OK, then give an account of such a theory and the evidence that purportedly supports it. — Janus
Also, no amount of neuroscientific research can show that consciousness is an epiphenomenon; that will always be merely one among other possible interpretations of the results. — Janus
Absolutely, that;s why I am always (well...usually) careful to make the claim that "There are evidence-based theories which suggest that free-will and the self are both illusory and are not what we think they are". Suggest, not prove.
What I objected to was your trying to claim that it was "not knowledge". I honestly know of no better description for knowledge than a falsifiable theory which is based on existing justified beliefs and against which there is no overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Such is the theory that free-will and conciousness are illusions. — Pseudonym
To say "there are evidence-based theories which suggest..." doesn't seem right. Theories don't suggest, they posit. Perhaps you mean 'there is evidence that suggests...'? — Janus
For me, scientific theories are knowledge only in the sense of knowing how, not in the sense of knowing that. The observations that underpin a theory are knowings that, and the actualities that are observed in experiments designed to test the predictions of a theory are knowings that. — Janus
What is knowledge, belief, or anything, if everything is determined and there are no choices? Knowledge disintegrates into a totally meaningless concept concocted by what? The Laws of Physics? Determinists are walking contradictions. Whatever they say it's simply concocted by whatever governs determinism, so who cares? It has zero meaning about anything. — Rich
The theory that we have no unified 'self', nor 'free-will' would predict that in certain cases of brain damage, changes would take place to what we call a person's 'self', and they do. A theory that we have no free-will would expect to see something like the results in Libet's experiments, and it does. It would expect to see ad hoc rationalisations of sub-concious actions, and it does. It would expect to see strong links between environment and behaviour, and it does. It would expect to find no central brain activity associated with conciousness, and it doesn't. It's a good theory. — Pseudonym
If, however, it was demonstrable that this offender had no free will, then that plea wouldn’t even be required. Nobody would be responsible for anything. — Wayfarer
Hi. I haven't looked into this deeply (disclaimer), but I'm surprised if it's the case that scientific theories include terms like 'self' and 'free will.' — mrcoffee
And what is it that we call a person's 'self'? Can we pin down the word? Do we want to? — mrcoffee
We use the term all the time. "He wasn't himself", "self-confidence", "self-awareness". They all imply that there is a constant and unified thing such that a person could act in such a way as to be contrary, or untrue, to it. The psychological theory is that no such thing exists, that we are just a collection of contradictory impulses. The evidence seems to support such a theory. — Pseudonym
Let's say that everything is determined, for the sake of argument. What now? The mere assumed fact that the future already exists in a certain sense doesn't give us access to that predetermined future. We still wrestle the experience that we'll continue to call 'choice' or 'free will.' We might joke that we are 'suffering from the illusion of choice' again, but this is the same kind of suffering. It involves an ignorance of what we will do ahead of time (in borderline situations especially.) That's my attempt to demonstrate that the mere abstract truth of determinism doesn't have much weight. — mrcoffee
We still wrestle the experience that we'll continue to call 'choice' or 'free will.' — mrcoffee
I think you are forcing a particular meaning on the word 'responsible' here — mrcoffee
For one thing, I don't think there's a 'thine own self' to which we can be virtuously true. — mrcoffee
But if the future already exists, in a hard determinist way, we wouldn't have any incentive to attempt to influence what we apprehend may or may not occur, because it's already determined. Whether or not I'm getting the job I want is already determined, so I don't need to send a resume. — Metaphysician Undercover
(With 'hard free will' there would not be alcoholics, since past behavior would give no information about future behavior.) — mrcoffee
I have no idea what the concept of "we" or "wrestle" means under determinism. — Rich
Nothing has any meaning with determinism. There is no reason to even take discussion of meaning seriously since whatever we utter has already been determined. — Rich
I've never heard of "hard free will", would that be like every decision is a completely random decision? — Metaphysician Undercover
Let's imagine an extra-terrestial with a superior brain and/or technology who can calculate future individual human behavior with pretty good reliability. — mrcoffee
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.