自由意志和神经科学:决策时间和不归路

A. Mele
{"title":"自由意志和神经科学:决策时间和不归路","authors":"A. Mele","doi":"10.1163/9789004409965_006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although I have written many articles and chapters on neuroscientific arguments for the nonexistence of free will, I have not run out of things to say about these arguments. Part of the explanation is that experiments on the topic continue to be conducted and to shed new light on important issues raised by earlier experiments. This is fortunate for me, given that I accepted Bernard Feltz’s invitation to write a chapter for this volume. Experiments performed by neuroscientist Benjamin Libet in the 1980s pose an alleged challenge to the existence of free will. Some neuroscientists have followed Libet’s lead, sometimes using electroencephalography (eeg), as he did, and sometimes using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), depth electrodes, or subdural grid electrodes. In Effective Intentions (Mele 2009, chs. 3, 4, and 6), I argued that the neuroscientific work discussed there falls well short of justifying the claim that free will is an illusion. My focus was on the data and on whether the data supported certain empirical claims that have been combined with theoretical claims about free will to yield the conclusion that free will does not exist. There are some interesting new data now. In this chapter, I explore the bearing of some studies published after 2009 on the question whether we have convincing neuroscientific evidence for the nonexistence of free will. Section 1 provides some scientific and terminological background. Section 2 tackles a question about the time at which decisions are made in Libet-style experiments in connection with an examination of a familiar neuroscientific argument for the nonexistence of free will. Section 3 addresses a related neuroscientific argument that features a claim about the point of no return for actions studied in experiments of this kind. Section 4 takes up a skeptical argument that might be thought to have a basis in some recent neuroscientific work. Section 5 wraps things up.","PeriodicalId":333678,"journal":{"name":"Free Will, Causality, and Neuroscience","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Free Will and Neuroscience: Decision Times and the Point of No Return\",\"authors\":\"A. Mele\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/9789004409965_006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although I have written many articles and chapters on neuroscientific arguments for the nonexistence of free will, I have not run out of things to say about these arguments. Part of the explanation is that experiments on the topic continue to be conducted and to shed new light on important issues raised by earlier experiments. This is fortunate for me, given that I accepted Bernard Feltz’s invitation to write a chapter for this volume. Experiments performed by neuroscientist Benjamin Libet in the 1980s pose an alleged challenge to the existence of free will. Some neuroscientists have followed Libet’s lead, sometimes using electroencephalography (eeg), as he did, and sometimes using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), depth electrodes, or subdural grid electrodes. In Effective Intentions (Mele 2009, chs. 3, 4, and 6), I argued that the neuroscientific work discussed there falls well short of justifying the claim that free will is an illusion. My focus was on the data and on whether the data supported certain empirical claims that have been combined with theoretical claims about free will to yield the conclusion that free will does not exist. There are some interesting new data now. In this chapter, I explore the bearing of some studies published after 2009 on the question whether we have convincing neuroscientific evidence for the nonexistence of free will. Section 1 provides some scientific and terminological background. Section 2 tackles a question about the time at which decisions are made in Libet-style experiments in connection with an examination of a familiar neuroscientific argument for the nonexistence of free will. Section 3 addresses a related neuroscientific argument that features a claim about the point of no return for actions studied in experiments of this kind. Section 4 takes up a skeptical argument that might be thought to have a basis in some recent neuroscientific work. Section 5 wraps things up.\",\"PeriodicalId\":333678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Free Will, Causality, and Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Free Will, Causality, and Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004409965_006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Free Will, Causality, and Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004409965_006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

尽管我已经写了很多文章和章节,讨论神经科学关于自由意志不存在的论证,但对于这些论证,我还有很多话要说。部分原因是,有关该主题的实验仍在继续进行,并为早期实验提出的重要问题提供了新的线索。这对我来说是幸运的,因为我接受了Bernard Feltz的邀请,为这本书写了一章。神经学家本杰明·利贝特(Benjamin Libet)在20世纪80年代进行的实验对自由意志的存在提出了所谓的挑战。一些神经科学家追随Libet的脚步,有时像他一样使用脑电图(eeg),有时使用功能性磁共振成像(fMRI)、深度电极或硬膜下网格电极。在有效意图(Mele 2009, chs。3、4、6),我认为这里讨论的神经科学工作远远不能证明自由意志是一种幻觉的说法是正确的。我关注的是数据,以及数据是否支持某些经验性的主张,这些主张与关于自由意志的理论主张相结合,从而得出自由意志不存在的结论。现在有一些有趣的新数据。在这一章中,我探讨了2009年以后发表的一些研究对我们是否有令人信服的神经科学证据证明自由意志不存在这个问题的影响。第1节提供了一些科学和术语背景。第二部分处理了一个关于在利比亚式实验中做出决定的时间的问题,该问题与一个熟悉的关于自由意志不存在的神经科学论点的检验有关。第3节讨论了一个相关的神经科学论点,该论点的特点是声称在这类实验中研究的行为没有回头路。第4部分提出了一种怀疑的观点,这种观点可能被认为是最近一些神经科学工作的基础。第5部分对内容进行了总结。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Free Will and Neuroscience: Decision Times and the Point of No Return
Although I have written many articles and chapters on neuroscientific arguments for the nonexistence of free will, I have not run out of things to say about these arguments. Part of the explanation is that experiments on the topic continue to be conducted and to shed new light on important issues raised by earlier experiments. This is fortunate for me, given that I accepted Bernard Feltz’s invitation to write a chapter for this volume. Experiments performed by neuroscientist Benjamin Libet in the 1980s pose an alleged challenge to the existence of free will. Some neuroscientists have followed Libet’s lead, sometimes using electroencephalography (eeg), as he did, and sometimes using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), depth electrodes, or subdural grid electrodes. In Effective Intentions (Mele 2009, chs. 3, 4, and 6), I argued that the neuroscientific work discussed there falls well short of justifying the claim that free will is an illusion. My focus was on the data and on whether the data supported certain empirical claims that have been combined with theoretical claims about free will to yield the conclusion that free will does not exist. There are some interesting new data now. In this chapter, I explore the bearing of some studies published after 2009 on the question whether we have convincing neuroscientific evidence for the nonexistence of free will. Section 1 provides some scientific and terminological background. Section 2 tackles a question about the time at which decisions are made in Libet-style experiments in connection with an examination of a familiar neuroscientific argument for the nonexistence of free will. Section 3 addresses a related neuroscientific argument that features a claim about the point of no return for actions studied in experiments of this kind. Section 4 takes up a skeptical argument that might be thought to have a basis in some recent neuroscientific work. Section 5 wraps things up.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信