Free Will

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You're describing conflicting imperatives coming from different brain centers, each of which are made of neurons functioning outside of consciousness until they deliver a message to consciousness. Suppose that you've got surgery tomorrow, and can't drink after midnight. You become a little dry, your hypothalamus, which measures plasma osmolality, reports the urge to drink to consciousness. Prefrontal neocortex sends a conflicting message to not drink, and you don't.

Many posters on this thread are calling that second neural center self even though it acts outside of consciousness generating what becomes conscious ideas. Two wills from two brain centers are in a tug of war and one prevails. Do we say that one is us but not the other. This is an arbitrary choice in my mind. The hypothalamus apparently doesn't enjoy free will, and we don't choose what it tells us to want, just whether to obey it or not.

So why is one piece of neural circuitry informing the self of its output considered part of the self and not the other? We can just as easily frame this as two pieces of brain opposing one another with one being stronger, and the self the passive observer of this. If we do, where's free will now? Even if we identify with the neocortex, what's free about the way it works before sending its output to consciousness?

Oh, man -- that's good!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course we can..
..but would that be fair and just?

To put your question in the context of this debate -- "fair and just" can have nothing to do with anything if some sort of freedom of choice is not possible. If it is not possible that you could have done otherwise than you did, then you deserve neither credit nor censure for having done it.

 

[Polymath257]

The sum of all interactions my brain has had together with how it simulates how to do things.
So everything you do is subconscious?

No. Consciousness is part of my brain activities, so it is as determined as by brain functioning is.

 

[Polymath257]

Further to this: Quantum Mechanics makes it perfectly possible that much of classical physics works as always, in terms of cause and effect. But it also allows for events that appear to be causa sui, or self-caused. Do you agree? Well, why would we assume that the brain could not also generate a new idea in the same fashion? If quantum mechanics works anywhere, I've little doubt that the brain itself is fertile ground for it.

I would not say quantum events are self-caused. I would say that they are uncaused.

The brain is a large, high temperature system, which is precisely the type of system that tends to minimize quantum effects.

The point is that Planck's constant, which determines the size of quantum effects is *small*. If a quantum level event is going to have macroscopic effects (like a difference in human behavior), then there has to be an amplification mechanism and no such mechanism is known in the brain. Once you get a few thousand atoms in a system, classical physics tends to be a good description unless there is some sort of amplification of variances. Temperature also has an effect. We operate far above absolute zero in systems that have quadrillions of atoms.

Otherwise, how on earth could we explain creativity? (And as a long-time lover of the arts, and the sciences, I have zero doubt that creativity is something that we humans do!). And creativity doesn't necessarily mean the generation of a completely new idea out of nothing -- it could be as simple as exciting a single neuron to make a connection between two presumably unrelated things, leading to a new narrative.

I guess I don't find it difficult in the context of sensitive dependence on initial conditions to see that 'creative' solutions will appear.

Maybe the "will" itself is not free -- in that it must choose between potentially workable alternatives -- but couldn't one or more of those alternatives be completely new, created causa sui as I just decribed?

In that sense, my "will" might not be totally free -- but I am.

I think one of the mistakes is thinking of the self as a single entity as opposed to a collection of modules that work together to interpret what is going on. That is why we can be conflicted about things: we are not a single entity, but a conglomerate, each module putting in its contribution and the outcome determined by which module gains the upper hand.

 

[Polymath257]

There may be no way of answering that question conclusively. And so we arrive at a point where what is required of us, is a leap of faith. Do we choose to believe that, complex web of interacting influences on us notwithstanding, there is always an element of choice available to us; or do we - this anyway, is how it looks to me - succumb to existential despair and consider our entire existence to be determined by external, historical, factors?

I don't see why it would necessarily lead to despair. Life is still enjoyable and exciting, even if it is determined. I still love even if that is determined by many factors working together.

It seems to me that there is a compromise here. While I may be the "Master of my fate, and the captain of my soul", I have no control the winds or tides; so I must reach an agreement with the world. I neither seek to impose my will upon it, nor succumb entirely to outrageous fortune.

