Professor Patrick Haggard argues it does. He subjected himself to "transcranial magnetic stimulation," where magnetic coils affect one's brain and control minor movements in the body:
The idea that our bodies can be controlled by an outside force is a pretty astonishing one. "This is absolutely out of my control," insists Prof Haggard, as his muscles continue to move. "I'm not doing it, Christina is. I'm just a machine, and she is operating me."
Eddy Nahmias wants a different definition of free will:
If we put aside the misleading idea that free will depends on supernatural souls rather than our quite miraculous brains, and if we put aside the mistaken idea that our conscious thinking matters most in the milliseconds before movement, then neuroscience does not kill free will. Rather, it can help to explain our capacities to control our actions in such a way that we are responsible for them. It can help us rediscover free will.
Michael Gazzaniga wonders how scientific advances will change our understanding of free will:
At some point we might be able to recognize psychopathology as a problem just as we recognize Parkinson’s as a problem, or Alzheimer’s as a problem. I can imagine in the future there’s going to be biomedical research to recognize criminal mind states to see if they can be remedied. Maybe then people would be happier with utilitarian policies because they will think, “Fine, we can fix these brains.” Meanwhile the attitude of the culture will have to allow treatments to come along. There are lots of things that need to change to make it work.
Gazzaniga elaborates on his ideas in an interview with Scientific American. Awhile back, Sam Harris deconstructed a different definition of free will while Gary Gutting complicated the concept.
(Image by Suzy Lelièvre)
The Dish 