tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/the-science-of-free-will-88888/articlesThe science of free will – The Conversation2023-12-01T01:17:45Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2185252023-12-01T01:17:45Z2023-12-01T01:17:45ZA Stanford professor says science shows free will doesn’t exist. Here’s why he’s mistaken<p>It <em>seems</em> like we have free will. Most of the time, <em>we</em> are the ones who choose what we eat, how we tie our shoelaces and what articles we read on The Conversation.</p>
<p>However, the <a href="https://mitpressbookstore.mit.edu/book/9780525560975">latest book</a> by Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, has been receiving <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/this-is-america/202310/an-attack-on-free-will">a</a> <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2398369-why-free-will-doesnt-exist-according-to-robert-sapolsky/">lot</a> <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/does-biology-trump-free-will-a-behavioural-scientist-argues-we-have-little-choice-1.7023804">of</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/science/free-will-sapolsky.html">media</a> <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area/23965798/free-will-robert-sapolsky-determined-the-gray-area">attention</a> for arguing science shows this is <a href="https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2023-10-17/stanford-scientist-robert-sapolskys-decades-of-study-led-him-to-conclude-we-dont-have-free-will-determined-book">an illusion</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562337/original/file-20231129-15-n9136g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562337/original/file-20231129-15-n9136g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562337/original/file-20231129-15-n9136g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=912&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562337/original/file-20231129-15-n9136g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=912&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562337/original/file-20231129-15-n9136g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=912&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562337/original/file-20231129-15-n9136g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1146&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562337/original/file-20231129-15-n9136g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1146&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562337/original/file-20231129-15-n9136g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1146&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sapolsky’s book was published in October 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determined:_A_Science_of_Life_Without_Free_Will#/media/File:Determined_A_Science_of_Life_Without_Free_Will.jpg">Wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Sapolsky summarises the latest scientific research relevant to determinism: the idea that we’re causally “determined” to act as we do because of our histories – and couldn’t possibly act any other way.</p>
<p>According to determinism, just as a rock that is dropped is determined to fall due to gravity, your neurons are determined to fire a certain way as a direct result of your environment, upbringing, hormones, genes, culture and myriad other factors outside your control. And this is true regardless of how “free” your choices seem to you. </p>
<p>Sapolsky also says that because our behaviour is determined in this way, nobody is morally responsible for what they do. He believes while we can lock up murderers to keep others safe, they technically don’t <em>deserve</em> to be punished.</p>
<p>This is quite a radical position. It’s worth asking why only 11% of philosophers agree with Sapolsky, compared with the <a href="https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all">60% who think</a> being causally determined is compatible with having free will and being morally responsible.</p>
<p>Have these “<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/">compatibilists</a>” failed to understand the science? Or has Sapolsky failed to understand free will?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-communicators-need-to-stop-telling-everybody-the-universe-is-a-meaningless-void-215334">Science communicators need to stop telling everybody the universe is a meaningless void</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Is determinism incompatible with free will?</h2>
<p>“Free will” and “responsibility” can mean a variety of different things depending on how you approach them.</p>
<p>Many people think of free will as having the ability to choose between alternatives. Determinism might seem to threaten this, because if we are causally determined then we lack any real choice between alternatives; we only ever make the choice we were always going to make.</p>
<p>But there are counterexamples to this way of thinking. For instance, suppose when you started reading this article someone secretly locked your door for 10 seconds, preventing you from leaving the room during that time. You, however, had no desire to leave anyway because you wanted to keep reading – so you stayed where you are. Was your choice free?</p>
<p>Many would argue even though you lacked the option to leave the room, this didn’t make your choice to stay unfree. Therefore, lacking alternatives isn’t what decides whether you lack free will. What matters instead is <em>how</em> the decision came about.</p>
<p>The trouble with Sapolsky’s arguments, as free will expert John Martin Fischer <a href="https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/determined-a-science-of-life-without-free-will/">explains</a>, is he doesn’t actually present any argument for why his conception of free will is correct. </p>
<p>He simply defines free will as being incompatible with determinism, assumes this absolves people of moral responsibility, and spends much of the book describing the many ways our behaviours are determined. His arguments can all be traced back to his definition of “free will”.</p>
<p>Compatibilists believe humans are agents. We live lives with “meaning”, have an understanding of right and wrong, and act for moral reasons. This is enough to suggest most of us, most of the time, have a certain type of freedom and are responsible for our actions (and deserving of blame) – even if our behaviours are “determined”. </p>
<p>Compatibilists would point out that being constrained by determinism isn’t the same as being constrained to a chair by a rope. Failing to save a drowning child because you were tied up is not the same as failing to save a drowning child because you were “determined” not to care about them. The former is an excuse. The latter is cause for condemnation.</p>
<h2>Incompatibilists must defend themselves better</h2>
<p>Some readers sympathetic to Sapolsky might feel unconvinced. They might say your decision to stay in the room, or ignore the child, was still caused by influences in your history that you didn’t control – and therefore you weren’t truly free to choose.</p>
<p>However, this doesn’t <em>prove</em> that having alternatives or being “undetermined” is the only way we can count as having free will. Instead, it <em>assumes</em> they are. From the compatibilists’ point of view, this is cheating. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562338/original/file-20231129-27-5v77ov.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A path in a forest splits off to both sides." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562338/original/file-20231129-27-5v77ov.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562338/original/file-20231129-27-5v77ov.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562338/original/file-20231129-27-5v77ov.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562338/original/file-20231129-27-5v77ov.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562338/original/file-20231129-27-5v77ov.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562338/original/file-20231129-27-5v77ov.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562338/original/file-20231129-27-5v77ov.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Compatibilists believe humans are agents who act for moral reasons.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/crossroads-two-different-directions-concept-choose-786770815">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Compatibilists and incompatibilists both agree that, given determinism is true, there is a sense in which you lack alternatives and could not do otherwise.</p>
<p>However, incompatibilists will say you therefore lack free will, whereas compatibilists will say you still possess free will because <em>that</em> sense of “lacking alternatives” isn’t what undermines free will – and free will is something else entirely. </p>
