Free Will

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is a big part of why I think the concept of "consciousness" or "mind" is usually incoherent, too.

How can you, in one sentence, say "I think," and in the same sentence say that doing so is incoherent?

 

[Ella S.]

How can you, in one sentence, say "I think," and in the same sentence say that doing so is incoherent?

Thinking doesn't involve consciousness. It involves metacognition, which is a specific process of neuronal activity that takes place mostly within the frontal lobe. There's no mind there, just a brain.

 

[Polymath257]

????


????


????


????

Um. What were we talking about, again? Free will?
Then let's stick to Free Will... Unless of course you want to change the thread title.

I was sticking to the topic. ALL of my questions directly relate to whether 'will' is, in fact, 'free'.

No. Your choices are determined by you.
If your choices were determined by your past, all abused children would be the same.

Not true. Different children have different pasts. The specifics and timing have a bearing on these things. Not all abused children have the same initial beliefs/desires/sensitivities, which means they all react differently to what they experience. Also, the experiences are not identical. So there is clearly enough variation to allow for decisions to be determined even if they are different in each individual. It is just that each individual is different in their initial conditions.

And, precisely what happens when 'I' make a decision? Exactly *how* is the choice determined by 'me'? What is the mechanism? And, if there is no mechanism, what does it even mean to say that I determine my choice?

 

[Polymath257]

Thinking doesn't involve consciousness. It involves metacognition, which is a specific process of neuronal activity that takes place mostly within the frontal lobe. There's no mind there, just a brain.

I would say that the mind is the activity of the brain, so both are there.

 

[Polymath257]

I did, in a previous post.


Logic. Either our choices are determined by our past, or they are not. They cannot both be true.
Let me make an adjustment... ever so slightly, and get the same result.
If your choices were determined by your past, all children who went through the same exact abuse would be the same. Period.

Yes, but going through the exact same abuse is impossible, if for no other reason than no two children are in the exact same place at all times. There are *always* differences and those differences can, because of sensitive dependence on conditions, lead to very different behavior.

So, if everything were to be replayed *exactly* the same way, from conception through to adulthood, would the choices be the same? Could they even potentially be different?

 

[Ella S.]

I would say that the mind is the activity of the brain, so both are there.

I tend to think of the mind as the software and the brain as the hardware. My issue isn't so much with the concept of a mind, but the concept of mind-body dualism that conversations surrounding the mind often engage in. It makes "mind" and "consciousness" ambiguous terms.

Just look at how often users on this forum use the hard problem of consciousness to try to argue for the existence of a soul. In fact, "soul," "mind," and "consciousness" are often used interchangeably. It's that form of "mind" and "consciousness" that I think has no grounding in reality.

Which I explained in my first post immediately after the statement I made about the incoherence of these two terms, where I elaborated on my thought process.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not making sense of why you are having that difficulty.


Part of the system. Not separate from it.
Okay, let's go with that.
Your hands are part of your body. Can your hands do anything different to your body?
For example, can your hand take a knife, and cut your body? What drives your hands to do this?
I hope you don't tell me your brain... but just in case... what drives your brain to drive your hand?

Yes, my brain. And what drives my brain? The sum of all interactions my brain has had together with how it simulates how to do things.

From what i can see, *I* am the working of my brain. I 'choose' because my brain weighs the possibilities and computes the one to do.

 

[Polymath257]

Posts 122, and 123.


The butterfly effect is the same as the home environment + the psychological effects + the company one keeps + the world environment, etc.
These effects can be overruled by a wholesome spiritual environment + good spiritual associates + good spiritual teachings.
That's called the love effect. It causes one to go contrary to what might be expected. It puzzles people.

Nope, those are also just another aspect of the butterfly effect.

The effect does not cancel out your ability to make free willed decision, so I don't see the point of your argument.

In what way is the choice 'free' if it is determined by the past?

 

[Polymath257]

Cool. So they have knowledge of a view, and they make an informed decision to not accept it, unless it be valid. Right?

No. That is NOT what happens. They have informed themselves and are either convinced or not. It is not a choice to accept it or not. It is simply whether they are convinced or not.

I don't make a choice in my determination of whether I am convinced or not. i either am convinced or I am not.

The person has thus made a choice to not believe.

No. They simply don't believe. No choice required.

 

[vulcanlogician]

It makes "mind" and "consciousness" ambiguous terms.

Well, if the ambiguity bothers you, you should seek clarification. Thomas Nagel quantified consciousness as "what it's like" to be someone or some animal. Are trees conscious? Well that depends. Is it "like something" to be a tree? If so, yes. If not, no.

I tend to think of the mind as the software and the brain as the hardware.

Are you a functionalist?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, if the ambiguity bothers you, you should seek clarification. Thomas Nagel quantified consciousness as "what it's like" to be someone or some animal. Are trees conscious? Well that depends. Is it "like something" to be a tree? If so, yes. If not, no.

