(September 2, 2013 at 3:20 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: At best, I think neuroscience would help further nail what science and philosophy have been driving towards for centuries: determinism. It would be rather odd to say that the constituents of everything (atoms, fields, etc.) have their behaivors determined, but in the big picture you're in control. Although that sounds like a composition fallacy. o.o
I'm not sure anything but determinism makes sense. But the compatibilist view of free will could still be true even if determinism is.
I'm not sure science and philosophy lead us toward determinism alone but certainly toward the position that there is no free will. This leaves us two potential fall back positions, one of which is determinism and also hard incompatibilism, the latter is closer to my own preferred position.
I think what science does show us is the universe is not deterministic and is rather driven by probability, which in itself might suggest another position. If we hypothetically accept there is no free will then we accept we are programmed to respond subconsciously to external stimuli before we become conscious of the decision to act, but as that stimuli is probabilistic and not deterministic it leaves our subconscious in the position of playing games of chance.
But, in saying this are we throwing the baby out with the bath water, because if we are saying the only two options neuroscience seems to be presenting us are determinism and hard incompatibilism (assuming compatibilism and libertarianism are ruled out by the lack of empirical evidence for free will), which simply reduces sub-conscious action to a 'punt' on a chance result.
Perhaps free will lies in the retroaction of applying our conscious justification to the sub-consciously initiated action, which potentially brings compatibilism and libertarianism back into the mix.
My feeling is that neuroscience has less influence on the philosophy of free will that it appears at first pass.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
