Neuroscience, Psychology Eroding Idea of Free Will

pragueexpat writes "Do we have free will? Possibly not, according to an article in the new issue of the Economist. Entitled 'Free to choose?', the piece examines new discoveries in the fields of neuroscience and psychology that may be forcing us to re-examine the concept of free will. The specifically cite a man with paedophilic tendencies who was cured when his brain tumor was removed. 'Who then was the child abuser?', they ask. The predictable conclusion of this train of thought, of course, leads us to efforts by Britain: 'At the moment, the criminal law--in the West, at least--is based on the idea that the criminal exercised a choice: no choice, no criminal. The British government, though, is seeking to change the law in order to lock up people with personality disorders that are thought to make them likely to commit crimes, before any crime is committed.'"

Comments

Re:Science pushing materialism is foolishness

[arkanes]

use the theory of evolution to try to prove there is no God.

\Nobody with the slightest knowledge of science has ever done this. You can't logically disprove the *existence* of God anyway, although you can make a very convincing logical argument that it doesn't matter if he exists or not. The existence of God, as something which by definition cannot be tested, measured, or understood is outside the limits of science. It's the domain of philosophy and mythology.

Information theory says information can not be created, only lost. Entropy is forever increasing. So where did the original order and information come from?

It says no such thing. It'd be trivially wrong if it did, as order emerges from chaotic systems constantly.

As the Buddhists say:

[spun]

Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. "Gone through to the other side" means to go throught the void, where you have nothing solid on which to make any kind of a stand or statement about anything. Once you are through to the other side, things become clear again, in a new way. But you still have to get up in the morning. ;)

Re:Shades of Daniel Dennett

[poopdeville]

The legal system isn't based on the assumption of free will. It's based on the assumption that people are agents, and as such, can be responsible for actions. The distinction is very fine, so an example is useful.

Let's consider a feral cat. One day, it sees a bird. It's hungry, so it chases it and kills it. The cat is responsible for (that is, acted as an agent to cause) the death of the bird. The matter whether the cat has free will or not (and many people will say the cat doesn't) does not enter into that consideration.

You might interject that there is a disanalogy here. After all, laws seem to stop most people from breaking (the heinous) crimes, which might indicate that people have free will. But on closer inspection, it doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Whether or not free will exists, it is clear that laws are a force guiding people's actions. But this is compatible with both claims. People might choose to obey the law, coming to this decision in a rational manner. Or they might just be motivated by vague fears stemming from environmental factors, just as the cat was motivated by hunger.

There's a reason why modern philosophical ethics are hard. It's specifically because the free will and determinism issue cannot be settled, so discussions about ethics and to be phrased in terms of responsibility and other analogous terms.