Neuroscience, Psychology Eroding Idea of Free Will 867
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.'"
Re:I've heard this before... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:uh oh trouble (Score:1, Informative)
Re:quantum physics has a large hole for "free will (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I've heard this before... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Shades of Daniel Dennett (Score:3, Informative)
Where do our desires come from? If they come from the our bodies and ultimately the universe, then that's determinism. If they come from nothingness, then you have free will. It is not a false dichotomy. There is either causality or there is not.
If you research this topic you will see that the poster was right. It is not a matter of where our desires come from, it is a matter of how we choose to react to them. It is indeed a false dichotomy. There is a well-established school of thought called the 'Compatibilists' (including the modern philosopher Daniel Dennett) who claim that free will and determinism can exist together.
Re:Science pushing materialism is foolishness (Score:5, Informative)
\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: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shades of Daniel Dennett (Score:3, Informative)
He lived. While in care, they discovered that he had a tumor. Most of it was blown away when he shot himself in the face. They finished the job, attempted to reconstruct his face and he's mentally A-OK today.
So yes, tumors will make you do things that are not really 'you'.
Re:leave to the british (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shades of Daniel Dennett (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Lock up all the Republican aides (Score:2, Informative)
Chemical-mental predispositions (Score:3, Informative)
In reference to the parent, though, my dad once mentioned that his good friend's mom had a similar case. She was the nicest woman in the world, until one day when she suddenly became a horrible bitch. Nobody understood why, but a few months later she died suddenly. An operation unveiled a brain tumor which they figured has started putting pressure on various areas of her brain around the same time as her personality suddenly changed. She hadn't complained of headaches or anything similar, so I'm assuming it wasn't a pain response, but rather a reaction to the physical damage done to her brain by the tumor.
Re:uh oh trouble (Score:2, Informative)
I belive this idea dates back to at least ancient Rome.
Er, excuse me? (Score:2, Informative)
The British government is mentioned in only a couple of sentences in the article. The amount of data that it plans to catalogue is certainly disturbing, but to accuse it of wishing to lock people up without trial (thus making them "guilty until proven innocent") is to distort the truth. The article is extremely speculative.