1 / 11

PHIL 201 (STOLZE)

Notes on Massimo Pigliucci, Answers for Aristotle , chapters 6-10. PHIL 201 (STOLZE). Pigliucci explores ways in which our brain can “be manipulated into believing that we are making a rational decision when in fact we are doing anything but” (p. 78):

xanthus-mullen
Download Presentation

PHIL 201 (STOLZE)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Notes on Massimo Pigliucci, Answers for Aristotle, chapters 6-10 PHIL 201 (STOLZE)

  2. Pigliucci explores ways in which our brain can “be manipulated into believing that we are making a rational decision when in fact we are doing anything but” (p. 78): Priming = “once you start thinking about something, even though it is logically unrelated to the task at hand, you take a certain attitude toward the task that is best explained by the priming effect, not by any objective characteristic of the task” (p. 78) Framing = nudging people toward one decision or another “depending on how one poses the exact same problem to them” (p. 79) Brain injuries and delusions: Cotard’s Syndrome Capgas Syndrome Split Brain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfGwsAdS9Dc) Confabulation Key Issues in Chapter Six

  3. Decision-making and intuition Adam Alter on disfluency = “a measure of how comfortable we are with the information we are receiving. It turns out that the more disfluent we are about something, the less we rely on intuition and the more we engage in full-bore analytical reasoning.” (p. 97) Causes of disfluency An interview with Alter on his new book Drunk Tank Pink (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaDIwe_9vdk) Gender and cultural differences in decision-making Three phases over which an individual acquires skills (pp. 103-104): as a beginner performs quasi-automatically and with reasonable proficiency attains “deliberate practice” Key Issues in Chapter Seven

  4. Two Types of Scientific Reasoning: Deductive Inductive Hume on the Problem of Induction (Ex: the “Inductivist Turkey,” pp. 113-114) Popper’s Criticism of Verification and Defense of Falsification of Scientific Theories Kuhn on Normal Science (“Puzzle Solving”), Paradigms, Observational Anomalies, and Paradigm Shifts Three Philosophies of Science: Realism Antirealism Perspectivism Key Issues in Chapter Eight

  5. There are three possible philosophical positions: Compatibilism = “the universe is deterministic, but this in itself does not preclude free will” Libertarian Incompatibilism = “the universe is not deterministic, but if it were that fact would preclude free will” Deterministic Incompatibilism = “determinism is real and therefore free will is precluded” The Key Issue in Chapter Nine: The Status of Human Freedom

  6. 1.Everything we do is caused by forces over which we have no control. 2.If our actions are caused by forces over which we have no control, we do not act freely. 3.Therefore, we never act freely. NOTE:If you challenge premise #1, then you are defending a version of libertarianism. However, if you challenge premise #2, then you are defending a version of compatibilism. A Simple Determinist Argument

  7. Recreating Benjamin Libet’s classic experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ4nwTTmcgs The Neuroscientific Argument for Determinism

  8. A weak argument: “If most current interpretations of quantum mechanics (the most accurate of physical theories proposed so far) are correct, then the universe isn’t deterministic because there are truly random events (uncaused and completely unpredictable) at the quantum level. Many neurobiologists and some philosophers have seized on this to claim that therefore quantum mechanics provides a scientific answer to the issue of free will. Unfortunately, this is nonsense on stilts, so to speak. Even if quantum events might conceivably ‘bubble up’ to the much more macroscopic level at which the chemical and electrical processes of the brain take place, thus influencing what we do, this would be an example of ‘random will,’ not free will. Nobody associates freedom of choice with random decision-making, as if our brains were a roulette machine picking whatever course of action corresponds with a random draw of the wheel” (p. 137-138). The experience of anxiety when making a decision (Jean-Paul Sartre) The experience of complex and protracted deliberation leading up to making a decision and/or adopting a course of action The experience of self-control when not yielding to temptation and maintaining a resolution (Richard Holton) Pigliucci suggests that there are even five distinct ways to understand what is meant by “free will” Three Libertarian Challenges

  9. “Free” doesn’t mean uncaused but only uncoerced. As a result, whether or not your behavior is free depends not on if is caused but on how it is caused. Pigliucci argues that “the compatibilist acknowledges that our actions have to be caused, and that they are limited or channeled by physical, biological, and psychological constraints. But the compatibilist claims that this is the kind of free will a ‘worth wanting,’ in the phrase of Daniel Dennett. No magical hand-waving here, invoking a free will that cannot be, nor the simplistic, existentialist-like rejection of the reality of being human. Quite simply, free will is in this sense our (demonstrable) ability to consider information, balance it against our desires, and take a particular course of action among several available to us. Of course, our desires are themselves the result of our upbringing, our genetic constitution, our experiences in life. How could it be otherwise? And of course, our way of reasoning is also the result of all those things. Again, what would it mean if that were not the case? So compatibilism is a compromise between the undeniable fact that we are a particular type of biological being, with all that entails, and our sense that we own our decisions and can therefore ‘within limits’ be held responsible for them or praised for them” (p. 140). Pigliucci argues, then, against forms of scientific reductionism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t55SAOeoCxI&sns=em A Compatibilist Reconciliation?

  10. Roy Baumeister on Willpower, Self-Control, and Decision Fatigue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjZdtpXXxpw An Analysis of Willpower

  11. Plato's Tripartite Division of the Soul (Rational, Spirited, Appetitive) Hume on Reason as a Slave to the Passions Our Inner Zombie: Current Research by Paul Cisek on the Evolution of Human Decision Making and the Inadequacy of the "Central Executive" Computer Metaphor of the Brain (http://andara.uqam.ca/Panopto/Content/Sessions/94abe96c-2885-48a4-98de-836b2390c025/746a467f-64d0-4279-a61c-0fbfe67de2e6-3ad1eb8f-70c4-4ccd-9e55-93e1b9d56bac.mp4) Teenage Risk-Taking "From Oral to Moral"--Disgust and Politics: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_pizarro_the_strange_politics_of_disgust.html Key Issues in Chapter Ten

More Related