Neuroscience-based denial of Free Will: Last Breaths of Positivism or Final Blow to Liberal Thought?

Introduction
In this article, I will comment the interesting Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will, published by the excellent Kerri Smith on "Nature", 31st August 2011, in the light of the view expressed by Mu Wenxie, shared, I'm sure, by many other young girls and boys: 

The latest Findings of Neuroscience fired the fatal shot on Liberal Thought, killing it instantly for having hit its soft spot: the idea of "Free Will".

In other words, the assumption that recent scientific findings in the field of Neuroscience proved that humans don't act on their own behalf, but according to their own innate behaviour or influenced by their environment (and by other people) to a degree in which the whole idea of Free Will based on Rationality collapses.
First of all, we need to review the concepts we are dealing with:

Free Will

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Since early ages of rational thinking, humans tried to understand whether reality and their actions were unhindered and impossible to predict or rather subject to strict rules and predetermined.
This debate predates Liberal Thought of many centuries. It emerged in Greek Phylosophy and it later evolved in a contrast between compatibilists and incompatibilists (the first considering free will compatible with determinism and the second not). It set an important boundary between Early Protestant Doctrine (very deterministic) and Catholic Tradition (stressing the liber arbitrium of man).
It has important implications in phylosophy of course (namely, mind-body problem) and science, with Quantum Physics essentially disrupting most previous models, largely deterministic, and Genetics (Nature versus nurture debate). Of course, the implications on Neuroscience and Cognitive science of this concept are of great relevance.

Liberal Thought

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law."(Wikipedia). Without naming its illustrious predecessors (namely, some Sophists and Pericles in Greece and Huang Zongxi (黃宗羲) in China), Liberal Thought is borne in Europe on the eve of the Age of Enlightenment.
It led to the destruction of Traditional State Forms based on Kingship legitimized by Religious Authorities and laid the basis of the Modern Bourgeois State, based on a pact between citizens and their representatives. In this era, Rationality and, consequently, Science started taking the fundamental role in society and politics it still retains today.

In March 2020, Liberal Parties in the whole world are struggling to survive, as Ideologies of 19th and 20th century vanished the need for such a political perspective. Many intellectuals, however, keep considering themselves as liberals.
Wait a minute...why are you giving me that look? Oh, yes, I didn't mention "Free Will" at all! That's because it is only one of the many elements of the Liberal Organization of State Power. Even without it, the old building of Liberal State and its nephews won't collapse that easily!

Neuroscience vs philosophy?

Let's now analyze the article. Kerri Smith's work is a good compass, helping us to orientate in the seemingly chaotic and crowded herd of scientific studies on the Neuroscience views on free will. It lists many recent ones, with well documented references, while keeping criticism awake. I found at least 3 fields  (Ms Smith highlights 2 of them too) as critical points:

1. Even though many mainstream scientists think so, Philosophy and Science are not at war, nor is Liberal thought against "Scientific thought", whatever that means.
Viewing Philosophers as God-Fearing individuals being forced to postulate the existence of soul to support their assumptions denotes profound ignorance of the findings of 300 years of Materialist Thought, just to name one. Also, being a philosopher doesn't exclude being ok with determinism.

2. Defining free will as "making choices simultaneously or after some proof of brain activity" is both oversimplifying and misleading. In addition to this, many questions arise, challenging the method and the merit of such studies:
- Are you sure the sample is big and varied enough to support such an exaggerate conclusion?
- How much do we know about "brain activity"? How much do we know about where is the decision made? What is a decision? On a neural level, is there only one type of decision?¹ Many questions arise, whose answer will be known only in the upcoming 200 years, if so.

Chosing where to go for vacations or even everyday choices like which clothes to wear involve a number of cognitive factors other than the actual presence of brain activity  that makes them incredibly more complex than this model.
An interesting field of cooperation may occur in case phylosophers and scientists decide to work in the same lab (like it already happened), but this will require a shared definition of what "free will" is.

