Free will is an illusion, biologist says

[archerships]

(PhysOrg.com) -- When biologist Anthony Cashmore claims that the concept of free will is an illusion, he's not breaking any new ground. At least as far back as the ancient Greeks, people have wondered how humans seem to have the ability to make their own personal decisions in a manner lacking any causal component other than their desire to "will" something. But Cashmore, Professor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania, says that many biologists today still cling to the idea of free will, and reject the idea that we are simply conscious machines, completely controlled by a combination of our chemistry and external environmental forces.

via physorg.com

Posted via web from crasch's posterous

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

When biologists make claims like this you can tell they're being pretty unsophisticated and haven't really thought about the issues. I agree that the physical world is a closed causal system, so there is no external act of decision that connects a soul to a body. But why should anyone think that's what's required for free will? It seems to me that what is important for some action to count as an expression of one's free will is that the action is caused by one's beliefs and desires and is an authentic expression of your character (or something in that vicinity). And since our beliefs and desires and character are physical aspects of our brain and body, this is perfectly compatible with the world being a closed causal system.

I agree that the third model of the three in that diagram is probably the correct one - but that model doesn't dispense with the will. Rather, the will is part of both the conscious thought and unconscious neural behavior. (Actually, I have a slight quibble with that model in that it seems to think that conscious thought only interacts with unconscious neural behavior, when clearly conscious thought is often affected directly by the environment and leads directly to behavior. The only alternative I can see is if we identify conscious thought with certain types of unconscious neural behavior - in which case they shouldn't be two separate circles in the diagram.) Why should will not be free if it has causal inputs? I think we should just drop this naive concept of freedom, rather than dropping the idea of free will entirely.

I believe in Random

[adam--selene.livejournal.com]

Take an identical copy of the universe 3 minutes ago, and I will still type exactly what I am going to type here, because no variables have changed. I will reach the same thought patterns and same outputs with the same inputs.

The hypothesis is there is absolutely no source of randomness in the universe.

Thanks, but I'll side with randomness (and sanity in general).

[pasquin.livejournal.com]

Personally, I consider 'free will' as a flawed concept. Akin to Lamarckism in missing the point.

Famous Princeton Mathematicians Don't Agree

[(Anonymous)]

I am referring to the recent work of Conway and Kochen on what they're calling "The Free Will Theorem" (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S23/75/58A30/index.xml?section=featured).

In presentations of their work they have said that although their theorem does not prove that free will exists it does suggest that determinism isn't true.

[neoteny.livejournal.com]

Ahh, he's just saying that because he was determined to.