Neuroscience and free will

So let's say we've made the space for the agent. Can you give any sort of description of a nondeterministic, nonrandom decision?

Beta decay, for example, appears to be truly random. It is, of course, possible that we just don't understand the deterministic cause of the decay of a specific atom. Quantum mechanics is in for quite a shock if it turns out to be deterministic and predictable. Meanwhile, even if some randomness is actually deterministic, that gives no satisfaction to the libertarian.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure that it matters that the true nature of causality is still being debated. We can give coherent descriptions of cause and effect. For example, we can say that a change of force is a cause. And every tidbit of our technology relies on deterministic cause and effect. I don't think we can say the same thing about nondeterministic "acausal" causes.

~~ Paul

Well sticking for the moment with the dualist assumption of the supernatural agent, why can't the decision simply be a kind of mental causation that is neither random nor determined?

It seems to me the question that has to be answered is why are events only determined and/or random?

I think this is all why it matters what the model for causation is. We aren't really saying much when we say a change of force is a cause, especially since as Feynman notes "force" as a term runs into a circular definition problem.

And our technology relies on "good enough" predictability, as I sadly am looking at a laptop on the fritz at the moment...But I don't think it matters much given technology is an extension of human causal power placed on the environment. We don't will the substance of technology into being, but we do will the structural patterns of tech. So that is a predictability we impose upon the world with great effort, rather than causation as found outside the bounds of our will.

IIRC this is always our impasse. I'll dig up the old thread because I'm curious where the debate turned last time...

I too feel a certain deja vu with this debate and I am under no illusions that I can follow the philosophical reasoning but - and perhaps this was also part of the previous debate - wouldn't determinism deny novelty and creativity?

I'm also unclear about how determinism fits with darwinism. Darwinism, as we have discussed elsewhere, describes evolution in terms of natural selection following random mutation. Random means chance and chance is incompatible with determinism, isn't it? Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, Paul, but don't you argue for both determinism and darwinism?

I don't know if random mutation means indeterministic mutation like quantum mechanics is (presumably) indeterminsitic? I assumed random at the biology level would be more akin to chaotic systems, where small disturbances have big shifts. That could be accomplished via determinism.

Also you're right this is debate crops of every so often, we should start to pin down the old threads to keep from over-treading old ground...