dNate's inferno

Here's a nice summary of current scientific understanding on free will, written by Dennis Overbye in the New York Times:

A bevy of experiments in recent years suggest that the conscious mind is like a monkey riding a tiger of subconscious decisions and actions in progress, frantically making up stories about being in control. [Our] conscious brain [is] only playing catch-up to what the unconscious brain [is] already doing.

In other words, our unconscious (genetically programmed) brain perceives the world for us, motivates us toward some situations over others, colors our experiences with pre-wired dispositions (emotions), and triggers our reactions.  The higher brain is left to make up (confabulate) reasons for why we did what we did, based on the illusion of free will.

One concern raised in the article is whether "talking about this in public will fan the culture wars," as if scientific truth should be subjected to a popularity contest.  Scientists are supposed to follow the facts, and do the right thing in the face of opposition, not bury their noses in the sand!  Fortunately, it seems British publications are willing to be less politically correct than Americans.  For example, the Economist magazine recently reported another case against free will:

In the late 1990s a previously blameless American began collecting child pornography and propositioning children. On the day before he was due to be sentenced to prison for his crimes, he had his brain scanned. He had a tumour. When it had been removed, his paedophilic tendencies went away. When it started growing back, they returned. When the regrowth was removed, they vanished again. Who then was the child abuser?

It's easy to see how a brain tumor could remove your capabilities (like ability to speak or walk), but how was it in this case able to add new (albeit evil) complex desires and motivations, unless these already existed in the brain (merely unleased by - not caused by - the tumor)?

The same question arises with gambling.  Certain people -- who previously never felt the urge to gamble -- suddenly became addicted to gambling after taking a certain drug.  Drugs are very simple molecules... there is no "gambling-ness" in the drug itself.  The drug is simply unlocking a complex behavior that we already have inside.

Comments

[siggi]

Perhaps it helps: Its only empirical evidence, but I happen to know many artists, and all (that I know) are not driven by free will of expression. All are obsessive. They have to do what they do. Otherwise they are very, very unhappy. And creativity? Real art is not creative, its more than that. It needs creativity but goes beyond. (Sorry for my english)

[Craig]

Gambling seems to be a normal genetic expression, and likely has a gender component as men are bigger gambler/chance takers than women. Women will gamble on sure things, which isn't really gambling. This might be linked to rearing children where chance taking is a negative, where chance taking for hunters is a given.
Gambling is akin to hunting large game with spears or rocks. A BIG chance for big gain. I would think a strong innate survival skill present on some people and less so in others. We may loose some of this as we select more for cellophane openers and less for hunters/chance takers.

The drugs reduce inhibitions, they don't truly act on gambling specifically, they reduce the ability of the brain to fully consider all the various factors and risks involved in almost any risky behavior, like driving. They may cause drug addiction but not gambling addiction directly.

There is no proven causal effect between drugs/alcohol and gambling, even though they may occur concurrently.
Chance takers may take chances in a number of ways that are likely innate, which might include taking drugs, gambling, driving drunk, whitewater rafting, mountain climbing, police work and other risky behaviors. It doesn't mean one risky behavior *causes* another, but the substances themselves could reduce inhibitions to taking chances in other areas. Addictions to many things likely have strong genetic components which might cover all these behaviors which explains why they tend to happen together. They are all risky. Check out the alcohol links in native Americans for example. They were big chance takers hunting buffalo long before they were exposed to alcohol. Does that explain Indian casinos? Probably not.

[Craig]

n the case of complex behaviors like sexuality, we would need to also know the location of said tumor, and if this area was responsible for certain brain chemicals and hormones which would govern these responses.

Rather than reinventing the wheel when it comes to human genetics and behavior, it would be far easier to use some of the things we have learned from other mammals over the years and to study any common links.

For instance, when we wanted to more fully understand simple genetic "defects" like Retinitis pigmentosa in humans, we found what we thought was a similar trait in dogs.
In this case we found the exact same mutation, which in some breeds of dogs is called progressive retinal atrophy.
The mutation is at the same location in both dogs and humans and the expression is the same. Both are caused by genes affecting pigment of the retina and the resulting degeneration.

[Craig]

"Pre-wired" dispositions could also be "instinct", and we could as easily be reacting in a perfectly natural instinctive manner.

For instance, what makes other mammals repeat behaviors that lead to successful food gathering for instance?

These behaviors then lead to "generalization" which is the first step of learning.

Genetics doesn't provide a fixed outcome in all cases, it provides the potential. The environment then contributes to and tests the potential.

Your thesis is too simplistic. Multiple genes may provide many different outcomes, much as threshhold traits are expressed by multiple genes.

Most behaviors are not simple one gene expressions but the expression of a far more complicated interaction of genetic expression, hormones and environment.

While we might have mapped the genome, we still have very little information on how they interact and the result.

Even something seemingly simple like herding instinct in dogs is very poorly understood, even with several hundred years of human applied selective pressure for these traits.

These studies and so called explanations are still too simplistic......

[Topher]

However genetics, the mind, and the workings of both clearly cannot with 100% authority destroy the "free will" argument, and it should be noted from a philosophical perspective just what type of "freedom" is in question.

I concur that genetic makeup limits our human "map" of where we can go, if you will. However I don't think that the free will argument has been put to rest. To blame genetics, the workings of the mind, and other determining factors is to also open the door for a free-for-all attitude. How can works of art ever be created? Simple impulse is not enough, a gene that is shown to be "artistic" is not enough. Art is the very concept of freedom of expression, is it not?

I am asking because from a philosophical perspective I have been searching for any revelation that the genetic and philosophers of science are not truly trying to rid the world of freedom in the form of biological determinism. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.