
What science gets wrong about free will - lilrhody
https://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/christian-list-science-hasnt-refuted-free-will#
======
nabla9
Most philosophers today are compatibilists
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/)
There is compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

'Free will' as a question has changed over time.

Long time ago few free will question was usually framed in the context of
dualism that assumed immaterial soul+mind. When decision was made by
immaterial soul+mind it was called free will. Asking if the decision making
process inside the soul+mind was mechanical or formal was not very common.

Today free will is usually framed as deterministic vs. non-deterministic.
Deterministic brain-computer has no free will, but if it has internal random
number generator, maybe it has. This type of free will as randomness
formulation makes free will insignificant even if true. What does it matter to
moral responsibility if criminal's decision had a random component or it was
fully deterministic? Compatibilism seems a good option when you are not
dualist and don't think that randomness as freedom is meaningful concept.

------
sovok_x
I think control theory: feedback loops, sensors, signal, noise, filters, gain
graphs etc should be rather useful in describing free will from a scientific
standpoint.

