Moving Naturalism Forward - Part 7- Free Will

The Discussion on Free Will is broken into two with Dan Dennett presenting the Case 'for' and Jerry Coyne presenting the case 'against'. As with the other summary/commentaries I have provided on this conference the summary will come first followed by mt commentary. The Free Will video is here

 Discussion Summary

Dan Dennett begins by differentiating what he calls the 'manifest image' and the 'scienctific image'. The manifest image includes things like colors, living things, chairs, dollars and free will. The scientific image contains things like proteins, atoms, protons, neutrons, and quarks. Both the manifest image and the scientific image are perfectly real in some sense, but perhaps they are different senses. The issue is how do we get back and forth between the two images. Dennet suggests that there are two basic approaches that can be taken in order to reconcile the two 'images'. One is to take a hard line scientific approach and conclude that the manifest images are an illusion and do not exist. The second approach allows for existence for the manifest image while being receptive to the idea that it is not as it seems to be. He asks the group about manifest images such as, time, color, causation, dollars; do they exist? Dennet points out that few are willing to take a hard line on these 'images', yet there is an army of distinguished neuroscientists willing to deny the existence of Free Will.

Next Dennett points to the interesting fact that the best way to win at the game 'rock,paper,scissors' is to completely randomize your responses. Humans however are poor randomizer's when we conscious of the process. The choices need to be hidden to some degree so that we can remain unpredictable to others. We appreciate the value of a poker face and are wary of those who might be able to anticipate our actions. The mistake according to Dennett that neuroscientists and some philosophers make is to assume that our choices are absolutely hidden (unconscious). There is an argument in cognitive science that we are just 'moist robots' and Dennett feels strongly that this conclusion does not have follow the evidence we have. Free Will is perfectly compatible with political facts available from the manifest image. Dennett is concerned that denial of Free Will will undercut 'the very glue of civilization'. Dennett cites these experiments in support of his fear: (quoted here from NYT article)

In one experiment, some people read a passage from Francis Crick, the molecular biologist, asserting that free will is a quaint old notion no longer taken seriously by intellectuals, especially not psychologists and neuroscientists. Afterward, when compared with a control group that read a different passage from Crick (who died in 2004) these people expressed more skepticism about free will — and promptly cut themselves some moral slack while taking a math test.

Asked to solve a series of arithmetic problems in a computerized quiz, they cheated by getting the answers through a glitch in the computer that they’d been asked not to exploit. The supposed glitch, of course, had been put there as a temptation by the researchers, Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

In a follow-up experiment, the psychologists gave another test in which people were promised $1 for every correct answer — and got to compile their own scores. Just as Dr. Vohs and Dr. Schooler feared, people were more likely to cheat after being exposed beforehand to arguments against free will. These people went home with more unearned cash than did the other people.

 Jerry Coyne points out that this only shows a short term effect and he challenges Dennett to show that these students would be more immoral 6 months down the road. Coyne also points out that this sounds like the argument creationists make against evolution that says 'if people accept evolution they will behave like beasts'. We know however, that people who accept evolution are just as moral as other people. Coyne then outlines the 3 primary positions on Free Will.

1. Dualism - Free Will is independent of the laws of physics (mind is independent from brain)
2. Compatibilism - Free Will is compatible the laws of physics
3. Incompatibilism - Free Will is not compatible the laws of physics

Coyne is an advocate of  incompatibilism stating 'the laws of physics have free reign'. He suggests that combatibilists like Dennet have simply redefined the term 'Free Will' from its traditional meaning. Coynes admits however, to having changed his own definition of Free Will. His old definition was  that Free Will would require the ability too make more than one choice going forward under the same exact initial conditions ( identical universe history down to atomic level). Coyne says he later concluded that quantum indeterminacy might allow for multiple possible conscious decisions so he needed a new definition. I find this admission pretty telling. This is the new definition he likes from Anthony Cashmore:

I believe that free will is better defined as a belief that there is a component to biological behavior that is something more than the unavoidable consequences of the genetic and environmental history of the individual and the possible stochastic laws of nature.

