Towards a scientific concept of free will

[bananas]

From Björn Brembs blog on December 15:

http://bjoern.brembs.net/news.php?item.685.3

Towards a scientific concept of free will

Today, the Royal Society published my article reviewing the invertebrate data supporting a scientific concept of free will. In it, I first reiterate that the metaphysical concept of free will is long dead (since the 1970s). Then I emphasize that determinism has been dead for even longer (basically since quantum mechanics). Finally, I propose that the ability to behave differently in identical circumstances forms the basis for a scientific concept of free will. Basically, IMHO, free will is a biological brain function, not some ghost in our heads. I argue that the evolutionary ancestry to this brain function can be traced back to invertebrate species living today, which also show this fundamental capacity. In fact, I propose that brains who are not free to behave as they will, would not do very well in a competitive situation such as evolution.

The article has been through several rounds of peer-review, both informal and formal (by two anonymous referees selected by the editor of the journal, Lars Chittka) since august this year. Of course, the real discussion, I would hope, isn't starting until today, when the article actually became accessible. Nevertheless, a bunch of colleagues have looked through it to make sure it's not all totally screwed up devilmad.png.

In keeping with my committment to the open access movement, I paid ~2k€ for everyone to be able to download the article 'for free', so you can go ahead and read it for yourself.

Here's the abstract, just to whet your appetite grin.png

Until the advent of modern neuroscience, free will used to be a theological and a metaphysical concept, debated with little reference to brain function. Today, with ever increasing understanding of neurons, circuits and cognition, this concept has become outdated and any metaphysical account of free will is rightfully rejected. The consequence is not, however, that we become mindless automata responding predictably to external stimuli. On the contrary, accumulating evidence also from brains much smaller than ours points towards a general organization of brain function that incorporates flexible decision-making on the basis of complex computations negotiating internal and external processing. The adaptive value of such an organization consists of being unpredictable for competitors, prey or predators, as well as being able to explore the hidden resource deterministic automats would never find. At the same time, this organization allows all animals to respond efficiently with tried-and-tested behaviours to predictable and reliable stimuli. As has been the case so many times in the history of neuroscience, invertebrate model systems are spearheading these research efforts. This comparatively recent evidence indicates that one common ability of most if not all brains is to choose among different behavioural options even in the absence of differences in the environment and perform genuinely novel acts. Therefore, it seems a reasonable effort for any neurobiologist to join and support a rather illustrious list of scholars who are trying to wrestle the term ‘free will’ from its metaphysical ancestry. The goal is to arrive at a scientific concept of free will, starting from these recently discovered processes with a strong emphasis on the neurobiological mechanisms underlying them.

Björn Brembs (2010). Towards a scientific concept of free will as a biological trait: spontaneous actions and decision-making in invertebrates Proc. R. Soc. B

Posted on Wednesday 15 December 2010 - 14:35:28 comment: 19

[damntexdem]

1. Fine, we need a scientific concept of choice, although this is just a start.

Of course, if we really have no ability to choose, then I am predetermined to write this post. ;-)

[immoderate]

2. An interesting approach.

I belong to a nerdy meetup group and this comes up occasionally. I take a break. Deep philosophical questions have no answers. So I bow out of those discussions. I am forwarding this to some of the usual subjects. :)


--imm

[FiveGoodMen]

5. But the point of the article is to disconnect the idea of free will from philosophy

[immoderate]

8. Yeah, that's why it's interesting.

I'm not sure if that changes anything with respect to this question though.

--imm

[unblock]

3. free will is not just an illusion, but a fairly obvious illusion. only our ego clouds our view.

people, particularly modern americans, absolutely loathe the concept that everything they do might be predermined or externally predictable. free will "feels" so real.

but if you open your mind to the concept that free will is merely an epiphenomenon of your brain chemistry and structure, and the various inputs and status of your body at the time, it's fairly obvious.


if you're honest, you'll acknowledge that there are quite a lot of "decisions" you make that are really auto-pilot. the decision to eat breakfast, what you eat, the decision to go to work in the morning, the route you take. there are thousands of little decisions made before you even get to work. yet we recognize that so many of these are "habit", a response to bodily signals or "instinct".

but most of our "big" decisions really are a series of such smaller "decisions", each based on habit and so on. a decision as big as marriage is prefaced by habituating the idea of how to find, choose, and court a mate, how to reject or accept a mate, and so on. generally in our culture, marriage is preceded by extended dating or even living together, which is really nothing more than habituation. the daily little decisions to continue the relationship makes the ultimate "big" decision to marry really just another little decision, having made all those previous decisions already. they may add up to a big decision, but really they're just small decisions.

and we have no problem thinking of the small decisions as being made subconsciously or out of habit or inertia. but the big decisions our ego wants to keep as "conscious", because we like to think of ourselves as the sum total of our decisions. we feel diminished if our decisions are externally predicatable. yet they are, and in truth it only makes us more of a marvel.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. The irony

of trying to convince someone to change their view when you believe they can't decide is ...

is ...

