Another problem that’s keeping philosophers all antsy is whether recent neuroscience is showing that we don’t, in fact, have any free will: that it is an illusion. That when we think we’ve made an autonomous ‘free’ decision about something, that that is an illusion and that the decision was already made a surprisingly long time before we become aware of what that decision is. But is the fact that a large part of the unconscious brain activity that leads up to a conscious decision important in determining how we should treat and be treated as autonomous moral agents? Does it let you ‘off the hook’ if decisions are being taken in your brain before the ‘you’ part of ‘you’ that thinks it is the conscious, the ‘in control’ part of ‘you’ becomes aware of them? I don’t think it does because I think you can side-step that argument by saying that it doesn’t make any difference because, in most cases, in most of us, action follows deliberation, reflection, consideration and often planning and virtual rehersal in the brain before anything is acted out in the real world. So, you could only get ‘off the hook’ of being responsible for your actions if it could be shown that that conscious deliberation had no effect on your actions and I doubt it could be. I doubt it could be shown that my conscious deliberation and thinking about planting leeks and pumpkin seeds and cucumbers didn’t have anything to do with the fact that I did plant leek and pumpkin seeds and cucumbers today.
Anyway…here’s a video by Dr Haggard demonstrating what Libet found when he wired up a brain to investigate decision making.
Or....you could take the survey. I'm not telling wot I got coz I'm a cabbage :-(