Books and Ideas Podcast
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| » Forum Index » Books and Ideas Podcast » Topic: Episode 12: Does Free Will Exist? |
|
Posted on 07/14/07 5:48:39 PM |
|
docartemis
Administrator Posts: 688 Reply  |
Episode 12: Does Free Will Exist?
The next episode of Books and Ideas should be out sometime next week. Since the topic is this issue of free will, I am sure it will spark discussion and probably disagreement. I hope you will post your responses both on the website and here. While I am putting this episode on Books and Ideas because of its philosophical content, the subject is clearly relevant when considering the implications of our increasing knowledge of the unconscious brain elements that are involved in decision-making. _________________ Dr. Ginger Campbell (aka. docartemis) Forum Creator and Administrator the Brain Science Podcast |
Posted on 07/15/07 02:45:23 AM |
|
coconut wireless
* Posts: 2 Reply  |
Re: Episode 12: Does Free Will Exist?
can't wait for this episode Mahalo 
|
Posted on 07/20/07 08:49:03 AM |
|
docartemis
Administrator Posts: 688 Reply |
Re: Episode 12: Does Free Will Exist?
The episode is up. Here is a link to the show notes. Click here to listen to the episode before visiting the website. This is a controversial subject so I hope many of you will share your responses. _________________ Dr. Ginger Campbell (aka. docartemis) Forum Creator and Administrator the Brain Science Podcast |
Posted on 07/24/07 08:24:56 AM |
|
Patrick Pricken
*** Posts: 65 Reply  |
Re: Episode 12: Does Free Will Exist?
First off, this is what I initially wrote about free will (before the show):
So then, I listened to the episode. I must say that in a way I engage in false arguments, or ad hoc reasoning to be more precise, when talking about free will; I change the definition of free will so that it still encompasses choice but is alright with the current scientific consensus. We'll probably end up close to what Stephen Pinker (sp?) said. An interesting thought, to me, is the way it seems that the notion of free will is ingrained in our minds – perhaps that is a necessary illusion for us to keep functioning? After all, if not having free will meant not being responsible at all, then society would be unthinkable. So the concept of free will might have an evolutionary basis. Which brings me to the next point: even if our choices are machinistic, or "unfree", I would only use that in order to share responsibilities for people's actions, not take it completely away. I agree with Dr. Campbell (Ginger?) in that I rail against the current trend of not taking responsibility for one's actions. On the other hand, I do think sometimes we tend to have a simplistic view towards free will and people acting on it. Understanding that our freedom to act is very much inhibited by psychological factors (if it is there, at all), may help in understanding behaviour, preventing certain criminal behaviour, helping people overcome these tendencies, and adjucating guilt more properly. That does not mean, at least to me, that respnsibilites fly out the window; after all, it'll still be Dr. Campbell who made the mistake in the operating room. It just means that in the future, there may be more of an incentive to look out for tired doctors, or there may be shorter shifts, or a maximum number of operations per day, or maybe an additional focus during medical training on checking one's own ability to function properly. I mean, even though my parents divorced when I was 11, I still think I got very lucky when it comes to education and being raised. I am very much a well-behaved being. But there are certains things I do or don't do that I can trace back to the divorce, and to my father's womanizing ways during my adolescence, and it is very hard for me to overcome these inhibitions even though I can rationalize them. Still, if these inhibitions caused harm, I would very much want not just to be seen a victim of divorce. Another example that even caused me to write a short story. There was a German chief police who, when faced with a man who had abducted a child, threatened the man with violence in order to make him spill where he'd hidden the kid. The child was found dead (killed by the man), but the threat nevertheless worked. The chief of police, despite disobeying a direct order not to torture or threaten torture, could keep his job (with a reprimand) because, hey, circumstances and all. To me, that was wrong. Not that I didn't empathise; in fact, I might have done the same or worse in that situation. But the man broke the law, willingly and knowingly, and to me, he should have been fired. He should have taken responsibility even though a lot of people might have done the same. _________________ What do you do if you're deranged and have insights? Start a blog! www.p-pricken.de Beware – German content |
Posted on 07/25/07 04:54:35 AM |
|
Ruth
** Posts: 14 Reply |
Re: Episode 12: Does Free Will Exist?
