In this paper I will argue Sam Harris's opinion on free will is not comprehensive in terms of philosophical view because he does not pay attention on the role played by the spirit level of a person cooperating with the human nervous system; because if there is no such thing as "Free will", we cannot take responsibility of our own action. Whether free will exist is a controversial question philosopher have debated on for many years. Like Sam Harris's opinion that free will is mostly derived from the neurological factors and the subconscious, neurologists different from philosophical speculation methods, mainly focus on the experiments way to examine the internal change of the brain, the brain of the subject was scanned with brain imaging techniques
…show more content…
Neuroscience cannot effectively explain self is not the cause of their own behavior, nor can shows that our conscious mental state has no causal effect on our behavior. Some neurologists that agree on illusory free will studied free will by brain imaging techniques, mainly follow by an idea of if free will is not just a mere fantasy, then there should be a neurological reality to defense that. There is a mistake here of the premise: thinking about the relation between mind and brain, that we are either same machine as our own brain, or are independent from the brain and have the same soul attributes with our spiritual attributes. But in fact the spirit of the "self I "has its foundation of physical brain, it neither abides by the spiritual attributes, nor not just have physical attributes. The brain and mind interact and influence with each other promote people's behavior, not the brain nor the mind can explain itself. People's thought, perception or will is attributed to the behavior of a subject combine both physical and spiritual level, not his brain, because any thought, perception or psychological category of the will is not only done by the brain. Second, the concept and the meaning of the problem. Philosophers on the discussion of free will usually emphasizes "metaphysical freedom" and "self" decisions, exclusion the external compulsion, the obligation and the ignorance, with the inner freedom as the reason of free behavior as a basic concept to define free will, usually start with more basic problems of whether people's behavior is free and how to understand a free act. It is miscellaneous and profound on the exploration of Free Will, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hobbes, Schopenhauer, Kant all had a detailed argument, the relevant concept of views and expression are also various, controversial. But philosophers never doubt the possibility of free will, and the freedom that the philosophical community have explored is a philosophical
Neuroscience cannot effectively explain self is not the cause of their own behavior, nor can shows that our conscious mental state has no causal effect on our behavior. Some neurologists that agree on illusory free will studied free will by brain imaging techniques, mainly follow by an idea of if free will is not just a mere fantasy, then there should be a neurological reality to defense that. There is a mistake here of the premise: thinking about the relation between mind and brain, that we are either same machine as our own brain, or are independent from the brain and have the same soul attributes with our spiritual attributes. But in fact the spirit of the "self I "has its foundation of physical brain, it neither abides by the spiritual attributes, nor not just have physical attributes. The brain and mind interact and influence with each other promote people's behavior, not the brain nor the mind can explain itself. People's thought, perception or will is attributed to the behavior of a subject combine both physical and spiritual level, not his brain, because any thought, perception or psychological category of the will is not only done by the brain. Second, the concept and the meaning of the problem. Philosophers on the discussion of free will usually emphasizes "metaphysical freedom" and "self" decisions, exclusion the external compulsion, the obligation and the ignorance, with the inner freedom as the reason of free behavior as a basic concept to define free will, usually start with more basic problems of whether people's behavior is free and how to understand a free act. It is miscellaneous and profound on the exploration of Free Will, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hobbes, Schopenhauer, Kant all had a detailed argument, the relevant concept of views and expression are also various, controversial. But philosophers never doubt the possibility of free will, and the freedom that the philosophical community have explored is a philosophical