I like Patricia Churchland's demeanor. She's not some smug, arrogant, angry unemployed philosophy major that can't admit philosophy doesn't really ever progress. She's reasonable. She embraces science. She's not a douchbag.
Neuroscience textbooks are surprisingly available online. I'm currently reading "Fundamentals of Cognitive Neuroscience : A Beginner's Guide." This textbook is used in some of the best schools in the country. Consciousness is the very first thing mentioned and permeates throughout. Turns out the only "mysteries" about consciousness and morality are the ones invented by the imaginations of religionists and philosophical idealists who need to believe in human exceptionalism to feed their egos, and because brain science is too complicated to fit in a meme.
So far as I know Ms. Churchland is an atheist. An atheist discussing free will or the possibility of it appears strange. I thought the atheistic perspective was that all was materialistic, robotic, and determined. If there is no soul, no consciousness independent of matter; the elemental or (mind also elemental and likely emerging with quantum events) how can free will exist in that environment. From a religious perspective a view of the person as having s soul; a permanent spark from Consciousness or Spirit, then the topic makes sense. From a materialistic perspective it is a non-starter as we can envision nothing but determinism when it comes to matter, or what is elemental, driven by unconscious forces. I thought that was the atheistic perspective.
The lecture can be interpreted as genetic neurobiologic determinism, and understanding neurochemistry, may help 'modify' outcomes. Shows that behavior in children, and in addiction is predetermined by receptors and hormones. A genetic materialist arguement for lack of free will.
Self-control is the ability to control actions. Human actions include reflexive actions, which are actions that by definition have no mental processing involved and are result of the neural programming behind them and as such are impossible to control. However, human actions also include actions that are results of habits or actions that are guided by impulses. And there also are actions that are not in any way influenced by by habits or impulses and are entirely the result of an "independent" thought process that only takes knowledge, beliefs and past experiences of particular individual. We do not have any control over our reflexes by definition. However, when it comes to habitual or impulsive actions we might have the scope of deciding to introduce a "thought process" instead of acting straightaway in terms of the habit or the impulse. For example, we may decide to "think before we do". Nevertheless, this need not mean that such thought process would be entirely free from the effect of the habit or impulse. Our self control thus involves the following 3 questions: - 1. Whether we have the ability to initiate a thought process between our habitual or impulsive tendencies and the action? - The answer to this question must involve the neural background. 2. If we are able to initiate the thought process, is it entirely independent from the habitual or impulsive tendencies? The neural background will again have a decisive role in the answer to this question. 3. If the thought process is entirely independent from the influence of habits or impulses and is entirely dependent on our knowledge, beliefs past experiences etc., what is the mechanism by which we arrive at a decision? The answer to this question need not be the same for everyone since both the mechanism and output of a thought process may differ from person to person. The answer to this question might not involve the information about the neural background, but it would certainly call for a better understanding of such thought mechanism as a system independent of the neural correlates. If I draw an analogy with the working of a computer, we can see that in certain actions of the computer the hardware has a greater role than the software. However, there are actions of the computer in which the software has a greater role, and those actions would not have any direct dependence on the hardware. Of course the software cannot exist without the hardware. But, for understanding these type of actions the software system and the various parts / layers of that system need to be analyzed disjunctively from the hardware system.
There is no scope for independent choice, since the Universe in which we live is deterministic. All our choices, however deliberate they may seem, are dependent on factors which we have no control over. Since, no one has control over everything, no one can claim to have control over his/her “apparently deliberate” choices. But, at the same time, it is also true that social norms, moral standards of a particular society and the degree of strict implementation of those norms and standards by that society, are more likely than not to participate as one of the many factors, that “determine” choices of an individual belonging that society. This, however, doesn’t liberate the society from its deterministic fate, because the society is only a tiny subset of the entirely deterministic Universe. The norms / moral standards of the society as well as the degree of strict implementation of those norms / moral standards are also determined by factors which are beyond the control of the society.
Yes, well put. Few people seem to get this idea. We can still consider how best to influence social behaviour through legal systems etc., and all of that, too, is determined. A society either will or will not recognise the fundamental lack of moral responsibility, causing it to work towards rehabilitation, education and necessary quarantine of offenders (rather than "deserved punishment", the retributive justice system too many have). It either will or will not recognise that successful people are lucky to have the causal variables that made them successful, and don't automatically "deserve" to have more than everyone else, working against the massive economic inequality we have now (although it may encourage future hard work by the next generation not to tax the rich _too_ harshly). Recognising the lack of free will is a positive thing. Instead of looking back to see who's to blame or thank for the way things are, we look at likely outcomes of future actions...which are all that matter.
Patricia Churchland seems to be trying to make space for freewill by comparing actions that involve self control and those that do not. This has problems: her presentation indicates that in some people in some circumstances lack self control, whereas others do have self control and this can be related to brain function. She is not and cannot claim that anyone can choose to have self control. This would mean choosing a differently functioning brain.It does mean that some people can feel that they are able to exert self control and are also able to perform in situations that test for self control (there are doubtless others who feel they have self control but do not perform in tests). So far as I can see, her discussion reinforces the idea that free will is a strongly felt illusion. I think many people have trouble with the concept of an illusion, to them I reply that we constantly accept useful illusions; it does not trouble when we point out an object in our surroundings that we are referencing an illusion of an image of our surroundings that has been formed by the brain. In order to point out an object we cannot do without this image, it is a necessary illusion. It is similar with free will. Actions require choices, even if it is only to act or not to act; in order to act, we have to have the illusion of free will.
What self is exercising self control Martin? Who are you to decide which is the illusion and what is the reality. The theory promoted gives no reason to choose what is real and what is the illusion Is it the brain that is the illusion? Why the choice? Perhaps it is because choice is a reality rather than an illusion. It seems unavoidable to conclude that if you decide all thought is an illusion, you have no basis on which to differentiate between any alternatives. End result, Patricia’s views are self refuting no matter how grandmaish she sounds.
15.13 lol Pentti linkola stated that cats are immigrants in the northern emisphere and they do damage the bird population and other species but yeah people think they are so cute and cuddly wtf.. ;D
Doesn't she hold to eliminative materialism - i.e., the belief that only matter exists and that human attitudes toward various propositions have no real existence? So how can she pronounce on any philosophical propositions herself? In other words her philosophy says that all the judgments and attitudes she expressed during her talk to,wards the various streams of inquiry relating to her field - are non-existent, presumably delusional BS. So I think we can safely ignore everything she says - in that it has no significance and does not relate to the physical, i.e., reality, in any meaningful way - according to her own philosophy.
That's very untrue. No eliminative materialist says beliefs or philosophical thinking don't exist - they exist in the form of brain states. EDIT: Actually, this is identity theory. My bad. Eliminative materialists actually do say that these things don't exist.
@dostoyevsky1222 What you say is correct. I wrote that comment 4 years ago when my philosophical knowledge was still poor, so sorry about that. What I described was indeed identity theory. Eliminative materialists would throw the existence of mental states out the window.
