Tom Wolfe Free Will Analysis

The idea of free will as an illusion has become a hot topic in neuroscience, still even nearly twenty years after this article was penned, due to the controversy it attracts regarding morals and self-determination. Tom Wolfe argues, in a rather snarky tone consistently seen throughout the article, that the concept of a self is dead—much like Nietzsche’s preceding declaration that God is dead. However, the concept of self is not yet dead in neuroscience like Wolfe predicted. Rather, more recent research suggests that free will stemming from a self—as well as its opposing partner concept, free won’t—not only exists, but impacts our daily decisions. In 2009, Banks and Isham tested the relationship between the readiness potential and a self-awareness …show more content…
I can only imagine the caustic skepticism that enveloped him when he discovered the concept, views that almost certainly became even more scathing with its increased popularity. His views were most probably closely aligned with the contradictory findings by the program’s critics in various studies, which all concluded that these programs have absolutely no effect on memory, a decreased risk of developing dementia, or cognitive functions. He probably had a field day when it was discovered that the clinical trials cited on Lumosity’s website that demonstrated positive results from the program were found to have used an extremely small sample size—a major faux pas in scientifically sound research. Additionally, he would have taken issue with the methodology sections’ unclear explanation of how control groups were handled in the clinical trials. I can only imagine that the idea of a digital program possessing the ability to “retrain” your brain was simply laughable to …show more content…
To deny free will outright and place all of the blame on genetics is irrational as it would completely ignore the significant findings of epigenetics. Contrastingly, to deny the effect our genes have on our actions is to be willfully ignorant of scientific data. Thus, I feel that both play an equally important role in the way that humans behave. However, I do lean more in the direction that humans have free will. If I wanted to prove to a skeptical neuroscientist that we have free will, I would first eradicate the idea that proving the existence of free will means denying the effect genetics has on our actions. Free will is not some kind of singular force that is the sole cause of our actions, rather, it is just another kind of cause. Once this was established, I would present the findings of two studies positively regarding free will. The first comes from researchers at Georgia State University whose findings suggested that people feel that just because their brains "made [them] do it," it doesn 't mean that they didn 't do it of their own free will. The second was a joint project between Florida State University and the University of Kentucky where it was discovered that a lack of belief in free will resulted in a decrease in prosocial behaviors, suggesting that a belief in free will makes you a better person. Finally, I would point out that