If you are assigned a reading on free will in a college class, there is a very good chance that it is a philosophy class.

Except that such people have nearly nothing with which to contribute to the debate. DUCY?

It's not an empirical debate. Whether it's even an empirical debate is a philosophical topic. And, since it's not an empirical matter, it's best left to the philosophers and not the neuroscientists.

No

No

It is an empirical issue.

Arguably.

It is an empirical issue. Or its not an issue.

You asked for a topic not an issue. If you're going to restrict your topics to "issue" (with some definition of issue no doubt making it the kind of things philosophers are interested in) then I'm sure you will be able to provide one.

However, my intention was not to actually try and meet your challenge but to point out that the basic premise is incorrect - mathematical thinking is more universally applicable than philosophy (unlike philosophy there have been mathematicians who studied juggling just like there are mathematical approaches to just about every topic) and if your claim (of being able to produce a philosophy journal related to any topic) actually had any value it would, in fact, contradict your central thesis anyhow.

Mathematicians have had more to say about it. They also say it with more rigour (and it's skill with argumentation we're talking about rather than verbosity).

Why would neurologists have any expertise regarding free will?

Physicists may have expertise with regard to the issue of cause and effect and will have worthwhile opinions on whether determinism is true but outside of that scientists are only looking at how brains work chemically and structurally and how behaviour can be predicted by looking at brains, ie. the stuff you can do experiments on.

But these questions and others are not ones you can do experiments on and fall outside the sphere of science and into the philosophy of free will:

What is meant by 'free will' and why is it valuable?
Is it determinism or indeterminism that allows individuals to be moral agents?
If determinism is true does that mean individuals cannot make choices in the way we normally understand the concept of choice?
Do human decisions come within the world of causation or is mind a different kind of thing from matter?

For example: they can look into the mechanisms of decision making through brain scans and so on. They can look into how things really work inside the brain, without so much being biased by ego. I agree there is a long way to go on this path though, before philosophical speculation can be put to rest.

Except that it either totally begs the question, or doesn't answer the other important questions such as whether responsibility is compatible with determinism.

There are a lot of related topics such as consciousness, choice, free will, self awareness. All of which relate to how we operate within our brains. Progress on understanding these issues can only come from studying the brain. Others can waffle to their hearts content, but real advance from new information can only come from experimentation and observation of our brains.

Yes...

Everything falls within the sphere of science.

Free will relates to our power of choice, by conducting experiments we can home in on the exact process by which we make choices.

I believe people are working on ways to induce certain choices by stimulating specific areas of the brain. If were to say control someone like a puppet by controlled neuron stimulation wouldn't that address certain questions about free will? Ok start with a mouse.

I am not saying that this will be possible. Just that closure on these issues can only come from studying the brain.

Belief that are actions make a difference in our lives helps motivate us to better ourselves, increasing viability and propagating this belief in the control of our environment.

Duh!

Depends what you mean by “normally understand the concept of choice”. I think people have radically differing opinions here.

The brain is made of matter. The mind can be viewed as software running in our brain. A piece of computer software is not exactly made of matter, but is a pattern that can be viewed as existing within matter.

Everything falls within the sphere of science?

That's pretty laughable, sorry.

You're doing a tonne of begging the question.

Personally they appear unrelated to me.

Determinism is resolved at a micro level. How each cog works exactly. Responsibility is a social concept related how we operate with other humans.

For responsibility to have meaning its necessary to immerse oneself in this human environment, to do that you have to lay aside determinism.

That attitude is pretty laughable too, sorry.

Hmm... I see you do have a point, but I think it stems from rather a defeatist viewpoint.

If you make an a priori assumption that there are certain real issues that can be analysed, but cannot be analysed via scientific methods, then your “begging the question” observation has some merit.

However the scientific method is simply our best method of resolving issues. If an issue can not be resolved using science then it cannot be resolved. (Otherwise whatever method of solution that was used should have been incorporated into the scientific method in the first place.)

I would rather make the assumption that all issues can be addressed by science, so that in principle all issues have some chance of resolution. The alternative would appear to be to give up on some issues without even trying.

Some issues like “What happened before the big bang”, I dont actually believe we will ever be able to resolve. The universe is too big to fit in the laboratory, and the time-scales to massive. However science is the only forum for trying and I could be wrong.

However issues like free will and consciousness happen in the human brain. It is possible to do experiments on brains and minds. They fit in the laboratory. In fact much work has already been done in this area with interesting results.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that with application and time all issues could not be adequately resolved. To make an a priori assumption that topics like free will can not be addressed by science ignoring the neuroscience of free will sees an incredible position to me.

Once again, begging the question.

Furthermore, nearly all of your assertions aren't 'scientific'...so how do you justify them?

What about logic? Is that reduced to science?

You can decide that determinism is true and you can look at brains and see exactly which events cause which behaviours - and then you can be a compatabilist and say we still have free will or an incompatibilist and say we don't, but whichever position you chose will be a philosophiclal stance. You can do an experiment to get the information but not to decide which conclusion to draw.

Re the Duh comment, if I was dumb enough to pose the question I'm going to be too dumb to understand which answer is obvious to you.

Piers, do you know what underdetermination means?

Not until a couple of minutes ago

Must admit I would never have guessed without looking it up.

The reason that free will/responsibility isn't empirical is that for whatever observation you pick, it will forever underdetermine determinism vs indeterminism.

Science can't do everything.

But philosophy can't do anything.

It's not like philosophy actually answers these questions (does free will exist, or determinism/indeterminism) itself.

If we manage to determine the biochemical process that lead to choice and the sensation of free will then that is what we have done. I don't see what else there is to conclude.

Nothing can. But philosophy can work on making our practices or intuitions explicit in whether we think that freedom or responsibility is compatible or incompatible w/ determinism.

This is entirely where the debate focuses. Everyone knows that we can't settle determinism vs indeterminism...but most laypeople only focus on that, which is a mistake. This is why thinking that neuroscience has anything really important to say is a redherring.

Which still can't tell you how the world actually is.

No kidding. Maybe you should re-read the post that you quoted.

As I see it free will is a different issue to determinism vs indeterminism. If we were to accurately model how the human mind works at the chemical level, I believe we would have done enough to resolve the issue of free will. However the issue of determinism vs indeterminism would still be open. Its just “Hey! look at free will” would not be an easy line of attack for pro indeterminists.

That's not saying I don't think determinism vs indeterminism cannot be approached empirically, just that its a different subject.

Although its possible your making your point a little too subtly for me, and I am still a trifle confused as to why responsibility is important here.


Yes, but that is not the same as “Science is the best tool for solving practical issues”. And it does not mean that if science cannot do something then there is something else which could do it.

For the most part I focus on how to get women to sleep with me. For me the debate is mostly focused on whatever will impress the ladies. Everyone knows that we won't settle anything, what matters is who goes home with the girl.

Some guys look for men to sleep with them, but I'm not that type.