 Coyne freely admits he is not a philosopher and says that he is trying to be 'provocative'. While most in the room are compatibilists, being naturalists I doubt that any would grant human access to a Free Will that can onlyexist beyond 'the possible stochastic laws of nature'. Steven Weinberg (the highly regarded physicist) disagrees with Coyne's leap from the laws of physics to the conclusion that all decision making takes place prior to conscious involvement. Coyne replies to Weinberg, 'given the laws of physics I claim this is almost an apriori proof'. Coyne believes we are the puppets of our genes and environment and has an opposing fear To Dennetts. His fear is that compatibilism enables theists and distracts us from reality (his view of reality). In Coynes view the brain is the mind and it is crucial to relay this to the public. Coyne also points to the consequences for how we view retribution an punishment as tightly connected to how we view the Free Will issue. He proposes we get rid of the Free Will term and replace it with the statement by Marvin Minsky:

'My Decision was caused by internal forces I do not understand'

 Coyne then lists what he sees as the really interesting questions two of which relate to responsibility and punishment, and two that relate to our decision making process. I do agree that aspects of these four are important for consideration so I will list them as he presented them.

1. What are the effects of a deterministic view on punishment and reward.
2. Does 'moral' responsibility mean anything beyond responsibility
3. How far ahead can predict decisions before they are made consciously
4. What are the genetic and environmental factors that cause our 'choices' and how do they act in the brain

A fifth question regarding the evolution of what Coyne refers to as 'the feeling of agency' I think is best addressed through Terrence Deacons approach and to complex to cover here.

As in all discussions of Free Will the Libet studies come up as a source of controversy. Below is a short description of the original study and conclusion. By clicking on the text you will find also find an article that describes a new study calling the original conclusions into question :

With the help of a precise timer that the volunteers were asked to read at the moment they became aware of the urge to act, Libet found there was a 200 millisecond delay, on average, between this urge and the movement itself.

But the EEG recordings also revealed a signal that appeared in the brain even earlier – 550 milliseconds, on average – before the action. Called the readiness potential, this has been interpreted as a blow to free will, as it suggests that the brain prepares to act well before we are conscious of the urge to move.

The Libet conclusions have been disputed on multiple fronts, and those arguments are put forth by the philosophers Dennett, Owen Flanagan, and Massimo Pigliucci. Alex Rosenberg concedes the limited applicability of the study findings, but feels they do raise important concerns regarding any reliability of conscious introspection. He goes as far as to say that the findings entail that conscious introspection provides no valid evidence for Free Will. Dennett and others agree that conscious introspection is imperfect, but this does not entail that it provides no evidence. Coyne feels the Libet conclusions are credible and discards the newer study.

A number of the participants make what I feel are solid arguments for taking the compatibilist position on Free Will even in the case where the determining event related to a decision would occur subconsciously before conscious awareness. Weinberg does so by indicating that consciousness plays a role in the chain of events leading to a decision. Pigliucci gets more specific pointing to the role of conscious 'reflection' which is often neglected in these conversations. Don Ross makes a similar point based on our foresight as to 'what type of person we would like to be', and the effects that follow. Dennett has attempted to make similar points using his stock and trade thought experiments. Dennett and Deacon both agree that our capacity for foresight and our ability to be moved by reason are important factors. Sean Carroll appeals to the earlier discussion on emergence, stating that our best theory on Free Will comes at the level of people not at the deterministic level of neurons. In general decisions are processes not single point in time events and consciousness is part of that process.

The direction of the discussion alters course as Deacon makes the argument that the big problem is the word 'Free'. Piglucci agrees with Deacon and also with Coynes suggesting that we stop using the term 'Free Will' (although for different reasons. Volition is his preferred term. Owen Flanagan is also sympathetic with removing term and points out that eastern cultures along with the ancient Greeks did not use the term. They talked of voluntary and involuntary behavior which makes sense with the language of nervous systems in biology and does not introduce theology. An interesting discussion of brain tumors and responsibility follows.

My Commentary

Those who have been paying attention have probably guessed by now that if forced to choose, I would side with the majority in the discussion who favor the compatibilist position in this argument. I agree that the interpretations we draw through conscious introspection are prone to many sources of error. The incompatilibilist position advocated by Coyne and Rosenberg however seem to take this fact and combine it with laws of physics that are not explanatory at the human level to draw conclusions that seem to me to be unwarranted. These following four conclusions seem to me to make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

1. Consciousness is just an overlay with no causal efficacy
2. Conclusion #1 is entailed by the laws of physics
3. Conscious introspection cannot be trusted to provide any evidence of causal efficacy
4. Our decisions are caused by forces we cannot understand

I do sympathize however with Coyne and Rosenberg while disagreeing with Dennetts'  fear that we need to hold onto a traditional sense of free will because it serves as a 'glue to civilization'. In fact I think we should radically re-frame the way we conceptualize freedom and willpower. I agree with Sean Carroll that our best theory of Free Will (or agency, or volition) comes not from the level of physics, but from the human level. We are not forced however to argue over the simple dichotomy of whether there is or is not Free Will. I believe this argument forces thoughtful people to take sides and distracts us from the interesting questions.