Well, it's not delicious...

[unblock]

6. i couldn't help myself, i was pre-ordained to write it :)

but seriously, i'm not saying that "decisions" don't exist, i'm just saying they're fully explained by biology and chemistry and physics, and the conscious experience of making a decisions is just an organism's way of processing the results of the decisions the body and brain has made.

it's a convenient shorthand for understanding what's going on at a far more complex level.

i "choose" to write on this topic because my habit of reading d.u. posts led me to this thread, and reading it triggers some pathways in my brain, and activated some socialization instincts that cause me to "share my thoughts" and i posted my response.

on some level, i do this because i have "learned" that doing so sometimes leads others to agree or otherwise give my inputs that i find pleasing.


perhaps a different way of saying it is that i'm not trying to convince you to decide, i'm trying to manipulate you to reacting as i wish, and presenting a convincing argument might just be the kind of manipulation that works on you, or on someone else reading this. but of course, if my manipulation is successful, you won't FEEL manipulated, you'll feel you decided. all on your own. congratulation on your independent thought!

[FiveGoodMen]

7. "i'm trying to manipulate you to reacting as i wish"

Does the word "trying" even make sense if you had no choice in the matter?

[unblock]

9. another "shortcut" word.

if you really want me to be pure about it, there are a lot of convenient words i'd have to avoid.

the notion of free will is quite convenient for communication purposes, even if it's false.
especially if given that we're not necessarily aware of everyone's inputs and brain chemistry and so on.

if i had enough information, i could predict what you will order off tonight's dinner menu, but given that i don't it *appears* as if you are exercising free will. so it's convenient to ask "what will you choose" rather than "what option have your instincts, experiences, and present biology consprired to conclude for you in terms of tonight's dinner alternatives?"

[FiveGoodMen]

10. Here's a real shortcut for our discussion

Do you believe there was ever any chance that you would not create post #9?

Or was that inevitable?

[unblock]

12. actually inevitability is something else.

it's possible that some things are genuinely random, or controlled by external forces, yet there is still no free will.

so i suppose that no, it wasn't inevitable. but i will suggest that it was not within my conscious control.

i think my consciousness is just along for the ride.

[FiveGoodMen]

13. Does you consciousness have any role in choosing your words?

[unblock]

14. no, it merely becomes aware of the decison that happens without it

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Let's try this, then:

Some of the penalties in our legal code are intended to have a deterrence value.

People are supposed to avoid certain actions because of the consequences.

In your view, does that ever work?

[unblock]

16. sure. same way i "choose" not to put my hand in the fire.

i learned, at some point, that there is pain and suffering associated with certain actions so i instinctively avoid them.
the "fire bad" reaction might have been the memory of some direct physical experience; the legal deterrence might have been more complicated, i heard about the law and somehow my brain made the connection with suffering. so now, "fining taxes late bad" is etched in my brain.

i'm not really "choosing" to file my taxes so much as reacting to the neural pathways and chemicals that associate failure to file with suffering. it's not really any different than a plant reacting to sunlight. external stimulus, reaction of the plant. in that case, no known consciousness; in mine, i am aware of the reaction but i don't really feel i made a "choice".

[FiveGoodMen]

17. Looks like we are destined to disagree.

[unblock]

24. i figured that several posts ago, but it's still a fun topic for discussion : )

[qazplm]

19. millions of criminals

get the connection of crime with suffering, yet they do it anyways. Millions of law-abiding citizens never make that connection, at least not through experience, and yet never commit a crime.

I think your argument suffers greatly from attempting to oversimplify and reduce everything to instinctual reaction based on uber-basic principles of pleasure/pain.

[unblock]

22. my argument only appears simple because i don't have the time to write a dissertation on the topic

for starters, it's not just pleasure/pain, but the sum total of all stimuli, experience & memories as represented in neural pathways and chemistry, and so on.

there are many signals at play at the same time, so not all decisions are as simple as "tired -> sleep" or "hungry -> eat". in the case of criminals who understand the consequences of getting caught, they also understand other considerations, such as the consequence of refusing to go along with the gang, or failing to gather enough nuts for winter. or they understand the "rush" of getting away with it and are drawn to that enough to overcome their fear or the consequences of getting caught.

and i've never met a law-abiding citizen who didn't appreciate the negative consequences of prison, even if they've never been there. the reactions and programming need not be created only through direct, first-hand physical experience. we communicate through story-telling, and even seeing something on t.v. is enough for people to learn.



ah, all this takes me back to college philosophy.

ontology, epistemology, late-night bull sessions.
what fun!

[qazplm]

27. are you seriously arguing

an instinctual response based on second hand communications between people or television?

