Dr. Julien Musolino is a cognitive scientist and author of The Soul Fallacy. He explains why the intuitively, commonly-held notion of free will - known as “libertarian” or “contra-causal” - is scientifically incoherent. This has some implications for how we view ourselves and how we treat others, but on many levels it also doesn’t matter. Julien restores the concept of free will by providing a different definition of free will at a higher level of abstraction. Along the way, Julien and I delve into ideas from philosophy, morality, politics, and sociology.
Publications referenced in the conversation:
- For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything, by Joshua Greene
- Moral Responsibility Reconsidered, by Gregg D. Caruso
- Free is as real as baseball, by Sean Carroll
OK, fair enough that indeterminacy at the fundamental (according to known physics) quantum level is irrelevant to the concept of strong (or libertarian) free will, because the ultimate agent has no control over it, but all that emerges from the causal chain of events leading to choices/decisions at the level the agent functions in the world is predisposition (even very strong predisposition), not determinism. If it did, people would be highly predictable, at least in the aggregate, but they aren't, and hence the actual reality of the world in which we live, among materialistically/monistically conscious individuals who are self-aware/sentient and are able to have subjective experiences. So yes, the convenience store thief had a choice as to whether or not to pull the trigger, and could have done otherwise, just as those of us without violent tendencies choose between gelato and cheesecake for dessert. Nevertheless, his strong predisposition to shoot must mitigate our desire for retribution, and we need to focus instead on harm reduction through justice...
ReplyDelete