Christof Koch - Is Free Will An Illusion?

Some philosophers and scientists claim that because every event is determined by prior events, including every event in our brains, free will cannot be real. What are the arguments and evidence? Key is the Libet experiment, which seems to show that our brains have already made a decision—we see electrical activity—before we are conscious of making the decision.



Christof Koch is an American neuroscientist best known for his work on the neural bases of consciousness.


Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[redmed]

That shirt is a perfect example of free will. He chose not only to buy that shirt but also to wear it.

[SandipChitale]

In discussions of topics like Free Will, Consciousness, Soul, spirit, god it is important to first establish what the definition of free will is going to be used and even more importantly sticking to it. I have seen situations when the discussions start with agreed definition but then people smuggle in different ideas. Of course it is understood that some ideas cannot be fleshed out instantaneously but need to be discussed.

I think you will agree, we come to hear and watch these kinds of discussions with the expectation of discussion on our day to day intuitive meaning of Free Will. So we need to define more precisely what is meant by day to day Free will.

A good example of some of this is what Lawrence Krauss wrote in the book - Something from Nothing. He simply changed the definition of "nothing" and then went on to explain how something can come about from that 'quantum' nothing. Well, but that is not what people mean when they colloquially talk about nothing. IMO such shifting of goals does not help. He could have easily used title like Something from Quantum Nothing and at least it would not have added to the confusion and controversy.

Same is true about our intuitive understanding of free will that we talk about in a day to day discussions. However that intuitive understanding is a little fuzzy. And the problems with that though is that, for formally discussing something a good definition needs to be used. Let me give a starting point of the definition of everyday free will. Basically we mean that some external agent, agency or circumstance did not force us to make a particular choice - we made that choice freely - and that was our Free Will to do so. At the outset this sounds fine. But this does not exclude the fact that our choice came out of our brain, it's structure (where most likely short and long term memories are stored), incoming sensory perceptions (in real time) and the dynamical electro chemical state of the brain. If our brain is damaged will be be making a Free Will choice? If our incoming sensory perceptions are blocked will we make a Free Will choice? If we are drunk or high on drugs will we make free will choice? Another thing to consider is are we taking the decisions that are trivial or can affect us significantly. Thirdly are we making these choices implicitly or explicitly. By implicitly I mean we are not thinking about the "making" of the choice itself, but are thinking about the object of what we are making a choice about. In an experiment, say raise your left hand or right hand - which is trivial and does not make much difference to our life - we could truly make a free choice (actually innie, minnie, miny, mo). However for life changing events, when we make a choice are we making it freely? e.g. should I start running and someday run a marathon or should I study and go to MIT to study physics. Do we make these decisions truly freely? I do not think so. We make these decisions - yes within our brains - but not without the context of our memory, our knowledge of our abilities and what can actually be achieved as permitted by the laws of physics. For example, we cannot make a choice to train for marathon and complete it in 1 second. So most of the time we make free will choices constrained by our memory, our aspirations, our abilities and constraint from external world that we can and cannot affect. And with that consideration are we really making a "free" choice?

So, basically, the Free Will choices we make originate in the context of our memories, our abilities, our aspirations, what is good for our future life (unless one is bent on sabotaging that), what are external circumstantial constraints. So is it truly a free will ? Or should we be happy to say that given all those inputs I made a choice by exercising the state and the processes of my brain?

All people who are deciding to not mask up making that free will choice or are succumbing to peer pressure and group think - even though they will insist it was their free will?

Other question to ask - with whatever definition of free will you want to use - will it be a free will without the context of our memories and what we want to happen which we know before we make the choice. In other words if we turn off our memories will we be able to make Free Will choice?

[Traderhood]

Wouldn’t it make sense to first clearly define what is “I” before asking question do I have a free will?

