[unreality]

I'd like to make the case that we have free will

Whoa, whoa, before you freak out, obviously we're made up of subatomic particles moving on quantum probability waves bla bla bla. Life is full of chaos and randomness but based on the current scenario as well. A mix of determinism with a lot of randomism and wacky quantumstuffism lol.

BUT do atoms know that your essay is due on Friday?

Do electrons in a quantum leap as energy is dispatched from one neuron to the next over the synapse know that they are signaling a message that will cause a burst of fear in your mind toward a savage bear that's running toward you?

Does each individual neuron of your brain have consciousness?

No, No, No.

Clearly our consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness and decision-making abilities are an emergent behavior, that is they are complex patterns based on simple rules.

From the wikipedia article:

Life is a major source of complexity, and evolution is the major principle or driving force behind life. In this view, evolution is the main reason for the growth of complexity in the natural world. If we speak of the emergence of complex living beings and life-forms, we refer therefore to processes of sudden changes in evolution.

Flocking is a well-known behaviour in many animal species from swarming locusts to fish and birds. Emergent structures are a common strategy found in many animal groups: colonies of ants, mounds built by termites, swarms of bees, shoals/schools of fish, flocks of birds, and herds/packs of mammals.

An example to consider in detail is an ant colony. The queen does not give direct orders and does not tell the ants what to do. Instead, each ant reacts to stimuli in the form of chemical scent from larvae, other ants, intruders, food and build up of waste, and leaves behind a chemical trail, which, in turn, provides a stimulus to other ants. Here each ant is an autonomous unit that reacts depending only on its local environment and the genetically encoded rules for its variety of ant. Despite the lack of centralized decision making, ant colonies exhibit complex behavior and have even been able to demonstrate the ability to solve geometric problems. For example, colonies routinely find the maximum distance from all colony entrances to dispose of dead bodies.

A broader example of emergent properties in biology is the combination of individual atoms to form molecules such as polypeptide chains, which in turn fold and refold to form proteins. These proteins, assuming their functional status from their spatial conformation, interact together to achieve higher biological functions and eventually create - organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, organisms. Cascade phenotype reactions, as detailed in Chaos theory, may arise from individual genes mutating respective positioning.[4] In turn, all the biological communities in the world form the biosphere, where its human participants form societies, and the complex interactions of meta-social systems such as the stock market.

The ant colony bit again:

An example to consider in detail is an ant colony. The queen does not give direct orders and does not tell the ants what to do. Instead, each ant reacts to stimuli in the form of chemical scent from larvae, other ants, intruders, food and build up of waste, and leaves behind a chemical trail, which, in turn, provides a stimulus to other ants. Here each ant is an autonomous unit that reacts depending only on its local environment and the genetically encoded rules for its variety of ant. Despite the lack of centralized decision making, ant colonies exhibit complex behavior and have even been able to demonstrate the ability to solve geometric problems. For example, colonies routinely find the maximum distance from all colony entrances to dispose of dead bodies.

I read an article about swarm behavior (such as ants and bees) in National Geographic once too, it's highly interesting.

We don't need a centralized "soul" to form our intelligence.... each of our neurons is like an autonomous ant, following instructions coded in it by evolution... but together, the ants form a complex system that exerts intelligence, problem solving, war strategy, food-finding techniques, situation awareness and more

And there aren't BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of ants in an ant colony, thousands certainly, but not billions, and it still shows this complex behavior. But there ARE billions and billions of neurons in our brain. Think of how much more complex that is! Still that does not imply free will, but I'm getting closer to my point. Yes this is going somewhere

Anyway, what I'm saying is that higher concepts can be built up on lesser things, like a pyramid. Each ant has no clue about the bigger problems of the colony, yet the colony takes care of the problems. It's a decentralized nervous system, like our brain. "The problems" are not known by any one ant, yet they ARE known by the colony as a whole. They are abstract concepts, not existing in the physical world, but they exist on a higher level than the atoms themselves.

Let me explain... I'm not getting all mystic-soul-whatever on you, and this isn't "theoretical". I'm making fact-grounded statements here, so bear with me

Anyway, this idea can be matched better to the human brain. Say your homework is due Friday, and it's late Thursday night. You haven't done any of your essay and you're starting to get sleepy. The stress is ramping up. See this neuron? (Imagine it ;D) It's releasing hormones across a synapse, causing stress. Does it know this? No! It's just a neuron. Just an ant, going about its business.

But YOU know, and YOU feel stress. Your mind, as a whole, knows that your homework is due tomorrow, yet NONE of the neurons do. What I'm saying is, just like an ant colony, lots of 0's are added together to get 1. That's a simplified analogy, and obviously that's impossible regarding the mathematical "0" and "1", but I think you get my point ... which is that abstract concepts are built upon lesser systems, where the lesser systems may not know about the abstract concepts. Facts, so far ;D

But what does this have to do with free will?

Before that, I just want to continue on the ant-colony tangent for a little bit. I'm not saying that I know what would happen if ant colonies increased their numbers to BILLIONS upon BILLIONS per colony. Clearly some crazily awesome stuff would happen lol. I don't know if it would become conscious, though I would think so (in a differentish way than OUR human consciousness), hell it's possible that ant colonies with their limited sizes are already vaguely conscious, but nowhere close to apes and humans. Ant colonies don't exactly benefit evolutionarily from higher thinking - mostly from rapid problem solving and whatnot, which they are good at.

Anyway, back to free will. I'm saying that our minds work on a higher level than the atoms that make it up, and again I need to remind that I'm not getting wishy-washy-illogical-soul-etc on you, but that this is valid By higher level, I don't mean on some other plane of existence, I mean that they are emergent systems of complex behavior that develop, represent and influence abstract concepts which are inexistent to the things that make them up (ants, neurons, whatever - ultimately it comes down to particles and electrons and energy and stuff).

And it's from here that I get theoretical. All the above is fact, at least I hope/think so. If you have a logical problem with anything I've said above, please state it, because I'm pretty sure it's 100% sound. But from this point on, I'm being purely hypothetical:

I'm saying free will is definitely possible if you look at it from this angle. We are made up of particles at the basic level, but on top of that larger systems are built, then larger, then larger, finally cells, etc. As an emergent behavior, our minds deal with abstract concepts that do not exist to the things that make us up, so in a way we operate on a different level.

It's pretty confusing, and I recommend re-reading the paragraph 3 above this one, as it has my thesis in it, basically From here you can interpret it how you want, but from my own observations of life (we seem to be able to control our own actions, after all), this is looking pretty good to me ;D

Wow, that was a lot, thanks for reading!!!

[Izzy]

Very nicely stated, but isn't that just a long way of explaining indeterminism? Free will is the opposite of clockwork, making it fate, and fate as a scientific idea was proven to be wrong ages ago.

*edit* Had to delete the edit I added in from the Atheism thread.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Izzy

[unreality]

Very nicely stated, but isn't that just a long way of explaining indeterminism? Free will is the opposite of clockwork, making it fate, and fate as a scientific idea was proven to be wrong ages ago.

I don't follow. There's no such thing as determinism or "clockwork", the universe is very random & chaotic. But none of that makes or breaks free will

[Izzy]

I don't follow. There's no such thing as determinism or "clockwork", the universe is very random & chaotic. But none of that makes or breaks free will

That's my point. INdeterminism says that the universe is random, chaotic, and that "fate" science-wise is total bull, making it the opposite of the determinism. Determinism was thought to be like clockwork, so isn't what your explaining pretty much an insanely long definition of INdeterminism?

[unreality]

That's my point. INdeterminism says that the universe is random, chaotic, and that "fate" science-wise is total bull, making it the opposite of the determinism. Determinism was thought to be like clockwork, so isn't what your explaining pretty much an insanely long definition of INdeterminism?

Um, no. This has nothing to do with determinism or indeterminism. At all.

[Izzy]

Um, no. This has nothing to do with determinism or indeterminism. At all.

Doesn't it though? I may've misread.. But, dude what.

[unreality]

You're associating this with determinism/indeterminism debate, which was over a long time ago: determinism loses, randomism wins. I even stated that in the beginning of the post

All of the above was assuming that you accept quantum physics and random particle motion. But either way it doesn't matter, because the OP was based on free will. Clearly there is randomness in chaos in the universe (I stated such in the first paragraph). What I'm addressing is whether or not we have free will, which is different. My OP was not a "drawn out argument for indeterminism". If you think it was then reread it, please

Edited October 2, 2008 by unreality

[unreality]

Also, this post was made with an atheistic standpoint. I'm gonna be honest and say that we don't care what your religion preaches about free will, we know already . So if you're just going to post to say what your holy book says that a prophet said that a deity said about the issue, please don't bother ;D

[unreality]

I think I understand now where Izzy was confused.

She associated randomism (my name for what she called "indeterminism") with free will. Clearly they are both opposites of determinism.

