A recent article in Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html suggest that free will is an illusion. What do you think about it? I think that 1st of all showing something happened in the brain before a conscious decision occurs just shows something we already know: lots of thing happened in our subconscious before we become aware of it. 2nd of all : apparently they average of precision of someone answer is 60% so at best it shows a tendency and nothing like the absence of free will. Who has never felt the urge to so something without any rational reason for it (for instance something we know would be bad for us) and will may do it 2 times out of 3 but sometimes will still manage to decide against it? I think that prove there is intrinsic process into the brain that may push us toward a specific behavior but we still have the free will to do it or not.
In fact, many believe it is the greatest mystery of all.
May be, our subconscious minds may be dictating our actions, long before we realise.
The impression that we are freely able to choose between different possible courses of action is fundamental to our mental health.If we are not in control after all, then that makes humans little more than automatons.If the brain is a machine, whose decisions are entirely out of our conscious control, then can we be held responsible for our actions?.....This is a dangerous road to go down,It would lead to no one being held responsible for anything.If we can read minds, and even dreams, and prove that free will is a nonsense, then what does that say about the mystery of our minds?..........................
In fact, the human brain, for all this, remains by far the most mysterious object known to science.
It is still completely unknown how 3lb of wet jelly, plus tiny electrical currents powered by the energy we release from our food, can give rise to consciousness. But it does.
Few modern people believe that the brain is pervaded by some sort of mysterious "soul"; but how the neurones and synapses of the mind can generate subjective experiences of colour, smell, hate, fear and love is an utter mystery.It is the greatest mystery of all.But unless we want to believe in "souls" or "auras", we must believe that the brain is a machine - a very complicated machine, but a machine nonetheless.And that means its workings must, in principle, be deducible, that we can predict its every move, as freewill.
Does that mean we will one day be able to calculate what powers love, creates artistic masterpieces, sows awe, and experiences both great sorrow and utter joy?
Maybe one day science will have an explanation for all this, but one suspects that even after the questions of the atoms and quarks, the planets and galaxies are finally answered, the deep puzzle of what exactly is going on in our heads will remain forever unsolved.
And perhaps that's the way it should be.
Thank you.
This is, of course, yesterday's news. Physiological evidence that brain activity precedes decision making is decades old. And it's had no impact on the debates on free will. Not sure anything can.
Interestingly if you look at the Nature link they now want to start an interdisciplinary approach (neuroscientist + philosoph) on the subject. I think that could have some impact on the debate! (Ps: I just realised the link requires you to login but you can register for free)
I think that view is perhaps a tad over zealous. It is far to say that they any argument regarding free will has had no impact at all.
I think that in real argument that unpins this, is what is consciousness, they are in many ways the same argument.
Stephies argument seems to me to suggest that because human decisions appear not to display a high level of validity or reliability in face of biological predictors that are characteristics that one may be expect if there was an absence of free will. This in my opinion is a valid argument.
However personally I tend to disagree that this suggests that there is such a thing as "free will" in the traditional sense. I argue that the result is seeming unreliable simply because it is not possible to measure or perhaps truly comprehend the variables that affect a decision. This is indicative of the biopsychosocial approach to psychology - We are simply unable to control or observe the necessary variables which effect decision making. Smiths argument is inline with Demasio's book, "The feeling of what happens" take on consciousness which suggests that conciousness is the memory of a changing brains states. This is view is I find uncomfortable in the same way that Smith finds their argument uncomfortable however smiths is question how that effects ones sense of self. This in my opinion is a different topic all together, you can apply the same logic to mental illness with the same albeit harrowing outcome.
The unpinning argument is therefore less regarding freewill its self and more conciosusness and more poignantly, in my opinion, the problem is Qualia. As Demasio puts it "the feeling of what happens". We could derive the biological under pinnings of the entire process of consciousness and still not necessarily answer that problem.
The romantic in me believes that my experience is something "magical" the scientist in me knows that it is unlikely. Both parts understand that we are a long way from knowing either way!
Its important to remember, that even if consciousness and free will is an illusion, it is still awe inspiring, majestic, and simply, the most beautiful thing that we as a species have been lucky enough to possess.
Luke I totally agree on the fact that we are unable to control or observe the variable which affects decision making and the discrepancies between the romantic and the scientific belief. But personally I think arguing against 'free will' is just playing around the exact definition we give to it. I don't believe in a 100% of free will but I don't believe in my life being completly determined either. If I can make a really bad metaphor I would compare human being to machines with a limited number of options (based on genetic basis) but still the free will to choose between these options. A kind of 'free will' under conditions. I wish I could express it in a more alaborated way but I hope you get the idea!
It think your right, when I wrote my argument the first time round i had a bit about the definition of free will. I took it out in favour of assuming a dualist approach.
I some respects I agree with your agreement. We are in many ways hardware determined by genetics, however to continue the analogy, our software is born of experience. This experience, in essence, as being part of the physical world is quantifiable. However, where my view is similar to yours, is that because the variables as impossible to measure as say a "soul" to borrow from the dualists, in many ways free will exists. no one, including yourself, can determine your actions therefore decision making can be thought of, to intents and purposes as "free" to the individual.
Does that make sense? :S
In fact, many believe it is the greatest mystery of all.
May be, our subconscious minds may be dictating our actions, long before we realise.
The impression that we are freely able to choose between different possible courses of action is fundamental to our mental health.If we are not in control after all, then that makes humans little more than automatons.If the brain is a machine, whose decisions are entirely out of our conscious control, then can we be held responsible for our actions?.....This is a dangerous road to go down,It would lead to no one being held responsible for anything.If we can read minds, and even dreams, and prove that free will is a nonsense, then what does that say about the mystery of our minds?..........................
In fact, the human brain, for all this, remains by far the most mysterious object known to science.
It is still completely unknown how 3lb of wet jelly, plus tiny electrical currents powered by the energy we release from our food, can give rise to consciousness. But it does.
Few modern people believe that the brain is pervaded by some sort of mysterious "soul"; but how the neurones and synapses of the mind can generate subjective experiences of colour, smell, hate, fear and love is an utter mystery.It is the greatest mystery of all.But unless we want to believe in "souls" or "auras", we must believe that the brain is a machine - a very complicated machine, but a machine nonetheless.And that means its workings must, in principle, be deducible, that we can predict its every move, as freewill.
Does that mean we will one day be able to calculate what powers love, creates artistic masterpieces, sows awe, and experiences both great sorrow and utter joy?
Maybe one day science will have an explanation for all this, but one suspects that even after the questions of the atoms and quarks, the planets and galaxies are finally answered, the deep puzzle of what exactly is going on in our heads will remain forever unsolved.
And perhaps that's the way it should be.
Thank you.
I like your comment, I feel we share similar sentiments. Another Idea that I have been puzzling with is wether consciousness is something that you have, a threshold of development, or is a scalable? are some creatures more conscious then others, can this be abled to humans, are some more self aware then others?
Does our consciousness down scale with consumption of alcohol? - certainly seems like that sometimes!
@Luke...all the circumstances depend.....obviously animals like elephants,dogs and creatures like snake are more conscious than human beings.I strongly believe that consumption of alcohol lowers your consciousness.And finally u can say that conscious is scalable but virtually as no proper research exists.
Its very hard to measure, if not near impossible. Who knows, one day perhaps!
I think Science has been invented by our minds to try explaining the world around us but the world doesn't stop at the limits of scientific explanations. In addition I think the debate about free will is wrongly used to free people from their responsabilities. Imagine tomorrow we prove free will doesn't exist, isn't there a likiness that therewould be an increase in violence, vandalism or other illegal action since nobody could be held for responsible for his actions anymore. Then the world would completly change, therefore it was not determined in a first place (!?) If free willl did not exist before and after we become aware of it and everything was predetermined by circuit in our brain shouldn't things just carry on as usual. Or maybe free will is truly an illusion but since the whole humanity share the same illusion it makes it a reality. Maybe the whole world around us is just a figment of reality but since we all see it we agree it's there, isn't it?
