The Knee Jerk reaction to Free Will.

The Knee Jerk reaction to Free Will.

Throughout neuroscience history, scientists have been consistently wrestling with the concept of free will. What's more, is that this concept is not restricted to Neuroscience, and has previously (and currently) being tackled by philosphers, sociologists, theologists and others. It's a concept that each of us ask ourselves: "Do we have Free Will?".

Naturally, the knee jerk reaction is "of course we do, my actions are my own". But such a statement becomes sullied by experiments which seemingly show this to be false. However, from a philosophical standpoint, the whole question and need for experimentation becomes irrelevant, experimentation merely goes on to show how localized decision making is. But as I have stated before, determinism in regards to our thought-process is self-evident, our thoughts are predicted by our brain's biology and external stimuli, neither of which are within our control, because we have no control of anything. The decision we make is a reaction based on the introduction of a stimulus, which yields a certain result based on the resultant cascade of events within the brain. So if our reactions are so set in stone (or biology) where is there room for free will? There are multiple pathways which a stimulus may result in, but the path it takes is no more free will than a river flowing down a particular route because there is less resistance. We use the word decision to represent the choice of which pathway to follow, but in reality, the decision is the act of passing through a particular pathway, the difference being that there never was any real chance of the alternative occurring. For the alternative pathways to be stimulated, a different stimulus would have to be introduced, or the pathway requirements would need to change, thus nullifying the entire concept.

So why do we insist of clinging to these concepts? Because it feels as if these events are our own, and this is important in the way our brain processes the world around it. Although our minds cannot effect our minds directly, we can effect our minds indirectly by introducing new stimuli: the thoughts themselves. We predict alternative options, which help our minds reorganize to allow a more favorable result to occur from the same stimulus. In other words, we only effect our 'choices' after we have made them, for future use.

"The Whole is more than the Sum of it's Parts"

"The Whole is more than the Sum of it's Parts"

It is often said that the above quote is true, and few argue this once they have thought about it. It is true, that a collection of cogs, nuts and bolts are useful as a group, but not individually. However, as with many statements like this (See: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" or Schroedinger's Cat), is that the thought experiment is then applied to real world scenarios which are beyond the scope of a simple thought experiment. It would seem natural to apply logic or knowledge gained from a simple thought experiment to situations which are similar, but as I always say, Natural does not equate to 'Good'. As I mentioned, in many cases the logic is obvious, that the ability of a machine to function because of it's constituent parts, would appear to be that extra 'something' which makes it more than the sum of the machines parts. However, that logic can lead to misleading interpretations of data and logic, and may send investigators on a wild goose chase, searching for something which will never be found. I am, of course, referring to the mind.

When speaking of the Brain and Mind, ignoring the debate about whether the two are the same or not, we are left with the search for Free Will. To many, the phrase "The Whole is more than the Sum of it's Parts" is ideal when discussing the Mind: the Mind is more than the physical aspects of the Brain. Of course, while a complete Brain has more functions than individual parts of a Brain, that something 'more' refers to function, and many have mistaken that thought experiment to indicate, or suggest, a soul. When discussing science and philosophy (the two are often so connected, it seems strange to separate them so), it is important to remember to not get lost in fantasy. It is also important, not to be constrained by artificial barriers, ones that I believe certain 'phrases' can help prop up. This is undoubtedly because the human mind desires, and needs structure, but science needs flexibility. In the case of whether the whole is more than the Sum of it's parts: the answer is irrelevant when discussing science. Whether the Mind and the Brain are separate is also irrelevant; what matters is what we can discern about the two, and the answer will eventually become self-evident.