Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: September 25, 2019 11:50AM
I think a few things need to be clarified here, Human:
"What’s interesting about that last thread, a thread about how the most championed piece of science against free will, the Libet studies, has been shown to NOT demonstrate what its champions claimed it demonstrated, is how a few hard core believers in determinism simply ignored this new bit of science and went straight into their beliefs. The ignored the science that undercut their belief and then doubled-down on their beliefs."
COMMENT: Although the Libet studies were debunked, thus removing such studies as the source of any scientific argument for determinism, the assumption that scientific determinism depended solely upon such studies, and that what is left is only philosophy, is not correct in my view.
Scientific determinism is established by Newtonian physics, which is a rather powerful starting point for a deterministic view of the universe. Even coupled with Einstein's relativity and Quantum mechanics, the assumption that determinism rules the macro physical world is extremely well-established scientifically by experiments solidifying Newtonian mechanics.
The problem arises when science fails to take into consideration the scientific fact of mental causation, which has been scientifically established by a number of studies (not to mention common sense) demonstrating that the mind and human will can act upon the brain to change its physical dynamics. Such studies effectively destroy the Newtonian deterministic assumption because they cannot be explained within the Newtonian deterministic paradigm. In other words, they demonstrate that determinism if false! In short, free will seems to now be a scientific reality, leaving science to pursue new theories to accommodate it. (And consciousness itself, of course.) Yet, rather than pursue such theories, science buries its head in the sand, like a child, insisting it cannot be so.
___________________________________________
I’m all for beliefs and the declaration of beliefs. But on this topic, for now, believers in determinism cannot claim any “science says...” arguments. With the Libet studies “debunked”, as the original OP has it, there isn’t any strong scientific argument against free will. If there is, believers in determinism should present it.
COMMENT: Again, the evidence of Newtonian physics did not disappear simply by the debunking of the Libet studies. As such, within the scientific paradigm there is a "strong" argument against free will, but not one that can accommodate the facts of mental causation. (Not to mention the role of free will as associated with interpretations of quantum physics.)
_________________________________________________
Without a scientific argument, believers in determinism will need to use philosophy to make their case.
COMMENT: I don't think this is right. What scientists do in cleaving to their deterministic world view is not turn to philosophy, they insist that reality be confined to the narrow parameters of known physical laws and theories. As I pointed out in the other post, this insistence is within a context where consciousness and free will are necessary to the very scientific theories that deny or dismiss. After all, scientists must chose their vocation, their focus of study, their experiments, their theories, etc. etc. And when they get the Nobel prize they take the credit as if "they" had something to do with the achievement.