And how can that be determined? For that matter, how can I know whether it is 'like something' to be me?

How is it 'being like something' different than having a sense of position and orientation?

How can I know that I am conscious?

 

[vulcanlogician]

And how can that be determined? For that matter, how can I know whether it is 'like something' to be me?

I'm willing to bet that it is "like something" to be you.

You would have to convince me that you have not had any experiences in your life to prove your point. And I simply reject that. And so do you. You have had experiences.

 

[Nimos]

First of all, "completely" free was never mentioned in this thread... except by you.
What do you mean by "completely" free?

By completely free I mean you choosing to do one thing over another is completely up to you. I don't refer to stuff like you choosing to like the colour red more than blue.

Secondly, people chose not to commit crimes because of the consequences. Otherwise, people do go around killing other people.

No, they don't. I think you are overly simplifying things. There are many instances of people going places together where no one would ever find the body of someone getting murdered. Let's say two friends going on a hike in the middle of nowhere or simply two random people meeting each other in the wilderness. If you look at past human history where the chance of solving a murder was close to none, clearly, people didn't just randomly kill each other for no reason either.

Yet, even when there is a huge chance of getting caught today, people still commit murders and rapes etc. So clearly the consequence doesn't prevent it, it obviously reduces it, however, some people still seem to prefer doing it regardless. Look at the vast amount of police violent cases in the US, where the police beat some guy to death despite getting filmed clearly they must be well aware of the consequences by doing such thing.

Let me repeat, for your benefit.
"...some people will murder their spouse out of jealousy, greed etc. Some might kill others out of hate, while others will equally hate someone but not murder them."
Motive right. Where there is motive, there is choice, right?

Yes, but my point is, that some people, might be hardwired to not end up killing or even consider doing it. While others will react in such a way that they are no longer thinking clearly and therefore will do it.

Think of it like someone being violent, some people are more violent than others and it takes very little for them to explode into a rage if they feel even slightly provoked, which could potentially lead to the death of someone. Clearly, such a person is differently wired than someone that couldn't dream of hitting another person or think about a person hitting their children or wife, but besides that function normally every day. And in many cases, I think the people are well aware that they are doing something wrong and will apologize afterwards, yet do it again the next time.

They are still free will choices.
The surrounding factors or conditions do not change that.
Of course, your free will allows you to choose to reject, and ignore that fact, and believe whatever make you happy.

You are listening and considering what's said to you, are you?

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I'm talking about how people are emotionally or biologically wired differently. Whether it is epigenetic or genetic I don't know, simply that I don't think it is just a matter of making a choice and that is more than simply nurture, even though I do think that it plays a huge role as well, probably 50%/50% or close to it between nature and nurture. But that we can't really change nature, but we might in some cases be able to somewhat suppress some of these emotions if they are not too strong, if that makes sense?

No one is hardwired

1. to not have sex with someone they are not married to
2. to not do drugs, or use tobacco
3. to not use obscene language

It's education, Nimos.

I think we have to be careful not to mix things together.

To not have sex with someone they are not married to is not something that is hardwired into us. What I mean is that you have to track it back to an emotional trait. In this case, you might be convinced that God is real, and therefore it is about deceiving someone you care about. You could equally compare it to cheating on one's spouse, meaning the emotional implications of deceiving someone you care about. Where drugs might be related to an emotion could be to not feeling isolated or as part of the group or it might simply be to have fun. I mean, I have never heard of anyone that just decided to do drugs or start smoking on their own, but usually, these are done in social contexts, like a group of friends etc. And why some people say no while others say yes can vary greatly. I have a lot of friends that used to smoke a lot of hash and were addicted to it etc. yet I have tried it a few times, but never felt it was anything special so I stopped doing it. On the other hand, I do smoke cigarettes, whereas some of them don't and that started in a social context as well with friends, the exact reason for why we did it, I think was because we thought it was fun and we got a bit high from it.

You make an informed choice. You are describing free will, and yet, you say you don't understand it. I'm confused.

What I mean is, that some people are wired, in this case, to do extreme sports and love the feeling of living on the edge and the adrenaline pumping through them when doing these things, while I don't. But I didn't choose to not like it. Just as they didn't either. So the "choice" of me not reaching the conclusion that I want to do it, you might as well say is biological. Thereby the illusion of choice, I choose not to do it because I don't like it, but I didn't choose to not like it.

When you make a choice, is it not a free willed choice? Then what is it?

As the above example, the choice you think you make is based on something that you didn't choose. You choose to not eat chocolate ice cream because you don't like it, but you didn't choose to not like it. In some cases, you might be able to force yourself to do something, which doesn't change the fact that you wouldn't normally do it, and that you do it because you feel motivated to go against it for whatever reason. For instance, you might choose to eat chocolate ice cream to prove that you have free will. Yet that doesn't change the fact that you don't like it, and that you are simply willing to do it, because "proving" that you have free will is more motivating for you than the awful taste. Obviously, this also depends on what it is, you might not like to jump from a plane to prove the point because you simply can't convince yourself of it.

