Dennett is playing a very fun languag-game, but, come on, we can all see that he is playing with words. His way of "explaining" free will is to simply call a certain kind of process an example of it. He makes no attempt to actually claim that there is a chooser inside human who can choose one reason over another. But I love his passion. And beard.
Dennett, I think, makes the mistake of believing that choices must either be causally determined or random. However, a reason need not be sufficient (i.e., causal) in order to give purpose to a decision. It's a false dilemma -- as long as you're willing to concede that the principle of sufficient reason is not universally applicable.
I think the point was missed when talking about neuroethical implications on the justice system. When a society is going to have reason to impinge on the civil freedoms of an individual may not change much, but HOW that is effected very likely will. We still call prisons "correctional facilities" in some deluded notion that punishment will make people behave better. But if the name really reflects our intentions as a society, what happens at such places is going to be altered as we learn more.
" "correctional facility" is more a euphemism... for avoidance learning?"
Well, if you look back at the history of incarceration, the name really was supposed to be a literal description, it's mostly the cynical backlash from PC that makes it sound hollow.
My arguments against the effectiveness of punishment won't fit into a post... but what I do think is active; it satisfies a societal urge for vengeful justice like we see in things like the ultimatum game.
This is a cool discussion, but only the first minute or so has anything to do with neuroethics (and it was basically a dismissal of the whole endeavor). This is really more about free will.
I don't know if I fully agree. It seems to me that the potential ethical implications of denying the existence of the common-sense conception of freewill (because of advancements in the neurosciences) could be considered an aspect of neuroethics. No?
Neuroscience certainly has implications for the free will debate, but that's not the direction the speakers were approaching it from. The point of approach they use was more the idea of genetic determinism, rather than neuronal determinism.
Joseph LeDoux argues that the age-old debate between genetics and environment can be solved by neuroscience. He thinks that genetic predispositions and environmental factors are two different ways of establishing neurological patterns. If that is correct, then it seems that the distinction between genetic determinism and neuronal determinism is a lot less clear then commonly believed.
Philosophy approaches problems of behavior with questions about optimal results and unintended consequences, whereas the god-botherers merely claim they know the answers and don't back any thing up with reason.
I'm actually quite surprised that P.Churchland agreed (to some extent at least) that neuroethics won't have a big impact on jurisprudence.
And I absolutely disagree when N.Rose says science can't grasp the central issues and concepts of morality, and also when he says that freewill is in a different level of understanding from science.
I'd love to go into how biology and neuroscience might shed some light on these questions, but as Fermat said, I haven't the space to demonstrate that here.
Heartily agreed. Free will is scarcely an intelligible term, for it seems to beg the question, free of what?
Nor does the abandonment of this transparently illusory concept in any way undermine the concept of personal responsibility or justice -it only calls into question the concept of *punitive* justice. Russel'a analogy of a plague victim and a man with a propensity to commit forgeries ("...each must have his liberty curtailed until he has ceased to pose a threat...") strikes me...
Dennett is playing a very fun languag-game, but, come on, we can all see that he is playing with words. His way of "explaining" free will is to simply call a certain kind of process an example of it. He makes no attempt to actually claim that there is a chooser inside human who can choose one reason over another. But I love his passion. And beard.
rooruffneck 2 years ago
Dennett, I think, makes the mistake of believing that choices must either be causally determined or random. However, a reason need not be sufficient (i.e., causal) in order to give purpose to a decision. It's a false dilemma -- as long as you're willing to concede that the principle of sufficient reason is not universally applicable.
heart4moocows 2 years ago
Dennett is absolutely spot-on here. Jesus Dan, why couldn't you be that pithy and lucid in your debate with that asshat D'Souza?
polymath7 2 years ago
I would have liked to hear from Minsky; his eccentric dismissiveness is always entertaining.
Does anyone else think Collins sounds just bit defensive when he says "...I'm a very sophisticated geneticist..." ?
Perhaps it's my imagination.
I like that the audience gets Collins' joke. Oprah's or Dr. Phil's audience would undoubtedly be mystified.
polymath7 2 years ago
I think the point was missed when talking about neuroethical implications on the justice system. When a society is going to have reason to impinge on the civil freedoms of an individual may not change much, but HOW that is effected very likely will. We still call prisons "correctional facilities" in some deluded notion that punishment will make people behave better. But if the name really reflects our intentions as a society, what happens at such places is going to be altered as we learn more.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
I think "correctional facility" is much more a freely acknowledged euphemism than an earnest descriptor.
