New neuroimaging studies dismantle decades-old determinism dogma

Sabine Hossenfelder

Neuroscience experiments that supposedly proved free will is an illusion failed because they misinterpreted neural latency as a covert decision.

AI-assisted summary of Neuroscience’s Case Against Free Will Is Falling Apart — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-09-10

Key ideas

Three new scientific papers challenge the longstanding neuroscientific consensus that free will is merely an illusion stemming from Benjamin Libet's 1983 findings. (0:00)
A London study monitoring participants typing categorized words demonstrated that predictive brain signals are distinctly stronger when subjects consciously decide on their word, refuting claims that conscious intention is just retrospective confabulation. (0:45)
Cognitive neuroscientist Thomas James proposed a continuous model of decision-making, arguing that early neural signals simply represent latency in an unfolding physical process rather than an unconscious choice made in advance. (2:11)
An Australian psychological study revealed that priming individuals to doubt free will increases self-forgiveness and forgiveness of others, contrasting with past research linking disbelief in free will primarily to immoral behavior. (3:54)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by Sabine Hossenfelder on September 10, 2026, this video examines how recent scientific literature challenges long-standing neuroscience arguments against free will. Drawing on three new papers, Hossenfelder revisits Benjamin Libet's landmark 1983 experiment to explain why the original measurements held up, but their philosophical conclusions did not.

## TL;DR For decades, Benjamin Libet's 1983 discovery of predictive brain signals before conscious movement fueled the claim that free will is merely an illusion. New research challenges this interpretation, showing that conscious awareness correlates with stronger preparatory signals rather than retrospective confabulation, and that decisions represent continuous physiological processes with ordinary latency rather than instantaneous trigger events. Additionally, psychological claims linking a disbelief in free will to immoral conduct fall short by confusing determinism with accountability. Ultimately, Sabine highlights that neuroscience still lacks a solid operational definition of a conscious choice, an issue that emerging neuroimaging and artificial intelligence will soon force researchers to resolve.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation carries Sabine's signature blend of deadpan humor, sharp skepticism, and pragmatic clarity as she deflates forty years of philosophical panic down to simple biological latency. Using humorous, grounded scenarios—such as accidental internet misclicks and stolen office donuts—she moves briskly through academic paradigms without getting bogged down in jargon. The viewing experience feels breezily debunking and intellectually refreshing, pairing rigorous critique with casual wit and an informal 'bullshit meter' rating.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=0s) Three new scientific papers challenge the longstanding neuroscientific consensus that free will is merely an illusion stemming from Benjamin Libet's 1983 findings. - [00:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=45s) A London study monitoring participants typing categorized words demonstrated that predictive brain signals are distinctly stronger when subjects consciously decide on their word, refuting claims that conscious intention is just retrospective confabulation. - [02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=131s) Cognitive neuroscientist Thomas James proposed a continuous model of decision-making, arguing that early neural signals simply represent latency in an unfolding physical process rather than an unconscious choice made in advance. - [03:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=234s) An Australian psychological study revealed that priming individuals to doubt free will increases self-forgiveness and forgiveness of others, contrasting with past research linking disbelief in free will primarily to immoral behavior.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=0s) The traditional scientific claim that free will is an illusion is anchored in Benjamin Libet's 1983 experiment showing brain activity predicting movement before conscious awareness. - [00:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=31s) Libet's experimental methodology had a critical flaw in relying on participants subjectively reporting the precise microsecond of their conscious intent. - [00:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=45s) A new London study using word typing and random interruptions found that conscious intention correlates with significantly stronger predictive neural signals. - [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=105s) Evidence indicates conscious intent is not an after-the-fact fabrication invented by the brain to take credit for an automatic reflex. - [02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=131s) The traditional linear sequence of perception, decision, and action misrepresents how the brain actually functions. - [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=147s) Decisions are dynamic, continuous processes across sensory and motor networks rather than isolated, instantaneous moments. - [02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=164s) The pre-conscious signals in Libet-style paradigms merely reflect the biological latency and physical maturation required to produce an action and conscious choice. - [03:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=204s) Past psychological claims that doubting free will inherently promotes immoral behavior are being challenged by studies showing it can foster emotional forgiveness. - [04:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=242s) Experimental psychology studies frequently conflate physical determinism with the absence of personal accountability. - [04:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=260s) Accountability is pragmatically justified whenever external interventions or consequences can realistically alter a brain's behavioral outputs. - [05:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=302s) Cognitive neuroscience continues to suffer from a lack of a rigorous, agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a conscious decision. - [05:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=325s) Advancements in brain imaging and artificial intelligence over the coming decade will force science to more strictly define thought, choice, and awareness.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=0s) Rethinking Benjamin Libet and Conscious Decisions

