Where does free will come from?

[alpine]

Will you donate for a charity?

How much?

Put a donation box to any location you like; as soon as you put a picture with pair of eyes staring at the donor, you will double the revenue.

You want to prime someone for cooperation, show him some photos of some flowers; you want him to compete, show him some lions.

You want someone to estimate the value of something high? Prime him with higher numbers. Want lower, do the same with lower numbers.

Human brain is no mystery, and seems like it doesn't include this thing you call "free will".

Someone mentioned CHAOS, and bingo. We are made up of chaotic interactions of everything and anything that is in existence in the universe and nothing "free" would come out of it...



Oh, and, the answer to the question;

"Where does free will come from?"

-Out of someones ass...

 

[dblack]

How does one prove the existence of that which is without substance?

I don't think the lack of substance is the real problem. Lots of other things lack substance and we comprehend them without difficulty. The problem with free will, in my opinion, is that we (usually) aren't working with a coherent definition.

Ayup... it's like fairness. We all pretend to know what it means, but really it is just a subjective measure.

Not to be argumentative, but I think it's more subtle than that. The popular conception of free will isn't just subjective; it's a vague and incoherent concept. When you examine it in much detail, it eats itself.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't think the lack of substance is the real problem. Lots of other things lack substance and we comprehend them without difficulty. The problem with free will, in my opinion, is that we (usually) aren't working with a coherent definition.

Ayup... it's like fairness. We all pretend to know what it means, but really it is just a subjective measure.

Not to be argumentative, but I think it's more subtle than that. The popular conception of free will isn't just subjective; it's a vague and incoherent concept. When you examine it in much detail, it eats itself.

To liberals maybe. To me it is a clear and concise measure. You either have it or you don't. It is a thing that can be taken and exercised.

 

[dblack]

Ayup... it's like fairness. We all pretend to know what it means, but really it is just a subjective measure.

Not to be argumentative, but I think it's more subtle than that. The popular conception of free will isn't just subjective; it's a vague and incoherent concept. When you examine it in much detail, it eats itself.

To liberals maybe. To me it is a clear and concise measure. You either have it or you don't. It is a thing that can be taken and exercised.

Oh good. I'd love to hear a clear and concise definition of free will. Whadya got?

Also, what in the world do liberals have to do with the issue?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So is it then your contention that free will requires a control which originates outside the physical universe?

No.

It does, however, require willful, deliberate control over the physiology, which, at its most basic level, requires control over the laws of physics.

The question is: What mechanism gives the brain that control?

This sounds like an attempt to equate the existence of a soul, spirit, or other such supernatural component within mankind to free will

That's the easy way out. I'm looking for the secular explanation.

My earlier silly post that was not meant to be taken remotely seriously aside, I don't know that you're going to be able to get a secular explanation of free will that will satisfy. Whatever the mechanics of free will, the idea of it is a human construct, and while the mechanics and biological functions involved might be explored, it is still a metaphysical consideration at it's core. Philosophically, it falls squarely under the branch of metaphysics.

This is a fancy way of saying "we really have no idea."

That's not meant to say that metaphysics cannot be discussed within a secular environment. The Greeks were fond of it. But a secular explanation is not likely to satisfy a religious perspective. I suspect the conversation will likely whirl around and around, since the debate will be conducted in a largely hostile manner for the parties involved. I use 99.99% of all threads in the Religion & Ethics board as my basis for that prediction.

To that end, I wish to thank dblack specifically for hs part in our delightful discussiom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

'

It seems obvious to me that I have free will. When I have just made a decision, say, to go to a concert, I feel that I could have chosen to do something else. Yet many philosophers say this instinct is wrong. According to their view, free will is a figment of our imagination. No one has it or ever will. Rather our choices are either determined —- necessary outcomes of the events that have happened in the pas —- or they are -- random....

How does the (possible) fact that our actions are "determined" or "random" affect the way we see morality? Personal responsibility?
Criminal culpability?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So is it then your contention that free will requires a control which originates outside the physical universe?

