Where does free will come from?

[M14 Shooter]

Not in the least. The response you received was merely asking for a clarification.

I stated:

Ok... and what mechanism within the laws of physics allows us to consciously and willfully choose to fire / to not fire electical impulses down a neural pathway?

Nothig here makes any reference to any other animals other than man.

Hopefully that clears the way for you to asnwer my question.

You are equating "free will" with the firing of "electrical impulses down a neural pathway".
Since this is also done by other creatures "consciously and willfully" that means that they too must have "free will". A pride of lions will "consciously and willfully" decide to stalk a herd of zebra and each lion will be firing "electrical impulses down a neural pathway" as they take up positions. The behavior that we can observe demonstrates "free will" per the definition that you have provided. Nothing so far indicates that there is any difference between the way they are exercising "conscious and willful" control over the physics and chemistry of their own bodies and how we do the same.

Ok....
So now, back to the question:
What mechanism within the laws of physics allows us to consciously and willfully choose to fire / to not fire electical impulses down a neural pathway?

 

[dblack]

Thoughts are willful, as are actions based on choice.

They all rest on the willful, conscious control of the physiology of our brains, which requires the ability to choose/ choose not to fire the nuerons in the manner necessary to do so.

To truely choose, we must have some degree of conscious control over our physiology.
Agree?

Not in the sense you're claiming, no. The act of choosing IS the firing of neurons; which is caused by the previous firing of neurons, etc, etc...

All of which requires at least some degree of willful control - else, there is no possibility of choice.
Correct?

Maybe we need to clarify what you mean by 'willful control' and 'choice'.

I'm claiming they are no more, or less, than the firing of neurons in the brain. You seem to be suggesting there must be something 'behind' those firings. But I see no indication that there is.

I'm not sure we are. You seem to be hedging back on the idea that thoughts and decisions are composed of something beyond biochemical events.

They are exacly that - events that are willfully exercised by the person thinking and making the decisions.

What does 'willfully exercised' mean in this context?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not in the sense you're claiming, no. The act of choosing IS the firing of neurons; which is caused by the previous firing of neurons, etc, etc...

All of which requires at least some degree of willful control - else, there is no possibility of choice.
Correct?

Maybe we need to clarify what you mean by 'willful control' and 'choice'.
I'm claiming they are no more, or less, than the firing of neurons in the brain. You seem to be suggesting there must be something 'behind' those firings. But I see no indication that there is.

Of course there is - for you to actually make a choice, you have to direct the paticulars of those firings, at least to some degree -- else, they are simply firing in a manner dictated soley by the laws of physics and you aren't actually choosing anything.

W/o the ability to actually make a choice, there can be no free will; to be able to make a choice, you must be able to, to at least some degree, direct those nerual interactions.

If you can indeed direct those nueral interactions to at least some degree, there must be some mechanism for doing so - and thus, the question I asked in the very beginning - what is that mechanism?

I'm not sure we are. You seem to be hedging back on the idea that thoughts and decisions are composed of something beyond biochemical events.

They are exacly that - events that are willfully exercised by the person thinking and making the decisions.

What does 'willfully exercised' mean in this context?[/QUOTE]
That you make the decision in question in accordance to what you want to do - that you actively chose a path rather than passivley experience the path as it is dictated by the laws of physics alone.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I stated:

Ok... and what mechanism within the laws of physics allows us to consciously and willfully choose to fire / to not fire electical impulses down a neural pathway?

Nothig here makes any reference to any other animals other than man.

Hopefully that clears the way for you to asnwer my question.

You are equating "free will" with the firing of "electrical impulses down a neural pathway".
Since this is also done by other creatures "consciously and willfully" that means that they too must have "free will". A pride of lions will "consciously and willfully" decide to stalk a herd of zebra and each lion will be firing "electrical impulses down a neural pathway" as they take up positions. The behavior that we can observe demonstrates "free will" per the definition that you have provided. Nothing so far indicates that there is any difference between the way they are exercising "conscious and willful" control over the physics and chemistry of their own bodies and how we do the same.

Ok....
So now, back to the question:
What mechanism within the laws of physics allows us to consciously and willfully choose to fire / to not fire electical impulses down a neural pathway?

