Feedback archive → Feedback 2018
Does your brain make your decisions before you do?
Published: 20 January 2018 (GMT+10)

In recent months, we have received several inquiries about neuroscience research that supposedly undermines the concept of free will. The experiments in question involved brain scans that could predict people’s conscious choices before they were aware of choosing. Based on these studies, some have claimed that the brain does the choosing for us, and what we perceive as our free decisions are really just part of some deterministic chain of events initiated by merely physical causes. Today’s feedback addresses this issue.
Caleb L., from the U.S., wrote:
What are CMI’s stances on the research that Benjamin Libet and John Haynes have conducted? Such as this: [Link deleted per feedback rules.] Obviously we must believe in free will because we are Christians. The implications of their research kind of scares me but I am sure you guys have an explanation. Personally the thing that makes me question it, is that the experiments were done in a controlled environment and the people that were experimented on knew they had to make a decision, paving the way for your subconscious mind to take over. What is CMI’s thoughts on these experiments that were done? The implications of the research would conflict with Adam and Eve’s free choice and thus creation unless the research is debunked.
Keaton Halley of CMI–US responds:
Hi Caleb,
Thanks for the opportunity to address this, because others have raised the concern as well. Plus, you can find articles on this all over the internet and in atheist blogs.
I do think it is important to affirm that people were created by God as agents who make real choices and have genuine goals. We are not passive cogs in a machine whose decisions are determined by physical processes alone. The Bible indicates that we are body-soul composites, and our souls have an influence on the physical world (see Does the soul violate physics?). Also, rationality and moral accountability seem to require the commonsense notion of free will at some level.
But there’s really nothing to fear from these experiments. You suggested we might need to ‘debunk’ them, but I will argue that there is no need to challenge the research per se, only the interpretations placed on it.
First, here is an overview of the studies. Several experiments, conducted by Libet, Haynes, and others, monitored the brain activity of volunteers while they performed a simple decision-making task. The task involved carefully noting the precise time they believed they made a decision to push a button, and then pushing the button. The researchers found that they could correctly predict the decisions and actions by observing the brain activity that occurred beforehand. According to the more recent studies, the predictions were made based on brain activity that occurred as much as 7–10 seconds prior to the self-reported decision. So the sequence of events was:
A. Brain activity that could predict the result
B. Time gap of 7–10 seconds
C. Reported Decision
D. Time gap of less than 1 second
E. Button press
News reports based on this research contained claims like: “You may think you decided to read this story – but in fact, your brain made the decision long before you knew about it.”1 And, in the link you provided, Haynes himself is quoted as saying, “there’s not much space for free will to operate.”2
But such conclusions do not follow from the evidence. Here are seven reasons why these experimental results do not undermine human freedom.
It is possible that there is a lag time between making a decision and becoming aware of it.
The reported decision in step C indicates an awareness of a decision, but awareness is not the same as the decision itself. The events of deciding and becoming aware may well be separated in time. This means that a decision could have been made at some point prior to step C, so some of the brain activity could be downstream from this decision. That is not to say that I think the lag time between a true determination to act and one’s awareness is likely to be 7 or more seconds. For other reasons I’ll touch on, it could be significantly less.
Making a decision may not take place in an instant, but involve a process.
It could certainly be the case that people deliberate or even subconsciously move toward a decision before the point where they eventually act on it. Philosophers distinguish between desiring to act, deciding to act, and exercising active power.3 These steps may take time, which suggests that the brain activity could correlate with the earlier parts of the process. Early brain activity might indeed strongly indicate what we will do, even if the ‘point of no return’ in the decision-making process has not necessarily been reached.
Brain activity is not the same as brain causation.
The headline of the article you referenced begins, “Brain makes decisions … ”. But why think the physical brain is in charge? That conclusion is not due to the experimental results alone, but due to the (naturalistic) assumption that only physical things have causal power, so that all our decisions ultimately must be traced back to some physical cause.
But the Bible indicates that humans have an immaterial component that interacts with the physical world. If the immaterial minds of the volunteers used their brains to control their fingers to push buttons, then it’s not true that the brain initiated some deterministic chain of events. The people freely did it.
The predictive success based on brain scans was not 100%.
