#neurowill

Consider freewill on a continuum. 

Attending the neuroscience colloquia at UBC made me form an impression of our nervous system as somewhat of a computer made up of really complex IF-THEN propositions. Take the simplest connectome known, the C. Elegans, made up of the 302 neurons whose wiring we have already mapped. This network codes for all of the worms behavior in what could be argued to be a predetermined manner: hit an object reverse, otherwise move forward with an x% chance of changing direction. The key thing is, when will it decide to change direction? what direction will it change to? thats where the concept of free will comes in. Right now, we must take an instrumentalist position because there is nothing in the NS we can point to to attribute this behavioral change. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgZHziFWR7M

On the other hand, one could argue for the following: After spending a month in an embrionic stem cell research lab I've come to realize how infinitely complex molecular biology can be. This can be comparable to particle physics in the sense that, yes we could in theory predict the position of atoms if we knew their current state, but things are way too complex for the limits of our computational power. The biggest difficulty one faces in such research is to keep the cell in its undifferentiated pluripotent state. The problem is, anything, really anything, will make that cell differentiate. Poke it and thats a sign to become a blood cell, breath on it and it'll turn into a neuron. Taking advantage of this we can induce differentiation, we can set the cell's agenda, we can 'determine' its future by altering the conditions in which it lives. Can this not be the case with the C. Elegans? Move forward until calcium concentration at neuron no. 52 reaches x% in relation to potassium concentration in neuron no. 134 then move back and move forward again. 

Now consider human beings.

I would like again to reconsider Len’s previous thought experiment:

“Suppose I asked you to name the title of a novel right now. Go on, any novel! (I’ll wait here….) What likely just happened is a small list of choices popped up in your consciousness. I for example, thought of Infidel and Great Expectations. I went with Infidel because I’m reading it right now. This whole inner monologue might seem like a demonstration of free will but could that in reality, be an illusion? I didn’t control which titles first came to me, they either entered into my consciousness or not. Can it be considered free will if we are helpless to manipulate the range of choices that first appear to us?” 

When thinking about a list of novels, there are a definite number of books that come to mind in a certain order - agreed. Because we apparently have little control over that which enters our consciousness, does it mean we lack of free will? I would like to say yes and no. When considering this particular thought experiment I would like to say that in the short run we have little control over which books appear to our consciousness and in what order. But in the long run we are the one’s deciding what to read and how much we will engage with our reading. And this in turn will determine our preferences in the short term.

If I’ve never read Hume, he would not immediately pop up into my consciousness, were I were asked to produce a list of books. In this case I would never even think about reading him were my actions predetermined by my internal predisposition and preferences. But because my plans for the future require an education in philosophy, I made a conscious and willful decision to change my behavior and read Hume. If someone at this point asked me to produce a list of books, Hume’s would now surely be there. So in this sense I have willfully altered my preferences and predetermined myself to think about Hume whenever someone in the near future asks me to produce a list of books.

 Why do I say this decision was conscious and willful? I would not for example begin my studies in philosophy with some unknown 7th century thinker who lived in Iceland and traveled to France late in his life to study under Father George. In that sense one might argue I have been predetermined to read Hume and not someone else. Yes we are culturally bound to certain archetypes of behaviour and belief. But does not the birth of new memes show that this process is not static?  Then again one might insist that the production of the next meme depends on the current ones. Damn, im lost.