Robert Doyle's Two Staged Free Will Model

  • Thread starter Sciborg_S_Patel
  • Start date
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#1
The Two Stage Solution to the Problem of Free Will: How Behavioral Freedom in Lower Animals Has Evolved to Become Free Will in Humans and Higher Animals

Abstract: Random noise in the neurobiology of animals allows for the generation of alternative possibilities for action. In lower animals, this shows up as behavioral freedom. Animals are not causally predetermined by prior events going back in a causal chain to the origin of the universe. In higher animals, randomness can be consciously invoked to generate surprising new behaviors. In humans, creative new ideas can be critically evaluated and deliberated. On reflection, options can be rejected and sent back for “second thoughts” before a final responsible decision and action.

We present new cosmological and microphysical reasons for doubting the deterministic picture of the world that was popular before quantum mechanics, one which still dominates philosophical discussions of free will. David Hume’s compatibilism reconciled free actions with that classical determinism. We attempt to reconcile free will with quantum indeterminism. When the indeterminism is limited to the early stage of a mental decision, the decision itself can be described as adequately determined. This is called a two-‐stage model, first “free” generation of ideas, then an adequately determined “will.”
We propose our Cogito model as the most plausible current explanation for human free will. We compare this model to past suggestions and situate it in the taxonomy of current free will positions.
A credible free will model may restore some balance to a disturbing social trend that considers
moral responsibility impossible on the basis of philosophical reasoning, psychological studies,
and advances in neuroscience
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#2
Printed to read.

I'm not sure how this model helps libertarians, nor do I think it's going to make people feel better about moral responsibility.

As far as responsibility is concerned, we may simply have to declare it by fiat.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#3
Printed to read.

I'm not sure how this model helps libertarians, nor do I think it's going to make people feel better about moral responsibility.

As far as responsibility is concerned, we may simply have to declare it by fiat.

~~ Paul
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#4
Printed to read.

I'm not sure how this model helps libertarians, nor do I think it's going to make people feel better about moral responsibility.

As far as responsibility is concerned, we may simply have to declare it by fiat.

~~ Paul
I liked that he references Heisenberg's fruit flies as an argument against simple functionalism. It's not a definitive proof but I do find it interesting when experiments like this one, or Tse challenging the notion that Libet action potentials, end up showing things are as cut and dry as some might want to believe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#5
Having read a few free will debates, I really doubt that its possible to convince a person that free will can exist with any amount of evidence; assuming they start from a position against it.

I've seen tricks used like saying something stupid, and then saying "well you have to respond to my stupid statement or ignore it, therefore I forced you in to a decision, therefore there is no free will." which sounds a bit like claiming both ends of the field as goal lines for your side to me. In that situation, the option of agency between A or B is ignored because the choice between A or B was necessitated.

The next favorite (and this one seems to be prevalent on this forum) is to say that 1) The universe must be a clockwork machine and therefore 2) The brain is clockwork and therefore 3) There can be no free will. So a study (it looks like this one is one of those) will try to link repeatedly-verified observations that the universe exhibits non-clockwork behavior to prove the clockwork argument invalid. Only instead of acknowleding that the clock is analogue (e.g. generally behaves as the circuit wills, with an added unpredictable nature) they simply claim that the noise (which disproves the clockwork determinism, and thus disproves the head argument that free will is a hoax) is also part of their argument; so basically, hedging your bets and claiming both a deterministic and indeterministic position as goal posts for your claim.

Talk about methodological issues. <sarcasm>
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#6
Only instead of acknowleding that the clock is analogue (e.g. generally behaves as the circuit wills, with an added unpredictable nature) they simply claim that the noise (which disproves the clockwork determinism, and thus disproves the head argument that free will is a hoax) is also part of their argument; so basically, hedging your bets and claiming both a deterministic and indeterministic position as goal posts for your claim.
Can you elaborate on this? I think you might be selling these guys short.

Here's some info on Heisenberg's research, who IIRC inspired Doyle to come up with this thing.
 
Top