The researchers admitted that the predictions didn’t always come true. Some studies said they only did so around 60% of the time, and even the studies with the highest accuracy only claimed they were 80–90% accurate. This definitively proves that a final, irreversible ‘decision’ was not really yet made in step A. It may be that a preliminary decision was made then, but the mind was still deliberating or retained power to change that decision, which undermines the deterministic conclusion.
In a 2007 study by Brass and Haggard, it was found that even after a self-reported ‘decision’, people still had the power to change their minds before they performed the act.4
This shows that even the self-reported ‘decision’ (step C) wasn’t the true, final decision at all. Some have humorously called the power to veto one’s own intention ‘free won’t’. So, even if all the supposed decision-making up to this point had been deterministic, the power of free won’t during step D leaves room for an agent’s will, and thus determinism has not been demonstrated. Brass and Haggard identified certain brain activity that is associated with the veto process but, again, brain activity does not equal brain causation.
Lack of freedom in one area wouldn’t prove a total lack of freedom.
Even if these experiments did prove that physical causes alone were responsible for the outcomes, the setting is somewhat artificial and limited, as you mentioned. In more complex, real-life decisions, we could have freedom even if in these experimental circumstances we do not. Atheists like Daniel Dennett have made this very point.5
The argument against free will is self-refuting.
For those who deny free will, how did they come to that conclusion? Through mental deliberation about the implications of these experiments? Well, if there is no free will, then all their mental deliberations were really a consequence of non-rational physical processes. Without freedom, they did not reason; they just reacted—the same way their atoms always would under these conditions. But if non-rational forces alone are responsible for all our thoughts, this would undercut the basis for trusting our own conclusions. Thus, we cannot argue against free will without presupposing it. For more, see the Related Articles section below.
I hope that helps. Thanks for getting in touch.
Related Articles
Further Reading
References and notes
- Keim, B., Brain scanners can see your decisions before you make them, 13 April 2008, wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision. Return to text.
- Smith, K., Brain makes decisions before you even know it, Nature news online, 11 April 2008, nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html. Return to text.
- Moreland, J.P. and Craign, W.L., Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd edition, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2017, p. 313. Return to text.
- Brass, M., and Haggard, P., To Do or Not to Do: The neural signature of self-control, Journal of Neuroscience 27(34):9141–9145, 22 August 2007, jneurosci.org/content/27/34/9141. Return to text.
- Hendricks, S., Free Will or Free Won’t? Neuroscience on the choices we can (and can’t) make, bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/free-will-or-free-wont-what-neuroscience-says-about-the-choices-we-can-and-cant-make. Return to text.
Readers’ comments
How so? One does not need free will to arrive at a conclusion. We are each an open system where we can hear/read/see to acquire new information, and process that information rationally, then arrive at a conclusion based upon it. Our knowledge, past history, and even mood can affect how a conclusion is made, thus two people listening to the same message may arrive at different conclusions without free will.
Which aspect requires free will, and which scientists have argued that they have it, especially in the context of this topic?
Even as I write this, I believe I'm just reacting in a cause-and-effect manner. I saw the e-mail in my inbox, saw that the topic was interesting, read the article, felt compelled to respond, and started typing, all in a rather linear fashion.
I think one problem with your view is that it eliminates the distinction between compulsive and non-compulsive actions. For real reasoning to take place (as opposed to operating in accordance with reason as computers can do), you must be an agent who weighs the options and makes a decision based on teleological reasons / final causes, not efficient causes. Otherwise, you are a passive theater through which causal chains automatically and deterministically produce outcomes.
If the series of efficient causes running through you caused you to conclude that free will does not exist, you could not have come to any other conclusion. You didn't truly deliberate by weighing options and then choosing one based on your goals (e.g., to accept the truth) as a free agent. Rather, you arrived at the outcome that was specified in advance by all the prior conditions. You wouldn't 'own' the conclusion because you didn't contribute any active power to reaching it. And I don't see why you'd be really responsible for it, since events before you and beyond your control specified the outcome. Yet, we regularly treat people as though they 'ought' to believe this or that.
The 7-10 seconds lag time between a decision and the outcome is a function of brain speed versus physical reaction speed. The brain functions at the speed of electronic impulse, the speed of light, while the body reacts much much slower.