[thomassoliton]

I’m trying to decide whether to make a comment to this discussion. Hmmm. I am conscious of trying because I remember thinking what I would say….. One point is that a lot of what we do is not making decisions, but letting experiences or thoughts “cross our mind”” and “deciding”” whether they are relevant. Cal tech or Harvard? I know I need to examine a lot of information … only then would I be in a position to make a decision. Some decisions are very difficult - like taking a new job in a different state when you have a family. I have found that such decisions are best made after thinking very carefully and deeply about all the possible pros and cons, and then sitting in a quiet place (basically meditating) without trying to decide. In that case, the “outcome” that creates the most internal harmony (benefit / cost ratio, speaking primarily of emotional factors) rises to the fore. That does not seem to be as much a conscious as a subconscious decision - much like any scientific experiment:: gather as much relevant data as possible, then applly an algoritm to calculate / compare on some basis, and the outcome / result is the decision. The only decision is to do the experiment. Life is a constant experiment, with the outcomes Bayesian probabilities that just materialize as “do or do not” as Yoda would say..

[MrSanford]

Perhaps the role of consciousness is to actually stop the body from acting on what the brain is gearing up to do. When you think about it consciousness is actually an act of thinking without doing, and the both maybe mutually exclusive to each other. If we all simply did what are impulses are driving our bodies to do, we wouldn’t be conscious, we would just be reflective Biological mirrors. Also we are actually conscious of difference between acting on impulse and thinking about something therefore ponderous consciousness seems to transcend the drive of the neurological impulses

[bluelotus]

The brain is a tool for the subtle material mind, and the subtle material mind has three functions: thinking, feeling and wishing. Before expressing a choice, which corresponds to the 'wishing' function, the mind thinks and feels, and it may do it on a subconscious level. Like a sensor, the brain catches up all mental states, whether conscious or subconscious.

[chayanbosu]

If free will is an illusion but then question arrises who's illusion? Who are suffering from illusion? Love, blissfullness, kindness are all illusion? Then who are trying to establish a theory that free will is an illusion he is also in illusory mode.We must have an independent self otherwise we can not explain moral truths, we can not explain what is good or bad and obiously we can can not create any discipline because then peoples are saying we are determined to determind.But we do know how determination can differentiate between a great and common .It is reality, it is practical we need determination in various sector and it is not an illusory thing.

[brigham]

In order to perform an action, your brain must first think of it. So I don't see any problem that an electrode can detect whether you're about to lift your right or left hand a second before you actually do it.

[soubhikmukherjee]

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt-Bertrand Russell.

[penultimatename]

It seems there are two parts to the question. He seems to be asking is our brain determining the action or are we conscious of our choices. The bigger problem is if we or our brain can even make a choice. Our brain is made up of particles and particles can be shown mathematically to change in a consistent pattern. If mathematically we can show the future or rollback the state of the universe. Then how can we assume our mind can override a deterministic universe? At least I believe this is what Sabine Hossenfelder is attempting to prove.

[bradleymosman]

Free will is one thing. Freedom to exercise it is something else. Sometimes, life presents such circumstances that exercising free will is like pushing a bolder up hill.

[dallinsprogis]

This is because as being the human we are a two system organism that simultaneously functions together.

The first system is the dynamic biological vehicle.

The second system is the consciousness that is required to feed the biological needs of a the continuously growing cellular structure.

What I find most interesting is that consciousness is unsuspecting of its own lack of knowledge and experience in all aspects of reality and even after self awareness is achieved. There has been no logical order to understand knowledge.

[mintakan]

The choice between MIT and Caltech, illustrates significance of "free will", in the larger context of human values. (That's its real "meaning".) It is the notion of "long range agency". And related to this, is the question, "what kind of person do I want to be".

Choosing to lift one's left arm or right arm, or vanilla or chocolate, is not that interesting. It may illustrate there exists a micro mechanism, that there is something beyond rigid determinism. (This isn't to say, there aren't inductive biases, as Koch notes the antecedent factors.)