Ah. I see. It's a clamor for a biological explanation.
Now, it makes sense why you would never admit to what is obvious - Materialistic worldview. can't give that up.

No, it's more in regard to the debate about nature vs nurture, where I think it is a mixture of both as explained about. Also the study of epigenetics might be relevant, if you are not sure what that is here is a quick explanation:

Epigenetics, inheritance, and behavior are related because epigenetic changes can be inherited and can affect an individual's behavior. Epigenetic modifications can alter the expression of genes that play a role in regulating behavior, such as those involved in mood, anxiety, and addiction. These changes can be passed down from one generation to the next, potentially influencing the behavior of offspring.

Environmental factors, such as stress or maternal care, can also lead to epigenetic modifications that affect behavior. For example, studies have shown that exposure to stress early in life can lead to changes in gene expression that increase an individual's susceptibility to anxiety-related behavior later in life.

Overall, the relationship between epigenetics, inheritance, and behavior is complex and still being studied. However, it is clear that epigenetic changes can have important implications for an individual's behavior and the behavior of future generations.

And if you want a quick overview of the debate (Don't get fooled by the cartoon drawings, there are a lot of weird words being used ):

 

[Ella S.]

Well, if the ambiguity bothers you, you should seek clarification. Thomas Nagel quantified consciousness as "what it's like" to be someone or some animal. Are trees conscious? Well that depends. Is it "like something" to be a tree? If so, yes. If not, no.


Are you a functionalist?

Yes, I think so, although ironically I did not realize that was the name for it. My position comes from an interest in the computational theory of mind, and is mostly an extension of that based on the same arguments Turing and Putnam set forth.

It's helped me understand and predict other people the best, though this might just be because I have a better intuition for machines than human beings. Nonetheless, I do think there's an argument to be had from neuroscience that our brains are electronic computers, just with very, very different machine code and hardware from the artificial ones.

Knowing the name for it will help me understand both the position and the arguments against it better. It will also probably help me explain my position clearer in the future. Thank you.

 

[ratiocinator]

The butterfly effect is the same as the home environment + the psychological effects + the company one keeps + the world environment, etc.

No. Missed the point entirely. Look it up: butterfly effect. The point is that some tiny difference, that might seem totally irrelevant and unimportant at the time may have a huge influence later on.

 

[ratiocinator]

Posts 122, and 123.

Way too vague to define how you think we make choices.

You'll have to explain what you just said, for it to make sense, and fit reality.
At the moment, it sounds to me like Mumbo jumbo. No offense intended.

I'm not seeing why you don't understand. Your mind has got to be the way it is because of some combination of nature, nurture, and subsequent experiences. That's why you're different to other people and that's why you make the choices you do. Hence your choices are due to the past.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm willing to bet that it is "like something" to be you.

You would have to convince me that you have not had any experiences in your life to prove your point. And I simply reject that. And so do you. You have had experiences.

I might think that I have, but can I be sure? What, precisely, does it mean to 'have an experience'? Do computers 'have an experience'? Why or why not?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And, precisely what happens when 'I' make a decision? Exactly *how* is the choice determined by 'me'? What is the mechanism? And, if there is no mechanism, what does it even mean to say that I determine my choice?

I think the answer to this is precisely the point I've been trying to make. In the above, when you speak of "me" and "I," you appear to be making the assumption that these have only to do with the conscious part of your-self. My view is that "me" and "I" refer to the whole, which is both conscious and unconscious. Thus, the decision is yours, just not solely that of the conscious you. It is "free" only in the sense that the "whole you" made it, not just (or not even) the conscious you.

 

[Polymath257]

I think the answer to this is precisely the point I've been trying to make. In the above, when you speak of "me" and "I," you appear to be making the assumption that these have only to do with the conscious part of your-self. My view is that "me" and "I" refer to the whole, which is both conscious and unconscious. Thus, the decision is yours, just not solely that of the conscious you. It is "free" only in the sense that the "whole you" made it, not just (or not even) the conscious you.

And my point is that even the choice of the 'whole me' might be pre-determined.

It seems to me that for the decision to be 'free', there has to be more than one possible future and that something *I* do affects which future actually occurs. If, instead, there is only one possible future (because the laws of physics determine precisely what will happen) or if the specific future that occurs is determined even before I start to process the data, or if the specific future that occurs is totally random and 'I' have no causal bearing on the outcome, then I don't see how the choice is 'free'.

The video @vulcanlogician gave made the relevant points very well, I thought. Post #173

 

[ratiocinator]

Here's a young man who actually makes the points rather well...