Passive Frame Theory: "Free will. . . does not exist."
"Free will. . . does not exist."
Why do people do they things they do?
Is it all rational thought? Or do our thoughts, attitudes and actions come from "below", from beneath our aware self, does instinct and subconscious thought control our attitudes and actions that is only interpreted and expressed by our conscious mind?
According to a new theory being introduced by San Francisco State University Associate Professor of Psychology Ezequiel Morsella, "the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider, "guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system."
Doctor Morsella's theory points out an important question for any writer of fiction. Are we truly in control of our actions? Or, like The Godfather's Michael Corleone, is our behavior programmed into our genes and memories in such a way that we have little or no conscious control over the way we act or react?
How many characters in life and fiction do something they know is wrong, that they understand is going to cause them nothing but grief and trouble, yet do it anyway despite their logical, rational thought processes?
The idea in Doctor Morsella's theory fascinates me. How much of our behavior is basically on auto-pilot, beyond the control of our thinking, aware self? I can't answer that. I find myself doing things without thinking about it, despite my best intentions and plans.
Homo sapiens sapiens may not be the thinking man we assume we are. Of course, there is thought. But how much do we really control?
A thought that should be explored in your characters and stories.
As always, there is a link to the full study in the attribution of the story.
* * * * *
Consciousness has less control
than believed, according to new theory
Consciousness -- the internal dialogue that seems to govern one's thoughts and actions -- is far less powerful than people believe, serving as a passive conduit rather than an active force that exerts control, according to a new theory proposed by a researcher.
Associate Professor of Psychology Ezequiel Morsella's "Passive Frame Theory" suggests that the conscious mind is like an interpreter helping speakers of different languages communicate.
"The interpreter presents the information but is not the one making any arguments or acting upon the knowledge that is shared," Morsella said. "Similarly, the information we perceive in our consciousness is not created by conscious processes, nor is it reacted to by conscious processes. Consciousness is the middle-man, and it doesn't do as much work as you think."
Morsella and his coauthors' groundbreaking theory contradicts intuitive beliefs about human consciousness and the notion of self.
|Developing Characters: |
A Teach Yourself
in Creative Writing
by Irving Weinman
Click to order
"We have long thought consciousness solved problems and had many moving parts, but it's much more basic and static," Morsella said. "This theory is very counterintuitive. It goes against our everyday way of thinking."
According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system.
Compare consciousness to the Internet, Morsella suggested. The Internet can be used to buy books, reserve a hotel room and complete thousands of other tasks. Taken at face value, it would seem incredibly powerful. But, in actuality, a person in front of a laptop or clicking away on a smartphone is running the show -- the Internet is just being made to perform the same basic process, without any free will of its own.
The Passive Frame Theory also defies the intuitive belief that one conscious thought leads to another. "One thought doesn't know about the other, they just often have access to and are acting upon the same, unconscious information," Morsella said. "You have one thought and then another, and you think that one thought leads to the next, but this doesn't seem to be the way the process actually works."
The theory, which took Morsella and his team more than 10 years to develop, can be difficult to accept at first, he said.
"The number one reason it's taken so long to reach this conclusion is because people confuse what consciousness is for with what they think they use it for," Morsella said. "Also, most approaches to consciousness focus on perception rather than action."
The theory has major implications for the study of mental disorders, Morsella said. "Why do you have an urge or thought that you shouldn't be having? Because, in a sense, the consciousness system doesn't know that you shouldn't be thinking about something," Morsella said. "An urge generator doesn't know that an urge is irrelevant to other thoughts or ongoing action."
The study of consciousness is complicated, Morsella added, because of the inherent difficulty of applying the conscious mind to study itself.
"For the vast majority of human history, we were hunting and gathering and had more pressing concerns that required rapidly executed voluntary actions," Morsella said. "Consciousness seems to have evolved for these types of actions rather than to understand itself."
- Are We Hard-wired to Believe in Immortality? Science Suggests Yes
- Are we hard-wired to take risks?
- Brain Activity Can Predict if You Might Commit a Crime
- The Brain Function Abnormalities of Gambling Addicts
- Brain structure predicts risky behavior
- People Predisposed to Hate or Love
- Strict Societies = Violent Drinking Cultures
- The Small But Important Difference Between Apes and Humans
- Sudden Wealth makes People Conservative and Less Egalitarian
- Touch May Alleviate Fear for People with Low Self-Esteem
- Weighed Down by Guilt: Research Shows It's More Than a Metaphor
- Will a Child Grow Out of It? or Not?
- Yes, People Can Learn Compassion