Years ago, the military sent me to school to learn to take Morse code, using a typewriter. At first we all tried to "keep up" with the taped code. That was possible for a while because the code was so slow. However, as the speed increased, we began to panic. It soon became impossible to type the letters as fast as they came over the tape. Some students failed out at that point. For most of us, however, the breakthrough came when we learned to relax and let our brain and body each work at their own speed. As each character came across the tape, we learned to let our mind move our fingers, and not try to force it. This became more and more obvious as the code speeds increased. The instructor would start the tape, but no one would start typing for several seconds. After the tape ended we all kept typing for several seconds until all of the letters "stored" in memory were typed out. In this sense, of course our brain "made the decision" before our fingers reacted, but only because of the extreme differences in operating speeds. Even so, sometimes our fingers typed the wrong letter, or missed a letter, because we are not machines.
We all go through the same process when learning to drive. At first everything is very confusing, but as we relax it all comes together, becomes habitual. At any time, though, we can consciously take back control, albeit at a slower speed.
Praise the Lord for our miraculous creation.
Dr Caroline Leaf, a neuroscientist who is a practicing Christian, mentions in her book 'Switch on your Brain' that both, toxic and healthy thoughts are found in our subconsciousness. They sometimes do indeed make us react in certain predictable ways after they have been consolidated over a period of about 63 days.
However, for that to happen we have to decide first to think in certain ways, over a prolonged period of time, either good or bad. It is our choice. 'As a man thinks in his heart so he is.' (Proverbs 23:7)
As Christians we are asked in Romans 12:2 to be transformed (passive) by renewing (active) our minds with God's thoughts.
Dr Leaf describes a 21 day brain detox tool in that book mentioned above. I have been testing it out myself over the last 63 days and can highly recommend it to renew our minds. Science once again confirms what the Bible has been describing ages ago. Praise the Lord for his wonderful word!
A brain contains the "soul" within itself, the "soul" is the programming that is present as chemical memory within the neurons. Even for a computer, the memory and program are indeed physically present in the form of Energy such as magnetism or just stored electric charge. In a brain, it is stored in the form of chemicals within the neurons. The "soul" is divided amongst all the neurons.
The "soul" is a compilation of all the variables stored within the neurons in the form of chemicals that affect the way these work. Every neuron contains a part of the "soul" by containing this self-adjusting biases that change the way individual neurons behave effectively changing the way the brain works on higher perspective.
However, this does not discard intelligent design. Intelligent design is not necessary as neurons are completely modular just like cells, and they're made of cells which by themselves are modular. You only need a working cell to get a working neuron and thus a working brain. Natural selection can easily create this; we have observed how very simple but fully-working viruses are composed of only a couple of molecules and bacterias being more complex, are perfectly possible under natural selection and mutation (evolution).
Also, we are conscious of sensations, which have a felt "what-it-is-like" quality that philosophers call a quale (pl., qualia). Physical objects like computers and brains may detect things, but they don’t experience these feelings, while we do through our consciousness.
We can also think “of" or “about” things. Philosophers call this of-ness or about-ness “intentionality”. But physical objects, states, and events don’t have intentionality—they aren’t about anything else unless we assign symbolic meaning to them.
These kinds of examples show that something non-physical (i.e., the soul) is what accounts for our consciousness, not the brain by itself.
There is no question on mans will but please define what you mean by "free".
1. It is possible that there is a lag time between making a decision and becoming aware of it.
4. The predictive success based on brain scans was not 100%.
This does appear to be the case, and some of my experience seems to indicate the brain does branch prediction, a feature of human-made microprocessors, and that it doesn't always get it right. I've had some instances of making a decision, taking an action that is inconsistent with it, becoming aware of the decision and the insconsistent action at almost the same instance, which I perceive as, and call, a "brain fart". Their occurrence is often a sign that I haven't gotten enough sleep. It usually happens when I'm operating vehicles (or more often, vehicle simulators, as I studiously avoid operating real vehicles while prone to brain farts) when my reflexes can get ahead of my cognition.
5. In a 2007 study by Brass and Haggard, it was found that even after a self-reported ‘decision’, people still had the power to change their minds before they performed the act.
This has saved me from a few accidents, and usually the next act of free will after this act of free won't is to pull over and have a nap.
6 ...we could have freedom even if in these experimental circumstances we do not.
I, and probably most gamers, usually take greater risks in simulations than we do in real life.
