Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Torben · 03-28-2003, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King's Indian
Hello again, Torben.

I have to apologize to you for your bearing the brunt of the final stages of what turned out to be a posting frenzy. By that stage, I was seizing on any interesting sentence and forming an opinion about it, without too much consideration for context. I�ve recovered some of my equilibrium now, and I�ve shaken out most of the dribble trapped in my keyboard.

No problems. We all get carried away at times, don' we?

Quote:

Originally posted by King's Indian
Anyway, to your reply:
Mentioning planets was rather my point: that in the most well-understood patterns of physical systems there is no need to factor in the behaviour of atoms.

I don't get this. Planets orbiting are a function of gravity working on atoms. True, these atoms are organized in larger particles, but when it comes down to it, all there is to it is gravity and atoms.

Quote:

Originally posted by King's Indian Just because we don�t understand certain patterns of physical behaviour, that doesn�t force us to start thinking of particles as the best places to look. Perhaps there will be a way of quantitavely assessing what goes on in our brains that also eschews such atomic reduction. As for the weather, perhaps so for what our brains do: Are randomness and free will the only choices allowed? Perhaps our self-consciousness may be explained by the interaction of biological systems and environment that produce an entity that really can make conscious decisions, which have real, observable effects in the world.

Yeah, but even with the idea of emergence (of life out of 'dead' particles) you can't break the more fundamental laws of science. Every newly discovered connection or function must comply with the already established and very sturdy basic natural laws. So when our brain neurones interact, they do so using molecules made up of atoms which are inescapably subject to natural laws. In part deterministic, in part truly random. How can emergence break these restrictions imposed on the atoms making up the system?

Quote:

Originally posted by King's Indian As for the weather, although you�re right about forecasting beyond ten days or so, we have a lot of success in quantitavely explaining the different rates of rainfall on each side of mountain ranges. To do this, we compare the interaction of adiabatic and environmental lapse rates; again, no real need to drag atoms into this.

But this is all, in the end, explained by the properties of atoms. Trying to answer the question of 'why these rates and not some others' without referring to atoms is impossible.

Quote:

Originally posted by King's Indian My next point is a follow-on. Although our ability to make conscious, rational choices (I don�t think �free will� helps us a lot, as description or concept) comes from nowhere other than being entities composed of particles, we don�t have to view our choice-making as the �sum� of these particle�s activities; any more than we use such arithmetic to understand planetary motion. Explanations of larger-scale phenomena have their place, as in planetary systems and rainfall. Perhaps if, in looking for explanations of our decision-making at the atomic level (or beyond) we get confused, we might feel that we shouldn�t have started from there in the first place.

Good points here! Sure, we don't have to view our choice-making this way. But given what we know of the world, the world being only one, having only one truth and never being self-contradicting, any explanation of free will/choice-making abilities that wants to raise itself above the trivial must try to reconcile free will with the laws of physics. Because if something exists metaphysically, it must obey these laws. And maybe in truly explaining free will the atomic level isn't the most obvious place to start looking but what ever we come up with in other branches of science must comply. I think I'm repeating myself here

Quote:

Originally posted by King's Indian I�m as much in the dark about what�s going on as the next man. I�ll accept any objections to the above in good spirit.
Take care,
KI.

PS. The only people of my acquaintance who �know all the answers� aren�t the sort whom you�d want be cornered by at a party.

So very true. Keep posting your objections, KI!

Torben

Nowhere357 · 03-28-2003, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by VivaHedone
No, your brain decides to continue typing, based on the sensations it recieves and the way they are processed by the brain.

No. I made a conscious decision, exercising my free will. Given the topic of this thread, the burden of proof is on your camp. I am confident that no such proof exists.

I suggest you try keyword "meditation", study, then introspect. See for yourself!

Re evolution:

Quote:

None, it is a byproduct of language, which gave us the ability to hear and understand our thoughts.

You propose that illusionary free will exists because of language? I don't understand.

Nowhere357 · 03-28-2003, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by beastmaster

Quote:

(2) As I suggested earlier in this thread, the illusion of free will may have a survival advantage in that it builds neural pathways between the decision and the conscious mind. When you say "I decide X," your conscious mind is remembering that the brain just decided something and where that memory is, so that it will be able to access that memory in the future. The conscious mind does not make the decision, but is the "secretary" -- i.e., it locates and organizes the remembered rules of decision.

