whatilearned
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Neuronal_prediction_of_free_will
TIL The neuroscience of free will is still very hotly debated. Experiments that try to determine predictability of choice show that both unconscious and conscious operations are involved in decision making. Philosophers used these studies to argue both hard-determinism and compatibilism.
6 Comments
Leave a ReplyLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The question of free will doesn’t lend itself well to the Popperian mode of deductive science. This is question is more metaphysics than science.
We have will, but it’s not completely free. The more self-aware we are the higher the likelihood of successfully executing our will. However, perfectly free would be omnipotence, and doesn’t exist.
The freedom of will is a matter of degrees, and is constantly changing, depending on the individual and the situation. Much like Wittgenstein would say, this argument is a matter of misunderstanding terms, not an actual objective problem or paradox.
As we continue to learn about the exact mechanisms of neurological executive function, and the general public comes to better understand statistical analysis and causal inference, this misunderstanding’s nuance will become accepted, and not the entrenched black-and-white argument it has historically been in the academic, empirically untested history of philosophy.
There is no free will but we need to behave as if we all had it.
Even if there is a combination of the conscious and unconscious mind, every single interaction between neurons in a brain is governed by physical laws that (a) are understood and (b) do not include “free will” in their equations…so…
I’ll believe free will could be possible when I hear a single theory that describes how free will could be possible.
Yes, even the science-minded can be prone to wishful thinking..