Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2019-20/Truth in Free Will

Links and research papers:

A Foolish Consistency: Keeping Determinism out of the Criminal Law Decision Making and Free Will: A Neuroscience Perspective

Not sure if the drug addiction example links perfectly to what we want to talk about, but it might be a good case study to use. We could possibly link it in to biology/neuroscience/genetic predisposition to addiction and how addiction affects our free will?

Paper: Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience by Dennis Patterson and Michael S. Pardo (LAW) Paper: OVERCOMING THE MYTH OF FREE WILL IN CRIMINAL LAW: THE TRUE IMPACT OF THE GENETIC REVOLUTION MATTHEW JONES (LAW & BIO)

To do:

- Establish what truth regarding free will and theory of mind exists in US law

- Research paedophile case better

- Investigate theology (Christianity) - dualism and how this has led to development of theories of indeterminism/free will (look at theories which lead to the development of indeterminism and how the truth regarding the existence of the soul informed this)

- Investigate neuroscience/genetics - physicalism and how this has led to development of determinism (tracing start point of decision making and split brain experiment)

Definition of free will? I.E. if we want to define free will in terms of being able to do and act on what you want, or something more along the lines of "the ability to have acted differently"

Structuring our thinking: How to approach truth within each discipline:

Intro - thoughts: Interesting to note that whilst in many cases of humanities vs empirical science, the science will almost always be seen as more credible due to the type of quantifying evidence it can produce. However in the case of free will, the more generally accepted view is that which follows the premise of theology and law over disciplines such as neuroscience or determinism. In analysing the different perspectives offered to us by different disciplines, we are able to establish a clearer understanding of both the basis of the criminal justice system and its shortcomings. Instances of diminished responsibility in law recognise the absence of free will in cases where a defendant may plead insanity.

Breakdown of conflicting arguments about free will: Determinism: The assertion that human consciousness is predetermined with free will being an illusory experience Libertarian Free Will (Agent-Causal Indeterminism): The assertion that human consciousness is not predetermined so agents have complete control over their actions, with the power to intervene in the physical world. Neuroscience: Look at the experiments have been done which have led to the conclusion of determinism and how truth in theory of mind has led them to make this conclusion.

Law: Look at case which demonstrates how US law views free will and how their idea of truth regarding theory of mind (dualism) has caused law to develop this way and end up with this outcome of the case.

Theology: Look at prominent theories which have emerged from theology and how their idea of truth led them to develop these theories

Cut from Conflicts section: Conflicting truths regarding free will are evident between the fields of neuroscience and law, as well as within the general public. A study into popular attitudes to free will showed the majority of the US public believe in the existence of free will. US law shows strong remnants of substance dualism which is incompatible with modern science. This means our social structures such as the legal system and social policy operate with the idea that free will exists, despite the driving forces of neuroscience having evidence contrary to this. "A substantial body of scholarship has concerned itself with the importance of free will to the theory of the criminal law. Even given the importance of the subject, the quantity of attention is surprising because of the lack of fundamental disagreement among scholars, who overwhelmingly endorse the criminal law's assumption of free will."

Drafting and Brainstorming:

Potential Structure?: 1) Research the arguments around free will and identify where the basal truth is innately different or incompatible between them

2) Identify the disciplines in this debate which are tied to each truth

3) Identify an area within law where this debate is unresolved due to the different truths and how interdisciplinary research can field a solution

=> newer cooler structure? Introduction- there are instances of dualism in law, give a case study- man who became a pedophile when a tumour grew in his brain. He was found guilty (ie dualism won out). This doesn’t line up with current popular scientific opinions, which are deterministic/monist.

Theology- agent-causal indeterminism and dualism in Christianity, which is/was the major religion in the US and has affected law.

Neuroscience- determinism/monism. Everything can be predicted. The mind is not separate from the body. Split brain experiment.

Conclusion- bring it back to law/case study. Law should have aspects of determinism as well as dualism in order to function.

Definitions and background information for our own use: Libertarian Indeterminism - Truth based on Internationalist Dualism :

(Libertarian Indeterminism - Quantum Mechanics

Truth in this argument is that there is randomness and indeterminacy on an atomic and subatomic level which would necessarily mean that our actions and decisions are not predetermined or even possible to know were the entire particular configuration of the body and brain to be known allowing free will to exist. Yet this is a different argument to the previous libertarian indeterminism argument with a different basis of truth and a different moral consequence.)

Drugs / Neuroscience

Does the classification of drug addiction as a disease refute the ability of the law to prosecute a person fuelling their drug addiction? In 1962, a man was convicted for being addicted to drugs in accordance with the California law making it an offence punishable of up to 90 days. His conviction was overturned when a court ruled that this could be likened to punishing someone who was "mentally ill, or a leper", or who was "affected with a venereal disease". How far can the actions of a drug addict be justified under the reasoning that they are not in control of their addiction? - Libertarians would argue that it is one's own free decision to take the drugs in the first place making entirely their fault but neuroscience and the study of addiction would suggest that it is in an addicts disposition to seek and use these drugs. Another way drugs can tie into the discussion of free will is through neuroscience and brain chemistry - if by simply taking a drug that alters our brain chemistry we affect our own decision making and actions in such drastic ways, can we not state by extension that our normal actions and decisions are also simply as a result of predictable chemical reactions, and not free will?

Despite this neuroscientific evidence, the legal system and social policies operate under the assumption of free will, with general agreement between scholars to endorse the law's assertion that criminals are culpable for their actions.[18] Neuroscience is a positivist discipline, meaning that theories are formed based on empirical evidence that we can currently measure within the contemporary scope of scientific technology. This makes personal relationships to subjective experiences such the feeling of having free will below the standard of evidence required to draw conclusions from. Yet, when applying neuroscience to law this feeling or illusion of free will must be considered, due to the social implications of this being shattered and the way this would affect human behaviour and moral choices.