<p>They say as long as your actions came from you in a relevant way (even if “you” were “determined” by other things), you count as having free will. When you’re tied up by a rope, the decision to not save the drowning child doesn’t come from you. But when you just don’t care about the child, it does.</p>
<p>By another analogy, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, one person may say no auditory senses are present, so this is incompatible with sound existing. But another person may say even though no auditory senses are present, this is still compatible with sound existing because “sound” isn’t about auditory perception – it’s about vibrating atoms.</p>
<p>Both agree nothing is heard, but disagree on what factors are relevant to determining the existence of “sound” in the first place. Sapolsky needs to show why his assumptions about what counts as free will are the ones relevant to moral responsibility. As philosopher Daniel Dennett once put it, we need to ask which “<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/lv/podcast/daniel-dennett-on-free-will-worth-wanting/id257042117?i=1000119514678">varieties of free will [are] worth wanting</a>”.</p>
<h2>Free will isn’t a scientific question</h2>
<p>The point of this back and forth isn’t to show compatibilists are right. It is to highlight there’s a nuanced debate to engage with. Free will is a thorny issue. Showing nobody is responsible for what they do requires understanding and engaging with all the positions on offer. Sapolsky doesn’t do this.</p>
<p>Sapolsky’s broader mistake seems to be assuming his questions are purely scientific: answered by looking just at what the science says. While science is relevant, we first need some idea of what free will is (which is a <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/metaphysics">metaphysical question</a>) and how it relates to moral responsibility (a <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/normative-ethics">normative question</a>). This is something philosophers have been interrogating <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/">for a very long time</a>.</p>
<p>Interdisciplinary work is valuable and scientists are welcome to contribute to age-old philosophical questions. But unless they engage with existing arguments first, rather than picking a definition they like and attacking others for not meeting it, their claims will simply be confused. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-is-the-most-important-thing-a-scientist-needs-177226">Curious Kids: what is the most important thing a scientist needs?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218525/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Piovarchy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sapolsky summarises the latest scientific research relevant to determinism: the idea that we’re causally ‘determined’ to act as we do and couldn’t possibly act any other way.Adam Piovarchy, Research Associate, Institute for Ethics and Society, University of Notre Dame AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1320852020-10-27T18:31:55Z2020-10-27T18:31:55ZWill I or won’t I? Scientists still haven’t figured out free will, but they’re having fun trying<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/327604/original/file-20200414-72274-2wo34j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5960%2C3658&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/young-man-choosing-button-push-concept-1335305078">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Social media algorithms, artificial intelligence, and our own genetics are among the factors influencing us beyond our awareness. This raises an ancient question: do we have control over our own lives? This article is part of The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/the-science-of-free-will-88888">series on the science of free will</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>In 1983, American physiologist Benjamin Libet <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-0355-1_15">conducted an experiment</a> that became a landmark in the field of cognitive sciences. It got psychologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers either very excited or very concerned.</p>
<p>The study itself was simple. Participants were connected to an apparatus that measured their brain and muscle activity, and were asked to do two basic things. First, they had to flex their wrist whenever they felt like doing so. </p>
<p>Second, they had to note the time when they first became aware of their intention to flex their wrist. They did this by remembering the position of a revolving dot on a clock face. The brain activity Libet was interested in was the “readiness potential”, which is known to ramp up before movements are executed.</p>
<p>Libet then compared the three measures in time: the muscle movement, the brain activity, and the reported time of the conscious intention to move. He found both the reported intention to move and the brain activity came before the actual movement, so no surprises there. But crucially, he also found brain activity preceded the reported intention to move by around half a second. </p>
<p>This seemed to suggest participants’ brains had already “decided” to move, half a second before they felt consciously aware of it.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343978/original/file-20200625-33533-jcincd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343978/original/file-20200625-33533-jcincd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343978/original/file-20200625-33533-jcincd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343978/original/file-20200625-33533-jcincd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343978/original/file-20200625-33533-jcincd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343978/original/file-20200625-33533-jcincd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343978/original/file-20200625-33533-jcincd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In Libet’s experiments, participants had to remember where the dot was at the time they made the conscious decision to flex their wrist.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tesseract2/Wikimedia Commons</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Had neuroscience just solved the free will problem?</h2>
<p>Some researchers have <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dwegner/files/minds_best_trick.pdf">since argued</a> that the intuitive idea that we have a consciousness (or a “self”) that is distinct from our brains — and that can cause things in the real world — might be wrong. Really being the “author” of our actions seemed to suggest, at least for many people, that an “I” is making the decisions, not the brain. However, only brains (or neurons) can really <em>cause</em> us to do things, so should we be surprised to find that an intention is a <em>consequence</em> rather than the origin of brain activity? </p>
<p>Others were less convinced of Libet’s study and have attacked it from all possible angles. For example, it has been questioned whether flexing the wrist is really a decision, as there is no alternative action, and whether we can really judge the moment of our intention so precisely. Perhaps, sceptics suggested, the findings could be a lot of fuss about nothing.</p>
<p>But Libet’s findings have been successfully replicated. By using other neuroimaging methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in combination with clever new analysis techniques, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2112">it has been shown</a> that the <em>outcome</em> of decisions between two alternatives can be predicted [<em>several seconds</em> before the reported conscious intention]. </p>
<p>Even Libet himself did not seem comfortable claiming our “will” does not matter at all. What if we could still say “no” to what the brain wants to do? This would at least give us a “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6672190/">free won’t</a>”. To test this, one study asked participants to play a game against a computer that was trained to predict their intentions from their brain activity. The research found participants <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/1080">could cancel their actions</a> if the computer found out quickly what they intended to do, at least up to around 200 milliseconds before the action, after which it was too late. </p>
<p>But is the decision <em>not</em> to do something really so different from a decision to do something?</p>
<h2>It depends what you mean by free</h2>
