Biology of free will

[Beth]

The problem with that is that experiments show brain activity significantly before we are conscious of our thoughts or decisions.

So when I think "I'm going to think about Beth", some part of my brain was already 'thinking' about Beth before I consciously became aware of wanting to think about Beth. I.e. consciousness appears to be an observation rather than a control of brain activity.

Those experiments are quite interesting, but they don't imply that we cannot consciously control our thoughts. It seems to be a common extrapolation, but it isn't justified by the experimental results because the experiments were not set up to test that hypothesis.

The experiments use very short time scales and ask people to make a choice quickly. They do not attempt to have people use their conscious minds to make a deliberate thoughtful choice after weighing the evidence for and against a particular decision. I think that we can only conclude that we have subconscious inputs to our thought processes (which isn't disputed) and that quick impulsive choices are made primarily or entirely via subconscious thought processes.

Consider the following situation: I want to get up early the next morning so I make a mental note of what time I need to wake up before falling asleep. The next morning I wake up at or just before the time I consciously decided on the night before. To me, that indicates that my conscious mind can make a deliberate decision that the subconscious will then impliment.

 

[Beth]

I don't buy free will.

Beth, you said that chains of causation present us with options. To say we have options is to say that the chooser is outside the chain of causation and thus supernatural. I see no evidence for things outside of natural law thus I don't believe in free will.

I can only say that I disagree. I don't see free will as being outside of natural law or supernatural in any way. Natural laws constrain our options but they do not dictate which we will choose.

To say that I have the option of choosing chocolate or vanilla or some other flavor when I go to Baskin-Robbins is a supernatural claim seems pretty bizarre to me actually.

 

[KingMerv00]

I can only say that I disagree. I don't see free will as being outside of natural law or supernatural in any way. Natural laws constrain our options but they do not dictate which we will choose.

To say that I have the option of choosing chocolate or vanilla or some other flavor when I go to Baskin-Robbins is a supernatural claim seems pretty bizarre to me actually.

How can a chain of causation "choose"?

The result may be unpredictable but that doesn't me there is something hovering over the chain nudging it in the right direction.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, a thought or decision that becomes conscious was at some point before unconscious - otherwise where did the thought or decision we are conscious of come from?

 

[bokonon]

I don't buy free will.

That's your choice.

 

[KingMerv00]

That's your choice.

Nope. Stimuli forced me to think that way.

 

[bokonon]

Nope. Stimuli forced me to think that way.

You can choose to believe it did. I can choose to say no more in this thread, irrespective of stimuli.

 

[KingMerv00]

You can choose to believe it did. I can choose to say no more in this thread, irrespective of stimuli.

Why do you think you have a choice?

 

[Beth]

If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, a thought or decision that becomes conscious was at some point before unconscious

Why would this need to be the case? I don't know that all conscious thoughts are unconscious first, though perhaps that is the case.

- otherwise where did the thought or decision we are conscious of come from?

Even if it did, where did the unconscious thought come from? Unconscious thought would also be an emergent property of the brain, so the question of where thoughts come from remains unanswered.

 

[Beth]

How can a chain of causation "choose"?

The result may be unpredictable but that doesn't me there is something hovering over the chain nudging it in the right direction.

I'm sorry, but I'm don't understand how this applies to what I wrote. It seems a non-sequitor to me.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm sorry, but I'm don't understand how this applies to what I wrote. It seems a non-sequitor to me.

Sorry. The two separate sentences were meant to be taken as two separate thoughts. They were not meant to be taken together. Anyway...

The brain follows the rules of causation and the laws of physics. In what way is it different than a boulder rolling downhill? How can a chain of causation "choose" the path it takes without a supernatural agent?

 

[Beth]

Sorry. The two separate sentences were meant to be taken as two separate thoughts. They were not meant to be taken together. Anyway...

The brain follows the rules of causation and the laws of physics. In what way is it different than a boulder rolling downhill? How can a chain of causation "choose" the path it takes without a supernatural agent?

Thanks for the further explanation. There's no mechanism for boulders to choose what path they will take. Humans can, through conscious thought, choose what path they will take.

Humans can modify the probabilities of the various options available to choose from. A boulder rolls downhill, it's path altered by every stone it bumps. The boulder has no way of altering which stones lie in it's path or how it will respond to them.