3. Considering myself a proud Marxist, I cannot but see the influence this kind of mentality can have on the everyday lives of humans on this Earth and their society. Ms Smith fails to highlight this problem, but I am nobody to blame her: the Anglo-saxon societies in which the article was conceived neglect Marxist Thought and lack a collective perspective; in light of this, the emphasis of Ms Smith on rather trivial matters such as penal responsibility and the legal definition of consciousness of one's actions appears comprehensible.
Stripping the notion of "Free Will" of any value, the ancient dream of an "elite", "high-technology" domination of humanity based on "rational" government can finally have a scientific basis.
In a society like USA, blatantly religious while in fact deeply anti-religious and blinded by a positivistic view of science very difficult to get rid of, such experiments can be the foundation of new, sadistic legal devices functional to an even deeper entrenchment of the hidden puppetteer elite, now wearing the shiny, unbreakable armour of Scientific Legitimation.
Some Chinese are long flirting with such a daydream, because they grew up thinking that humans, through technology with a scientific basis, can achieve the control and domination of natural forces and that everything is acknowledgeable. They shouldn't forget that Communism views science as a tool that can help humanity achieve progress, for sure an important one, but not the only one; Science must serve humanity and not viceversa.
A society denying free will, in which the human behaviour is scientifically predicted to achieve total domination is in fact ignoring Communist values. Even if such a principle becomes the mainstream in scientific circles all around the world, with politics supporting it and the consequent development of hi-tech tools capable to implement it on a legal (coercive) level, we must not loose the focus on the most crucial of matters: What do we need a State Apparatus for? Do we need it? Which will be the nature of a State based on such a principle?

Considerations on the scope of Science

Researching on human behaviour is of paramount importance. Yet humans were able to reach far away planets with their aerospace probes while not knowing much about the grey corrugated thing hidden in their skulls. We should welcome all law-abiding research in this field, be it privately or publicly funded, and defend its freedom, but in a country like USA, the State is so tiny and weak that it's simply unable to perform such a task. Therefore, it delegates many of its functions, including this, to a galaxy of external, private, mysterious institutions.
Example: USA government didn't fund any research on deadly viruses. It did, however, fund a Prominent Scientific Organization that gave that money to a private laboratory that was subcontracted for a research on deadly viruses.
Through such a complex system of Chinese Boxes, this type of thin State can exempt from judgement, because it's not accountable for such an action, while some State Individuals will still be able to take advantage of the results of such researches. In such an environment, a "freer" privately funded research (in fact subject to the will of hidden State Elites) poses a threat to the safety of USA citizens and, potentially, of the World.
Far away from Philosophic speculations and relativism, a State continuosly needs to set the border between what's good and bad, legal or illegal. Is such a field of research functional to the well-being of citizens? Is it functional to the survival of the State? Is it serving the noble purpose of the progress of mankind²? Maybe, at least indirectly. But Science has never been the leading actor of the Great Play of History, Man was; and Man(be it a scientist, or a high ranking military) was the one operating such a stage tool(in some aspects, more like a puppet). Eventually it is Man, the People, no matter how far a territory will the scientific findings reach, the one to decide to destroy or to nurture the society in which we dwell.


¹ Even more questions arise, but they have to be dealth with somewhere else, namely:
-If, as some reckon, human behaviour is influenced by the environment (aka other humans), who is influencing who? Are there "Patient Zero" Influencers with more power than the others?
- If human behaviour is predictable, and in this light we organize State Policies, what to do of minorities? Euthanize them? Which will be the fate of potential murderers? Also Euthanize them preventively?

² After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this last question should be the basis of all scientific research.    

Introduction

Hello everybody,
My name is Giacomo and this is my new blog, called Pasta Rojak.
Why Pasta?
Because I was born italian and no matter where I'll go and which languages will I speak, the first language I learned, the one in which I learned the fundamentals of thought is Italian and as an obvious consequence I grew up eating pasta.
I don't think pasta, the famous state of matter of durum flour, needs an introduction. Rojak, perhaps, does.
Why Rojak?Rojak is also a dish, a salad made of fruits, fritters, tofu, sometimes even dead animals like cuttlefish, jicama, different sauces, sesame seeds and why not? Pasta. In other words, a delicious mess of a dish, in which the deliciousness is intrinsically related to the amount and variety of its ingredients, their textures, their flavours, their colours. In colloquial Malay, Rojak can also indicate "a collection of miscellany" and "A mixture, mishmash". In this life, I was so lucky that I lived in Malaysia, experiencing the variety of textures, flavours and colours reality manifests itself in within the borders of this tropical multiethnic country.
So, is this this another Food Blog?
No, sorry, it's not a food blog. Unlike many contemporary writers in this Oral Stage of Humanity, I don't think food can encompass the whole experience of reality. I think it is one of the aspects of it.
It is, indeed, an illustrated collection of miscellaneous subjects cut, cooked and seasoned by my modest brain for the advantage of you, my dear readers. For the people who are unable to read, like blind people and illiterate people, I will try my best to provide  Podcast version of each and every post of this magazine for you to enjoy.
Wishing you good clarity of mind, I salute you.
Giacomo