Gazzaniga: Who's in Charge? Review

PUBLISHER:

redshirt

Shaun Johnston:
In modern times we've made two revolutionary discoveries. One is, how changes in physical matter can be accounted for in terms of physical laws that can predict precisely what will happen next. Having given rise to science (how this can be studied) and industry (how it can be applied) this revolution is well under way.

The second revolution is, how emergence of species of living creatures can be accounted for in terms of them evolving from one another. This revolution, despite its promise of how much it could tell us about ourselves, remains stillborn through the mistaken application to it of principles coming out of the first revolution--reductive physicalism.

For this second revolution to advance it should be taken from under the wing of science and studied on its own terms. Tip: one recent product of evolution is creatures with minds. Minds are better studied through methods of the humanities than through those of science. Tell me, does this interest you?

Details: Written by Shaun Johnston Shaun Johnston; Published: February 13, 2012 February 13, 2012; Hits: 14785 14785

Just posted in House Reviews in the forum. Writing it confirmed for me that the central question in the free will debate is, which is more important, behavior or conscious experience? For physicalists like Gazzaniga it's behavior, manifested in a concern with legal issues involving responsibility. It's consideration for your free will as I see it from the outside, as it concerns me. Traditionally more important was how through free will we could increase the quality of our own conscious experience. There appears to be no meeting of the minds on this issue. Physicalists care about behavior, what we do. The humanities come about what we experience. What can be done to make this the central issue in the free will debate?