LISTEN
1. What's the First Principle of Existentialism?146
2. What are "distal intentions"? `149
3. What is the "causal exclusion problem"? 153
4. What does Neurofeedback demonstrate? 155
5. What makes actions meaningful? 159
6. Why, according to Jaegwon Kim, can't information be causal? 162
7. A given event, says Peter Tse, cannot be what at the same time? 166
8. What accounts of free will have given libertarianism a bad name? 171
9. What class of causation does Tse say led to biological systems and ultimately to the emergence of mind? 176
10. What allows us to make and execute choices, invent new things, reinvent ourselves, and "change the physical universe forever"? 189
DQ
- Is meaning in your life really entirely the product of individual choice?
- Does existence really precede essence? (Or, do stable and inherited species attributes as well as environmental influences constrain our choices and possibilities?)
- If mental states were shown conclusively not to cause changes in physical states of the brain, would that then disprove free will and show that mental states are mere epiphenomena?
- Does "bidirectionality" dispel your concern that your thoughts and actions are not really your own? 148
- What do you think Libet-type experiments show?
- If you're as free as a dog leashed to a cart, are you free enough? (See SoL video below)
- Is it possible even in principle to know that micro-level particle phenomena are sufficient to determine events at the macro-level of everyday experience?
- Do you agree that only second-order or meta-free will is sufficient to make us responsible for our actions?
- add yours please
*Th 20 - MP 11-12
LISTEN
1. Pereboom's and Caruso's primary focus is on what? 193
2. What are some scientific threats to free will not posed by neuroscience? 197
3. FWS allegedly leaves what intact? 203
4. The core idea of fws is what? 207
5. We may in the near future be able to determine what? 215
6. Why are we responsible for our actions, according to Michael Gazzaniga? 223
7. What's Dennett's definition of free choice? 226
8. What becomes moot from the vantage point of a layered interacting system? 230
9. Because the brain is a _____ system, thought is not a delay after action. 231
10. Gazzaniga says personal responsibility is real but not in ____. 233
DQ
- The authors say free will skepticism does not threaten our prospects of finding meaning in life. But what if you've constructed your life on the premise that without free will we're just automata? Can you stage a meaningful 2d act, after being persuaded to accept fws? Wouldn't you have to experience the decision to do so as a free choice?
- Does the question "Why did you decide to do that?" not beg the question, for the fw skeptic? 194
- Does quantum mechanics invalidate hard determinism and incompatibilism? 198
- Do you agree with Strawson? 201
- Does the idea of preventative detention strike you as potentially beneficial, Orwellian, or somewhere in-between? 215
- Are you "uptight about our cool machine"? 223
- Does it beg the question to say that being "self-aware narrators" secures our freedom (or at least our responsibility)?
- Do you share the "strong belief among philosophers" that free will and responsibility go together inseparably? 225
- "It is because we have a contract with our social milieu that we are responsible for our actions." 233 Shouldn't Gazzaniga say that that's why we hold ourselves responsible, whether or not we are actually capable of being responsible?
Can there be freedom and free will in a deterministic world? Renowned philosopher and public intellectual, Dr. Dennett, drawing on evolutionary biology, cognitive neuroscience, economics and philosophy, demonstrates that free will exists in a deterministic world for humans only, and that this gives us morality, meaning, and moral culpability. Weaving a richly detailed narrative, Dennett explains in a series of strikingly original arguments that far from being an enemy of traditional explorations of freedom, morality, and meaning, the evolutionary perspective can be an indispensable ally. In Freedom Evolves, Dennett seeks to place ethics on the foundation it deserves: a realistic, naturalistic, potentially unified vision of our place in nature.
The first in a series of Gifford Lectures by Professor Michael Gazzaniga. Recorded 12 October, 2009 at the Playfair Library Hall, the University of Edinburgh. What do we need to know about the human brain in order to discuss the weighty questions of free will, mental causation, morals, ethics, and the law? To understand anything from a biologic perspective we must place this effort in an evolutionary context, consider the nature of the organ that allows us to be asking these questions, and to the extent that we are able, determine how it works. The fundamental point that emerges out of this analysis is that much complexity is built into the brain and not just passed along as accumulated cultural behavior and knowledge from one generation to the next. It is this built-in complexity that enables us to discover the keys to how, ultimately, the mind constrains the brain and not the other way around. We will appreciate that our automatic brains are structured complex systems with particular skill sets and that ultimately our I story—the story of our own personal, phenomenal consciousness—is embodied in the brains network systems and not in outside forces compelling the brain into action.
I really enjoyed Daniel Dennett’s video on consciousness. I have found this debate over free will and determinism a bit frustrating. I guess I fail to see why there is an existential crisis. Every morning I have an egg. Generally it is fried, but occasionally it is scrambled. This morning I chose scrambled. I asked myself, was this conscious choice determined by neurons firing in my brain based on my heritable traits and social history and the circumstances of the moment, or was I exercising “free will”? If I didn’t have free will, would my choice have been different? Why would that be? Why would I choose something different from my strongest impulse? I can’t help but think that so much of this argument is the result of not having clear concepts of the words “determinism” and “free will.” Dennett says that what people are worried about is that if we have a mechanistic understanding of consciousness that it will show we don’t have free will, and it will follow that life has no meaning and we have no responsibility for our actions. That does not follow, but the fear that it would rattles people. Dennett says, don’t worry about it. Everything you want from “free will” you can have (under the neuroscience view of the world), except for some traditional notions of free will that turn out to be impossible, and not important. I like that. No existential crisis for me. “I” chose to scramble the egg, and I am not concerned about whether the “I” was brain activity, or some transcendental “I” existing apart from my body.
ReplyDeleteI heavily agree with your reposnse!
