Neuroscience Suggests Lack of Free Will?
Still useful even as an illusion
Humans have debated the issue of free will for millennia. But over the past several years, while the philosophers continue to argue about the metaphysical underpinnings of human choice, an increasing number of neuroscientists have started to tackle the issue head on — quite literally. And some of them believe that their experiments reveal that our subjective experience of freedom may be nothing more than an illusion. Here's why you probably don't have free will.
Indeed, historically speaking, philosophers have had plenty to say on the matter. Their ruminations have given rise to such considerations as cosmological determinism (the notion that everything proceeds over the course of time in a predictable way, making free will impossible), indeterminism (the idea that the universe and our actions within it are random, also making free will impossible), and cosmological libertarianism/compatibilism (the suggestion that free will is logically compatible with deterministic views of the universe).
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And some of them believe that their experiments reveal that our subjective experience of freedom may be nothing more than an illusion.
I believe that they are probably statist douches. How is my belief more relevant than theirs? Because they are scientists? Show me the science, don't tell me what they "believe".
What, no more openings in the AGW "sciences"?
The big problem here from what I can see is that the game is rigged. Notice their choices are basically random or set, each of which say we are helpless. The third option simply adds that you're responsible anyway.
There's no accounting here for even the known phenomenon of creativity.
Can't... Help... Myself...
Writing... Smartass... Reply...
Must... Imply... Bullshit...
Neuroscience requests that you consider this new information and determine whether or not to believe it so as determine whether or not you have the ability to freely judge information and choose whether or not to believe it...