And, even if our actions are determined, that is the case. We don't influence everything. We do, in fact, have desires and those desires are part of the equation that determines what we do. Those desires may be determined by other factors, but they still are a part of the equation determining the next steps we take.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course we can..
..but would that be fair and just?

Fairness and justice are social questions that are different than questions of truth. At least, that's how I see things.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think one of the mistakes is thinking of the self as a single entity as opposed to a collection of modules that work together to interpret what is going on. That is why we can be conflicted about things: we are not a single entity, but a conglomerate, each module putting in its contribution and the outcome determined by which module gains the upper hand.

Now, try to answer that from the standpoint of you, yourself, as you perceive yourself to be. Are you "somebody?" Can anyone know you? The real "you?" Or do they have to get to know all of your "entities," which even you couldn't begin to enumerate?

There is something to being human, something to being you. I'd hate to see it (for me, anyway) lost "in the math."

 

[muhammad_isa]

Fairness and justice are social questions that are different than questions of truth. At least, that's how I see things.

I don't even know what that means..
Is it a 'yes' or 'no'?
..or are you trying to say it is irrelevant?

 

[Polymath257]

Now, try to answer that from the standpoint of you, yourself, as you perceive yourself to be. Are you "somebody?" Can anyone know you? The real "you?" Or do they have to get to know all of your "entities," which even you couldn't begin to enumerate?

Well, as far as I can see, I *am* all those entities of which I am composed. I am not a singleton, but a plurality. Each of my conflicting desires is *me*. Each of my hopes, fears, goals, etc are *me*. But I am not any single one of those things.

So, yes, if someone wants to know the 'real me', they have to become familiar with all those components and how they interact.

There is something to being human, something to being you. I'd hate to see it (for me, anyway) lost "in the math."

Just as there is something to being a cat or a crow or a dog. Each is biologically distinct and thereby interacts with the world in different ways.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't even know what that means..
Is it a 'yes' or 'no'?
..or are you trying to say it is irrelevant?

I see fairness and justice to be matters of opinion, not matters of truth. They are decided by societies to enable people to get along. So, with equal justice, some societies or people may say one way and other a different way.

So, yes, it would be fair and just to judge a person by their actions even if they are not ultimately (only relatively) responsible for those actions.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't see a reply to my comment here. You mentioned none of the points I made and answered none of the questions asked. But to address your post, my answer is that we treat mind as derivative of matter because we ever see mind without brain. Matter is necessary for mind. One can imagine other metaphysices (idealism, neutral monism), but they add no explanatory or predictive power.

You never see frost without a surface to gather on, but that doesn’t mean it’s elements originate on grass, or car windows.

I don’t know why you are so dismissive of the imagination, do you not think we were given that - by nature, if you like - as a tool to use, every bit as much as logic and reason?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, as far as I can see, I *am* all those entities of which I am composed. I am not a singleton, but a plurality. Each of my conflicting desires is *me*. Each of my hopes, fears, goals, etc are *me*. But I am not any single one of those things.

So, yes, if someone wants to know the 'real me', they have to become familiar with all those components and how they interact.

Just as there is something to being a cat or a crow or a dog. Each is biologically distinct and thereby interacts with the world in different ways.

While you may be a temporary convergence of diverse elements, those elements maintain equilibrium for long enough to be recognisably you; your behaviour can be predicted, up to a point; your peculiarities can be described; you have something we may call a character, which is consistent day to day. But most significantly in the context of this discussion, you are self aware. Whatever degree of freedom to act you may possess, must surely be derived from that self awareness.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, yes, it would be fair and just to judge a person by their actions even if they are not ultimately (only relatively) responsible for those actions.

..so it is fair and just to be sentenced to life imprisonment for something you aren't responsible for?
Really?

 

[Polymath257]

..so it is fair and just to be sentenced to life imprisonment for something you aren't responsible for?
Really?

If I did the act, yes.

 

[Polymath257]

While you may be a temporary convergence of diverse elements, those elements maintain equilibrium for long enough to be recognisably you; your behaviour can be predicted, up to a point; your peculiarities can be described; you have something we may call a character, which is consistent day to day. But most significantly in the context of this discussion, you are self aware. Whatever degree of freedom to act you may possess, must surely be derived from that self awareness.

