Does Free Will Exist?

[philosophik]

SO would your idea of free will stem from QM processes?

I think QM plays a role in producing sentience, among other important roles. Freewill then stems from sentience, or consciousness. So to answer your question, yes I think freewill stems from QM, but QM is not the only contributing factor.

 

[jonmichael818]

I think QM plays a role in producing sentience, among other important roles. Freewill then stems from sentience, or consciousness. So to answer your question, yes I think freewill stems from QM, but QM is not the only contributing factor.

So since we do not know if quantum mechanics is deterministic or indeterminent (depending on ones interpretation of QM) then would you agree that we can't really know if free will exists, even if QM processes are involved in brain function?

 

[philosophik]

So since we do not know if quantum mechanics is deterministic or indeterminent (depending on ones interpretation of QM) then would you agree that we can't really know if free will exists, even if QM processes are involved in brain function?

I don't think freewill hinges solely on whether QM is deterministic or indeterminent from a scientific perspective. It all has to do with the ontology of consciousness; because it is my contention that freewill is a product of conscious awareness.

While the brain can be objectively studied, and all it's functions be scientifically analyzed from it's electro-chemical processes to the QM activity, right down to how certain parts correlate with certain behaviors and bilogical functions, this approach only brings you so far in understanding the nature of consciousness. From this objective approach, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint where or how freewill emerges from biological processes. Of course, there is another approach.

The best way, in my opinion, to understand consciousness is through a subjective approach; the only way to truly know consciousness, is by being consciousness, and not trying to locate it under a microscope or understand it with a mathematical equation. By exploring it's nature through introspection, it is my position that through this approach, the nature of consciousness is revealed. Where one realizes that it is not biology interacting in an environment that determines the actions of conscious beings, but it is consciousness utilizing freewill that determines the actions of biological beings, and how they will affect the environment.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't think freewill hinges solely on whether QM is deterministic or indeterminent from a scientific perspective. It all has to do with the ontology of consciousness; because it is my contention that freewill is a product of conscious awareness.

While the brain can be objectively studied, and all it's functions be scientifically analyzed from it's electro-chemical processes to the QM activity, right down to how certain parts correlate with certain behaviors and bilogical functions, this approach only brings you so far in understanding the nature of consciousness. From this objective approach, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint where or how freewill emerges from biological processes. Of course, there is another approach.

The best way, in my opinion, to understand consciousness is through a subjective approach; the only way to truly know consciousness, is by being consciousness, and not trying to locate it under a microscope or understand it with a mathematical equation. By exploring it's nature through introspection, it is my position that through this approach, the nature of consciousness is revealed. Where one realizes that it is not biology interacting in an environment that determines the actions of conscious beings, but it is consciousness utilizing freewill that determines the actions of biological beings, and how they will affect the environment.

I honestly don't understand why we, as humans, insist on elevating ourselves and our processes above other analogous and similar processes. For instance, you assert that it's "difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint where or how freewill emerges from biological processes." We can see analogous, although admittedly not as complex, emergent processes in computers programs, simulations, etc. To me the insistence that consciousness is above objective scrutiny seem to me a mix of the residue of religious dualistic dogma, wishful thinking, arguments from ignorance, and human superiority beliefs.

 

[philosophik]

I honestly don't understand why we, as humans, insist on elevating ourselves and our processes above other analogous and similar processes.

Who insisted on doing this, exactly?

For instance, you assert that it's "difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint where or how freewill emerges from biological processes."

I meant from a scientific approach, that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint where or how freewill emerges from biological processes conclusively, where determinist will be convinced that freewill is not an illusion.

We can see analogous, although admittedly not as complex, emergent processes in computers programs, simulations, etc.

Well that complexity makes all the difference, now doesn't it. Until a subjective awareness, an unmistakable conscious sense of self, emerges from computer programs then they are not analogous in the area that matters when analyzing the processes that pertain to this discussion.

I am not in any way suggesting that humans are intrinsically superior, or that our analogous processes are elevated over the processes of the computer program, however, there is a fundamental difference between the two processes, and that difference is significant when attempting to answer the question if human freewill exists or not.

To me the insistence that consciousness is above objective scrutiny seem to me a mix of the residue of religious dualistic dogma, wishful thinking, arguments from ignorance, and human superiority beliefs.

Good thing I don't insist that consciousness is above objective scrutiny.

 

[sandwiches]

Who insisted on doing this, exactly?

I meant from a scientific approach, that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint where or how freewill emerges from biological processes conclusively, where determinist will be convinced that freewill is not an illusion.

