Dennett, The Nefarious Neurosurgeon
Daniel Dennett subscribes to the belief that free will and determinism can coexist. In this compatibilist view, agents are morally responsible for their actions; thieves are accountable for their crime if they were not coerced and even if their crime was a direct consequence of their genetic makeup, upbringing, socioeconomic status, or other factors outside of their control. After all, Dennett argues, if the thief isn’t responsible for his crime, then who
is?
In the video Stop Telling People They Don’t Have Free Will, Dennett accuses neuroscientists like Harris of misinforming the public and doing real harm. Dennett explores whether people are better off believing in free will, for the sake of society and their own peace of mind,
regardless of the accuracy of that belief, by engaging in a thought experiment titled The Nefarious Neurosurgeon. It is designed to irritate neuroscientists like Sam Harris, who
tell people they have no free will.
This nefarious neurosurgeon implants a microchip in the brain of a patient to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). When the patient wakes up, the surgeon tells him: “We have your OCD under control. From now on, you will be monitored day and night, and we control everything you do. You will think you have free will. You will think you are making your own decisions, but really you won’t. Free will is an illusion that we will maintain while controlling you.” The patient now accepts that he no longer has free will. He becomes self-indulgent, aggressive, and negligent and starts committing crimes. He is arrested and brought to trial and pleads innocent, explaining how the surgeon took away his free will. The evil surgeon then declares before the court that it was all just a joke – she wasn't really controlling the patient.
Dennett seems to think that neuroscientists who say that we don't have free will are like this evil surgeon. To explain why the patient suddenly turns to bad behaviour and crime when he thinks he has no free will, Dennett uses an experiment by Vohs and Schooler, in which
subjects who were given written statements claiming that humans “are biological computers; designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment” were more likely to cheat in a game with monetary rewards. In that same paper, however, the authors caution: “Although the study reported here raises concerns about the possible impact of deterministic views on moral behaviour, it is important not to overinterpret our findings. Our experiments measured only modest forms of ethical behaviour, and whether or not free-will beliefs have the same effect on more significant moral and ethical infractions is unknown.” Hence, it seems that Dennett is willing to do the very thing he warns neuroscientists not to do: overgeneralise the results of scientific research.
Moreover, the argument of people suddenly turning to crime is also often used of people who have lost their faith by Christians, a group that Dennett openly despises and criticizes for what he sees as their unfounded beliefs and insane reasoning. In The Nefarious Neuroscientist, the neuroscientist lies to her patient. Neuroscientists are not lying when they claim humans do not have free will, nor are they trying to deceive the public. Should free-will scepticism have negative consequences, the position that neuroscientists should refrain from voicing their anti-freewill beliefs is one Dennett himself is unwilling to take on other issues, for example, when it comes to the existence of God. In an interview with The Philosophers’ Magazine, Dennett defends his fellow “horsemen” against the charge that they are rude and intemperate: “There is no polite way of asking somebody: have you considered the possibility
that your entire life has been devoted to a delusion? But that is a good question to ask. Of course, we should ask that question, and of course, it is going to offend people.
Tough.”
Dennett is willing to tell us what he believes is the truth, even if that truth is painful to hear, when it comes to beliefs about God, but he is not prepared to do so when it concerns our belief in free will. This is a weakness in his reasoning.
Image: Big Think
Σχόλια