lecture 7 Flashcards
(23 cards)
Philosophical definition of free will?
Ability to do otherwise
Scientific debate of free will?
Agential control. Are we actually in charge of our actions or is it our subconscious?
Free will
The ability to choose from available options. In order to be free will it must be true that you could’ve acted otherwise.
Deterministic world
Every event is already determined by laws of nature or by antecedent conditions. (no superpowers etc)
Incompatibilism
Free will is incompatible with determinism:
1-Libertarianism
2-Hard determinism
Libertarianism
Free will exits determinism is false
Hard determinism
Free will doesn’t exist determinism is true.
compatibilism
Determinism and free will are compatible.
Central assumptions of incompatibilism
If we knew how the world started we would know all possible next outcomes. This takes our free will away.
Central assumptions of libertarianism
1- The idea aligns with substance dualism. There are only 2 substances which are the mind and body. It is impossible that an immaterial entity will affect the material entity. That’s why it is not possible that deterministic (physical) world will impact our behavior and free will.
2- Limitation: Substance dualism is not supported by science therefore it’s hardly defended. It contradicts how we know the world.
3- Support: Quantum physics argues our world is probabilistic and supports libertanism.
Legal constitutions X Libertaniasm
We assume that being a burglar was Sarah’s free will choice and therefore arrest her. This way of thinking saves our legal constitutions.
Central assumptions of hard determinism.
All physical states have physical causes and free will doesn’t exits.
1- This supports our world view of science and emphasizes the nonexistence of superpowers.
Legal constitutions X Hard Determinism
1- We can’t hold people responsible for their actions because it’s not free will.
2- Punishment must be replaced by prevention: removing potential criminals from the public to prevent future harm.
Classical compatibilism
1-Being able to act up on what you decided no external enforcement (gun on the head) or internal effect ( disorders)
2- In a world where you are trying to decide which flavor of ice cream to get you pick vanilla. This was determined due to laws of nature. But you could’ve picked otherwise (strawberry) out of free will. However this would be in a different world where everything is determined.
Freedom of action/ Freedom of will ?
1- To be able to do what you want
2- To be able to want what you want
Central assumptions of new compatibilism?
Hierarchical Model of the Will?
In contrast to infants, humans have second-order desires directed to our first order desire.
First order desire:
1-I don’t want to go to the gym
2- I want to smoke
Second order desire:
1-I want to want to go to the gym
2- I don’t want to want to smoke.
When does freedom of action occur according to Hierarchical Model of the Will?
According to one’s first order desire
When does freedom of will occur according to the Hierarchical Model of the Will?
When first order alligns with the second order.
Alfred Mele’s objection to Libet-type experiment?
It is not clear how we interpret the RP unconscious “urge” or “intention” tp act. Only our conscious turn this into an action. So Libet experiment doesn’t prove that measured brain activity necessarily lead to certain movements.
Veto experiment
1-Libet did another experiment where participants were asked to look at the clock when the become conscious of wanting to move as well as stop this movement.
2-When participants wanted to stop they consciously dropped the RP and stopped moving.
Conclusion: at least we have free won’t
New unconscious debate
Epiphenomenalism: posits that mental states (like thoughts, feelings, and experiences) are byproducts (or “epiphenomena”) of physical processes in the brain and body, but they do not have any causal influence on physical events. In other words, the sense that the experience of conscious will is not a direct indication of conscious thought has caused the action.
Choice blindness experiment
1- Participants were shown 2 pictures and asked to pick one. After they were presented with the picture they didn’t pick. Most of them didn’t realize and still justified why they picked that picture.
2-This supports theories proposing that our conscious thoughts and rationalizations can be post hoc explanations of choices that have already been made at an unconscious level.
Issues with choice blindness experiment
This is not how we make choices in daily life. We often don’t choose from relatively similar options. We are not often tricked into explaining something we didn’t choose.