7. ...Thus, we cannot argue against free will without presupposing it.
That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
Keep up the great work, guys!
When lab scientists say that their experiments suggest that the brain has a course of action to follow well before we know what it is, we must be ready to accept the science as we do with the pool table.
Yes, the bible speaks of God, His sovereignty, His Spirit indwelling us, and of us as having body, soul and spirit, but we can't just throw out the science like a baby throwing toys out of the pram
(PS - 'soul' is there used to mean cognitive mind and emotions)
I don't throw out evolution because it doesn't talk of God, just as I don't throw out aircraft wing design. I DO throw out evolution because (i) there is nothing to test in it; and it is clearly against the bible (ii) by allowing pain and death in before Adam, and (iii) by going against the Hebrew meaning of 'yom'.
We must not throw out science because we do not like it or we will be like those who threw out Copernicus' heliocentricity. We throw out science (as being wrong) when it goes against the bible
People seem to think that denying free will brings the whole Christian edifice down. That is because they wrongly think we can only be held accountable by God if we had the freedom to do otherwise. Romans 9 suggests otherwise. God can dismiss us simply because, like the clay pot, we are not fit for purpose.
The word 'responsible' is wholly misleading. It suggests we are 'able' to choose our 'response'. Not so - the protestant doctrine of man dead in his trespasses shows we are 'accountable' or 'culpable' even while dead. Both those words are much better word than that mischievous word 'responsible'
As William B Provine., Professor of Biological Sciences at Cornell University astutely points out in his 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address entitled, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
These words by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ring true, “Man has set for himself the goal of conquering the world but in the processes loses his soul. That which is called humanism, but what would be more correctly called irreligious anthropocentrism, cannot yield answers to the most essential questions of our life. We have arrived at an intellectual chaos.”
I guess we could call this "making a decision to decide" which would be a decision made possibly years before other decisions but had already determined which way we would make future decisions.
As example we have Joshua's famous admonishment to "Choose you this day who you will serve"
We see Daniel making this decision to decide in Daniel 1:8 "But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s delicacies, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the chief of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself."
And a plea of the Psalmist to God to change our own hearts so that they would be choosing rightly "Incline my heart to Your testimonies, And not to covetousness." Psalm 119:36
Hopefully we as Christians are being diligent in having our own minds renewed and our own desires put to death being replaced by God's desires so that as we make decisions in life it they would be God honoring decisions and as we continue the battle between flesh and spirit our decisions will be influenced only by the Spirit, not the flesh, and the decision making time would become much shorter to the point that even a materialist will know in advance what choice a Christian will make before he makes it.
Your Brother in Christ,
Michael
This topic is a mixture of laboratory science and philosophy. CMI rightly distinguishes between laboratory science and creation science but knowledge in the latter does not bring sufficient knowledge of the former
A further reason is that all seven of the arguments especially the seventh, are misconceived - weak or wrong
We should start with scripture not with science or even with our own view of the world. The bible addresses us as if we can make free choices, but does not say that we can. The bible does however make it 100% clear that God is sovereign over all things, every electron, every synapse that ever fires.
No, this does not make us robots. Robots do not know they are robots.
Think about it, surely that all makes sense, but will, no doubt be 'rubbished'.
what scares ME is that some people actually believe this sort of nonsense to be true! it's like the world is becoming insaner and insaner.
keep up the good work.
To be consistent within the atheists’ paradigm, the resulting ‘predictable certainty’ from materialism, would also constrain the thought processes (also predictable certainty with no regard for truth) of those conducting the science experiments, thus making the conclusions untrustworthy, a ‘Catch 22’. Christian scientists don’t have this problem. This may be one reason why science historians believe modern science expanded rapidly under a Christian world view while stagnating in ancient China & Greece.
Regarding the research mentioned, scientific methodology requires that scientists not be constrained by atomic determinism, e.g. sophisticated, though ultimately forced chemical reactions governing their ‘thoughts’. True free rational thinking and logic are absolute necessities if we are to trust our conclusions.
The ‘law of causation’ within the scientific method [and] the freedom from the ‘law of causation’ in our rational thoughts, is the greater paradox. Any Atheists using rational thoughts must accept that the ‘law of causation’ but must also apply this to all parts of the universe where science can be applied, except the thinking within the human mind. But this would be conveniently inconsistent.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.