Now this raise another question : regardless of wheter free will exist or not should we actually put efforts and money in trying to prove it doesn't whereas it would be more than likely to have a detrimental effects on humanity?
.'..world doesn't stop at the limits of scientific explanations' is correct. But what science really is? There appears some misconception about it. Science in fact is logical coherence. Something which is arranged logically becomes science. So it is sensible to say that nothing is beyond limits of scientific explanation.
So you believe that everything in the world can be arranged logically. What are you arguments/evidences for that?
Your question makes no sense. Evidences for this can not be produced. Not every one has the ability to become a scientist. One who has a scientific temperament can do this very efficiently. Philosophy and science are same. Experiment plus philosophy is science and science minus experimentation is philosophy.
First of all how many people believe in free will and how many don't ?
All the personalities here are debating about something which exists and not exists !
Some scientists have co-related every behavioral of human is linked to free will, that I will discuss later.
But keeping aside does it make sense or not free will may be existing for the people who believe it and vice-verse.
As stephanie cadot has asked whether is it so important that research and spending money for the research in free will is essential to mankind or not ?
I appreciate the raised question;If you see the past, man had never give up in his research proceeding until he experiences a final conclusion yes/no.Because research is driven by passion and we cannot stop it.
While scientifically speaking about free will and up to date research,free will should be not any more explored.
Because man has invented every thing now,but he has not enough understood his own brain.And the day when human beings understand every mysteries of brain,that might be the initial start of human disaster.And the term humanity will be completely lost.This is not my prediction but i strongly think in this way.And man has been successful in making every impossible as possible to its edge.
This doesn't mean i personally accept the existence of free will.
Do You Believe in Free Will?
New experiments show that disbelief in free will decreases helping behaviours and increases aggression.
Chances are you believe in free will - I do too. To me it seems that one moment I want cereal and soon I have it. Next I want to ride my bicycle and soon I am. Later I have an itchy nose, and, in no time at all, it is scratched.
But, say some scientists and philosophers, this sense of agency is an illusion: you were hungry and that's why you 'wanted' cereal; you were bored and fed up of being inside so you 'decided' to get some exercise; and as for itchy noses, well there is a biological cause for that as well. From a determinist viewpoint each of these actions, and their causes, as well as their causes and their causes can be traced right back to my birth, then back through my parents' lives, then right back, like clockwork, to the beginning of the universe.
The strong determinist view - that we're locked in an unchanging web of cause and effect going right back to the big bang - is repulsive to many. And quite naturally so, as free will forms the backbone of so many of society's structures. The criminal justice system is built on the idea that people can choose whether to obey the law or not, therefore people who don't obey should be punished.
Similarly many religious and/or philosophical systems of thought have the notion of free will at their heart. Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre emphasised the connection between freedom and responsibility. He thought we must take responsibility for our choices, and that taking responsibility was at the heart of a life well lived.
This debate about free will is so interesting - and knotted - that philosophers can't keep away from it; but psychologists, on the other hand, perhaps sensing no end to the argument, can't help their minds wandering away to more practical points. They have focused more on how beliefs in free will might affect our behaviour and whether, more generally, there might be some reason why we seem predisposed to think we have it.
In new research published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Baumeister, Masicampo and DeWall (2009) theorise that a belief in free will may be partly what oils the wheels of society, what encourages us to treat each other respectfully. They explore this theory with three studies, two on helping behaviours and one on aggression.
Free will and helping behaviours
In the first experiment Baumeister and colleagues wanted to see how a belief in free will affected how much people were willing to help others. To manipulate their belief in free will participants read statements that either supported free will, supported determinism or had no bearing on the debate. A separate study confirmed that this really was enough to shift people's thoughts towards determinism or towards free will.
Participants then read scenarios in which helping behaviours were explored, for example by asking about giving money to a homeless person. They were asked to rate how much help they would provide to the people in these scenarios. The results showed that, as Baumeister and colleagues predicted, people whose thoughts had been pushed more towards free will were more likely to be helpful than those whose thoughts were pushed towards determinism.
So it seems that people really are more helpful when they think they are free to choose as compared to when they believe their actions are pre-determined. Baumeister and colleagues argue that the belief that behaviour is pre-determined encourages people to behave automatically, and often automatic behaviour is selfish.
Interestingly there was no difference seen between the free will condition and the neutral condition. What this suggests is that most people do already believe in free and don't require extra encouragement. Of course we each differ in the amount we believe in free will and this may well affect how much help we are prepared to offer others.
A second study by Baumeister and colleagues examined individual differences looking for an association between believing in free will and helping behaviours. Consistent with the previous experiment they found that people who had a 'chronic disbelief' in free will were less likely to be helpful to others.
Free will and aggression
The final experiment flipped the question around: instead of looking at prosocial behaviours they looked at antisocial behaviours. If a disbelief in free will makes people less helpful, perhaps it also makes them more likely to behave aggressively.
As before participant's thoughts were experimentally shifted towards free will or determinism and then their aggressive tendencies were measured. Instead of having people beating each other up in the lab, they chose a more indirect expression of aggression: putting spicy sauce on another person's food.
Participants were introduced to a study about food preferences which, with some complicated manoeuvring, they were encouraged to think had nothing to do with previous statements they read out about free will or determinism. Then they were told to prepare a plate of food for someone else to taste. One of the ingredients they could choose was a hot salsa sauce. The experimenters were interested in whether a belief in free will affected the amount of sauce participants put on the plate.
When the participants left, the experimenters measured how much hot sauce they put on the plate. Those who had been primed to think more deterministically had spiced up the food, on average, twice as much as those who were primed to think in terms of free will. This seemed to have nothing to do with being more generous as they didn't add more of other non-spicy foods, like cheese, to the plate.
Believers in free will cheat less
These experiments aren't the first to examine how a belief in free will (or otherwise) affects our behaviour. In a recent study Vohs and Schooler (2008) also found that a belief in free will seems to have a positive effect on people's behaviour. In that experiment (covered by Cognitive Daily) participants whose disbelief in free will was encouraged were more likely to cheat on a test.
These studies, then, point out the positive effect of free will on a variety of behaviours that most people would consider beneficial. Indeed it seems that most of us already have a firm belief in free will and so we're already benefiting. Practically the danger is that our thoughts take a more deterministic turn and we move towards more aggression and cheating and away from helping behaviours.
Compatibilism: reconciling determinism with free will
This leaves us with a serious problem. If we think scientifically about the world then we have to accept that one thing really does lead to another; the reason I 'decide' to eat cereal is that I'm hungry, so in some sense the determinist is right.
But a disbelief in free will is not only repugnant, it's also dangerous for society. If we don't have free will, a perverse kind of anarchism emerges, one which seems to encourage us to act any way we choose. After all if we don't have free will then we're not to blame for anything we do.
One way some philosophers have tried to resolve this conflict is by pointing out that determinism and free will are not necessarily incompatible. Using everyday notions of free will philosophers have put forward a viewpoint that tries to integrate the two (see philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett's book 'Freedom Evolves' for a cognitive perspective).
Classical compatiblists argue that we have free will if we have the power and ability to do things that we want to do. For example, say I want to go and buy a pint of milk for my cereal, and the shop is open, and I can get there, and I have money. For a compatibilist I have free will if I can choose to go, or, alternatively, not go. The fact that I do actually go (mainly because I'm hungry and want to eat cereal) doesn't necessarily mean that I didn't have the choice not to go.
Compatibilists emphasise this idea that we have free will because we could have chosen to do otherwise, even if we didn't. This idea that we 'could have done otherwise' is a powerful one, and one that appeals to our everyday experience. It doesn't solve the dilemma of determinism but at least it provides a stick with which to fend it off.
So when one person chooses not to help another, or chooses to behave aggressively, there must be reasons for that behaviour, many of which might appear to deny their responsibility. Ultimately, though, the proponent of free will has to argue this person could always have chosen to do otherwise.
We have to cling to this belief, don't we?
To understand about the freewill we have to include the whole Cosmos and other individual.
Law of Freewill1: When you are aware of something no one else is aware of, you can change it easily by manifestation techniques, declaration of your intent, and direct physical action. Because no one else is aware of it, your change of this element in your reality and theirs does not violate their freewill
Law of Freewill2:When you are aware of something that others are aware of as well, a potential tug of war between opposing freewill may occur. Who wins depends on who had the greater amount of freewill and the knowledge to utilize it
Law of Freewill3:When you are not aware of something that no other humans are aware of either, then that portion of your environment becomes fluid
These elements of your environment are most easily changed by beings who are aware of it, but who cannot or choose not to violate your freewill otherwise.
Law of Freewill4:When you are not aware of something, but another human or entity is indeed aware, then that portion of your reality coupled to theirs is easily altered by them, for such an alteration does not violate your freewill since you did not anchor it to that changeable element.
Choice is an illusion created by those in control for those who are not. To be in control, you must know. You must understand how things work and know what is going on. You need awareness to make conscious choices.
Everyone influence everyone else subconsciously.All laws which i have described above is happening subconsciously. We have to be aware of how universe is working to make a choice. We are the part of the Bigger Universe.
SO IF YOU DO NOT MAKE YOUR CHOICE WITH AWARENESS, YOUR CHOICE WILL BE TAKEN BY ANOTHER PERSON
Dear Anirudhi you did not understand my question.
Basically you are convinced that everything can be explained in a logical way. Well other people are convinced that God or OVNI exists. Lots of them. Does it makes it a fact for you? Wouldn't you ask them to argument their opinions? Now all i was asking was for you to share the reasons why you believe so strongly in science being able to explain everything in a logical way. Convince me!
That's the whole point of having a debate. Defending your opinion with arguments. You can get away just replying that what I said make no sens because I'm not thinking like you...
...Which is not even right because I'm an extremely logical and rational scientific minded person... But I like to challenge my own beliefs ;)
Dear Cadot
Thank you very much. If you can challenge your own beliefs (auto-criticism) then you are the most intelligent person. I don't say that I believe so strongly in science being able to explain everything in a logical way. I say only that if we are able to explain something in a logical way then it is science Besides many definitions of science, science is also defined as logical coherence. And it is also true that when we discuss on certain topic we try to be very logical. So nothing is beyond the limits of science.
Dear Anirudh, I do agree with you but this would work only in a framework where there would be no limitations to experimentation. I mean theorically Science could explain everything but in practice it can't, in particular for event of the past for instance because we cannot go back there and experiment.
Also I may say something completly stupid but for what I remember from physics and mathematics everything is based on variable (lots of them) so in some way every explanation of the world s based on previous assumptions. If one variable was set up awrong then it changes everything so all 'logical truth' derived from this is only relative, isn't it (?) (physics and math were really not my thing, just raising a question that's been in my head for a while, not using it as an argument :)
By the way science is defined by logical coherence but nature doesn't always follow the logical coherent rules we are expecting: for instance the codon code for the amino acide has been qualified as less logic than some proposed by researches before its discovery. The whole functionement of the cell in general happened to goes against the human logic because it's quite sloppy (it lets lots of mistake to happen, costing lots of energy - who are then corrected, consuming energy again- rather than ensuring eveything is right in the first place which would be cosy-efficient). At the end of the day textbook still managed to put some kind of logical explanation onto it but I think it shows there is not one universal logic. So then what is logic?!
Ps: Sorry Devraj and Raja I really liked your post and forgot to comment on it! I'll do as soon I've made some progress on my thesis today :)
Dear Cadot I very much like all of your above comments. They reflect your deep insight. On which topic you are writing your thesis? Good luck. Best wishes. Anirudh
Awww thank you :). I am working on the inner ear, looking at the expression and regulation of the fibroblastes growth factors Fgf3 and Fgf10. It's more a molecular biology subject and my knowledge in cognitive neuroscience, psychology and philosophy is quite limited (I only had rudimentar basis as part of my degree). But these are subjects I really likes so i read lots of books about it and I'm willing to interact with other people who knows better about it/have a different point of view than me to learn from these interactions and increase my understanding!
Hey Stephanie cadot, I am really glad to know about your work.Your vast knowledge in the subject shows your passion towards it.Thanks for your involvement and motivating people to grow interest.And never ever mention sorry ;-)
Please come up with many more initiations like this to diffuse knowledge everywhere possible.
Thank you :-)
When given a choice, people seem to try and choose the best outcome given the available facts and knowledge. It seems self evident that free will is an illusion as on the occasion an individual acts against their own best interest, there is likely a pathological cause. The foregoing must be tempered by noting, as others have, that the ability to choose does not guarantee the presence of free will.
Stephanie and Devraj seem to have touched on many points.
To quote Twain (1906) in an imagined conversation between an old (OM) and a young man (YM), "YM: You really think a man originates nothing, creates nothing. OM: I do. Men perceive, and their brain-machines automatically combine the things perceived. That is all.", Huxley (1910), "Volition . . . is an emotion indicative of physical changes, not a cause of such changes . . .", and Wegner (2002), "Although the experience of conscious will is not evidence of mental causation, it does signal personal authorship of an action to the individual and so influences both the sense of achievement and the acceptance of moral responsibility.". Further, "Conscious will is the somatic marker of personal authorship, an emotion that authenticates the action's owner as the self. . . . This helps us to tell the difference between things we're doing and all the other things that are happening in and around us. . . . this body-based signature is a highly useful tool. We resonate with what we do, whereas we only notice what otherwise happens or what others have done."
Riddle me this. Why do there only seem to be graduate students indulging in this thread? Does it mean that all is revealed upon thesis submission, leaving nothing more to offer . . .
AC : 'It seems self evident that free will is an illusion as on the occasion the individual acts against their own best interest'
What feels like 'evident' is rarely the answer in science and I don't think the fact that sometimes acting against you own best is an argument against free will. In my opinion, in the case of pathological behaviour in particular, it just prove we are not blank slate all born equal and then shaped by our environment, which is something quite widely accepted now. (Note that I'm mainly advocating against genetically predetermined choice at the moment; leaving on the side the influence of society on someone choices - which is, I know, an oversimplification of the problem since what we are know and the way we think is a result of the interaction between both but I'll come back on the influence of the environment later). And assuming that free will exist I would most definitely believe it can be seriously altered or completly lost/absent in the same way that you can loose vision, hearing or be born with no arms because your monther was exposed to retinoids during her pregnancy.
Now in non pathological cases, let's say an average human being x, the fact to act against your own good is rather for me an argument for the existence of free will. As I said in my original post, when confronted to this kind of situation you may sometimes take the right or the wrong decision and for me, the fact that sometimes you'll take the good one despite your brain seems to push you to the converse prove that you're not the slave of what's happenening in your brain and thus that you still have some free will on your action.
A really important thing too is the scale at which you you're evaluating free will. Since our choices our conditionned not only by our genetic background but also by our environment the more you enlarge the scale the more you loose any notion of free will, at the scale of the society your choices are highly conditionned and limited by other people choices around you. However I don't define myself free will as the infinite possibility of choice but just as the basic possibility to choose to go out or stay home working, or write my thesis or spend hours on ResearchGate for instance. I believe we have the free will to do this choice and then responsabilities for these choices. But if you think we don't please write a note to my supervisor saying that I did not write my thesis because I did not have the free will to do work instead of procrastinating on here. What it seems to me is that free will is not at illusion, it does exist at a small scale and this gives you the feeling that you're in control of you life at a larger scale. However it is this feeling of control that is the illusion. A needed psychological illusion.
