See her article here. She too doesn't see free will as some dualistic, acausal idealism. She thinks a better frame for the notion is neural self-control, or as I've called it recently, embodied top-down causation from a "real self," as she attests. Some excerpts:
"To begin to update our ideas of free will, I suggest we first shift the
debate away from the puzzling metaphysics of causal vacuums to the
neurobiology of self-control.... Self-control can come in many degrees, shades, and styles. We have
little direct control over autonomic functions such as blood pressure,
heart rate and digestion, but vastly more control over behaviour that is
organised by the cortex of the brain. Self-control is mediated by
pathways in the prefrontal cortex, shaped by structures regulating
emotions and drives, and it matures as the organism develops.
"Our larger prefrontal cortex probably means we have more neurons that
allow us to exercise greater self control than that displayed by baboons
or chimps.... This is the prefrontal cortex using cognition for impulse control.
"So is anyone ever responsible for anything? Civil life requires it be
so. Very briefly, the crux of the matter is this: we are social animals
and our ability to flourish depends on the behaviour of others.
Biologically realistic models show how traits of cooperation and social
orderliness can spread through a population; how moral virtues can be a
benefit, cheating a cost and punishment of the socially dangerous a
necessity.
"From an evolutionary perspective, punishment is justified by the
value all individuals place on their social life, and by the limits on
behaviour needed to maintain that value. The issue of competent control
arises when, given a social harm, we need to determine whether
punishment is appropriate. Part of cultural evolution consists in
figuring out more suitable and effective ways of limiting violent or
otherwise antisocial behaviour. So yes, we must hold individuals
responsible for their actions.
"But what is the 'self' of self-control? What am I? In essence, the self
is a construction of the brain; a real, but brain-dependent
organisational network for monitoring body states, setting priorities
and, within the brain itself, creating the separation between inner
world and outer world. In its functionality, it is a bit like a utility
on your computer, though one that has evolved to grow and develop.
"Complex brains are good at that sort of thing - creating high-level
neural patterns to make sense of the world. We lack a word to describe
this function, but instances abound. A simpler example is our normal
three-dimensional visual perception. Here, a network of neurons in the
visual cortex compares the slightly offset two-dimensional inputs it
gets from each eye. The comparison is used to create an image of a
three-dimensional world. Thus we literally see - and not merely infer -
real depth.
"The brain constructs a range of make-sense-of-the-world neurotools;
one is the future, one is the past and one is self. Does that mean my
self is not real? On the contrary. It is every bit as real as the
three-dimensional world we see, or the future we prepare for, or the
past we remember. It is a tool tuned, in varying degrees, to the reality
of brain and world."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.