From the Daily Mail Last year: (Don't worry you don't have to read it; if you want, scroll until you see the next bold piece of text in this post)
A user of a scientific website posted the above remarks. Whats your view on your own sanity?
If this has been done before, apologies, I searched before-hand
The Guardian wrote an article on a scientist who studied the idea of free will; I have taken an extract from it:What does it mean to be human, to be in control of one's own mind?
What is the nature of consciousness, the mysterious property of self-awareness that we all have and yet which no scientist understands?
Is there any such thing as free will, or are our minds at the mercy of some unknown force?
These are the fundamental questions that have perplexed philosophers and, increasingly, scientists for centuries. Until recently they seemed utterly unfathomable; after all, how do you test for something like free will in the laboratory?
Mind over matter: But do we make conscious choices?
But now science is coming up with some fascinating - and deeply uncomfortable - answers.
This week, for instance, Professor John-Dylan Haynes and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute in Germany report the findings of an extraordinary experiment which seems to show that "free will" - the most cherished tenet of humanity, which decrees that Man has total control of his own actions - may, in fact, be little more than an illusion.
For in their experiment, the scientists found that we may not be making conscious choices at all.
Rather, our subconscious minds may be dictating our actions, long before we realise.
It is a troubling suggestion. As Prof Haynes says: "The impression that we are freely able to choose between different possible courses of action is fundamental to our mental health."
If we are not in control after all, then that makes humans little more than automatons.
In his experiment, volunteers were asked to view a stream of letters on a computer screen and told, at some point, of their choosing, to press a button either with their left or right index finger - and remember the letter that was on the screen when they did so.
The volunteers were also connected to brain-scanning MRI machines which were able to monitor and analyse brain patterns. These "mind-reading" scanners could recognize when the brain had decided on a course of action.
To the researchers' astonishment, it turned out that the volunteers' brains would reach a decision about pressing one of the buttons several seconds before the volunteers actually thought they had made up their minds.
The implications are hugely significant, because the experiment suggests that what we think of as a "conscious decision" may, in fact, be no such thing.
The traditional "folk science" picture of the mind has our "conscious self" as a little man sitting in our heads, pushing buttons and pulling levers, filing "thoughts", receiving messages from eyes and ears and making our muscles move.
What Prof Haynes's experiment seems to show is that we need a new picture; instead of that little man pushing and pulling levers, he is merely a passive observer, lazing back in his chair and watching it all happen.
It is as though what we are actually aware of is no more than a film show, and the decision-making is made purely unconsciously.
It is a disturbing picture, because it reinforces the view that we are mere machines, pieces of biological clockwork that have no more free will than a Swiss watch.
This sounds counter to common sense, but the more you think about it the more it is clear that much of what we do is done on "autopilot" and that free will is rarely necessary.
If you regularly drive to work, for instance, at the end of your commute tomorrow try to remember the details of your journey. The chances are you will not be able recall more than the basics. When top tennis players are asked to think, consciously, about every stroke and every movement, their game falls to pieces.
Studies of elite sportsmen show that at the top of their game they are performing in a sort of semi-conscious fugue, purely on autopilot. The "will", if there is any, comes during the training process, not during the match. Of course, if we really do not have free will, this opens a can of worms about human morality.
Charles Bronson: One of Britain's most notorious criminals - but is he responsible for his actions?
If the brain is a machine, whose decisions are entirely out of our conscious control, then can a criminal be held responsible for his actions?
This is a dangerous road to go down. As Prof Haynes admits: "It would lead to no one being held responsible for anything." But this isn't the first time science has given a worrying insight into the workings of our brains. Earlier this year, Nature magazine reported an extraordinary experiment in mind-reading technology.
No stage magic, smoke or mirrors here - just the clever use of brain-scanning machines and computers to pinpoint and identify actual thoughts as they arise in the brain.
The scientists, led by Dr Jack Gallant of Berkeley University in California, again used MRI scanners to monitor brain activity when volunteers were shown various black and white photographs of everyday scenes - a house and garden, various countryside views and so on.
The scanner and the computer it was attached to first had to "learn" how the brain reacted to thousands of images - what electrical patterns arose when the volunteer was looking at a picture of, say, a house or a car.
The volunteer was then shown photographs and the "mind-reading system" had to work out, from the patterns of electrical activity detected in the brain, what the subject was looking at.
Astonishingly, nine times out of ten the machine was able to work out what the person was looking at. As the authors freely admit, the way is now open to a general mind-reading machine, "perhaps even to access the visual content of purely mental phenomena, such as dreams and imagery".
If we can read minds, and even dreams, and prove that free will is a nonsense, then what does that say about the mystery of our minds?
In fact, the human brain, for all this, remains by far the most mysterious object known to science.
by the most mysterious object known to science.
It is still completely unknown how 3lb of wet jelly, plus tiny electrical currents powered by the energy we release from our food, can give rise to consciousness. But it does.
Few modern people believe that the brain is pervaded by some sort of mysterious "soul"; but how the neurones and synapses of the mind can generate subjective experiences of colour, smell, hate, fear and love is an utter mystery. In fact, many scientists believe it is the greatest mystery of all.
But unless we want to believe in "souls" or "auras", we must believe that the brain is a machine - a very complicated machine, but a machine nonetheless.
And that means its workings must, in principle, be deducible, that we can predict its every move, as this freewill experiment seems to show. Does that mean we will one day be able to calculate what powers love, creates artistic masterpieces, sows awe, and experiences both great sorrow and utter joy?
Maybe one day science will have an explanation for all this, but one suspects that even after the questions of the atoms and quarks, the planets and galaxies are finally answered, the deep puzzle of what exactly is going on in our heads will remain forever unsolved.
And perhaps that's the way it should be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-560149/So-free-really-just-illusion.html
Another argument has been put forward, based on the environment that effectively ruins any free will:This really is tricky because there is, by definition, no physical activity in the brain or anywhere else that corresponds to this. He was trying to measure something purely mental - the free decision, or thought, of wanting to act. Finding a way to do this is probably why the experiment became so famous. What he did was this. He had a spot revolving on a screen, like a clock face, and he asked the subjects to call out where the spot was at the exact moment that they decided to act. In other words, they were, after the fact, making a judgement about where the spot was at the time, and that could be used to accurately time the decision to act.
And his results? They were quite consistent and have since been repeated many times. The brain activity comes first, then the decision to act, and then finally the action itself. Not only does the decision to act happen after the brain is already getting ready to set off the action, but it comes nearly half a second later. It looks as though our conscious decision to act cannot, however strongly it feels that way, be the cause of our actions.
Oh dear! Free will seems to be disproved. But it's not that simple. Libet himself did further experiments that seemed to show that we may not be able to start actions consciously, but we can veto them once they have begun - saving at least some role for free will. But even that does not end the issue. Literally hundreds of academic articles, and several whole books, have been written about this experiment and how to interpret it. This is why I say it is the most famous experiment on consciousness ever done.
In a way the whole furore is bizarre. Most scientists claim to be materialists. That is, they don't believe that mind is separate from body, and firmly reject Cartesian dualism. This means they should not be in the least surprised by the results. Of course the brain must start the action off, of course the conscious feeling of having made it happen must be illusory. Yet the results created uproar. I can only think that their materialism is only skin deep, and that even avowed materialists still can't quite accept the consequences of being a biological machine.
Libet, unlike so many others, was wonderfully open about this. He really did believe that mind can affect body, that consciousness is some kind of power of the "non-physical subjective mind" or "conscious mental field", and even that we might consciously survive death. Indeed, this was what inspired his experiments in the first place.
What I so much enjoyed and admired, on that walk all those years ago, was his willingness to bring his science right into his everyday life, and his life into his science. As we walked along the street he explained how important free will was to him, that without it our lives would be meaningless and there would be no point in being good, because we would have no true freedom to choose between good and evil. He pointed towards a little girl up ahead of us on the pavement. His results, he said, showed that we cannot be held responsible for thinking of murdering, raping or stealing from people because initiating such actions begins in the unconscious brain, but we can and must be held responsible for stopping ourselves from doing those things. In this way his own results made moral sense.
I disagree fundamentally with him. I think, and thought then, that free will is entirely illusory. So our discussion was lively and exciting and full of the most wonderful mixture of science, philosophy and the anguish of everyday life. I would have loved to have interviewed him for Conversations on Consciousness. One of the themes I tried to bring out in those interviews was how consciousness researchers fit their work into their ordinary lives, and he was one of those rare scientists whose life and work were completely intertwined.
Sadly, I don't believe he ever read my letter, telling him how very much I would have liked to meet him again. A few days later I received an email from his daughter, Moreen, telling me that he had died peacefully on July 23, aware but weak, and with his family around him. She said "Your comments on his relating life to his work also crystallises something typical of him which was good to see described the way you did. I think that he experienced death in that way also. He was very curious about what that experience might reveal about the mind and brain issue. Perhaps he knows now."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/28/mindovermatter
This site also holds very complicated information on the subject: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/106/3/623Free will is an illusion for a far more basic reason. We live in a world of cause and effect. And as such, all future actions are influenced by the past. For every choice you make that you can say "I did it for reasons A, B, C", it cannot be free, and given the same conditions A, B, and C and holding all other conditions identical, the same "choice" would be made over and over again. We do not make choices any more than a computer is not bound by its programming. For those who would argue that we live in a quantum world, and thus randomness is inherent in our reality, that just means free will is due to randomness, and again, not you
A user of a scientific website posted the above remarks. Whats your view on your own sanity?
If this has been done before, apologies, I searched before-hand