The neuroscientific evidence that there is no such thing as conscious "free will" or meaningful "choice", has come up with another convincing demonstration, in some elegant research.
As readers of this blog may recall, Benjamin Libet's work, done in the 1970s, while a psychologist @ UCSF, covered in the blogposts "Free will vs neuroscience; belief vs science" and "The impossibility of 'free will'...scientifically and logically" and in the video "Everything is predetermined; Einstein and Ramana Maharshi", powerfully demonstrated, scientifically, that "free will" and "choice" are illusions constructed after an activity manifests.
3) the action occurs
This new work cleverly removes any concerns about 2), as an EEG accurately measures when the 19 undergrads made the decision to "attend" right or left while still focusing straight ahead. When that "choice" was made, a change in EEG activity was observed in specific brain regions.
The setup is shown at left and described in a UC Davis video "Measuring brain noise before decision making", that will give you some idea of how the headset works, and the on-screen program.
The current research, done @ UC Davis, building on Libet's work (who was later affiliated with the UC Davis Center for Neuroscience) was just published in the important Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, entitled "Spontaneous Neural Fluctuations Predict Decisions to Attend" by Jesse Bengson, et al. including the co-leader on the research, the highly regarded George Mangun.
This research has gotten much press coverage; "Does "Free Will" Stem From Brain Noise?" and "Does 'free will' Arise From Brain Noise?".
As far as details on the experimental protocol, Bengson sat volunteers in front of a screen and told them to
fix their attention on the center and then respond to the "cue" that appeared, and then report their decision to see if it matched the EEG result.
To ensure that where their attention was focused previously would not bias the next trial, subjects were randomly given cues of "Choose", "Attend Right", and "Attend Left" as shown above, with a highly variable interval of from 2 to 8 sec.
The work was based on earlier research that demonstrated that the alpha-band power level (8 to 13 Hz), in the visual cortex varies "stochastically", or randomly, and can be tracked by the variation in the EEG.
So what were the actual research results?
If one looks at the EEG results prior to choice being made by the subject, the result is as shown at left. There is no significant difference 1700 to 900 milliseconds (1.7 secs to .9 secs) before a choice is made. However, about 800 milliseconds before "choice", there is a clear preference demonstrated. Once the choice is made @ 0 milliseconds, the difference disappears.
The difference in the alpha-power level EEG signals depending on whether "left" or "right" are "chosen" is shown at the right. The horizontal axis extends from 2000 ms (2.0 seconds) before choice (at the origin) to choice at 0 ms.
This random variation in the background noise determined folks' "conscious" decisions well before they made them. As Bengson stated "The state of the brain right before presentation of the cue determines whether you will attend to the left of to the right".
There is much, much research that demonstrates that the neural system has an "ongoing spontaneous variability" that influences many things, including memory retrieval success (Addante, et al., 2011), efficiency of control functions (Bengson, et al., 2012; Kelly, et al., 2009; O'Connell, et al., 2009), normal neural development (McIntosh, et al., 2008) and errors in decision-making (Brunton, et al., 2013, in the top-tier journal Science).
There is also a wealth of papers that demonstrates that neurons in the parietal cortex make decisions about sensory events by accumulating evidence over time before the decision is ultimately made (often by random variation in background).
Earlier papers by Bengson, et al. (2012) and Thut et al. (2006) had demonstrated that alpha-band power can predict performance on visual discrimination and response inhibition tasks; this work extended that understanding to show that ongoing, pre-clue fluctuations in alpha power in the occiptal cortex predict which direction a participant will decide to attend to.
When interviewed, Jesse Bengson said "Though purposeful intentions, desires and goals drive our decisions in a linear cause-and-effect kind of way, our finding shows that our decisions are also influenced by neural noise within any given moment. This random firing, or noise, may even be the carrier upon which our consciousness rides, in the same way that radio static is used to carry a radio station.”
As J. A. Bargh discussed in "Are we free? Psychology and free will" (2008), these types of findings that motor decisions were made before conscious intention, demonstrate that the experiences of "free will" and "choice" are illusions constructed, post-hoc, after the behavior occurs.
As readers of this blog may recall, Benjamin Libet's work, done in the 1970s, while a psychologist @ UCSF, covered in the blogposts "Free will vs neuroscience; belief vs science" and "The impossibility of 'free will'...scientifically and logically" and in the video "Everything is predetermined; Einstein and Ramana Maharshi", powerfully demonstrated, scientifically, that "free will" and "choice" are illusions constructed after an activity manifests.
 |
| Benjamin Libet Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology |
Libet's experiments showed clearly that the motor cortex
initiates an action well before the "I" is even told about it, and in
advance of the action being performed. If we aren't even aware when, or
what, action is initiated, how can we be "in control" and where is
our "free will"?
Libet's work, which received the inaugural "Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology", not surprisingly caused a firestorm of reactions, and great hostility from many sides, including other scientists. Nonetheless, in the intervening 35 years, w/much more sophisticated technology and measuring equipment and many studies by many skeptical folk, his work stands.
Libet's work, which received the inaugural "Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology", not surprisingly caused a firestorm of reactions, and great hostility from many sides, including other scientists. Nonetheless, in the intervening 35 years, w/much more sophisticated technology and measuring equipment and many studies by many skeptical folk, his work stands.
Libet's experimental setup, shown in the .gif @ left (hopefully "active" from the Wikipedia "Benjamin Libet" page) shows the four steps:
0) The subject is told to perform an action, like flex their wrist or press a button
1) Activity is seen in the secondary motor cortex corresponding to "Readiness Potential"
2) the subject presses a button when "(s)he was first aware of the wish or urge to act" which is simultaneously electronically recorded (margin of error of 50 milliseconds)
3) the action occurs
Step 1) occurs 500 milliseconds (1/2 second) before 2) does. The big news was that 2) occurs 200 milliseconds before 3), i.e. the brain starts the activity before we are even aware of deciding to do it.
The big area of "attack" on this research was in step 2), where the experimenters had to rely on the accuracy of the subjects' perception of their "wish or urge to act". There has been much discussion on this over the intervening decades, but Libet's work still stands.
 |
| EEG Setup UC Davis |
The setup is shown at left and described in a UC Davis video "Measuring brain noise before decision making", that will give you some idea of how the headset works, and the on-screen program.
 |
| George Mangun Distinguished Professor Psychology and Neurology UC Davis |
This research has gotten much press coverage; "Does "Free Will" Stem From Brain Noise?" and "Does 'free will' Arise From Brain Noise?".
As far as details on the experimental protocol, Bengson sat volunteers in front of a screen and told them to
fix their attention on the center and then respond to the "cue" that appeared, and then report their decision to see if it matched the EEG result. To ensure that where their attention was focused previously would not bias the next trial, subjects were randomly given cues of "Choose", "Attend Right", and "Attend Left" as shown above, with a highly variable interval of from 2 to 8 sec.
The work was based on earlier research that demonstrated that the alpha-band power level (8 to 13 Hz), in the visual cortex varies "stochastically", or randomly, and can be tracked by the variation in the EEG.
So what were the actual research results?
If one looks at the EEG results prior to choice being made by the subject, the result is as shown at left. There is no significant difference 1700 to 900 milliseconds (1.7 secs to .9 secs) before a choice is made. However, about 800 milliseconds before "choice", there is a clear preference demonstrated. Once the choice is made @ 0 milliseconds, the difference disappears.
The difference in the alpha-power level EEG signals depending on whether "left" or "right" are "chosen" is shown at the right. The horizontal axis extends from 2000 ms (2.0 seconds) before choice (at the origin) to choice at 0 ms.
As described earlier, the surprise was that 800 milliseconds before this "choice", the electrical activity in the back of the brain in the occipital cortex predicted what the choice would be. However, it wasn't really a "signal", but was just part of the normally-overlooked, seemingly random, "background" fluctuation in electrical firing.
 |
| Occipital Cortex |
There is much, much research that demonstrates that the neural system has an "ongoing spontaneous variability" that influences many things, including memory retrieval success (Addante, et al., 2011), efficiency of control functions (Bengson, et al., 2012; Kelly, et al., 2009; O'Connell, et al., 2009), normal neural development (McIntosh, et al., 2008) and errors in decision-making (Brunton, et al., 2013, in the top-tier journal Science).
There is also a wealth of papers that demonstrates that neurons in the parietal cortex make decisions about sensory events by accumulating evidence over time before the decision is ultimately made (often by random variation in background).
 |
| Jesse Bengson UC Davis Bates College |
When interviewed, Jesse Bengson said "Though purposeful intentions, desires and goals drive our decisions in a linear cause-and-effect kind of way, our finding shows that our decisions are also influenced by neural noise within any given moment. This random firing, or noise, may even be the carrier upon which our consciousness rides, in the same way that radio static is used to carry a radio station.”
As J. A. Bargh discussed in "Are we free? Psychology and free will" (2008), these types of findings that motor decisions were made before conscious intention, demonstrate that the experiences of "free will" and "choice" are illusions constructed, post-hoc, after the behavior occurs.
In 1967 I was a radical liberal, a political decision I reached after reading many authors, other deep research and, of course, noticing that all the really neat women join that movement. So my decision in the polling booth was "already made." 10 years later I "became more conservative." And voted differently. So ballot-filling decisions were different. In the booth, the decisions were already made, I just executed them by punching a chad out of a card. While I can track some of the influences on my politics, perhaps I can't know them all. But I do know that, over time, my opinions changed. I can respect Libet's discoveries about spontaneous, and meaningless decisions. Very interesting. But it seems a stretch to utterly discount my thinking and reasoning process over those years which resulted in a fundamental political shift. Sure felt like I "chose a new viewpoint" after a bunch of mentation. -- Andy Hoye
ReplyDeleteHi Andy.
DeleteThe blogposts "The impossibility of 'free will'...scientifically and logically" and "free vs neuroscience; belief vs science" and the video mentioned, for which links are provided above in this blogpost, discuss the compelling science and logical aspects of 'free will' in a lot of detail, so i won't repeat that here.
Within much of the cognitive neuroscience community, and in some parts of the popular press like Scientific American, the issue is no longer "Is there 'free will?"', but "How do we tell 'them'?" and "What will life be like in a society that no longer believes in free will?".
The really interesting question is the one that you raise, i.e. "Why does it feel so 'real'?". The concomitant question, which my good friend @ Princeton, the author Robert Wright wrote in his landmark 'evolutionary psychology' manifesto, "The Moral Animal: Why We Are The Way We Are", is always "Why did this arise from an evolutionarily adaptive perspective?" Why did we create this illusion of 'free will'?
A likely answer is that once we evolved the I/me/my concept/construct about 75,000 years ago, 'free will' was an arguably logical extension. Once the "I/ego" program became strongly embedded and "in charge", it would be neurochemically obvious for the brain to reinforce that with this sense of ownership of actions, for everything from "my killing the zebra", "my wife and cave", "i have strong arms and can throw a spear well", on to "i chose to do this action". It is all an illusion.
On your case of your shifting political stance, the macro social and economic environment shifted significantly during those periods, as did your personal ecosystem/environment (as i also experienced). Environmentally adaptive considerations likely moved from "where the "really neat women" were", to what was different in your life as you had more experiences and perhaps accumulated possessions and complex responsibilities and jobs.
It is, as you wisely noted, "While I can track some of the influences on my politics, perhaps I can't know them all". That is precisely the point on "no free will" and "no control"...any decision we make has countless, unknowable antecedents, which clearly define the "choices" that we appear to have, and that heavily circumscribe the options. we have no clue what happens and to who, once the (apparent) choice is made and it works its way through the ensuing years.
It really is a fascinating time; it will be interesting to see what happens as the "no free will" understanding works its way into our organizations, morals, legal system, and societies. Things certainly changed w/the recognition that the earth is not flat and not the center of the Universe; this may be even more "disruptive".
stillness
Gary, could this noise be the field running the brain?
ReplyDeleteHi Kevin.
DeleteA great and perceptive question.
