The Problem of Free Will: Philosophy vs. Neuroscience
Philosophy professor Hanok Ben-Yami critiques the position of cognitive scientists who are convinced that humans lack free will, and explains why we should be cautious about experimental results and not take claims about the total influence of the unconscious at face value.
What Does Neuroscience Say About Free Will?
In the article “What Neuroscience Says About Free Will,” published last year in Scientific American, psychologist Adam Bear consistently defends the idea that humans do not possess free will, as suggested by cognitive science research.
Bear cites several everyday examples. When we wake up a minute before the alarm or grab the right shirt from the closet without looking, we do it automatically. We don’t need to consciously think through every step: many actions are performed unconsciously, almost mechanically, as if following a pre-set program in the brain.
Building on this, Bear refers to research by psychologists Dan Wegner and Thalia Wheatley, who proposed that the choices we make are influenced by our past experiences and, therefore, by the unconscious mind.
Most people believe that consciousness allows them to fully control their behavior, manage their reactions, and make thoughtful choices. However, cognitive scientists argue that in many situations, our behavior is influenced by the unconscious—the part of the psyche not governed or controlled by conscious thought.
According to Wegner and Wheatley, the unconscious serves as a protective mechanism against “overheating.” Imagine how difficult it would be if we had to consciously think through every movement. Try, for example, to consciously control your muscle movements while walking—you’ll find it impossible to maintain your usual pace and will feel significant tension. That’s why, once the brain has developed a successful pattern for an action like walking, it moves this operation from the conscious to the unconscious realm.
The Philosopher’s Critique
After reviewing Adam Bear’s arguments, philosopher Hanok Ben-Yami expresses doubts. He questions the idea that the brain clearly separates processes into those controlled by consciousness and those performed unconsciously. Ben-Yami sees the postulation of a specific “unconscious” area as somewhat mystical. His main argument is that it’s impossible to design an experiment that would definitively prove the unconscious exists as a separate part of the psyche.
Ben-Yami writes that Wegner and Wheatley’s assumption only confuses us and explains nothing. How should we understand the idea that a person’s past experience mysteriously influences their current decisions? Cognitive scientists don’t clarify how to distinguish between actions performed consciously and those influenced by the “mysterious unconscious.”
What does the phrase “a conscious desire to perform a certain action” really mean? Does it imply that some actions are performed unconsciously? But how do we draw that line? For example, if I accidentally step on a nail I didn’t see, or leave a door open because I simply didn’t think about it, are these unconscious actions?
The philosopher resolves this by suggesting that a conscious action is one performed with a specific goal in mind. Evidence of free will, then, is that in similar circumstances, with more options available, a person would make the same choice. According to Ben-Yami, goal-setting is a fundamental human trait. We always organize our actions to achieve our goals and never do anything without a reason.
Thus, Ben-Yami believes Wegner and Wheatley mislead us by claiming our choices and goals are half-driven by unconscious motives and clouded by past experience. In his view, science cannot provide convincing arguments about the existence of free will, since it cannot even prove the existence of the unconscious as a separate domain.
The Experiment: Do We Really Choose?
Bear went further and, together with colleague Paul Bloom, conducted an experiment to support his position. Participants sat in front of a computer screen displaying five white circles arranged randomly. Their task was to quickly choose a circle before time ran out and one of the circles turned red. The act of choosing was simply focusing on a circle.
The experiment showed that making a choice among identical white circles was not easy. In 30% of cases, participants reported that the circle they chose was the one that turned red. However, since the computer randomly selected which circle would turn red, the expected match rate was only 20%. The scientists concluded that in 10% of cases, participants hesitated until a circle turned red, which helped them fix their attention. Moreover, because the intervals between sessions were very short, participants often couldn’t tell whether their choice or the color change happened first.
Although Bear and Bloom admit that the short intervals could have skewed the results, they believe the error is minor and the findings are significant. According to the psychologists, the experiment suggests that we can systematically misjudge how we make choices, and therefore lack true free will. They insist that the brain influences the decision-making process.
The Philosopher’s Response
After reviewing the experiment and its results, Ben-Yami concluded that the theoretical generalizations made by cognitive scientists do not reflect reality. He emphasizes that the experiment does not allow for definitive conclusions, and that psychologists are fitting the results to their initial predictions. For example, it’s unclear how to extrapolate the findings from choosing a circle on a screen to real-life decisions, like picking groceries in a store. Ben-Yami insists that generalizations about how people make choices are speculative. The aim of these speculations, he argues, is to convince us that the brain can influence and distort our attention at the moment of choice. However, in his view, the experiment only shows that our brains switch tasks more slowly than a computer program.
Ben-Yami concludes that despite the growing body of data from cognitive science, we cannot be sure that these data reflect reality as it is. At this stage, neuroscience cannot definitively resolve the question of free will, and belief in statistical data is just that—a belief. Since scientists cannot yet prove the existence of the unconscious, they can only hope that some people will find their arguments convincing and believe in the existence of an unconscious realm that greatly influences decision-making.
Ben-Yami urges us not to take this scientific hypothesis on faith, and to critically evaluate the information presented as truth.