There has been, as the intell people put it, a lot of "chatter" recently about the relationship between free will and the neurosciences, here at the Garden with posts about the Financial Times review (which I found problematic, to put it mildly) to Searle's book to the NYTimes article "The Brain on the Stand," not to mention several recent NYT articles on morality and neuroscience, Time's recent issue on the Brain, and this recent article printed in my local rag, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which discusses the experiment described in the previous post here.
Those of you who know me and my Neurotic Compatibilist (TM by Manuel) position know that I think neuroscience (and the other sciences of the mind) have the potential to threaten free will and responsibility in ways that are more significant than any potential threat posed by the thesis of determinism. But I do not think it poses a threat in the way most of the scientists suggest, or the way the media presents their research.
I hope to get a book done on this before, say, the end of the decade, but since we all know how that is, I thought some people might be interested in looking at this powerpoint (link below) of a talk I recently presented to the Neurophilosophy reading group here at Georgia State. (I was trying to explain to the neuroscientists here what I take the problems to be). It also includes some recent survey results--the actual survey scenarios and questions are the last three slides of the powerpoint, because my audience had already taken a written version. (It would be interesting to consider my results in light of Luke's.)
Keep in mind that I had to jam a lot into 30 minutes and simplify certain extremely complex issues, but let me know if you have any comments. Thanks, Eddy