No.

It does, however, require willful, deliberate control over the physiology, which, at its most basic level, requires control over the laws of physics.

The question is: What mechanism gives the brain that control?

This sounds like an attempt to equate the existence of a soul, spirit, or other such supernatural component within mankind to free will

That's the easy way out. I'm looking for the secular explanation.

So, again.....something that can control the laws of physics, which would be something not bound by the laws of physics, yes?

That's not at all a necessary conclusion.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not to be argumentative, but I think it's more subtle than that. The popular conception of free will isn't just subjective; it's a vague and incoherent concept. When you examine it in much detail, it eats itself.

To liberals maybe. To me it is a clear and concise measure. You either have it or you don't. It is a thing that can be taken and exercised.

Oh good. I'd love to hear a clear and concise definition of free will. Whadya got?

Also, what in the world do liberals have to do with the issue?

Free will - an action taken at risk of life to save a loved one from harm.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

No.

It does, however, require willful, deliberate control over the physiology, which, at its most basic level, requires control over the laws of physics.

The question is: What mechanism gives the brain that control?


That's the easy way out. I'm looking for the secular explanation.

My earlier silly post that was not meant to be taken remotely seriously aside, I don't know that you're going to be able to get a secular explanation of free will that will satisfy. Whatever the mechanics of free will, the idea of it is a human construct, and while the mechanics and biological functions involved might be explored, it is still a metaphysical consideration at it's core. Philosophically, it falls squarely under the branch of metaphysics.

This is a fancy way of saying "we really have no idea."

That's not meant to say that metaphysics cannot be discussed within a secular environment. The Greeks were fond of it. But a secular explanation is not likely to satisfy a religious perspective. I suspect the conversation will likely whirl around and around, since the debate will be conducted in a largely hostile manner for the parties involved. I use 99.99% of all threads in the Religion & Ethics board as my basis for that prediction.

To that end, I wish to thank dblack specifically for hs part in our delightful discussiom.

I'm not sure what "we" you are referring to. If you're meaning atheists, I'm not one. But then "secular" is not synonymous with "atheist," not that you're implying such.

I find the free will argument fascinating. It's really just the nature/nurture argument. We know that nature exists, and we know that human behavior is determined to it at least to some extent. What we don't know for sure is how much the nurture part of the equation is involved in our behavior, and how much it varies with each individual.

Nature explains why I might be sexually attracted to young nubile woman, but it may not explain why I may prefer a nerdy girl or an athletic girl or a chunky girl or a skinny girl or a brainy girl or a drunk girl or a redhead or a brunette, etc.

For that matter, nature might explain why teenage boys and girls have these raging hormones that might be screaming at them to have sex (and they do), but may not explain why some choose to dive in early or wait. I was raised in a non-religious family and had the usual peer pressure to have sex, yet I waited until after high school by my own choice and despite having had ample opportunities.

Nature might explain why my growling stomach craves yummy things that are bad for me, but may not explain why I am able to overcome certain cravings in favor of my health.

I accept the idea of free will. I also accept that it may be a human construct entirely. I know that it is a major part of metaphysics. None of that means that it either exists or not on some fundamental, biological level. It certainly exists as an idea, and so I try to use it to my benefit rather than my downfall as best I can.

 

[numan]

'

So I guess the real question is : Do we really have the ability to stand on one leg ? · ·

.

 

[numan]

'
I am a determined determinist who has always found the notion of "free will" to be a remarkably confused notion.