Dear All. Fee will is not an illusion always. We are discussing here on Neuroscience vs. Philosophy.........Everyone is expressing ones view freely. This is like brainstorming session to reach at some worthwhile conclusion. Day dreaming, wishful thinking may be categorized under illusion.
@ Devraj : just read again your comment ealier in this thread and it's extremly well documented! Thanks for bringing to my knowledge practical experiments that have been done on te subject! And it looks like I'm in the rank of the compatibilists : 'Compatibilists emphasise this idea that we have free will because we could have chosen to do otherwise, even if we didn't. This idea that we 'could have done otherwise' is a powerful one, and one that appeals to our everyday experience. It doesn't solve the dilemma of determinism but at least it provides a stick with which to fend it off'
@ Raja : I think I agree with you on the laws of free will. I think it's a really well written version of what I was trying to say when speaking about 'scale of analysis' in my reply to Allan.
@Stephanie Cadot :I appreciate that, I feel that the debate what we have been doing since is may not sufficient.My suggestion to the all the contributors in this topic have to now come up with some terminological evidences,like as Anirudh kumar have come up with some excellent evidences which is mathematically in origin yet logical.Anirudh kumar's contribution has put some focus on the topic now and rather debating on the existence of free will, lets now RE-Search and do some ground work to establish a base platform covering the core, so that our thoughts diverts to some new plot finding an edge to explore free will.
@William Jackson.....the answer for your question lies in the "HIstory of Pi"..it ressembles..
@ William : I've seen this question raised in few books but cannot remember what they were saying about it. Well just like that without memories of the theories about it I would suggest that to start with all the different value of references we are using for counting or mesuring things could have been differents but this doesn't mean that the formula and theorems by themselves would be different.
Now since the different theorems and formula are relative to each other as well I don't think it's impossible that it could have been all completly different leading to the emergence of another mathematics system.
It seems to me the mathematical systems is only a tool used to describe the nature around us and there is maybe not a single way to do that similarly to the fact that there is differents languages around the world.
One argument against that I think though is that the mathematical system is basically the same across cultures. If it is the case then this kind of uniformity would argue in favor of the uniqueness of the mathematical system.
Looking forward your views and hopefully some real knowledge on the subject to share with us :)
@ Diana : yes you summarized quite well the main idea of the article. I can send it to you if you want to know more. And I agree with you on all the points you made!
@ Tyrell : yeah of course by machine with a limited number of options I only wanted to say that we are all differents and facing different kind of options and not all the same set of unlimited options! I think a lot but I'm really bad at expressing my ideas sorry. That's why I'm on here, to try improving! :) By the way I'm the kind of always creting the alternatice C when having to decide between A & B. Would have not thought of it as an uncommon occurence!
Hi everybody ! I think that trying to define "free will" as a quality of an action is going the wrong way. Many many fators intervene in the deision process, every time. "Free will" is manifested when someone accepts responsibility of his/hers actions. Thus, free will is not a quality of the "decision" made, but a quality that can be attributed to the "person" who made the decision. Its a preference and a personal position towards life.
In psychoanalytic theory, the aspect of personality concerned with instinctual reactions for satisfying motives is known id. The id seeks immediate gratification of motives with little regard for the consequences or for the realities of life. They are not all meaningless.
@ Diana P.
You say: "1. If our decisions were driven only by the wiring in our brain, then we would all behave/choose similarly. I have not observed that to be the case. "
I am not sure how you can say that. Behavior patterns in Sleep-wake cycles, food-mate needs etc. etc. are similar for all of us. Secondly, more importantly, we can never know that any two persons will (not) have exactly same connections (including interneurons, glia ...) and also particularly at molecular level. So we need not choose / behave similarly.
More important, how does one know / establish if brain and its neuronal content is causal or merely a footprint of some received instruction? I am not invoking God and all that unknowable stuff but indicating the possibility of "Yet to be Discovered (scientifically)" phenomenon? You never knew about quantum effects (entanglement, non-locality, tunneling) until about mid 20th century!
Dear Stephanie
Have you ever thought about S-O-R theory for the origin of Free Will?
Best Wishes
Anirudh
@diana paderson. There you go... You just get all points about free will. I agree w/ you! But if you yhink about experiences I will say that our free will is not tottaly free et al! If you think about echological approach you see that our free will depend on the tools that we have gained (construct, elaborated) during ours life's experiences! So...
Actually the problem, is in the concept of "Will" as choice to make an action consciously.
There are three levels to the objection:
1. Conscious choice can only happen after all the other processes in the brains processing are finished about 500 milliseconds after the stimulus completes. this is Libetts work.
2. Often we are making choices with out actual consciousness, if only because the faculties of the mind that actually promote consciousness are not engaged, this is called the "Intention" argument as Searle has said we are stuck with this name because the Germans came up with it, and Intention in German sounds like intention in English or intension in English so people mistake the argument as using a familiar word. My own model puts Consciousness in the 9th processing epoch, which is often missed during sensory processing trains.
3. The nature of selection is a negative logic selection where selection happens by deselecting everything but our focus, in the attention system. Thus instead of choosing a single strategy we are really "Not Choosing" a range of strategies that our intention system might think equivalent. This has been likened to "Won't Power", as in I "Won't" brush my hair until I get all the tangles out, rather than I will comb my hair until I get all the tangles out.
Searle has noted three levels of intention:
The Intentional environment before we make a decision to act
The Intentional environment AS we make a decision to act
The Intentional environment AFTER we make a decision to act.
If there exists Will at all, it is in the third level of intention. Before the act, we are responding to past acts, and possible future scenerios that are stored. This doesn't require conscious decision
The Second level of intention has to respond to the limbic/hormonal state of the body NOW and leaves little room for anything but a last minute check on the values we place on the options
But the third level of intention allows us to evaluate the choices made in the previous two steps and try to readjust them so that we get a better outcome next time. It is an illusion that we are actually making these choices up front.
I've missed much of this discussion, and not had time to read the article that started it all off. But I just read throught the discussion. Obviously there are differences of opinion. I am definitely on the side of the existence of free will. I know anecdotal evidence doesn't compare to scientific study, but from personal experience, I am convinced that free will exists and is not an illusion. Thank you all for your inputs. Though I tend to agree more with the posts of Stephanie, Diana, William, and Devrai, I appreciate seeing the opposing view well stated, as Graeme has done.
WJ: "By stacking up a concept called a plan
(a list of action type concepts)
we can heighten the stimulation coming from the plan
until it exceeds the thresholds of sensation"
I wish it were that simple. WJ, but really it isn't. Besides we have to be careful, when attributing where our "Plans" and our Lists of "Action type concepts" are, that we don't mix two modes of processing. Without being sure that the processing is happening in parallel in two different parts of the brain, and may not be cross-referential. In the Similarity Selection model, the sensory stimulation threshold is really only the first step, where we present a cluster of options to the prefrontal cortex for partition. At that point, we suppress the non-partition elements at least temporarily. The issue really is not whether our plans exceed the threshold of sensation, because those are distinctly different processing steps, each with its own similarity selection gateway. You often overwhelm reason with passion, but that is not at the sensory stimulation level, that is a bias at the instinctual level interfering with unnecessary thought in order to promote survival. It is the interpretation of sensory importance, The priority that instinct gives sensation, that overwhelms the thought, not the stimulation of the sensory neurons, and so the sensory threshold is not an issue, merely a selected partition used to promote the pleasure, and form the lasting bond, that might result in the children having enough support to survive.
Part of the problem I have as an amateur neuroscientist, who thinks he understands how the system might work, is the fact that we have centuries of baggage, of concepts that simply do not map directly to the processes we see in the brain, but because of venerability are seen as being somehow more real than the brains actual mechanisms.