In my view the interesting questions lie in what ways, and to what degree, we can manage our consciousness to accomplish the follwing:

1. Move in the direction of an better understanding of the sources of our thoughts & behaviors
2. Use this understanding to move in a direction towards improved individual and societal flourishing

There is an abundance of information available from evolutionary biology, neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy (both western and eastern) that can assist us in understanding how to better understand and make use of the conscious process with all of it's inherent limitations.

One place to start is the topic of self-deception. A good book from the perspective of evolutionary biology is by Robert Trivers, and this one by Cordelia Fine is recommended for the psychological perspective . Dan Dennett had briefly described the benefit we gain by keeping things hidden from ourselves if we want to succeed at the simple game rock, paper, scissors. Trivers book details a full theory of the evolution of self-deceit throughout the animal kingdom. Fine examines how our tendency to place ourselves in a positive light elevates our own ego, sometimes at the cost of a more realistic view. The work of Daniel Kahneman and others have led to the identification of a vast number of cognitive quirks that bias our judgment when making decisions and forming our ideologies.

From a neuroscientific point of view I find the work of Michael Gazzaniga with split brain patients very illuminating. Gazzaniga has been a pioneer in the study left vs right brain asymmetry. The left hemishpere tends to dominate language, the categorization of symbols and selective focused attention. The right hemisphere is better at recognizing faces, spatial awareness and widely dispersed attention. Gazzaniga refers to the left hemisphere as the 'interpreter', due to it's constant tendency to relay a coherent story to our consciousness. The left hemisphere will make up the best story it can based on the information it has, but if part of the picture is missing (perhaps the broader right hemisphere view) it will still move that story forward. It is not hard to see with this model how the confirmation bias could easily emerge if the left hemisphere is not properly informed or inhibited by the right.

I think the role of inhibition (constraint) is also a crucial one to consider. Current research suggests that a primary function of the frontal cortex is to inhibit the more primitive regions (top-down control). For example from a recent paper:

Developmental improvements in inhibitory control thus may be supported by both the maturation of localized brain function and enhancement in coordinating cognitive control functions through top-down connectivity between frontal, oculomotor, and subcortical regions. Immaturities in the development of effective connectivity could provide important insights into the emergence of psychopathology and risk-taking behaviors in adolescents.

 The right hemisphere is also thought to be a important source of inhibition. This paper points to a specific right frontal area as primary:

Whereas neuroimaging implicates diverse PFC foci, advances in human lesion-mapping support the functional localization of such inhibition to right IFC alone. Future research should investigate the generality of this proposed inhibitory function to other task domains, and its interaction within a wider network.

 As the above quote suggests interesting disease states such as anosognosia, capras syndrome among others which can be caused by brain lesions are also informative (see the work of Ramachandran & Sacks). Anosognosia presents as an inability for patient to recognize their own illness. Extreme examples include a (right hemisphere) stroke patient who could not recognize her own left arm as paralyzed.  Capgras syndrome can cause a patient to believe a family as been replaced by an imposter who looks just like the family member.

Work more directly related to the issue of self control and and willpower has been conducted by Walter Mischel and Roy Baumeister. Mischel conducted one of the most famous experimental psychology studies which is known as the marshmellow study. This simple study tested the ability of young children to delay gratification and then followed the children through adulthood (see funny re-enactments here). This simple test proved a better predictor of important future outcomes than did IQ tests. Mischel suggests that our ability to suffer some in the short-term in pursuit of long-term goals is a defining feature, not just of successful individuals, but also of our species in general (Mischel & Ayduk, 2004).

Baumeister coined the concept of 'ego depletion', and has conducted studies that point to willpower as limited resource that depletes in the short-term with it's use. According to Baumeister:

In testing several competing theories about self-regulation, we consistently
found that people performed relatively poorly at almost any self-control task if they had recently performed a different self-control task (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000).

 Baumeister refers to the idea of short-term sacrifice for long-term gain as "enlightened self interest" and he relates this to free will. The talk of 'ego-depletion' and 'enlightened self interest' seem directly related to ideas from eastern philosophy. Both Taoist and Buddhist thought have a concept where letting go of the idea that there is a self that is separate from the natural world move one in the direction of enlightenment. There is a difference however, as Baumeisters 'ego-depletion' occurs due to the application of effort to a task. This seems to oppose the Taoist concept of 'wu-wei' which allows one to find harmony and flow with nature through 'non-action'. I think however that we can bring these seemingly opposing ideas together.

The ability to flow in a given environment without conscious effort requires practice (and therefore a type of effort). We don't consciously think about walking now, but we had to learn to do so when we were young. When an expert musician or athlete engages in their craft they may experience this sense of effortless action pointed to by 'wu-wei', but again this is the result of years of practice. The idea of practice itself is also central to eastern philosophy often through meditation or mindfulness techniques. I think the ideas of Baumeister, and Mischel, and those of eastern philosophy are each valid insights into the same natural dynamic. They are just made from differing reference frames.

The eastern philosophical frame suggests that by learning to watch the mind through a receptive approach (rather than forcefully directing it) we can appreciate the way it connects us to our natural environment. This can be beneficial in many ways. It can help us recognize how certain environments effect our emotional climate, and how our emotional climate effects our actions. The Baumeister research could make excellent use of skills gained by this type of practice. Since willpower is limited we could better ration its use. The various findings from modern science can also serve as a reminder to the many ways our introspection can fool us. This should serve as a constraint for placing to much value on any single ideology or way of knowing, since they are all filtered through our introspection. We should value the way that stable systems in nature (like brains) are comprised of many sub-systems which inhibit and constrain each other.

If we were to combine a mindful practice of the type encouraged by eastern philosophies with the insights of modern science might we enhance our capacity to:

1. Move in the direction of an better understanding of the sources of our thoughts & behaviors
2. Use this understanding to move in a direction towards improved individual and societal flourishing

 I think we could and this would increase the scope of our freedom:

•  Not through the force or power of our will, but through improved contextual awareness and it's considered application as a limited resource
• Not by conceptualizing our consciousness as needing to overcome nature, but instead by helping us to orient ourselves within it (receptively)
• Not by confirming our existing beliefs to strengthen the ego, but by valuing our uncertainty as a guide on where to orient our receptive attention

The strongest knowledge (that of the total freedom of the human will) is nonetheless the poorest in successes: for it always has the strongest opponent, human vanity." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Update- Some interesting thoughts from the Book of Zhaungzi that I think are relevent



Zhangzi – The withering of the heart
Great understanding is broad, small understanding is picky.
Great words overflowing, small words haggling.
Asleep the bodily soul goes roaming, awake it opens through our form.
Our day by day encounters become the wrangling of our hearts –
overgrown, encaverned, dense. Small fear all startled, great fear spreading out.
“Shooting forth as from the trigger of a crossbow”
–such are judgments, “that’s so, that’s not.”
“Kept like an oath or a treaty” – such is the way we hold fast to prevailing.
“Its death is as by autumn or winter” –describing its daily deterioration;
what drowns it cannot revive it.
“It is engulfed as though sealed up” – describing its desiccation in age; the heart near death cannot be returned to yang.

To understand this passage a little background is necessary. The Chinese had one term for heart & mind, 'xin' as the heart-mind. This was due to the understanding that neither our emotions nor our reasons can stand alone. The passage describes how, if unchecked & without a degree ongoing reflection, our past commitments “Kept like an oath or a treaty” (emotional & conceptual) will lead to a narrowing or closing off of the heart-mind.

The passage ends with this paragraph:

"Pleasure, anger, sorrow, joy, forethought, regret, change, stubbornness, ease and dissipation: these are like music emerging from air or mists congealing into mushrooms. Day and night they revolve before us and none knows whence they spring. Enough! Enough! It is the very coming of them, dawn and dusk, from which they are born."

The last paragraph describes the appearance of emotions and thoughts & their cause and effect relationship going forward (" It is the very coming of them, dawn and dusk, from which they are born."). Only mindfulness of this process can keep our biases from escalating.

Later in the Chapter

‘A dao is created as we walk it;’ &

‘Therefore, the Sage brings all into harmony through assertion and denial but rests it upon the balance of heaven: this is called “Walking a Double Path.’ This is accomplished by ‘Allowing Both Alternatives to Proceed’ & ‘remaining at rest at the center of the spontaneous Potter’s Wheel of Nature’  -   finally

‘Thus the Sage sees by the glimmer of chaos and doubt. He does not affirm of anything: “this is it”; his affirmation is lodged in ordinary practice. This is to view things in the light.’