Mind over Matter

[timf1234]

The matter inside your body is all connected. Your thoughts arise in your brain, which is connected by nerves to the rest of your body. Those nerves carry impulses to muscles that make them move.

Do the thought produces action or the matter that produced the thought in the first place made your hand move? Thought is just the passive emergence of the underlying material activity.

 

[godless dave]

That's the whole point.
Do the thought produces action or the matter that produced the thought in the first place made your hand move?

Yes. The thought is made of matter.

 

[timf1234]

Thoughts involve the matter of our brains, so you can't really have a thought without affecting matter. And of course voluntary muscle movements are directed by our thoughts, at least some of the time.

Outside the body, no, not directly.

I agree with your first sentence but I have question on your second sentence.
Why "at least some of the time" only?
Why not "all the time, without exception".

Yes. The thought is made of matter.

Well, I thought, "thought" is non-material thing.
For example, "taste", "feeling" are non-material things but yes, "taste" or "feeling" are the result of material interaction.
Would you agree that awareness is non-material thing?
But yes, awareness is the emergence from material activity.

 

[Brian-M]

Word "Free" in "Free Will" is the death of "Free Will". Even "Will" has implied "free" in it. Therefore, even "will" can't exist.
Like God, Free Will can't be define. Neither God nor Free Will can't exist.

So.. You're saying "free will" is not free, and there is no such thing as will? I'd really like to know what the concept you label "free will" involves... except you say that it can't be defined.

But you also say that "God" can't be defined. That is clearly false. "God: An immaterial supernatural entity believed to be responsible for our existence." There, I just defined the monotheistic concept of "God". It was easy.

Now, why can't you define your concept of free will? I defined my concept of "free will" fairly easily, and even though you say "God" can't be defined, I had no trouble with that either. I suspect the truth isn't that it can't be defined, but that either you personally have great difficulty defining abstract concepts, or you simply choose not to define it in order to avoid intellectual scrutiny of your ideas.

Your statement "Neither God nor Free Will can't exist" confuses me. Is the double-negative intentional? If so, you're saying they both exist. If not, you're saying neither exist. Either way, I disagree. I believe that free will exists, but that God does not.

Do the thought produces action or the matter that produced the thought in the first place made your hand move? Thought is just the passive emergence of the underlying material activity.

Yes. The thought is made of matter.

Well, I thought, "thought" is non-material thing.
For example, "taste", "feeling" are non-material things but yes, "taste" or "feeling" are the result of material interaction.
Would you agree that awareness is non-material thing?
But yes, awareness is the emergence from material activity.

Your confusion has me confused. I and others have stated that mind (including thought) is an immaterial "thing" which has a material basis, but you're surprised when Godless Dave reiterates that concept. But then you go on to mention awareness, stating that awareness is a non material thing that emerges from material activity.

To use an analogy, it's like the way that actions such as dancing and laughing are not material objects, but processes performed by collections of material objects (the atoms and molecules that our physical bodies are made from). Thought, awareness, emotion, and all other forms of "mind" are just a different kind of process performed by collections of material objects (the neurons and neurotransmitters of our brains).

 

[timf1234]

Brian-M,

Sorry, my mistake.
I meant Neither God nor "Free Will" can exist.

Whoever claims "Free Will" exist need to define it. Not me.
I go by what people think about free will. Origin of free will, how was it defined thousands of year ago when people did not know much about science. At that time people had some fuzzy idea of something, never bother to think deeply about it and came up with a term "Free Will". I go by the original concept, thought, idea behind the term "Free Will". Even today, people subconsciously think something supernatural behind the term Free Will. That is what I think can't exist.
Obviously, the spirit of Free Will, what most people think of Free Will, is that computers do not have free will but human do. People will claim, awareness, an independent thing is the Free Will.
If you redefine Free Will then it might exist.

 

[Dimitri]

Placebo-effect.
Very interesting. For a few seconds I thouhgt that's it. But then when I paid more attention to it then I realized, that althoguht fake medicine has no intended chemical reaction in the subject's body but patients were told and observed himself taking the tablet that he thoguht is medicine. Hearing and seeing triggers mechanical motion of matter in his brain and body. This matter eventually effected his body.

so even in placebo-effect, ONLY matter affect matter not mind or thought.

