Over the past few decades, many have tried to make sense of Libet’s Studies and their ilk. Even though the experiments were conducted decades ago, scientists and philosophers (and philosophers of science) still disagree. I suppose that is not surprising since free will is a concept that is tough to translate into a measurable outcome and one that we have strong feelings about. So it’s not just that the data are difficult to interpret, it’s that the debate is monumental.
But what reason(s) do we have to think that free will is really an “illusion”? To answer that question, I should summarize the famous studies. If you know about the studies, skip the following paragraph.
In Libet’s studies, subjects were asked to move their hand whenever they willed (if you’ll pardon my using that word). While people were moving their hands, their brain activity was being monitored. After a subject moved their hand, they reported the moment they ‘intended’ to move their hand (based upon the location of a hand on a clock like the one below). As the story goes, the people watching subjects’ brain activity could predict that the hand was going to move before the subject actually moved his hand. They could do this by looking at patterns in brain activity (EEG). That is, such-and-such a pattern indicated that the hand was about to move.
As it turns out, many studies similar to Libet’s have been conducted. The various averages of time between the researchers’ prediction of an act and the actors’ awareness of their intentions to act range from 200 milliseconds to almost seven seconds. While 200 milliseconds seems negligible, seven seconds probably isn’t. To be honest, I’d like to meet the person who took a whopping seven seconds!
Anywho, what these studies indicate is that people do not become aware of their own intentions until after the intentions form. Admittedly, that seems prima facie odd. If I am the one forming an intuition, then I should be aware of it, right? So if I am unaware of it, then I am not the one forming it, right? And if am not the one who forms my intentions, then I am not free, right? It seems so. Call this the anti-free-will conclusion.
I think that this conclusion is the result of our intuitions framing this problem poorly. Notice that the implied answers to these above questions imply a sort of dualism about personal agency—”If am not the one who forms my intentions, then who is?” Unless we are comfortable granting such dualism, we should be suspect of how we intuitively think about scenarios like Libet’s studies.
But suspicion only gets us so far. If we are to make progress on Libet’s studies, we will need to be more than suspicious. We will need to be critical. If we do this, we will learn that the anti-free-will conclusion involves premises that we have yet to consider. These premises are as follows:
- An act is “free” if and only if the actor is aware (or “conscious” in Libet’s terms) of their own intention to act at the time that the intention forms (or before, if that is even possible).
- The intention to act is identical with certain pattern of neural activity.
- According to Libet’s studies, an intention’s (or its identical neural activity) almost always precedes a subject’s awareness of that intention.
- Via, 1, 2 and 3, a subject’s is almost never “free.”
We can be suspect of premise 2, but we will not resolve that suspicion here, so we will grant it. And obviously, we can demand clarification about how the terms “free” and “will” and “intention” are translated into measurable outcomes, but this too will not be resolved here, so we will have interpret this as charitably as possible. But even if we grant 2 and then try to ignore problems with terms, it is not clear why we should trust 1.
And if we do not trust 1, then it might not be free will that is threatened by Libet’s studies, but something else—namely, the intuition that people are only authors of their own intentions if they become aware of their own intentions as soon as they manifest (or more precisely, as soon as the researchers with access to EEG data interpret them as forming). We can admit that this might be intuitive, but what if we frame things differently?
Think about it: should a brain (or person) be expected to be aware of its own activity in real-time?
When I think about this, I find that my intuitions suddenly flip-flop. I become much less concerned by my being temporarily unaware of my intentions and much more willing to dismiss premise 1. But in case it is not entirely clear why my intuitions respond this way, allow me to illustrate.
Assume 2 above. This means that any intention will be nothing more than an intracranial event. So, when we say, “So-and-so formed an intention,” we mean, “So-and-so’s brain did something.” Likewise, when we say that “So-and-so became aware of their intention,” we mean, “So-and-so’s brain did another thing.” So we can take intentions and the awareness thereof to be separate things: some thing X, and the awareness of X.
It does not seem to follow from the fact that a neural event precedes the brains awareness of it that the intention or the subsequent act is not free. And we can take this further. What if someone is never aware of an intention? Is the subsequent act not free? Not necessarily. So long as they intend to do something and they do it, then, conceptually speaking, free will seems intact. We can say that they are unaware of their free will, but it would seem odd to say that they are without free will.
So even if our awareness on an intention is delayed, then we are not required to conclude that we are not free. Quite the opposite. We can take such delays as natural. Our awareness must be delayed! Of course our awareness of some thing happens after the thing itself. How could we expect it to happen earlier? And given that some sort of causal series of events is at work here, how could it happen simultaneously?
We have arrived, then, at the following claim: whether or not a person is “free” is not a matter of their becoming aware of an intention at the same time the intention (or its correlates) form. We do not need to be surprised or concerned that our brains are not contemporarily aware of their own neural activity. Indeed, it seems only natural that our brain is a step behind in monitoring itself.
Also, and this will be more obvious to philosophers, it does not follow from the fact that a decision can be made unconsciously that a decision can be made by someone (or some thing) other than the unconscious decider. It is still me making a decision when I make a decision before I am aware of making it. Otherwise, it would not be me that is breathing, blinking, or digesting; it would be something else!
Still, I admit that there could be a problem with this claim. Perhaps an argument against it could be made. Perhaps it has already been made! Either way, I am unaware of it, so I invite you to make it or point me to it.
Libet B, Gleason CA, Wright EW, and Pearl DK (1983). “Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act.” in Brain, 106: 623-642.
Libet B (1985). “Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action” in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8: 529-566.
See also “Libet Experiments“