For decades, the standard scientific narrative has held that human free will is merely an illusion. This view traces back to a landmark 1983 experiment conducted by neurologist Benjamin Libet, which demonstrated that brain activity predicts a person's physical movement—such as moving a finger—before they consciously realize they have decided to move. While this finding was independently replicated many times, offering humorous solace to anyone whose finger has committed a regrettable misclick on the internet, new research calls its foundational interpretation into question. The critical flaw in Libet’s original setup is its subjective reliance on participants introspectively pinpointing the exact microsecond they became consciously aware of an intent, which Sabine dryly notes is hardly neuroscience's finest measuring instrument.

A recent study from a research team in London redesigned this experimental framework to test intention more reliably. They tasked 51 participants with typing random words from set categories (such as animal names) while monitoring their brain activity. During brief pauses between words, researchers randomly interrupted participants to ask whether they had already settled on their next word. The physiological data revealed that when participants reported having already made up their minds, the predictive brain signals associated with the upcoming action were distinctly stronger. This demonstrates that conscious awareness is not an after-the-fact fabrication invented by the brain to take credit for an unconscious reflex. As the researchers noted, "These results are difficult to reconcile with the view that experiences of conscious intention are merely a retrospective confabulation."

[02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=131s) Decision as a Continuous Process Rather Than a Sudden Moment

A second paper by cognitive neuroscientist Thomas James challenges the conceptual foundation underlying traditional interpretations of decision-making. Conventional neuroscience models decision-making as a strict three-stage linear pipeline: perception, followed by a decision, followed by an action. James argues that this framework mischaracterizes brain function. In reality, there is no isolated, instantaneous "moment" where a choice is magically stamped into existence. Instead, what we label a decision is an unfolding, dynamic continuum where sensory inputs and motor processes mature into an action—or do not.

Under James's framework, the pre-conscious neural signals observed in Libet-style paradigms do not represent a covert, unconscious decision being made ahead of time. Rather, they simply reflect the earliest phases of a physical process that produces both the eventual motor action and the conscious experience of choosing. In short, experiments once believed to have slain free will merely showed that biological decisions take a non-zero amount of time. As Sabine sums up, after forty years of widespread philosophical panic, the grand revelation turns out to be nothing more than basic latency.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Traditional Linear Model vs Thomas James Continuous Model accDescr: A comparison between the traditional sequence of decision-making and Thomas James's continuous model showing sensory and motor integration over time.

subgraph Trad["Traditional Sequence"] T1["Perception"] --> T2["Sudden Decision Moment"] T2 --> T3["Action"] end

subgraph James["Thomas James Continuous Model"] J1["Sensory Input & Motor Processes"] -->|"Continuous Evolution (Latency)"| J2["Action Realized"] J1 -.->|"Simultaneous Experience"| J3["Conscious Intention"] end ```

[03:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=194s) Moral Responsibility and the Flaws of Free Will Studies

The ongoing debate over free will extends deeply into sociology and psychology, where belief in free will is often defended as a necessary social fiction. A longstanding claim in experimental psychology asserts that people primed to doubt free will become more prone to immoral behavior, such as cheating. These experiments typically expose participants to texts claiming human actions are deterministic products of neural inputs, after which subjects are asked whether individuals are truly blameworthy for their misconduct. Unsurprisingly, subjects temporarily respond that people are not to blame, leading researchers to conclude that disbelieving in free will promotes immorality.

However, a third study conducted by an Australian team turned this paradigm around by focusing on emotional resolution. Instead of testing for moral infractions, they asked participants to recall an instance where they had hurt someone or where someone had hurt them. After reading texts stating that free will is an illusion, participants reported greater self-forgiveness as well as higher levels of forgiveness toward others.