You might want to dulge a bit deeper into it, placebo-effect is not limited towards "take a fake pill and become better".
Placebo-effect also takes part in thoughtpatterns and/or belief. A good example would be Thaipusam trance in the Hindu philosophy/religion.
--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgibQetq1qI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZfUY0E6o-w&feature=related

 

[ThunderChunky]

But only mystery left is where the awareness comes from.

It's an illusion.

 

[Complexity]

Obviously, because I must not have gotten a good answer to my satisfaction. Still looking for solid, logical, scientific answer.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a one-trick pony that doesn't have a good trick.

 

[Brian-M]

I meant Neither God nor "Free Will" can exist.

Thanks for clearing that up. It's nice to know where the person you're arguing with stands on the subject you're arguing about.

Whoever claims "Free Will" exist need to define it. Not me.

Well, I claim free will does exist, and I've defined it in a way that's consistent both with observation and a naturalistic view of the universe. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone claiming that it doesn't exist has to explain why.

Looking up "Free Will" in Wikipedia now, it seems that my view on free will and determinism is termed compatiblism, while yours is termed incompatabilism

I go by what people think about free will. Origin of free will, how was it defined thousands of year ago when people did not know much about science.

People at that time had no understanding of emergent properties of complex systems or the complexity of the brain. So they resolved that question by attributing free will to the action of the "soul". Now that we have a better understanding of the mind and brain, a "soul" is no longer a necessary explanation.

"Free Will". I go by the original concept, thought, idea behind the term "Free Will". Even today, people subconsciously think something supernatural behind the term Free Will. That is what I think can't exist.

I'm not entirely sure that the original concept of free will necessarily involved a supernatural component. It's possible that the concepts of free will and soul or spirit have simply been associated for so long that some people have difficulty decoupling the two concepts in their minds.

Obviously, the spirit of Free Will, what most people think of Free Will, is that computers do not have free will but human do. People will claim, awareness, an independent thing is the Free Will.
If you redefine Free Will then it might exist.

The difference there is that we control the "thought" processes and decision-making functions of a computer to get them to do whatever we want to do by installing software which allows us to control its functions through a user interface.

Consequently, a computer can no more be said to have free will than someone who has people tinkering with his brain to get him to speak, act and think in whatever way they want him to can be said to have free will.

If you built a self-programming learning computer (such as a neural-net computer) without an interface that allows it to be reprogrammed or controlled through the user interface, then that computer might be said to have free will.

 

[timf1234]

It's an illusion.

Did you meant "Awareness" is an illusion?

 

[timf1234]

The difference there is that we control the "thought" processes and decision-making functions of a computer to get them to do whatever we want to do by installing software which allows us to control its functions through a user interface.

And...laws of nature, Cause And Effect (CAE) and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) determines our actionan and thoguhts.

[QUOTE="Brian-M]Consequently, a computer can no more be said to have free will than someone who has people tinkering with his brain to get him to speak, act and think in whatever way they want him to can be said to have free will.[/QUOTE]

Natural process, CAE and HUP are tinkering with human brain and hence also tinkering with our mind.

 

[Brian-M]

And...laws of nature, Cause And Effect (CAE) and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) determines our actionan and thoguhts.

Natural process, CAE and HUP are tinkering with human brain and hence also tinkering with our mind.

Umm... Nope. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle operates on such a small scale that it can't be said to apply to the functioning of the brain. Even if it did, so what? Our brains are effectively deterministic regardless, so at most it would throw in a little random "noise" which would be overwhelmed by larger processes.

Cause and effect isn't tinkering with our minds. It is an essential characteristic of the universe what makes it possible for our minds to function. Our brains operate on the basis of cause and effect. Without cause and effect it would be impossible to have free will. Actions would not follow from thoughts, and thoughts themselves could not maintain coherence. Our minds would become nothing but a jumble of meaningless non-sapient gibberish.

