In the Tom Cruise movie,
“Minority Report,” Tom plays a “PreCrime” Captain named John Anderton who apprehends
criminals based on foreknowledge provided by three psychics called
"precogs". The movie examines whether free will can exist if the
future is set and known in advance.
I thought the movie was an
interesting fantasy. After all, I believe that we have the power to choose our
lives in spite of our circumstances and that we can create any future we choose
regardless of our past. I’ll bet you’re a believer too.
I’ve subscribed to the
philosophy of Joseph Campbell, the expert on how myths shape our lives, who
encouraged us to “follow our bliss” and, in doing so, the world would cooperate
in having us fulfill our dreams.
Now I’m not so sure.
Welcome to the future.
In his book “Free Will”
(which makes a strong case that we don’t have any), Sam Harris cites two
experiments. In the first, the physiologist Benjamin Libet used EEG imaging to
show that a person’s brain registers a future action we are going to take some
300 milliseconds (enough time for a basketball player to get off a shot before
the buzzer) before we actually move.
And a good thing, too. Imagine
if we saw the driver of the car in front of us suddenly jam on the brakes and
we had to take the time to consciously decide whether to stop or not before
hitting our brakes. Our brains save us from accidents almost every time we
drive. This explains how we can drive without consciously thinking about
driving and still respond to an emergency.
In the second experiment
cited by Harris, subjects were asked to press one of two buttons when they saw
a letter appear. Now get this: The experimenters found two brain regions that
contained information about which button the subjects would press a full 7 to 10 seconds before the
decision was consciously made.
The implications of these
studies suggest that it’s possible for someone (say a “PreCrime Captain” if there
were such a person in real life) to accurately predict our behavior before we behave. How can we claim to
have free will when someone can detect what we’re going to do before we know
we’re going to do it?
Blows your mind doesn’t
it? If we are not acting out of choice (free will), what is giving us our
actions? If we don’t have free will, can we hold the murderer responsible for
murder, the bully responsible for bullying, the smoker responsible for his
“choice” to smoke or the obese person responsible for his/her weight?
In an article by two
professors of psychology and neuroscience in the July 27th, 2012 New
York Times (“Did Your Brain Make You Do It?”), the writers ask not only about
the implications of these studies to our understanding of whether someone is
truly responsible for a crime, but also for ordinary activities like
“maintaining exercise regimens, eating sensibly and saving for retirement.”
They conclude by saying
“It’s important that we don’t succumb to the allure of neuroscientific explanations
and let everyone off the hook” even as neuroscience is suggesting that we have
to let everyone off the hook.
But how then to explain
the fact that people do lose weight and keep it off, decide to stop smoking and
do so or commit to having a loving marriage and maintain that pledge til death
do them part?
Good question.
Harris addresses this
dilemma but doesn't really answer it. What he does say is that we still can
hold others (and ourselves) responsible for their actions, but we must be
compassionate when doing so.
As he writes in his book,
”Speaking from personal experience, I think that losing the sense of free will
has only improved my ethics—by increasing my feelings of compassion and
forgiveness and diminishing my sense of entitlement to the fruits of my own
good luck.”
So the next time you go
off a diet, become angry even though you want to be kind or procrastinate when
you know you should "just do it," forgive yourself. You could have
made a different choice but you had no free will to do so.
It's a paradox we'll just
have to live with for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment