About book Who's In Charge? Free Will And The Science Of The Brain (2011)
This is an easily readable compilation of modern ideas about how our brains work and whether their function allows for free will and personal responsibility. The information presented is revealing and thought-provoking (at least for a relative layman like me), but it does not make a strong case for will and responsibility.The author points out many of the anatomical and functional capacities that distinguish human brains from those of other animals. The author posits that one potential basis for a lot of what we call human consciousness is a left-hemisphere brain process called the "interpreter," which fits our literal sensory experiences into an abstract personal story that we may believe in too much. An interpreter process given false information cannot tell us the truth. (For instance, if we feel anxious because of an underlying physical problem, we may assume we're anxious about something we see in the room.)In this context, people's explanations for why they did something are highly suspect. The interpreter process "fudges," and we take it for truth. This fascinates me and my intuition wants to agree. (Later in the book it's pointed out that this mental fudging might introduce plenty of uncertainty into legal trials.)The book allows that humans may have will and personal responsibility despite the fact that neurons are cells obeying the laws of physics -- a fact that has led many other neuroscientists to view consciousness as deterministic and non-willed. The author asserts that quantum physics follow different rules than Newtonian physics, but Newtonian physics emerge from them through mechanisms we don't understand. Can't individual brain cells follow rules that aren't obviously reflected at the level of the thinking mind and its social interactions with other minds?I think it's an intriguing point, but I don't think it proves anything about will or personal responsibility.The author does point out a possible evolutionary value of responsibility -- without society holding people accountable for their (supposedly willed) actions, human social order probably would not be able to exist, some studies suggest.Still -- evolutionary value of BELIEF in free will and personal responsibility does not, to me, prove the existence of will. One interesting thing is that the author suggests the mind's intangible essence -- the mind emerging from the brain -- exists in the algorithms or protocols it follows, not just in tissue. And these happenings, these processes, are distributed and broken up into many modules running at once. There is no little man (or woman) in each of our heads -- something I think neuroscientists have recognized for quite awhile.All in all, the ideas in this book that I value most relate to the unreliability of my brain's stories. As someone who meditates and tries to tell raw sensation apart from mental interpretation, I wonder if the interpreter process described here is what I see when observing mental interpretation. Or I might be making NO sense.Also, I am not sure what to make of the fact that so much of our mental processing is preconscious. We react to things before we're aware of them. What does cultivating more awareness, through meditation or any other activity, really mean? Can we see more of what would be unconscious, or can we simply see better what would've been conscious anyway? Does that question even make sense? lol.Know that I'm not qualified to critique this book with any degree of objectivity, whatever that is, or to INTERPRET what it says about my mind. I just liked it a lot. I read this book because it seemed like this dude might have had some counterpoints and a strong argument for free will. What he seemed to argue instead is that 1) determinism is BS (Fine, but that doesn't mean we have free will and seems mostly irrelevant to neuroscience and psychology) and 2) we don't have free will, but we should continue on as if we do because it's working for us to do so. Except, is it working for us? Seems like it's making a lot of things really shitty for a lot of people. We can't really make things better for anyone of we're going to ignore such a big subject completely.I dunno, maybe I'm missing something.Those are just my thoughts. I'll look for another book to make a better argument or to point out the flaws in the research or arguments of the books I've read. In the mean time, I remain unconvinced of anyone's ability to consciously change their own behavior.
Do You like book Who's In Charge? Free Will And The Science Of The Brain (2011)?
Excellent defense of free will in light of the determinist leanings of contemporary neuroscience.
—Nay
brilliant insights on consciousness and society from a brilliant mind.
—pinkpandachic