De nihilo nihil fit : "Nothing comes from nothing" -- the basis of Leibnitz's Principle of Sufficient Reason

In fact Leibniz opposed fatalism and had a more nuanced and characteristic version of the principle, in which the contingent was admitted on the basis of infinitary reasons, to which God had access but humans did not. He explained this while discussing the problem of future contingents :

"We have said that the concept of an individual substance [Leibniz also uses the term haecceity] includes once for all everything which can ever happen to it and that in considering this concept one will be able to see everything which can truly be said concerning the individual, just as we are able to see in the nature of a circle all the properties which can be derived from it. But does it not seem that in this way the difference between contingent and necessary truths will be destroyed, that there will be no place for human liberty, and that an absolute fatality will rule as well over all our actions as over all the rest of the events of the world? To this I reply that a distinction must be made between that which is certain and that which is necessary."

Without this qualification, the principle can be seen as a description of a certain notion of closed system, in which there is no 'outside' to provide unexplained events with causes.

The notion of "infinitary causes" may be adumbrated by considering the Earth during the Age of Dinosaurs as a closed, deterministic system. Then, from outside the system, comes an unpredicted and possibly unpredictable event : an asteroid that hits the Earth and throws the predictable future history of the Earth into chaos.

Of course, in a larger frame of reference, the asteroid may be an entirely deterministic, predictable phenomenon -- but unpredictable events may intrude upon that system from a yet wider frame of reference, and so on ("infinitary causes").

Perhaps the real question is : does this chain of systems proceed endlessly to infinity, or does it somehow "curve back in on itself" in a finite system of unpredictability -- like the "Library of Babel" of Jorge Luis Borges?

.

 

[numan]

'
The single, astounding, exception to the Principle of Sufficient Reason in science is the unpredictability of quantum mechanics -- which is a very good "reason" in my mind to agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory.

To my simple mind, a phenomenon is either determined or it is a random "jump" in causation -- and this Epicurean parenklisis (or "swerve") is not what most people think of as "free-will"!!

Of course, there are some philosophically respectable ways of attempting to save the concept of free-will.

Those of a Kantian persuasion, especially those influenced by Schopenhauer, enthrone the Will at the apex of their ontological scheme [What is it with those Germans? Always this "triumph of the Will" !!].

However, this "Will" of Schopenhauer is everything opposite to what is admirable. It is a pure lust for survival, greed of self-agrandizement, hatred of all limitation of desire. It certainly is not "free" in any way : its lust is unchanging and inflexible. This Will is a crazy, twisted version of Plato's "One", the center and origin of all existence -- a Satanic Godhead.

This Will is inescapabale in Nature, but may, in the life of the individual, be strangled and tamed by a kind of mental jujitsu, by a quasi-Buddhistic triumph of the Representations (Vorstellung) of the Mind.

So I think that the deification of the Will does not save the notion of free-will from inanity.

.

 

[Montrovant]

No.

It does, however, require willful, deliberate control over the physiology, which, at its most basic level, requires control over the laws of physics.

The question is: What mechanism gives the brain that control?


That's the easy way out. I'm looking for the secular explanation.

So, again.....something that can control the laws of physics, which would be something not bound by the laws of physics, yes?

That's not at all a necessary conclusion.

If something can control the physical laws of the universe, that means it can do things outside the normal bounds of physics. Otherwise it would not be controlling the physical laws, it would be working within them.

So how is something which can control the physical laws of the universe, which can warp or twist or otherwise change them in ways not natural, be bound by those laws? Anything which binds it, it can change!

 

[numan]

'
Yet another experiment showing that conscious “decisions” are made unconsciously, and in advance

In the last few years, neuroscience experiments have shown that some “conscious decisions” are actually made in the brain before the actor is conscious of them: brain-scanning techniques can predict not only when a binary decision will be made, but what it will be (with accuracy between 55-70%)—several seconds before the actor reports being conscious of having made a decision. The implications of this research are obvious: by the time we’re conscious of having made a “choice”, that choice has already been made for us—by our genes and our environments—and the consciousness is merely reporting something determined beforehand in the brain. And that, in turn, suggests...that all of our “choices” are really determined in advance....

I think that some determinists are sufficiently uncomfortable that they try to dismiss the neuroscience experiments, saying things like “you can make decisions without being conscious of having done so.” But that becomes harder and harder to maintain as the experiments not only become more accurate in predicting actions before “conscious” decisions are made, but also farther and farther in advance....

emphases added
.

