Neurology and Free Will

[Veritas]

There have been several studies done regarding the overwhelming power of dopamine in determining behavior. A mouse which was given large discharges of dopamine everytime it pressed a button which gave it electrical shocks continually pressed the button until it died. Contemporary studies of the brain have also shown that cognition is based on neurological activity in several different regions of the brain. This means that physical processes, rather than abstract free will, are behind consciousness, and what we call consciousness is just different regions of the brain "lighting up."

How do Anarchists answer the charge that there is no free will? If there is no free will, is Anarchism still legitimate?

youtube.com/watch?v=JQEiux-AOzs
youtube.com/watch?v=7HbAFYiejvo&safe=active
(can't link without 25 posts)

P.S. I don't mean to bash Anarchism. I just want to see Anarchist positions on this.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Perhaps it would be best if you explained to us why you think anarchism requires metaphysical free will, because at this junction the question looks like "if eggplants are purple, is anarchism still legitimate"? Its legitimacy doesn't depend on that. Likewise anarchism doesn't require a commitment to metaphysical libertarianism or compatibilism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Actual neurologists and physicists have actually written about this subject (not from the standpoint of socialism usually, but definitely on the topic of "free will")

For example, Donald MacKinnon argued that "free will" remains relevant because even if I could hypothetically tell you exactly how you will behave in a given circumstance (and, if this is based in scientific truth then it will be applicable to all humans), you can still consciously choose to act in a different way in the circumstance. Meaning that human will/choice (within a set of parameters, of course) is still applicable as opposed to a purely deterministic "man as machine" outlook.

But I don't see how admitting that free will is ultimately mediated via a neurological process is really an admission that the concept is irrelevant when looking at certain philosophical/ethical questions.

In addition, neurology is faaaaar from being a practical "pure" way of determining human behavior. In addition to dopamine there's also serotonin, norepinephrine, glutamate and a host of other neurotransmitters in the brain that are sent via electrical/chemical charges through untold billions of cells. The ambiguity in activity of these neurotransmitters is made evident in the difficulty doctors have had efficiently treating disorders like schizophrenia. In addition, even if we could theoretically map every single connection between every single axon and dendrite in the human brain (which was what early neurology actually tried to do and eventually found to be impossible, of course) that wouldn't accurately serve to predict human behavior because we wouldn't know how strong a given connection is. And other concerns...

[Rafiq]

What chemicals determine this incredible insight?

Of course human consciousness has a physical basis. But it is not determined by those physical processes, those processes facilitate social ones. Relations between people, through a symbolic order in the mind, subsume the individuals who form the relation.

Which leads to our point: humans are not like mice whose actions are PRE determined by a set of predictable physiological reflexes. Humans, rather, who can analyze mice in the first place, are not animals at all insofar as what makes us actually human is concerned - social labor.

So neither "free will" nor neuro-determinism is valid. The social dimension is its own affirmative and self-sufficient one. Humans must be understood on social terms - for what distinguishes us from mice/chimps is historically worthless and uninsightful as far as the particularities of human behavior go on a historic, particular level. (Of course, we are distinguished from animals. But this isn't a viable starting basis for assessing, for example, the origins of rape in the same way you'd question the behavior of an orangatan by comparing it with other animals - its ecology)

[BIXX]

Now, the real experiment would be to repeat the old one but with a person who would be dosed with the dopamine, then say "look if you press that button you get more but after a number of presses you will be administered a lethal shock".

I almost would put money on the person living but I'm afraid our hypothetical person is pretty dumb.

[Sar]

I've always found the study of free will to be irrelevant to anything practical.

It is interesting to study the idea that people may not have the freedom we feel we have, and we've discovered some pretty cool things. However, from a practicality standpoint what's the difference? Suppose tomorrow there's irrefutable evidence that human beings do not have free will and are only subject to laws of nature or something of the sort. What difference would that make? It isn't like there's anything that someone could do, and people would act the same as before.

Anyway, whether free will exists or not, it doesn't seem to have much to do with anything. It especially doesn't have an influence on political ideologies, since people's behavior is not dependent on that discovery.

[Invader Zim]

I'm not going to watch the videos -- sorry -- life is too short. But is the general gist that the thoughts and actions of rodents are (at least) partly determined by brain chemistry and that if you cause a major imbalance in that they behave 'irrationally' (a wrong word but the best i can think of for the time being)? I'm not sure that this tells us anything about 'free will', and given that human brains are rather different from those of mice, I think that is doubly true.

[Invader Zim]

Now, the real experiment would be to repeat the old one but with a person who would be dosed with the dopamine, then say "look if you press that button you get more but after a number of presses you will be administered a lethal shock".

I almost would put money on the person living but I'm afraid our hypothetical person is pretty dumb.


You'd have to perform the test on quite a few individuals in order to rule that out. I would suggest members of Britain First, but I strongly suspect that their stupidity would compromise the result.