But free will vs TOTAL randomism is a separate debate WITHIN randomism. I'm saying that free will emerges from complex structures within randomism, allowing for manipulation of the environment, while total randomism would say that we have no control whatsoever over our actions

[Yoruichi-san]

I've thought about the free will issue a lot as well, and my opinion is that we are all biological computers, albeit very VERY complex ones, and like computers, we have different layers of relay and information storage and processing, but like computers, our actions are the result of our hardware (body), coding (genetic predispositions), and inputs(environment). I understand your point about complexity, but I do not believe complexity gives us free will. Our neural pathways may not have been fully understood by scientists yet, but I believe as science and technology progresses, we're getting farther. Neuroscience is continually making progress into identifying what the parts of our brain do. I don't know if we'll ever be able to fully figure out the brain, but I believe it is at least theoretically possible to understand it's workings.

As for the "inputs", I believe that, since like AIs, we are learning beings, we take input from our experiences which our brain processes and stores for future use. Of course, we are also flawed AIs, in that sometimes the way our brains process new information is not perfectly logical, but based on efficiency of brain usage, or "heuristics" as the social psychologists call them. An extreme example of this is phobias, if we have a bad experience, say was bitten by a dog as a child, sometimes we "learn" to feel fear towards all dogs, even though this is not rational.

I am a staunch advocate of the results of Quantum Physics, which say that the future is probabilistic, not deterministic. I.e. there is some probability of every possible event occurring, which applies to neurons firing in certain ways as well. But based on our ability to observe and analyze, for example, the collapse of the wavefunction after an event, I believe that if we had perfect knowledge of how the brain works, and we had perfect knowledge of what inputs there were for a particular person during the span of their lifetime, we could explain every choice, every action they took, in scientific terms. It would be very complex, there would be many factors that effected it, it might require a ridiculously powerful supercomputer to perform the simulation, but I think it's possible, and there is no "free will" factor which needs to be incorporated.

Edit: Just saw the randomism things...wanted to add that I definitely don't think randomism is an indication of free will...like the function of a particle in quantum physics is based on probabilities which are effected by coulombic forces, but the particle does not have free will...probability and randomness is just part of nature.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Yoruichi-san

[Guest]

UR, I'm puzzled. Maybe I missed it scanning through this topic but at any point did you say what "free will" actually is?

I thought, no, I won't be lazy, I'll look it up in Wikipedia. Which does a similarly great job of avoiding that question.

I don't see how you can argue the existence of something you haven't defined, so I challenge you to come up with a useful definition. Just to get the ball rolling, here's a definition off the top of my head:

Free Will: The potential to choose between different outcomes in a given situation

Sounds all right, but under closer scrutiny you have to wonder what is meant by "potential" and "choose". Consider an atom of some radioactive element. Does it have the potential to choose when it decays?

In a deterministic "clockwork" universe there could only be one outcome in any situation. Only one thing you can think, or decide. Much like the decisions made by a computer program, only more complex. The outcome may be unpredictable in a practical sense, as in many chaotic systems. Is unpredictability free will? Add in an element of quantum randomness and you get, well, the same thing with a bit of randomness. Is randomness free will?

You argue that free will exists on a higher level, and as a (vague, as yet it seems undefined) concept, it does. People think they have choices. Thinking that you have choices is instrumental in the workings of our intelligence. We must recognise situations where a decision must be made. In some cases we cannot predict the decisions of other people or even our own, so we must keep an open mind about the future outcomes of decisions.* We call it a choice. We think it could go either way. But apart from the fairly obvious presence of a (perhaps illusory) concept of choice, what else are you suggesting?

* On consideration, there's more to it than that. We also hold people responsible for their decisions, and thinking that those decisions were completely determined by physical forces flies in the face of that. We have evolved to hold people responsible for who they are and what they do for very good large-scale social reasons. Our social behaviour requires us to think in these terms. We think of other human beings as discrete entities ("soul"/"mind"/"person") which make decisions for which they are responsible. The belief that a person could have chosen differently complements this. Hence free will. But that "could have" really only exists in the same sense that I "could have" been born the Queen of England. It didn't happen that way, so in what sense could it have? It's a mental short-cut, used for practical reasons, but not really true.

[unreality]

To boil it down into a very simple paragraph:

We have the ability to affect our surroundings. Many things do. Every thing does. Our brains, ant colonies, and everything else. The difference is that our brains, and ant colones, have developed, over time via evolution, the ability to make decisions based on input. Input -> Output Stuff goes in, decision gets made, stuff goes out. So what happens in the brain?

Well (okay two paragraphs ), reread my OP about emergent behavior in complex systems and whatnot, and that's how the decisions get made. Many individual autonomous parts following simple rules, and from this emerges intelligent behavior and decision-making. Intelligent as in 'it can solve the problems that it's presented with'.

