Cargando…
Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism
This article addresses two influential lines of argument for what might be termed “scientific epiphenomenalism” about conscious intentions – the thesis that neither conscious intentions nor their physical correlates are among the causes of bodily motions – and links this thesis to skepticism about f...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6297865/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30618957 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02536 |
_version_ | 1783381219238477824 |
---|---|
author | Mele, Alfred R. |
author_facet | Mele, Alfred R. |
author_sort | Mele, Alfred R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | This article addresses two influential lines of argument for what might be termed “scientific epiphenomenalism” about conscious intentions – the thesis that neither conscious intentions nor their physical correlates are among the causes of bodily motions – and links this thesis to skepticism about free will and moral responsibility. One line of argument is based on Benjamin Libet’s neuroscientific work on free will. The other is based on a mixed bag of findings presented by social psychologist Daniel Wegner. It is argued that both lines of argument are unsuccessful. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6297865 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62978652019-01-07 Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism Mele, Alfred R. Front Psychol Psychology This article addresses two influential lines of argument for what might be termed “scientific epiphenomenalism” about conscious intentions – the thesis that neither conscious intentions nor their physical correlates are among the causes of bodily motions – and links this thesis to skepticism about free will and moral responsibility. One line of argument is based on Benjamin Libet’s neuroscientific work on free will. The other is based on a mixed bag of findings presented by social psychologist Daniel Wegner. It is argued that both lines of argument are unsuccessful. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6297865/ /pubmed/30618957 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02536 Text en Copyright © 2018 Mele. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Mele, Alfred R. Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism |
title | Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism |
title_full | Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism |
title_fullStr | Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism |
title_full_unstemmed | Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism |
title_short | Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism |
title_sort | free will, moral responsibility, and scientific epiphenomenalism |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6297865/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30618957 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02536 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT melealfredr freewillmoralresponsibilityandscientificepiphenomenalism |