Sabine criticizes these psychological studies as largely bogus because they conflate determinism with an absence of personal responsibility. Regardless of whether brain activity is strictly deterministic, an action remains the direct output of that individual's brain. Accountability, she argues, is purely a pragmatic question of what interventions can alter outcomes:

- **The Involuntary Action (Bob Sneezes):** Warning Bob not to sneeze will not prevent a biological sneeze; therefore, holding him accountable makes no sense. - **The Intentional Action (Bob Eats Eva's Donut):** Warning Bob that theft will be discovered and punished with toilet-cleaning duty is likely to change his behavior; therefore, he is held responsible. - **The Definition Problem:** Sabine rates both neurology papers an 8 out of 10 on the "bullshit meter" because cognitive neuroscience still lacks a rigorous, agreed-upon definition of what a conscious decision even is. - **The Future of the Field:** The debate will accelerate over the coming decade, driven by advances in brain imaging and the rise of artificial intelligence, which will force scientists to define what it genuinely means to think, choose, and experience awareness.

[05:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=354s) Online Privacy and Security with NordVPN

In the final portion of the video, Sabine transitions to online data security, recommending NordVPN as an effective tool she has personally used for years. She describes the software as a high-quality data filter between personal devices and the open internet, controlling incoming and outgoing traffic.

- **Infrastructure and Software:** The app installs directly on phones and laptops, routing connections through thousands of encrypted servers located around the world. - **Security Features:** The platform offers next-generation protection against malware, trackers, and scammers, alongside post-quantum encryption to protect against emerging threats. - **Content Access:** Users can bypass geographic restrictions on international websites by selecting a server based in the target country. - **Offer Details:** Viewers can access an exclusive discount with four additional months free at `nordvpn.com/sabine` or by applying the coupon code `SABINE`, backed by a 30-day money-back guarantee.

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=0s) These results are difficult to reconcile with the view that experiences of conscious intention are merely a retrospective confabulation. — London research team

> [02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=131s) after forty years of widespread philosophical panic, the grand revelation turns out to be nothing more than basic latency. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [03:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI&t=194s) bullshit meter — Sabine Hossenfelder

## Mentioned Benjamin Libet, Thomas James, Sabine Hossenfelder, NordVPN

## Video description 🌏 Boost your online protection with an all-in-one security app! Get an exclusive NordVPN offer here + 4 extra months ➼ https://nordvpn.com/sabine Risk-free thanks to NordVPN's 30-day money-back guarantee!

In 1983 Benjamin Libet found that brain activity predicts your movements before you are aware of deciding to move. The result has been reproduced many times, and it has been used ever since to argue that free will is an illusion. Three new papers say the measurements were fine but the interpretation was not. Let's take a look.

#freewill #neuroscience #consciousness #sciencenews

👕T-shirts, mugs, posters and more: ➜ https://sabines-store.dashery.com/ 💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ https://donorbox.org/swtg 👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine 📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ https://sciencewtg.substack.com/ 📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/ 👂 Audio only podcast ➜ https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC 🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join 📚 Buy my book ➜ https://amzn.to/3HSAWJW

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s0OWN4BSI)

中文简报

新神经影像研究打破长达数十年的决定论教条那些据称证明自由意志是错觉的神经科学实验之所以失败，是因为它们将神经延迟误判为了隐秘的决策。数十年来，Benjamin Libet 于 1983 年发现的有意识运动前的预测性脑信号，一直支撑着“自由意志仅仅是错觉”的说法。新研究对这一解释提出了挑战，表明意识觉察与更强的准备信号相关，而非事后的虚构编造；决策代表的是伴随正常延迟的连续生理过程，而非瞬间的触发事件。此外，将不相信自由意志与不道德行为联系起来的心理学主张，也因混淆了决定论与问责制而站不住脚。最后，Sabine 强调，神经科学目前仍缺乏对意识选择的可靠操作性定义，而新兴的神经影像技术和人工智能很快将迫使研究人员解决这一问题。三篇新的科学论文对源自 Benjamin Libet 1983 年发现、长期存在的“自由意志仅仅是错觉”这一神经科学共识提出了挑战。 (0:00) 伦敦一项监测受试者输入分类词汇的研究表明，当受试者有意识地决定输入词汇时，预测性脑信号明显更强，这驳斥了关于意识意图只是事后虚构编造的说法。 (0:45) 认知神经科学家 Thomas James 提出了决策的连续模型，认为早期神经信号仅仅代表了一个正在展开的物理过程中的延迟，而不是预先做出的无意识选择。 (2:11) 澳大利亚的一项心理学研究显示，引导个体怀疑自由意志会增加自我宽恕和对多方宽恕，这与以往将不相信自由意志主要与不道德行为相联系的研究形成了对比。 (3:54)