Of course, you think the programs on TV themselves are not the product of free will.

[unblock]

28. i'm not saying it's "instinctual".

"learned" or "programmed" would be more accurate.

i'm saying that everything we know or remember is etched in our brains, physically, chemically, biologically, somehow.
if we see something on t.v., our brains might file under "fiction" or "entertainment" the first time, but as we get more reinforcing signals, from more t.v. or newspapers or other people, our brains make other associations, and eventually we file it under "real threats, must avoid" and whenever we see an option of committing a crime, the fear and run away chemicals get released and we avoid the situation and stick to abiding by the law.

[qazplm]

30. everything you said

says absolutely nothing one way or the other about free will.

Yes, everything we know or remember is in our brains. I don't mean to be rude, but that's kinda how the brain works.

[bananas]

21. "if i had enough information, i could predict what you will order" - incorrect

That was disproven a long time ago.

[bananas]

20. "they're fully explained by biology and chemistry and physics" - incorrect

The paper was written because they aren't fully explained by biology and chemistry and physics.

[unblock]

23. for the vast majority of "decisions", they are enough.

it's true that there's apparent randomness at the quantum level, and that there are certain things that cannot be predicted absolutely.

but as a practical matter these do not make larger-scale behaviors random or unpredicatable.

yes, if i put a coke in the fridge and close the door, there is a non-zero chance that it will barrier tunnel its way to china and i will never see it again. however, as a practical matter, i can ignore that.

similarly, i can know what someone will order for dinner given enough information -- and i don't need to get down to the atomic level for that. enough knowledge of their eating habits, state of health, and what they've already eaten earlier in the day, and so on is enough.

[qazplm]

18. the fact that some decisions

happen so often in the same way that you no longer have to consciously make them is called habit, and I see no reason why it imperils free will.

I really like food X. Food X is in the same place in the store. I get it every week and can't imagine going a week without it. Do this long enough and I will head right to Food X in that place in the store without making a deliberative decision to do so. That is not an indictment against free will.

The mere fact that people can and do change habits all of the time mitigates against your argument.

I once ate Burger King's Whopper Cheese Combo #1 for six months straight. Then one day, i decided I wanted something else, and I stopped.
Was I predetermined to make a change on that day? Was my makeup such that 180 days was the magical cutoff but 179 or 181 was not? I think that far-fetched.

What about people who get married after a month? They are bucking the culture. I just don't see anything in your post that argues even a little bit for your point.

[unblock]

25. the fact that you went off whoppers after 6 months is a good example

i had a similar experience with scallops. they were a favorite. not every day, certainly, but whenever i went out and saw it on the menu. then one meal, the first scallop was fantastic, the second was ok, and halfway through the third i said "no more". it didn't taste or smell obviously off, but something in me said, done, no more scallops.

i couldn't bear to order scallops for literally years after that. when i finally did, i immediately got the sense sensation. no more scallops. no probably 2 decades later, i've finally started eating scallops again without that sensation.


what happened? chances are really good that something chemical happened, maybe there was some toxin or bacteria in that dish that put me off scallops, and the experiences scarred the pathways in my brain, and it took a very long time to heal -- for my brain to "forget" that subconscious association.

my fairly strong suspicion is something similar happened to you with the whopper. maybe it was an off whopper, or maybe something else you ate, or saw. mrs. unblock and i haven't gone to mickey-d's since we saw "food, inc.", for instance. you could call that a "decision" but really it just put us off meat.



people who get married after just a month or less are simply responding to different desires, pathways, and so on. the yearning for a committed partner for them outweighs the need for prudence and careful selection. plenty of people make impulsive or reckless actions, others simply have only a few specific criteria so they don't need an extensive search or courtship.

[qazplm]

26. you are creating all sorts of

fantastical causes for which you have no evidence.

I did not go off Whoppers. To this day nothing tastes quite as good as a Whopper with cheese to me. It may in fact be the most favorite thing in the world, sad as that may sound culinarily speaking.

There was no sensation, I did not have a dislike, or a feeling, I just said, hey I also like the ham and cheese subs at Arbys. Why don't I try something different today.

It was not in fact an off whopper and I as you can guess ate the same things all of the time.

I just decided I wanted to try something different. You postulate rather fantastical suppositions in exchange of a much simpler one, that I simply wanted a ham and cheese sub more that day than a whopper.

[unblock]

29. ok, but that doesn't negate my philosophy either

so it wasn't an off whopper.
maybe your body got low on some vitamin or mineral and sent the "search for different foods" signal.
all i'm saying is that there was something physically or chemically different about you on that day that, if we knew what it was and enough about how the brain worked, we would be able to point to it and say, that was the cause.

[qazplm]

31. or maybe

I just decided I wanted something different.

[snagglepuss]

11. .