Thief
Rogue Theologian
And you've never had a moment to go do...whatever?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Defining Free Will
- Thread starter Penumbra
- Start date
And you've never had a moment to go do...whatever?
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
I would suggest that it is not the "I" that does things. The brain and organism can do what they do all on their own in the manner that evolutionary forces have shaped it. The brain doesn't need a self pushing buttons. It's a self-sufficient machine. The sense of self appears to me to be an illusion with all accompanying will or free will. Whereas one could define the organism and brain itself as the "I," this breaks down when peering into the intricacies of brain behavior, which is all according to laws of physics. There is no "self" center or center of consciousness in the brain. It does all kinds of things at once in parallel with no center directing things.
I think that for certain actions, the brain can do them subconsciously, but other things involve conscious thought. We have a fairly unified conscious awareness that can observe thoughts arise and pass, and is involved in the complex decision-making process.
Philosophical zombies, a proposed being that acts in all ways like a human or other conscious agent but is not conscious, and experiences no qualia, is theoretically possible, and yet we are not those. We developed with consciousness.
I do agree that brain activity is all according to physics, but I don't see that as being contradictory to the presence of a unified sense of self that makes decisions.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Come on...it's not that hard....
Read book...take a nap....watch tv...
No freewill?...someone twisting your arm?
If I do one of those things, it's causal. My current personality has a set of things that it desires to do from time to time, and based on the conditions, I choose to do them. But I "choose" them based on the state of who I am, which itself was determined from a previous state.
For instance, I can go read a book, because that's something that aligns with my current state. I cannot, however, go outside right now and kill someone. Although it's physically possible, it's psychologically impossible.
Do you propose an alternative to causality or chance determining actions?
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
Psychological experiments such as those done by Daniel Wegner -- referred to in his book The Illusion of Conscious Will, and other such data reveal that human beings are often mistaken about their own intentions, invent false intentions in retrospect, or become mistaken about whether an event was caused by their own volition or an external agent. Studies done by Libet further reveal that we are mistaken as to when we make a choice -- brain activity precedes the sensation of choice and can predict the choice to be made with a significant degree of accuracy.
Besides this, there is still no center of consciousness or self center within brain activity. It is a machine doing many different things throughout in parallel with no unifying center. That is why I reject the notion that the self is doing anything. The self is an illusion, and our perceptions of our intentions are often inaccurate.
It is not a unified self that makes decisions, but an entire organism with an active brain and nervous system from which volitional behavior proceeds. It can't be tied down to a specific self or agency unless the self is identified with the whole of the organism, which still doesn't help much when looking at what actually happens in the brain.
I do not deny that consciousness exists. Perhaps it is a by-product of other functions. But I do not believe it to be a causal agency. The Illusion of Conscious Will, by Daniel Wegner does a good job of arguing that the conscious perception of choosing happens when somehow brain activity has accurately predicted the next action. When this fails to happen, a sense of free will decreases.
Because the activity of the brain is so intricate and not tied down to any specific area of the brain, I do not see how a self could be choosing any actions or why the brain would need one to. Volitional behavior proceeds from too many sources within the brain and body to be tied down to one specific self.
Can you provide some examples of his experiments?
Why would consciousness be a by-product of other functions? Is there any indication that an automation process should become conscious? What do you propose the reason is that humans have consciousness rather than existing as philosophical zombies?
I agree that consciousness is an emergent property, but I think it must be an emergent property of a specific structure- that is, it does not naturally arise from complex processing in general but instead can only arise due to the brain being organized in a certain way, and for it to be useful and part of the decision process.
Have you ever tried a type of meditation where you sit there and just detach your consciousness from your thoughts? In doing so, you have sort of an impartial awareness and you can watch thoughts come and pass, observing them but remaining impartial and detached from them?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Just saw a documentary about various states of existence, aimed directly at the mind, soul and brain.
The 'current state' you spoke of would be wakeful moments
one leading to another.
But that last part about psychologically impossible....
not buying it.
But then again....if you really wanted to...and such things happen....
you could change your mind and do...anything.
Would someone be twisting your arm...as you go get your gun?
