• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The unsolved problem of "free will"

Dancing David said:
A buddha speaks!

:)
Click to expand...
:D

One of the problems with discussing the subject of the existence of "I" is that the very language used to discuss it is so tuned and integrated with the acceptance of this existence that it is very difficult to even discuss it in a neutral "non-I" existence way.
 
andyandy said:
seeing as i'm joining this thread 174 posts in, i guess i've missed the meat of the debate, nevertheless,

I don't see any room for actual "free will" where we define free will as the potential to act differently given the same stimuli in the same situation at the same time-period. The brain in a vat surely reaches the same conclusion that I do, and thus if one knew my actions, then reanimated the BIAV calibrated from time line A, those decisions would be wholly determined.
Click to expand...
Agree completely.
If the BIAV can act differently then we still don't have "free will" we have some kind of random number generator decision making process - a probabilistic model in which the outcomes could again be wholly determined as a probability function. I guess if one wishes to regard random as free will then one can, but it requires no more free will than a dice does before it is rolled.
Click to expand...
Not agreed.

You are still allocating some sort of "ability to choose" to some sort of entity within your brain. If you believe the first part you wrote, the second part above disappears. Otherwise, even with the same initial state and inputs, that "ability to choose" would still be there.
We can play around with definitions of free will to allow for compababilist positions if required (and many people do ;)) though this seems (to me at least) something of a semantic comfort blanket.
Click to expand...
Agree completely.
 
The light is not the bulb. The heat is not the radiator.
Click to expand...
Who said it was? I did not say the output is the brain. I said the origin of the output is the brain.

Just as the origin of the light is the bulb. And the origin of the heat is the radiator.

But whatever. The last couple pages seem to be largely word play to me.
 
The_Animus said:
Who said it was? I did not say the output is the brain. I said the origin of the output is the brain.

Just as the origin of the light is the bulb. And the origin of the heat is the radiator.
Click to expand...
The origin of the light is not the bulb. Hold a bulb in your hand. Does it provide light? No. The origin of the light is the physical process of electron stimulation.

And the origin of the heat is not the radiator. Watch a radiator in its packaging. Does it provide heat? No. The origin of the heat is the physical process of conduction and radiation.
But whatever. The last couple pages seem to be largely word play to me.
Click to expand...
I apparently am not being clear enough. Do you really feel that "there is no I" as a solution to the question of free will, is just word play?
 
The origin of the light is not the bulb. Hold a bulb in your hand. Does it provide light? No. The origin of the light is the physical process of electron stimulation.
Click to expand...

I was simplifying. I did not literally mean that the glass or metal that the bulb is made out of magically produces light and you know it. It takes energy and converts it into visible light via the process you stated.

Would you prefer I say that the origin of the output of the brain is the mental processes occurring within the brain?
 
DanishDynamite said:
The thread you are thinking of disappeared in the Great Forum Meltdown some 3 or 4 years ago, unfortunately. It was the thread where Win managed to turn BillyJoe to "the dark side", right?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't recall--but I do trust your memory more than my own.
 
Fnord said:
I agree with TTCH - this thread does belong in "Religion and Philosophy" under "General Topics." You expressed the concept that nothing occurs by chance, and that it has all been pre-determined at the start of the universe, either by the physical laws laid down during the "Big Bang" or by God according to His plan.

The specific topic would then be titled "Predestination" or "Calvinism."
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between determinism and predestination. One can easily be a determinist without thinking what you have said here.

The difference, in a nutshell, is whether random events occur.
 
DanishDynamite said:
My brain can think. Or so it claims.

My brain doubts that an "I" has any real meaning.

Before you ask what "My" means, it is just a way of refering to a particular item. The number "1A" would be as applicable.
Click to expand...

Not to pick on this post, but I have seen several after it that simply accept what is essentially a claimed independence of the brain. I think it is very very important to note that a brain-body split is artificial, and that (unless you are quite successfully hiding the biggest secret in all of neuroscience from us) your brain has never done anything at all without the rest of your body. If I may for just a little bit longer keep them separate, your brain has been fed information from your body, it has expressed through your body, and it is inseperable from your body. There is processing that takes place at the level of sensory and intermediate neurons (the easiest example is the perceptual fields in the retina, but that is not at all the only example) that shape what your brain does, and sub and super-threshold events that require interaction between neural and non-neural cells for virtually everything you do.

So it is not for arbitrary reasons that we Behaviorist types do not talk about "what my brain does", but rather "what I do", and not "what your brain does" but "what you do". You and I are whole organisms, not meat puppets with brain controllers. The brain/body split is a modern version of Descarte's mind/body split, and it is every bit (ok, not quite) as misleading.

Go ahead, try it... for every time you want to say "my brain does..." or "my mind does...", substitute "I...". It works. And it is consistent with both the psychological and neurological literature. And it keeps the discussion at the appropriate level of explanation, rather than behind some mentalistic or neurological curtain.

And yes, there is actually a reasonable answer for what "I" means... I may try to type it tonight, but the tequila is starting to work...

M
 
There is a lot of truth in Mr. Mercutio's last statement, especially the note about retinal processing. See the classic "What the Frog's Eye Tells the Frog's Brain" by Warren McCulloch (one of the pioneers of AI, and much more, and a fine representative of my alma mater).

However, I just want to waft he possibility, that the science of brains turns out to be a little wierd. Just like causality is challenged on the quantum level, and the relativistic world does not make ordinary sense either, the activities of brains (connected to bodies I agree) may not follow ordinary common sense causality.

