Treacle Worshipper

Hmmm. I tempted to say, can we all agree that

we have a subjective experience of life (including the experience of free will),

that this subjective experience is not (yet) explained by science,

& that, as far as science has gone, we cannot separate this subjective experience from physical events in the brain.

(Which is what leads me, personally, to doubt its "free-ness".) But we probably can't agree on that either
TW

student739

DRFseven, "I've never understood why some people think that experience/memory/emotions form some of the weight attributed to certain alternatives, but not all of it. Where do they think the rest of it comes from? Why is there a physical mechanism for only some of it, and then a sort of mystery force that takes over the rest of it?"

As far as whether or not it is plausible that a 'mysterious force' 'takes over' to produce a single choice from the remaining possible choices, I attempted to address a issue central to this in my thread, "Skepticism and free will" but haven't triggered any replies as of yet.

I have to admit that I am not comfortable with the notion of irreducible agent causation. Although I follow how the conclusion is arrived at that it may be, I find myself unable to conceive of things in those terms.

As far as as selecting from an already narrowed set of possible actions on an event (rather than agent) view of causation, the following would seem to be one possible working out of this:

1) Existing causes limit the set of possible courses of action to some set of conceivable courses of action. The event of a single action being chosen is uncaused.

There is no mysterious force, it would be claimed. There is no mysterious process. It is simply the occurrence of an uncaused event. To claim that there must be such a force or process is simply to deny that there may be uncaused events.

If you would like to maintain that the notion of an uncaused event is incoherent, then I certainly disagree with you and will gladly argue this point (time permitting of course) should you start another thread for this purpose, although I do not believe this is your position (that it is in fact incoherent).

If you would like to discuss the issue of whether we are justified in believing that there are no uncaused events, then I direct you to the thread I started for this purpose, "Skepticism and free will".

student739

student739

TreacleWorshipper said, "Hmmm. I tempted to say, can we all agree that
we have a subjective experience of life (including the experience of free will),
that this subjective experience is not (yet) explained by science,
& that, as far as science has gone, we cannot separate this subjective experience from physical events in the brain. "

I would not agree to this. We genuinely can answer the question of whether or not we are justified in believing that in the case of all actions there exists in the state of the world immediately prior to that action being undertaken, causes both sufficient and necessary for the action to be undertaken.

Possibly we can not in the case that some sort of dualism is maintained in which the mind is somehow 'spiritual', but certainly whether we are justified in believing such things is debatable.

student739

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by student739
I would not agree to this.
I knew someone wouldn't

We genuinely can answer the question of whether or not we are justified in believing that in the case of all actions there exists in the state of the world immediately prior to that action being undertaken, causes both sufficient and necessary for the action to be undertaken.

If this is the case, please can you explain 1) how we can answer the question and 2) if we can answer the question, is the same answer valid in all situations? (Ie. All actions are caused or all actions are uncaused, as opposed to there being some caused and some uncaused actions.)

Possibly we can not in the case that some sort of dualism is maintained in which the mind is somehow 'spiritual', but certainly whether we are justified in believing such things is debatable.
I have no person belief in a "spiritual" mind, so I'm quite happy to leave this alone.
TW

VivaHedone

Nowhere357,

Although science cannot explain pain, or any other sensations, it can pinpoint the cause of pain. Similarly, it can pinpoint the cause of thoughts - therefore disproving free will.

Pain is a subjective experience - you have the sensation of pain. Therefore pain exists.

Free will is different. Pain is defined as the sensation of experiencing pain, but free will is not merely the sensation of experiencing free will. The sensation of free will may exist, but this sensation is entirely caused, like all other sensations, by the brain.

Nowhere357

We agree up to this point.

Upon reflection, I realized that I agree with this. The
sensation of free will can be seen as just another thought.

I also agree with this. Free will is more than just the sensation, or thought, of free will.

Here you seem to say free will is just a thought.

Because the last two points are in contradiction, I must be misunderstanding you. Please clarify?

This is a great subject to explore. I appreciate your post.

VivaHedone

I was making two separate points - one that the sensation of free will does not mean that there is free will in the same way that the sensation of pain means that there is pain; the other that the fact that science explains the physical cause of thoughts means that those thoughts are not free. Hope this is clearer now.

We have the illusion of free will because, as Long Winded Fool argued in the MF&P thread, we cannot see all of the virtually infinite causes of our thoughts. Therefore they appear to be free. Even though we have thias sensation, logic and reason prove it to be no more than a sensation.

Nowhere357

I agree with this.

I agree with the conclusion, but disagree that it logically follows.

Science explains the physical cause of pain, but I think we've agreed that nevertheless, pain exists as a subjective experience, in addition to the deterministic explanation.

I do not disagree with this.

I don't like the use of the word "illusion", though, because that brings me back to the idea that pain and suffering don't exist. I can't think of a handy word that captures your point, while avoiding my objection. "Mental impression" or something. "Sense of", maybe.

I think this difficulty suggests either "wild goose chase", or "wild frontier".

I would not argue against your position, because I think it is valid, and it allows a person to make an effort at choosing ethics and morals, and actions.

Here I both agree, and disagree, which is interesting. We are IMO at the root of the matter.

From the deterministic POV, I agree. I claim, however, that the deterministic view is NOT the only valid view.

Objectively, pain is seen as neurons and chemicals. Subjectively, pain is FELT as a mental experience. These two views exist side-by-side, and neither actually contradicts the other.
Both views are "true".

Quantum Theory has shown us that conflicting results (wave/particle duality of light) MAY be two views of the same thing. So IMO it's valid to look closer at the subjective feeling of free will.

Natural selection tells me that our consciousness probably assists in survival. That is, our subjective existence is most likely not just a side effect generated by the brain, serving no function.

What function could the subjective existence serve? I think the brain must react to the state of the subjective experience. That is, the brain deterministically generates a mental state (subjective experience) then USES that mental state deterministically.

Then the experience of "pain" is used by the brain, to determine what it does next.

On the question of free will, I claim that along with the subjective existence of "feeling", there is also the subjective experience of "doing".

If we "feel" pain, for example, our hand automatically pulls back from the fire. But we can try to ignore the pain, and reach back into the fire. We can apply mental effort to overrule the body's reaction to the pain. "Try" and "effort" imply action, a "doing".

I claim that this action or doing is a quality that exists in the realm of subjective experience. That is, it exists in addition to the deterministic view.

This quality is at the root of free will. We really CAN exercise our will, to affect the brain/body, and therefore the world. We really ARE responsible for our actions.

And free will really is illusion.

Guillaume

You are arguing about the "sensation", about the effect of free will ( or lack of thereof ). However the real answer lies in the cause, in a lower level.

Here is my argument :

1. Natural objects move and are transformed only according to what we call "natural laws" and nothing else .

2. Human beings are natural objects.

3. Therefore humans only acts and think according to "natural laws" .


In short, humans are, like robots, following a “program” just like animals, plants and everything else in the universe is. Humans actions and thoughts are effectively determined only by the laws of nature and nothing else. They are as free as the apple falling from the tree.

Of course, this argument is for materialists only : it doesn’t work if you are not considering humans as completely natural beings.

Nowhere357

Humans are completely natural beings. You have stated the materialistic view very well, I think. IMO the view is valid, and I will not argue against it.

My point is that there is another equally valid view, and you haven't addressed that.

So my position stands unrefuted, and free will still exists.