• Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Determinism is about 3,000 year old philosophy.

    What is he really adding here? It was my impression that most scientists are either determinists or compatiblists already.

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yea the article doesn’t seem to be philosophically literate enough it seems to speak at that level, unfortunately. IME, neuroscientists and psychologies do a poor job of being aware of when they’re venturing into philosophical territory and then doing a good job of covering their bases. Often times they are cringey about it in how self-conscious they are about their lack of knowledge. But I’d guess it also goes the other way too.

      Something I personally took from the article was that the counter provided in favour of free will from a Neuro perspective seemed pretty embarrassing. Neurological variation, ASFAICT, doesn’t necessitate free will, and for that to be the case would require neuroscience to have a complete theory/account of consciousness. Otherwise, all neuroscience would have is a source of randomness coupled with priming by history and state and a pile of complexity that makes the output function tricky/chaotic.