 

[timf1234]

I was being generous to allow Free Willer to use HUP in their advantage to say, well, due to HUP the universe is not 100% predictable.
But as a Free Willer if you do not want to use HUP in your argument then it make my argument stronger and simpler.

Our brains operate on the basis of cause and effect. Without cause and effect it would be impossible to have free will.

"Cause and Effect" (CAE) and "Free Will" are oxymoronic like ideas. "Free" in the "Free Will" is the death sentence of "Free Will". Free of what?

If you want to go by CAE only then nothing, nothing in the universe is free. Not even an iota. CAE based universe is 100% predetermined by its previous state (initial condition) and the laws of nature.

It become quite obvious, that the idea of 'Free Will" is an obsolete idea, just like ghost, soul etc. These terms were established when people had no clue what they are trying to say. Like the contradictory idea of God, Free Will is another wishful, psychologically comforting idea. Fact of the matter is neither god nor free will can exist.

 

[Brian-M]

I was being generous to allow Free Willer to use HUP in their advantage to say, well, due to HUP the universe is not 100% predictable.
But as a Free Willer if you do not want to use HUP in your argument then it make my argument stronger and simpler.

It makes the argument simpler, but does not necessarily make your argument stronger.

"Cause and Effect" (CAE) and "Free Will" are oxymoronic like ideas. "Free" in the "Free Will" is the death sentence of "Free Will". Free of what?

Free of undue external influence. Cause and effect is an internal factor, and as such is not barrier to the existence of free will.

If you want to go by CAE only then nothing, nothing in the universe is free. Not even an iota. CAE based universe is 100% predetermined by its previous state (initial condition) and the laws of nature.

Nothing is free? There are no free electrons? Nothing is in free-fall? Prisoners are never allowed to go free? There are no free samples?

"Free" can mean many different things depending on the context in which it is being used. The "free" in "free will" is perfectly consistent with Cause and effect in context of my definition of "free will".

If you want to claim that the "free" in "free will" is inconsistent with cause and effect, you must support that assertion by providing, at the very least, a definition of "free will" consistent with your argument.

It become quite obvious, that the idea of 'Free Will" is an obsolete idea, just like ghost, soul etc.

Obvious to whom? Not to me. Perhaps you could explain why you think free will is an obsolete concept.

These terms were established when people had no clue what they are trying to say. Like the contradictory idea of God, Free Will is another wishful, psychologically comforting idea.

Fact of the matter is neither god nor free will can exist.

You seem fond of claiming X can't exist without ever bothering to define X. That's very sloppy thinking.

You claim that nether "god" or "free will" can exist, and (in an earlier post) you also claimed that neither "god" nor "free will" could be defined. If you can't define something, how can you be sure it doesn't exist?

The word "god" can be defined as "a supernatural entity responsible for causing our existence", but it can also be defined as "an idol that is worshiped".

"God" as described in the first definition almost certainly does not exist, but "god" as described in the second definition absolutely does (or did) exist. You can go into a museum and see an ancient "god" for yourself. Wiktionary (an online dictionary) gives four different definitions for god.

So the accuracy statement "there is no god" depends entirely on the definition of "god" being used, in the same way that the accuracy of the statement "fairies do not exist" depends entirely on whether the word "fairy" is being used to refer to magical creatures, or as an euphemism for homosexual men.

And now we apply this to the subject of "free will"...

I define "free will" as "a process of judgment and decision-making free from undue external influence or control". There is nothing about this that conflicts with the concept of cause and effect. In fact, because its a process, cause and effect is essential prerequisite for the existence of free will as I define the term.

But you claim that free will contravenes cause and effect, and so cannot exist. Clearly you're using a very different definition of free will than I am, and I have no idea what that definition is.

So until you can provide us with the definition of free will you're basing this assertion on, your claim that "free will does not exist" is meaningless gibberish. Since we have no idea what you mean by free will, you may as well be saying "kehgbfkfjewd doesn't exist".

 

[Brian-M]

It become quite obvious, that the idea of 'Free Will" is an obsolete idea, just like ghost, soul etc.

This statement has been bugging me, so I thought I'd address it specifically.

As far as I'm concerned, "Free Will" is not now, or ever will be an obsolete idea. The concept of free will, or some equivalent concept, has significant moral and legal ramifications. Here are some hypothetical examples...

First example,

Someone is in a courtroom, continually interrupting the proceedings with obscene statements. In the normal course of events such a person would be charged with contempt of court.

But what if this person suffers from an extreme case of Tourette's syndrome, and has no control over these actions because they are not a product of that person's internal decision-making process? (And can't leave because they're required to be there.) Should a person with Tourette's syndrome be given the same punishment for acting in this way as someone who is capable of controlling their actions, but chooses not to do so?

If not, what's the difference? The difference is that a normal person who makes obscene statements in court does so from their own free will, while the person with Tourette's syndrome is not.

Second example,

Some people force a gun into your hand, and points your arm at a person tied to a chair. You try to struggle, try to release the gun, but are overpowered. The apply a cattle prod to your arm, causing your fingers to clench and fire the gun.

A person is dead, killed by a gun in your hand, the trigger pulled by your finger.

Does this make you a murderer? No, because killing that person was not an act of free will on your part.

(But if you claim that nobody has free will, wouldn't that mean nobody is a murderer, no matter how many people they kill?)

Third example...

You lose control of your car, and plough into a group of pedestrians. Several people are killed. But there is nothing mechanically wrong with the car. The police do a blood test on you, and discover high levels of an illegal drug in your system. Normally, you would be charged with multiple manslaughter (and driving under the influence).

If you knowingly took illegal drugs before driving, then you would be morally and legally responsible for their deaths.

But what if you didn't knowingly take illegal drugs before driving? What if someone mixed them into the meal you ate before you left, and you didn't know you had taken them, and hadn't experienced any noticeable effects before getting into the car?

You did not take the drugs of your free will (that decision was made by the person who put them into your food without your knowledge), you did not choose to drive under the influence of illegal drugs of your own free will (because you didn't know you were under the influence).

So can you be said to be morally responsible for the deaths of the pedestrians?

 

[timf1234]

Please see the 5th question from the top on Free Will in the following link.
http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/faqs.htm

I define "free will" as "a process of judgment and decision-making free from undue external influence or control".

"Undue external influence"
What is undue here?
There is only laws of nature below the level you are thinking.
On the surface it gives you the illusion of free will but when you dig deeper it disappears.
Do robot have free will?
Do electron have free will?
If your answer is no then we don't have free will either.
Just because human brain is more complex than robot brain doesn't make one have free will and other one not. Both follows strict laws of nature, rule based machine.

 

[timf1234]

The concept of free will, or some equivalent concept, has significant moral and legal ramifications.

Of course, it does.
When majority of people understand that god doesn't exist then eventually the world will be a better place to live.
Same is true when people realizes, and digest that we have no free will whatsoever, not even an iota. Without free will the world will be a far far better place.

It is relatively easy to give up god but it is very hard to give up free will.
Two third of the atheists believe in some kind of free will.
I called them half-baked, baby atheists.

BTW, NO free will based deterrent is far superior than punishment based legal system. We should apply restitution not retribution.
In the world of Free Will there exist: Punishment, revenge, and retribution
IN the world of No free will there is only deterrent and restitution
Rest of thing you can think and figure out yourself.

 

[Dancing David]

"Cause and Effect" (CAE) and "Free Will" are oxymoronic like ideas.
...
If you want to go by CAE only then nothing, nothing in the universe is free. Not even an iota. CAE based universe is 100% predetermined by its previous state (initial condition) and the laws of nature.

Now while I agree that the possibility of free will is possibly an illusion, you are very wrong about the use of the word predetermined.

You are using the philosophical meaning of determined which is acceptable in the R&P forum but often needs clarification.

The use of the word causal and determined is not that same in science and physics. there are a number of reasons that any system may be causal and determined in the sense of physics IE that a model may be used to predict its behavior, but by no means does that means it is predetermined. So your use of predetermined needs some sort of clarification and is most likely incorrect in many situations. Causal and determinism do not imply predetermined.