How does having the feedback loop that is self-awareness help with overcoming the laws of physics?

Yes, I have a character, but only means that I tend to make certain decisions in certain ways. Again, if anything, that seems *less* free.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If I did the act, yes.

That is a contradiction.
On one hand, you agree that we should be held accountable for our actions,
..and on the other hand you suggest we might not be responsible for them,
as we might "have no choice", but nevertheless it is just and fair.

Gobbldigook to me.
If I am coerced by an external agent, how can it be just and fair?
That external agent would be responsible, surely?

 

[RestlessSoul]

How does having the feedback loop that is self-awareness help with overcoming the laws of physics?

Yes, I have a character, but only means that I tend to make certain decisions in certain ways. Again, if anything, that seems *less* free.

I think we should be wary of assuming that those laws of nature which apply in one domain, necessarily apply in all. You are a considerably more complex phenomenon than the protons, neutrons, electrons etc., of which you are apparently composed, or to which you may be theoretically reduced.

Whilst I understand that your interest in determinism has it’s roots in theoretical physics, and whilst I believe many interesting philosophical questions are thrown up by research in that field, what is deterministic or random in the quantum world clearly doesn’t directly manifest that way when applied to human behaviour, nor even to the apparent behaviour of forces acting on objects in the macroscopic world.

I’m not suggesting the laws of physics be overcome. I’m suggesting that they may not apply universally in all domains. And I could probably pull up some quotes from David Bohm and one or two others, to that effect.

In any event, in a deterministic universe, or even a probabilistic one, what is it that determines? This brings us back to Hawking’s unanswered question, “What is it that puts the fire in the equations?”

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You never see frost without a surface to gather on, but that doesn’t mean it’s elements originate on grass, or car windows.

Why do think that that is an apt analogy for mind and consciousness?

By the way, I see that you have still chosen not to comment on that post (or answer the questions asked) I mentioned you overlooked. I suppose you have a reason, but I can't imagine what it would be.

I don’t know why you are so dismissive of the imagination, do you not think we were given that - by nature, if you like - as a tool to use, every bit as much as logic and reason?

Why do you think I'm dismissive of imagination? I just don't use it the way I use reason.

so it is fair and just to be sentenced to life imprisonment for something you aren't responsible for?

The discussion on free will has a special meaning in the Abrahamic religions. It is necessary that the will be free so that damnation be just. Your comment there reflects that idea, as does the law in places such as when it considers mental defect a justification for acquittal. You see it in the arguments about whether omniscience and free will are compatible. The Abrahamic theist reliably answers yes, then begins his motivated reasoning.

If I am coerced by an external agent, how can it be just and fair? That external agent would be responsible, surely?

But then you have to reconcile the above with the Garden Story. The serpent did just that, the deity set it up and stood back, and the children and all of their descendants were punished, immortality and paradise lost.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why do think that that is an apt analogy for mind and consciousness?

By the way, I see that you have still chosen not to comment on that post (or answer the questions asked) I mentioned you overlooked. I suppose you have a reason, but I can't imagine what it would be.

Why do you think I'm dismissive of imagination? I just don't use it the way I use reason.

Whilst I may not have answered your original questions, I think you'll find I did respond.

That you seem to consider consciousness, awareness, and observation to be entirely reducible to electrical activity in the neurological circuitry, means that the gulf in understanding between us in this instance is so wide as to appear unbridgeable. We speak different languages, but for the sake of courtesy, I'll attempt a response that may make sense in yours; whilst we do not choose what messages, impulses and desires our bodies (including our central nervous systems) transmit to us, the conscious self - to which there may certainly be more than one aspect, quality, or focus - does, I would argue, have some leeway in regards to how we respond and how we act.

In other words, there's more going on in the mind of man, than two or more sets of contradictory neurological impulses coming from different parts of the brain.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But then you have to reconcile the above with the Garden Story. The serpent did just that, the deity set it up and stood back, and the children and all of their descendants were punished, immortality and paradise lost.

Wrong interpretation.
G-d is oft-Forgiving and Most Merciful.

It was destined that mankind would sin, and G-d forgives the sincere soul.