Since we're on the topic of the relevance of neuroscience to free will, let me take the opportunity to engage in some shameful self-promotion. Over at Philosophy Bites, I discuss consciousness, neuroscience, free will and moral responsibility. Enjoy! Or endure! Or ignore!
Congrats Neil! I think you're absolutely right about where we should be focusing the debate--i.e., the role, function, and importance of consciousness, as well as recent work in social psychology. This, of course, is near and dear to my heart since I just wrote a book about it!
Posted by: Gregg Caruso | 03/25/2012 at 09:45 AM
Neil, I enjoyed listening to your ideas about moral responsibility – great presentation.
While we’re on the subject of neuroscience and free will, how about the following definition for free will, and the argument shown below to prove its existence...
A definition of free will: The ability for one human thought to interact with, affect, or influence another thought inside a physical brain, in a manner that’s not controlled totally by the four fundamental forces of physics (and isn’t random in nature either).
Premises:
1. A human thought is a complex *pattern* of neurological activity that exists in a distributed manner within the three-space of a physical brain.
2. A human thought is a real entity that exists at the “pattern” level, not at the singular neuron level (just as the emergent picture from a 1000-piece puzzle exists at the completed puzzle level, not the single-piece level).
3. One thought is capable of interacting with, affecting, or influencing another thought inside a physical brain (i.e., mental causation is true).
4. When one real entity interacts with another real entity, associated forces exist.
5. When one thought interacts with another thought, associated forces exist. In other words, emergent forces interact at the "pattern" level. (If that were false, mental causation would also be false, and it would simply be an illusion that our thoughts interact with one another.)
6. The forces exerted from the “pattern” level (i.e., the thought level) aren’t simply the sum of the electro-chemical forces exerted from the neuron level. If that were false, your thoughts wouldn’t interact at the thought/pattern level, since all of your logic would be determined 100% from interaction at the neuron level.
Conclusion:
New forces are an emergent property of human thoughts, and those forces aren’t determined only by the four fundamental forces of physics (i.e., the neuron-level). In addition, those new forces aren't random in nature, because the interaction of our thoughts (i.e., our thinking) isn't random in nature; our thinking makes logical sense.
Posted by: James Laird | 03/25/2012 at 11:33 AM
Nice interview Neil, and thanks for defining moral responsibility. I agree that the work of Libet and Wegner et al. doesn't threaten the causal role of consciousness in behavior control if, as you say, the consciousness in question is something like Block's access consciousness. The possible causal role of phenomenal consciousness (experience) is another story. Interesting that philosophical zombies, if they could exist, would be access conscious.
Since you've said elsewhere you don't believe we're ever morally responsible, I'm not sure on your view how it's the case that "we may be indirectly morally responsible" (as you put it) for actions stemming from our implicit biases and being unconsciously manipulated. But I agree it would be good for us to take responsibility for discovering, overcoming and shielding ourselves from them so that we might become more integrated and effective agents when acting on our endorsed values.
Posted by: Tom Clark | 03/25/2012 at 04:15 PM
A delight to actually hear your voice Neil! And because I had the privilege of reading your working mss on this (thanks to your generous offer previously on Flickers), I can attest it was a great recap of that work. Your ingenious use of awareness as reportable contents to make your point about awareness as a necessary condition of responsibility is a great advance, especially as it fits with the ever-emerging neurobiology of conscious and unconscious states.
Posted by: V. Alan White | 03/25/2012 at 06:52 PM