This is nowhere more true than in Philosophy where past indiscretions are never forgotten but are used as stones to rebuild new edifices without regard to the wisdom of those who turned away.
There will always be those who wish to excuse themselves. They, of course, pretend to be excusing others.
Free will is knowledge in action. Our actions ought to be guided by wisdom and sound judgment.
Who is excusing anybody? Let alone themselves?
And where the heck are these Wisdom and Sound Judgement supposed to come from, if they are not wired in, and the methods we use to teach them are ineffective? Not that I say they are, just that in some cases, the learning is blocked and the system that is supposed to pass it on, is blocked from adjusting to the needs of the individual because we really don't understand why they can't learn wisdom and sound judgement like the others.
The past indiscretions I was talking about were those of Philosophers.
The confusion I think comes because the nature of the action, might be more processing. If my complicit attention model is correct, the distributed interpreter I have characterized, operates using the same mechanisms as skill memory does, and utilizes a language of Macro-like pseudo sequences from the cerebellum as its inner loop. Thus the reports from deliberation might be lagging the actual processing, but the net effect, is that the third level of intention, can be guided by the selection within the second level, in any sufficiently long processing stream. In this sense, the experience of a stream of processes that culminate in a particular outcome is practical, if somewhat offset from the current wisdom with regards to Will. The net effect however is not Will as Conscious choice, but will as repetitive suppression from among multiple choices supplied by earlier intention levels, and skill memory pseudo-sequences. The main difference is that of freedom versus pseudo-determination, in the sense that the conscious processing does not have the freedom to make any choice, but only those choices that earlier intention processes allow it to pick between. I call this pseudo-determination, because while the brain can be trapped by earlier assumptions and instinctual reactions, the next cycle of deliberation might cause it to creatively solve the issue, and be able to go on. The ability to do so however, will be heavily dependent on the interface between the Modelling Center of the brain, and the Capacities of the individual brain, and so, in people with limited capacities, or personality disorders, we might find dislocations in either direction from the norm.
WJ: "If? physics says space and time are the same thing."
But science doesn't say that. Hermann Minkowski said it. But is it true?
Minkowski played some games to make it appear like it is true... a little slight-of-hand trick, as it were.
First of all, there is the fundamental problem that time and space are measured by incompatible dimensions. Dimensional analysis...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
makes it clear that you can't just wave your hand over an equation to make that incompatibility go away. So what did Minkowski do? He conveniently multiplies time by the speed of light. So Minkowski's fourth dimension was not time, but how-far-could-light-travel-in-so-much-time.
That's the first little trick he played. There is nothing astonishing about it. It's the sort of thing that a mathematician might think of. The second trick, however --- from the viewpoint of real physics --- is perverse.
We know that between any two points in space, one can calculate the distance between them. The distance between any two points is always a positive number. It doesn't matter if one goes from New York to Paris, or from Paris to New York, the distance is the same, positive number. On a straight line, one might talk about directed distance... but there is no good way to generalize that into three dimensions.
Since the time of the Pythagoras men have known how to calculate distance. It's always positive because it is the square root of a positive number.
So how does time figure into the picture? For certain very useful and good reasons, when scientists calculate the space-time distance between two events, they subtract the contribution from time...
s^2 = \Delta r^2 - c^2 \Delta t^2
with the result that 'distance' is now a complex number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_interval#Spacetime_intervals
I would emphasize the fact that there are very good reasons for calculating distance in this way. But the fact remains that time and space are simply not the same. Physicists do not treat them the same way in their equations... nor could they. For they are simply not the same. Anyone who claims that they are the same is either ignorant or is lying.
Not only is time not the same as space, but there are physicists who claim that time doesn't really exist.
Ask a child what time it is an he may tell you "the big hand is pointing to twelve and the little hand is pointing to three" if that is what he sees when he looks at a clock. When he does that he is converting a temporal reference into a spacial one.
I'm sure that a physicist can understand what any child can understand. The Wheeler–DeWitt equation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-deWitt_equation
would effectively reduce physics to space without time. They would describe time in the way that a child might by saying that such and such objects are in such and such positions. And they might make predictions by saying when such and such objects are in such and such positions, then another object will be in some other position... describing everything without any mention of time.
Think about... it will make you go crazy!!
GS: "Who is excusing anybody? Let alone themselves?"
I have frequently seen how you use your theories to excuse people...
GS: "And where the heck are these Wisdom and Sound Judgement supposed to come from, if they are not wired in, and the methods we use to teach them are ineffective? Not that I say they are, just that in some cases, the learning is blocked and the system that is supposed to pass it on, is blocked from adjusting to the needs of the individual because we really don't understand why they can't learn wisdom and sound judgement like the others."
And there you go again.
The reason a person would claim that others are not responsible for their deeds is that he believes that he should not be held accountable, himself. We excuse others so that we can excuse ourselves.
One can not learn wisdom and sound judgment in a day. But we can start at any time.
I can see how you would say that Bill, the thought of someone having empathy for someone else's problems is not something you can see in yourself, so, of course no one else would have it either. I am sorry for you.
Some people will never learn wisdom or sound judgement Bill, and I am not sure that I should say the rest of what I feel is true.... discretion being the better part of valor.
Consider my X-wife for instance. No, better not, leave the bitter details forgiven.
I have told you before, but you weren't listening then, and probably aren't now, that there are those, with personality disorders who cannot change the way their minds work, because the time to change it was in early childhood, and whether because of trauma, illness, or just developmental difficulties, they didn't develop that part of the brain needed to learn wisdom and good judgement or at least not to the standard of society. Their poor attempts to develop their own wisdom and judgement were actually hampered by the assumptions of society, that they had these extra capacities and were choosing not to use them. Many never got put into the classical sheltered environment that we expect those incapable of ever meeting the requirements of society to live in, if only because they could be seen to at least try to deal with the issues that society had with them. So they never got the support needed to overcome the lack of these factors in their lives, as a result some of them, (And I am not one, thank the lord, and kiss the ground) spent their childhoods in and out of jail because they simply didn't understand their responsibilities to society. Others sailed through with simulations of their responsibilities but with no intention of meeting them unless they absolutely had to, (Again I am not one of these) sometimes it worked out, and they got jobs as NeuroScientists despite the fact that they were psychopathic. After all, isn't a psychopath the ultimate in spock-like isolation from emotions? Isn't a scientist, or a philosopher supposed to be able to rise above pettiness, and keep their emotions under control, and isn't it easier to do so, if you don't actually have to feel them in the first place? There are many petty cruelties, that we reserve for those who don't measure up to our social standards, and gee, some can't, it's as simple as that!
Now having said that, I admit I have a personality disorder but, not one that is considered extreme, just a mild one that is keeping me from working. Is this the deep dark secret you thought I was hiding?
Back to the statement I made about the indiscretions of philosophers Descartes can be forgiven for creating the homunculis, by apologizing for the church. But, long after his homuncular argument was deemed a mistake, people have been recreating it, building new edifices of philosophy on the sand of failed argument. That is the type of indiscretions I was talking about.
C'est la Vie.
I am a believer in the theory that time is an illusion.
when I was 20 years old, I travelled around Europe for 2 years, backpacking. Throughout this period I carried very little posessions and didnt have a watch and time was irrelivant. the only consept of time left to me was the seasons, day and night and natural decay. The concept of time is engrained within our very being but it does'nt really exsist......well at least not within my Universal concepts and theories. Time is there to enhance the illusion we create for ourselves, based on the theory that this exsistance we lead is all that there is...
however the thread is about Freewill so I shall not digress any longer
If you veiw your conscious and subconscious as partners one has the knowledge of the Universe at its fingertips the other starts off life (we as children) with a knowledge of nothing. Having to expand its understanding of the world via its 5 senses. The challenge is to learn life lessons, which which once learnt unlock keys within the mind to nuggets of wisdom if persued with ferver the hope is that one might eventually hold the capacity to communicate with the subconscious as partners (awakening) but in the mean time our subconscious runs the show. IT regulates our breathing, heartbeat, temperature etc, etc. Our body is a walking pharmacy of chemicals which the subconcious uses to controls our every need, emotion and instinct. However in order for us to grow spiritually it has to allow us choices for we all know that in order to learn we must first fall.
