论文部分内容阅读
我在很大程度上赞成哈贝马斯的文章《责任主体的语言游戏与自由意志问题》,但是我集中思考分歧。(1)他错误地认为,神经科学的语言游戏总是以某种方式与合理意向性的语言游戏不合。我认为,它们是对同一系统的不同层次的描述。他关于当代神经生物学研究的观念也过于狭隘。(2)他错误地认为,在从事为了反驳自由意志而预设自由意志的研究过程中,存在着一种“以言施为的矛盾”。(3)他的“认知二元论”与论题无关。(4)总体上说,他对世界有些误解,特别是对“下向因果关系”有些误解。他似乎认为物理世界是被决定的。其实不是。量子不确定性遍及整个宇宙。我们之所以具有决定论的幻想,乃是因为在一些系统里量子不确定性在宏观层面上相互抵消了。大脑是一个被决定了的系统吗?此刻我们还无从知晓。
I am largely in favor of Habermas’s article, “Language Games and Free Will, Responsible Body”, but I concentrate on differences. (1) He mistakenly believes that neuroscience language games are always in some way incompatible with rational intentional language games. I think they are different levels of description of the same system. His conception of contemporary neurobiology is too narrow. (2) He mistakenly believes that there exists a kind of “contradictions made by words” in the course of carrying out the research on the presupposition of free will to refute free will. (3) His “cognitive dualism ” has nothing to do with the topic. (4) On the whole, he has some misunderstandings about the world, especially some misunderstandings about “causal link”. He seems to think that the physical world is decided. Actually not. Quantum uncertainty extends throughout the universe. The reason why we have the illusion of determinism is that on some systems the quantum uncertainty offset each other macroscopically. Is the brain a decided system? We do not know at the moment.