 |
| 
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 5/27/2005 2:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hmmm. I thought this was an interesting article (though I'm a bit disturbed that I read stuff like this now in my "spare" time!)... anyway, enjoy 
By Matt Donnelly
(May 27, 2005)
Research in different branches of science contributes to the ongoing dialogue of free will.
Do humans scientifically have the freedom to make their own choices?
Throughout the history of science, attempts have been made to answer the question of free will using scientific principles. Early scientific thought often pictured the universe as deterministic, and some thinkers believed that it was simply a matter of gathering sufficient information to be able to predict future events with perfect accuracy.
While not mechanistic in the same sense as classical physics, most current scientific theories are also deterministic, by necessity — it is a basic assumption of all scientific endeavors that the future can be predicted. It is also difficult, if not impossible, to write the mathematics for a non-predictive science.
On its face, quantum mechanics only predicts observations in terms of probabilities. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics may suggest that the universe, when viewed as a single system, is nonetheless deterministic, as there is no outside entity capable of making observations.
It is far from clear, however, that microscale interpretations of quantum mechanics can be applied to large systems in this way, and whether quantum mechanics ultimately describes a universe governed by laws of cause and effect or by chance is hotly debated — both by physicists and philosophers of science. Other interpretations are non-deterministic and many physicists find attempts to "interpret" quantum mechanics to be pointless
The leading contemporary philosopher that has capitalized on the success of quantum mechanics and chaos theory in order to defend incompatibilist freedom is Robert Kane, in The Significance of Free Will and several other writings.
Neurology and biology
Like physicists, biologists have also frequently addressed the question of free will. One of the most heated debates of biology is that of "nature versus nurture." How important are genetics and biology in human behavior compared to culture and environment? Genetic studies have identified many specific genetic factors that affect the personality of the individual, from obvious cases such as Down’s syndrome to more subtle effects such as a statistical predisposition towards schizophrenia.
However, it is not certain that environmental determination is less threatening to free will than genetic determination. The latest analysis of the human genome shows it to have only about 20,000 genes, the information content of which is but 2 or 3 megabytes, despite junk DNA, which may really have almost no information content. This implies that nurture may be more important than genetic determinists used to claim.
It has also become possible to study the living brain and researchers can now watch the decision-making "machinery" at work. A seminal experiment in this field was conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s, wherein he asked subjects to choose a random moment to flick their wrist while he watched the associated activity in their brains. Libet found that the brain activity leading up to the subject flicking their wrist began approximately one-third of a second before the subject consciously decided to move, suggesting that the decision was actually first being made on a subconscious level and only afterward being translated into a "conscious decision", and that the subject's belief that it occurred randomly was only due to their perception.
A related experiment performed later by Dr. Alvaro Pascual-Leone involved asking subjects to choose at random which of their hands to move. He found that by stimulating different hemispheres of the brain using magnetic fields it was possible to strongly influence which hand the subject picked. Normally right-handed people would choose to move their right hand 60% of the time, for example, but when the right hemisphere was stimulated they would instead choose their left hand 80% of the time. Recall that the right hemisphere of the brain is responsible for the left side of the body, and the left hemisphere for the right. Despite the external influence on their decision-making, the subjects continued to report that they believed their choice of hand had been made freely.
Libet himself, however, does not interpret his experiment as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will — he points out that although the tendency to press a button may be building up for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retains a right to veto that action in the last few milliseconds. A good comparison made is with a golfer, who may swing the club several times before striking the ball. In this view, the action simply gets, as it were, a rubber stamp of approval at the last millisecond. Also, for planning tomorrow's activities or those in an hour millisecond offsets are insignificant.
Neurology and psychiatry
There are several brain-related disorders that might be termed free will disorders: In obsessive-compulsive disorder a patient may feel an overwhelming urge, for instance, to wash his hands many times a day, and he will recognize the desire as his desire although out of control. In Tourette's and related syndromes, patients will involuntarily make movements, called tics, and utterances. In alien hand syndrome, also called Dr. Strangelove syndrome, after the Stanley Kubrick film, the patient's limb will make meaningful acts without the person’s determination.
Determinism and emergent behavior
In emergentist or generative philosophy of cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, free will is the generation of infinite behavior from the interaction of finite-deterministic set of rules and parameters. The unpredictability of the emerging behavior from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, though free will as an ontological entity does not exist.
As an illustration, strategy board-games like chess and Go, or Baduk, are rigorously deterministic in their rules and parameters, expressed in terms of the positions of the pieces or entities in relation to other entities on the board. Yet, chess and Go, with their strict rigor and rules, generate more moves and unpredictable behavior than any other games in existence. By analogy, emergentists or generativists suggest that the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate infinite and unpredictable behavior.
Dynamical-evolutionary psychology, cellular automata and the generative sciences model emergent processes of social behavior on this philosophy — which seems to indicate that the perception of free will being untouched by causality is essentially a gift of ignorance or a product of incomplete information.
Matt Donnelly is web editor at Science & Theology News. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Free will.” This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
GNU - Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.Post Edited (Selah) : 5/27/2005 2:28:01 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/27/2005 3:16 PM (GMT -6) | | | Mm, it's interesting. Have you read the couple of surveys of stuff that Glenn Miller has on his website about the pre-conscious thing and also about the emergence of LFW from quantum stuff? they're quite interesting. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 5/29/2005 10:38 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/30/2005 7:17 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Corey, thanks for posting the link. I would like to read more about it. I just gotta say again that I love the look, bro!!! Hope to see the movie soon, myself.
I was unaware of Plantinga's book, but the argument seems very similar to that by C.S.Lewis in the book Miracles. One web site describes Plantinga's basic idea like this:
The volume's editor, James Beilby, does a nice job in his Preface of providing a brief overview of EAAN. To begin with, "Plantinga claims that [R] the objective conditional probability that we have reliable cognitive faculties, given naturalism [N] and evolutionary theory [E], is either low . . . or inscrutable" (this volume, vii). That is,
- (1) P(R/N&E) is either low or inscrutable.
My take on the subject is this: An epistemology that denies self-determination to the ego/self seems to truncate epistemology from being completely coherent. Lewis said, rightly, we cannot prove that there are proofs, nor can we prove that there are NO proofs. Thus, we must all start with a kind of faith in our own competence to know. But the view that denies self-determination seems to be based on pure blind faith. For there is no rational reason to believe that a mind that has no self-control could be competent to know.
The view that says man's mind is DESIGNED to know has such a rational basis. For humans intuitively think in terms of final cause, means/ends, whatever you want to call it. Hence, the mind's belief in it's own competence to know can be rationally rooted in that intuition. Hence, it is not blind. Granted, if intuitions are false, all bets are off for both views. But at least the intuitional view is coherent - since higher level thought is meaningfully rooted in intuition.
This idea is developed in a book by a 19th century president of Yale, Noah Porter. The book is "The Human Intellect" and it can be read on-line at http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=AFY5729.0001.001. The chapters relevant to this subject would primarily be the ones on induction, final causes (and the intro on intuitions), and everything thereafter.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 5/30/2005 7:21:49 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:58 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|