RE: Free Will, Free Won't?
September 17, 2013 at 4:29 pm
(This post was last modified: September 17, 2013 at 4:38 pm by ManMachine.)
(September 17, 2013 at 8:39 am)Zone Wrote:(September 17, 2013 at 8:14 am)ManMachine Wrote: the majority of people want free will to exist, the question that is begging here is, why?
Why would you not want to be locked inside a prison cell?
Some recent experimental evidence (I'll dig out a reference for you) seems to show that even when we are told free will does not exist, we still make moral judgements as if it did.
There is some kind of link between social morality and free will - at least as far as our ability to attribute certain actions others take to an idea we call free will - and make judgements about those actions.
Perhaps we coming at this back to front. Perhaps the idea of free will is a necessary component of our social evolution? I've nothing to support that other than some reverse (and possibly fallacious) reasoning at this point, but it's certainly in the mix to explore as an idea.
MM
(September 17, 2013 at 11:01 am)whateverist Wrote:(September 17, 2013 at 8:14 am)ManMachine Wrote: We do seem to have the capacity to surprise ourselves with our decisions, or at least critically review them, however we arive at them. Somewhere between this juxtaposition of processes the death of determinism lies, at least in terms of our perception of it.
The fact is that the evidence is not conclusive leads me to the conclusion that neuroscience is not relevant to this kind of debate, although it seems - for the avoidance of dissonance perhaps - the majority of people want free will to exist, the question that is begging here is, why?
MM
Any attempt to totally encapsulate our first person experience in a third person account has got to be incomplete.
But I think most people recognize their so-called free will to be very limited. We're not free to prefer vanilla if we don't. It sure is hard to pass on dessert even if we really, really want to lose weight.
I agree, which goes back to my original question, does and should neuroscience have anything to contribute to the debate on free will?
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)
