Question

Do the three speakers agree that we can explain, simply as interactions of the synapses of our brains, "deliberating and agonizing, deciding and second-guessing, acting and regretting"?

Answer 1

The debate on whether actions can be explained simply as brain synapse interactions is complex and intersects neuroscience and philosophy, particularly around free will. Libet's experiments and concepts like synaptic plasticity contribute to arguments against the autonomy of our decisions. The brain's functioning can be categorized into 'thinking fast' and 'thinking slow,' which further complicates the relationship between conscious choice and neurological determinism.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question of whether actions such as deliberating and agonizing, deciding and second-guessing, acting and regretting can be simply explained by synaptic interactions is a contentious topic. This debate intersects with the fields of neuroscience and philosophy, particularly concerning the concept of free will and how it relates to neurological processes.

Benjamin Libet's experiments suggested that certain actions we consider free might be predetermined by brain processes. This has given rise to various discussions about whether humans are genuinely autonomous in making decisions or if those decisions are the result of complex brain functions and prior experiences that we are not fully conscious of. Furthermore, the concept of synaptic plasticity—the brain's ability to change and adapt through experience—affects how memories and behaviors are formed and could imply that decisions are results of past interactions and learning.

Two main thoughts presented regarding the brain's functioning in relation to free will are that:

1. The brain's state at one point (T1) could determine its state at a subsequent point (T2), suggesting a lack of free will as actions are a continuation of a causal chain.
2. Alternatively, the brain's state at T1 is not sufficient to determine the state at T2, implying a possibility for free will as there is a 'psychologically real gap' that is neurobiologically significant.

Additionally, this discussion involves the distinction between 'thinking fast' (intuitive decisions) and 'thinking slow' (deliberate reasoning), as proposed by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. These two modes of thinking illustrate how the brain operates and could potentially influence notions of free will and responsibility.