GS: "I can see how you would say that Bill, the thought of someone having empathy for someone else's problems is not something you can see in yourself, so, of course no one else would have it either. I am sorry for you."
Sure, it's my fault... something is wrong with me because I believe in free will.
GS: "But, long after his homuncular argument was deemed a mistake, people have been recreating it, building new edifices of philosophy on the sand of failed argument. That is the type of indiscretions I was talking about."
What homuncular argument? No respectable philosopher believes in a homunculus. Isn't that some sort of old Jewish tale?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
In a related thread concerning whether brain state determines behavior or not, I posted my conviction that regardless of brain state, we have free will to choose our behavior. Various chemicals, and even behavioral addictions can reduce the freedom of choice, thus one choice can reduce our free will to make other choices. If I choose to smoke, for instance, I could soon become addicted to nicotine or other components of cigarette smoke, and then would have less freedom to choose whether or not to smoke again. In which case, I would have altered my brain state by the introduction of nicotine, which is addictive, leading to a reduced freedom to choose not to smoke, since my brain would now be dependent upon the chemical "buzz" from nicotine. The more one abdicates his/her freedom of choice in this way, the more it will appear that his/her behavior is determined by brain state, and that "free will" is an illusion.
Some hard problems, like free will and consciousness, are better explored by contrasting the assumptions of the hard problem from a different perspective. How can a fish truly understand the nature of water unless she breaks the surface, even for a moment, to experience dry air?
The concept of free will is based on what I call the "monolithic thinking" perspective. A monolith is a singular stone that is massive, uniform, and unmoving. The monolithic perspective gave rise to the concept of "I" as a singular problem solver and decision maker that is self-contained and acts independent of other "I"s. Will power is the self-contained force that propels the monolithic "I" forward to pursue and achieve self-determined goals, free of external constraints. Freud called this monolithic-self "Das Ich." The monolithic perspective has given rise to many related concepts expressed as singular nouns: consciousness, mind, leader, CEO, God, Pope, president, dictator. These are the massive conceptual stones of our cultures.
The contrasting perspective is that of "dynamical systems thinking." By this perspective, every living entity is a complex system made up of many smaller systems that are in turn made up of still smaller systems. "I" am a macro-network of microsystems, each with its own ability to sense its surrounding environment and make adaptations necessary to keep me alive. Each of my microsystems has its own intelligence, and its products contribute to the common good of my personal welfare. If a particular microsystem fails (such as clogged veins from too many donuts), other microsystems can rally to a repair (such as the part of my brain that fears a stroke and another part of my brain that learns to avoid greasy sweets). From the systems perspective, "I" am a network of distributed intelligences such that my macro-state performs more effectively than any one of my micro-states.
The monolithic perspective generates simple answers to complex problems: "I" have the power and control to will myself to wellness and prosperity; the president has the power and control to right a faltering economy; the CEO has the power and control maintain share value in a recessionary economy; the Pope has the power and control to correct the Church's wrongs by decree. If only we can find the right leader, then all social ills will be made better. And if only the monolithic "I" can control my consciousness and make me think the right thoughts, free of external constraints, then I will determine my path to a better future - the ultimate expression of free will. But from this perspective, why do we have social ills in a free society? Does intractable poverty represent the failure of a poor person's resolve to prosper?
The systems perspective takes a more humbling approach to life's challenges. I am a network of micro-intelligences and I bow in respect to their strengths and limitations. Consciousness and will-power are only two of these multiple intelligences. Together, my many parts do the best we can to survive and prosper within the constraints of my environment. The "I-that-is-we" relates to many other external networks (such as family, job, neighborhood, social media), and appreciates the plurality that comes with this complexity. From the systems perspective, society is an evolving, dynamical mix of distributed intelligences, jointly attempting to solve the shared problems of daily living. In the context of the systems perspective, the concept of "free will" is like a fish out of water. No one acts alone because there is no "one." I, as one, am a "collective we" that I experience as a "singular me." This is the illusion of consciousness that leads to our faith in free will. - Wayne Stelk
This is quite reminiscent of the "God of the gaps" issues in the intelligent design vs. evolution debate. The first problem is that it is basically returning to the Cartesian view that I have some immortal soul that controls my body through animal spirits, where the body is just a lifeless automaton. The second problem is ascribing all cognition to brain activity. So, if there is any unaccounted variance once the brain activation patterns are known during a given decision, the argument would be that the gap represents some form of free will or some non-physically definable construct. Again, there is a problem of contextualization. What is a decision? What is a stimulus? What is a response? Clearly defining the beginning and end of things is far from easy, especially, if one goes beyond the brain.
Surprisingly, there has been very little discussion of embodied cognition, where brain is embedded in body, which is further embedded in an environment. At the level of the body, there are different hormones, neurotransmitters, muscle activation patterns that are all going on at the same time as the "thinking" in the brain. Can we track all of these simultaneously? Not at this time.... Moreover, we do not understand how they interact. Now, let's compound this problem with having to act in an environment that is constantly evolving and fundamentally unpredictable. To simply focus on brain states as marker of the presence or absence of free will (whatever way one might choose to define it) shortchanges the wonder of biological system that is the human body.
Thanks for your comments, Lee. Reductionist approaches to research have done a good job of taking us apart and we have learned much from these dis-assemblies. The dynamical systems approach tries to put the pieces back together again. One great mystery in science is how the relatively simple rules of micro-systems leads to the intelligent behavior of a macro-system. As individuals, bees and ants are not very smart; but their collective behavior is very smart. Computer scientists are reverse engineering these "primitive" systems, with their swarm intelligence, to create new generations of very smart computers. The IT literature presents serious papers on artificial consciousness - adaptive (i.e., genetic-like) algorithms that manage adaptive sub-routines in computer systems. No one can explain how a billion neurons with a trillion connections give rise to conscious thought. But artificial neural network models are being developed with meta-programs managing micro-programs. We have grown accustomed to the fact that both pelicans and airplanes can transport their respective cargoes through flight. We don't differentiate natural flight from artificial flight. Each flies by different means, but we agree that both have the ability to fly. Why do we recoil from the idea that machines may someday have consciousness?
Perhaps I didn't understand one of your comments, but I don't see how the systems perspective rekindles the Cartesian dualism debate, or leads to animal spirits and automatons. We have yet to learn how adaptive macro-behavior emerges from a multitude of micro-behaviors. The fact of self-organization and self-regulation in our personal lives and social institutions doesn't deny our humanity. It is rather a way of looking at personal development and societal evolution as stories of complexity, not simplicity. I consider free will to be a belief that helps some people get through another day. I think that the story of how we make day-to-day decisions is yet to be told. The article in Nature magazine that started this series of conversations tells just one piece of that story.
As someone who styles himself as an Artificial Consciousness Researcher, I bow to both your views. However, while we don't know everything there is to know about intelligence or consciousness, we are beginning to string the pieces together about how the Brain works, and part of the issue, is that no matter how in the past, we thought that we/I/Me/the body/the Brain/the Spirit/the Mind worked, the answers that we are getting seem to be that we were wrong, and need to rethink in light of new understandings.
Whether we assumed a Monolythic "I" which had the ability to use "Sound Judgement, and Wisdom" to solve every problem, like Spock alwayse seemed to on Star Wars, or we assumed a Monolythic "I" which was self-willed and expressive, and not all that logical like "Dr. McCoy" in the same series, the assumption was always that we, like Captain Kirk would always muddle through, no matter how strange and unlikely the environment we found ourselves in, to some sort of victory over our condition.