How do you assert this? Based on what?

Well that complexity makes all the difference, now doesn't it. Until a subjective awareness, an unmistakable conscious sense of self, emerges from computer programs then they are not analogous in the area that matters when analyzing the processes that pertain to this discussion.

Until we find a disconnect between our physical brains and the physical reactions therein, we have absolutely no reason to think that they're more than merely complex programs and like all programs, contingent to the physical and observable as much as a program in a computer is.

I am not in any way suggesting that humans are intrinsically superior, or that our analogous processes are elevated over the processes of the computer program, however, there is a fundamental difference between the two processes, and that difference is significant when attempting to answer the question if human freewill exists or not.

What fundamental difference is this? Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a difference between a program and consciousness but I am saying that the difference is analogous to the difference between an eye and a photoreceptor protein in a unicellular organism. Just because the eye is much more complex, it doesn't mean that it's impossible to pinpoint where "sight" emerges. Consciousness and programs are processes observable and detectable in similar manners. However, it seems you're suggesting that there's a property that makes consciousness detached from the physical and thus from that which can be determined.

Good thing I don't insist that consciousness is above objective scrutiny.

My point is that you seem to insist that there's something more than what we can can detect to consciousness. Why is that?

 

[philosophik]

How do you assert this? Based on what?

Based on the fact that every determinist I have engaged with, is a materialist whom adheres to the notion that phenomena in the universe is a result of upward causation, including brain states and resulting agents actions. From a reductionists point of view, how is it possible to determine how or where freewill emerges from the brain?

Now I'm sure not every determinist is a materialist that uses reductionism to explain away freewill, but I have never met one, have you?

Until we find a disconnect between our physical brains and the physical reactions therein, we have absolutely no reason to think that they're more than merely complex programs and like all programs, contingent to the physical and observable as much as a program in a computer is.

I'm not saying our brains are not analogous to programs, they are in many ways, such as the ways you suggest above.

What fundamental difference is this? Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a difference between a program and consciousness but I am saying that the difference is analogous to the difference between an eye and a photoreceptor protein in a unicellular organism. Just because the eye is much more complex, it doesn't mean that it's impossible to pinpoint where "sight" emerges. Consciousness and programs are processes observable and detectable in similar manners. However, it seems you're suggesting that there's a property that makes consciousness detached from the physical and thus from that which can be determined.

No, you misunderstand what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting there is some sort of esoteric dualism regarding physical processes in the brain and consciousness, no not at all. What I am suggesting is that when attempting to determine the nature of consciousness, as sentient beings, we have two approaches at our disposal. We can objectively study the brain and map out all the processes and how they correlate to our behaviors and brain states; and we can subjectively study our own consciousness through introspection and meditative practices. In other words, you can study and understand consciousness by making it the object of observation, and you can study and understand consciousness simply by being it, and exploring it. Both approaches yield valid and practical knowledge concerning the nature of consciousness, and are necessary to have a complete understanding. It is my position that the veracity of freewill is best determined through the subjective approach, where one realizes that consciousness is in fact what is doing all the determining.

My point is that you seem to insist that there's something more than what we can can detect to consciousness. Why is that?

What I insist is that there is a difference between knowing what a brain is by looking at it, and knowing what a brain is by being it. That's all. One approach is not more valid than the other, they are just different modes of knowing.

 

[sandwiches]

Based on the fact that every determinist I have engaged with, is a materialist whom adheres to the notion that phenomena in the universe is a result of upward causation, including brain states and resulting agents actions. From a reductionists point of view, how is it possible to determine how or where freewill emerges from the brain?

Now I'm sure not every determinist is a materialist that uses reductionism to explain away freewill, but I have never met one, have you?

I'm not saying our brains are not analogous to programs, they are in many ways, such as the ways you suggest above.

No, you misunderstand what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting there is some sort of esoteric dualism regarding physical processes in the brain and consciousness, no not at all. What I am suggesting is that when attempting to determine the nature of consciousness, as sentient beings, we have two approaches at our disposal. We can objectively study the brain and map out all the processes and how they correlate to our behaviors and brain states; and we can subjectively study our own consciousness through introspection and meditative practices. In other words, you can study and understand consciousness by making it the object of observation, and you can study and understand consciousness simply by being it, and exploring it. Both approaches yield valid and practical knowledge concerning the nature of consciousness, and are necessary to have a complete understanding. It is my position that the veracity of freewill is best determined through the subjective approach, where one realizes that consciousness is in fact what is doing all the determining.

