Does Free Will Exist?

[jonmichael818]

You have natural free will but with always go back to your own desires you're born with.

Not really free will, if it always is determined by that which you were born with, is it?

 

[jonmichael818]

Depends on how the brain works. If there's some mechanism that involves true spontaneity and randomness (perhaps some sort of quantum 'switch' within synapses, or exotic timers using C14), then the doctor can't predict what will happen with complete certainty. It might not be free will as traditionally interpreted, but it still prevents (internal) omniscience.

I can agree with that.

 

[philosophik]

So what made you choose food A?

'I' made myself choose food A, or rather, 'I' chose food A freely. Nothing made me choose it, although many causal factors determine that a decision must be made, the causal factors do not determine the result of the decision--they are influential in my consideration. In fact, causal factors are necessary to facilitate freewill, because without the environment and our biology, decisions are not even possible for us.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Not if an absolutely discernible mechanism does not exist. For instance, suppose the following day you are placed in the exact same scenario. But on that day you choose food B. And let's suppose this doctor can only view your brain function, and has no idea that there are actually two different types of food. Let's call the the brain activity that occurred when you chose food A, brain function A. If brain function A also occurred on the second day, the doctor would not be able to discern a distinguishable mechanism for you choosing food A, as opposed to food B. It would appear to him you made the same choice.

Let's suppose however, that there is a difference in brain function between the two days, if everything you do on both days is identical up until you make the choice, the doctor would not notice a difference until the choice is made. So on a third day, if you are in an identical scenario as the first two days, there is no way the doctor would be able to determine conclusively which food you will choose until you make the choice. Because brain function A is identical to brain function B up until the choice is made.

Why not stop supposing these convoluted scenarios and deal with something potentially more reralistic? Because afaict those scenarios are probably not reaslistic, and we are discussing free will in real people.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Depends on how the brain works. If there's some mechanism that involves true spontaneity and randomness (perhaps some sort of quantum 'switch' within synapses, or exotic timers using C14), then the doctor can't predict what will happen with complete certainty. It might not be free will as traditionally interpreted, but it still prevents (internal) omniscience.

Nice. Maybe there are evolutionary learning programmes in the brain that involve elements of randomized neural functioning. So we might after all have a highly "evolved" sense of taste, for instance.

 

[philosophik]

Why not stop supposing these convoluted scenarios and deal with something potentiaslly more reralistic?

Hey, you are the one who suggested that there was a brain doctor who knew everything about my brain in the first place, an unrealistic scenario to begin with.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Hey, you are the one who suggested that there was a brain doctor who knew everything about my brain in the first place, an unrealistic scenario to begin with.

Ok souble standards. But as far as I can tell there are only 2 options. Complete determinism, in which case libertarian free will is void, or there are randomized elements due to QM or something, which influence the overall functioning, but that woulkd be a strange idea of "free will".

But IIRC someone said something like "the dynamic of the brain operates according to Maxwell's Equations which are completely deterministic" which Wiccan or someone trained in physics might comment on.

 

[jonmichael818]

'I' made myself choose food A, or rather, 'I' chose food A freely. Nothing made me choose it, although many causal factors determine that a decision must be made, the causal factors do not determine the result of the decision--they are influential in my consideration. In fact, causal factors are necessary to facilitate freewill, because without the environment and our biology, decisions are not even possible for us.

How did your "I" come to be, so that you are able to make a choice?
What does it mean to say "I", or define what "I" is?

 

[jonmichael818]

Ok souble standards. But as far as I can tell there are only 2 options. Complete determinism, in which case libertarian free will is void, or there are randomized elements due to QM or something, which influence the overall functioning, but that woulkd be a strange idea of "free will".

But IIRC someone said something like "the dynamic of the brain operates according to Maxwell's Equations which are completely deterministic" which Wiccan or someone trained in physics might comment on.

In truth we do not know if the universe operates in a deterministic manner or indeterminate. However, having said that I hold to a deterministic interpretation. A deterministic universe does not have free will, unless of course you define free will like the compatibilists do.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

Not really free will, if it always is determined by that which you were born with, is it?

Right.

We're born not to have any desire to seek God.

It's called, "Total Depravity".

We're all born totally screwed.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Right.

We're born not to have any desire to seek God.

It's called, "Total Depravity".

We're all born totally screwed.

Not what the Muslims say. They say when young we naturally believe in One God, so much that they actually call converts "reverts".

 

[ThePresbyteers]

Not what the Muslims say. They say when young we naturally believe in One God, so much that they actually call converts "reverts".