<p>Another way to look at Libet’s study is to recognise it might not be as closely related to the “free will” problem as initially thought. We might be mistaken in what we think a truly free decision is. We often think “free will” means: could I have chosen otherwise? In theory, the answer might be no — being transported back in time, and placed into exactly the same circumstances, the outcome of our decision might necessarily be exactly the same. But maybe that doesn’t matter, because what we really mean is: was there no external factor that forced my decision, and did I freely choose to do it? And the answer to that might still be yes.</p>
<p>If you are worried about “free will” just because sometimes there are external factors present that influence us, think about this: there are also always factors inside of us that influence us, from which we can never fully escape — our previous decisions, our memories, desires, wishes and goals, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763414002693">all of which are represented in the brain</a>.</p>
<p>Some people might still maintain that only if nothing influences our decision at all can we be really free. But then there is really no good reason to choose either way, and the outcome might just be due to the <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/e2904">random activity of neurons</a> that happen to be active at the time of decision-making. And this means our decisions would also be random rather than “willed”, and that would seem even less free to us.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/327601/original/file-20200414-187049-1ob4ywd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/327601/original/file-20200414-187049-1ob4ywd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327601/original/file-20200414-187049-1ob4ywd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327601/original/file-20200414-187049-1ob4ywd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327601/original/file-20200414-187049-1ob4ywd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327601/original/file-20200414-187049-1ob4ywd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327601/original/file-20200414-187049-1ob4ywd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are always things influencing us that are beyond our control.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Victoriano Izquierdo/Unsplash</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most of our decisions require planning because they are more complex than the “spontaneous” decisions <a href="https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-2236(18)30112-7">investigated in Libet-style studies</a>, like whether to buy a car, or get married, which are what we really care about. And interestingly, we don’t tend to question whether we have free will when making such complex decisions, even though they require a lot more brain activity. </p>
<p>If the emerging brain activity reflects the decision <em>process</em> rather than the <em>outcome</em>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419300739">we might not even have a philosophical contradiction on our hands</a>. It matters a lot what we call “the decision” — is it the moment we reach an outcome, or the entire process that leads to reaching it? Brain activity in Libet-style studies might simply reflect the latter, and that suddenly does not sound so mysterious anymore.</p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>While Libet’s classic study might not have solved the problem of free will, it made a lot of clever people think hard. Generations of students have argued long nights over beer and pizza whether they have free will or not, and researchers have conducted increasingly innovative studies to follow in Libet’s footsteps.</p>
<p>Exciting questions have arisen, such as <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00221-013-3472-x">which brain processes</a> lead to the formation of a voluntary action, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2017.14">how we perceive agency</a>, what freedom of will <a href="https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-2236(18)30112-7">means for being responsible for our actions</a>, and how we change our mind <a href="https://academic.oup.com/cercor/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/cercor/bhz160/5557769?redirectedFrom=fulltext">after making an initial decision</a>.</p>
<p>Researchers had to acknowledge they might not be able to provide a definite answer to the big philosophical question. But the field of cognitive neuroscience and voluntary decisions is more alive, interesting and sophisticated than ever before, thanks to the bold attempts by Libet and his successors to tackle this philosophical problem using science.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132085/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stefan Bode receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>In 1983, one study by an American physiologist set off an explosion of research about free will and the brain.Stefan Bode, Associate Professor and Head of Decision Neuroscience Laboratory, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1417832020-10-18T19:06:42Z2020-10-18T19:06:42ZHey Google … what movie should I watch today? How AI can affect our decisions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349783/original/file-20200728-33-4dru5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C5973%2C3988&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Social media algorithms, artificial intelligence and our own genetics are among the factors influencing us beyond our awareness. This raises an ancient question: do we have control over our own lives? This article is part of The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/the-science-of-free-will-88888">series on the science of free will</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Have you ever used Google Assistant, Apple’s Siri or Amazon Alexa to make decisions for you? Perhaps you asked it what new movies have good reviews, or to recommend a cool restaurant in your neighbourhood.</p>
<p>Artificial intelligence and virtual assistants are constantly being refined, and may soon be making appointments for you, offering medical advice, or trying to sell you a bottle of wine.</p>
<p>Although AI technology has miles to go to develop social skills on par with ours, some AI has shown impressive language understanding and can complete relatively complex interactive tasks.</p>
<p>In several 2018 demonstrations, Google’s AI made <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VN56jQMWM">haircut</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RHG5DFAjp8">restaurant</a> reservations without receptionists realising they were talking with a non-human.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D5VN56jQMWM?wmode=transparent&start=67" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Would you let Google Duplex make phone bookings for you?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s likely the AI capabilities developed by tech giants such as Amazon and Google will only grow more capable of influencing us in the future.</p>
<h2>But what do we actually find persuasive?</h2>
<p>My colleague Adam Duhachek and I <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797620904985">found AI messages are more persuasive</a> when they highlight “how” an action should be performed, rather than “why”. For example, people were more willing to put on sunscreen when an AI explained <em>how</em> to apply sunscreen before going out, rather than <em>why</em> they should use sunscreen.</p>
<p>We found people generally don’t believe a machine can understand human goals and desires. Take Google’s <a href="https://deepmind.com/research/case-studies/alphago-the-story-so-far">AlphaGo</a>, an algorithm designed to play the board game Go. Few people would say the algorithm can understand <em>why</em> playing Go is fun, or <em>why</em> it’s meaningful to become a Go champion. Rather, it just follows a pre-programmed algorithm telling it how to move on the game board.</p>
<p>Our research suggests people find AI’s recommendations more persuasive in situations where AI shows easy steps on how to build personalised health insurance, how to avoid a lemon car, or how to choose the right tennis racket for you, rather than why any of these are important to do in a human sense.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A robot hand playing the ancient Chinese boardgame called Go" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349805/original/file-20200728-25-1mvlqnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349805/original/file-20200728-25-1mvlqnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349805/original/file-20200728-25-1mvlqnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349805/original/file-20200728-25-1mvlqnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349805/original/file-20200728-25-1mvlqnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349805/original/file-20200728-25-1mvlqnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349805/original/file-20200728-25-1mvlqnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People tend to think of AI as not having free will and therefore not having the ability to explain why something is important to humans.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Does AI have free will?</h2>