[John Nada]

This says that if you're a mouse locked in a cage with wires stuck to your head, you're ancestors for generations were locked in a cage and subjected to sadistic experiments by primates, and someone tells you there's a nice fat hit of dopamine to numb your pathetic existence down the hall, you're going to walk down the hallway for a nice buzz.
We who, like Mr. Marx himself, are materialists and determinists, also recognize the inevitable linking of economic and political facts in history. We recognize, indeed, the necessity and inevitable character of all events that occur but we no longer bow before them indifferently, and above all we are very careful about praising them when, by their nature, they show themselves in flagrant contradiction to the supreme end of history. This is a thoroughly human ideal which is found in more or less recognizable form in the instincts and aspirations of the people and in all the religious symbols of all epochs, because it is inherent in the human race, the most social of all the species of animals on earth. This ideal, today better understood than ever, is the triumph of humanity, the most complete conquest and establishment of personal freedom and development — material, intellectual, and moral — for every individual, through the absolutely unrestricted and spontaneous organization of economic and social solidarity. Source: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-on-the-international-workingmen-s-association-and-karl-marx While I'd dispute his characterization of Marx's historical materialism and dialectical materialism, and asking what anarchist think is like asking what monotheists think, the answer would likely be "Yeah, but who gives a fuck?" If anything, it would affirm anarchism.
In addition, even if we could theoretically map every single connection between every single axon and dendrite in the human brain (which was what early neurology actually tried to do and eventually found to be impossible, of course) that wouldn't accurately serve to predict human behavior because we wouldn't know how strong a given connection is. And other concerns...They're working on it already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Connectome_Project Both fascinating on the potential uses, and terrifying on its potential misuse by a police state.

[Veritas]

How about in the case of someone with addiction problems?

If a person becomes addicted to gambling, for example, their conscious frame of reference will be centered around this addiction, and their addiction is not so much attached to the prospect of winning, but rather the chemical discharges associated to victory or playing the game itself. For this reason, gambling is one of the greatest modes of theft in human history, and it is by far one of the most effective - just look at how Sheldon Adelson throws around money as if it is infinite.

Certainly, there are social and economic factors attached here which Rafiq (taking a classical Marxist position), Juan Moreno, and others pointed out. Certainly the exploited worker feeling alienated in the world will look for mechanisms to numb his pathetic existence, but what about when these numbing agents become the basis for this individual's life and corrupts their cognitive processes? What about when the individual becomes an object and slave to their numbing agents? I think neuro-psychology is the greatest discipline for understanding and dealing with addiction at the neurological and medical level, and of course Socialism at the social and structural level.

Personally, in my life, I've dealt with addictions for much of the same reasons as other people, and tried to quit many times with no success. Once I was able to fill in the blankness in my life and find a little more meaning and happiness, getting over these addictions wasn't hard. I'm certainly not a determinist and I feel like humans do have subjective natures, but we live in conditions which thingify us and abstract us from our species being.

[Rafiq]

How about in the case of someone with addiction problems?

If a person becomes addicted to gambling, for example, their conscious frame of reference will be centered around this addiction, and their addiction is not so much attached to the prospect of winning, but rather the chemical discharges associated to victory or playing the game itself. For this reason, gambling is one of the greatest modes of theft in human history, and it is by far one of the most effective - just look at how Sheldon Adelson throws around money as if it is infinite.

But that is not the point. The point is: Why specifically does the act of gambling activate said chemical discharges? Is the brain hard-wired to account for gambling victories? It is not. There are numerous expressions of the same exact chemicals being discharged in the brain.

Drug addictions, conversely, are the ultimate form of escapism.

[Tim Redd]

We who, like Mr. Marx himself, are materialists and determinists, also recognize the inevitable linking of economic and political facts in history. We recognize, indeed, the necessity and inevitable character of all events that occur but we no longer bow before them indifferently, and above all we are very careful about praising them when, by their nature, they show themselves in flagrant contradiction to the supreme end of history. This is a thoroughly human ideal which is found in more or less recognizable form in the instincts and aspirations of the people and in all the religious symbols of all epochs, because it is inherent in the human race, the most social of all the species of animals on earth. This ideal, today better understood than ever, is the triumph of humanity, the most complete conquest and establishment of personal freedom and development — material, intellectual, and moral — for every individual, through the absolutely unrestricted and spontaneous organization of economic and social solidarity.

This quote delineates a fundamentally flawed ideas held by Bukunin and many other anarchists past and present.

First is the assertion that the ideal of humanity is "the most complete conquest and establishment of personal freedom and development — material, intellectual, and moral — for every individual".

In reality the highest ideal of highly intelligent is about the social whole gaining the maximum amount of both internal and external power to affect itself and the outer world. The power is both in terms of the state of social relations and technical abilities.

Second is the assertion that personal freedom and development individual are maximally gained "through the absolutely unrestricted and spontaneous organization of economic and social solidarity." This is nonsense because it promotes and glorifies spontaneous organization and economic solidarity. Capitalism is already the nadir of spontaneous economic organization. And that is a result of its major flaw of allowing ownership and the directing of economic units to maximize profit. This takes place in a way that is overall not centrally planned. That is the major reason capitalism has crisis and works against the interests of most of non top 10% or so of society.

[Comrade #138672]

We already knew that free will was an illusion. Try ignoring gravity with your free will and see where it gets you.

Even though I am not anarchist, the lack of metaphysical free will obviously does not contradict anarchism in any way.

Also, humans have some control mechanisms to escape the deadly loop that you described. This is why humans can overcome addictions and what not. Of course, I am not saying that it is easy or that everyone necessarily succeeds (on their own, without the help of society).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

We already knew that free will was an illusion. Try ignoring gravity with your free will and see where it gets you.


That's a strawman. I can't think of any advocate for the existence of free will who argues that we are free to control all of nature with the power of the mind alone. The issue of free will has to do with whether or not we have authority over our thoughts an actions, not whether or not we can will laws of nature into nonexistence.