Eliezer Sternberg
Image: Courtesy of E. Sternberg
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
At age 22, Eliezer Sternberg has just published his second book on neuroscience and philosophy: “My Brain Made Me Do It,” now out from Prometheus Books. In it, he argues that our growing understanding of how the brain works does not mean the end of moral responsibility. Rather, he sees free will as a special property that emerges from more basic brain functions. A student at Tufts Medical School, he took time out from his first-year exams to talk with Mind Matters co-editor Carey Goldberg.
Q: Moral responsibility has been in the news most recently as people discussed the Tiger Woods scandal. How do you see his case?
A: Tiger Woods does take full responsibility and he should take full responsibility. Some have considered the possibility that his serial adultery was caused by the fact that he had no control over his libido—that he did not act of his own free will. But unless neurologists confirm substantial damage to his frontal lobe, his ability to freely make decisions was intact and he could have taken measures to control his tendencies. He has free will, and is morally responsible.
Q: In your book you say that recent developments in neuroscience seem to cast increasing doubt on our concept of free will. What findings seem to most threaten it?
A: The work of [the late University of California, San Francisco physiologist] Benjamin Libet -- which is itself not very recent but is still being pursued by other researchers. He found in lab experiments that the brain begins initiating an action before the person has actually decided to take that action. That very stark example really makes you think.
Q: What do you consider the most powerful counter-argument to Libet’s findings?
A: That argument is based on the idea of a “readiness potential” that appears 350 milliseconds before the conscious decision of an action is declared. But my argument would be that there’s really no way of knowing that this potential -- which is just a brainwave, actually -- is the brain beginning to take the action. It’s an assumption made, but for all we know, it could be associated with thousands of different processes.
Q: So how would you sum up your own conclusions about how we can reconcile the accumulating findings in neuroscience with the concept of free will?
A: I believe that, over time, traditional neuronal and biochemical accounts of the mind will run their course—they will try to explain as much as they can, but will fall short of accounting for human consciousness. There will still be more to explain. At this point, researchers will have to search for new kinds of explanations that are unprecedented in other scientific fields.
Q: So you’re saying free will is qualitatively different from the rest of the workings of the brain, which are more mechanistic?
A: Yes. But I think it’s still based in the brain’s mechanical architecture. It’s not a separate entity but it’s an emergent property of the mechanism of the brain.
Q: You are 22. What do you reasonably expect to see in your lifetime in terms of unraveling this question of what the brain has to say about free will vs. determinism?
A: I think that the trend will move further and further into thinking that free will does not exist. Two factors will push that belief. First: There will be more complete accounts of how decisions or behaviors arise from cellular connections in the brain. And second, the incredible expansion of brain-related technologies, including intelligence drugs, and cortical implants, which would have electrodes plugged into various areas of the brain to stimulate or suppress feeling and ideas. I think this merging of mind and mechanism is going to get people thinking more and more along these lines. We’ll see machines and human behavior and see them interacting, so we’ll assume it’s the same kind of system, just one’s made out of flesh and the other’s made out of silicon. I wrote the book to say that all that doesn’t matter, because there’s a fundamental gap that none of that will breach.
Q: What future do you foresee for legal defenses based on “My Brain Made Me Do It?”
A: I think that neuroscience is expanding incredibly quickly and when the field really does reach its apex, I do think that major legal questions will become relevant as more and more scientists become convinced that the brain is controlling more than we assumed in the past.
Q: How might a deterministic neuroscience affect the way we view criminals?
A: If I’m wrong, and all our behaviors are completely controlled by neuronal processes beyond our control, that would mean that our concept of morality doesn’t make any sense and there seems to be no way to hold people responsible for anything.
Q: In fact, in our society, we do have highly deterministic neuroscience, which enjoys quite a bit of respect, and yet our courts do keep the concept of personal responsibility pretty intact. Something doesn’t quite jibe.
A: You are right when you say we already have pretty deterministic neuroscience but that is known by few people. Once science and technology make the perceived determinism of neuroscience more concrete, that is when people are going to start questioning whether our legal system and our concepts of crime and punishment are justified. Obviously, I think it is justified but there will be people who don’t think that.
Q: It does seem like a collision is coming, but for now they’re separate.
A: I’m not the kind of person who can compartmentalize ideas that way. I need to believe something consistent and go with it. So it was pretty hard for me when I was working in various neuroscience labs and would ask questions about free will and personal identity. Anyone I asked would simply brush it off, and say ‘Oh, we don’t deal with that kind of stuff here, this is a laboratory. We deal with serious things.’ It made for fewer people to talk with.