<p>Most of us believe humans have free will. We compliment someone who helps others because we think they do it freely, and we penalise those who harm others. What’s more, we are willing to lessen the criminal penalty if the person was deprived of free will, for instance if they were in the grip of a schizophrenic delusion.</p>
<p>But do people think AI has free will? We did an experiment to find out. </p>
<p>Someone is given $100 and offers to split it with you. They’ll get $80 and you’ll get $20. If you reject this offer, both you and the proposer end up with nothing. Gaining $20 is better than nothing, but <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51993135_Foundations_of_Human_Sociality_Economic_Experiments_and_Ethnographic_Evidence_From_Fifteen_Small-Scale_Societies">previous research</a> suggests the $20 offer is likely to be rejected because we perceive it as unfair. Surely we should get $50, right?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/do-social-media-algorithms-erode-our-ability-to-make-decisions-freely-the-jury-is-out-140729">Do social media algorithms erode our ability to make decisions freely? The jury is out</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But what if the proposer is an AI? In a research project yet to be published, my colleagues and I found the rejection ratio drops significantly. In other words, people are much more likely to accept this “unfair” offer if proposed by an AI.</p>
<p>This is because we don’t think an AI developed to serve humans has a malicious intent to exploit us — it’s just an algorithm, it doesn’t have free will, so we might as well just accept the $20.</p>
<p>The fact people could accept unfair offers from AI concerns me, because it might mean this phenomenon <em>could</em> be used maliciously. For example, a mortgage loan company might try to charge unfairly high interest rates by framing the decision as being calculated by an algorithm. Or a manufacturing company might manipulate workers into accepting unfair wages by saying it was a decision made by a computer.</p>
<p>To protect consumers, we need to understand when people are vulnerable to manipulation by AI. Governments should take this into account when considering regulation of AI.</p>
<h2>We’re surprisingly willing to divulge to AI</h2>
<p>In other work yet to be published, my colleagues and I found people tend to disclose their personal information and embarrassing experiences more willingly to an AI than a human.</p>
<p>We told participants to imagine they’re at the doctor for a urinary tract infection. We split the participants, so half spoke to a human doctor, and half to an AI doctor. We told them the doctor is going to ask a few questions to find the best treatment and it’s up to you how much personal information you provide.</p>
<p>Participants disclosed more personal information to the AI doctor than the human one, regarding potentially embarrassing questions about use of sex toys, condoms, or other sexual activities. We found this was because people don’t think AI judges our behaviour, whereas humans do. Indeed, we asked participants how concerned they were for being negatively judged, and found the concern of being judged was the underlying mechanism determining how much they divulged.</p>
<p>It seems we feel less embarrassed when talking to AI. This is interesting because many people have grave concerns about AI and privacy, and yet we may be more willing to share our personal details with AI.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A phone featuring Google Assistant" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349781/original/file-20200728-23-1xoq6cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=32%2C0%2C5431%2C3645&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349781/original/file-20200728-23-1xoq6cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349781/original/file-20200728-23-1xoq6cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349781/original/file-20200728-23-1xoq6cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349781/original/file-20200728-23-1xoq6cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349781/original/file-20200728-23-1xoq6cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349781/original/file-20200728-23-1xoq6cm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">As AI develops further, we need to understand how it affects human decision-making.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>But what if AI does have free will?</h2>
<p>We also studied the flipside: what happens when people start to believe AI <em>does</em> have free will? We found giving <a href="http://abotdatabase.info/">AI human-like features</a> or a human name could mean people are more likely to believe an AI has free will.</p>
<p>This has several implications:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>AI can then better persuade people on questions of “why”, because people think the human-like AI may be able to understand human goals and motivations</p></li>
<li><p>AI’s unfair offer is less likely to be accepted because the human-looking AI may be seen as having its own intentions, which could be exploitative</p></li>
<li><p>people start feeling judged by the human-like AI and feel embarrassed, and disclose less personal information</p></li>
<li><p>people start feeling guilty when harming a human-looking AI, and so act more benignly to the AI.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>We are likely to see more and different types of AI and robots in future. They might cook, serve, sell us cars, tend to us at the hospital and even sit on a dining table <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Robot-Sex-Social-Ethical-Implications/dp/0262036681">as a dating partner</a>. It’s important to understand how AI influences our decisions, so we can regulate AI to protect ourselves from possible harms.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141783/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>TaeWoo Kim does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Leading tech companies are increasingly using AI to influence our behaviour. But how persuasive do we find virtual assistants?TaeWoo Kim, Lecturer, UTS Business School, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1337512020-10-15T19:07:40Z2020-10-15T19:07:40ZDo criminals freely decide to commit offences? How the courts decide<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352081/original/file-20200811-14-112xwwg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C0%2C5447%2C3448&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Social media algorithms, artificial intelligence, and our own genetics are among the factors influencing us beyond our awareness. This raises an ancient question: do we have control over our own lives? This article is part of The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/the-science-of-free-will-88888">series on the science of free will</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Are criminals responsible for their actions? It’s a question philosophers, criminologists and jurisprudence experts have grappled with for centuries.</p>
<p>Some <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNqjR33gGNU">philosophers</a> and <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbqwjx/you-have-no-free-will">scientists</a> argue no-one has free will and no-one is ever responsible for any crime, no matter how serious. They suggest the impact of genes and formative social environments on us mean there’s no room left for free will.</p>
<p>This radical view, however, is not held by the majority of philosophers working on free will, nor is it held by the courts.</p>
<p>The criminal justice system presupposes people generally are free to decide whether or not to engage in criminal behaviour. If they do choose to commit a crime, it is presumed that they are responsible for what they’ve done.</p>
<p>However, the courts acknowledge not everyone has free will. For example, those who are very <a href="https://ngm.com.au/doli-incapax-child-arrested-charged">young</a>, or <a href="https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/vic/automatism/">sleepwalking</a>, or severely <a href="https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/vic/mental-impairment/">mentally ill</a> may not be held responsible for an offence. You might think of these people as lacking free will because they are unable to reason properly about what to do.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/my-brain-made-me-do-it-will-neuroscience-change-the-way-we-punish-criminals-57571">My brain made me do it: will neuroscience change the way we punish criminals?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Fit to stand trial?</h2>
<p>But even before getting to the question of whether a defendant in a criminal proceeding deserves to be punished for an offence, there can be doubt about whether they are sufficiently rational to be tried at all.</p>
<p>Though the law sees most defendants as able to properly participate in their trial, it recognises others <a href="https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/content/4-unfitness-stand-trial">cannot</a>.</p>
<p>A defendant’s mental condition may deprive them of the free will needed to properly instruct their lawyers, present their version of events, or follow court proceedings.</p>
<p>This was one of the issues in relation to James Gargasoulas, who is currently serving at least 46 years in prison for killing six people and injuring 27 others in Melbourne’s 2017 Bourke Street massacre.</p>
<p>Gargasoulas’ actions in driving a car into a busy mall, and his conduct in the run-up to the trial, raised significant questions about his <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1402093/Jimmy-Gargasoulas-inside-church-two-days-Bourke-St-rampage.html">mental health</a>.</p>
<p>Expert witnesses were <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/james-gargasoulas-accused-bourke-street-driver-trial/10434246">reportedly</a> divided on whether Gargasoulas had the capacity to properly participate in his trial, despite suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and delusions.</p>
<p>A psychiatrist for the defence <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-23/accused-bourke-street-driver-james-gargasoulas-phone-calls/10419502">said</a> Gargasoulas’ delusional belief system “overwhelms him”; the psychiatrist expressed concern Gargasoulas was using the court process as a platform to voice his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/13/bourke-street-driver-dimitrious-gargasoulas-believes-he-is-messiah">belief</a> he is the messiah.</p>
<p>A second forensic psychiatrist <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/bourke-st-accused-not-bothered-about-fitness-to-plead-court-told-20181024-p50bp9.html">agreed</a> Gargasoulas was “not able to rationally enter a plea”.</p>
<p>However, a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/james-gargasoulas-accused-bourke-street-driver-trial/10434246">psychologist for the prosecution</a> assessed him as fit and the prosecution argued there was evidence from recorded phone calls that he was capable of rational thought.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the opinion of the majority of expert witnesses, the jury found Gargasoulas was fit to stand trial, and later he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.</p>
<p>Working from media reports, it is difficult to be sure precisely what happened in court, and we cannot know why the jury favoured the evidence suggesting he was fit to stand trial. However, it is interesting to consider whether research into the psychology of blame and punishment can shed any light on their decision.</p>
<h2>Questions of consequence</h2>
<p>Some <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.376.970&rep=rep1&type=pdf">psychologists</a> argue judgements of blame are not always based on a balanced assessment of free will or rational control, as the law presumes. Sometimes we decide how much control or freedom a person possessed based upon our automatic negative responses to harmful consequences. </p>
<p>As the psychologist Mark Alicke <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2014.902723">says</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>we simply don’t want to excuse people who do horrible things, regardless of how disordered their cognitive states may be.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>When a person has done something very bad, we are motivated to look for evidence that supports blaming them and to downplay evidence that might excuse them by showing that they lacked free will.</p>
<p>Were the jurors who found Gargasoulas fit to stand trial influenced by how horrendous his actions were? Would their decision have been different had they not known what he’d been charged with?</p>
<p>We may never know. What is clear, though, is that questions about free will continue to challenge the criminal justice system — and will likely continue to do so in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133751/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The criminal justice system presupposes people generally are free to decide whether or not to engage in criminal behaviour. However, the courts acknowledge not everyone has free will.Jeanette Kennett, Professor of Philosophy, Macquarie UniversityAllan McCay, Lecturer in law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1343302020-10-13T18:47:54Z2020-10-13T18:47:54ZHow much do our genes restrict free will?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323448/original/file-20200326-133012-i1r0g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2660%2C1967&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Social media algorithms, artificial intelligence, and our own genetics are among the factors influencing us beyond our awareness. This raises an ancient question: do we have control over our own lives? This article is part of The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/the-science-of-free-will-88888">series on the science of free will</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Many of us believe we are masters of own destiny, but new research is revealing the extent to which our behaviour is influenced by our genes.</p>
<p>It’s now possible to decipher our individual genetic code, the sequence of 3.2 billion DNA “letters” unique to each of us, that forms a blueprint for our brains and bodies.</p>
<p>This sequence reveals how much of our behaviour has a hefty biological predisposition, meaning we might be skewed towards developing a particular attribute or characteristic. Research has shown genes may predispose not only our <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2955183/">height</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28533464">eye colour</a> or <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00438-015-1015-9">weight</a>, but also our <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23933821?dopt=Abstract">vulnerability to mental ill-health</a>, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetic-factors-associated-with-increased-longevity-identified/">longevity</a>, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104">intelligence</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/tp201495">impulsivity</a>. Such traits are, to varying degrees, written into our genes — sometimes thousands of genes working in concert.</p>
<p>Most of these genes instruct how our brain circuitry is laid down in the womb, and how it functions. We can now <a href="http://www.developingconnectome.org/">view a baby’s brain as it is built</a>, even 20 weeks before birth. Circuitry changes exist in their brains that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38957-1">strongly correlate with genes</a> that predispose for autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). They even predispose for <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38957-1">conditions</a> that might not emerge for decades: bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder and schizophrenia.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/genes-shown-to-influence-how-well-children-do-throughout-their-time-at-school-102520">Genes shown to influence how well children do throughout their time at school</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Increasingly we are faced with the prospect that predispositions to more complex behaviours are similarly wired into our brains. These include <a href="https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/genetic-and-environmental-influences-on-religiousness-findings-fo">which religion we choose</a>, how we <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.1360">form our political ideologies</a>, and even how we create our <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_3/10796">friendship groups</a>.</p>
<h2>Nature and nurture are intertwined</h2>
<p>There are also other ways our life stories can be passed down through generations, besides being inscribed in our DNA.</p>