Reading summary

The longstanding neuroscience consensus that free will is merely an illusion rests on flawed experimental assumptions and oversimplified models of brain function. Emerging research indicates that conscious intentions are not retrospective fabrications and that decision-making is an evolving physical process rather than an instantaneous event. Re-Evaluating Libet and Conscious Intention (0:00) For decades, the claim that free will is an illusion relied heavily on Benjamin Libet's 1983 experiment, which showed that neural activity precedes a person's conscious awareness of an urge to move. However, Libet's framework suffered from a critical methodological weakness: relying on participants to subjectively identify the precise microsecond of conscious intention. A recent study from a London research team addressed this limitation by asking 51 participants to type category-specific words while monitoring their neural activity during random interruptions. When participants reported having already chosen their next word, predictive brain signals were measurably stronger. The researchers concluded that conscious intention cannot simply be dismissed as an after-the-fact confabulation invented by the brain to take credit for an unconscious reflex. Decisions as Continuous Physical Latency (2:11) Cognitive neuroscientist Thomas James challenges the classic linear model of brain function, which separates decision-making into perception, decision, and motor action. James argues that choices do not occur at a single, stamped moment in time. Instead, decision-making is a continuous, dynamic process during which sensory information and motor preparation mature simultaneously. Within this continuous model, early pre-conscious neural signals do not reflect a hidden decision finalized prior to awareness. Rather, they represent the baseline latency required for biological processes to develop into an eventual motor action and its corresponding conscious experience. The findings suggest that early experiments merely recorded the physical time required for neural processing rather than disproving conscious agency. Determinism, Moral Accountability, and Conceptual Gaps (3:14) The scientific debate often spills into psychology and ethics, where conventional studies have claimed that priming subjects to doubt free will encourages cheating. Conversely, an Australian study found that reading deterministic texts increased both self-forgiveness and forgiveness of others when recalling past interpersonal harms. Sabine argues that these psychological studies conflate determinism with an absence of personal responsibility. Even if brain processes are deterministic, an action remains the output of that individual's brain. Accountability functions pragmatically based on whether an intervention alters behavior: while warning someone will not prevent an involuntary sneeze, the threat of punishment can deter an intentional act like donut theft. A core limitation in the debate remains cognitive neuroscience's lack of a rigorous, agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a conscious decision. Sabine expects the controversy to intensify over the next decade as advancements in artificial intelligence and neuroimaging force researchers to more clearly define thought, choice, and awareness.

Source quotes

[0:00] London research team: These results are difficult to reconcile with the view that experiences of conscious intention are merely a retrospective confabulation. [2:11] Sabine Hossenfelder: after forty years of widespread philosophical panic, the grand revelation turns out to be nothing more than basic latency. [3:14] Sabine Hossenfelder: bullshit meter

