnerable, fresh college students who were likely not presented with alternative opinions and interpretations.
Encouraging Independent Thought
Thankfully, I had other professors who prioritized the development of curious, skeptical, and thoughtful students. They urged us to explore all interpretations and develop our own opinions. These became the authority figures I trust the most: those who encourage the exploration of ideas to foster a more robust opinion rather than those who seek to persuade and present a limited view on the given topic.
Think about it, who should you trust more: someone who insists their position is correct and deems anyone who considers looking into it as foolish or someone who has the confidence to insist that others be well-versed in the subject manner and inspect their position in scrutiny so they can see for themselves?
Classic Libet Experiment of Free Will
In this case, free will has not been proven nonexistent, however, some scientists strongly believe this due to their interpretation of the data we have. Many claim that the classic Libet Experiment of Free Will “proved” that we have no free will.
To demonstrate this experiment in a first-hand manner, imagine the following scenario:
You’ve agreed to participate in an exploratory study revolving around the relationship between conscious decisions and brain activity. You enter the laboratory and receive a warm greeting from scientists who explain the purpose of the study. Then, you’re led to a comfortable chair and the researchers explain that electrodes will measure your brain’s electrical activity. As they affix the electrodes to your scalp, you feel a slight tingle.
Next, you’re given the task. It’s simple. You are to press a button whenever you feel the urge to do so. However, it’s critical for you to pay attention to the exact moment you decide to press the button and relay it immediately.
As you concentrate, you suddenly feel a surge of motivation to push the button and inform the scientists; they immediately jot down the time of your reported decision. After a few iterations of this, you’re done.
The scientists consolidate the data from the electrodes and the verbally reported time of your decisions and discover something interesting. When they examined the electrical activity in your brain, they found a pattern that emerged right before you reported being conscious of your decision. They call this a readiness potential and a clear indication that your brain initiated the process of action before you even consciously experienced the decision.
From this study, a bold claim emerged — there must be no free will.
Libet suggested that what we perceive as a conscious decision to act is a retrospective rationalization of events that unfold after the brain has already initiated the action. He inferred that if the conscious decision didn’t trigger the movement, then it wasn’t a true choice, therefore, challenging the existence of free will.
Precision of Self-Reported Timing
However, you might wonder about the implications of these results. You may begin to question your contribution to the study — Did you report the decision as soon as it occurred? In other words, how accurate was the measurement of conscious intention (W-time). Studies have shown that the precision of such self-reported timing is fraught with potential biases and can be significantly influenced by the experimental conditions, leading to variability in results.
Decision Making or Planning?
You may also question the interpretation of the data — Does brain activity prior to reporting indicate that your brain caused you to make a decision? Wouldn’t we expect activity to be present while we’re deciding when we’ll press the button? It turns out, the interpretation of brain activity preceding a decision is complex. The readiness potential (RP), a key element in Libet’s study, has been a subject of debate. Its association with actual decision-making processes is not as straightforward as initially presumed. Recent research has indicated that the RP may not directly reflect a neural decision to move but rather could be part of a broader neural process involving movement planning and imagination.
This was the study that cemented my understanding of the crucial distinction between raw data and its interpretation within the scientific community, yet it’s clear there’s no unified consensus in this field. I’ll also discuss a parallel study to Libet’s, which resulted in a divergent conclusion.
An Alternate Conclusion to Libet’s Experiments
John-Dylan Haynes conducted this experiment using an MRI instead of an EEG. In his study, participants were also instructed to push a button the moment they believed they had made a decision.
Activity in the Basal Ganglia and Prefrontal Cortex
Haynes observed unconscious brain activity in the basal ganglia and prefrontal cortex, which not only preceded their physical movements (by a significant seven to ten seconds) but also appeared predictive.
However, Haynes and his team proposed an alternative perspective that better aligns with our subjective experience of free will — brain activity may not represent the final decision but instead, it may mark the initiation of our cognitive processes leading to a choice. Perhaps it is the contemplative stage that has to do with planning and intention. When tasked to make a decision, we typically contemplate the decision, before we make the choice.
The Role of Planning and Intention
Furthermore, the prefrontal cortex and the basal ganglia both are involved in the formation of plans and intentions that coincide with this viewpoint. This seven-to-ten-second gap could very well be the time it takes to formulate a plan before making a final decision. Free agency requires us to plan before making solid choices; this is consistent with the data we receive from both experiments.
Context Matters: Meaningful vs. Meaningless Choices
Other experiments revealed that readiness potential patterns differed between meaningful and meaningless choices. When decisions carried more weight, participants’ brains showed no readiness potential, however, when the outcome was inconsequential, their brains displayed this activity, suggesting the choice was made subconsciously.
Resisting Definitive Claims
These experiments resist definitive claims about free will. It reveals that the answer depends on context — on how much a choice and its consequences matter to the decider. With complex issues, we must move past reductionist statements. A multi-layered approach, integrating perspectives across fields, brings us closer to truth.
The Subjectivity of Information
The observations in the experiments are the data, and the interpretation of the data is the information, which is subjective and not necessarily the truth. In other words, information is not unbiased and does not equate to truth. Surely, one of these interpretations is true: we either have free will or we do not. We are presented with information, which is the subjective interpretation of the data we collect and we form our own subjective and personal knowledge base in hopes that our knowledge aligns with truth.
The Value of Scientific Consensus and Skepticism
It’s important to maintain a healthy level of skepticism and to interrogate the information and ideas that form our view of the world, especially those we feel most triggered by and those that affect how we choose to live. We must be vigilant of the fallacies that surround us daily and refrain from falling victim to them. Moreover, perhaps a more accurate alternative (and one that promotes cross-examination) to “scientists have proved” could be “currently, there seems to be a general scientific consensus that… *insert claim* based on *insert data/information*.”
Instead of dogmatic claims, it is more valuable to acknowledge the current scientific consensus while remaining open to alternative viewpoints. History has shown that consensus can change, and skepticism has led to valuable discoveries. What would happen if nobody questioned a consensus?
Conclusion
We’ve explored some of the intricacies of the free will debate, revealing that scientific understanding is a dynamic process. Scientific consensus can shift over time, and skepticism has historically led to valuable discoveries. Thus, it’s critical to strike a balance, recognizing the current scientific consensus while remaining open to alternative viewpoints.
Additionally, the line between knowledge and information can be blurry, and both are subject to varying degrees of subjectivity. Media bias, framing, and the way data is presented can significantly impact how information is perceived. People often filter information through their existing beliefs and values, adding subjectivity to their understanding of it. Recognizing this subjectivity and actively seeking diverse perspectives and sources of information and knowledge can contribute to a more well-rounded and informed worldview.
I welcome your thoughts, questions, or perspectives. Feel free to leave a comment or reach out via email at [email protected]. I’m always eager to engage in discussions about neuroscience and philosophy — I never get enough of them these days :)
