Free Will physical or non-physical?

[durangodawood]

If we don't act randomly, then we must act for a reason. If we act for a reason, then we are determined. There is no free will.

Option 3: we act based on impulses that originate in our own conscience.

True or not, its another possibility that you apparently haven't considered.

 

[Chany]

Option 3: we act based on impulses that originate in our own conscience.

True or not, its another possibility that you apparently haven't considered.

Where do our own consciences come from? What makes them? Why are they the way they are?

 

[durangodawood]

Where do our own consciences come from? What makes them? Why are they the way they are?

Questions that probe the very edges of current human understanding.

Answer: I can speculate. But I really dont know. No one making definitive statements that we have free will, or dont have it, has a firm basis for a conclusion.

I am fascinated by the emerging science on how much we are victims, or beneficiaries, of circumstance. But as for at least a kernel of autonomy, no really knows quite yet, I think.

 

[KCfromNC]

Thats an excellent objection to free will.

But... someone "inside" there gets to be referee of all the various pressures, values, influences, etc. You can cultivate that referee.

Or at least the referee tells you it had some control. Research hints that reporting might not be an accurate representation of how decision making actually works.

 

[Lopez 15721]

Well it's for scientists to tell us which is true. Things seem sort of random (or probabilistic?) at a quantum level, but determined at our level.



You don't explain very well what it is you're talking about. What do you mean by the co-existence of free will with determinism? Or with randomness.

In my last post I said:

"If we don't act randomly, then we must act for a reason. If we act for a reason, then we are determined. There is no free will."

A will which makes decisions for reasons is necessarily determined, and a determined thing by definition isn't free.

If you need need more explanation, about what superficially?

Scientists can only say so much on free will. They surely cannot say whether or not it's true. A recent brain scan test revealed that brain activity takes place up to 10 seconds before we actually decide on something. It is our unconscious deciding before we consciously decide. That implies determinism, at least to me.

I think that argument is problematic for two reasons. One is due to the actual structure of the argument itself. You form an argument in the hypothetical syllogism form, which is in the form of "If p then q," "If q then r," "Thus, if p then r." However your argument is in the form of "If a then r," "If r then d," "Thus, ~f." Essentially that is the fallacy of a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not follow from it's premises, though I am unaware of any formal name referring to the fallacy such as it would be with "affirming the consequent." The point still stands though that the negative conclusion (no free will) is not inferred in the premises as it ought to be in a valid hypothetical syllogism. There is no reasoning as to how we arrive at that conclusion. It's just added in at the very end, not logically connected to the argument at all. The only valid conclusion that can be made from that argument is, "If we don't act randomly, we are determined."

The second issue is still a matter of short coming as granting the conclusion, the argument doesn't explain why determinism and free will are mutually exclusive. What about being determined makes one not free? Surely it's not the case by definition as there is no universal, factual definition of free will. You can point to one definition and say the two are incompatible but what about the other definitions and contentions of free will?

 

[durangodawood]

Scientists can only say so much on free will. They surely cannot say whether or not it's true. A recent brain scan test revealed that brain activity takes place up to 10 seconds before we actually decide on something. It is our unconscious deciding before we consciously decide. That implies determinism, at least to me.

Are you sure? Yes, brain activity is observed. But to go on to claim that our unconscious deciding?

How do you know that?

Maybe its our unconscious simply becoming aware of the need for a decision. Or something else.

 

[Lopez 15721]

Are you sure? Yes, brain activity is observed. But to go on to claim that our unconscious deciding?

How do you know that?

Maybe its our unconscious simply becoming aware of the need for a decision. Or something else.

Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” | Exploring The Mind!

Well that's what the study suggests. And it's convincing. It happens all the time with different things. Like how we act on impulse on some things.

 

[durangodawood]

Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” | Exploring The Mind!

Well that's what the study suggests. And it's convincing. It happens all the time with different things. Like how we act on impulse on some things.

Very weak. And here's why: the experiment is basically about a motor impulse, with no consequences attached.

I'd like to see how far ahead they can predict an individual's choice of what major to pick in college, or an author's decision for what happens to a character.

I have no doubt that many human actions are "decided" unconsciously. But to say that applies to ALL human choices is not warranted by the research.

 

[Paradoxum]

Option 3: we act based on impulses that originate in our own conscience.

True or not, its another possibility that you apparently haven't considered.