Original transcript

[0:00] Does free will exist? Some people care about this question. For decades, [0:05] neuroscientists have argued that we make decisions before we become consciously aware of it, [0:11] so free will is an illusion. And at the same time, sociologists have argued that it's nevertheless [0:18] a useful illusion because it makes us better people. Well, today I have three recent studies, [0:25] each interesting in its own way, that totally change this discussion. Let's have a look. In an [0:31] a now famous experiment from 1983, the neurologist Benjamin Libet found that people's brain activity [0:39] shows they'll move a finger before they knew themselves that they will move. This finding [0:44] has been independently reproduced many times since. Bad news for free will, but excellent [0:50] news for anyone whose finger has done something regrettable on the internet. The first paper that [0:55] I have today sheds doubt not on the experimental results themselves, but on their interpretation. [1:02] You see, the problem with Libet's experiment is that people were asked to report when they became [1:07] consciously aware of something. "But, please tell us exactly when your consciousness happened" [1:13] is perhaps not neuroscience's finest measuring instrument. A team from London has now improved [1:20] the method. They recruited 51 people to type random words in certain categories like animals [1:27] while their brain activity was measured. Between the words, they were told to briefly pause. In [1:34] that pause, the researchers randomly interrupted them to ask if they already knew what the next [1:40] word would be. The brain measurement showed that if the participants had already made up [1:45] their mind, then the brain signal that indicated their coming action was stronger. They conclude [1:52] that it's not true that we make decisions first and then become consciously aware of them and [1:58] invent that it was our decision. As they write, "These results are difficult to reconcile with the [2:05] view that experiences of conscious intention are merely a retrospective confabulation." The second [2:11] new paper that I have today supports this finding with a general argument. It comes from cognitive [2:17] neuroscientist Thomas James, who questions the assumptions behind the usual interpretation. [2:24] Neuroscientists usually describe behavior as a sequence: perception, decision, action. [2:31] James says, "This isn't what happens. There's no sudden decision moment. Rather, what we call [2:37] a decision is the process in which sensory input and motor processes develop to result in an action [2:44] or not." In this interpretation, the early brain activity that Libet and others observed was not an [2:50] unconscious decision. It was merely an early part of the process that produced the action and the [2:57] experience of having made a decision. Basically, he says the experiment that supposedly killed free [3:03] will merely showed that decisions take non-zero time. By the way, a simple way to support this [3:09] channel is to buy a t-shirt or a mug in our store. And the third paper I have today comes from an [3:15] Australian team which re-examines the claim that people who are primed to question their free will [3:21] are more likely to support morally questionable actions, such as cheating on tasks. There's been a [3:27] whole number of studies which seem to support this claim. They usually work by giving people some [3:33] passages to read that say basically, "Your actions are predetermined by whatever input your brain [3:39] receives." And then asking the people basically whether people are to blame for their actions. [3:45] Unsurprisingly, usually these studies find that at least temporarily people say, "No." more often. [3:51] Hence, free will disbelievers are immoral. Well, the new study now looked at the question [3:56] differently. Rather than asking people prompted to disbelieve free will about moral failings, [4:01] they asked them to recall either a time they'd hurt someone or a time someone had hurt them. [4:08] Those who then read arguments that free will is an illusion later reported more self-forgiveness and [4:14] more forgiveness towards others. Honestly, I think all these psychology studies are [ __ ] one way or [4:20] another. The problem is that the way they prompt people to disbelieve in free will really prompts [4:26] them to believe that people are not responsible for their actions. This makes zero sense though, [4:31] because look, whether your brain gives you free will or not, it's still you, your brain, [4:37] that results in an action or not. The question of who or what's responsible comes down to the [4:42] question of what measure could have prevented the result. If Bob sneezes, could he have prevented [4:48] this by telling him not to sneeze? Probably not. If Bob eats Eva's donut, could you have prevented [4:55] this by warning him you'll find out and make him clean the toilet? More likely. Hence, you make [5:00] Bob responsible for theft, but not responsible for sneezing. Nothing about this requires mentioning [5:06] free will. So much about the psychology papers. I give the two neurology papers each an 8 out of [5:13] 10 on the [ __ ] meter. This is because despite all the educated sounding talk, the entire field [5:19] still suffers from a definition problem. What is it that you're even looking for when you speak of [5:25] a conscious decision? The reason I'm telling you about this nevertheless is that this is a research [5:30] area where I expect a lot to happen in the next decade, partly because of a better understanding [5:36] of the human brain, but also because artificial intelligence will serve as a test case for what [5:42] it means to think, make decisions, and be aware of something. 40 years of philosophical panic [5:49] and in the end the discovery was latency. If you want to stay safe on the internet, [5:55] I can really recommend NordVPN, which I've been using for many years. It's a high quality product [6:01] that acts as a data filter between you and the bigger internet. It only lets in and out what you [6:08] want. NordVPN is an app that you install on your phone or laptop. It provides a secure and private [6:15] connection for your internet browsing through one of their thousands of servers all over the world. [6:20] NordVPN also regularly updates its service. They now offer an all around virus protection of the [6:27] next generation, not just against malware, but also trackers and scammers and whatever the next [6:33] cause will be that AI brings upon us. NordVPN also has a post quantum encryption and one of the great [6:39] benefits of using NordVPN is that it's super handy to access websites in other countries that are [6:45] blocked for visitors from elsewhere. All you need to do is use a server in the respective country [6:51] and Nord has thousands of those. NordVPN is an easy and effective way to maintain your privacy [6:57] online and of course I have a special offer. All you have to do is use my link nordvpn.com/sabine [7:05] or use the coupon code SABINE. So go and check this out. Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow.