Empirical Research and Free Will: Neuroscientific applications for metaphysics
The modern field of cognitive science combines research from fields such as computer science, psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience in order to study the processes of the mind. Using a framework of representational structures and operational procedures, cognitive science has been able to make significant contributions to the study of cognition and information processing. This interdisciplinary approach has been so successful that its application has been extended to areas like metaphysics, which was once considered to be outside the realm of empirical study; theorists hope that cognitive science may provide insight into questions related to the fundamental nature of existence, such as the debate between free will and determinism.
The most famous series of experiments to empirically address the problem of free will were those conducted by Benjamin Libet and colleagues (Libet, Gleason, Wright, & Pearl, 1983; Libet, 1985). He analyzed the timing of conscious awareness of movement, and concluded that voluntary action begins with unconscious activity in the brain. Libet’s findings have been replicated in several more recent studies, such as those by Soon, Brass, Heinze, & Haynes (2008) and Bode, He, Soon, Trampel, Turner, Haynes (2011). Collectively, these results have almost conclusively determined that the conscious decision to act is preceded by unconscious neural action; however, the application of these findings to the problem of free will is still a subject of debate. To some experimental neuroscientists (Libet, 1985; Soon et al., 2008; Haggard, 2011; Fried, Mukamel, & Kreiman, 2011), these studies indicate that free will, or the conscious will ...
... middle of paper ...
... of decision-making (Libet, 1985; Dennett, 2006). Mele does concede that the idea of free will is not completely free from threat; if research ever makes it possible to analyze brain activity in order to always predict decision outcomes before an individual becomes aware of those decisions, it would raise serious doubt for any possible concept of free will.
Based on alternative concepts of free will rather than traditional interpretations, neuroscience has not yet been able to provide a definitive conclusion to the debate over free will. Philosophers such as Al Mele (2013) and Daniel Dennett (2006) claim that neuroscientific inquiry and data will continue to provide valuable insight into the mind and its mechanisms. For now, however, all of the scientific evidence thus discovered is completely compatible with modern constructions of what it means to have free will.
The Neurology Of Free Will notes “I knew I could do this if I followed my rules. “I was in control”
Neuroscientists claim that due to unconscious brain activity, we are “biochemical puppets” (Nahmias). Through experiments conducted by neuroscientists like Itzhak Fried, neural activity is shown to occur before a conscious decision is made. Fried concluded that this was a predetermined occurrence
The view of free will has been heavily debated in the field of philosophy. Whether humans possess free will or rather life is determined. With the aid of James Rachels ' article, The Debate over Free Will, it is clearly revealed that human lives are "both determined and free at the same time" (p.482, Rachels), thus, in line with the ideas of compatibilist responses. Human 's actions are based on certain situations that are causally determined by unexpected events, forced occurrence, and certain cases that causes one to outweigh the laws of cause and effect. The article also showcases instances where free will does exist. When human actions are being based on one 's emotions of the situation, desire, and simply that humans are creatures that are created to have intellectual reasoning. I argue, that Rachels’ article, provides helpful evidence on compatibilists responses that demonstrate free will and determinism actions come into play with each other.
“He has finally learned to love big brother” was how George Orwell in his novel 1984 described Winston, conversion to the party are represented by big brother at the end of the novel. It is easy to believe that at this instance, after torturous reeducation that Winston has endured, he has lost free will and no longer be able to freely choose to love big brother but was forced to, against hiss will. Therefore Winston was never free to love big brother, and in fact not free at all after his “reeducation.” But if we are to accept a definition of free will that stipulates that we are able to produce and act on our own volitions we must accept that Winston has retained and has chosen to love big brother out of his own free will.
The fact that the reader is reading this paper must mean they chose to do so, right? Or was this all predetermined based on their past experiences? Human beings want to believe that they are in control of their lives, and have the ability to decide between choices. To be in control is what everyone wants, because it makes them feel safe, at ease; but this may not be the case. According to the article “The Problem of Free Will”, to believe in free will is to believe that the future is more open rather than determined, and that the agent has the power to shape it (4). Then there are determinists, who think that this argument is unpersuasive because of the insufficient evidence. The article features a scenario in which a girl has had arachnophobia her whole life.
In this essay I shall argue that Paul Rée is correct in saying that free will is just an illusion. Throughout the reading entitled “The Illusion of Free Will,” Rée makes numerous great points about how we believe we have free will but we really do not. He discusses how one’s childhood upbringing determines his actions for the rest of his life, which, as a result, diminishes his freedom of will. He brings about the major issues with the common thought that since you could have acted in a different way than you actually did, you have free will. Another main argument was the proof of the reality of the law of causality, which can also be referred to as determinism.
The simplest description of free will, as conceived by such philosophers as David Hume, is simply that free will is, “the ability to choose an action to satisfy a desire” (Hoefer). However, modern philosophers have mostly rejected this definition because it is known that nonhuman animals also act on their wants and needs but lack the intelligence to consider their actions as free choices. A more complex assessment of free will, better differentiating between humans and animals, is that the ability of humans to choose actions flows from the relationship between their animal desires and intellects. This means that people's actions are free when they have intelligently determined the best decision to make in any situation, even if their choices conflict with what they truly want, or their base animal desires. By conquering their basic instincts to make rational, informed decisions, humans have exercised free will, which animals cannot do
In his book Free Will, Sam Harris not only states that, “Our wills are simply not of our own making” but additionally if it where declared as fact by the scientific community it “would precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution.” (Ch.1) Harris’ contention is surprising as he himself states, “…most people find these conclusions abhorrent” (Ch.1) but does it really matter whether we actually have free will or not? I maintain that the existence of actual free will is superfluous. Most of us agree that we, at the very least, experience an illusion of freedom and therefore, for the good of our civilization, we must continue to live under this assumption precisely to avoid the result Harris describes.
The argument of whether humans are pre-determined to turn out how we are and act the way we do or if we are our own decision makers and have the freedom to choose our paths in life is a long-standing controversy. As a psychologist in training and based on my personal beliefs, I do not believe that we truly have this so called free will. It is because of this that I choose to believe that the work of free will by d’Holbach is the most accurate. Although the ideas that Hume and Chisolm present are each strong in their own manner, d’Holbach presents the best and most realistic argument as to how we choose our path; because every event has a cause, we cannot have free will. Not only this, but also, that since there is always an external cause, we can never justify blame. Now let’s review Hume and Chisolm’s arguments and point out why I do not think that they justly describe free will.
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
Since the foundation of philosophy, every philosopher has had some opinion on free will in some sense, from Aristotle to Kant. Free will is defined as the agent's action to do something unimpeded, with many other factors going into it Many philosophers ask the question: Do humans really have free will? Or is consciousness a myth and we have no real choice at all? Free will has many components and is fundamental in our day to day lives and it’s time to see if it is really there or not.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
The first matter to be noted is that this view is in no way in contradiction to science. Free will is a natural phenomenon, something that emerged in nature with the emergence of human beings, with their kinds of minds, minds that can think and be aware of their own thinking.
Speculations on the origin of the mind have ranged from ghosts to society. Each new theory brings about more speculation and disagreement than the last. Where the mind resides, where it came from and if the brain has any involvement with the concept are common questions that fuel theory paradigms. Those questions are also the foundation of the debate about the roll of experience versus the existence of innate capacities. Steven Pinker theorizes the mind as a computing system created by the brain to fill the gap between innate capacities and capacities missing using common sense and learned critical thinking skills.
Human nature is about free will, and using one’s free will for good acts. We know free will exists because living things are being changed day after day. Any act, from walking across a room to deciding to eat a meal, is because of free will. We are given free will and with that, the ability to create our own, unique path in life. Free will provides human beings with freedom, judgement, and responsibility. Every human being is born with the capability to live a good, just life. However it is just as possible to live an immoral life led by bad choices. This notion of endless options in life is made possible by God’s gift of free will. No two human lives will ever be the same, because no two people will ever have the exact same experiences their entire lives. Every human being is shaped by experience, which comes from our actions, which are results of free will.