[from Gary Cziko 2007.01.05 21:53 CST]
Over the holidays and semester break I have been reading Richard Powers’ (unrelated to Bill, as far as I know) latest novel
The Echo Maker (Richard Powers teaches creative writing here at the U of Illinois and this novel won the 2006 National Book Award. He is also a former MacArthur “genius award” winner, and he rides a bicycle!). Lots of interesting brain stuff woven into this story. But what attracted my attention most was his contention on p. 381 that the “self” was really not “willful.”
Libel laid that one to rest in 1983, even for the baseline brain. He asked subjects to watch a microsecond clock and note when they decided to lift a finger. Meanwhile, electrodes watched for a readiness potential, indicating muscle-initiating activity. The signal began a full third of a second before any decision to move the finger The we that does the willing is not the we that we think we are. Our will was one of those classic comedy bit parts: the errand boy who thinks he’s the CEO.
I looked up Libet and found this summary article of this work:
Libet, B. (1999). Do we have free will? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(8-9), 4757.<
I have taken an experimental approach to this question. Freely voluntary acts are preceded
by a specific electrical change in the brain (the ‘readiness potential’, RP) that
begins 550 ms before the act. Human subjects became aware of intention to act
350400 ms after RP starts, but 200 ms. bbefore the motor act. The volitional processis therefore initiated unconsciously. But the conscious function could still control the
outcome; it can veto the act. Free will is therefore not excluded. These findings put
constraints on views of how free will may operate; it would not initiate a voluntary actbut it could control performance of the act. The findings also affect views of guilt and
responsibility.
But the deeper question still remains: Are freely voluntary acts subject to macrodeterministic
laws or can they appear without such constraints, non-determined by
natural laws and ‘truly free’? I shall present an experimentalist view about thesefundamental philosophical opposites.
I think that HPCT offers a different conclusion for these findings, one that can appreciate the intention to act as willful even if it is unconcious. But I’d like to see if others who understand HPCT will come up with a similar interpretation before I offer mine.
–Gary
P.S. Even if I disagree with Richard Powers’s view of free will, The Echo Maker is a fascinating read. Since much of his literary output is very much influenced by science, I am tempted to offer to discuss HPCT with him in the hope that he might find it of interest and have it make an appearance in a future book.
Wouldn’t that be interesting–Powers the novelist finding a larger audience for Powers the scientist!
Libet_-JCS_1999_Do_we_have_free_will.pdf (146 KB)
···
Gary Cziko
Professor
Educational Psychology & English as an International Language
University of Illinois
1310 S. Sixth Street
210F Education Building
Champaign, IL 61820-6990
USA
Telephone +1-217-333-8527
Fax: +1-217-244-7620
e-mail:
g-cziko@uiuc.edu
Web: http://garycziko.net
Skype: garyjazz (
http://www.skype.com)
Google Talk: gcziko
Amateur Radio: N9MJZ
Founder, Station Manager, Program Director, Chief Engineer and Announcer
The Latino Radio Service of La Casa Cultural Latina
1660 AM on the Urbana-Champaign campus of the University of Illinois
(
http://latinoradioservice.org)
Founder and Major Contributor
ATALL Wikibook for
Autonomous Technology-Assisted Language Learning
(http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ATALL
)