Actually I've been considering that the entire time. The reason I rejected free will was because of considering this. I have no idea why you continually think I haven't considered the options.

An impulse from our own conscience can't be anything other than random or determined. If the impulses are as they are for a reason, then they are determined. If there's no reason why they are as they are, then they are random. There's simply no room for free will.

 

[durangodawood]

Actually I've been considering that the entire time. The reason I rejected free will was because of considering this. I have no idea why you continually think I haven't considered the options.

An impulse from our own conscience can't be anything other than random or determined. If the impulses are as they are for a reason, then they are determined. If there's no reason why they are as they are, then they are random. There's simply no room for free will.

One possible reason for those impulses is that we consider them and then decide.

Yes, the impulses are there for a reason. But that reason can originate in the self, and not be 100% tethered to a cause effect chain. Iin other words, the human self, at least to some tiny extent, is a new cause in the world. It can begin cause/effect chains.

At least thats how it seems. I'm open to evidence either way.

 

[Lopez 15721]

Very weak. And here's why: the experiment is basically about a motor impulse, with no consequences attached.

I'd like to see how far ahead they can predict an individual's choice of what major to pick in college, or an author's decision for what happens to a character.

I have no doubt that many human actions are "decided" unconsciously. But to say that applies to ALL human choices is not warranted by the research.

They're not trying to predict ones major in college. They're trying to predict exactly what they were. And they did. Also, I didn't say, and nor does the study say, that all human choices apply.

 

[durangodawood]

....Also, I didn't say, and nor does the study say, that all human choices apply.

Exactly, so the study doesnt imply determinism generally.

Its barely controversial that some actions arise from the unconscious.

 

[Paradoxum]

One possible reason for those impulses is that we consider them and then decide.

Yes, the impulses are there for a reason. But that reason can originate in the self, and not be 100% tethered to a cause effect chain. Iin other words, the human self, at least to some tiny extent, is a new cause in the world. It can begin cause/effect chains.

At least thats how it seems. I'm open to evidence either way.

I'll point out that the possibility of this is what I have considered the whole time. I concluded that there is no free will while wondering whether even a soul could have free will.

The soul might not be physically determined, but that doesn't mean it isn't psychologically determined. For example, I might consider reasons X,Y, and Z, when choosing to do action M. If reasons X,Y, and Z fully explain why I chose to do M, then I am determined. If they don't fully explain why I choose to do M (and nothing does), then my choice to do M is random.

Again, there doesn't seem to be any possibility for anything other than determinism or randomness.

 

[KCfromNC]

One possible reason for those impulses is that we consider them and then decide.

Yes, the impulses are there for a reason. But that reason can originate in the self, and not be 100% tethered to a cause effect chain.

How does that work, exactly? Does a new part of the brain spontaneously pop into existence uncaused or something?

 

[Lopez 15721]

Exactly, so the study doesnt imply determinism generally.

Its barely controversial that some actions arise from the unconscious.

It does imply determinism. It doesn't have to be controversial what matters is that some actions arise from the unconscious, and who are we to say if not the majority of them do?

 

[durangodawood]

How does that work, exactly? Does a new part of the brain spontaneously pop into existence uncaused or something?

I dont know.

We seem to be at the level where, in this thread, we invoke brain scans that show chunks of brain lighting up. Pretty crude. We're going to have to learn a lot more before we know exactly how a reasoned process works in the brain.

Lets not be hasty, like creationists who jump to conclusions because we dont know exactly how the ball of life got rolling.

 

[durangodawood]

It does imply determinism. It doesn't have to be controversial what matters is that some actions arise from the unconscious, and who are we to say if not the majority of them do?

I said it doesnt imply determinism generally.

Yes, it implies determinism in motor actions. It does not imply determinism in deliberative reasoned decision making. Thats still an open question.

 

[durangodawood]

I'll point out that the possibility of this is what I have considered the whole time. I concluded that there is no free will while wondering whether even a soul could have free will.

The soul might not be physically determined, but that doesn't mean it isn't psychologically determined. For example, I might consider reasons X,Y, and Z, when choosing to do action M. If reasons X,Y, and Z fully explain why I chose to do M, then I am determined. If they don't fully explain why I choose to do M (and nothing does), then my choice to do M is random.

Again, there doesn't seem to be any possibility for anything other than determinism or randomness.

Paradoxum, you ask the hard questions. Still working on this one.

 

[Paradoxum]

Paradoxum, you ask the hard questions. Still working on this one.