A person, on the other hand, can contemplate all the difference options available to them and choose which they prefer based on their current valuation of various options. After choosing to go to Dairy Queen rather than Baskin-Robbins, an individual is presented with the choice of a low-fat yogurt or a high-fat ice cream. Some of the inputs to making that decision could be random, perhaps based on QM randomness. Those random inputs could be translated by the brain into different probabilities for the different options available. Those probabilities can be self-modified by the individual. For example, after a visit to the doctor and a lecture on the dangers of a high fat diet, an individual might respond by valuing a low-fat yogurt higher than they did, thus increasing the probability of choosing a low-fat yogurt on any particular occasion.

 

[KingMerv00]

Thanks for the further explanation. There's no mechanism for boulders to choose what path they will take. Humans can, through conscious thought, choose what path they will take.

Humans can modify the probabilities of the various options available to choose from. A boulder rolls downhill, it's path altered by every stone it bumps. The boulder has no way of altering which stones lie in it's path or how it will respond to them.

A person, on the other hand, can contemplate all the difference options available to them and choose which they prefer based on their current valuation of various options. After choosing to go to Dairy Queen rather than Baskin-Robbins, an individual is presented with the choice of a low-fat yogurt or a high-fat ice cream. Some of the inputs to making that decision could be random, perhaps based on QM randomness. Those random inputs could be translated by the brain into different probabilities for the different options available. Those probabilities can be self-modified by the individual. For example, after a visit to the doctor and a lecture on the dangers of a high fat diet, an individual might respond by valuing a low-fat yogurt higher than they did, thus increasing the probability of choosing a low-fat yogurt on any particular occasion.

Sorry, looking at the bolded bits I feel like you are simply asserting your conclusion.

The brain is biochemistry. Biochemistry does not choose. Explain to me how it can.

 

[calebprime]

...
In what way is it different than a boulder rolling downhill?

Bob the builder*, dead, rolling downhill=no agency, like a boulder.

Bob the builder, after a bottle of whisky, with a lobotomy, stumbling downhill=some agency (He can swerve left or right, keep going or fall over)

Bob the builder, on the level, with his frontal lobes, but horny as hell=more agency.

Bob the builder, on a good day=lots of agency.

Are they all the same in principle, though different to a degree?

Then why do we care about principles?

What we ought to care about are degrees.

*Yes We Can!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA16sqCusbY

 

[Beth]

Sorry, looking at the bolded bits I feel like you are simply asserting your conclusion.

The brain is biochemistry. Biochemistry does not choose. Explain to me how it can.

Thanks for the further explanation. There's no mechanism for boulders to choose what path they will take. Humans can, through conscious thought, choose what path they will take.

Yes, here I am stating the conclusion.

Humans can modify the probabilities of the various options available to choose from. A boulder rolls downhill, it's path altered by every stone it bumps. The boulder has no way of altering which stones lie in it's path or how it will respond to them.
A person, on the other hand, can contemplate all the difference options available to them and choose which they prefer based on their current valuation of various options. After choosing to go to Dairy Queen rather than Baskin-Robbins, an individual is presented with the choice of a low-fat yogurt or a high-fat ice cream. Some of the inputs to making that decision could be random, perhaps based on QM randomness. Those random inputs could be translated by the brain into different probabilities for the different options available. Those probabilities can be self-modified by the individual. For example, after a visit to the doctor and a lecture on the dangers of a high fat diet, an individual might respond by valuing a low-fat yogurt higher than they did, thus increasing the probability of choosing a low-fat yogurt on any particular occasion.

Here I am describing how I think the process works, not stating a conclusion but premises. Do you disagree with the bolded statements? If so, why? Do you think that the humans are incapable of self-modification of their own behavior? Or are you claiming that all such self-modification is, itself, deterministic and without randomness?

It might be helpful to define what you mean by choose. I mean that one option is selected from multiple options that are perceived as available, such as a choosing a flavor of ice-cream at Baskin-Robbins.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why would this need to be the case? I don't know that all conscious thoughts are unconscious first, though perhaps that is the case.

Because all thought is caused by neurons firing. Neurons firing in one region of the brain leads to neurons firing or being inhibited in other regions. The neurons fire in response to external and internal stimuli. While I admit it has not been conclusively demonstrated, I'm pretty confident that we do not become conscious of a particular region of the brain becoming active until enough neurons are firing. There is certainly evidence to show parts of the brain inhibiting conscious awareness of other neuronal activity which we would otherwise be aware of.