So Poverty can be said to be "The failure of the poor to meet their needs for Survival", Or it can be said to be "The failure of the world to offer opportunities that are needed for those with specific barriers to meeting their own needs, as my local Government has decided to term it. Or we can just say the poor and downtrodden should be poor and downtrodden and there but for the grace of God go I. Or we can be charitable and give the poor a handout, thus creating a dependency (at least in our own minds) of the poor on social largess, (Mostly waste after the utility has bloomed and been lost.) There are any number of ways we can see poverty, and anybody claiming that the downtrodden are actually downtrodden, can be downtrodden themselves, if we so wish.
What it comes down to, is that we have many different illusions about things like free-will, that just don't work that way in the real world. As I study the mind, more and more scientists are finding themselves supporting ideas that didn't require experiments to model, just a willingness to consider the Uncertain nature of the Universe as being more fundamental than our illusions about ourselves.
And more and more people are finding it necessary to retrench their own beliefs against my determined attack on the idea, that there is a single monolythic entity that can be said to "Choose" poverty over excess, choose crime over a job, choose to get drunk over remaining sober, choose to take drugs instead of not, choose via will to control everything in their environment so as to become something they are not. When the tests show that the choice was not made by some "God Cell" or Consciousness Cell" but almost by rote. Consciousness exists, intelligence exists, but it doesn't look like we artistically rendered it in our minds. It doesn't look like anything I have ever heard of artistically rendered in a book, a religion or a philosophy. And partly because of that, EVERYONE rejects it at some level. Even me.
Stephanie
During the practice of meditation those things which are stored in our subconscious comes to our conscious level. This is almost identical to Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory. Free Association, Catharsis, Interpretation, Insight, Transference they are some of the main components of psychoanalysis. When our thoughts come from subconscious to conscious level during meditation, we start to understand/give meanings to it then 'insight' develops.
AKS "Free will is not an Illusion"
Actually AKS, I never said that Free Will was an illusion what I said was Will was an illusion and that Free Will does not make sense unless you believe in Will.
repeating yourself over and over will begin to seem strident and petty after a while, a statement of belief is not considered Authorization enough for a claim of absolute truth in science.
By the way, haven't we learned anything since Freud? I had understood that his psycho-analytic tradition was more or less discontinued after the "Retrieved Memories" fiasco.
Speaking of the unconscious mind, do you really think that everything you hold in your implicit (unconscious) memory is open to explicit (retrieval) addressing just because you meditate for a while? Obviously you are not familiar with the limitations of Working or Short Term memory. May I suggest Susan Gathercoles "Models of Short Term Memory"? I know it is kind of old in the tooth, but most of the work on short term memory was done in the 70-90's and it is only now that we are finding new ways to explore it. We can actually begin to read the significance of some elements stored in the Short Term memory. (See Nuero-Science Topic for new articles on how this was done).
The inevitable problem associated with a discussion of a concept like "free will" is that the concept is an abstraction, void of sufficient detail to ground the discussion. Going from the abstract to the concrete is arbitrary. It is much easier to go from the concrete to the abstract, as long as the concrete is known to all and agreeable to all. For example, imagine circle. We can all agree on the shape of a circle. Now divide the circle into 360 segments and delete all evenly numbered segments. You now have a partial (abstracted) object of 180 points that still looks like a circle. Continue this process until the only remaining segments are 1, 90, 180, and 270 - an abstraction of four points. If you don't know that the the four points are an abstraction of a circle, you could easily imagine that those four points represent a circle, or a square, or a diamond. Without knowing the foundation of the abstraction, the debate between circle, square, and diamond would last forever. If the polemics become religious or political, wars could be fought and lives could be lost.
Personally, I find solace in the Tao: "Those who know, don't know. Those who don't know, know." If life is a path, then we discover life by taking steps. Every step is an action and a commitment to a direction. I am known by the path I follow. My beliefs are secondary to the path I choose. There may be 1000 explanations for "free will." Science may discredit the concept. Religion may affirm the concept. These discussions are enjoyable and help us to learn from one another. Different beliefs are like different colors - they make for a rich fabric. Ultimately, beliefs don't matter because there is no one set of beliefs. It is the path we follow that matters and the communities of tolerance that we create.
I especially like the shreddies commercial where the whole company is shaken by the guy that suggests that shreddies are really diamonds.... ;)
I believe the catch phrase, is "Shreddies, now with Diamonds." That is why I am a firm believer in Free-Wont. It's sort of the diamond in the shreddies box of squares. Nobody would be silly enough to argue the case of Free-Wont (the Diamond) simply because they all think that Will is more important (The square).
However it is easier to abstract from the specific to the general, and so Free-Won't a specific case of conscious choice at the end of the second intention stage, becomes a good transition point from the brains actual operation As experimentally discovered by Libett and others, to intention theory. All we need to do, is convince people that the shreddies are really diamonds instead of squares. Since Will does not apply to Intention theory as easily. It having too many connotations already, Free Won't should be the operative mode.
I thought the best way to do that, is to point out that "Will" is an illusion the actual mode is "Wont" Philosophers often think I am being silly, but I am really trying to build a bridge between neuroscience and philosophy where there is a theoretical incompatibility caused by the insistence that shreddies are squares.
Intention Theory, now with Free Wont. Think about it!
WJ if you say that you don't believe God, no problem. Where is it illusion?
WS: "The systems perspective takes a more humbling approach to life's challenges. I am a network of micro-intelligences and I bow in respect to their strengths and limitations. Consciousness and will-power are only two of these multiple intelligences. Together, my many parts do the best we can to survive and prosper within the constraints of my environment. The "I-that-is-we" relates to many other external networks (such as family, job, neighborhood, social media), and appreciates the plurality that comes with this complexity. From the systems perspective, society is an evolving, dynamical mix of distributed intelligences, jointly attempting to solve the shared problems of daily living. In the context of the systems perspective, the concept of "free will" is like a fish out of water. No one acts alone because there is no "one." I, as one, am a "collective we" that I experience as a "singular me." This is the illusion of consciousness that leads to our faith in free will."
Saying that one has free will does not contradict a system's viewpoint. It merely means that systems are related to each other. Some systems control others. For example, a man suffering pain may prefer to lie in bed. But there is an emergency, he can get up and take action... a man who is hungry might reach out for food, but if he is on a diet, he may decide not to eat.
The question, then, is whether a man must respond to each and every impulse, or whether he should aim for some overriding purpose. The man who responds to a multitude of contrary impulses will accomplish little. He is pushed here and there, more or less, at random by minor 'systems' that serve no long term purpose.
The man of sound judgment picks his purposes carefully...
To the masses, who lack wisdom and sound judgment he seems to be a monolith. They go chasing after every whim, while he remains on course to his goal. They accomplish nothing, while he does great things. They may laugh at him, but they really are filled with envy for him.
He has a success system and he will stick to it. So what is your system?
SLH: "The first problem is that it is basically returning to the Cartesian view that I have some immortal soul that controls my body through animal spirits, where the body is just a lifeless automaton."
A lifeless automaton? That may describe René Descartes view, but it certainly does not begin to describe Aristotle's view. The whole point of Aristotle's ***On the Soul*** is that the body is alive.
But what is life? Aristotle analyzed the opinion of the wise and concluded that there are two main characteristics of life... living things are self moving and may be sensitive. I would add a third characteristic... living things are self-organizing.
Aristotle defined the soul as the form of a natural body having life potentially. He noted that the word, 'potentially' allows for the proto-life of a seed... which is not alive, but is potentially alive.
What is a natural body? It is the many parts of the plant or animal. Plants consist of root, stem, leaf, flower, etc. Animals consist of skin and bones, blood and bile, muscle and nerve... etc.
