Read in The Economist (Dec 19th) :
Free to choose ? Modern neuroscience is eroding the idea of free will. Excerpts :
"Only in the past decade and a half, has it been possible to watch the living human brain in action in a way that begins to show in detail what happens while it is happening. "
And : "Shrinking the space in which free will can operate could have some uncomfortable repercussions".
Three observations : first, the relevance of free will is not a new topic. Philosophy has questionned it for centuries. What about these words from Pascal, the 17th century French philosopher ? "The heart has its own reasons that reason does not know".
Secondly, human sciences over the last hundred years have produced evidence against the idea of free will. The unconscious, as Freud has shown, follows its logic which entirely drives the behavior of individuals. More recently, one has become increasingly aware of the social origin of the unconscious. I think for example of Mary Douglas's essay "How institutions think". In particular, the corporate unconscious proves to be a major actor in the business environment.
Thirdly, this awareness, it seems, helps better understand the mechanisms of collective actions and behavior. Warning about its "uncomfortable repercussions is a surprising conclusion. Another example of the wide-spread confusion between positive science and human practice. It is a fact that the progresses of neurosciences are still subject to misinterpretations which indeed, may lead to "uncomfortable consequences" if not urgently corrected.
Comments