Abstract

This book provides an overview of the recent free will debate and considers the consequences of neuroscientific research for the problem of freedom. In the process of surveying the field, the author develops an original position. He takes issue with the broad philosophical consensus that at least one kind of freedom is incompatible with the scientific worldview -- namely, the ability to make decisions one way or another exactly the same circumstances. The book argues that, on closer examination, this so-called libertarian view of freedom (which we accept in our everyday lives) does not contradict any facts but only philosophical doctrines. Although we're unable to alter physical laws, nor are we 'first movers,' this isn't required for us to have acted otherwise under the same circumstances.