Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 11:47:33 GMT
tpfkar
Dec 19, 2017 11:39:32 GMT @miccee said:
I'm just watching a Jerry Coyne lecture on free will right now, and wanted to post another 2 studies which support what I'm saying:www.pnas.org/content/110/15/6217.abstract
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053053
Interesting to see if you can poke any holes in the methodology or conclusions of these.
What is the reaction from others in the relevant fields?Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce
I can copy the conclusion from the second link:
"Conclusion
Neuroscience cannot straightforwardly accommodate a concept of “conscious free will”, independent of brain activity [42]. However, the belief that humans have free will is fundamental to human society [43]. This belief has profound top-down effects on cognition [44] and even on brain activity itself [45]. The dualistic view that decisions to inhibit reflect a special “conscious veto” or “free won’t” mechanism [46] is scientifically unwarranted. Instead, conscious decisions to check and delay our actions may themselves be consequences of specific brain mechanisms linked to action preparation and action monitoring [19]. Recent neuroscientific studies have strongly questioned the concept of free will, but have had difficulty addressing the alternative concept of free won’t, largely because of the absence of behavioural markers of inhibition. Our results suggest that an important aspect of “free” decisions to inhibit can be explained without recourse to an endogenous, ”uncaused” process: the cause of our “free decisions” may at least in part, be simply the background stochastic fluctuations of cortical excitability. Our results suggest that free won’t may be no more free than free will."