Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Libet experiments allow free will

New York Magazine reports:
Back in the 1980s, the American scientist Benjamin Libet made a surprising discovery that appeared to rock the foundations of what it means to be human. He recorded people’s brain waves as they made spontaneous finger movements while looking at a clock, with the participants telling researchers the time at which they decided to waggle their fingers. Libet’s revolutionary finding was that the timing of these conscious decisions was consistently preceded by several hundred milliseconds of background preparatory brain activity (known technically as “the readiness potential”).

The implication was that the decision to move was made nonconsciously, and that the subjective feeling of having made this decision is tagged on afterward. In other words, the results implied that free will as we know it is an illusion — after all, how can our conscious decisions be truly free if they come after the brain has already started preparing for them?
No, it just meant that it can take a few seconds for the human brain to make a decision. Not surprising, and not relevant to free will.

Now, some more precise research has been done, and the conclusion is the opposite of Libet's:
For years, various research teams have tried to pick holes in Libet’s original research. ...

These studies all point in the same, troubling direction: We don’t really have free will. In fact, until recently, many neuroscientists would have said any decision you made was not truly free but actually determined by neural processes outside of your conscious control.

Luckily, for those who find this state of affairs philosophically (or existentially) perplexing, things are starting to look up. Thanks to some new breakthrough studies, including one published last month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers in Germany, there’s now some evidence pointing in the other direction: The neuroscientists are backtracking on past bold claims and painting a rather more appealing account of human autonomy. We may have more control over certain processes than those initial experiments indicated.
When scientists tell you something contrary to common sense, such as experiments proving that you have no free will, you should consider the possibility that they are completely wrong.


  1. Roger,
    I believe there is a very strong correlation between those who do not believe in free will, and their desire to have control over everyone else's decisions.

    This entire argument is really about control and power over others. I also am baffled why such experts who assert others 'lack' free will feel magically empowered themselves to dictate to others what they should do.

    Technocracy is merely the mask of closeted tyrants.

  2. You may be right. They do seem to want collective control over what everyone says and does.