A series of micro decisions, lead to what maybe a large macro decision, or shaping, that lead to how "free will" is actually significant to human beings (and society). The old saying has it that choices lead to habits, habits to character. There is a semantic context to the meaning, that has a tinge of moral (and value). In the social context, such as ethics and law, it is notion of a "responsible agent".

Otherwise, if "free will" only meant "I can choose to lift my left arm, or right arm", then one can ask, "so what?"

[stephenlawrence]

I think one of the reasons the free will debate goes on and on is that's such a bad question. Bad because it depends on how free will is defined. So compatibilists like Dan Dennett say we have free will but only because he defines it in a particular way. Sam Harris says we don't have free will but only because he defines it differently. There is very little difference between the two since the basic facts are well known and agreed upon. But of course that's not the impression people get.
A better question is: Are people in general deluded about free will?

And to that question the answer is a clear "yes". Both Sam Harris and Dan Dennett would agree to that.

The next good questions are: How is the delusion influencing people?
And
How might things change for the better (or worse) if people were enlightened?

[RedVenomProductions]

when a person decides to do something. most of the time they think its the best decision based on previous sensory/logical data (long data or short data). (or more rarer cases some people want to do the opposite for no reason; or uh to be defiant or whatever). now this data can be from accurate to not accurate; it could be emotional/sensory based or logical based or improperly based when using logic or emotion/sensory for the wrong situation. now all this previous data and your decision making all had to come from one place YOU/your brain. when people say free will is an illusion they are saying that the chaotic system inside the brain is not only calculatable but also you are subjective to the previous chaos based on both data and your decisions . like a tree ur previous branches of your path got you where you are today and will be. like rolling a dice no matter how much in the increase in variables its calculatable. now that's their argument. they have to prove its calculatable that's number one. now in information theory its more of a spectrum from not random to completely random. they also have to prove that there is no such thing as randomness. that the curve of something trying to being to be random is asymptotic meaning you can add as many many variables to the system but you'll never get to true randomness. HOWEVER! if such a system of randomness exists in this universe at any time like "true randomness" we are already as human beings are susceptible to its effects by default and therefore our chaotic pathways are not calculatable and with this we have the power to choose because even with our previous branches having an effect on our decision making, overall cannot determine the outcome at any point its not calculatable at that point. so its a matter of disproving or proving. both of which seem almost impossible to do with these scales of magnitude.

[hckytwn]

This experiment might have a problem in its assumptions, specifically that the brain directs consciousness and free will. The brain generates thoughts, but you aren’t those thoughts, those thoughts aren’t your consciousness. (This is pretty clear to anyone who’s meditated for a significant amount of time.) I suspect if they experimented on people untrained in mindfulness, they’ll be able to predict their actions much better than people who are trained. Those untrained/unconscious individuals are much more driven by the thoughts their brains generate—and that’s what this experiment will track.

[patbrennan]

Did you even choose to be to be born? Of course you didn't. Lets not get free will confused with choices either, for instance, over easy or sunny side up is not free will. It's a choice. Not much point in praying to god either. Remember when you pray you always say, 'god willing'.

[neffetSnnamremmiZ]

No, but freedom (like the subject of knowledge) can never appear in the empirical world, you can only have or be in freedom. That's the reason Kant explained, freedom is proven in the moment that we can think it!

[wattshumphrey]

The "does 'free will' exist" question they are posing -- meaning, does "consciousness" have an apparent role in decision making -- is predicated on a fundamental underlying assumption: the only "consciousness" that exists that is involved in said decision making is the "consciousness" we are aware of in our waking state.

And, by extension, that the "consciousness" we possess is unitary and integral, and we "see" all of it.

This assumption would seem reasonable from the viewpoint of our "self concepts" (in fact, is required by our self concepts...), but is unproven.

[JamesRichardWiley]

In my reality,
God is an illusion.
Free will is an illusion
Time is an illusion.
The Cosmos is eternal energy that had no beginning and has no end.
I did not exist before I was born. After I die I will once again cease to exist.