|
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
If my brain is not me then what am I?
Then I get to this contradicting conclusion;
Duh? So then why is the whole article written as if subconscious brain activity and free will are entirely seperate entities? |
Good catch. It's a good example of the fact that journalism covering scientific research is pretty much terrible -- it's obvious that the author of the article didn't really understand the research he was reporting on.
But it seems as though the author of the study does not really understand all the issues at play here, either (this may be due to his having been led out of his area of expertise by poorly phrased questions.) There are really at least two seperate issues here: the extent to which we possess free will (which may in turn raise the issue of how we define free will) and the extent to which our conscious experience of decision-making reflects the underlying neurological processes. Both this study, and the research referred to in PETRAN's post, are more pertinent to the latter question, and both indicate that there is a disconnect between our experience of decision-making as a conscious process and how we actually make decisions. It is unfortunate that this matter has been conflated with the issue of free will, which is really tangential to the research.
To be honest, though, I think the research is a little unsatisfying. It doesn't really show the extent to which conscious and unconscious processes each influence the decision, it only shows that the decision was predictable before the subject was aware of having made it. These are really two seperate things entirely because, for instance, we can't know if the subject was "leaning" in one direction prior to making the final decision, whether consciously or unconsciously. And if such "leaning" could be detected, it would likely be quite predictive of the final decision made. Some consideration of these nuances is really essential if this research is to be informative in a broader context. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the study has much ecological validity, since it is doubtful that the subjects believed that one choice or the other would have superior consequences, and there is little or no relevant information to be considered, consciously or otherwise, in making the decision. Lastly, I am troubled by how the non-conforming results were glossed over by the author of the study (regrettably, a very common phenomenon in the cognitive sciences.) Clearly, there are at least some relevant factors neither being measured nor controlled for here -- we can't dismiss the inaccuracies as anomalies of chance, at least not if we want to maintain the level of rigor that I think science should demand.
|
