The Catholic Newman Center is holding its annual Newman Lecture on October 9 (the feast day for Blessed John Henry Newman).
Glenn Olsen (Professor Emeritus, U of Utah History Dept) will present a lecture entitled “Faith, Reason and History: How Catholicism Enlivens My Historical Scholarship”.
October 9, 4:30pm in Ray B West #114. All are welcome!
Now here is an interesting article. I know, the very idea of brain implants ‘boosting’ free will sounds confused on various levels. But consider the phenomenon. Some subjects report the inner feeling of having lost free will – not being able to get up and do what they feel like doing. Various supplements are made available to help these people execute their desired actions. I think the right question to ask is, What is the conception of free will, such that subjects feel they don’t have it, and then they do? And does this have anything at all to do with the concept of causal determinism?
An interesting excerpt:
One depression patient participating in a 2008 University of Toronto study had responded well to DBS, but experienced a return of his symptoms after a battery in the pulse generator ran out. ‘I’m just happy it wasn’t me, that it was the battery,’ he remarked. This is a misunderstanding: it was not the malfunctioning pulse generator but faulty circuits in his brain that were causing his depression. Understandably, his comment reflected a desire to believe that he and not the device was in control of his mood and actions. Yet the fact is that DBS does not replace the person as the agent. Instead, it is an enabling device whose modulating effects on dysfunctional brain circuits return this control to him. It does not matter whether our mental states and actions are generated and sustained by a natural or an artificial system such as DBS, HP or BCI. Provided that these systems connect in the right way with neural inputs and outputs that regulate our minds and bodies, they can ensure that the person in whom they are implanted is in control.
I’m not sure what to think about this article. BUT WAIT! Before you clink on that link and read it, please take a second to complete the following poll:
Suppose scientists came up with a device that could read your brain activity and accurately predict every decision you make before you make it. Would you then conclude that you have no free will? Or is your belief in human liberty so strong that the very idea of such predictability seems to you impossible? Or do you see no conflict between free will and such predictability? Or would it matter only if someone informed you about the predictions?
UPDATE: I can’t get the poll to appear, so give the matter some thought, and then read the article and see what you think!
A recent post on Scientia Salon by Peter D. O. Smith defends virtue ethics as a way to work through many of our contemporary moral stumbling blocks. An excerpt:
In short, virtue ethics is capable of supplying an intrinsic motivation that is acceptable to both the secular and religious worlds. We live in an overwhelmingly rules dominated world. Virtue ethics offers a way of internalizing and then integrating rules such that they become intrinsically motivating. It is a promising field for finding common ground between the secular and religious worlds, to makes rules and regulations more effective, and to provide a source of meaning for the non-religious.
The rest of the essay is here. It’s well-informed, and written with intelligence and clarity.
USUPhilosophy 