On the vexed question of the existence of free will (1)
Agency alone isn’t enough for free will. A self-driving car has a sophisticated form of agency, but no free will. What is needed for free will is creative agency: the capacity of an agent to create its own goals and means for pursuing them (30 September, p 32).
These are created when they aren’t prefigured to arise within the agent. And they are self-directed creations when the creative process is stimulated and guided (but not determined) by the agent’s interests and concerns, and by it using its various cognitive and other powers.
The problem is that self-directed creation doesn’t seem to fit with our present scientific understanding of how the world works. However, a scientifically acceptable account may be produced by starting with what we already tacitly accept in our everyday life (and in science) 鈥� namely, that many changes occur independently of one another.
On the vexed question of the existence of free will (2)
Debating free will, or the lack of it, by reference to neuroscience is a category error. Neuroscience is a scientific discipline; free will is a philosophical, moral and religious concept. Brains make decisions and there is no ghost in the machine.
On the vexed question of the existence of free will (3)
What I do is influenced by external events, not controlled by them. For instance, I can decide what to do based on a coin toss and no amount of physics could predict how that will turn out. If I decide what to do without tossing a coin, the outcome is still influenced by chance. This is surely free will.
On the vexed question of the existence of free will (4)
Your article claims that some people worry about judging criminals unfairly if there is no free will, meaning their crimes were predetermined. But if the crime was predetermined, then so is the judgment. Worry not, determinism isn’t something that just happens to other people!
Killer heatwaves are about far more than our survival
In the article “Risk of mass deaths in heatwaves”, you describe the threat to humans of exceeding the maximum survivable wet-bulb temperature and mention that this can be mitigated by, for instance, being in a cool building (16 September, p 8).
But there is no mention of other species. Animals and plants must all have their own temperature limits. Even if we can survive an extreme heatwave, entire species could go locally extinct. You can’t put a forest in a cool building or air condition a landscape.
The surviving humans may find crops and domesticated animals dying or the local ecology badly damaged. Considering only the effects on us could miss major heat-related problems.
Get ready to greet slug-like visitors from afar
You reviewed Raymond Hickey’s book Life and Language Beyond Earth, mentioning his prediction that aliens will be humanoid, based on a need for locomotion and manipulation. This reminds me of author Larry Niven’s argument that most extraterrestrials will be bipeds that traced their ancestry to a fish-like being that emerged from the sea and had to work with its basic body plan: the fins evolving into four limbs (30 September, p 29).
However, when we look beyond vertebrates at the body plans in, say, molluscs or arthropods 鈥� which have solved the problems of locomotion and manipulation in and out of water in many ways, with many sorts and numbers of limbs 鈥� I suspect humanoid aliens will be comparatively rare, even among space-faring species.
Can talk about stereotypes also be causing harm?
Lucy Foulkes discusses possible downsides of “the language of vulnerability and victimhood and harm” creeping into everyday life, saying this could actually make us feel worse. I was reminded of (23 September, p 33).
In this case, college women did just as well as men in a maths test 鈥� if they weren’t reminded about gender stereotypes around the subject. This also suggests one reason why women are under-represented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics 鈥� nothing to do with skill sets, much more to do with the presence of stereotypes. This begs a question: isn’t it time to change the tone of the conversation when we are encouraging diversity in STEM?
No wonder all the brain is involved in language
Of course the whole brain is used in language. The human brain, the most complicated structure in the known universe, evolved. Had it been designed, we might find nice separate compartments for language, motion, thought and so on. But evolution is utterly opportunistic. Any genetic mutation that increased our capacity for language, even a little bit, had a chance to be adopted, no matter where it took effect (23 September, p 6).
The only climate case is for greater action, not less
The critique of UK prime minister Rishi Sunak’s watering down of climate policies was well received, particularly in conjunction with the interview in the same issue with Simon Sharpe on how to speed up decarbonisation (p 37) (30 September, p 13).
Sunak’s stance can be countered with a simple piece of logic. Every criterion of humanity’s activities 鈥� including the nine “planetary boundaries” (with the possible exception of the ozone layer) 鈥� has steadily worsened over recent decades, despite everything we claim to be doing. What we need is a redoubling of our efforts. To suggest that, as “world leaders”, the UK can afford to ease off is fatuous and irrational, and flies in the face of any scientific logic.
The one thing most politicians want to know
William Hughes-Games asks why politicians haven’t done more to stop climate change. Being a local politician, I can offer some insight. Most politicians are “people persons”. They aren’t versed in science and some even prefer gut feelings above facts. As a scientist speaking to a politician, you don’t want to explain a problem in all its details and caveats, but offer the solution in clear terms (Letters, 16 September). This is what most politicians want to know: what should I do?