Adina Roskies on Neuroscience and Free Will

Recent research in neuroscience following on from the pioneering work of Benjamin Libet seems to point to the disconcerting conclusion that free will is an illusion. Adina Roskies of Dartmouth College is not convinced that this conclusion follows. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast she explains to David Edmonds why the conclusion that free will is an illusion is far stronger than the evidence warrants.

Listen to Adina Roskies on Neuroscience and Free Will

Philosophy Bites is made in association with the Institute of Philosophy

Comments

[Sander Calis]

Excuse my English for I'm not a native speaker.

In my opinion the biggest problem with the free will debate, is a discrepancy in languages of philosophy and neuroscience. What's 'true' on the one level might be 'false' on the other. In that order a broader understanding of both domains would upscale the debate from right/wrong into a more insightful thesis.

If you take a historical philosophical perspective you will find that there's a long tradition in thinking about free will without the aide of neuroscience. What happens with current neuroscientists is that their conclusions have broad philosophical consequences, whereas their findings lack solid philosophical ground.

In short; a course in philosophy (on free will) for the neuroscientists and a neuroscience course for philosophers.

My stance on the matter; there's no such thing as free will (hard incompatibilism), derived from the sylogism of responsibility [philosophy, supported by neuroscience! :)]

[Andrew Oliver]

A. Roskies appears to me to confuse free choice with free will. She may choose either strawberry or vanilla, but all of the reasons for the choice (conscious and unconscious) cannot be but what they are. It is the culmination of all factors - far to numerous and hidden from consciousness - that cause the choice to be made. No amount of scientific equipment can detect the factors that cause the choice. Unless there's an immaterial, independently originating, ghost to make the decision to choose strawberry, then the decision came from the culmination of factors previously mentioned.

Or am I mistaken?

[Toby]

I enjoyed this podcast discussion of free will. It made me wonder if all violent offenders had their brains scanned for tumors, cysts or other. Reminded me of a podcast that described worms in a rat's brain controlling it and making it attracted to cat urine (so the rat would get caught by the cat and worms pass to the cat for a host). I believe it's the Toxoplasmosis parasite.
Can anyone tell me why a deterministic universe would allow even the mere notion of free will? The cogs in my watch seem to function just fine without it.

[NChen]

Sometimes free will and free choice are simply analysed as the same thing on many accounts of free will. free will is a little more broader a term and includes actions based on free choice as well. But for the most part, the two concepts are analysed the same way.

There are also many contemporary accounts of free will (almost all actually) that does not posit anything like immaterial souls.

[Philosophy Forum]

Andrew - you point out what seems to me as being the heart of the issue >> "It is the culmination of all factors - far to numerous and hidden from consciousness - that cause the choice to be made.s". Indeed, if there causes are far too great for our minds to fathom, then the result of the cause simply cannot be altered. Hence without the ability to cause change there is no free will.