Neural interconnections may not turn out to behave according to Newtonian laws, any more than galaxies or electrons. Long experience in perceiving what brains and bodies do, has convinced us that their behaviour is neither completely determined by past events, nor entirely free of them. This might turn out to be correct on the rigorous level as well.

I believe that if such "brain science" with limited causality were better understood, it would lead to entirely new frontiers in psychology (and other fields). And it might end the debate (obvious here) between behaviourists and cognitive psychologists, because the science would embrace the notion of consciousness as a natural process, and yet would establish a theoretical basis for the perception of freedom of action.

I just wonder why everyone here seems to discount that possibility. Is there really contrary evidence?
 
My whole body is but a brain, that fat bit up on top of me is just that... Food for thought, just in case that there's not enough food in the rest of me...
So long as the transmitter gets fed, I'll carry along with my Puppetry, in this "Universal Serial/Random Bus" we're all in.
It is a Magical Tree... Chaos in Order, Gifts for Everyone...
(A left Spin is but a Right Spin upside down, decided on by the observer)
For a better view, and a future seen, try "Deprogramming", as in the ending of Language and all other Organisations.
 
Last edited:
cooper1958nc said:
There is a lot of truth in Mr. Mercutio's last statement, especially the note about retinal processing. See the classic "What the Frog's Eye Tells the Frog's Brain" by Warren McCulloch (one of the pioneers of AI, and much more, and a fine representative of my alma mater).

However, I just want to waft he possibility, that the science of brains turns out to be a little wierd. Just like causality is challenged on the quantum level, and the relativistic world does not make ordinary sense either, the activities of brains (connected to bodies I agree) may not follow ordinary common sense causality.

Neural interconnections may not turn out to behave according to Newtonian laws, any more than galaxies or electrons. Long experience in perceiving what brains and bodies do, has convinced us that their behaviour is neither completely determined by past events, nor entirely free of them. This might turn out to be correct on the rigorous level as well.

I believe that if such "brain science" with limited causality were better understood, it would lead to entirely new frontiers in psychology (and other fields). And it might end the debate (obvious here) between behaviourists and cognitive psychologists, because the science would embrace the notion of consciousness as a natural process, and yet would establish a theoretical basis for the perception of freedom of action.

I just wonder why everyone here seems to discount that possibility. Is there really contrary evidence?
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have of brains working free of causality?
 
The_Animus said:
This has absolutely no relevancy at all. The other is a profound quote that shows the very act of doubting whether you exist shows you do. If you did not there would be no one to doubt whether you exist. Your quote is not only logically flawed, but utterly pointless.
Click to expand...
I have thoughts therefore I am? If an amemoa has no thoughts than it isn't?

I have a body therefore I am, I have sensations therefore I am , I have emotions therefore I am, I have thoughts therefore I am, I have habits therefore I am.

So what part of the mind body duality is so wonderful?

Your quote shows the arrogance of those who follow the hellenistic platonic path.
Please define transcendent self.
Click to expand...

That which exists beyond more than the transient moment.
 
DanishDynamite said:
:D

One of the problems with discussing the subject of the existence of "I" is that the very language used to discuss it is so tuned and integrated with the acceptance of this existence that it is very difficult to even discuss it in a neutral "non-I" existence way.
Click to expand...


"A path, a path and some shrubberies!" I like the way.
 
I haven't read this entire thread but I want to make a simple comment.

I was taught as a Roman Catholic that free will was simply our God-conferred ability to choose between right and wrong or, more importantly, between good and evil. Free will was not referred to as the process of choosing bacon and eggs over Belgian waffles for breakfast. Mundane everyday choice making was never discussed in conjunction with the concept of free will.

Particularly salient was the notion that we chose to accept or reject God via our exercise of free will. Because of this, I consider the subject to be purely religion based and for which any discussion is considered irrelevant outside of that context.
 
I'll have the waffles Thanks, I'm vegetarian... Leave the Pigs alone, and eating embryos is not that nice either.
Not a very good analogy, seen that there is much right and wrong in there, and only a sanguine thirsty psychopathic mind would entertain such an option.
Godless people...
Fancy aborting a life for the sake of ones palate...
 
Last edited:
Free Will without God

RandFan: I only meant to say that the subject of free will as discussed or referred in my youthful days was in the context of religious belief only. I can't remember people really discussing it on a philosophical level. I do appreciate that type of inquiry, however.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
What evidence do you have of brains working free of causality?
Click to expand...

What kind of evidence would you accept as proof? Lets start there. Or, do you have any evidence that brains are causal? How would that be tested? Can you devise an experiment that would decide this?
 
cooper1958nc said:
What kind of evidence would you accept as proof? Lets start there. Or, do you have any evidence that brains are causal? How would that be tested? Can you devise an experiment that would decide this?
Click to expand...


I'm not the one making the claim. You are. What is your evidence that brains can work acausally?

You said:

Long experience in perceiving what brains and bodies do, has convinced us that their behaviour is neither completely determined by past events, nor entirely free of them.
Click to expand...

I want to know what this long experience in perceiving what brains and bodies do that has convinced us that their behavior is not completely determined by past events. Are you referring to the stochastic release of neurotransmitters or some other phenomenon? You made the statement, not me. I am asking for your supporting evidence. Or is this just your opinion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom