Do we have free will?
Criminality and neuroscience. Art: Nick Cave. Theatre: Mark Ravenhill exercises. Meet-ups. Education UnConference.
Do we have free will
Art: Nick Cave, ceramics, art, music
Theatre: Mark Ravenhill exercises
Upcoming events:
Home Education / non-mainstream Education UnConference, London on April 27th, (Free). UnConference on non-mainstream education. Families, educators, and curious people are welcome.
EV + Friends meet-up. Sustainability + Investing + Arts + Theatre + Progress + Education + UnConference. (Thu 18 Apr, London) My own interests are broad but range across: progress, sustainability, creative arts, theatre, investing, economics, philosophy, education, food, autism and everything that makes humans human.
Links (end): Chatbot politics, Temple Grandin at Homestead festival; carbon on banks’ books
I was speaking to a neuroscientist. It turns out that many neuroscientists are skeptical of the notion of “free will” because of recent developments suggesting the brain acts and makes decision before we are consciously aware of them.
The main arguments for/against freewill are below (thanks GPT):
Arguments for Free Will
Introspection and Subjective Experience: Many people feel they have free will, making choices based on preferences and reasoning. This subjective experience is a powerful argument for its existence.
Moral Responsibility: The concept of moral responsibility seems to require free will. We typically hold people accountable for their actions because we believe they have the freedom to choose differently.
Quantum Mechanics: Some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that at a fundamental level, the universe is not deterministic, potentially leaving room for free will.
Compatibilism: Argues that free will is compatible with determinism. Even if our actions are determined by prior states of the world and laws of nature, we can still be said to act freely when we act according to our desires and intentions.
Arguments Against Free Will
Determinism: The universe is governed by cause and effect. If all actions are the result of preceding events, then free will cannot exist as traditionally conceived.
Neuroscience: Experiments suggest that our brains make decisions before we're consciously aware of them. If our choices are determined by unconscious brain processes, the notion of free will might be illusory.
Incompatibilism: Holds that if determinism is true, free will is impossible. The laws of physics dictate the future, leaving no room for free will.
Illusion Argument: Some argue that the feeling of free will is an illusion created by our cognitive processes, which evolved to give us a sense of control over our actions for better social coordination and planning.
Expanding on the neuroscience arguments you have:
The neuroscience arguments against the existence of free will largely derive from studies that analyze the timing and mechanisms of decision-making processes in the brain. These experiments suggest that decisions are made subconsciously before we become aware of them, challenging the traditional notion of conscious free will.
One of the most famous experiments related to free will was conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s. Libet asked participants to choose a random moment to flick their wrist while observing a clock with a fast-moving second hand. He measured electrical activity in the brain and found that the "readiness potential" (a type of brain activity signaling that a decision has been made) occurred significantly before the participants reported being consciously aware of their decision to move.
In a 2011 study by John-Dylan Haynes, participants were asked to decide whether to add or subtract numbers they were later shown. This decision was made several seconds before participants consciously made it, with predictive brain activity appearing in the frontopolar cortex. This study further supported the notion that decisions are made subconsciously.
I think there is still possibly a role in longer-term instrumental learning which is conscious (habit forming, strategic thinking) but I think it is likely true that definite longer term instrumental learning is much more rare than we would believe and that the brain makes many more decisions for us, unconsciously. Also, "free will" means many different things to different people (see also Daniel Dennett on this)
I studied neuroscience at university and still find it fascinating. We (though mostly Anoushka) has been listening to neuroscientist David Eagleman.
Eagleman for over a decade now has been arguing for the biological basis of many criminal actions and neurological deficits. This raises challenges over notions of free will but he argues quite convincingly in many case studies for the brain or neurological basis for criminal behaviour. This essay in the Atlantic gives a lay over view.
