The Guardian brought us a really exciting article about the book 'Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience' dealing with the role of neurobiology in the modern era. The authors try to raise our attention to our overconfidence in neuroscience. Although the appearance of functional MRI and brain imaging was a fascinating breakthrough, the public tends to give them too much credit. Brains undergoing emotions like love and attachment are shown on colorful screens and we instantly think that the mystery of these long studied feelings was finally solved in one fell swoop. However, our central nervous system is way more complex than that.The authors also discuss the question of free will. If we agree with the concepts of biological and materialistic determinism we can always find an excuse by saying that we are the victims of the circumstances and blame our actions on causal processes going on in our head. Based on this, nobody should be sentenced for crimes for example. That does not seem to make much sense. However, if we accept the existence of free will we should see novel brain imaging results only as useful tools, not as ultimate achievements.
Read the whole article here.
I just never understood this free will versus determinism debate. I think it's both. Looking at physics, and how it figures everything out, i'm pretty sure everything is determined one way or another, but my brain, is part of the system which determines the future, and i am conscious about that, so i got to have free will, i guess.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I think this question is way too complex. For us it is logical to think at first glance that causality must exist at all levels in the same way as we experience in our everyday life. However on the atomic scale it is different. Einstein himself was said to struggle with that a lot saying things like "God cannot play dice". However it seems that He does...At this time I have to admit that i dont have a firm opinion in this question but I hope i'm on the way to solve it. :)
ReplyDeleteThe real question is for me, may be, that where exactly is the border in one's mind concerning the basic instincts and the so called free will? I mean, to come up with a basic example, I feel hunger, especially for the cake on the table that i love, but I'm on a diet. Some can resist to the temptation, some cannot. What determines it? How many percent is it coded in you on a biological, instinctual level, that you want to eat, you want happiness, much more than your objective, to lose weight. People are capable of supressing emotions or basic physiological needs if they are determined enough. As if.. I don't really know... as if there was a further personality inside them, or a soul, that may have full control over the whole human being or sometimes just disappears and by that the human being is reduced to an animal without self recognition.
ReplyDeleteBut so much for my crazy thoughts:D
elod008, it seems legit. Meditators ultimately try to reach that "inner self", a term perverted so much by New Age movements but at the same time such a valid psychological concept. However, this kind of free-will what you mention is also prone to some skepticism if we think about that deciding not to eat that cake while on a diet is also determined by a desire sitting on a higher place in the Hierarchy of Needs - namely that you want to have a better look and attain a higher social status. If you resist the temptation it means that you are determined to attain a higher goal. But you are still not "free".
ReplyDelete