See what we're tweeting about
35 Comments
Add Comment"I wrote the book to say that all that doesnt matter, because theres a fundamental gap that none of that will breach."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a very arrogant claim. How could he possibly know that? Seems to me that he is relying on religious or supernatural (unfounded) beliefs about the human species to make claims like this, not science.
I've read his book, and I thought it was phenomenal. I hate to think that in order to be considered "scientific" I would have to let go of my belief in free will, but Sternberg adeptly argues that the two can work in tandem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJvajda, I recommend you read the book before you make your own unfounded assumptions. Sternberg carefully reasons through the major scientific studies that supposedly disprove free will, and he very astutely (and scientifically!) points out much of the missing pieces. I had no idea he was only 22! So impressive....
The courts will, and should, always maintain the idea of personal responsibility even thought free will is an illusion. The concept of personal responsibility becomes another factor in the programming of the brain and contributes to it's reactions to stimuli. If there are reprecussions to actions, real or perceived, they will have an influence on future actions. (hopefully positive). Seems fairly intuitive to me, but then that's how I'm wired. ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch a fascinating question! I think that scientists today don't properly integrate the study of consciousness into their research. Molecular neuroscience is very important of course, but it may miss the boat in terms of helping us figure out how we are able to think, feel, and love.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think assuming free will is keeping the 'magic' alive. The most cutting edge arguments for libertarian freedom still slice out social cueing/conditioning that all animals including humans are affected by. The idea of determinism though is problematic, it should just be causation. If we simply remove the word "moral" in front of responsibility, we can keep responsibility (we do, and we don't just let those with a history of criminal violence loose on the streets) and let go of the "moral" specially human assertion that perpetuates inherited mythological beliefs. I haven't read the book, but this author seems locked into promoting the magic and its false connection to "save MORAL responsibility"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there any chance people will ever consider - seriously - that it is our spirit that fills the gap between the "material" functions of the brain and consciousness and free will? I do believe our biochemical functions are physical manifestations of our spirit. I know there's a lot of resistance against that approach, and it should have, 'cause it could lead to dogma. But if it was seriously adressed, I believe we'd understand many things that we already perceive as true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the premise that neuronal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the premise that neuronal processes are beyond our control - that the activity of our neurons and our self - are mutually exclusive is the fundamental problem with his argument. We are our neurons. Our autonomy (free will if you like) is a product of our neurons. Our behavior is a product of our neurons. We are morally and legally responsible for the actions of our neurons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are pretty much wired by our genetic code, but can't we train ourselves to change our 'perspective' about matters (i.e. science, philosophy, ethics)? If so, then we are not predeterminative. When we synthesize or analyze or metaphorize or symbolize...go from the particular to the abstract, then we are utilizing our free will. Inotherwords, we are being truly 'creative', not reactive to our network of neurons. If you do not accept that, then I guess the Nazis were right when training their 'truth' squads to demand they learn to cede their 'feelings' and just do what the collective state demands of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the "we" that is being creative? It is the product of our neurons. There is no "we" outside of our neurons that can be reactive to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA fundamental property of neurons is that they can inhibit other neurons. Perhaps that might be investigated
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't really see how criticizing specific experiments in neuro-science is relevant to the question of free will. Those experiments are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the arsenal of deterministic arguments. People argued effectively against free will before neuro-science even existed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFree will is a theological idea - just another unfalsifiable vagueness like "God" - meant to explain the problem of evil. We don't really need this concept to hold people "responsible" in a legal sense. Law is just a pragmatic attempt to uphold social order. Why get into meaningless metaphysics? Who needs it anyway? We are "determined" to a large extent to follow our interests, so we're not really losing out on anything by just dropping the concept.
No.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeural signals start in the senses, bounce around in the brain and then flow through to the muscles. This cascade is caused by interaction with our environment, then modified by experience to then become behaviour. If someone can prove that there is a point in that chain in which spontaneous signals can arise, without cause, that can then direct behavior then we can believe in free will. Otherwise all our behaviour is "caused" and therefore not free. But that does not mean that we are not responsible for our behaviour. Ultimately, if we aren't then who is? And if we don't control our decissions then why should we allow people to vote since it isn't really their vote? With or without free will we must proceed as though it does exists otherwise we will take actions that reflect a belief that we are not responsible for what we do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFree will does not result from basic brain functions. Sexual urges result from basic brain functions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdvanced brain functions have - for some people - the ability to moderate the basic functions. Free will results from advanced brain functions.
Speech results from advanced brain functions. You have the ability to choose when to speak and therefore you have free will.
"I don't actually know what I actually think about that [determinism], I haven't taken up a position about that." - Richard Dawkins, October 2006
D J Wray
Packaged Evolution: The Intelligent Universe (PowerPoint)
http://www.atotalawareness.com/documents/packagedevolution.pps
I've read an excerpt from his book, my impression is that he is trying so hard to prove his so-called free will concept, and that's largely because he believes that the moral responsibility relies on free will. Much like Bergson but with various scientific data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy opinion is the moral responsibility does NOT need free will. When a sane man wants to do something "good" instead of something "bad", that's because he thinks it's reasonable to do so( due to diverse motives, direct or indirect, such as cultural influence, precedents, laws, education, life experience, standard of empathy: e.g. vegetarians, in a sense, relatively have higher standard, but from the common humain point of view, non-vegetarian can't be considered immoral, logical reasoning: e.g. Harvard course: what's the right thing to do).
"If I’m wrong, and all our behaviors are completely controlled by neuronal processes beyond our control, that would mean that our concept of morality doesn’t make any sense and there seems to be no way to hold people responsible for anything."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the most basic level all our behavior is controlled by interactions between our genes and the environment. This makes absolutely no difference to concepts of morality except to shift the consequences for bad behavior from punishment to behavior modification and the protection of society. It would seem to be a step forward to be only locking up those who pose a direct threat or those whose behavior is likely to be modified by the experience.
yes we not mindless automatons(mostly). We are not programmed by our genetic code(mostly). Youll find either now or later that we can rewire ourselves and that we can also transfer the rewiring into successive generations. Its an old field called epi-genetics. But it was only recently after finally breaking the DNA sequence that i believe they have mathematically proved the Genetic structure is too small to encode things directly but rather there is more information. This extra information is changed in our lives and through our interactions and recoded back into the DNA thereby the DNA is holding current information and changing more rapidly than a simple genetic flip of an acid each generation if you like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDNA is more than the people before us it is apart of there lives as well...up until the point you were conceived. Hence and this is a new extrapolation for the books....children are different (personalities) due in additon by the fact things have happened since the last child was concieved.
It is 100% proven a small amount of people are not in charge of their actions for certain emotional events. Ie the unlucky people with libidos so high they must have sex with something straight away, its is also likely the same brain area that affects him/them is affected by cigarrette smokers to a smaller degree. We all know the population is born as a spectrum with 1% say being extremely evil and 1% say being saints and the rest in between. This has always been the case and needs no scientific explanation or book.
Why another book was required to say the same old stuff and quite frankly it was all rather boring hearing the same stuff i new about before this guy was born.
Quite frankly im surprised he didnt actually tell you what free will is. Every animal has free-will when all other primary concerns are secondary. Ie your fed etc. Free-will declines as primary focus' require attention. You can thank your lucky stars youre alive to read you have free will, cause you ate this morning.
There is no free-will vs programmed brain...argument. I wont even bother going into the constraints of free-will as we know it cause its also a pointless philosophical conversation.
yes we not mindless automatons(mostly). We are not programmed by our genetic code(mostly). Youll find either now or later that we can rewire ourselves and that we can also transfer the rewiring into successive generations. Its an old field called epi-genetics. But it was only recently after finally breaking the DNA sequence that i believe they have mathematically proved the Genetic structure is too small to encode things directly but rather there is more information. This extra information is changed in our lives and through our interactions and recoded back into the DNA thereby the DNA is holding current information and changing more rapidly than a simple genetic flip of an acid each generation if you like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDNA is more than the people before us it is apart of there lives as well...up until the point you were conceived. Hence and this is a new extrapolation for the books....children are different (personalities) due in additon by the fact things have happened since the last child was concieved.
It is 100% proven a small amount of people are not in charge of their actions for certain emotional events. Ie the unlucky people with libidos so high they must have sex with something straight away, its is also likely the same brain area that affects him/them is affected by cigarrette smokers to a smaller degree. We all know the population is born as a spectrum with 1% say being extremely evil and 1% say being saints and the rest in between. This has always been the case and needs no scientific explanation or book.
Why another book was required to say the same old stuff and quite frankly it was all rather boring hearing the same stuff i new about before this guy was born.
Quite frankly im surprised he didnt actually tell you what free will is. Every animal has free-will when all other primary concerns are secondary. Ie your fed etc. Free-will declines as primary focus' require attention. You can thank your lucky stars youre alive to read you have free will, cause you ate this morning.
There is no free-will vs programmed brain...argument. I wont even bother going into the constraints of free-will as we know it cause its also a pointless philosophical conversation.
