Decoupling the decision[i]

In the beginning of the interview, RLK[ii] drove Thalia to agree that philosophers need to take neuroscientists into consideration when arguing over free will. I know that is difficult for neuroscientist to compatible a biological plausible theory that deals with billions of neurons because they know “the terms” (how the brain works, etc…).
Thalia says that is not possible to put the physical system together the free will based on her experiments that have showed that neuroscientist can cause action in patients without they have the sense of free will, so this sense is an illusion or whatever.
In her experiments with some “games”, individuals made something without the feeling of will or she put electrons in their arms that excited their hands to do movements, decoupling the feeling of action, decision, behavior. Or, she dissociated the feeling of doing from the action of doing.
The implication is that the feeling of doing is not relevant, but why do we need this feeling? For her, for simple actions like moving an object we don’t need to know we are doing that.
Lastly, an important factor for decoupling the feeling of doing from doing is the hypnosis as a method, so doing something without having the control. The hypnosis paradigm it is the only way she found so far, but it sounds like a messy sometimes. The individuals did remember what they did but didn’t remember the decision to do that (the electricity did!!!). And, of the course, the problem of the amount of electrons in the body of the testers.
She finalizing saying the main critic she receives is that the experiments only show no free will for small actions but do not prove anything about big decision like get married and others, but, for her, this is a start point and philosophers need to deal with this fact.


[i] According to the interview with Thalia Wheatley about Philosophy of Free Will, accessed in March, 30 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go7LNWV2mOo&t. Do not forget Daniel Wegner as well, e.g., The Illusion of Conscious Will.
[ii] Robert Lawrence Kuhn.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Free will and determinism*

          According to SoL (School of Life), the debate between free will and determinism has been crossing the Philosophy History since the beginning until our time reaching even the neuroscientists. It concerns about whether the human being is able to dominate their actions by themselves or they are determined by forces beyond their control, like fate and politics. SoL argues that the long running arguments in favor or against both sides are not conclusive because they are based on objective variables when they should be thought as what is relevant to me (to me… to me?). Also, they vary from person to person guided by two psychological aspects: defeatism and aspiration.           Does the course of our life belong to the others, like our parents, bosses and so on or can we change our life and our relationships based on our strenght and free will? The second should be even better but more difficult, of course. So moving far from the o...
Read more

The soul is just a function*

Image
Putman talks about the contribution of Computer Science to Philosophy of Mind in terms of thinking the mind as a kind of function rather than physical or chemistry. He says that the rise of computers could result in everything being explained in terms of machines but the paradox is that it didn´t contribute for this kind of reductionism . Generally, according to Putman, when we work with computer we think in its programs, instructions, rules, etc., and we ignore the hardware. Ironically, he says that there is an emergency (not violating the laws of physics) where we work in a high level of the organization, in the program level. So we can think in the mind the same way: instead of thinking we are spirit inboded would be better think in the relation between the mind and the body in terms of functions. * Short digest of short interisting vídeo: https://youtu.be/m0YIm8p30aU . Acessed in Jan, 28 th . Hilary Putnam on Functionalism.
Read more

Eudaimonia*

SoL (School of Life) worked with the eudaimonia concept in this video: a word that comes from Plato and Aristotle. Basically, SoL compares eudaimonia with a contemporaneous word - happiness - saying that the ancient philosophers didn’t propose us to have a happy life. The purpose of our life is not avoid suffering or be unhappy – the way the word is used today, but overcome the daily and simple challenges that come every day under pressure. For SoL, eudaimonia should be associated with the word fulfilment that is distinguished by happiness by pain. So, the word eudaimonia is able to accommodate happy and unhappy and, instead of pursuing a pain free existence, we need to go further and we can make the difference. In short terms, we need to do what is really important more than to smile all the time. Follows eudaimonia recommendation means that we can spend our whole life fighting in our job, relationship and political engagement but finishing our days feeling these tasks wer...
Read more