If the brain can make all decisions with no free will, then what reason is there to suppose it requires an illusionary free will?

You call the conscious mind the "secretary", required to locate and organize memory. "locate" and "organize" are actions. If the secretary performs these actions, then the conscious mind is not merely passive, which supports free will. If the brain performs these actions, and the secretary merely observes, then the secretary is not required. Why is it there at all? Spandrel?

So here are the two views as I see them at this point:

1) I seem to have free will - so therefore I have free will.
vs
2) I seem to have free will - but the brain performs many functions without free will, maybe doesn't require free will at all, so free will is illusionary, with no survival value - therefore I have no free will.

(I don't mean to sound flip. This is how the situation looks to me. Please tell me how you see the two views.)

I wonder, does the notion of free will carry with it theistic baggage? Could that be a reason some skeptics struggle against it? If so, please notice I ascribe nothing to free will but this: I choose from among the thoughts I'm aware of. That's all. I imply nothing else.

I have direct experience of the fact that I make choices - that I have free will. Calling this experience an "illusion", is no different IMO than calling the natural universe an "illusion". Which we can do, of course, but does doing so help increase our understanding?

Treacle Worshipper · 03-28-2003, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I wonder, does the notion of free will carry with it theistic baggage? Could that be a reason some skeptics struggle against it?
It's a possibility, I suppose. Personally, I'm not really "struggling" with it. I'm trying to understand how free will might be possible, given that we are the sum of our experiences, and therefore everything we do is influenced in some way by prior happenings. I would like to think I have free will, I just don't see how it fits with a non-supernaturalistic (is that a word?) view of the universe.
That's why I'm enjoying this threaad so much; lots of interesting arguments from both sides.

If so, please notice I ascribe nothing to free will but this: I choose from among the thoughts I'm aware of. That's all. I imply nothing else.

I have direct experience of the fact that I make choices - that I have free will. Calling this experience an "illusion", is no different IMO than calling the natural universe an "illusion". Which we can do, of course, but does doing so help increase our understanding?
I don't think anyone has denied that you make choices. Everyone makes choices and everyone has that experience. The question, as I see it, is, are those choices truly free or are they determined by your genetics, environment, experience, etc? Given your history, would it have been possible for you to choose otherwise than you did?
TW

Torben · 03-28-2003, 05:14 AM

I'll just butt in real quick here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I have direct experience of the fact that I make choices - that I have free will. Calling this experience an "illusion", is no different IMO than calling the natural universe an "illusion". Which we can do, of course, but does doing so help increase our understanding?

You also have direct experience of the color blue or the sensation of pain. But does that make these experiences metaphysically (objectively) true? I believe that the blue of the sky is part of you and not of the sky (while I readily admit blue represents the real world).
You might easily have direct experience of free will because you (as all of us) are not able to step out of yourself and acknowledge the compelling nature of your choices as you (we) are not able to step out of yourself and acknowledge the real nature of a colored substance, but sense blue.

Just curious.

Regards,
Torben

Nowhere357 · 03-28-2003, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Treacle Worshipper

I would like to think I have free will, I just don't see how it fits with a non-supernaturalistic (is that a word?) view of the universe.
That's why I'm enjoying this thread so much; lots of interesting arguments from both sides.

This expresses my own position exactly.

Quote:

The question, as I see it, is, are those choices truly free or are they determined by your genetics, environment, experience, etc? Given your history, would it have been possible for you to choose otherwise than you did?

Very clear. I answer truly free and yes I could choose otherwise.

I don't see anyway to prove my position with logic - but I don't see anyway to prove the opposite position with logic, either. Maybe the question is formulated wrong? I think a position has to falsifiable to be "valid"? Are either of the positions falsifiable?

Assume for a moment that free will is truly free. What would that mean, in terms of the natural universe?

Nowhere357 · 03-29-2003, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Torben
I'll just butt in real quick here.

You also have direct experience of the color blue or the sensation of pain. But does that make these experiences metaphysically (objectively) true? I believe that the blue of the sky is part of you and not of the sky (while I readily admit blue represents the real world).
You might easily have direct experience of free will because you (as all of us) are not able to step out of yourself and acknowledge the compelling nature of your choices as you (we) are not able to step out of yourself and acknowledge the real nature of a colored substance, but sense blue.

Just curious.

Hi Torben. I'm confused by the phrase "metaphysically (objectively) true". I think 'objectively' means physically real (made of matter), while 'metaphysical' means NOT physically real (NOT made of matter).

I agree that it's important to realize we "are not able to step outside" ourselves when we talk about the "compelling nature" of our choices. The scientific method works by stepping outside ourselves! I think this is the heart of the whole controversy.

IMO the natural universe consists of (and only of) reality; and reality consists of both objective reality and subjective reality.

Objective reality is studied by using science and logical reasoning.
Subjective reality is studied by introspection and logical reasoning.

Consider: we actually don't know what a rock (for example) is, we only know what it appears to be. We are not directly aware of the rock, we are aware of our perception of the rock. THUS the physical world can be seen as 'emerging' from the subjective world; the physical world can be seen as 'illusion'.

In the same way, our thoughts etc (perception of blue) can be seen as 'emergent' from our physical body/brain; the subjective world can be seen as 'illusion'.

What reason is there to suppose that either view is correct, or incorrect, or "more correct" than the other?

Does the physical world have an existence other than our perception of it? I think we all agree it does.

Does the inner world have an existence other than our perception of it? Is this another formulation of the question "Do I have free will?"?

VivaHedone · 03-29-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

No. I made a conscious decision, exercising my free will. Given the topic of this thread, the burden of proof is on your camp. I am confident that no such proof exists.

What caused this decision? The flow of electrons through your brain. This is, after all, all that brain processes are. The flow of electrons through your brain was caused by the flow of electrons through your sensory neurones, which in turn was caused by stimuli inside and outside your body. It's all just one, unending chain of chemical reactions, I'm afraid.

When I refer to 'you', I am talking about the subjective, conscious you, not the physical 'you'. I presume that this is what we are talking about here, as no-one is claiming that toenails have free will. It seems obvious to me that the subjective 'you' consists of only sensations - this is what subjectivity is. We have the sensation of hearing and understanding our thoughts, but we cannot control them.

Nowhere357 · 03-29-2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VivaHedone
What caused this decision? The flow of electrons through your brain. This is, after all, all that brain processes are. The flow of electrons through your brain was caused by the flow of electrons through your sensory neurones, which in turn was caused by stimuli inside and outside your body. It's all just one, unending chain of chemical reactions, I'm afraid.

When I refer to 'you', I am talking about the subjective, conscious you, not the physical 'you'. I presume that this is what we are talking about here, as no-one is claiming that toenails have free will. It seems obvious to me that the subjective 'you' consists of only sensations - this is what subjectivity is. We have the sensation of hearing and understanding our thoughts, but we cannot control them.

We are talking about the subjective, conscious 'you', correct.

You say 'the subjective, conscious 'you'' is 'only sensations'. Therefore we have no free will. I think that is "begging the question". Free will is more than brain processes, in the same way that pain is more than neurons fireing.

I submit that some of the brain processes, at least, are CAUSED by the application of free will. This is how each of us can affect the world! Cause and effect are not as well established as you assume, I think.

Treacle Worshipper · 03-30-2003, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Assume for a moment that free will is truly free. What would that mean, in terms of the natural universe?

Nowhere, I'm still around, and giving thought to the above. I will get back to you when I have thought some more and have something approaching a response

TW

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2003, 04:51 AM	#74
Treacle Worshipper Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Wales, UK Posts: 931	Originally posted by Nowhere357 I wonder, does the notion of free will carry with it theistic baggage? Could that be a reason some skeptics struggle against it? It's a possibility, I suppose. Personally, I'm not really "struggling" with it. I'm trying to understand how free will might be possible, given that we are the sum of our experiences, and therefore everything we do is influenced in some way by prior happenings. I would like to think I have free will, I just don't see how it fits with a non-supernaturalistic (is that a word?) view of the universe. That's why I'm enjoying this threaad so much; lots of interesting arguments from both sides. If so, please notice I ascribe nothing to free will but this: I choose from among the thoughts I'm aware of. That's all. I imply nothing else. I have direct experience of the fact that I make choices - that I have free will. Calling this experience an "illusion", is no different IMO than calling the natural universe an "illusion". Which we can do, of course, but does doing so help increase our understanding? I don't think anyone has denied that you make choices. Everyone makes choices and everyone has that experience. The question, as I see it, is, are those choices truly free or are they determined by your genetics, environment, experience, etc? Given your history, would it have been possible for you to choose otherwise than you did? TW

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.