sandlewood

Since that article mentioned VS Ramachandran, I thought I would repost this link to a transcript of an episode of Nova which featured him. Near the end he also talks about religious belief.
I agree. I’m sure it’s not a popular theory with many people whether they are theists or not. But I also believe that there is no free will, and that it’s more likely that the brain is a kind of “black box” in which accepts inputs and reacts on them. Free will is an illusion that only appears free because is so complex. There is no evidence that mind is a separate entity that exists in addition to matter and that it causes matter to move or change. It is more likely that the matter of the brain works in accordance to physical properties of the matter, which as far as we know are repeatable and deterministic.

Given that this is true, it presents a problem if a person’s actual reasoning process is affected. How can a person decide what is true about reality? One person hears an argument and is convinced by it while another person is not. This is why I think deciding on methods of determining what is true is a valuable tool, rather than relying on our own case-by-case determination. If we can agree on methods and then apply them, we might have more objective results. But in my experience, you cannot even get people to agree to using methods. For example, many theists believe that scientific methods are just fine for some things, but they feel it is perfectly all right to throw them out for specific cases which they arbitrarily decide. And this seems rational to them and is perfectly acceptable in their reasoning process. So if our reasoning process is affected to the extent that we cannot even accept methods of combating the problem of our reasoning process being affected, then I feel I’m at an impasse.

I think someday it may be discovered or proven that our brains work in a deterministic way and there is no free will. But one can imagine the possible ramifications of such a finding. What if we discover that it isn’t the fault of murderers that they murdered? Will people feel they are justified in doing any immoral act because everything is determined anyway? Will the smartest people have a right to getting paid the most money as they do now? After all, it would not be by their shear will that they worked harder to get smarter.

Fiach

Fiach

Fiach

You ask a good rhetorical question about murderers, and responsibility for actions if there is no free will. I have thought many times about all of the points that you raised. We are on the same wave length. Humans that murder may have a brain defect. Does that mean we should imprison them for life or as in America, execute them? I don't know. I am hoping that we can localise the lesions of murders and there may be several (in the inhibitory frontal centers, the amygdala or whatever) that could be fixed by a cyber-neural implant (a micro chip) or carbon nanotubules to reroute circuits. That is for the future, sadly, but maybe not too distant future.

Fiach

King's Indian

Hello again, Fiach. Hope you’re well.

In a way, I rather wish you did want to prolong this: I rather enjoyed your response. However, it would seem discourteous to re-hash objections that I suspect you have heard from people better-qualified than I to air them.
In the end, one finds an approach to life that helps us to deal with the world, and live with oneself. Even when such ideas as courage are fully explained in terms of reproductive fitness (or exaptation, or whatever it turns out to be), I’ll still feel it has some value in and of itself. I did want to extend your patience on one point, though. I mean, obviously we are not all going to be Milton (or Burns, for that matter), but don’t you think that even the lowliest of us are capable of poetry, in one form or other? Again, I’m not thinking about technical mastery: who’d want to sit next to a bloke at a dinner-party who told you what he did for a living in heroic couplets? But I’ve seen it too often in others and (rarely) myself: we all of us sometimes come out with stuff that is just right. Even a really good off-the-cuff funny comment seems to have the quality that if you just changed one word, the effect is lost. Maybe I just have broad tastes in poetry.
Take care,
KI
PS A propos Ted Williams: I’ve rather got into baseball over the last couple of years, so I understand the reference. I don’t follow a particular team myself, but I admire the Angels; particularly that chap Eckstein. Good example to us all.

Fiach

I have kicked a few goals in my time but never came to close to being part of a World Cup team for Britain.

Fiach

repoman

I also watched the NOVA episode featuring VS Ramachandran, it was very interesting. However I think he was talking about what happened in hte brain of people who experience very strong religious visions such as Mohammed or Jesus, and that is may be sort of like an emotional epilepsy, where the grooves are deeply riven with each new episode.

However, I think that all kinds of people can be convinced of the existence of God given they are approached the right way. The pastor just has to be talking about the most deep core issues that you face. If he can then make his emotional and seemingly logical arguments work on you you may then accept Jesus, Allah or whatever.

For example, I go occasionally to a church in Seattle called University Presbyterian Church where the pastor Earl Palmer is really hyper intellectual yet has a passion as well. I was never strongly affected by his sermons but i respected his acumen, until about 3 weeks ago. Then he was talking about forgiveness and the story of the prodigal son. Now in my life the concept of being forgiven is hard for me to trust as possible in many cases, especially when it comes to things I have done to myself (i.e. stupid habits that go on WAY too long)

After he was done with the sermon and everyone was leaving the church I almost felt like I was having and out of body experience, while everyone else was hohum about it seemed. Now, I think this is the thing that I believe can make something switch to be a theist.

However, I have decided that the fact I have was so strongly affected by that particular sermon is a strong sign that I need to take seriously the idea of forgiveness and to take risks where trust is on the line with people I know, and with myself.

Does it not seem to you folks that much of religion is about emotional release? The only problem I see is that the major faiths of society say that their god is on the controls of those emotional release valves. So they say that when you hit bottom only god can restore you. I totally disagree on an intellectual level about this however, I do realize that unless I handle the issues that gave me an oobie in a proactive way I may be lead into theism.

Christianity is like a mousetrap of god with many kinds of triggers that can bring down the bar and cut off your reason. (please someone help me punch this quip up)

Refractor

Interesting subject Fiach.

I can see your point of view if it were true that humans are "nothing BUT" biochemical computers. However, I believe that there is a spiritual aspect to humans and that this spiritual aspect is where their free will comes from.

