Dennett Argument Analysis

In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self-control. I will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will.

Their wills, which are believed to be freely gained, are actually the result of a causal chain originating from birth. The fact that humans are governed by their genes and environment means that the ability to make moral decisions as free agents is illusory. For these reasons, the hard determinist position, which is a sound, science-based theory, seems to be incompatible with the concept of free will.

People believe that genuine freedom of choice is not always possible because our decisions and actions are determined by factors beyond our control. This view is known as Determinism. There is also an extreme form of determinism known as ‘hard determinism,’ in which they believe that every demeanor can be traced to a cause, although they may disagree about what those causes are. The idea of determinism poses a difficult issue to the concept of ‘free will’. Are we able to make free choices if all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by our own past and the physical laws of nature? Majority of us would like to believe that we have the freedom of will and are able to make decisions based on our own discretion but, I personally believe that the deterministic view holds true to a certain extent and that most of our actions are a result of a force that is beyond our comprehension. My purpose in this essay is to explain and critically analyze Baron d’Holbach’s view on determinism.

Thus, one may further conclude that the only difference between a "normal" individual and Dennett's hypothetical case is the great temporal gap that exists between the brain and the body in Dennett's case. A difference that one may believe does not have clear philosophical implications. Therefore, it can be suggested that Dennett, in setting up his scenario in this way, does not contribute much more insight into the ‘self'-phenomenon than many

He explains how neurologists have proven that all activity within the brain is conducted through the interdependence of different parts of a large biological network (Eagleman, 2011). This means that the brain has no area where it is not connected and influenced by this large network, suggesting that the brain has no independence and, therefore, not free. Despite this growing disapproval for free will, Eagleman chooses to continue to argue under the context that we do have free will because (1) we simply “feel” like we’re free, (2) legal systems assume we are practical reasoners who use conscious deliberation when taking actions, and, most importantly, (3) automatism. Dr. Wayne Renke, a professor of law, defines the term automatism as, “unconscious, involuntary behaviour” and as a defence to a criminal that his actions must be proved to be voluntary, the product of choice or will (Renke, 2007). Eagleman uses this concept to propose what he calls the “principle of sufficient automatism”. This principle states that free will may still exists, but it plays a very small role in comparison to the biological processes within humans that are

The arguments presented by D’Holbach and Hobart contain many of the same premises and opinions regarding the human mind, but nonetheless differ in their conclusion on whether we have free will. In this paper, I will explain how their individual interpretations of the meaning of free will resulted in having contrary arguments.

How does Daniel Dennetts argument make sense? Understanding the biological components that make up consciousness or our idea of consciousness is far from showing the complete picture, but it did reveal to me a whole new world of understanding. Looking into the complexity of the forms and the beauty of the connections neurons made me marvel at the cohesiveness of the self. The indiscriminate “I am”. The individual that can connect to the stimuli around us. Neuroscience is a beauty in itself. Showing how we are the most complicated machines out there, and millions of years of evolution and change has made each of us stand out as beings able to interact with our own environment with understanding. Now, how does neuroscience make me content with death beyond the field’s indiscriminate beauty? A different foundation. My foundation is no longer mounted in the future—that death is approaching, immanent and unavoidable. I look to the past, that our neural connections took essentially billions of years to develop, and we are the most intricate beings that we know of. Our circuits are wired just well enough for us to enjoy the time we have here on earth, and I am grateful that my mind can sustain itself in its current intricate, sensitive state. When my time comes, I am content with my neural connections subsiding and my impulses ceasing to be, because I know it took billions of years to get here, and I better enjoy the hell out of this

Searle attempts to reconcile how we can be free agents in a world seemingly governed by deterministic lifeless outcomes. For the purpose of this report I will first discuss Searle’s answer to the mind body problem and how our brains are not causally determined the same way many things in our universe appear to be. I will then discuss why Searle thinks that behaviorism falls short and ultimately cannot explain why or predict human actions. I will then discuss Searle’s conclusion on just how all of these elements culminate in us being free agents in a deterministic world. I will then follow this up with my own thoughts on the subject matter and why Searle fails to fully convince me that we are not determined. I will also discuss why I think

Free will is freedom of the mind from causal determination. Many advocates of free will argue the irrelevancy of the law of causality: “Every effect must have a cause; the same cause always produces the same effects.” Since a choice is not an effect, advocates of free will argue that the law of causality is irrelevant; however, it must be recognized that the one’s choices are limited by their heritage and environment. Moreover, a choice is affected by what one desires, which we affirmed were determined by heritage and experience; therefore, we can soundly conclude that one’s choice is determined.