Society is mostly unready for this type of idea although there are insanity type legal defences. Dr. Eagleman finds the distinction between the brain and the self to be arbitrary and based on false assumptions. If you like a video argument / slide show argument, he gives it at thee RSA (2010) and Sante Fe Institute (2013).
The ideas here are on the long list of theatre pieces I am thinking about.
On theatre, if you fancy writing exercises playwright Mark Ravenhill is giving them out. Mark is one of the leading playwrights of his generation, and we talk on podcast a little while ago here.
This is one of his first exercises below:
Last time I asked you to think of a woman. Someone you know, someone you've observed, someone you've invented.
Then I asked you to BE her for a few minutes. If you haven't done that, do it now. Or do it again. Do something simple - like making a cup of tea - and as you do it move like her, think like her. Maybe speak her thoughts aloud. Go for it!
Right, done that? Great start.
Read on ..
Now I want you to imagine her reaching into a drawer, a coat pocket, a bag (whatever most suits her).
And she pulls out a gun.
She has a gun in her hand.
Now, I want you to write.
For three minutes, I want you to write as quickly as possible.
Use a timer (the stopwatch on your 'phone perhaps) and write as much as you can - her thoughts as she holds the gun. Write faster than your critical mind or conscious brain.Nobody else will ever read this. It's not for a play. It's an exercise.
OK. Set the timer - and write.
I find Nick Cave’s writing compelling. Cave has had, and still has, a very full life including incredible highs and lows both personally (death of son) and creatively (across music and visual, sculpture arts; and such creative journey from The Birthday Party until today).
His writing reveals complexity. I find it fascinating, he probably codes a complex right. Certainly, he has been caught in skirmishses in the woke wars, but if you read his wider writings, to me it certainly seems complex. He has faith; but is anti-dogma.
This interview gives a glimpse of it, but I think you find his deep humanity in his Red Letter Files, which are a sort of Agony Uncle blog in reply to readers. But, I think it’s a better deeper broader version of Rilke’s Letters to a Young Poet.
Guardian interview excerpt:
Cave feels he is misunderstood in another way, after saying recently that he has always been “temperamentally” conservative and attacking the “self-righteous belief” and “lack of humility” of woke culture. This has led some to assume he is supping with the “alt-right”, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
“Conservatism is a difficult word to talk about in Britain, because people immediately think of the Tories. But I do think small-C conservatism is someone who has a fundamental understanding of loss, an understanding that to pull something down is easy, to build it back up again is extremely difficult. There is an innate need in us to rip shit down, and I’m personally more cautious in that respect without it being a whole political ideology that surrounds me.”
Is he a Tory? I’m not a Tory, no.” Has he ever been? “No. No, I’ve never voted Tory.” And is he really anti-woke? “The concept that there are problems with the world we need to address, such as social justice; I’m totally down with that. However, I don’t agree with the methods that are used in order to reach this goal – shutting down people, cancelling people. There’s a lack of mercy, a lack of forgiveness. These go against what I fundamentally believe on a spiritual level, as much as anything. So it’s a tricky one. The problem with the right taking hold of this word is that it’s made the discussion impossible to have without having to join a whole load of nutjobs who have their problem with it.”
He hates dogma, whether religious or political. His work has always embraced uncertainty. “People don’t like me to say this, but I do feel it’s in my nature to constantly be redressing the balance of my own ideas about things. …
And here are questions he has tackled in the red hand files lately:
And,
Hope to see you at a meet-up or UnConference, or feel free to send me a message.
Links:
I am still thinking on Matt Levine on carbon accounting. Must read for those thinking about financed emissions. Article here (Bloomberg). “The idea is to “transfer the credit risk, but at the same time transfer the so-called emissions risk to a third-party investor outside of the banking system, such as ourselves”
This is pretty niche on animals, autism and Temple Grandin (YouTube). The is 2023 Q&A with autist and prominent proponent of the humane treatment of livestock, Temple Grandin at the Homestead Festival, so a lot of this is on animal welfare and farming.