As for the temporal lobe, if God created humans for the purpose of relating to Him, it stands to reason that God would have given humans the biological hardware through which that relationship is made possible and/or realized.

According to Christianity, and many other religions, mankind was a special creation by virtue of the fact that man was the only animal that God created for the purpose of having a relationship with Him.

If humans are the only animals that have a temporary lobe that functions in this unique way, that would seem to be evidence FOR the existence of a God, and not against it, IMO.

Fiach

Actually there is evidence that many mammals may have a frontal-limbic-parieto-temporal circuitry similar to ours. Chimps have one very similar anatomically to ours. It has the same generators and pathways. but we can't get a subjective chimp description of God. Dogs and cats have similar but simpler circuits within the emotional network. Of note is that cats have complex behavioural rituals that they insist on following, my wife speculates as an early form of religion.

Fiach

Fiach

Is free will a real human property of the brain or is it an illusion. The vast majority of mankind feels that there is free will. We look at alternative choices and we pick one that certainly seems that we are choosing by free will. But I offer an alternative hypothesis.

We know that the brain is a very complex computer, a billion times more complex than your PC. Your PC is a series of circuits that are programmed with certain information that turn a + or – signal at its neuron before generating another signal to a million other neurons that may turn on + or – circuits. The result is that if you put a subject in your google search engine, the same way every time, you get the same set of web pages. Your computer has no choice; it gives the information in its hardware programming and soft-ware applications. The computer doesn’t choose anything. It gives the only answer that it can give.

The human brain is a complex computer with huge storage data of memory, association areas from experience, and a given hardware set of circuitry. When you pose me a problem, 2 + 2 =, my brain is going to come up with 4 every time. I don’t choose 4, my circuits do almost unconsciously. You flash a game card coloured red, and ask me what colour, I will answer “red” without obvious thinking. It is processed by circuits of which our conscious minds are barely aware.

Suppose you give the red card a number of times, you will say it is red each time. You don’t choose the word red. If you brain is given more complex questions, like choosing a motor car. Your brain will process the input, pull in memory data from its association areas including knowledge of motor cars. Some may think about speed, acceleration, safety, appearance, social prestige, petrol efficiency, comfort but do so instantaneously that the conscious part may not be aware. You answer quickly pops out, BMW or Rolls, or Jaguar. The decision is made by your brain with the use of data collected over years. I posit that if you could be given the same question to the same brain consecutively you would get the same output, answer. The problem is that we can’t do that. If we use a human subject, and ask the same question over and over, it will not occur. Why? Because each time you pose the question, it becomes part of memory and makes new associations. In short it is not the same brain as it was before you asked the question. Circuits and synapses occur when you read anything. My circuits and synapses change from writing this essay.

I alluded to this in a prior post on choice of belief in God. My point was that belief in God is not really a choice. We all say that one chooses to believe. I have been accused of choosing not to believe. But information now about brain neurophysiology and my personal life history suggest that even belief in God is not a choice. Some brains by their frontal networking and early input lead to belief or non-belief independent of emotional choice. My personal example is that I was raised to believe in the Christian God. I have Bible stories in school. As early as my second year in school, about age 7, shows that I already have problems believing. I had no advantage in unbelief. My mates all believed. But the Bible stories I hear and later read, posed moral and rational problems for me. They didn’t make sense. God’s actions didn’t make sense to me, but my classmates had no problems believing.

I struggled with trying to believe so as to be like my mates. But the more I tried, the more I failed. On my request, my mother arranged for me to have Saturday afternoon sessions on Belief in God, understanding the Bible, with a pastor who taught theology. He and his wife were very nice to me and we were lifelong friends. We would talk over tea and cookies for up to 4 hours and did that for 9 months. I took a year in an Irish Catholic school with their theology and tried to find reasons or even an excuse to belief. Yet I failed. My brain persistently rejected theologically concepts, while all of the other lads believed automatically and didn’t even think about it. The Lasses all believed until a college girl friend and my future wife.

This idea corresponds to whether one likes asparagus or not. I have a healthy appetite and burn up energy. I like most foods. Yet the first time I eagerly chomped on a sprig of asparagus, and Yuck. I hated it. My Ma and Da, brothers all liked it. I thought, “Maybe I got a bad piece.” So I took a second bit, and Yuck. I like Haggis, while my mother and one brother hate it. Haggis is the nationalistic loyalty food. Did we choose? Did I choose to not like asparagus when I chomped on the first piece expecting to like it? Did I choose to like Haggis while my Ma liked it?

Does my son like Rap Music because he is rebellious while I don’t like the sound of it? This applies to favourite colours, music, art, telly programmes. My point is that the human/animal brain is a very complex computer with incredibly complex circuits making my PC a relative amoeba compared to all of you. These complex programming process data/input and correlation of associations, analyses through the rational circuits, and out pops an unavoidable, maybe inescapable answer.

Freewill is an illusion. There is no free will, but a complex neural structure, a super computer give a certain answer based on its input and its memory/associations. It happens so rapidly and automatically, that is seems to be free will. Even when we seem indecisive, it may actually be the brain putting in extra association areas, and reprocessing the data through the frontal rational filter until it weeds out the less rational answers and leaves the most rational answers. We think that we “decided.”

Just my opinion, but I pose it for comments. I am a minority on this, as I have been all of my life.

Fiach

scigirl

Just thought I'd say - thanks - to everyone who contributed to this thread - I love this subject, and it's always a pleasure to hear people's ideas on it.

What's FI - and do you have a link to this study or the abstract? Thanks,

scigirl