<p>“Epigenetics” is a relatively new area of science that can reveal how intertwined nature and nurture can be. It looks not at changes to genes themselves, but instead at the “tags” that are put on genes from life experience, which alter how our genes are expressed. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923835/">One 2014 study</a> looked at epigenetic changes in mice. Mice love the sweet smell of cherries, so when a waft reaches their nose, a pleasure zone in the brain lights up, motivating them to scurry around and hunt out the treat. The researchers decided to pair this smell with a mild electric shock, and the mice quickly learned to freeze in anticipation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/epigenetics-what-impact-does-it-have-on-our-psychology-109516">Epigenetics: what impact does it have on our psychology?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The study found this new memory was transmitted across the generations. The mice’s grandchildren were fearful of cherries, despite not having experienced the electric shocks themselves. The grandfather’s sperm DNA changed its shape, leaving a blueprint of the experience entwined in the genes.</p>
<p>This is ongoing research and novel science, so questions remain about how these mechanisms might apply to humans. But preliminary results indicate epigenetic changes can influence descendants of extremely traumatic events.</p>
<p>One study showed the sons of US Civil War prisoners had an <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/11215">11% higher death rate by their mid-40s</a>. Another small study showed survivors of the Holocaust, and their children, carried epigenetic changes in a gene that was <a href="https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(15)00652-6/abstract">linked to their levels of cortisol</a>, a hormone involved in the stress response. It’s a complicated picture, but the results suggest descendants have a higher net cortisol level and are therefore more susceptible to anxiety disorders. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/extreme-stress-in-childhood-is-toxic-to-your-dna-99009">Extreme stress in childhood is toxic to your DNA</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Do we have any scope for free will?</h2>
<p>Of course, it’s not simply the case that our lives are set in stone by the brain we’re born with, the DNA given to us by our parents, and the memories passed down from our grandparents.</p>
<p>There is, thankfully, still scope for change. As we learn, <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/consciousness-a-ladybird-expert-book-9780718189112">new connections form between nerve cells</a>. As the new skill is practised, or the learning relived, the connections strengthen and the learning is consolidated into a memory. If the memory is repeatedly visited, it will become the default route for electrical signals in the brain, meaning learned behaviour becomes habit.</p>
<p>Take riding a bike, for example. We don’t know how to ride one when we are born, but through trial and error, and a few small crashes along the way, we can learn to do it. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-brain-plasticity-and-why-is-it-so-important-55967">What is brain plasticity and why is it so important?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Similar principles create the basis for both perception and navigation. We make and strengthen neural connections as we move around our environment and conjure our perception of the space that surrounds us. </p>
<p>But there’s a catch: sometimes our past learnings blind us to future truths. Watch the video below — we’re all biased towards <a href="https://archive.org/details/intelligenteye0000greg">seeing faces in our environment</a>. This preference causes us to ignore the shadow cues telling us it is the back end of a mask. Instead, we rely on tried and tested routes within our brains, generating the image of another face.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pH9dAbPOR6M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">You probably won’t notice that Albert Einstein’s face is the back side of a mask, rather than the front, because our brains are biased towards seeing faces in our environment.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This illusion illustrates how difficult it can be to change our minds. Our identity and expectations are based on past experiences. It can take too much cognitive energy to break down the frameworks in our minds.</p>
<h2>Elegant machinery</h2>
<p>As I explore in my latest book published last year, <a href="https://www.hachette.com.au/hannah-critchlow/the-science-of-fate-the-new-science-of-who-we-are-and-how-to-shape-our-best-future">The Science of Fate</a>, this research touches on one of life’s biggest mysteries: our individual capacity for choice.</p>
<p>For me, there’s something beautiful about viewing ourselves as elegant machinery. Input from the world is processed in our unique brains to produce the output that is our behaviour.</p>
<p>However, many of us may not wish to relinquish the idea of being free agents. Biological determinism, the idea that human behaviour is entirely innate, rightly makes people nervous. It’s abhorrent to think that appalling acts in our history were perpetrated by people who were powerless to stop them, because that raises the spectre that they might happen again.</p>
<p>Perhaps instead, we could think of ourselves as <em>not being restricted</em> by our genes. Acknowledging the biology that influences our individuality may then empower us to better pool our strengths and harness our collective cognitive capacity to shape the world for the better.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/134330/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hannah Critchlow has received funding from the Medical Research Council, GlaxoSmithKline, Wellcome Trust and University of Cambridge. </span></em></p>Scientists are revealing the extent to which our behaviour is influenced by our genes, calling into question our capacity for free will. But there is still scope for change.Hannah Critchlow, Science Outreach Fellow at Magdalene College, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1407292020-10-11T19:00:09Z2020-10-11T19:00:09ZDo social media algorithms erode our ability to make decisions freely? The jury is out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343092/original/file-20200622-75500-1hvp0yq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=15%2C2118%2C3488%2C2134&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Charles Deluvio/Unsplash</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Social media algorithms, artificial intelligence, and our own genetics are among the factors influencing us beyond our awareness. This raises an ancient question: do we have control over our own lives? This article is part of The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/the-science-of-free-will-88888">series on the science of free will</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Have you ever watched a video or movie because YouTube or Netflix recommended it to you? Or added a friend on Facebook from the list of “people you may know”?</p>
<p>And how does Twitter decide which tweets to show you at the top of your feed?</p>
<p>These platforms are driven by algorithms, which rank and recommend content for us based on our data.</p>
<p>As Woodrow Hartzog, a professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University, Boston, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-30/how-the-internet-tricks-you-out-of-privacy-deceptive-design/9676708">explains</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you want to know when social media companies are trying to manipulate you into disclosing information or engaging more, the answer is always.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So if we are making decisions based on what’s shown to us by these algorithms, what does that mean for our ability to make decisions freely?</p>
<h2>What we see is tailored for us</h2>
<p>An algorithm is a digital recipe: a list of rules for achieving an outcome, using a set of ingredients. Usually, for tech companies, that outcome is to make money by convincing us to buy something or keeping us scrolling in order to show us more advertisements.</p>
<p>The ingredients used are the data we provide through our actions online – knowingly or otherwise. Every time you like a post, watch a video, or buy something, you provide data that can be used to make predictions about your next move.</p>
