“Local determination”, even if we could find it, does not challenge free will: Commentary on Marcelo Fischborn

Philosophical Psychology 30 (1-2):185-197 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Marcelo Fischborn discusses the significance of neuroscience for debates about free will. Although he concedes that, to date, Libet-style experiments have failed to threaten “libertarian free will”, he argues that, in principle, neuroscience and psychology could do so by supporting local determinism. We argue that, in principle, Libet-style experiments cannot succeed in disproving or even establishing serious doubt about libertarian free will. First, we contend that “local determination”, as Fischborn outlines it, is not a coherent concept. Moreover, determinism is unlikely to be established by neuroscience in any form that should trouble compatibilists or libertarians—that is, anyone who thinks we might have free will. We conclude that, in principle, neuroscience will not be able undermine libertarian free will and explain why these conclusions support a coherent compatibilist notion of causal sourcehood.
Reprint years
2017
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ROSLDE-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-11-15
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Questions for a Science of Moral Responsibility.Marcelo Fischborn - 2018 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 9 (2):381-394.
Is Compatibilism Intuitive?Lim, Daniel & Chen, Ju

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2016-11-15

Total views
308 ( #11,648 of 43,944 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
58 ( #11,894 of 43,944 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.