What I insist is that there is a difference between knowing what a brain is by looking at it, and knowing what a brain is by being it. That's all. One approach is not more valid than the other, they are just different modes of knowing.

I had a longer response typed up but your last sentence summarizes your thoughts nicely, I hope.

You seem to be talking about several different things interchangeably throughout your posts. I'll posts the points I see you making and a couple of analogies for each:

1) Can we determine how consciousness is created by the brain?
Can we determine how a game is created by a computer?
Can we determine how a French lifestyle is created by France?

2) Can know all there is to know about the consciousness by studying the brain?
Can we know all there is to know about a game by studying a computer?
Can we know all there is to know about a French lifestyle by studying France?

3) Can we only know all there is to know about a consciousness by experiencing it?
Can we only know all there is to know about a game by playing it?
Can we only know all there is to know about a French lifestyle by living in France?

Here's what I believe:
1) Yes, I believe we'll eventually be able to understand how consciousness emerges from the brain.
2) No, I believe that part of the knowledge is the experience of seeing all the parts and mechanisms in action.
3) Yes, for the same reasons above.

Having said all that, I believe that by being to understand how consciousness emerges from the brain, we'll be able to emulate, simulate, replicate, etc working "consciousnesses" and maybe even one day, within our own brains in the same way we can emulate an operating system within another operating system.

 

[jonmichael818]

It is my position that the veracity of freewill is best determined through the subjective approach, where one realizes that consciousness is in fact what is doing all the determining.

Ok, so lets study consciousness subjectively. Indeed I have done a fair bit of introspection and deep meditating, but I still do not see where the causal chain is broken? In other words it still all seems to be deterministic. No matter how you look at it unless you can find a way that cause and effect is eliminated or something that is not truly random (which is also not free will) than I am afraid you are out of luck. Or you must redefine what you mean when using the term free will like a compatibilist, which is really complex determinism.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Two questions:
1)How do the living express this free will?

Hypothetically speaking: By hoping where hope should not be a practical part of one's will or life, because there is nothing but extremely bad predicaments around. Our environments should control us, yet many times it is our hope and belief that dominates our decisions and aspirations. Who controls us, if we see a place that doesn't exist in our present state as though it were around the corner.(Stephen Kendall).

2)Do you belive god is omniscient?

I don't think that the glory of God is limited, even by the very limited evaluations of him with our very limited mental capabilities & extremely overvalued knowledge of things. What you are really asking is do you believe that he even exist? He does, but you won't know until Judgment Day, actually it is just our evaluation day, for sure: were we kind and loving to each other, did we lie and deceive others for our lusts and selfish ambitions, did we share and help others in their needs, did we have a hope of God's help and trust him to deliver us by our following of the wonderful kindness and guidance of Jesus Christ in our lives (did we love our enemies and give to all who asked)? What you may be asking is "Is Christ for real?" Is anyone really following the words of Christ to the letter? Isn't it to be followed to the heart instead? We love and are loved. Many unfollowed letters will be forgiven us by our hearts which love and obey our Lord the best that we can. Our law (letter) to follow is the heart of God through Jesus Christ. It is the law of love. We do love our enemies and give to those who need. We do have compassion for others and hear them and help them. We are far from perfect by the letter (law), but are close to heart (that is the heart of God) by trusting Jesus throughout our lives. Have a good day. (Stephen Kendall).


Not much.

Trust in good and that goodness has an author from above.

 

[If Not For Grace]

Some people have to believe that there is such a thing as free will, but I choose not to believe it.

May I ask why?

 

[sandwiches]

Trust in good and that goodness has an author from above.

You dodged the second question. He didn't ask if God exists. He asked if you believe he is all-knowing. Is he?

 

[Tinker Grey]

May I ask why?

He was joking. Those that believe in free-will have no choice but to believe. He, on the other hand, chooses to believe there isn't.

 

[jonmichael818]

Our environments should control us, yet many times it is our hope and belief that dominates our decisions and aspirations.

Ok, so you are saying that hope and belief is what determines many of our decisions. I still fail to see free will.
Where does the hope and belief come from?