Patrick, I like that you ended up with a before and after 'shot' of your own thinking - oddly appropriate in discussion on free will! Just for fun I want a stab at this prior to listening to the programme too... For as long as I can remember it has seemed sensible to me to acknowledge limitations in free will. I believe my mind needs my brain, scoop the latter out with a warm spoon and the former will follow. At some point in my future my brain will decay - I'm hoping this largely happens to me after death but who knows, the only certainty is that it will. Because of this way of thinking I find it impossible to think of free will as a defining feature of humanity; I may wish it was but I can't reconcile that wish with what seems evident. For three years I worked with autistic toddlers, I have also worked with children severly disabled; Rett syndrome being a condition that comes to mind with lots of sadness. These are evident extremes, however it would seem irrational to me to believe that differences ONLY exist in the visible extreme - how? How could any organ be immune to mild effect and only vulnerable to catastrophic effect? Maybe, if this reasoning is wrong it can get corrected here. So my thinking about free will starts from a point of belief in differences both between and within people (development, aging, chronic and passing illness etc). That's my first assumption. My second assumption is that choices are real rather than illusionary but are not 'absolutes'; like confusing power with complete control, I believe degrees of choice exist rather than a notion of complete free will. I am aware that as I get up in the morning I can choose to wear jeans or a skirt, that choice is evident to me. However, I notice that both my jeans and my skirt reflect (in my case often badly!) the fashion of my era. I also notice that non-conformists have an unnerving tendency to all look the same. Still, it is evident to me I am able to choose between jeans and a skirt! That evident choice lies at the heart of social expectation about 'correct clothing'. If I choose jeans for a job interview I'm likely to fair badly. But if my whole town flooded, I had been in emergency accomodation, and STILL managed to get to an interview wearing the same jeans I imagine the EVIDENT lack of choice would almost if not completely mitigate my jean wearing! So that leads to my third assumption, that a person has the free will to make the choices genuinely available to them, using whatever knowledge and ability is available to them. Away from clothes... (sigh of relief!); I remember an example questioning free will and culpability. The example was of a man who had experienced no unusual sexual desires until a tumor appeared in his frontal lobes. When the tumor was present he abused his step daughter repeatedly, when the tumor was removed he stopped and was remorseful. Later the abuse began again and sure enough the tumor had returned, again once removed he became remorseful. I remember the long documentary and a couple of articles with some degree of frustration. While they held a solid and educating focus on the biological implications of the tumor, the tradgedy and recovery, ALL the questions of culpability were argued on the basis of what was diminished. I sat begging for answers to different questions. Was this man able to hide what he was doing (showing awareness of 'wrong')? What actions did he take to prepare opportunity (impulse or planned)? Was he discovered in the act or did he confess (was he able to rationalise and by doing so limit his own access)? I had no argument with the notion of diminished function - that I accepted. I wanted to know what choices were evidently available to him and what ability he evidently showed. It seems to me the discussion of his free will 'should' centre on the choices he had not those he didn't. I view my free will as a stream of possibilities that I encounter - what matters to me are those opportunities rather than the ones I know little of. From horse breaker to toddler teacher, motley crew of unwanted teenagers advocate, student and professional I have found without exception, more usefulness in seeing what is and what can be used. ** I'll come back after I've listened to the episode! |
Posted on 08/31/07 00:30:47 AM |
|
Timothy Tang
* Posts: 2 Reply |
Re: Episode 12: Does Free Will Exist?