Even if it did, where did the unconscious thought come from? Unconscious thought would also be an emergent property of the brain, so the question of where thoughts come from remains unanswered.

My (rather unsatisfying) answer is that thought is just neurons firing. Our stream of consciousness (and over time the wiring of the brain) is 'directed' by external and internal stimuli.

 

[KingMerv00]

Here I am describing how I think the process works, not stating a conclusion but premises. Do you disagree with the bolded statements? If so, why? Do you think that the humans are incapable of self-modification of their own behavior? Or are you claiming that all such self-modification is, itself, deterministic and without randomness?

I am claiming that humans are a feedback loop.

1) Stimulus goes in.
2) Chemistry creates thought. (Essentially a calculation of probabilities.)
3) Thought creates action.
4) The action alters the environment and itself becomes a stimulus.
5) Return to 1.

To me, you are saying something outside the chain of causation must intervene at 2.5. What is that something?

Regarding randomness: QM exists so absolute determinism is probably not true. However, simply having a foundation in randomness does not mean free will is any better off.

It might be helpful to define what you mean by choose. I mean that one option is selected from multiple options that are perceived as available, such as a choosing a flavor of ice-cream at Baskin-Robbins.

I don't know if I can come up with a good definition but I don't like yours because it doesn't help. "Selecting from options" doesn't really clarify "choose". It is more of a restating.

 

[Beth]

Because all thought is caused by neurons firing. Neurons firing in one region of the brain leads to neurons firing or being inhibited in other regions. The neurons fire in response to external and internal stimuli. While I admit it has not been conclusively demonstrated, I'm pretty confident that we do not become conscious of a particular region of the brain becoming active until enough neurons are firing. There is certainly evidence to show parts of the brain inhibiting conscious awareness of other neuronal activity which we would otherwise be aware of.

Okay. I don't think we are in much disagreement on this then. You're basically saying that the claim that all conscious thoughts are first subconscious thoughts is not proven while I've already acknowledged that it's possible.

My (rather unsatisfying) answer is that thought is just neurons firing. Our stream of consciousness (and over time the wiring of the brain) is 'directed' by external and internal stimuli.

I don't think we are in disagreement here either. I'm just saying that when we 'direct' the neurons firing in our brain by our conscious thoughts, which is a form of internal stimuli, that constitutes free will. We can alter our thoughts in specific ways and by doing so, we alter our future actions - that is, what choices we will make.

 

[Paul2]

I'm just saying that when we 'direct' the neurons firing in our brain by our conscious thoughts, which is a form of internal stimuli, that constitutes free will. We can alter our thoughts in specific ways and by doing so, we alter our future actions - that is, what choices we will make.

I don't think you're getting the implications of how you define free will in terms of determinism.

I think the determinists are saying that free will must mean something beyond materialistic determinism. So when you say that neurons firing as a result of conscious thought is a form of internal stimuli, determinists say that that still falls under determinism; that is, it doesn't matter if the stimuli is external or internal, neurons or not, it's still deterministically causal (excepting for possible quantum randomness, as mentioned above).

Free will, in the strong form, must mean something beyond determinism, but the way you've defined it directly above, it's not beyond determinism.

 

[Beth]

I am claiming that humans are a feedback loop.

1) Stimulus goes in.
2) Chemistry creates thought. (Essentially a calculation of probabilities.)
3) Thought creates action.
4) The action alters the environment and itself becomes a stimulus.
5) Return to 1.

To me, you are saying something outside the chain of causation must intervene at 2.5. What is that something?

Consider your statement number 1. If you recognize that a stimulus can be an internal state which includes ones thoughts, then you have a feedback loop that is affecting itself. That describes a mechanism that could allow an individual to self-modify their responses to various stimuli. That is one way to describe free will.

If you don't recognize that a stimulus can be an internal state, that's another issue and I would need you to define stimulus as you are using it in this context.

Regarding randomness: QM exists so absolute determinism is probably not true. However, simply having a foundation in randomness does not mean free will is any better off.

As I said earlier, I disagree with this POV. Without randomness, strict determinism would hold. If strict determinism does not hold, then there is room for free will to arise.

I don't know if I can come up with a good definition but I don't like yours because it doesn't help. "Selecting from options" doesn't really clarify "choose". It is more of a restating.

All definitions are a restatement of the term being defined. I suspect that we are using somewhat different definitions, but unless you can provide me with an alternative I can't clarify how they differ.