Daniel Dennett: Stop Telling People They Don't Have Free Will | Big Think

In the world of neuroscience, the question of free will has long been a subject of intense debate. Some argue that the science shows we are mere puppets of our biology, that free will is a mirage. But before we delve into the complexities of this debate, allow me to share a little thought experiment, a journey into the realm of the mind, where neurosurgeons and the boundaries of human agency collide.

The Nefarious Neurosurgeon's Mischief

Imagine, if you will, a neurosurgeon, a brilliant but perhaps mischievous mind. This neurosurgeon encounters a patient suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). But here's where the twist comes into play – a tiny microchip, crafted in the Netherlands, promises to be the cure for this ailment. It's a genuine scientific breakthrough, a tangible fact.

But now, we're about to venture into science fiction territory. After the surgery, the neurosurgeon, with a glint in her eye, reveals her plan to the patient. "Your OCD is under control now," she assures him, "but here's the kicker: our team will be monitoring you around the clock. We will control everything you do. You'll think you have free will, but in reality, you won't have any. It's all an illusion, a puppet show we'll manage while pulling the strings. Have a splendid life!" And off he goes, believing her every word.

The Surrender to Illusion

Intriguingly, the patient surrenders to this illusion. He places his trust in the neurosurgeon, with her impressive lab, degrees, and diplomas adorning the walls. He concludes that he no longer possesses free will, and this leads him down a curious path. He becomes self-indulgent, even a bit reckless, in his decision-making. Before long, his questionable choices land him in hot water with the law. He faces arrest and stands before a judge, invoking the ultimate defense: "Your honor, I don't have free will. I'm under the control of the team at the neurosurgery clinic."

The Neurosurgeon's Devious Joke

To add another layer to this intricate story, the courtroom drama unfolds as the neurosurgeon takes the stand. She confirms that she did, in fact, inform the patient that she'd be controlling his every move and that he had no free will. However, she adds a perplexing twist. "It was just a joke," she quips, "I didn't actually believe he'd take me seriously."

At this point, pause for a moment, and let's reflect. The neurosurgeon's little jest, her attempt at humor, had dire consequences. She essentially accomplished, through words alone, what she aimed to do surgically. By convincing the patient that he had no free will, she effectively switched off his moral compass, turning him into a person without moral competence.

Lessons from a Morally Incompetent Experiment

So, here's the kicker – if we all agree that what the neurosurgeon did was, for lack of a better word, morally reprehensible, then what should we make of those neuroscientists who assert, day in and day out, that their research shows unequivocally that no one possesses free will?

It's not merely a flight of fancy. Vohs and Schooler conducted a groundbreaking experiment, replicated in various ways. College students were divided into two groups, each assigned texts from Francis Crick's book, "The Astonishing Hypothesis." One text was about free will, proclaiming it an illusion, while the other was not.

After reading these texts, the students were presented with a puzzle that offered them a chance to earn money. Cunningly, the experimenters introduced a subtle defect in the puzzle, a way to cheat that the students could discover accidentally. The results? Those who had read the passage declaring free will an illusion cheated at a significantly higher rate.

In essence, reading about the absence of free will had a real impact on their decision-making. It led them to become less conscientious about their actions, to be negligent or worse. This revelation is not to be taken lightly.

The Moral Responsibility of Science

So, as we wrap up this mind-bending experiment, let's return to the realm of neuroscience. If the neurosurgeon's jest is seen as an act of moral irresponsibility, it's only fair that neuroscientists weigh the impact of their proclamations regarding free will.

In the end, the illusion of free will, be it imposed by a neurosurgeon's words or science's bold claims, reveals the incredible power of suggestion on the human mind. It's a reminder that while we strive to unravel the mysteries of the brain, we should do so with a sense of responsibility, recognizing the profound influence our words and beliefs can have on the very essence of human agency. In this fascinating dance between science and the human psyche, it's essential to remember that the mind is a territory where every idea, even the wildest ones, can shape our reality.