jetpack domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131updraftplus domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131avia_framework domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131A great comment – how did I miss this at the time!
]]>Hola,
When it comes to philosophy I’m a scrub for sure. I read the recent Nagel book where he discussed the mind – rejecting dualism and biological reductionism in favour of some for of creationist (though not necessarily religious) explanation of the link between the mind and body.
My impression is that the biological reductionist position is close to the idea of determinism, while is is dualism that would more favour free will – although free will in that context can’t me “explained” and seems unscientific.
I’m not convinced that just because we can’t explain something we can then just rule it out – especially since our argument regarding which is true relies on what can be very subtle definitions. After all, our choice may be determined by our preferences, the preferences of others, the external conditions, and the opportunity cost – but if we still actively make the choice we may still say we have free will.
Furthermore, even if we don’t actively make the choice and it comes from rules that our unconscious mind works on, we may still have free will because we can over-ride this choice – however, this is unobservable because we never “over-ride” our best choice … and as a result, we cannot tell if our actions are free or pre-determined.
]]>The problem is it’s becoming quite clear in philosophy circles that free will is entirely incoherent.
]]>That is a good point, I’m glad you raised it – and I agree with you that digging further down into how choice functions does not change our view in terms of free will or determinism at all … in theory.
However, I would say that the way economics discusses choice presupposes itself towards determinism – I’m not saying that you HAVE to assume determinism to use the framework, hell I believe in free will and I still find the framework extremely useful.
However, given that predisposition, I believe that the more mechanically you describe choice, and the more you reduce it to clear elements, the more risk there is that people will apply it with the idea of determinism in their minds – and therefore the more “certainty” we have around choice, the more likely it is that people will set up policies based on a deterministic view of the world, stripping out responsibility and the importance of revealed preferences.
Neuroscience still doesn’t give the ability to objectively compare pains and pleasures for the full relevant set of outcomes. Without this we need to keep some idea of caution whenever we apply policies.
So my concern has nothing to do with what the discipline could do – but with how practicioners may view it. I’d say that I took the other side of defending neuroscientists in this post:
http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2010/11/08/neuroscience-determinism-and-free-will/
]]>