Recall: In “The Case Against Free Will” the authors present several claims: 1) The universe is a huge deterministic system where all events are result of prior causes. 2) Human actions are shaped by genetic determinism and environmental determinism. 3) All behaviors and actions of men are triggered by genetic make-up and social conditioning; thus, man has no free will. 4.)

There have been many experiments run in laboratory settings for the purpose of justifying the claims of those who consider themselves to be psychokinetic. One of the most popular experiments is that of the Random Number Generator experiments, also referred to as RNG experiments. These events usually involved some king of electronic random number generator machine and an individual, referred to as a human observer, who was given a set of instructions so that they could attempt to influence the results of the RNG . The experiments looked for particular numbers and/or changes in the distribution of the binary set that had been influenced solely due to mental intentions . There have been multiple runs of this kind of experiment over the past thirty-five years, some of them being large scale productions while

In the following presentation I shall discuss, and utilise as a guide for my own research, a paper by Paul Yu and Gary Fuller, which is a critique of Daniel Dennett's general views.1 My focus will centre on the material's relevance to Dennett's philosophy of mind. Of course the motivation for this study is fuelled by my own interest in Dennett's philosophy of mind, a knowledge of which I discern to be essential to my dissertation's investigation into the evolution of Dennett's concept of free will. It is evident that this is a critique of Dennett's general views and not my own interpretation of Dennett's work, I am fully conscious of this. The authors have divided the work into three sections.

Many are disconcerted by the idea that humans and Minds can be described as systems which operate based on interpretations of symbols, much like machines, computers, and robots: things that we have created yet do not think of as being “thinking,” themselves. We, as human beings, are comforted in the notion that we are born into this world with a fully capable Mind, a soul or spirit, and are, thereafter, free to choose our fate as we will. Although it seems plausible that we are born with Mind, I cannot subscribe to such a simplistic version of thinking about our true capacity for affecting outcome.

In the presence of ambiguity and external influence of actions it arises the question does the self-have free will? Or is it shackled to determinism? In the state of investigation, the notion of “free” is objectively false, man is does not have the ability to do what he wishes outside of the laws of nature. Although this is true, nevertheless, he has the ability to generate imagination and new ideas at his own expense, despite the neurochemistry that provides him the power to do so. Thus, considering the tenet of constancy and contingency, there is a mutual coexistence. Man does not have in a sense, free will and is not a puppet of nature. Instead, have limited will in the confinements of society and biology, in various circumstances, to the extent consciousness can produce. Therefore, every thought, perception, and actions are not completely free or determined but based on the amount of control.

Free Will and the Science of the Brain, Michael Gazzaniga mentions “multiple dynamic mental systems” at work within the brain (Gazzaniga, 2011). Simply stated this means there are many systems working in the brain at the same time all the time. The brain has two distinctive areas, the left and the right hemisphere connected by a small cerebral pathway. As humans have evolved the two hemispheres have become more and more independent of one another and as seen in split brain surgeries they can function as two complete separate things each with their own consciousness. The left and right hemispheres create two very different minds that are aware of different things and they specialize in different types of information processing. One is absolute and literal while the other makes inferences and can categorize. They work together to create what we know as a normal functioning person. The brain is made up of layers and layers of grey matter, neurons, and neurotransmitters. Much like cell assembly these connections specialize based on the area they are in, each with its own objective and purpose. The same is seen in the left and right mind, those cells will specialize to the hemisphere in which they form. Within those different minds and cell assemblies there are different systems or prioritization, perception, and categorization of day to day