Never heard of them. What and who are Muslims?

 

[philosophik]

Ok souble standards. But as far as I can tell there are only 2 options. Complete determinism, in which case libertarian free will is void, or there are randomized elements due to QM or something, which influence the overall functioning, but that woulkd be a strange idea of "free will".

I would agree with your two options except I would replace a couple of your words with a phrase. Instead of 'are randomized' I would use 'is subjective conscious awareness.' Then the idea of freewill isn't strange at all.

I think human consciousness is directly related with QM, however I do not think the dynamics between the two can be objectively studied and understood by science. Mainly because human consciousness as an emergent property of the universe is not quantifiable in relation to QM activity.

Although one may be able to objectively study the human brain through observation and experimentation, and map out how the electro-chemical dynamics affect human behavior, that doesn't entirely explain what human consciousness is. It's only half of the equation.

In order to know what human consciousness is, you have to be a human. IOW, you can't know what human consciousness is by knowing everything about human biology, you can only know what human consciousness is by being human biology. The subjective conscious awareness of humans has the capacity to utilize freewill, and as such, is an element that influences the functioning of the otherwise seemingly determined universe.

 

[philosophik]

How did your "I" come to be, so that you are able to make a choice?

Ultimately through evolution. More specifically, my "I" came to be, by my emergent consciousness experiencing what it is like to be my body.

What does it mean to say "I", or define what "I" is?

"I" is the subjective conscious awareness an entity manifests with relation to being a specific biological organism. At least as far as humans are concerned.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Never heard of them. What and who are Muslims?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I would agree with your two options except I would replace a couple of your words with a phrase. Instead of 'are randomized' I would use 'is subjective conscious awareness.' Then the idea of freewill isn't strange at all.

I think human consciousness is directly related with QM, however I do not think the dynamics between the two can be objectively studied and understood by science. Mainly because human consciousness as an emergent property of the universe is not quantifiable in relation to QM activity.

Ok if the dynamics are not objectively knowable, why do you claim the link between consciousness and QM. Either you have good reason to believe, in which case people would expect you to produce supporting evidence, or it may as well all be in your imagination. Thats what the skeptics will say.

Although one may be able to objectively study the human brain through observation and experimentation, and map out how the electro-chemical dynamics affect human behavior, that doesn't entirely explain what human consciousness is. It's only half of the equation.

You need knowledge by aquaintance rather than just description.

In order to know what human consciousness is, you have to be a human. IOW, you can't know what human consciousness is by knowing everything about human biology, you can only know what human consciousness is by being human biology. The subjective conscious awareness of humans has the capacity to utilize freewill, and as such, is an element that influences the functioning of the otherwise seemingly determined universe.

So why do you link consciousness with QM if aquantance first hand (which does not tell you that) or description of biology (which does not tell you that) do not support that link? Then again there is the Orch-OR model but aafaik it is just surmise.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Never heard of them. What and who are Muslims?

edit.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

According to this mandala

I think I understand now what "losing your face" really means

 

[jonmichael818]

Ultimately through evolution. More specifically, my "I" came to be, by my emergent consciousness experiencing what it is like to be my body.



"I" is the subjective conscious awareness an entity manifests with relation to being a specific biological organism. At least as far as humans are concerned.

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

 

[philosophik]

Ok if the dynamics are not objectively knowable, why do you claim the link between consciousness and QM. Either you have good reason to believe, in which case people would expect you to produce supporting evidence, or it may as well all be in your imagination. Thats what the skeptics will say.?

It's more of an assumption. I assume that because QM activity is thought to occur in the brain (ie.exocytosis as described in the paper Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness by FRIEDRICH BECK and JOHN C. ECCLES) then there must be a relationship between QM and consciousness. Although QM can be objectively knowable, I don't think consciousness can--it can only be subjectively knowable. I think the dynamic between the two is more of a metaphysical relationship, and thus can't be objectively known. Of course this is speculation on my part.

You need knowledge by acquaintance rather than just description.

Yeah, something like that.

So why do you link consciousness with QM if aquantance first hand (which does not tell you that) or description of biology (which does not tell you that) do not support that link? Then again there is the Orch-Or model but aafaik it is just surmise.

Like I mentioned above, I assume QM is linked with consciousness seeing how QM is thought to occur in our brain, and our brain is responsible for our sentience. However, I am not qualified to make any positive assertions to suggest that that is actually the case, it is a conclusion I have come to based on my minimal understanding of QM in relation to the brain.