Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Free Will

I made a new heading for Truth in Free Will (our old one seems to have been deleted). We thought about the disciplines through which we could discuss the biological vs cultural determinism; genetics, epigenetics, psychology, philosophy, physics. Is it okay if I look at the genetics point of view and (RC) looks at the psychology? 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 13.34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I looked into genetics and epigenetics and found some interesting things. I think that my section might lean towards free will being an illusion. I also came across several interesting topics, though I am not sure if they fit in my section or might go better in another, so if you have any thoughts on it please do say. They are: how stimulation in infancy is very important for brain development, and how if neglected in early life children can have learning disabilities (although this might not fit under 'free will' at all); and that learning disabilities and mental health disorders are linked to genes, and no one today would assume that someone with depression or autism could 'just snap out of it' - there is an understanding that certain responses and behaviours are pre-determined (genetic/ biological determinism); also the issue of reflexes and Pavlovian responses - hardwired in brains, requiring no conscious decisions to act. Sorry for the long ramble, but do you have any thoughts about whether and where these issues might fit? 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 12.16, 04 December 2020 (UTC)

That all sounds pretty interesting! The issues you've mentioned all seem to be linked to biology, so it should work perfectly imo! We could maybe start by mentioning the philosophical aspect, as determinism is a philosophical concept, and open up the question of free will? Then we could each go into specific deterministic theories, and discuss the interdisciplinarity aspects within them. I’d be interested in psychology (environmental?) determinism (I’d like to talk about family/early life, mention the attachment theory). Otherwise technological determinism maybe? We could potentially end it on mentioning the multi and interdisciplinary net that arose from the question of free will, and how in all these disciplines others factors considered all come up to the conclusion that these different external factors are what determine our behaviour (free will is an illusion like you’ve mentioned, poppy). Maybe we could mention complex systems so we can add a superconcept to it as well? What do you guys think? --Enotecaaa (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

These are great ideas! It seems to me that 12Tig wants to focus on the biological and epigenetical aspect of determinism and Enotecaaa wants to focus on the psychological take? I have done some research on the physics/practical point of view that concerns determinism and would like to bring that in somehow, wherever it makes sense. I will write down my ideas and put them on the document so you can have a look and let me know what you think. I can even do some research on psychology (if that's okay Enotecaaa) as I find that area of determinsim quite interesting. Again, I'll write it down my work on the document so all of us can contribute to whichever area you find interesting. Rosacarter (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree - it all sounds great! I might have gone into some other topics too as they all seem to overlap quite a lot, but feel free to remove them or play with the structure. And @Enotecaaa: I think that including a superconcept is a really good idea, especially as complex systems seems to fit so well with my research into determinism and free will. Also just to add that in the last ATK seminar he said that we should count the words in headings towards our total count, but captions for pictures won't count. 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 10.50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a bit of my section. It is still unfinished, but I thought it would be good to start putting bits up. Please edit or change the headings if you want. 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 17.16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have added some information on the technological and physics aspect of determinism. Its not complete as of now, but feel free to add/edit anything you want. I am unsure of the heading for the physics/math one, please change it to what you feel is most appropriate. Rosacarter (discuss • contribs) 00:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think it looks really good. I added a bit to do with stochasticity, but please do delete, edit or move it. I'm also unsure about the 'biological determinism' heading, but I think we can edit down the word count and finish structure and headings as we add more content. Do we need to have a picture/figure of some sort? Also I think there is something odd going on (sorry if it's my fault) to do with 'accepted changes' to the page.12Tig (discuss • contribs) 09.59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a rough introduction, please do change it to fit with what we add to the page. I also put my section on biology/genetics after the section on physics because I thought it followed on from what I added to it. Please do remove/ change the position of any section I add if either of you think it doesn't fit. 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 11.55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the stochasticity is very interesting, I didn't understand it too well though, probably because I don't take math. But I added some information explaining it's meaning. In the end I tried to link it back to free will again as I think we should keep referring to it, given that its our topic. Hope you don't mind. Please edit or delete whatever you want. Rosacarter (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph on sociology and merged that with the technological aspect as there was very little to write about that and it is interrelated with sociology. I'm unsure where to put the sociology section, please change it to what you think works best. @Enotecaaa have you focused on the psychology or philosophy bit? If so, I think we should put it right after the introduction, right?Rosacarter (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the conclusion a bit. Please have a look and let me know if it is okay. Rosacarter (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks really good - you made it better! 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 16.58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

TO EXAMINERS: for some reason the last few edits we made to get the word count below 1200 were not carried over into the pdf download. Your magnanimity would be appreciated. Thank you very much.