That is a "metaphysical" question, more or less. my operating premise/model is that the brain is really a "transceiver" that processes either well, or poorly, "Universal Consciousness", to then function either clearly or in a confused, chaotic, anxious and fearful fashion.
The value of the cognitive neuroscience is to give "us", or perhaps better said, the "brain" the tools it needs to improve functional performance, clarity, and presence.
In this model, the "random" perturbations in the "noise" could be Universal Consciousness "making the choices". The experimental fact that we don't make the choices doesn't mean that "Something Else" doesn't do it.
Trust this is useful.
stillness
Hi Gary,
DeleteAre you familiar with Michael S. A. Graziano work on theories related to the biology of consciousness ?
While the concept of a "universal consciousness" is hard to disprove, is there some reason to believe that consciousness is not another illusion - much in the same way the self is an illusion.
For example prior to experiencing the non-dual you would have been firmly committed to a belief in a self. An even more fundamental illusion is perhaps consciousness itself.
It seems very anthropocentric to imagine that our biology taps into some "universal consciousness". Given the history of science it would seem more likely that the future will burst those types of bubbles rather than confirm them.
I don't want to come across as too abrasive! But theorising on the existence of things without any hypothesis to test seems in contradiction with other stances you take (and a lot of those make very good sense to me).
Would be great to hear you thoughts on Graziano's work
Regards,
Mark
Hi Mark.
DeleteYes, am familiar w/Graziano's highly-controversial work, although it seems to be the ultimate materialistic reduction, i.e. material creates "consciousness", which he posits is the same as perceptual awareness. This is known as the "easy problem" and it doesn't even address confounds like awareness w/o perceptual input, as in a flotation tank.
Graziano completely skirts "The Hard Problem", which is what interests me and many others, i.e. "How do we have these phenomenal experiences?" There has been no demonstrated model for how matter actually creates whatever you want to call it, i.e. consciousness, that makes it possible to have these phenomenal experiences "to begin with".
As Graziano's work shows, the definition of consciousness is a large part of the problem. i spoke @ the Towards a Science of Consciousness Conference in Stockholm 4 years ago; all of the plenary speakers were asked to define "consciousness"...none had a clear, comprehensive answer. A Nobel Laureate just shrugged his shoulders.
The Vedic/Upanishadic model of "universal consciousness" posits an all-pervasive energy that, because it is "omnipresent", is logically all-knowing and immovable. we have demonstrated in contemporary physics that there is such a thing, call it Dark Matter, or the Higgs Field, or the Universal Field; that is not speculation.
we have no idea if It is "conscious" or "intelligent", and it currently appears difficult to understand how we could ever "know" all of its properties, since in fact we are not only "in" It, but are virtually complete "It".
That doesn't mean that we don't study it; after all we developed String Theory, and in fact virtually all of the Standard Model particles theoretically before we could demonstrate them. The Higgs field seemed impossible to validate, until we did.
There is a hypothesis to test, but like most of quantum physics, which has proved to be the most useful and accurate model we have ever found, it may be only possible to observe effects w/o perhaps ever really understanding what it really going on. Nor is there any assurance that we will ever understand exactly "how" quantum physics works, although it is the backbone of much of our contemporary world, like these nifty computers and chips and such.
It is like Albert Einstein's famous quote "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size."
Trust this is useful.
stillness
gary
Hi Gary,
DeleteGraziano's work is far from conclusive but he does have testable hypothesis so time should tell. I don't think he is claiming to solve the hard problem of consciousness. It is however encouraging to see some testable theories on aspects of consciousness.
I like the idea that conscious experience is a type of qualia. So the hard problem comes down to explaining how qualia arise. I don't know of good theories on that.
Qualia seem to be an abstraction of phenomena, the brain seems to be using lots of short cuts which makes sense given how much energy brains consume. If we could accept that the qualia somehow arise through activity in the brain then we don't need an all pervasive consciousness e.g. we don't need to give rocks consciousness.