1. QM is real and its effects while limited at the macroscopic level apply very strongly at the level of the elementary particles. So HIP is totally applicable in the sense of QM, and it is currently not a deterministic model, it isn't really a causal model at this point.
2. Even outside of QM there are probabilistic models, such as Brownian motion in liquids. they are causal and determined but in you use of the determined they are not that at all. The location a particle suspended in the fluid is causal and with enough information a very brief determination could be made of future position, with a range of probability. However it is never 'predetermined'.
3.Chaotic systems are hard to predict, even in very simple ones, because they are modeled using non-linear equations, very small differences in initial conditions lead to variation in outcomes. They too are causal, and determined, but the outcomes are not predicted easily.
4.Then there is the interaction of non simple systems, outside of any system that it very plain and has a small set of members, the actual interaction of members of a system are very difficult, due to small variation in initial conditions they are impossible to model to some extent. So while causal and determined they are not predetermined, especially if you try to model at all scales and sizes.

 

[timf1234]

Everyone should ask themselves:
Can non-material awareness/thought/Free-Will exert force on matter?

Now while I agree that the possibility of free will is possibly an illusion, you are very wrong about the use of the word predetermined.

This depend upon how one understand the term "predetermined".
Remember, first consider CAE (Cause and Effect) Only without HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Obviously, in the context of examining the existence or non-existence of "Free Will" predetermined means dependent on previous state AND the rules. Here "Predictability" doesn't mean that we are able to compute in tell the future ahead of time. As of today, and in the foreseeable future, due to we might not able to do that. This limitation is due to following factors.
1) We do not know all the rules.
2) We do not know exact state of the universe
3) We do not have technology to compute.

But unpredictability, in the absence of HUP is not because the future is not determined. As a matter of fact future was determined right after the Big-bang.
But HUP brings up a completely new issue. According to HUP universe is unpredictable not because of above 3 reason that I cited but because the unpredictability is inherent in nature itself.

Chaotic systems are hard to predict, even in very simple ones, because they are modeled using non-linear equations, very small differences in initial conditions lead to variation in outcomes.

My above argument is far deeper, in far more fundamental level than Brownian motion or chaos theory. These theory are macroscopic and its unpredictability is due to above 3 points. As you yourself cited that small changes can make a big difference in the outcome - Butterfly Effect. But if there is no changes at all then, in the absence of HUP the outcome is exactly the same.

What you have to understand is that we do not need to know all the rules, previous state, nor we have to actually compute the future to understand that it has a single path to the future that entirely depend upon 1) previous state 2) Rules.

 

[Dancing David]

Again timf1234, causal is not predetermined.

Brownian motion will effect the structure of future systems whether you like it or not, start the universe again and it will not end up the same, the Brownian motion in molecular clouds will determine that with HIP at all. And therefore chaos theory does matter a whole lot, stars may or may not form and that impacts all sorts of other features, all based upon Brownian motion, which is probabilistic and not QM, it is happening in molecules that are too large for much quantum weirdness. The unpredictability of Brownian motion is NOT directly related to QM although it is dependant upon it. (Just as biophysics is not directly related to QM but dependant upon it.)

It does not matter at all if you know the exact state of the universe, Brownian motion is probabilistic and random and it effects macroscopic items. So start the universe again and some molecular clouds, especially those that involve the plasma effects, are going to turn out completely differently. I am assuming that large amounts of the early universe, which determine the nature of the later universe will be controlled by QM, especially the stuff before the theoretical photon epoch . Nucleosynthesis will occur almost randomly in many ways.

So even without Brownian motion the large cosmological structures of the universe will vary tremendously.

Look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
almost all of the early universe will be dominated by QM effects and they are apparently probabilistic and random. Even after the decoupling and cooling to the point of hydrogen atoms becoming non-ionized there will be lots of QM and Brownian motion.


So even if;
1. We knew all the rules
2. The exact state of the universe
3. Had vast computing power

It doesn't matter, QM is probabalistic and likely to remain so, Brownian motion is probablistic and will likely remain so, the universe is causal but NOT predetermined. If large gross cosmological structures are based upon probability, that means there is no predeterminism.

That is my obvious and not so subtle point.