That's the title of an intriguing essay by David Perks, who astutely observes:
Even a cursory glance at reviews of the field shows that neuroscience poses more questions than it answers. The Economist‘s review in 2006, although enthusiastic about the potential of neuroscience, is blunt about the long way the science has to go to make good on its claims. Current theories about the biological basis of consciousness certainly give pause for thought. According to Benjamin Libet at the University of California, San Francisco, the process within the brain which leads a subject to carry out a simple act occurs 0.3 seconds before the mind is conscious of it. In other words, we observe what our brain has already decided to do rather than consciously deciding upon a course of action. The far reaching implication is that ‘free will’ is simply an illusion, a trick our brain plays on us. As the Economist puts it, although Libet’s work is ‘almost laughably simple, it pokes a stick in a very deep pond’ (Economist 2006).
Unsurprisingly, the nature of these claims has given some commentators pause for thought. There is now a growing literature revisiting the question at the heart of neuroscience: does brain equal mind? In a survey of current thinking published in Scientific American Mind in 2005, David Dobbs picks up on the penchant for researchers to throw FMRI scans around, claiming everything from unlocking why consumers buy Coca-Cola even though they prefer the taste of Pepsi to providing legislators with the ultimate lie detector. Dobbs manages to present a much vaguer picture of the success of brain imaging techniques. As one FMRI researcher put it, ‘Hemodynamic response is a sloppy thing’. Despite the claims made for FMRI it can only resolve areas of the brain containing thousands or even millions of neurons and at a time scale around one thousand times slower than that at which neurons fire. Even the most exciting studies have only been based on samples of 20 or so subjects and in circumstances in which the slightest movement of the individual being scanned can invalidate the procedure. Even an enthusiast would have to admit this is an immature science at best.
As mentioned previously, the gusto in which brain scans are being utilized to dispose of longstanding moral and legal traditions such as free well is astonishing. In science, the rhetoric is the touchstone of what separates scientific fact from wild interpretation. All science is based upon models and all models are based on assumptions. That's not to say that we can't say anything with certitude - one should hardly doubt the existence of gravity or cancer - but the hallmark feature of proper scientific inquiry is conservative interpretation of the data and an openness to competing theories. When scientists call those who proffer alternative theories, deniers, we can be assured that we've left the world of science and transversed into the world of polemics. Likewise, we should be skeptical about accepting the notion that neuroscience has disposed of an entrenched concept like free will based on just a few decades of this fascinating, but novel technique.
Leave a comment