I don't think that the glory of God is limited, even by the very limited evaluations of him with our very limited mental capabilities & extremely overvalued knowledge of things. What you are really asking is do you believe that he even exist? He does, but you won't know until Judgment Day, actually it is just our evaluation day, for sure: were we kind and loving to each other, did we lie and deceive others for our lusts and selfish ambitions, did we share and help others in their needs, did we have a hope of God's help and trust him to deliver us by our following of the wonderful kindness and guidance of Jesus Christ in our lives (did we love our enemies and give to all who asked)? What you may be asking is "Is Christ for real?" Is anyone really following the words of Christ to the letter? Isn't it to be followed to the heart instead? We love and are loved. Many unfollowed letters will be forgiven us by our hearts which love and obey our Lord the best that we can. Our law (letter) to follow is the heart of God through Jesus Christ. It is the law of love. We do love our enemies and give to those who need. We do have compassion for others and hear them and help them. We are far from perfect by the letter (law), but are close to heart (that is the heart of God) by trusting Jesus throughout our lives. Have a good day. (Stephen Kendall).

Like Sandwiches said, I asked if you believe this god is omniscient, not if he exists or not.

What you are really asking is do you believe that he even exist? He does, but you won't know until Judgment Day...

The statement that god does exist but that I will not know it till a later date is a non sequiter. "He does" is a statement of knowledge of a fact in the present, but then you say that it will not be known until a later date.

 

[Gracchus]

Some people have to believe that there is such a thing as free will, but I choose not to believe it.

May I ask why?

He was joking. Those that believe in free-will have no choice but to believe. He, on the other hand, chooses to believe there isn't.

Well, yes, it is a joke, but there is a real point. Because our brains are modular, different modules of the brain "vote" on our decisions. These modules constitute what Freud called the "subconcious".

We know from dynamic imaging studies of the brain that we make our decisions, and only then do we rationalize them. Since the modules involved in making the decisions are based on association, analogies or symbols (Sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar!) that really have little or nothing to do with rational decision making, the reasons that our rational minds give as explanations for our decisions are often not the real reasons.
We can make decisions based on emotional associations that we may not even be aware of, based on events that we don't want to remember.
If we do not examine our decisions rationally and honestly, then we really have no free will. Free will can only arise when we examine our decisions and measure them against the objective reality, and not just pass on the unexamined and often irrational associations of the subconscious mind.

There are people on these very forums, (Not to name names!) who are proudly irrational. They base their decisions on their emotional responses which arise from events and patterns in their lives too terrifying, shameful or humiliating to be admitted even to themselves. This they are pleased to call "faith".

One of the symptoms of this form of dementia is the proud boast that they can "choose" what to believe in the face of contradictory evidence, reason or even mathematics. Before they can free themselves they would have to confront the fact that they have publicly shown themselves to be fools, basing their "decisions" on fear and shame that they dare not admit to themselves.

So, such person "have to believe in free will" because they cannot confront the real reasons for their totally constrained "decisions".

By pitiless self-examination one can become aware of one's real reasons, and overide the subconscious process, training the mind to make decisions based upon present realities rather than terrifying, shameful, and humiliating memories that the conscious mind is too fearful to confront.

Thus "free will" is possible, but it is not the default condition, and you usually need not consider it when dealing with people.

That is why I say, "Some people have to believe that there is such a thing as free will, but I choose not to believe it." It is not just a joke!

(It is amazing that Freud realized this while unaware of the the neurological modularity of the brain, just as Darwin formed his theory without knowing about genetics.)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about this from Sikh scripture:

"All are within the command,
Outside of it no one can live.
Nanak, to grasp the command
Is to renounce ego-sense."

 

[Stephen Kendall]

You dodged the second question. He didn't ask if God exists. He asked if you believe he is all-knowing. Is he?

please note:

I don't think that the glory of God is limited

from my post.

Don't like the way that I answered, sorry, but it is to say that God isn't limited even with our pronounced logical ideas from a very limited existence and intellect.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Ok, so you are saying that hope and belief is what determines many of our decisions. I still fail to see free will.
Where does the hope and belief come from?


Like Sandwiches said, I asked if you believe this god is omniscient, not if he exists or not.

The statement that god does exist but that I will not know it till a later date is a non sequiter. "He does" is a statement of knowledge of a fact in the present, but then you say that it will not be known until a later date.

Many will not know about God until it is Judgment Day, but then you will know for sure.

 

[sandwiches]

please note:

I don't think that the glory of God is limited

from my post.

Don't like the way that I answered, sorry, but it is to say that God isn't limited even with our pronounced logical ideas from a very limited existence and intellect.

Is that a 'yes,' he knows all or 'no,' he doesn't know all?

 

[jonmichael818]

please note:

I don't think that the glory of God is limited

from my post.

Don't like the way that I answered, sorry, but it is to say that God isn't limited even with our pronounced logical ideas from a very limited existence and intellect.

So I am going to assume this means you believe god is omniscient, unless you say otherwise.