The criminal law has traditionally judged the issue of moral responsibility by criteria that do not depend on the existence of an intention to act, free or not, but on the presence or absence of a guilty mind (mens rea, in legal terminology), which is knowledge of the wrongfulness of the deed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArising out of British Common Law, the McNaughton rule was the basis for determining criminal responsibility in both British and American courts for more than a century. To be judged not criminally responsible, the defense had to show that the defendant lacked the knowledge of 'the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.'
Certain American courts, such as in the District of Columbia, have at times assessed criminal responsibility on the basis of whether the defendant suffered from irresistible impulses (Durham rule). In those courts, defenses based on neuroscientific research concerning free will might have relevance and weight. But most often American jurisdictions, including the federal courts, have used criteria similar to the McNaughton rule based on the defendants knowledge of right and wrong and not on his will to act.
Depending on knowledge rather than will, the legal concept of mens rea seems able to withstand neuroscientific discoveries about free will.
Overriding such considerations, however, Sternberg doubts that neuroscience will succeed in completely explaining behavior. Between 'mind and mechanism,' he says, 'theres a fundamental gap that none of that [neuroscience research] will breach.'
I think Sternberg and I agree. Its worth noting that the most fundamental description of the nature of reality in physicsquantum mechanicsdoes not support the concept of determinism. In QM, events in the physical world can never be completely predetermined. The most that can be determined in advance is a set of probabilities associated with all the possible events that may occur. Since both the brain and human actions occur in physical reality, it would seem that the impossibility of determinism must apply to the brain and human activity, as well.
@Mark Pine, "Sternberg doubts that neuroscience will succeed in completely explaining behavior. Between 'mind and mechanism,' he says, 'there s a fundamental gap that none of that [neuroscience research] will breach.'" It is ridiculous to speculate that science will never be capable of understanding a particular phenomenon. By definition, if we are discussing something that science doesn't currently understand then we obviously do not know enough about it to make such predictions. We also have no knowledge of what tools may be made available to scientists in the future. When I hear people say, "science will never know..." what I really hear is, "I don't want science to take the mystery out of this for me" or "I don't want science to make this ordinary by understanding it" The mind/body gap is as boring as the particle/wave duality B.S.. It's just something for armchair scientists to ramble on about. I've been working with neural models for almost ten years now and I've never heard anyone differentiate the two in anything more than the most simplistic analogy. Also, applying quantum mechanics to large scale complex phenomenon such as human behaviour is a bit silly, unless you are trying to propose your own version of Schrödinger’s cat. Everything outside of mathematics is about probability. That doesn't mean that cause and effect does not exist. The conservation laws force strict cause and effect. Nothing can come from nothing. I attended a lecture on the topic, is the brain an optimum computer. The case study showed the pathway from the detection of a photon in the retina to behaviour. It was demonstrated that the brain is an optimum computer as it was possible to accurately trace back from effect to cause. No doubt the issue of consciousness is one of the greatest problems in science. But there is no reason to believe it is an impossible nut to crack
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do agree with you about the legal implications. Ultimately even if one were to make the assumption that we have no free will, the way we would deal with crime and punishment would not change. We would still need to "punish" the deterministic individual in order to prevent them and others from behaving badly as the punishment will factor into their determination of what type of behaviour is acceptable.
@robert schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed in most part, but
"It was demonstrated that the brain is an optimum computer as it was possible to accurately trace back from effect to cause"
When you backup from effect cause diffuses. If the effect is behavior "x" then the cause is not the "photon", rather the cause is, in no particular order, the photon, the neural pathways, the biology, body, evolution, semiotics, language, science, life, etc.
More accurately, I think you are referring to "the observation of a linear sequence within a dynamical system". But this doesn't demonstrate the brain is an optimum computer.
If there is no free will, then it is meaningless to ask whether we "should" change our criminal justice system. We have no choice in the matter. The change to our criminal justice system will be a deterministic change beyond the control of any individual or society, like all other changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd this just illustrates the nonsense that results when you try to eliminate free will from the human experience.
Can I comment here about a different article in this issue. I couldn't find a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisparticular place other then here.
Concerning Survival of the Tattooed and Pierced?
Before deciding this is proof of a desired Manliness, Visit any penal institute and observe the extreme tattooing on these inmates and then say that these represent darwinian fitness.
I must disagree with Adam Hadhazy's conclusions.
There are many things you say that are worth debating, I think. The most important of these, from my viewpoint, is your labeling the particle wave duality as "B.S." I'm not sure whether you mean the concept is B.S. or what armchair scientists (like me) say about it that is B.S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAssuming you meant that the wave-particle duality concept is B.S., you are incorrect. A photon is a particle in the photoelectric effect, as Einstein showed. But a photon is a wave in a double-slit apparatus or interferometer. That the photon can be both is a fundamental duality, since the concepts of particle and wave are logically and physically incompatible. A fundamental question is whether the duality resides in the photon or the observer - whether the thing-in-inself is inherently dual or the thing-in-itself is a unity but it appears to observers and is describable in two alternative forms. My view is the latter.
