Waxing Poetically: Addressing Culture with a Twist of Poetry

“Atomic Holiday Self-portrait”

As some of you know, last week I posted my views on the general absurdity of human free will when juxtaposed with the instincts found in animals. So today I follow that piece with a comment on a study published in Scientific American today that points to evidence that many philosophers and scientists don’t believe in free will and believe instead that all decisions are arrived at solely because they are influenced by previous actions or events or experiences.

The article summed up a scandalous little study by psychologists Kathleen Vohs at the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler at the University of California at Santa Barbara wherein two groups of subjects were given two passages to read from the popular scientific analysis book The Astonishing Hypothesis by biochemist and Nobel laureate Francis Crick, (he discovered the double helix composition of DNA with James Watson). One group read a passage saying, “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. Who you are is nothing but a pack of neurons.” On neurological influence it continues,“…although we appear to have free will, in fact, our choices have already been predetermined for us and we cannot change that.” The second group was ask to read a passage about the nature of consciousness that lacked any mention of free will. The participants then filled out a survey on their beliefs about free will.

Next both groups were given 20 arithmetic problems to answer on a computer but due to a “glich” were also told that they must press the space bar in order that the answer not be shown for them to be able to cheat. Still, no one would be able to tell if they did. The results were that those who read the anti-free will passage cheated considerably more than those who read the consciousness-centered section and the amount of cheating by each person directly correlated to the to the responses on each corresponding survey. Therefore the readings proved influential, but why? The researchers believe that the doom and gloom of the anti-free will rationale may have driven Group One simply not to care, or at least to be less inclined to do so.

Yet beyond the study, there was no conclusive evidence to tell how the results pan out over any longer term. Also, the general moral habits or beliefs of the participants prior to the study are unknown. However after preforming cross-cultural studies, research shows people overall desire to want to think they are free moral agents. Further the study illustrates more people believe in free will than in determinism. But what does this really suggest?

First, there is the argument that all decisions are determine by previous actions, events, experiences and so forth. This seem only logical. A person must be influenced by all he encounters in some way, as in “It’s raining, so I won’t go swimming today,” or “I was bitten by a shark last time, so this time I’ll be more careful.” This is nothing new… is it? The more pertinent question is “What is the nature of consciousness?” or “Why are people aware at all?” People definitely have choices they can make as far as they are aware of them but that does not mean objectively that they choose those choices, but it definitely means they think they do.

Ultimately, this seems like a circular debate. From where I sit, it’s very similar to arguing whether reality is the same for all people or if the individual is just dreaming it. It is in fact, all based on perception and anyone with half a brain knows that only testable principles such as gravity, social norms and cause/effect relationships can ever be debated. Free will is defined as the ability to make choices. Humans clearly do make choices. The subjects in the study made a clear and conscious choice whether to cheat on the tests they were given. The question scientists seem to be posing is whether people’s perception of their autonomy is somehow fated by something outside of their knowledge such as nature or even God.

Any further debate just seems pointless. Even if people don’t understand the true nature of their wills, as long as they are conscious of the choices they make and believe they are free and autonomous, maybe that’s all that matters. Rather it could just mean there is a debate regarding what the concept of free will means. Basically it comes down to what causes people’s will and has nothing to with the process itself…. Your brain will still function regardless of any of this. I wouldn’t lose any sleep.

Wax. Don’t dryclean.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS