The age-old debate on free will has taken a fascinating turn with the advent of neuroscience. For centuries, philosophers have pondered whether humans can truly choose freely what they do, or if our actions are predetermined by a sequence of cause and effect. However, recent scientific studies have brought us closer to understanding the intricate workings of the brain and its role in this philosophical conundrum.
“So wait, if I don’t have free will, why do we have consciousness at all?”
Even without free will, the topic of this article, consciousness is advantageous to survival. It is the enjoyable experience of “agency” as we integrate information, plan for the future, reflect on our experiences, and engage in complex decision-making and social interactions. As we integrate sensory information from our environment, consciousness is what it is like to observe our inner state and to be able to veto or inhibit automatic impulses and behaviors.
Scientists can consistently (but not perfectly) predict your decisions by observing your brain activity before you become consciously aware of even making a choice. This suggests that free will may be a cognitive illusion. That’s the problem. If you experience making a choice after your brain has already done so, your experience of making the choice is likely not an accurate representation of reality.
Before we get into detail, here is an overview of free will neuroscience discoveries and trends:
Timeline of Free Will Neuroscience Discoveries
Here’s a detailed timeline of key neuroscience updates on free will, with one line per year, going back farther:
1964: Kornhuber and Deecke discover the Bereitschaftspotential (readiness potential) preceding voluntary motor actions[46].
1983: Benjamin Libet discovers that the Bereitschaftspotential precedes conscious intention to act, suggesting that unconscious brain processes initiate actions before conscious awareness.[46]
1999: Haggard and Eimer link the lateralized readiness potential to conscious intention.[46]
2007: Brass and Haggard propose the “what, when, whether” model of intentional action.[47]
2008: Soon et al. use fMRI to predict decisions up to 7 seconds before conscious awareness.[46]
2011: Fried et al. record single neuron activity predicting decisions 1.5 seconds before awareness.[47]
2012: Schurger et al. propose the “stochastic accumulator model” of decision-making.[47]
2013: Peter Tse argues that humans are neurologically wired for free will, suggesting a new model based on synaptic reweighting.[50]
2014: Roskies discusses the implications of single-neuron recordings in debates about free will.[49]
2015: Maoz et al. introduce the “Generative Self-Construction” model of free will.[47]
2016: Schurger et al. reinterpret the readiness potential as random neural fluctuations rather than a direct precursor to conscious decisions.[46][47]
2018: Khalighinejad et al. show that “neural noise” influences voluntary action decisions.[47]
2019: Maoz et al. propose a “capacity for free will” index.[47]
2020: Brass et al. suggest a refined “what-when-whether” model of intentional action.[47]
2021: Mudrik et al. explore the neural basis of “freely willed” actions, emphasizing the complexity of distinguishing conscious from unconscious processes.[47]
2022: Lavazza proposes integrating neuroscience with philosophy to develop a new concept of free will.[48]
2023: Roskies and Nahmias discuss how neuroscience informs philosophical debates on free will, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary approaches.[47]
2024: Recent research focuses on operationalizing and measuring free will as a quantitative trait, aiming to bridge the gap between empirical data and philosophical theories.[47]
How It Began
In the 1960s, a groundbreaking discovery by German scientists Hans Helmut Kornhuber and Lüder Deecke introduced the concept of “bereitschafts potential” or “readiness potential” (BP). This phenomenon indicated that the brain enters a special state immediately before conscious awareness of an action. Their experiments, which involved subjects moving their fingers at will, revealed a slow negative potential shift in the motor cortex just before the voluntary movement. This suggested that the unconscious mind might be initiating what we perceive as voluntary acts.
Benjamin Libet
Most scientists chose to overlook the idea that we may not have free will, but the work of Benjamin Libet in the 1980s brought the issue back into the spotlight. Libet’s experiments, which also involved finger movements and the observation of a clock, showed that the readiness potential started approximately 0.35 seconds before participants were consciously aware of their decision to move.
Libet’s conclusion was controversial: while we might not have free will in initiating our movements, we do possess a cognitive “veto” that allows us to stop these movements at the last moment. This implies that our subjective experience of freedom could be an illusion, as the brain seems to decide before we become consciously aware of it.
This explains why a psychiatrist friend of mine, who himself did fMRI brain research, once said that while we may not have certain kinds of free will, we do have “free won’t,” in other words, we can consciously decide what not to do.
Itzhak Fried
Neuroscientist Itzhak Fried put aside the fMRI scanner in favor of implanting electrodes into the brains of participants[39] in order to record the status of individual neurons — a procedure that gave him an incredibly precise sense of what was going on inside the brain as decisions were being made. His experiment showed that the neurons lit up with activity as much as 1.5 seconds before the participant made a conscious decision to press a button. In his experiments, with about 700 milliseconds to go, Fried and his team could predict the timing of decisions with nearly 80% accuracy. In some scenarios, he was able to predict choices before they were made with 90% accuracy. This is a different experiment with similar result. Fried surmised that volition arises after a change in internally generated fire rates of neuronal assemblies cross a threshold — and that the medial frontal cortex can signal these decisions before a person is aware of them.
“At some point, things that are predetermined are admitted into consciousness,” he told Nature, suggesting that the conscious will might be added on to a decision at a later stage.[40]
Neil Mahto
This discovery was initially met with skepticism, as it challenged the deterministic view of human decision-making that had been widely accepted since Freud. An article by NEIL MAHTO in the Johns Hopkins News-Letter stated that science-supports the existence of free will. Here is an exerpt.
“For most of human civilization, philosophers have posited the existence of free will. This sentiment has driven many groups to incorporate free will as a central tenet of their ideology. For example, Christians’ belief in free will has helped them reconcile God’s all-powerful, all-good existence with the presence of worldly evil. In fact, the idea of free will permeates nearly every institution. We reprimand those who commit crimes because we assume that they have a choice to act in that crime. We award honors for academic or athletic excellence assuming that the winner had some agency that allowed them to achieve their talent.”[31]
The science part of his argument comes later, which we will get to, but due to his article title, the scientist in me feels like pointing out that this above statement contains several logical fallacies:
1. Appeal to tradition fallacy: The argument begins by stating that philosophers have posited free will for most of human civilization. This implies that because the idea has been around for a long time, it must be valid. However, the longevity of an idea does not necessarily prove its truth or validity[34].
2. Bandwagon fallacy: The argument suggests that because many groups and institutions incorporate free will as a central tenet, it must be true. This is a form of the bandwagon fallacy, which assumes that something is correct or desirable because it is popular[34].
3. Appeal to consequences: The argument implies that free will must exist because it helps reconcile religious beliefs (like Christianity’s view on God and evil) and supports social institutions (like the justice system). This is an appeal to consequences, where the desirability of an outcome is used to argue for the truth of a premise[34].
4. False dichotomy: The argument presents a binary view – either free will exists, or our entire system of morality and justice is invalid. This ignores potential middle ground or alternative explanations for human behavior and responsibility.
5. Begging the question: The argument assumes the existence of free will in order to justify societal practices like punishment and rewards, rather than proving its existence independently.
Logical fallacies are not valid arguments and do not prove anything. Thus, in an article which claims science supports free will, these non-scientific fallacies weaken the argument by relying on popularity, tradition, and desired outcomes rather than providing concrete evidence or logical reasoning for the existence of free will. A stronger argument would need to address the philosophical and scientific debates surrounding free will directly, rather than appealing to its widespread acceptance or perceived necessity.
Stefan Bode
In yet another study, this one by Stefan Bode, his detailed fMRI experiments[37] showed it was possible to actually decode the outcome of free decisions for several seconds prior to the choice in the brain reaching conscious awareness. He discovered that activity patterns in the anterior frontopolar cortex (BA 10) were temporally the first to carry information related to decision-making, thus making it a prime candidate region for the unconscious generation of free decisions. His study put much of the concern about the integrity of previous experiments to rest.[38]
Uri Maoz
The Challenge To Readiness Potential Relevance – The main scientific challenge that Mahto mentioned in his Johns Hopkins article asserting that science supports the existence of free will was a 2019 study led by Uri Maoz. Maoz investigated the applicability of the readiness potential (RP) to significant decisions. Participants were asked to choose which of two nonprofits should receive a $1,000 donation. The study found that while the control group exhibited readiness potential for trivial decisions, the group making meaningful decisions did not show the same neural activity. This suggests that the RP may not be applicable to all types of decisions, particularly those with greater significance. Alternatively, however, it may be that the RP for complex decisions is distributed across the brain in ways not determined by Maoz’s study[26][27][28][29][30].
Aaron Schurger
Aaron Schurger’s work has been influential in recent years, particularly in reassessing the implications of neuroscientific data on the question of free will. He maintains that the kind of neuroscientific data required to genuinely cast doubt on free will has not yet been produced. From what I can tell, his research is very interesting, but only kicks the pre-action can further up the brain. Once you get past the point that you really don’t understand the word “stochastic”, he isn’t saying anything that changes the issue of the brain deciding for you, before you appear to decide. The debate around the readiness potential (RP) and the stochastic decision model (SDM) doesn’t fundamentally change the observation that the brain exhibits activity prior to conscious awareness of making a choice. This is a crucial point in the ongoing discussion about free will and the nature of decision-making.
Robert M. Sapolsky
Stanford University Professor Robert M. Sapolsky’s book “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will” presents a compelling argument against the existence of free will in humans[41][45]. Sapolsky contends that our actions and decisions are entirely determined by factors beyond our control, such as our biology, environment, and their interactions[41].
The book synthesizes evidence from various scientific disciplines, including neuroscience, psychology, and physics, to support the idea that free will is an illusion[45]. Sapolsky argues that recognizing this lack of free will could lead to a more humane and just society[41].
A key aspect of Sapolsky’s thesis is the call to reconsider systems of punishment and reward[5]. He suggests that attributing praise or blame to individuals for their actions is misguided, as people ultimately have no control over their behavior[41]. This perspective challenges traditional notions of moral responsibility and has significant implications for criminal justice, education, and other social institutions.
While Sapolsky’s arguments are thought-provoking, they have also faced criticism. Some reviewers point out that the book does not definitively prove the absence of free will and that there are scientific and philosophical grounds for maintaining some concept of free will[41][45].
Despite the controversial nature of his claims, Sapolsky’s work contributes to an ongoing debate about the nature of human agency and its implications for society. The book encourages readers to reconsider deeply held beliefs about choice, responsibility, and the human condition[41][45].
Where Are We Now?
The implications of all of these findings from neuroscience are profound. If our actions are initiated unconsciously, where does that leave our sense of moral responsibility? Can we be held accountable for actions that we did not consciously choose? These questions are not just philosophical—they have real-world implications for our justice system, our interpersonal relationships, and our understanding of ourselves.
Despite the challenges to the concept of free will, it remains a useful construct. As recent research suggests, the interplay between conscious choice and unconscious neural processes is not yet fully understood.
In conclusion, neuroscience has provided us with valuable insights, but it has also raised new questions. As we continue to explore the depths of the human mind, we may need to redefine what it means to choose freely and how we live with the consequences of our actions.
More Reading
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/free-will-is-only-an-illusion-if-you-are-too/
[3] https://www.labroots.com/trending/neuroscience/15642/does-free-will-exist-neuroscientists-debunk-argument-against-free-will
[4] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-a-flawed-experiment-proved-that-free-will-doesnt-exist/
[5] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887467/
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
[8] https://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/Benjamin%20Libet.pdf
[9] https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/
[10] https://pbs.dartmouth.edu/news/2013/03/neuroscientist-says-humans-are-wired-free-will
[11] https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(21)00093-0
[12] https://iep.utm.edu/freewill/
[13] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/
[14] https://mindmatters.ai/2019/09/was-famous-old-evidence-against-free-will-just-debunked/
[15] https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/
[16] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/science/free-will-sapolsky.html
[17] https://www.lindau-nobel.org/de/blog-free-will-all-in-our-heads/
[18] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17393404/
[19] https://neurosciencenews.com/libet-free-will-23756/
[20] https://catholicscientists.org/articles/what-does-neuroscience-have-to-say-about-free-will/
[21] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/
[22] https://www.templeton.org/news/video-the-neuroscience-of-free-will
[23] https://www.bna.org.uk/mediacentre/news/has-neuroscience-disproven-free-will/
[24] https://media.christendom.edu/1978/03/free-will-theory-history-and-solution/
[25] https://bigthink.com/13-8/physics-neuroscience-free-will/
[26] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31642807/
[27] https://elifesciences.org/articles/39787
[28] https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/zmh8j-nnt07/latest
[29] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312609165_Neural_precursors_of_decisions_that_matter-an_ERP_study_of_deliberate_and_arbitrary_choice
[30] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809608/
[31] https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2024/04/science-supports-the-existence-of-free-will
[32] https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/4hm6j8/free_will_the_binary_fallacy_and_the_desire_of/
[33] https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/44781/what-are-the-implications-of-accepting-that-we-dont-have-free-will
[34] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/your-argument-invalid-5-logical-fallacies-business-politics-lunin
[35] https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/
[36] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/qa.cgi
[37] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021612
[38] https://io9.gizmodo.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will
[39] http://secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/action/cookieAbsent
[40] http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html?error=cookies_not_supported&code=cbc16ef7-78c3-4f49-a6f2-022228a9a20d
[41] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83817782-determined
[42] https://www.amazon.com/Determined-Science-Life-without-Free/dp/0525560971
[43] https://humsci.stanford.edu/feature/determined-science-life-without-free-will-robert-m-sapolsky-biology
[44] https://www.amazon.com/Determined-Robert-M-Sapolsky/dp/1847925545
[45] https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/determined-a-science-of-life-without-free-will/
[46] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
[47] http://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00262/full
[48] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887467/
[49] https://academic.oup.com/mit-press-scholarship-online/book/13809/chapter-abstract/167472200?redirectedFrom=fulltext
[50] https://pbs.dartmouth.edu/news/2013/03/neuroscientist-says-humans-are-wired-free-will