Assuming you meant that what I think is B.S., I offer this as a response: Although QM effects are significant at small scales, the QM principle that the future is predictable only in terms of probabilities applies both at small and large scales. Probabilities determine only the frequencies with which events will occur; in regard to any single event or small set of events, what occurs cannot be predicted. Even on the macro scale, when the most probable event occurs in all but a very small proportion of cases, there is still the small probability that something different will happen. Determinism fails on all scales. The consequence is that QM leaves room for the existence of free will: QM does not entail or require that free will exists: It just leaves room for the possibility that it does.
The wonderful thing about that, from my viewpoint, I can believe I am a free agent without fear of contradicting science. That is very important to me.
Isn't it important to you to be able to think that you are free to choose and determine your future?
"The consequence is that QM leaves room for the existence of free will: QM does not entail or require that free will exists: It just leaves room for the possibility that it does."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQM undermines any form of determinism but I fail to see how it allows the possibility of free will. The only influences on human behaviour, in the final analysis, are genes, environment and if you like, the quantum effects involved in the interaction of these. But even ignoring quantum effects the complexity of both genetic and environmental influences would prevent anything beyond trivial predictions no matter how much data was collected.
Seraphim asserting what you believe is all very well but, this being a science forum some kind of nod in the direction of available evidence is appreciated.
@Blindboy: "QM undermines any form of determinism but I fail to see how it allows the possibility of free will."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not clear to me what you mean, please explain.
Complete determinism implies that the future is determined in advance by the circumstances existing today (and in the past). QM rules out complete determinism, although it does not rule out determinism in the sense that some future events are much more likely to happen than others.
If complete determinism holds, then free will is impossible since there is no possibility of choosing or influencing the future. On the other hand, if QM rules out complete determinism, then it may be possible to choose or influence future events, i.e., free will is possible (although it doe not exist necessarily.
You don't agree?
Recent advances in neuroscience might paint a deterministic picture, but I agree with Steinberg's assertion that we still have free will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you come to me with a list of everything I've done, said and thought and explanations for everything on that list, am I fated to repeat everything on that list? Or can I review your list, determine what I want to change, and then do so?
An agent's knowledge of causal explanation of his past behavior doesn't prevent him from changing his his thoughts and behaviors. In fact it may very well encourage such changes.
You might come back to me with a revised list of my thoughts, deeds and words and tell me that you can again explain why I've done what I've done, but AGAIN--I have the power to change, especially if I can read your list and if I believe it's in my best interest to change.
You might be able to explain my past behavior but that doesn't mean that you have the infallible power to predict my future behavior.
As a side thought, predictability likely isn't a good trait to have at all times, especially from an evolutionary perspective.
Great guns boy, keep it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI assure you even in trillion years scientists won't be able to find everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs grounding as science is it never fails to piss me off. Of course there is free will and there is also a such thing as falling prey to your own mind/body. It's extremely complicated - human beings cant be simplified down to a simple equation. Both are real and obvious. You can not change your biology. If I put a gun in your hand - a reasonably sane person who was not hopeless would not shoot themselves. Man. What the holy crap do you call that? And that's why regular old science doesn't impress me - it's sooooo lacking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Free Will position is so incredibly weak. I doubt any of Sternberg's theories will stand the test of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to ask, when during human evolution did we evolve these "spirits?" And how did we evolve them? Or perhaps some wandering ghosts decided to begin living in humans' heads.
There is no such thing as "free" will. Read Arthur Schopenhauer's irrefutable essay on this subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Social Trends Institute is hosting an experts meeting next week on just this topic, entitled "Is science compatible with our desire for freedom?" See details at: http://www.socialtrendsinstitute.org/Activities/Bioethics/Is-Science-Compatible-with-Our-Desire-for-Freedom.axd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think any one who chooses just one side in this is wrong. Any woman with major PMS or PMDD knows that we are not ALWAYS in control. Hormones change things. You cannot look at just the brain, unless you take into account that the brain probably releases the hormones (not a scientist here, so do not know the order of things). However, we do have moments of choice. Therefore, we need to find ways to determine (scientifically) if a person committs a crime because their brain made them do it, or if it was his/her choice. If we can fix the ones with brain problems, do it. If we cannot, then study them. The ones that do it from their own free will, punish/execute them, whatever is most fitting to their crimes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this