 

[numan]

'

Little did Calvin and Hobbs realize that their actions were predetermined by the Cartoonist !!!

.

 

[dblack]

So, again.....something that can control the laws of physics, which would be something not bound by the laws of physics, yes?

That's not at all a necessary conclusion.

If something can control the physical laws of the universe, that means it can do things outside the normal bounds of physics. Otherwise it would not be controlling the physical laws, it would be working within them.

So how is something which can control the physical laws of the universe, which can warp or twist or otherwise change them in ways not natural, be bound by those laws? Anything which binds it, it can change!

I'd like to hear M14 Shooter's on clarification of what "control over the laws of physics" means, but in the context of the discussion, I took it to simply mean 'able to trigger events in the physical world' (e.g. raise a hand, or speak a word, etc ...) I didn't take it to literally mean the ability to control the laws of physics. Was I wrong?

 

[numan]

'
SHAUN NICHOLS is a philosopher and cognitive scientist at the University of Arizona, where he directs the Experimental Philosophy Laboratory :

"It seems obvious to me that I have free will. When I have just made a decision, say, to go to a concert, I feel that I could have chosen to do something else. Yet many philosophers say this instinct is wrong. According to their view, free will is a figment of our imagination. No one has it or ever will. Rather our choices are either determined—necessary outcomes of the events that have happened in the past—or they are -random....

"In the past decade, however, a small group of philosophers have adopted more data-driven methods to illuminate some of these confounding questions. These so-called experimental philosophers administer surveys, measure reaction times and image brains to understand the sources of our instincts. If we can figure out why we feel we have free will, for example, or why we think that consciousness consists of something more than patterns of neural activity in our brain, we might know whether to give credence to those feelings. That is, if we can show that our intuitions about free will emerge from an untrustworthy process, we may decide not to trust those beliefs....

"Imagine a universe in which everything that happens is completely caused by whatever happened before it. So what happened in the beginning of the universe caused what happened next and so on, right up to the present. If John decided to have french fries at lunch one day, this decision, like all others, was caused by what happened before it.

"When surveyed, Americans say they disagree with such descriptions of the universe. From inquiries in other countries, researchers have found that Chinese, Colombians and Indians share this opinion: individual choice is not determined. Why do humans hold this view? One promising explanation is that we presume that we can generally sense all the influences on our decision making—and because we cannot detect deterministic influences, we discount them.

"Of course, people do not believe they have conscious access to everything in their mind. We do not presume to intuit the causes of headaches, memory formation or visual processing. But research indicates that people do think they can access the factors affecting their choices.

"Yet psychologists widely agree that unconscious processes exert a powerful influence over our choices. In one study, for example, participants solved word puzzles in which the words were either associated with rudeness or politeness. Those exposed to rudeness words were much more likely to interrupt the experimenter in a subsequent part of the task. When debriefed, none of the subjects showed any awareness that the word puzzles had affected their behavior. That scenario is just one of many in which our decisions are directed by forces lurking beneath our awareness.

"Thus, ironically, because our subconscious is so powerful in other ways, we cannot truly trust it when considering our notion of free will. We still do not know conclusively that our choices are determined. Our intuition, however, provides no good reason to think that they are not. If our instinct cannot support the idea of free will, then we lose our main rationale for resisting the claim that free will is an illusion."

.

 

[numan]

'

Calvin caused it, though.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

again, ... physiology does exert immense determined control necessary for preservation but is flawed by its inability to nurture itself without an external influence - being born, an infant exerts either free / necessary will for acquisition or starves to death, extraneous of its (own) physiology.

 

[dblack]

again, ... physiology does exert immense determined control necessary for preservation but is flawed by its inability to nurture itself without an external influence - being born, an infant exerts either free / necessary will for acquisition or starves to death, extraneous of its (own) physiology.

Alrighty then.