Determinism: Difference between revisions
→Conclusion
| Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
== '''Conclusion''' == | == '''Conclusion''' == | ||
To analyze the question of determinism and free will, this paper has explored diverse perspectives including classical philosophy, modern neuroscience and quantum mechanics. | |||
Also, the impacts determinism would have on the concepts of information and knowledge were examined. | |||
By reviewing some of the main thinkers throughout human history like Newton, Hume, Kant, and James, we have seen that the concept of determinism poses questions about moral responsibility, ethics, and the nature of human agency. While some philosophers, such as Hume, proposed that free will and determinism can coexist (compatibilism), others like Kant argued that free will is necessary for moral judgment and responsibility. | |||
The insights from neuroscience, such as Libet’s studies and Sperry's and Gazzaniga's split brain experiments, challenge the idea of free will by suggesting that decisions may be determined by subconscious processes in the brain. Additionally, experiments in the field of quantum mechanics have introduced the idea of indeterminism, as particles at the quantum level seem to contradict the classical deterministic expectations. | |||
Despite these varied perspectives, it remains clear, that the nature of human freedom and responsibility may not be as straightforward as it initially may seem. If determinism holds true, our actions, beliefs, and decisions could be the result of a complex web of causal chains, leaving us to question the authenticity of our choices. | |||
Ultimately, whether determinism is the dominant force that governs events in the universe or not, including human actions and decisions, may remain an open question, provoking an ongoing inquiry across various disciplines. | |||
== '''References''' == | == '''References''' == | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||