Interesting. I'm not read up on free-will, but I'm interested in exactly (or at least as exactly as it can be at my knowledge-level whilst still being a productive conversation) what you mean by "Such studies should entirely erode the idea that 'you' are the master of your fate, the captain of your soul. "
Forgive my naivety on this topic, but it seems that determinism also requires a physicalist ontology, i.e. that the mind is fully reducible to deterministic physical laws. Perhaps that's an incorrect assumption? What little knowledge I do have philosophically has given me the distinct impression that physicalism is by no means a given.
It seems reasonable to me that if physicalism is true, then the mind must be deterministic because physical laws appear to be. Conversely, if physicalism is not true, then there's no reason minds have to be deterministic (theological debate notwithstanding). I would say, though, that we simply don't have enough of an idea, philosophically or scientifically, of what a mind is to begin making claims about free-will, as we must first solve a much more contentious ontological question. Such a question may be resolved in the future, but how do we know what we don't know? How do we know that we understand everything we need to in order to draw conclusions?
Do you think this is a valid response? Do you simply find physicalism to be the most parsimonious model of things and therefore have your point about free-will flow from that? Or do you have some other conception of things entirely?
I'll end by saying that, of course, we cannot simply dismiss psychological or neuroscience research like this, but I think it could still be accepted within a non-deterministic framework. For instance, perhaps the set of choices a mind has available are deterministic of the kind shown by research, but the final choice is an act of agency? Just an intuitive example, I'm sure holes can be poked in it.
Interesting. I'm not read up on free-will, but I'm interested in exactly (or at least as exactly as it can be at my knowledge-level whilst still being a productive conversation) what you mean by "Such studies should entirely erode the idea that 'you' are the master of your fate, the captain of your soul. "
Forgive my naivety on this topic, but it seems that determinism also requires a physicalist ontology, i.e. that the mind is fully reducible to deterministic physical laws. Perhaps that's an incorrect assumption? What little knowledge I do have philosophically has given me the distinct impression that physicalism is by no means a given.
It seems reasonable to me that if physicalism is true, then the mind must be deterministic because physical laws appear to be. Conversely, if physicalism is not true, then there's no reason minds have to be deterministic (theological debate notwithstanding). I would say, though, that we simply don't have enough of an idea, philosophically or scientifically, of what a mind is to begin making claims about free-will, as we must first solve a much more contentious ontological question. Such a question may be resolved in the future, but how do we know what we don't know? How do we know that we understand everything we need to in order to draw conclusions?
Do you think this is a valid response? Do you simply find physicalism to be the most parsimonious model of things and therefore have your point about free-will flow from that? Or do you have some other conception of things entirely?
I'll end by saying that, of course, we cannot simply dismiss psychological or neuroscience research like this, but I think it could still be accepted within a non-deterministic framework. For instance, perhaps the set of choices a mind has available are deterministic of the kind shown by research, but the final choice is an act of agency? Just an intuitive example, I'm sure holes can be poked in it.