The firing of neurons is chemical process. To whit the nerves in your stomach send a signal to your brain telling you that it is empty. Your brain receives this signal and checks the time. If it is close to a meal you will start thinking about your options for satisfying your hunger. Your "free will" will provide you with options like ordering pizza, making a sandwich or going out to eat. Your available resources like time, money, access to food outlets will factor into your decision. Once you "consciously and willfully choose to fire / to not fire electrical impulses down a neural pathway" that picks ordering pizza you will have started to satisfy your hunger pangs.

However all of that "free will" when it came to your "consciously and willfully" choosing what to eat was driven by the physical nature of your hunger. That was the "mechanism within the laws of physics" that caused you to exercise your "free will". And yes, the pride of lions did pretty much the same thing when it came to picking the zebra over the wildebeast.

 

[dblack]

All of which requires at least some degree of willful control - else, there is no possibility of choice.
Correct?

Maybe we need to clarify what you mean by 'willful control' and 'choice'.
I'm claiming they are no more, or less, than the firing of neurons in the brain. You seem to be suggesting there must be something 'behind' those firings. But I see no indication that there is.

Of course there is - for you to actually make a choice, you have to direct the paticulars of those firings, at least to some degree -- else, they are simply firing in a manner dictated soley by the laws of physics and you aren't actually choosing anything.

This is what I was referring to earlier. You claim "we're past that" with regard to choice being bound by the laws of physics. But you keep circling back around to it. I'm claiming that choice doesn't require being free from the laws of physics. Indeed, it depends on the laws of physics. The act of choosing IS the firing of neurons.

What does 'willfully exercised' mean in this context?

That you make the decision in question in accordance to what you want to do - that you actively chose a path rather than passively experience the path as it is dictated by the laws of physics alone.

See above. Being bound by the laws of physics isn't the same thing as 'passive'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is what I was referring to earlier. You claim "we're past that" with regard to choice being bound by the laws of physics. But you keep circling back around to it. I'm claiming that choice doesn't require being free from the laws of physics. Indeed, it depends on the laws of physics. The act of choosing IS the firing of neurons.

Yes.

And if it is an -actual- choice, then the firings must be under some sort of willful direction by the person making the choice. This necessitates some sort of active control of the firings by the person making the choice, which then necessitates some control over the forces that makes those neurons fire. Thus, my question.

Else, you aren't really making a choice and you're just along for the ride.

 

[dblack]

This is what I was referring to earlier. You claim "we're past that" with regard to choice being bound by the laws of physics. But you keep circling back around to it. I'm claiming that choice doesn't require being free from the laws of physics. Indeed, it depends on the laws of physics. The act of choosing IS the firing of neurons.

Yes.

And if it is an -actual- choice, then the firings must be under some sort of willful direction by the person making the choice. This necessitates some sort of active control of the firings by the person making the choice, which then necessitates some control over the forces that makes those neurons fire. Thus, my question.

Else, you aren't really making a choice and you're just along for the ride.

Right. That's what I was saying. We're right back where we started. If you assume that choice requires being free from causality then you've definitely got a problem. What I'm saying is that 'the person making the choice' is, essentially, a bunch of neurons, firing or not firing in reaction to their previous state. Presumably, that sounds to you like just being 'along for the ride', but I don't make that equivocation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are equating "free will" with the firing of "electrical impulses down a neural pathway".
Since this is also done by other creatures "consciously and willfully" that means that they too must have "free will". A pride of lions will "consciously and willfully" decide to stalk a herd of zebra and each lion will be firing "electrical impulses down a neural pathway" as they take up positions. The behavior that we can observe demonstrates "free will" per the definition that you have provided. Nothing so far indicates that there is any difference between the way they are exercising "conscious and willful" control over the physics and chemistry of their own bodies and how we do the same.

Ok....
So now, back to the question:
What mechanism within the laws of physics allows us to consciously and willfully choose to fire / to not fire electical impulses down a neural pathway?

The firing of neurons is chemical process. To whit the nerves in your stomach send a signal to your brain telling you that it is empty. Your brain receives this signal and checks the time. If it is close to a meal you will start thinking about your options for satisfying your hunger. Your "free will" will provide you with options like ordering pizza, making a sandwich or going out to eat. Your available resources like time, money, access to food outlets will factor into your decision. Once you "consciously and willfully choose to fire / to not fire electrical impulses down a neural pathway" that picks ordering pizza you will have started to satisfy your hunger pangs.

However all of that "free will" when it came to your "consciously and willfully" choosing what to eat was driven by the physical nature of your hunger. That was the "mechanism within the laws of physics" that caused you to exercise your "free will". And yes, the pride of lions did pretty much the same thing when it came to picking the zebra over the wildebeast.

You clearly do not understand the question.

You are hungry.
You choose pizza over cheeseburgers.
What mechanism within the laws of physics allows us to control our physiology in the manner necessary to choose pizza?

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is what I was referring to earlier. You claim "we're past that" with regard to choice being bound by the laws of physics. But you keep circling back around to it. I'm claiming that choice doesn't require being free from the laws of physics. Indeed, it depends on the laws of physics. The act of choosing IS the firing of neurons.

Yes.

And if it is an -actual- choice, then the firings must be under some sort of willful direction by the person making the choice. This necessitates some sort of active control of the firings by the person making the choice, which then necessitates some control over the forces that makes those neurons fire. Thus, my question.

Else, you aren't really making a choice and you're just along for the ride.

Right. That's what I was saying. We're right back where we started. If you assume that choice requires being free from causality then you've definitely got a problem. What I'm saying is that 'the person making the choice' is, essentially, a bunch of neurons, firing or not firing in reaction to their previous state. Presumably, that sounds to you like just being 'along for the ride', but I don't make that equivocation.

Absent the capacity to make an actual choice, as you state, then that is exactly what you are - along for the ride.

So, all this boils down to a position that there is no free will.

Fair enough. Thank you.

 

[dblack]

Yes.

And if it is an -actual- choice, then the firings must be under some sort of willful direction by the person making the choice. This necessitates some sort of active control of the firings by the person making the choice, which then necessitates some control over the forces that makes those neurons fire. Thus, my question.

Else, you aren't really making a choice and you're just along for the ride.

Right. That's what I was saying. We're right back where we started. If you assume that choice requires being free from causality then you've definitely got a problem. What I'm saying is that 'the person making the choice' is, essentially, a bunch of neurons, firing or not firing in reaction to their previous state. Presumably, that sounds to you like just being 'along for the ride', but I don't make that equivocation.

Absent the capacity to make an actual choice, as you state, then that is exactly what you are - along for the ride.

So, all this boils down to a position that there is no free will.

Fair enough. Thank you.

Not so fast.

That's decidedly not what I'm saying, though I can understand why you'd see it that way. This is what I was trying to get at earlier. The problem with the question of freewill is our intuitive, yet incoherent, conception of freewill. We're no less 'free' because we're bound by physical laws. We still have will. That fact that our choices, thoughts, perceptions, etc... are based causally on those that preceded them, and on our reactions to our environment, doesn't make them meaningless. In fact, I argue the opposite - that deriving our thoughts and will outside the bounds of causality would be even more meaningless - essentially just making 'will' a random occurrence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ok....
So now, back to the question:
What mechanism within the laws of physics allows us to consciously and willfully choose to fire / to not fire electical impulses down a neural pathway?

The firing of neurons is chemical process. To whit the nerves in your stomach send a signal to your brain telling you that it is empty. Your brain receives this signal and checks the time. If it is close to a meal you will start thinking about your options for satisfying your hunger. Your "free will" will provide you with options like ordering pizza, making a sandwich or going out to eat. Your available resources like time, money, access to food outlets will factor into your decision. Once you "consciously and willfully choose to fire / to not fire electrical impulses down a neural pathway" that picks ordering pizza you will have started to satisfy your hunger pangs.

However all of that "free will" when it came to your "consciously and willfully" choosing what to eat was driven by the physical nature of your hunger. That was the "mechanism within the laws of physics" that caused you to exercise your "free will". And yes, the pride of lions did pretty much the same thing when it came to picking the zebra over the wildebeast.

You clearly do not understand the question.

You are hungry.
You choose pizza over cheeseburgers.
What mechanism within the laws of physics allows us to control our physiology in the manner necessary to choose pizza?

Which "laws of physics" are you referring to specifically? Our own physiology is what is setting up the hunger and neurons in our brains are part of that same physiology. The decision for pizza might have been as a result of our physiology requiring the chemical nutrients available in mushrooms and pepperoni as opposed to onions and lettuce.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right. That's what I was saying. We're right back where we started. If you assume that choice requires being free from causality then you've definitely got a problem. What I'm saying is that 'the person making the choice' is, essentially, a bunch of neurons, firing or not firing in reaction to their previous state. Presumably, that sounds to you like just being 'along for the ride', but I don't make that equivocation.