DeleteWhere did this idea of free will come from in the first place. Here's one theory:
ReplyDeleteImagine a Monty Python-type sketch. God and Augustine are talking about the problem of evil and how it is casting some doubt on God’s existence. God says to Augustine, “Look, if we don’t solve this problem of evil, I’ll be held responsible for it. I can’t be all powerful and all good and be responsible for evil too!” Augustine ponders, and then says, “I’ve got it! I’ll put out this idea that man acts badly morally because he has ‘free will,’ and that it is only through your grace that evil can be overcome. You’ll not be responsible for evil, you’ll be necessary for its elimination!” God: “Brilliant!” Augustine: “And it will give something for philosophers to go on and on about.”
Theres also the possiblitt that evil is needed for the good. Take a doctor for example, we would normally say that breaking peoples bones or cutting them open is a bad thing, however the surgeon is preforming (likely) a life saving procedure, without which the paitent could die. Is the surgeon evil for his acts or good for his intent?
DeleteEd, I like that Augustine is smarter than God in this sketch.
DeleteCrystal, I don't think that evil is the actual act of breaking the bone. The evil would be intended harm done, not the harm itself. If some kind of harm is necessary for healing, such as with surgery, then the harm is just part of the good, even though it hurts. The intent behind the harm is also important. If someone was hurt in a car accident, we would consider it awful, but not evil, because there was no malicious intent causing the accident. Evil is evil only if it is a harm that is not accidental, or not necessary. That's just my initial thought on the subject. I'm sure it's actually a lot more complicated than that; but I think intent is a big part of evil, especially if wrongful intent or even positive intent creates an evil (positive intent for evil I would consider to be something like eugenics, where people believe they are doing something "good" but are actually participating in evil).
https://photos.app.goo.gl/G7fEpetf4CyL59Rx9
ReplyDeleteI found this and thought it was appropriate/funny for the class.
Any thoughts on it?
It's funny because it illustrates the point that ONLY the human animal is capable of ant-natalist self-loathing (or, as Mr. Twain might add, needs to be).
DeleteI'm with Ed here in that I find this discussion of free will to be very frustrating. To me, free will is not something that is determined by the processes of our brains, nor anything else. Free will, from my point of view, simply is. Does the ability to make choices not prove that free will exists? Does the fact that we can ask this question not prove that? How can free will not exist if the future is not predetermined? The ability to make decisions alone is enough to prove free will exists to me. It seems to me that free will is not an "if", but an inherent part of consciousness that is wholly separate from the physical workings of our brains. However, I do suppose whether you choose to believe you have free will or not is what determines if free will is true for you. But if that's the case... how did you come to your conclusion, if not by willing yourself to do so?
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of "free won't." If we stop ourselves from doing the thing we're pre-willing ourselves to do, we effectively have created a free response to our initial instincts. So we are more than just automatons, right? We can decide on our actions, post-decision. I want to read more on this...
ReplyDeleteThis was from the Libet video, btw, if that wasn't clear.
DeleteIf free will doesn't exist then all crime should be legal and the person shouldn't be held accountable for their actions since it was predestined for them to do it.
ReplyDeleteI agree, that if free will doesn't exist at all then it doesn't make sense to hold people accountable for their actions. This is why I think it is a bit dangerous to believe in determinism 100%. However, I do think that our genetics and social circumstances greatly impact our decisions in life, but I still think that we are at the end of the day able to make choices in our lives. So, we should have an understanding that there are things in life that influence us, but we are still accountable for what we do and say.
DeleteIs meaning in your life really entirely the product of individual choice?
ReplyDeleteI believe the answer to that question isn't a simple yes and a simple no because there is a thing called generational curses (Exodus 34:7). it talks about how the mistakes of the first generation effect those in the latter because they are exposed to it at an early age.
for example if someone is exposed to sex at a young age they can act out in different ways like teen pregnancy or become an abuser now it is individual choice to continue to act on this past hurt but it happened because they were presupposed to it.
Will smith said in one interview that fault and responsibility dont go together it wasnt their fault it happened to them but it is their responsibility to heal it and deal with it in a proper matter. with the help of God, therapy, or other people.
I'm generally with those of you who become frustrated about free will, not because I think it's a pseudo-problem but because the way philosophers have dealt with it has been so slippery. Eggs and well-intentioned surgical procedures don't particularly invite reflection on the problem (though an egg for breakfast EVERY day would become awfully tedious, especially if I thought I could/would never choose otherwise). But the demonstrated human capacity for inflicting horrific and gratuitous suffering upon other humans does raise it for me. Could the maleficent humans have done otherwise? We'd better insist on it.
ReplyDeleteAnother source of real concern about free will, for me, arises in the case of individuals who feel genuinely incapable of initiating events volitionally. That was James's problem, and he only began to solve it (pragmatically) when he discovered Renouvier's definition of free will as the ability to control one's attentive thought and thus take directive responsibility for one's subsequent actions. Those who've never doubted their spontaneous powers of will probably can't grasp the depths of the issue for those who have.
I also appreciate the suggestion that free will, understood as a ploy by apologist theists to get their god off the hook for divine depravity, is incoherent. See (again) Jesus & Mo on this point... https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/07/17/jesus-n-mo-n-free-will/
QQs for chapters 11 and 12:
ReplyDeleteThe concept of basic desert is that for an agent to be morally responsible for an action is for the action to be – what? (194)
Neuroscience discovered a special capacity in the brain, in a module in the left hemisphere, called – what? (227)
What restores the idea of personal and moral responsibility no matter how stringent a deterministic stance one adopts? (232)
To continue the topic on free will (I don't know what to think anymore!!), here is a debate between Sam Harris and Sean Carroll on the subject.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK2PviGQiHk