<p>These algorithms can influence us, even if we’re not aware of it. As the New York Times’ <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/podcasts/rabbit-hole-prologue.html">Rabbit Hole podcast</a> explores, YouTube’s recommendation algorithms can drive viewers to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth">increasingly extreme content</a>, potentially leading to online radicalisation.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1258196846545002497"}"></div></p>
<p>Facebook’s News Feed algorithm ranks content to keep us engaged on the platform. It can produce a phenomenon called “<a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788/tab-article-info">emotional contagion</a>”, in which seeing positive posts leads us to write positive posts ourselves, and seeing negative posts means we’re more likely to craft negative posts — though this study was <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/111/29/10779.1">controversial</a> partially because the effect sizes were small.</p>
<p>Also, so-called “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-30/how-the-internet-tricks-you-out-of-privacy-deceptive-design/9676708">dark patterns</a>” are designed to trick us into sharing more, or <a href="https://econsultancy.com/three-dark-patterns-ux-big-brands-and-why-they-should-be-avoided/">spending more</a> on websites like Amazon. These are tricks of website design such as hiding the unsubscribe button, or showing how many people are buying the product you’re looking at <em>right now</em>. They subconsciously nudge you towards actions the site would like you to take.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sludge-how-corporations-nudge-us-into-spending-more-101969">Sludge: how corporations 'nudge' us into spending more</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>You are being profiled</h2>
<p>Cambridge Analytica, the company involved in the largest known Facebook data leak to date, claimed to be able to <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/cambridge-analytica-and-the-perils-of-psychographics">profile your psychology</a> based on your “likes”. These profiles could then be used to target you with political advertising.</p>
<p>“Cookies” are small pieces of data which track us across websites. They are records of actions you’ve taken online (such as links clicked and pages visited) that are stored in the browser. When they are combined with data from multiple sources including from large-scale hacks, this is known as “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-12-03/data-enrichment-industry-privacy-breach-people-data-labs/11751786">data enrichment</a>”. It can link our personal data like email addresses to other information such as our education level.</p>
<p>These data are regularly used by tech companies like Amazon, Facebook, and others to build profiles of us and predict our future behaviour.</p>
<h2>You are being predicted</h2>
<p>So, how much of your behaviour can be predicted by algorithms based on your data?</p>
<p>Our research, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0510-5">published in Nature Human Behaviour last year</a>, explored this question by looking at how much information about you is contained in the posts your friends make on social media.</p>
<p>Using data from Twitter, we estimated how predictable peoples’ tweets were, using only the data from their friends. We found data from eight or nine friends was enough to be able to predict someone’s tweets just as well as if we had downloaded them directly (well over 50% accuracy, see graph below). Indeed, 95% of the potential predictive accuracy that a machine learning algorithm might achieve is obtainable <em>just</em> from friends’ data.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343234/original/file-20200622-54989-bo83l3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343234/original/file-20200622-54989-bo83l3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343234/original/file-20200622-54989-bo83l3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343234/original/file-20200622-54989-bo83l3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343234/original/file-20200622-54989-bo83l3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343234/original/file-20200622-54989-bo83l3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343234/original/file-20200622-54989-bo83l3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Average predictability from your circle of closest friends (blue line). A value of 50% means getting the next word right half of the time — no mean feat as most people have a vocabulary of around 5,000 words. The curve shows how much an AI algorithm can predict about you from your friends’ data. Roughly 8-9 friends are enough to predict your future posts as accurately as if the algorithm had access to your own data (dashed line).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bagrow, Liu, & Mitchell (2019)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our results mean that even if you #DeleteFacebook (which trended after the <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/deletefacebook-calls-grow-after-cambridge-analytica-data-scandal">Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018</a>), you may still be able to be profiled, due to the social ties that remain. And that’s before we consider the things about Facebook that make it so <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-its-so-hard-to-deletefacebook-constant-psychological-boosts-keep-you-hooked-92976">difficult to delete</a> anyway.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-its-so-hard-to-deletefacebook-constant-psychological-boosts-keep-you-hooked-92976">Why it's so hard to #DeleteFacebook: Constant psychological boosts keep you hooked</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We also found it’s possible to build profiles of <em>non-users</em> — so-called “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0513-2">shadow profiles</a>” — based on their contacts who are on the platform. Even if you have never used Facebook, if your friends do, there is the possibility a shadow profile could be built of you.</p>
<p>On social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, privacy is no longer tied to the individual, but to the network as a whole.</p>
<h2>No more free will? Not quite</h2>
<p>But all hope is not lost. If you do delete your account, the information contained in your social ties with friends grows stale over time. We found predictability gradually declines to a low level, so your privacy and anonymity will eventually return.</p>
<p>While it may seem like algorithms are eroding our ability to think for ourselves, it’s not necessarily the case. The evidence on the effectiveness of psychological profiling to influence voters <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/cambridge-analytica.html">is thin</a>.</p>
<p>Most importantly, when it comes to the role of people versus algorithms in things like spreading (mis)information, people are just as important. On Facebook, the extent of your exposure to diverse points of view is more closely related <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1130">to your social groupings</a> than to the way News Feed presents you with content. And on Twitter, while “fake news” may spread faster than facts, it is <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146">primarily people who spread it</a>, rather than bots.</p>
<p>Of course, content creators exploit social media platforms’ algorithms to promote content, on <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-just-blame-youtubes-algorithms-for-radicalisation-humans-also-play-a-part-125494">YouTube</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-just-blame-echo-chambers-conspiracy-theorists-actively-seek-out-their-online-communities-127119">Reddit</a> and other platforms, not just the other way round.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, underneath all the algorithms are people. And we influence the algorithms just as much as they may influence us.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-just-blame-youtubes-algorithms-for-radicalisation-humans-also-play-a-part-125494">Don't just blame YouTube’s algorithms for ‘radicalisation’. Humans also play a part</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140729/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lewis Mitchell works for the University of Adelaide, and is an Associate Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers (ACEMS). He receives funding from the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions and DST.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Bagrow is an associate professor in Mathematics & Statistics at the University of Vermont. He receives funding from the US National Science Foundation, CA Technologies, US Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, and Google Open Source.</span></em></p>Have you ever watched something because YouTube recommended it to you? You’ve probably been influenced by an algorithm. But at the end of the day, underneath all the algorithms are people.Lewis Mitchell, Senior Lecturer in Applied Mathematics, University of AdelaideJames Bagrow, Associate Professor, Mathematics & Statistics, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1328982020-10-07T19:09:59Z2020-10-07T19:09:59ZWe might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/327448/original/file-20200413-4907-wsg7jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=56%2C0%2C6240%2C4156&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/sOK9NjLArCw">Gabriel Crismariu/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Social media algorithms, artificial intelligence, and our own genetics are among the factors influencing us beyond our awareness. This raises an ancient question: do we have control over our own lives? This article is part of The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/the-science-of-free-will-88888">series on the science of free will</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Suppose you are thinking about doing something trivial, such as moving your index finger a little to the right. You are free to do it. You are free not to do it. You weigh up the pros and cons, and decide to do it. Lo and behold, your finger moves. Congratulations! You did it.</p>
<p>This is a case of free will. Clearly it’s not a momentous case. Nothing much depends on whether you move your finger.</p>
<p>But imagine if something did. Imagine someone would be executed if you did move that finger. Then you’d be morally responsible, because you did it freely.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/327443/original/file-20200413-134587-1vqeb0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A hand holding a gun with the finger on the trigger." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/327443/original/file-20200413-134587-1vqeb0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/327443/original/file-20200413-134587-1vqeb0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327443/original/file-20200413-134587-1vqeb0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327443/original/file-20200413-134587-1vqeb0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327443/original/file-20200413-134587-1vqeb0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327443/original/file-20200413-134587-1vqeb0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/327443/original/file-20200413-134587-1vqeb0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If you freely choose to move your finger, knowing someone would be executed as a result, you would be morally culpable.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/l7p3DUKaFrk">Alejo Reinoso/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It seems as obvious as anything that we have <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/">free will</a>. But lots of philosophers and scientists will tell you free will doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>The starting point of this argument is that free will is incompatible with determinism, a worldview that dominated science in the past and remains influential today.</p>
<h2>Is everything predetermined?</h2>
<p><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/">Determinism</a> says everything that happens now is entirely determined by factors that were in place well before you were even born.</p>
<p>Maybe these factors concern your upbringing or culture. Or they concern the initial conditions of the Universe and the laws that govern how it unfolds. Either way, you had nothing to do with them. And if they determine what you do, you aren’t free.</p>
<p>US philosopher <a href="https://philosophy.nd.edu/people/emeritus/peter-van-inwagen/">Peter van Inwagen</a> provides a vivid illustration of this argument, in his book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/an-essay-on-free-will-9780198249245">An Essay on Free Will</a>. If determinism is true, the laws of nature and the past together guarantee you will move your finger. It therefore follows that if you have the power not to move your finger, you would also have the power to change the laws or the past.</p>
<p>But that’s ridiculous. You don’t have such powers.</p>
<p>An initial reaction is that, while determinism was important historically, it now seems false.</p>
<p>Quantum physics <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature20119" title="Certified randomness in quantum physics">shows</a> the occurrence of some events to be literally random. It’s a concept the Australian National University used to develop a <a href="http://qrng.anu.edu.au/index.php">random number generator</a>.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this only makes matters worse. If moving your finger were just a random act, you wouldn’t be responsible for it and so you still wouldn’t be free.</p>
<p>This gives us the full-blown argument against free will. Either determinism is true or it’s not; that’s just logic.</p>
<p>If determinism is true, your acts are a consequence of things that happened before you were born; so you have no free will. But suppose determinism is not true; then it’s easy to think everything would be random, including all your actions (such as raising your finger!). But in this instance, there would be no free will either.</p>
<p>You might side with British philosopher <a href="https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?eid=gs24429">Galen Strawson</a> who, in his book <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/563023/things-that-bother-me-by-galen-strawson/">Things That Bother Me</a>, argues free will is “provably impossible”.</p>
<h2>Is there a middle ground?</h2>
<p>Another option is to try to understand free will so it works with a limited form of determinism, that applies to your actions rather than to everything in the world. </p>
<p>One version of this view, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aristotelian/article-abstract/118/3/347/5116368" title="XV—Intelligent Capacities">developed</a> by ANU’s <a href="https://philosophy.cass.anu.edu.au/people/victoria-mcgeer">Victoria McGeer</a>, involves defining free will as whatever explains our social capacities to hold each other morally responsible. As a deterministic process could in principle do that, free will and determinism may coexist.</p>
<p>But while a deterministic process may explain these capacities, it would not in that case be free will, because free will is fundamentally incompatible with determinism. </p>
<p>At this point, things look bleak. But there is a small ray of light, pointed out by US linguist and philosopher <a href="https://chomsky.info/">Noam Chomsky</a>, who says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We just can’t abandon believing it (free will); it’s our most immediate phenomenologically obvious impression, but we can’t explain it. […] If it’s something we know to be true and we don’t have any explanation for it, well, too bad for any explanatory possibilities. </p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J3fhKRJNNTA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Noam Chomsky on free will.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Suppose again that determinism is incompatible with free will. If so, when you freely moved your finger, that event was not fully determined by the initial conditions of the Universe and the laws of nature. </p>
<p>Does it necessarily follow that it’s random? On the face of it, no. To be random is one thing; to be not fully determined is quite another. There’s a logical space between determinism and randomness, and perhaps free will lives in that space.</p>
<p>Chomsky goes on to say it may be impossible for humans to understand free will. In science, people develop models or theories of the systems they are interested in. He suggests in his book <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Language_and_Problems_of_Knowledge.html?id=hwgHVRZtK8kC">Language and Problems of Knowledge</a> the only models we can understand are those in which our acts are either determined or random. If so, we will never develop scientific models of free will, for it is neither of these things.</p>
<p>I am not sure Chomsky is right about the limits of human understanding. But I think he’s right about free will. We are free to move our finger. That is neither determined nor random — it’s a choice we can feel in our bones.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132898/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Stoljar receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Is everything predetermined, or is it all random? Or is there something in between that we call free will that defies our attempts to explain it?Daniel Stoljar, Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.