Neuroscience and free will

But courts already have legal definitions of responsibility, and you just said earlier they should be amended b/c they should accept there's no free will?

I think changes should be made regardless of the definitions of responsibility.

If I have true free will, what determines whether I am responsible for my actions?

I'm skipping ahead. Again, talk of legal responsibility is great, but I'm not going to suddenly understand free decisions just because it would be nice to tell people they can make them.

The paragraphs are in the posts you already said you would look over. While we are waiting perhaps you can tell us how I can be responsible for actions if I am not capable of being a source of causation in any way.

I think you missed my post #631. I reread pages 47–63 and made a few comments on them.

Again, he is acting the way he is b/c he is convert to Physicalism.

What? Are you suggesting that what I believe determines whether I have free will?

At worst I just wonder why anyone in general would evangelize the Physicalist faith that denies free will even as a brute fact, and yet accepts so many other brute facts about Laws and Something From Nothing emergence of Subjecitivty / Rationality / Intentionality? Even you said earlier in the thread that it was fine if free will were a brute fact, just that it would be unsatisfying to you?

I am not evangelizing the Physicalist faith any more than you are evangelizing the Free Will faith. We are only talking about it here, right?

But I remain curious re: Phyiscalism & Moral Responsibility because you've used the term Libetarian Free Will, which makes me think there is some other kind of pseuedo free will that you believe makes people morally responsible?

Libertarian free will is by definition incompatible with determinism. In order to distinguish it from legal free will and emphasize that it's "true" free will, I sometimes use that term. I hope that the courts are not assuming a world that is incompatible with determinism, since they do not know one way or the other.

If you have some specific criticism of some specific prior post, or some excerpt out of the books I've mentioned, I'll do my best to answer it. I can't respond to a problem that I do not see.

But perhaps reading some of the authors I've mentioned might help? You mentioned looking into Tallis' Of Time and Lamentation, and I'd confirm your observation that it sounds fascinating. It is a worthwhile read IMO.

I did some searching and made some comments in post #631. If you do not want to summarize why it is that I choose chicken instead of fish, but instead refer me to readings, fine. I will probably do some reading over time.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/....tb00603.x

https://www.georgiacriminalappellatelawb...free-will/

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewco...ontext=nlj

~~ Paul

I think changes should be made regardless of the definitions of responsibility.

Ok.

If I have true free will, what determines whether I am responsible for my actions?

You are the cause of them.

I'm skipping ahead. Again, talk of legal responsibility is great, but I'm not going to suddenly understand free decisions just because it would be nice to tell people they can make them.

I was not talking about understanding free decisions. I just want to know how exactly one will define moral responsibility when there is no way anyone actually makes decisions.

I think you missed my post #631. I reread pages 47–63 and made a few comments on them.

Ok.

What? Are you suggesting that what I believe determines whether I have free will?

No, I am saying if a person accepts Physicalism, but then says, "So this means I am no long responsible for my actions" the response to correct them would be X.

X would be whatever it is that makes someone responsible for their actions when they do not decide those actions. I just haven't seen anything so far that answers the question.

I am not evangelizing the Physicalist faith any more than you are evangelizing the Free Will faith. We are only talking about it here, right?

I was talking about the skeptic movement, I already said there's no reason to assume you are a part of that group. 

Libertarian free will is by definition incompatible with determinism. In order to distinguish it from legal free will and emphasize that it's "true" free will, I sometimes use that term. I hope that the courts are not assuming a world that is incompatible with determinism, since they do not know one way or the other.

So there is no other kind of free will, and no way to rescue human achievement and moral responsibility if Physicalism were true (which, again, thankfully it cannot be).

I did some searching and made some comments in post #631. If you do not want to summarize why it is that I choose chicken instead of fish, but instead refer me to readings, fine. I will probably do some reading over time.

I just don't know what summary I would give that I have not given - that seems to be leading to everyone going in circles.

If you have a specific criticism I can try to answer it, and so I'll look at #631.

631 is my post? ->

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-n...6#pid26636

What I find somewhat disingenuous is that people place both of those axiom systems on the same level. We've got copious observations and mathematics and modeling and inter-theoretic descriptive laws and derived technology for the physics axiomatic system. We don't have much for the free will axiomatic system. This is not to say that we won't in the future, but any talk of promissory physics in this context is laughable.

~~ Paul

But isn't that because research is geared towards technological advancement and working with physics as it pertains to those goals? The physics of Newton was clearly adequate for most engineering purposes and I dare say that quantum mechanics came as something of a shock to engineers and others involved in the practical applications of classical mechanics.

The debate about free will is unlikely to change the way technology is developed. Philosophical debates have been eschewed* by many in the sciences more recently - especially in comparison to the great philosopher-scientists of the past such as Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, etc. Indeed, Einstein and Bohr famously debated determinism so should we assume that Einstein (determinist) had to dumb down physics for Bohr (indeterminist)? 

I have negligible education in maths or physics so by all means dumb it down for me but I think it somewhat condescending to assume that we are all at kindergarten level, to use malf's words.

* Stephen Hawking was reported to have declared philosophy dead:

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said.

This seems more an argument for the ability to get genuine free will - not to mention Psi and possibly life after death - from non-conscious matter than an argument against any of those things?

Otherwise it comes across as a bizarre non sequitur, unless you feel there are some of these "sublime, miraculous, and bizarre phenomena" [that] can give us a way to achieve moral responsibility when all decisions come down to the constituents of bodies & brains.

If this is in reference to something prior, say how to get Subjectivity / Intentionality / Rationality  from matter I've said I am open to the idea of Panpsychism or Neutral Monism so not sure what the charge is here? But it seems to me, as per the materialist Alex Rosenberg and the atheist horseman Sam Harris, that if we assume matter lacks mental characteristics its nonsensical to think they can be brought in.

Perhaps someone has a sketch of how one achieves the seemingly nonsensical/impossible?

If you’re open to panpsychism, why do you constantly (as you did in this post) preface the word ‘matter’ with the word ‘non-conscious’?

If you’re open to panpsychism, why do you constantly (as you did in this post) preface the word ‘matter’ with the word ‘non-conscious’?

B/c that's the definition of Physicalism/Materialism. Matter that has no mental characteristics, physics fixes all the facts. 


I am just trying to keep the terms clear on that score. All the terms are admiitedly wobbly in what the exactly define, but for the most part people seem to agree on what they mean.

B/c that's the definition of Physicalism/Materialism. Matter that has no mental characteristics, physics fixes all the facts. 


I am just trying to keep the terms clear on that score. All the terms are admiitedly wobbly in what the exactly define, but for the most part people seem to agree on what they mean.

Not a definition I recognise, but will happily look at a link. Remember, panpsychism and panprotopsychism, if true, are not inconsistent with physicalism.

Not a definition I recognise, but will happily look at a link. Remember, panpsychism and panprotopsychism, if true, are not inconsistent with physicalism.

I would have suggested differently although Sciborg is far better read in philosophy than I am. I thought that panpsychism puts consciousness alongside matter and energy/forces as fundamental whereas physicalism denies any physical reality for mind.

Ok, so enough of being lazy ... I did a bit of work and checked with Wikipedia...

Physicalism and materialism

Reductive physicalism, a form of monism, is normally assumed to be incompatible with panpsychism. Materialism, if held to be distinct from physicalism, is compatible with panpsychism insofar as mental properties are attributed to physical matter, which is the only basic substance.

I still think I was right even if we substitute materialism for physicalism in that, according to materialism, mind does not exist other than as an epiphenomenon. And to Wiki again for Epiphenominalism ...

Epiphenomenalism

The appearance that subjective mental states (such as intentions) influence physical events is merely an illusion.