My idea of free will is that of a person to not be affected or influenced by the precedent causes in his environment. But since the mind is part of the system of physical laws such as causality or cause-and-effect, it cannot be free to get out of the causal influences of the system. Benjamin Libet's research found that the mind is conscious of a stimuli only after 500 miliseconds that the stimuli has been applied. This means that the mind can only be aware of something after the stimuli has been processed by the brain. (My own theory of a consciousnes mechanism in the brain, the CMech, requires such a processing time) On the issue whether society's moral values would break down if people do not believe in the idea of Free Will, I feel that if society does not believe in personal choice of actions, it would not necessary prove to be a bad thing. A person is not totally free from his physical environment therefore what he or she does cannot totally be deemed as the absolute source of a negative evil action, nor be absolutely responsible for it. Assigning blame not just to the culprit of criminal behaviour, but also to the people in his/her circle of influence, would give society the responsibility and more proactiveness into resolving the causes that breeds people to turn to negative behaviour. So is a person responsible for a crime? I feel it is in the criminal's faulty and distorted consciousness that lies the reason for a person wanting to turn to negative criminal actions as a form of displacement for frustration and negativity. Capital punishment is not a guarantee towards resolving a person's faulty consciousness that can make a criminal realise what he/she did was really a wrong expression. Sometimes all it does to to further deliver negativity to a criminal's mind that would only cause it to seek yet a further displacement release of negativity and frustrations. (This is reason why criminals can be so difficult to turn good in the capital system, they go back to their old ways soon after their release from prison) So I am rooting for proper rehabilitation in the form of psychological therapy and consciousness enhancement instead of just dealing negative people with further negativity instead of positive corrections. So I feel if a person has been caught for a crime, he/she should be separated from society and be rehabilitated in the changing of consciousness. The criminal is thus like a sick patient that needs to be recognised and treated by society to resolve the negativity in the perception of his consciousness. Both the criminal and society share equal responsibility to resolve criminal behaviour. Since the criminal does not have free will, he/she does not take absolute responsibility for actions. This goes with my belief that I do not think that any body can take the absolute blame for bad actions. Criminals release their built-up negativity in actions in order to feel good during such release and gain the positivity that they desperately need, although such displacement of negativity could be criminal. The criminal's and the observer's perception are contrastingly different. This is due to the negativity that distorts the criminal's perception and consciousness from seeing things in a more positive way as the observer can. Therefore I feel that the best way towards a low crime society is through proper psychological guidance in the dealing with negativity in people's consciousness and perception. Not everyone can perceive things correctly in order to do good, which is why it is also other people's responsibility to help such people to correct their perception. If people don't provide help to the needy but stay indifferent to such a "cause", then they would be faced with the "effects" in terms of people's negative behaviour. |
Posted on 10/10/07 08:23:51 AM |
|
WendyK
* Posts: 3 Reply |
Re: Episode 12: Does Free Will Exist?
 I have just listened;I am a new recruit to this excellent site.
I have to agree that 'the buck stops with me'. This point has come up repeatedly in discussions with my sister,who is a devout catholic. She can't understand how an atheist can have a moral code. Recently,via a link from the badscience website,I learnt about the 5H-TT gene and its polymorphism,and its links with manifestations of depression and anxiety. The dualist position,is,I feel,mistaken,though influential and widely subscribed to. However,reflecting on the recent work on the 5H_TT gene,I start to wonder how much my own free will is constrained by my own lengthy strugle with depression and anxiety(no more details). Are apparently independent choices distorted by any kind of psychological distress? I believe we must continue to foster a sense of personal reponsibility while striving to make our very unequal societies fairer. Naive perhaps? |
Posted on 03/29/08 10:59:02 AM |
|
docartemis
Administrator Posts: 688 Reply |
Re: Episode 12: Does Free Will Exist?
I just wanted to mention that a new edition of The Myth of Free Will is out. I have a brief chapter in the new edition. Its called "My Brain Made Me Do It! (I did not choose the title.) If you get a copy via the Books and Ideas Bookstore on Amazon.com I get a small credit, which I will use for buying books. _________________ Dr. Ginger Campbell (aka. docartemis) Forum Creator and Administrator the Brain Science Podcast |