Absent the capacity to make an actual choice, as you state, then that is exactly what you are - along for the ride.

So, all this boils down to a position that there is no free will.

Fair enough. Thank you.

Not so fast.
That's decidedly not what I'm saying, though I can understand why you'd see it that way. This is what I was trying to get at earlier. The problem with the question of freewill is our intuitive, yet incoherent, conception of freewill. We're no less 'free' because we're bound by physical laws. We still have will.

Unless we have the capacity to make whatever decision we want to make - however incoherent or random that decision might be - we do not have any sort of "will" in this regard, free or otherwise.

That fact that our choices, thoughts, perceptions, etc... are based causally on those that preceded them, and on our reactions to our environment, doesn't make them meaningless.

You're arguing that every choice is dependent on past experience. Given that, when we make a choice, we're making the choice that we make because of that experience, etc, not because of our willful desire to make that choice - and since we do not actually make a willful choice, we are indeed just along for the ride

In the neural sense, as you argue, the impulses that set us onto a choice were put into movement by our experiences up to that point, these impulses were then predetermined to arrive at the points that they did, resulting in that choice - when we make a choice, the neruons fired the way they did not because we wanted them to, but beause they had to. This removes any thought of free will, in that as soon as the choice is presented, the decision is already made because of those experiences forcing our brains to affect the choices that it makes.

So, since there in so free will, there is no nees to explain the means thru wich we control our physiology in such a way to make decisions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The firing of neurons is chemical process. To whit the nerves in your stomach send a signal to your brain telling you that it is empty. Your brain receives this signal and checks the time. If it is close to a meal you will start thinking about your options for satisfying your hunger. Your "free will" will provide you with options like ordering pizza, making a sandwich or going out to eat. Your available resources like time, money, access to food outlets will factor into your decision. Once you "consciously and willfully choose to fire / to not fire electrical impulses down a neural pathway" that picks ordering pizza you will have started to satisfy your hunger pangs.

However all of that "free will" when it came to your "consciously and willfully" choosing what to eat was driven by the physical nature of your hunger. That was the "mechanism within the laws of physics" that caused you to exercise your "free will". And yes, the pride of lions did pretty much the same thing when it came to picking the zebra over the wildebeast.

You clearly do not understand the question.

You are hungry.
You choose pizza over cheeseburgers.
What mechanism within the laws of physics allows us to control our physiology in the manner necessary to choose pizza?

Which "laws of physics" are you referring to specifically? Our own physiology is what is setting up the hunger and neurons in our brains are part of that same physiology. The decision for pizza might have been as a result of our physiology requiring the chemical nutrients available in mushrooms and pepperoni as opposed to onions and lettuce.

You still do not understand the question.
If we consciously and freely make a decision, it is because we are able to force our brains to behave in a certain way. What mechanism allows us to control our brain's physiology in the manner necessary to make a decision?

 

[Derideo_Te]

You clearly do not understand the question.

You are hungry.
You choose pizza over cheeseburgers.
What mechanism within the laws of physics allows us to control our physiology in the manner necessary to choose pizza?

Which "laws of physics" are you referring to specifically? Our own physiology is what is setting up the hunger and neurons in our brains are part of that same physiology. The decision for pizza might have been as a result of our physiology requiring the chemical nutrients available in mushrooms and pepperoni as opposed to onions and lettuce.

You still do not understand the question.
If we consciously and freely make a decision, it is because we are able to force our brains to behave in a certain way. What mechanism allows us to control our brain's physiology in the manner necessary to make a decision?

Probably because you just changed the question from "What mechanism within the laws of physics" to "What mechanism allows us to control our brain's physiology".

The physiology of the brain is not altered by changing our minds. The brain's physiology is such that one of it's functions is to enable us to make choices. The biochemical reactions that are built into physiology of our brains are what result in our reaching decisions. But simply making a decision does not alter that physiology since it already has that ability. Just as learning something new is a biochemical reaction that is then stored in the grey matter. This is what our brains have developed the ability to do as part of the existing physiology.