That's the thing- "if you really wanted to". But you can't always choose what you really want to do. I don't want to randomly kill anyone, nor do I want to want to randomly kill anyone. The chain of events that led to the person I am now is such that it desires not to randomly kill a person, and there is nothing I can do to change that unless some event changes something drastically about my person.
If you propose something other than a combination of causality and chance determining each and every one of your actions, what is it that you propose? Magic? It's not even just a physical problem- it's a logical/philosophical dilemma.
I don't view coercion as being an ingredient in the definition of free will either. It is part of the causality but besides that, it has no bearing on the definition or allowance of free will.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
So going to the opposite extreme....the word choice means nothing...
And you never do anything of your own thought or feeling.
A choice is bound by causality. A choice really occurs, but each input and the entire process is causal.
I do everything (or at least, the higher complex actions) based on my own thought or feeling, just as you do. But our thoughts and feelings are governed by previous thoughts and feelings, as part of a causal chain.
You haven't answered my question regarding whether you propose something other than chance or causality as being involved in the process.
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
Penumbra,
The first article gives a brief explanation of Libet's work:
Benjamin Libet - neurophysiologist studied the nature of free will - SFGate
This article refers to mistaken intentions or confabulated intentions in brain damaged patients, although this also occurs under different circumstances in normal brains as well, in which case it is called choice blindness:
Split Brain Studies: One Mind per Hemisphere
Choice blindness:
Using choice blindness to study decision making and introspection
There are many other relevant examples on related material in Daniel Wegner's Illusion of Conscious Will. It is very difficult to know what our own intentions are, much less assign causality to them. I think that mechanisms in the brain which are not voluntary are responsible for both intention and act rather than an intention causing an act.
It may be that consciousness plays a role in volition. I don't know. One must be careful with such a claim because it often borders on dualism. But I am not convinced that our sense of will is causal. It is likely just a prediction of what the organism is going to do and may come from an underlying mechanism that is actually the "cause," if you will, of both the perceived intention and action. That is why the perception of free will is increased when an action follows through with the intention, but when this is not the case, the sense of free will decreases. Our sense of intention is not objective at all.
The first article gives a brief explanation of Libet's work:
Benjamin Libet - neurophysiologist studied the nature of free will - SFGate
This article refers to mistaken intentions or confabulated intentions in brain damaged patients, although this also occurs under different circumstances in normal brains as well, in which case it is called choice blindness:
Split Brain Studies: One Mind per Hemisphere
Choice blindness:
Using choice blindness to study decision making and introspection
There are many other relevant examples on related material in Daniel Wegner's Illusion of Conscious Will. It is very difficult to know what our own intentions are, much less assign causality to them. I think that mechanisms in the brain which are not voluntary are responsible for both intention and act rather than an intention causing an act.
I do not claim to understand consciousness. It is a new field, and we know very little. But I don't see how it could be a causal agency.
Our own subjective perceptions of intention are so flawed and unreliable that I have a hard time believing that the perception of intention is actually the cause of any action.
Yes, I have. I am just not convinced that our intentions are actually causal agents when humans so easily confabulate them and in some circumstances can be fooled into thinking they performed an action which was caused by an external agent or vice versa.
It may be that consciousness plays a role in volition. I don't know. One must be careful with such a claim because it often borders on dualism. But I am not convinced that our sense of will is causal. It is likely just a prediction of what the organism is going to do and may come from an underlying mechanism that is actually the "cause," if you will, of both the perceived intention and action. That is why the perception of free will is increased when an action follows through with the intention, but when this is not the case, the sense of free will decreases. Our sense of intention is not objective at all.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
God.
Still can't rationalize a thought of your own?
Everything caused by something else ...by something else...something....
ok then...God is the cause.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
What makes you think so?
I never understood why some people have such a problem just saying "I don't know"... :sarcastic
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I don't have a problem with ignorance.
I do know better.
And the angels will hold me to it.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
And that's what I'm getting at. Not all situations afford one with the 'ability" to "will" themselves. I was just pointing out that we may want to move an arm and try and use our brain to make it happen but other factors can prevent such actions.
All of my thoughts are my own, as are yours.
Can you explain how god leads to a reasonable definition of, and a working model of, what free will is? Or is this a god of the gaps?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
If your thoughts are your own....how then your will is not?
Last edited: