This is an interesting watch. It's always so bizarre to see what we know about the brain...things are never quite as simplistic as we think they are.
And maybe free will isn't real.
Some pretty unsettling results from simple tests are to be found here. In these split brain surgeries they can split the visual field and expose the person to an image that routes to ONE hemisphere and a different image routing to the OTHER hemisphere. They find that if they expose one hemisphere to a different stimuli (like an image) than the other hemisphere, one hemisphere can process what they saw but the other lacks "language" and other means of consciously processing the input. In some experiments when they were tasked with selecting related images the hemisphere that didn't have the language for the experience and could not communicate anything about it, still selected an image appropriate to what it had been shown. The other hemisphere could explain what they had seen and process the information. When they were asked WHY the various images were chosen the brain invariably came up with an explanation that comported with the side that had language in a manner that made the selection "make sense" when, in fact, the selection was driven by what was shown but not fully processed by the brain. The brain was making up an excuse which the person integrated to explain why they selected the image they did.
This gave rise to the concept of an "interpretter module" in the brain which tracks our thoughts and attempts to make sense of our actions, and as was shown, can indeed come up with excuses for why we did something that bear no real association for why it was ACTUALLY done. The brain seems quite good at explaining why it did something...even if it was technically wrong.
They even tie some of this in to the research I've heard about that fMRI shows regions of the brain lighting up prior to conscious thought, indicating the possibility that intent precedes conscious thought of intent. And as has been shown the "interpretter module" makes up an excuse post hoc. In a sense there's a possibility that our brain is making the decisions FOR US and then we make up the "reason" for why we took whatever action we took.
I kind of prefer the Strong Emergence. But I don't know exactly how firm I want to proclaim we do or don't have free will. It is looking more and more like this is a legit question.
He mentions a book that I really need to get. It sounds like it might be fun.
Gazzaniga, Michael. Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain. Hachette UK, 2012. (You can find it on Amazon)
And maybe free will isn't real.
Some pretty unsettling results from simple tests are to be found here. In these split brain surgeries they can split the visual field and expose the person to an image that routes to ONE hemisphere and a different image routing to the OTHER hemisphere. They find that if they expose one hemisphere to a different stimuli (like an image) than the other hemisphere, one hemisphere can process what they saw but the other lacks "language" and other means of consciously processing the input. In some experiments when they were tasked with selecting related images the hemisphere that didn't have the language for the experience and could not communicate anything about it, still selected an image appropriate to what it had been shown. The other hemisphere could explain what they had seen and process the information. When they were asked WHY the various images were chosen the brain invariably came up with an explanation that comported with the side that had language in a manner that made the selection "make sense" when, in fact, the selection was driven by what was shown but not fully processed by the brain. The brain was making up an excuse which the person integrated to explain why they selected the image they did.
This gave rise to the concept of an "interpretter module" in the brain which tracks our thoughts and attempts to make sense of our actions, and as was shown, can indeed come up with excuses for why we did something that bear no real association for why it was ACTUALLY done. The brain seems quite good at explaining why it did something...even if it was technically wrong.
They even tie some of this in to the research I've heard about that fMRI shows regions of the brain lighting up prior to conscious thought, indicating the possibility that intent precedes conscious thought of intent. And as has been shown the "interpretter module" makes up an excuse post hoc. In a sense there's a possibility that our brain is making the decisions FOR US and then we make up the "reason" for why we took whatever action we took.
I kind of prefer the Strong Emergence. But I don't know exactly how firm I want to proclaim we do or don't have free will. It is looking more and more like this is a legit question.
He mentions a book that I really need to get. It sounds like it might be fun.
Gazzaniga, Michael. Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain. Hachette UK, 2012. (You can find it on Amazon)