 

[dblack]

You're arguing that every choice is dependent on past experience. Given that, when we make a choice, we're making the choice that we make because of that experience, etc, not because of our willful desire to make that choice - and since we do not actually make a willful choice, we are indeed just along for the ride

In the neural sense, as you argue, the impulses that set us onto a choice were put into movement by our experiences up to that point, these impulses were then predetermined to arrive at the points that they did, resulting in that choice - when we make a choice, the neruons fired the way they did not because we wanted them to, but beause they had to. This removes any thought of free will, in that as soon as the choice is presented, the decision is already made because of those experiences forcing our brains to affect the choices that it makes.

So, since there in so free will, there is no nees to explain the means thru wich we control our physiology in such a way to make decisions.

I don't think there's any free will of the kind you're describing. But as I've said, I don't think the concept, as you're describing it, makes much sense when you look at it critically. It's just something we've all grown to accept without thinking it through.

Coming full circle, back to my original post in this topic, I do think there is room for a concept of free will if we understand that 'determined' (ie bound by causality) isn't the same as 'predetermined' (a foregone conclusion). The future hasn't yet happened. It is being determined and we are an active part of determining it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which "laws of physics" are you referring to specifically? Our own physiology is what is setting up the hunger and neurons in our brains are part of that same physiology. The decision for pizza might have been as a result of our physiology requiring the chemical nutrients available in mushrooms and pepperoni as opposed to onions and lettuce.

You still do not understand the question.
If we consciously and freely make a decision, it is because we are able to force our brains to behave in a certain way. What mechanism allows us to control our brain's physiology in the manner necessary to make a decision?

Probably because you just changed the question from "What mechanism within the laws of physics" to "What mechanism allows us to control our brain's physiology".

Its the same question.
Physiology = biology = chemistry = physics.
You control physiology thru the application of the laws of physics.
See -- told you that you didn't understand the question.

The physiology of the brain is not altered by changing our minds. The brain's physiology is such that one of it's functions is to enable us to make choices. The biochemical reactions that are built into physiology of our brains are what result in our reaching decisions.

Uhhuh.
And to actually make decisions, we must be able to exercise control over this physiology, so that the brain does what we want it to do, as opposed to what it would do regardless of any exercise of will.
At the most basic level this is done thru the laws of physics.
Thus, my question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're arguing that every choice is dependent on past experience. Given that, when we make a choice, we're making the choice that we make because of that experience, etc, not because of our willful desire to make that choice - and since we do not actually make a willful choice, we are indeed just along for the ride

In the neural sense, as you argue, the impulses that set us onto a choice were put into movement by our experiences up to that point, these impulses were then predetermined to arrive at the points that they did, resulting in that choice - when we make a choice, the neruons fired the way they did not because we wanted them to, but beause they had to. This removes any thought of free will, in that as soon as the choice is presented, the decision is already made because of those experiences forcing our brains to affect the choices that it makes.

So, since there in so free will, there is no nees to explain the means thru wich we control our physiology in such a way to make decisions.

I don't think there's any free will of the kind you're describing.

As I said. Fair enough.

But as I've said, I don't think the concept, as you're describing it, makes much sense when you look at it critically.

I think its pretty clear that I've looked at it critically, and that it makes sense - it only requires the ability to exert control ove the physiological aspects of the brain - and thus my question.

In any event, if you don't believe that there is free will, then the question I asked cannot apply to you.

Coming full circle, back to my original post in this topic, I do think there is room for a concept of free will if we understand that 'determined' (ie bound by causality) isn't the same as 'predetermined' (a foregone conclusion).

If you believe all of the impulses that bring us to any given decision were all set in motion by our past experiences, and that this applies to everyone everywhere, then everything -is- predetemined. You may not be able to predict what happens, but that doesn't mean that what happens isn't already determined, just like the break of a billiard rack once the cue ball leaves the stick.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You still do not understand the question.
If we consciously and freely make a decision, it is because we are able to force our brains to behave in a certain way. What mechanism allows us to control our brain's physiology in the manner necessary to make a decision?

Probably because you just changed the question from "What mechanism within the laws of physics" to "What mechanism allows us to control our brain's physiology".

Its the same question.
Physiology = biology = chemistry = physics.
You control physiology thru the application of the laws of physics.
See -- told you that you didn't understand the question.

Physiology != biology != chemistry != physics.

There is a reason why we use different terms. Conflating them turns them into equivalent of fruit salad. Either they have their specific meanings or they don't. If they don't then this discussion is pointless.

