Pundits and politicians alike are tempted by the idea that, if there are no higher powers or greater realities to answer to, they can force people to fulfil their visions with impunity.
Read More ›
Interestingly, Mitchell uses evolution to establish free will. Most uses of the concept would be to deny or diminish it, as in “We evolved to be violent,” etc.
Read More ›
Perhaps the fact that Sapolsky opposes free will somehow makes his viewpoint more “scientific” in the eyes of many than the viewpoint of someone who, with equally good arguments, supports it.
Read More ›
“Turtles all the way down” — infinite regress — doesn’t solve the problem that everything, as a whole, is ultimately floating on something beyond itself.
Read More ›
In his view, no whole human being decides not to do something wrong or harmful. Only the brain’s prefrontal cortex, which has no opinion, does so…
Read More ›
If there is no free will, you can’t say “I didn’t do it” if sociologically, you have a higher probability of doing it than someone else might.
Read More ›
No humans live as if we doubt free will. Free will denial is just a way for materialists to advertise themselves, like a political yard sign.
Read More ›
Horgan’s underlying doubts about the reality of his free will and his mind, really, seem rooted in his passionate belief in Darwinian evolution.
Read More ›
Given that both Pinker and Horgan are Darwinian materialists, their coldness toward the idea that there is no free will is worth keeping an eye on.
Read More ›
It appears that materialists have not been able to simply disprove free will, so Mitchell seems to be trying to shape an evolution theory to fit it.
Read More ›
Great neuroscientists weren’t dualists in spite of the evidence but because of it. Their research really did not support a materialist view of the mind.
Read More ›