He listed the various activities of the soul... in all plants and animals, the soul acts to provide nourishment, to grow and to reproduce. Animal acts are characterized by sensitivity and movement. Men and some animals act through discursive reason. Thus there are three types of soul, the nutritive souls of plants, the sensitive souls of some animals and the rational souls of men and perhaps some other animals... naming each type on the basis of its most salient character.
The soul is self-organizing. It manages its various acts to preserve itself and maintain itself. Thus the many systems work together for the good of the entire plant or animal. For the soul is a sort of system... a system composed of many sub-systems.
SLH: "Surprisingly, there has been very little discussion of embodied cognition, where brain is embedded in body..."
How true. I suppose that is a holdover from Descartes. So many have abandoned his idea of soul... only to have made the brain their 'holy grail.'
Yet if we look at the brain, we find that its major task (even in man) is not what Immanuel Kant would call, 'pure reason,' but simple maintenance of the body. It is constantly monitoring a myriad of things... temperature, muscle tension, blood sugar, oxygen levels, etc... and sending out messages controlling heartbeat, breathing, hormone production, etc.
Our emotions are highly physical. An emotion has two essential components... a thought and a feeling... and by feeling, I do not mean some indescribably spiritual inspiration... but a feeling in the body. One may think without feeling. One may feel without thinking. But to have an emotion one must have both a thought and a feeling.
So we think with our whole body... for we live with out whole body.
WS: "Why do we recoil from the idea that machines may someday have consciousness?"
Because it is a silly idea. A computer is programmed to accomplish particular things. Right now my computer is just a fancy typewriter. In a few minutes I expect it will become a transmitter, sending my form response back to a server off in the distance. It just does what I want it to do. That's the way it is programmed. And if I want to disconnect it from its power supply, it will be just a collection of semiconductors, a power supply, a video screen, etc.
I, on the other hand, am an animal. I am alive. I breath and I have a heartbeat... things that no dumb piece of electronic equipment will ever have. Fundamentally, I am self-organizing.
A few weeks ago, the keyboard on this computer went haywire. I took it to a repair shop and had a new one installed. The computer felt no pain. For a computer is not self-organizing. It is built according to its design specifications. If a part breaks, it can be replaced... without suffering on its part. It is not alive.
GS: "the assumption was always that we, like Captain Kirk would always muddle through, no matter how strange and unlikely the environment we found ourselves in, to some sort of victory over our condition."
Philosophically speaking, belittling those who disagree with one isn't necessarily the best of arguments. Certainly I make no such assumption. If victory is life, then we all seem doomed to fail in the end. You may fantasize your life as Captain Kirk, but I do not.
I have said it before and will say it again... the human mind is not a computable function. No Turing Machine can replicate it. Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems make that clear. The mind may be approximated by sort of super-Turing analog network...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/super-Turing
But I am not sure that anyone has constructed a useful example of such a network. It seems to be a purely theoretical concept at this time.
But I'm sure you won't let the facts slow you down... like your Captain Kirk fantasy, you will proceed onward.
WS: "The inevitable problem associated with a discussion of a concept like "free will" is that the concept is an abstraction, void of sufficient detail to ground the discussion."
Not at all. Free will is knowledge in action. One acts freely if his knowledge determines his actions. The problem is not that we do not understand it, but that we confuse it with the idea of indeterminacy. There is really no contradiction in saying that something is freely chosen and that it is predetermined. Thus one may be predetermined to make a free choice.
GS: "I thought the best way to do that, is to point out that 'Will' is an illusion the actual mode is 'Wont.'"
You know, Graeme, that it doesn't make a flip of a difference between the two. The real question is whether one has a free choice...
Bill, thanks for your comments. I have only a short time to respond this evening, but I will write more tomorrow. Regarding your observation "free will is knowledge in action," let me say that the concept of "free will" is two separate concepts: "free" and "will" - both of which are very big and very separate topics. "Will" relates to intentionality and decision-making, and there is a huge research literature in this area. For now, I will address only the concept of "free" or "freedom" and ask the question: free from what? We can think of freedom as having two domains - external and internal. External freedom relates to the environment, and I would completely agree that no person should be restricted from making choices in life because of external repression or coercion.
But assuming a "free society," we then turn to internal freedom with respect to choices. Concerning free choices, I again ask the question: free from what? For example, if I am preparing dinner and I search my refrigerator, I might find yesterday's left-overs dish, and a lot of fresh vegetables that could be made into a tasty salad. My choice for dinner is between left-overs and a salad. Now suppose that I have had a difficult day and I'm tired. I would like to have a salad, but I am tired and don't have the energy to clean and cut the vegetables into a salad. I therefore choose to heat and eat the left-overs.
One could say that I freely chose to eat left-overs; but on the other hand, I could also say that my decision was influenced by my exhaustion. I would have preferred salad, but I capitulated to my fatigue and heated up left-overs. To what extent did my exhaustion influence my decision? Was this a free choice, or was it bound by the parameters of my physical state, such that my freedom to choose the salad was diminished by my lack of physical resources?
We are never free from internal constraints and parameters that shape our decisions. Genetics, epigenetics, stress, resources, the sentiment of others, values are a few of the many constraints that reduce the degrees of freedom that we experience in making choices. I preferred salad but ate left-overs. On a choice-degree scale of 1 (totally constrained) to 10 (totally free), how would you rate my degrees of freedom in making the choice that I did?
I really do not wish to piddle with words. The term 'free will' is for better or worse one that we are stuck with. I doubt that anyone is going to take Graeme's suggestion and talk about free won't. One might prefer to call the concept 'responsible choice' or some such thing... but I don't know how changing the name would really change the game.
What is meant by 'free will?'
1. Suppose you are on a jury judging the following case... A man is working on a ladder. His enemy sneaks behind him and shakes the ladder, screaming at the top of his voice. The man on the ladder grabs to hold on as best as he can and in the process drops a hammer on the head of his enemy, killing him.
2. Suppose you are on a jury judging the following case... A man is working on a ladder. His enemy walks up to him, asking for forgiveness for past difficulties. The man on the ladder throws the hammer down on his enemy's head, killing him.
When I look at these two cases, I see that in the first case, the man on the ladder probably had no real idea of what was happening to him. He simply responded to an emergency, trying to protect himself from injury. In the second case, the man on the ladder undoubtedly knew exactly what was happening. It was his knowledge that led him to act as he did.
What is free about free will? Aristotle lists four causes... the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause and the final cause. Modern science clearly recognizes the material cause and the efficient cause: matter and motion. Generally we forget about the formal and final causes. No wonder many 'scientists' have a problem with free will.
The formal cause, involves the soul, the form of a natural body having life, potentially. It is the self-organizing system which determines what one is. The material cause determines what I can do... the formal cause determines what I will do.
The final cause is one's intention... as determined by the soul.
Now there are certainly times when one acts, simply from the material and efficient causes... as so much matter in motion... If a man trips over a stone that he didn't see, gravity takes over and pulls him downward... regardless of whether he said his prayers or had been a good boy. He has little choice in the matter. The most he can do is to try to protect himself from the probably injury he may suffer as the result of his fall.
In such a case, a man is not 'free.' His body simply responds to the external compulsion, responding simply as so much matter in motion.
At other times our freedom goes up against more subtle forms of compulsion... like Ebenezer Scrooge, we wonder if this ghost standing before us is simply the effect of something we ate. At times, perhaps such an explanation is accurate. To the extent that such lower causes explain our actions, we are not truly free. To the extent that real knowledge determines our actions, we are free.
But there is nothing in what I am saying that would imply that a free act is uncaused... just the opposite... I am saying that free acts are caused by knowledge... the formal and final causes, rather than the material and efficient causes.
Ummm...Aristotle died 3000 years ago (or there abouts). Have we learned nothing since then?
WS: "Aristotle died 3000 years ago (or there abouts). Have we learned nothing since then?"
Certainly. Unfortunately, we have forgotten many important things.
And, by the way, Aristotle died in 322 BC.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Neuroscience