Many questions that used to be considered philosophical are now considered scientific, such as what makes the planets move. It wouldn’t surprise me if much of the question of free will eventually dissolved into issues of cognitive psychology and brain science. There will always be residual issues even there, of the proper scope or definition of one’s terms. (What counts as science, what counts as evidence, what counts as knowledge will always be at least in part philosophical issues).
Also do recall, as I mentioned before, the distinction between “philosophy” and “science” is a modern one. Basically, “science” are the philosophical questions that are answerable empirically.
Many questions that used to be considered philosophical are now considered scientific, such as what makes the planets move. It wouldn’t surprise me if much of the question of free will eventually dissolved into issues of cognitive psychology and brain science. There will always be residual issues even there, of the proper scope or definition of one’s terms. (What counts as science, what counts as evidence, what counts as knowledge will always be at least in part philosophical issues).
Also do recall, as I mentioned before, the distinction between “philosophy” and “science” is a modern one. Basically, “science” are the philosophical questions that are answerable empirically.
Many questions that used to be considered philosophical are now considered scientific, such as what makes the planets move. It wouldn’t surprise me if much of the question of free will eventually dissolved into issues of cognitive psychology and brain science. There will always be residual issues even there, of the proper scope or definition of one’s terms. (What counts as science, what counts as evidence, what counts as knowledge will always be at least in part philosophical issues).
Also do recall, as I mentioned before, the distinction between “philosophy” and “science” is a modern one. Basically, “science” are the philosophical questions that are answerable empirically.
—-
Good point. In my view, once philosophical questions are answered empirically they cease to be philosophical questions, but move into objective science.
Except for free will. Although Libet (and others after him) answered empirically the question of free will, the compatibilists still think they can have a go at it. It could be the unsolvable question #9: Why don’t philosophers let go of free will?
Except for free will. Although Libet (and others after him) answered empirically the question of free will, the compatibilists still think they can have a go at it. It could be the unsolvable question #9: Why don’t philosophers let go of free will?
If free will is nothing more than flexing your hand at some moment for no reason you are right. Is that what you mean with free will?
IMO, the conclusions drawn from the Libet experiment, are a bit silly. It is interesting in that it suggests that our brain is beginning action before we are aware of willing the action, but in the classic experiment, the subject was actually exerting free will, because he or she had already decided, before hand that they were going to push a button at some point. The possible fact that they were not aware of the exact moment that they were going to do so, does not negate that they wanted to push the button at some point.
Except for free will. Although Libet (and others after him) answered empirically the question of free will, the compatibilists still think they can have a go at it. It could be the unsolvable question #9: Why don’t philosophers let go of free will?
If free will is nothing more than flexing your hand at some moment for no reason you are right. Is that what you mean with free will?
Yeah, flexing my hand or planning a trip. Same thing.
Yeah, flexing my hand or planning a trip. Same thing.
Really George?
Yes. Planning the trip will take a bit longer, so it will feel as if our consciousness is playing a role here (the illusion of the puppeteer, the string-puller), but it the end it’s the same thing.
Except for free will. Although Libet (and others after him) answered empirically the question of free will, the compatibilists still think they can have a go at it. It could be the unsolvable question #9: Why don’t philosophers let go of free will?
Probably because it’s such a compelling question for both sides of the controversy. Meanwhile we have objective evidence that brains show-decision making activity before the person is consciously aware of it, but no evidence that free will exists. All we have are people who claim they have free will because it “feels” as if they do. Something like how people believe in god because they “feel” as if a god exists. In addition, a lot of people want humans to have free will because it supports their ideas about responsibility and morality, but with no evidence that there is any connection.
Besides that, having objective evidence doesn’t satisfy a lot of people. How long after Galileo did it take the Catholic Church to agree that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth?
IMO, the conclusions drawn from the Libet experiment, are a bit silly. It is interesting in that it suggests that our brain is beginning action before we are aware of willing the action, but in the classic experiment, the subject was actually exerting free will, because he or she had already decided, before hand that they were going to push a button at some point. The possible fact that they were not aware of the exact moment that they were going to do so, does not negate that they wanted to push the button at some point.
So you are of the opinion that people can somehow step outside their brains and make decisions using free will. How would that work, exactly?
IMO, the conclusions drawn from the Libet experiment, are a bit silly. It is interesting in that it suggests that our brain is beginning action before we are aware of willing the action, but in the classic experiment, the subject was actually exerting free will, because he or she had already decided, before hand that they were going to push a button at some point. The possible fact that they were not aware of the exact moment that they were going to do so, does not negate that they wanted to push the button at some point.
So you are of the opinion that people can somehow step outside their brains and make decisions using free will. How would that work, exactly?
Lois
No, Lois, we can’t step outside of our brains. I don’t even understand how you came to that attribution from reading my comment. Our brains are one of our most important organs that enable us to have wants and beliefs and to act in accordance with those wants and beliefs. My assertion, was simply that we don’t have to be aware of what we want and what we are going to do at every single moment in order to do what we want to do, i.e., exert our will.
I, as you, I suspect, believe that our actions and beliefs and even our awareness of doing what we want is subject to and a product of natural contingencies. But that does not mean that we do not have wants and beliefs or that we cannot act in accordance with those wants and beliefs.
IMO, what the Libet experiment may show is that the neurological correlates for an action can begin before the other or associated neurological correlates for our awareness of deciding to do the action, at a given moment, registers. If the subjects in the experiment had not wanted to comply with the experimenter’s instructions, they would have likely simply not taken part, to begin with.
I really hate to get into this again, but our brains are merely an extremely complex combination of chemical compounds organized into structures. One of its functions is to record data. Another is to connect such data. While all this is, as I said, incredibly complex and beyond our present understanding, there’s no reason to assume that what some call “free will” is independent of all the factors that cause our brains to function. That is, no matter how unconscious we are of the basis for our decisions, they are still determined by chemical interactions, NOT by free will.
And this is my last post on this topic in this thread. I’m not going to get sucked into hundreds of pages of nitpicking as happened in the original free will/determinism thread.
I really hate to get into this again, but our brains are merely an extremely complex combination of chemical compounds organized into structures. One of its functions is to record data. Another is to connect such data. While all this is, as I said, incredibly complex and beyond our present understanding, there’s no reason to assume that what some call “free will” is independent of all the factors that cause our brains to function. That is, no matter how unconscious we are of the basis for our decisions, they are still determined by chemical interactions, NOT by free will.
And this is my last post on this topic in this thread. I’m not going to get sucked into hundreds of pages of nitpicking as happened in the original free will/determinism thread.
Occam
Well, that’s fine. I wasn’t here for that discussion, but it looks as if we agree that we have no free will.