These conversations are really difficult, so I hope you'll indulge me. If the "universal consciousness" is an "all-pervasive energy" then we are back in a materialistic view. Because something is "omnipresent" does not seem to logically lead to it being "all-knowing", knowing seems more like a construction of something very complex - like a human. Your introduction of Dark Matter, the Higgs Field are again materialistic/reductionaist concepts. I don't have a problem with that but your critique of Graziano's work as the "ultimate materialistic reduction" is a bit out of line when you fall back on an even bigger one yourself :)
I think there is more logic in looking for explanations of qualia in complex systems as opposed to some type of universal fabric.
I'm not sure to understand what the "hypothesis to test" you mention is. If we make a hypothesis that is untestable then it is not a hypothesis is it a stab in the dark :) I'm guessing that you see a possibility that by pushing the reductionist program far enough we'll find a testable hypothesis. I think the chance of making a connection from the experience created within a human and the most elementary particles in the universe is extremely unlikely. There is the notion of scale that seems to get ignored by many people, for example newtonian physics works very well at a "human" scale, when things get really big/fast etc then we need relativity, when things get really small we need quantum mechanics.
From a non-dual perspective I can see that the desire to have an all pervading consciousness would be strong. A bit like the desire of a dual perspective to have the self.
Do you see a tendency of science to break anthropomorphic positions. We have discovered we are not in the centre of the universe I think we could get ready to accept that our conscious experience is as illusionary as our self. That does not need to be the end of wonder, mystery or spirituality just that we get some perspective about where humanity fits in the much grander scale.
There is a risk to confuse science's inability to explain what qualia are with the potential of science to explain how qualia arise. Science does not explain "what" things are, only how they arise. The reductionist program is an attempt to ground things in every more unrelated things. Some people have expectations of science defining qualia in a way that replicates the experience of qualia, that is simply not going to happen.
I think we can find some good reasons as to why qualia exist from an evolutionary points of view (abstraction and data compression). We can also find some good reasons as to why awareness exists (Graziano seems to fit here). I don't think Graziano's work concept is limited to external senses, it could apply to any qualia (potentially including a qualia of awareness i.e. consciousness). So I think we'll have more luck looking toward a science of understanding the complexity of the brain rather than the end of the reductionist line.
I hope you'll change my point of view, it is enjoyable to discover what comes out and I don't get to own any of the opinions :)
I hope this is useful.
Regards,
Mark
Hi Mark,
DeleteWhat you wave your hand at, "...if we could accept that the qualia somehow arise through activity in the brain", is in fact THE problem w/Graziano's work. It is the equivalent of the old physics joke of assuming a spherical chicken so we can develop a theory. There is, as you point out, not even a good theory for consciousness arising from matter, despite millennia of "everyone" believing that it somehow did.
On the contrary, we have demonstrated that there is an all-pervasive field. The Higgs field has been demonstrated as the process by which matter is created. The blogpost "How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle" discusses this in detail and includes a scientists’ discussion on how consciousness might arise from the Higgs field. The blogpost "Do your mystical experiences fit w/quantum physics? neuroscience?" gives other scientists’ discussion of a model for the all-pervasive field being "conscious".
The blogpost "Consciousness over matter? What gravitational waves show..." discusses the recent breakthrough work on gravitational waves. The co-leader of this work, a likely Nobel nominee, states that "We think about consciousness as something that describes matter, but could it be that consciousness...will be elevated and will include matter as its (secondary) part?"
There is also the logical extension that if there is an all pervasive field, which there is, and we are conscious, which we are, then the field itself must be (at least) conscious. As pointed out, it is likely that, like in Flatland, we are not aware of the full extent of the field's intelligence. Similarly w/the common mystical experience that “all is One”; this only works if everything is consciousness.
The bigger problem w/Graziano's work, for me, is that it doesn't explain my personal experience. If subject-object perception creates consciousness, then the proof would be to see if consciousness/awareness continues in the absence of perception and varies with the intensity of perception.
my ongoing experience is that my awareness does not change, whether sleeping, eating breakfast, walking in nature or writing, etc. The content of consciousness may change, but the awareness within which it manifests doesn't change. This is demonstrated in listening to music; it is axiomatic in jazz that it is about the pauses, not about the perceived notes. If we were unconscious between the perceptions, the perceived notes would be indistinguishable.
When i went into our flotation, sensory-deprivation tank where there was no sensory stimulus, and hence no perception, my consciousness was unchanged. Similarly, if i go into our anechoic chamber, where there is no sound and sit in the dark, my awareness doesn't change. Graziano’s model would have me being unconscious in both instances.
We'll end here; my consistent policy is that we only do A - B - A - B, i.e. two comments each. IME, if there is no consensus by then, future discussion is not useful and we just agree to disagree, which is totally OK with me.
It was an interesting discussion on an important topic that has received much press. Thanks for raising it.
stillness
Thanks Gary. It is great to have had the opportunity to discuss this! Mark.
DeleteMr. Weber,
ReplyDeleteTo your knowledge, has there ever been a documented clinical case in which a subject became aware of mechanical-like chatter (call it brain chatter or mind chatter or whatever) while seemingly separated from the thing that seemed to chatter mechanically?
To clarify a bit, say A is chatter of a mechanical-like nature and B is awareness of what seems simultaneously to be both A and B, only it is B that is aware of both B and A while A and is just some-thing that sounds familiar (i.e. similar internal voice) and yet has no awareness of itself; that is, A is not aware of A and unaware of B.
I can think of no better way to explain the gist of my question.
Thank you,
Alven
Hi Alven,
DeleteNot exactly certain of the question, but it is very common in "mystical"/"spiritual" states to have the experience that you are the remote observer of something that is happening to what you customarily believed was "you".
i have just had shoulder surgery, and during the ongoing recovery process, it is apparently that the shoulder is "doing its own thing", while "i" stand apart and observe it, and take actions to help it heal.
The recent blogpost "you don't consciously think up what you say...new research" gives some clear research on how we do, basically continuously throughout our days, stand somewhat "to the side" and listen to what is said, and then interpret and judge it, post hoc. we don't think up we say; we as B merely judge/assess/disclaim A after it said by A. A is not aware of A, but B is aware of both B and A.
Trust this is useful.
stillness
gary
Gary,
ReplyDeleteIf it is true that we have no freewill, has our will been reduced to deterministic behavior based on external stimuli and internal biological needs? And if so, do you believe we are simply products of a simulation being executed or are all probabilities being played out (everything is happening everywhere) and we are merely collapsing our perceived reality through our collective observations?
I would be interested in getting your thoughts on this subject.
Thanks,
Erik
In my experience, when the “page turned”, it was clear that as "I" did not exist, that there was no one to be in control, so there was no free will. However, as what happened to “my life” occurred, it was clear even with no one “in control”, that my life was massively serendipitous and was clearly not random, i.e. there was “order” to it. These serendipitous events involved many individual events that had infinitesimal probabilities, and had to have occurred in a specific sequence at precisely the right time. They also appeared to be “positive” for my spiritual unfoldment, although they weren’t necessarily “pleasant”.
DeleteThere was also an astonishingly powerful "something" behind all of this that felt supportive...the more that i surrendered, the more that "something" somehow "held" and supported me. As i surrendered fully, i felt totally held and supported.
It was obvious that “I” had no ability to arrange such things as i didn’t know anything about the folk or countless events that had preceded these events in such a perfect arrangement and sequence, so one possibility was that they were perfectly predetermined far in the distant past. Their unfolding was determined by Darwinian principles, adapting to the environments and conditions as they unfolded, to incrementally increase the probability that those genes would be propagated.
If you read The Moral Animal by my good friend @ Princeton, the evolutionary psychologist Robert Wright, there is very little that is not underlain by Darwinian principles including much adaptation to changing environments.
The other alternative is that there is a massive field of great intelligence that we are all part of, and It/She is using us as evolutionary, explorer pods to evolve Herself and She operates w/capabilities far beyond our understanding. In this dynamic situation, there would be constant maximization as things evolved, on a picosecond by picosecond basis.
Another alternative is that both are occurring. Darwinian evolution holds as a template, but "something" is changing the environments to direct elements of the process. my experience of this "something" is so strong that it can't be purely "mechanistic".
There is a video "Predestination, control, free will and the illusion of time" @ http://youtu.be/kYkf7L0oY84 that you might find interesting as well.