The physiology of the brain is not altered by changing our minds. The brain's physiology is such that one of it's functions is to enable us to make choices. The biochemical reactions that are built into physiology of our brains are what result in our reaching decisions.

Uhhuh.
And to actually make decisions, we must be able to exercise control over this physiology, so that the brain does what we want it to do, as opposed to what it would do regardless of any exercise of will.
At the most basic level this is done thru the laws of physics.
Thus, my question.

The biochemistry involved in moving your muscles is both controlled and instinctive. When your hand feels extreme heat you don't control the reflex that moves it away from the source of that heat. Similarly for the brain. You do not control your digestive process or how your ears hear sounds. The reflexive aspect of physiology is a survival mechanism. You only exercise control over a limited part of the physiology of your brain just as you do with your muscles. The ability to make a decision is an inbuilt function just like breathing. You can control it to some degree but you cannot force yourself to stop breathing entirely. Your reflexes will override your "control over this physiology". Your exercise of "free will" to make the "decision" to stop your breathing through "control over this physiology" simply doesn't exist in the manner that you are describing because of these limitations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Probably because you just changed the question from "What mechanism within the laws of physics" to "What mechanism allows us to control our brain's physiology".

Its the same question.
Physiology = biology = chemistry = physics.
You control physiology thru the application of the laws of physics.
See -- told you that you didn't understand the question.

Physiology != biology != chemistry != physics.
There is a reason why we use different terms. Conflating them turns them into equivalent of fruit salad. Either they have their specific meanings or they don't. If they don't then this discussion is pointless.

You don't understand.
-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,
-Biology bevahes the way it does because of chemistry.
-Chemistry bevahes the way it does because of physics.
Thus
-Physiology behaves as it does because of physics
and so
-If you are to exercise control over your physiology, you do so thru the laws physics.

See -- told you that you didn't understand the question.

The biochemistry involved in moving your muscles is both controlled and instinctive. When your hand feels extreme heat you don't control the reflex that moves it away from the source of that heat. Similarly for the brain. You do not control your digestive process or how your ears hear sounds. The reflexive aspect of physiology is a survival mechanism.

We arent discussing reflexes - we're discussing conscious choices.

...You only exercise control over a limited part of the physiology of your brain just as you do with your muscles...
...You can control it to some degree...

Uh-huh.

And to exercise this control over this physiology, so that the brain does what we want it to do, as opposed to what it would do regardless of any exercise of will, there must be some mechanism thru which we exert this control - at the most basic level this is done thru the laws of physics.

Thus, my question.
What mechanism allows us to control the laws of physics in order to exert control over our brain's physiology?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Its the same question.
Physiology = biology = chemistry = physics.
You control physiology thru the application of the laws of physics.
See -- told you that you didn't understand the question.

Physiology != biology != chemistry != physics.
There is a reason why we use different terms. Conflating them turns them into equivalent of fruit salad. Either they have their specific meanings or they don't. If they don't then this discussion is pointless.

You don't understand.
-Physiology behaves as it does because of biology,
-Biology bevahes the way it does because of chemistry.
-Chemistry bevahes the way it does because of physics.
Thus
-Physiology behaves as it does because of physics
and so
-If you are to exercise control over your physiology, you do so thru the laws physics.

See -- told you that you didn't understand the question.

The biochemistry involved in moving your muscles is both controlled and instinctive. When your hand feels extreme heat you don't control the reflex that moves it away from the source of that heat. Similarly for the brain. You do not control your digestive process or how your ears hear sounds. The reflexive aspect of physiology is a survival mechanism.

We arent discussing reflexes - we're discussing conscious choices.

...You only exercise control over a limited part of the physiology of your brain just as you do with your muscles...
...You can control it to some degree...

Uh-huh.

And to exercise this control over this physiology, so that the brain does what we want it to do, as opposed to what it would do regardless of any exercise of will, there must be some mechanism thru which we exert this control - at the most basic level this is done thru the laws of physics.

Thus, my question.
What mechanism allows us to control the laws of physics in order to exert control over our brain's physiology?

Thank you for admitting that you are changing the definitions of generally accepted terminology. Since you have not provided any logical justification for these changes there is no sound basis for your question. Too many "leaps of faith" that ignore the functional interactions between biochemistry and the physical environment in which we exist. So your question as it stands is basically unintelligible because it spans too wide a gap in conventional concepts.