3PoundSoul

The linked article is one by David Eagleman, one of the most prominent advocates of neurolaw. Reading this article, It is as if he is writing exactly what I would want to say. I cannot give high enough praise for his discussion. The article is well written, captivating and informative. Eagleman is masterful in his use of anecdote, example, and discussion of this complicated issue that I have so often struggled to elucidate. Here is an excellent excerpt:

“

This has always been the sticking point for philosophers and scientists alike. After all, there is no spot in the brain that is not densely interconnected with—and driven by—other brain parts. And that suggests that no part is independent and therefore “free.” In modern science, it is difficult to find the gap into which to slip free will—the uncaused causer—because there seems to be no part of the machinery that does not follow in a causal relationship from the other parts.

Free will may exist (it may simply be beyond our current science), but one thing seems clear: if free will does exist, it has little room in which to operate. It can at best be a small factor riding on top of vast neural networks shaped by genes and environment. In fact, free will may end up being so small that we eventually think about bad decision-making in the same way we think about any physical process, such as diabetes or lung disease.”

I will be travelling to Houston an the end of the month to interview at Baylor College of Medicine (where Dr. Eagleman is a faculty member). To have the opportunity to discuss these issues about which I am constantly thinking, would be a tremendous honor. I hope I have that chance!