And I'm not quite sure why you consider the notion that punishment has or can have a deterrent effect delusional.
Surely the vast majority of humans have some significant capacity for avoidance learning?
Your screen name, by the way, seems only slightly less ego-masturbatory than mine. ;)
polymath7 2 years ago
" "correctional facility" is more a euphemism... for avoidance learning?"
Well, if you look back at the history of incarceration, the name really was supposed to be a literal description, it's mostly the cynical backlash from PC that makes it sound hollow.
My arguments against the effectiveness of punishment won't fit into a post... but what I do think is active; it satisfies a societal urge for vengeful justice like we see in things like the ultimatum game.
What's in a name, eh? ;)
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
This is a cool discussion, but only the first minute or so has anything to do with neuroethics (and it was basically a dismissal of the whole endeavor). This is really more about free will.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
I don't know if I fully agree. It seems to me that the potential ethical implications of denying the existence of the common-sense conception of freewill (because of advancements in the neurosciences) could be considered an aspect of neuroethics. No?
LennyBound 2 years ago
Neuroscience certainly has implications for the free will debate, but that's not the direction the speakers were approaching it from. The point of approach they use was more the idea of genetic determinism, rather than neuronal determinism.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Ah, gotcha.
Joseph LeDoux argues that the age-old debate between genetics and environment can be solved by neuroscience. He thinks that genetic predispositions and environmental factors are two different ways of establishing neurological patterns. If that is correct, then it seems that the distinction between genetic determinism and neuronal determinism is a lot less clear then commonly believed.
LennyBound 2 years ago
feckin. awesome. made me think about things i've been thinking about for ages in a completely different way.
dreadpiratedan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What are philosophers doing at a Science festival ?
Are any Priests coming ?
ShalloeThought 2 years ago
I don't see the two as similar.
Philosophy approaches problems of behavior with questions about optimal results and unintended consequences, whereas the god-botherers merely claim they know the answers and don't back any thing up with reason.
DavidWillB 2 years ago
I'm actually quite surprised that P.Churchland agreed (to some extent at least) that neuroethics won't have a big impact on jurisprudence.
And I absolutely disagree when N.Rose says science can't grasp the central issues and concepts of morality, and also when he says that freewill is in a different level of understanding from science.
I'd love to go into how biology and neuroscience might shed some light on these questions, but as Fermat said, I haven't the space to demonstrate that here.
IRBucephalus 2 years ago
With you on all counts and love the Fermat reference.
Have you heard the Tom Lehrer song that had a mention?
DavidWillB 2 years ago
How does "Free-Will" even fit into a scientific framework? As a theory, or hypothesis, it doesn't even work.
So, as far as I can tell, "Free-Will" isn't even a question for science. As a hypothesis it is nomologically inconsistent and a "God of the gaps".
Why do these 'scientsts' pretend like 'free-will' is a valid hypothesis, valid to the extent that it warrants mentioning?
It's a bit like an evolutionary biologist proclaiming that evolution eliminates the old hypothesis of creationism
Rybot9000 2 years ago
I.
Heartily agreed. Free will is scarcely an intelligible term, for it seems to beg the question, free of what?
Nor does the abandonment of this transparently illusory concept in any way undermine the concept of personal responsibility or justice -it only calls into question the concept of *punitive* justice. Russel'a analogy of a plague victim and a man with a propensity to commit forgeries ("...each must have his liberty curtailed until he has ceased to pose a threat...") strikes me...
polymath7 2 years ago
Thanks for this Lenny.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Thanks indeed. I think Lenny has perhaps the single best channel on Youtube -though ContraWagner gives him a run for his money.
polymath7 2 years ago
the justice system has several points to it,
1. to punish.
2. to deter.
3. to reform those that can be reformed.
4. to incarcerate those that can't be reformed.
5. to be responsive to public concerns and adjust to those concerns.
6. to be impartial in the way it carries out the other 5 points.
this isn't a comprehensive coverage of the system but main points in my opinion.
the justice system isnt a medical practice, it fulfills a purpose in society thats all.
tersse 2 years ago
I hate psychoanalysis. I hated it the minute I studied it. Though Jung's theory I accept
Nades129 2 years ago