Now what else is an emergent behavior of our brains? (okay three paragraphs ) Consciousness! A feeling of self that we hold special, but really many other mammals are also self-aware. Anyway, so "we" (our consciousness) and our brain are linked in that one results from the other. We aren't just the residents of our brain and our body, we ARE our brain and our body. Even though our "higher consciousness" may not be aware of all the goings-on of the more autonomous body parts, we ARE our brain. We ARE the decision-making processes that it does. That's why we are held accountable for our actions. Even if there is no free will (as it really depends on how you define the concept, in certain definitions I would say no, in others I would say yes), saying that you can't be held accountable for your actions is a silly excuse. You ARE your actions, and your mind = brain = the decisions you make based on your input.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not free will exists, because we can't go back in time and see if an outcome would happen differently, and if we could it would change everything so it would be different no matter what.

I'm saying that we react to our stimuli, but that we do have 'choice' in the matter of how we react. It may not be much choice - it could be as small as neurons disconnecting and reconnecting elsewhere to transmit an electrical signal - but from simple rules comes complex structures, and we didn't really consciously move that neuron, it's what our brain does. But we ARE our brain, so the brain's decisions are OUR decisions. That's what I'm trying to say. There were different ways we could've solved a problem, but we chose to solve it in a certain way, perhaps because over time the brain learned to solve it that way. And we are our brain

So maybe there was a misunderstanding about the definition of free will, but I think that the whole concept is vague and complex enough so that in a way it doesn't matter much ;D

[Guest]

Well, I think you're right that it doesn't matter much. We have a sense of having a consciousness and free will and that serves our needs even if it turns out to be an illusion. But I still don't know what you mean by your initial assertion that we have free will.

Let's consider another angle. Take the case of an artificial intelligence. If, by following strict deterministic rules, you could generate emergent intelligent behaviour (OK, mankind's progress in this area has been embarrassingly slow but I'm sure we'll get there in the end), would you consider that an example of free will?

If not, is that only because of the clearly deterministic nature of the system? Does our freedom of choice boil down to the existence of a random element?

[Guest]

please forgive me, but i dont really get what this topic is for. The OP is just a statement on your view on free will, unreality. What are you asking of? Anyway Unreality, why start a thread about Free Will existing? Why wouldn't most people agree that free will exists? (please prove me wrong if you can)

I believe that free will exists but I also believe in "Al-Qadar" which in Islam is kind of like pedestination. But not really. You can choose whatever the heck you want to do, and if God wills it, it happens. But the whole "predestination" bit is that God already knows all that's going to happen anyway so you're life's set out in a certain path, but you've chosen that path. Well that's my understanding of it anyway. It's a bit weird if you don't get what I'm talking about.

[unreality]

Well, I think you're right that it doesn't matter much. We have a sense of having a consciousness and free will and that serves our needs even if it turns out to be an illusion. But I still don't know what you mean by your initial assertion that we have free will.

Let's consider another angle. Take the case of an artificial intelligence. If, by following strict deterministic rules, you could generate emergent intelligent behaviour (OK, mankind's progress in this area has been embarrassingly slow but I'm sure we'll get there in the end), would you consider that an example of free will?

If not, is that only because of the clearly deterministic nature of the system? Does our freedom of choice boil down to the existence of a random element?

the AI would also have "free will" in the sense that you and I do, if we did. But I think we're thinking about different definitions - I'm not talking complete, free, independent free will. More of the fact that we do have responsibility for our decisions as our consciousness is a manifestation of our brain and thus we make the decisions we do based on our stimuli, our environment, and our brain. On a particle level, of course we don't have free will. Particles bouncing around randomly endows no such behavior. But on a higher concept, for example human interaction, we don't deal with particles, we deal with people, and thus "free will" in the way I'm defining it exists if it's only an illusion BECAUSE it's an illusion (on the lower level). Which is why it's a vague concept

[Guest]

the AI would also have "free will" in the sense that you and I do, if we did. But I think we're thinking about different definitions - I'm not talking complete, free, independent free will. More of the fact that we do have responsibility for our decisions as our consciousness is a manifestation of our brain and thus we make the decisions we do based on our stimuli, our environment, and our brain. On a particle level, of course we don't have free will. Particles bouncing around randomly endows no such behavior. But on a higher concept, for example human interaction, we don't deal with particles, we deal with people, and thus "free will" in the way I'm defining it exists if it's only an illusion BECAUSE it's an illusion (on the lower level). Which is why it's a vague concept

I see. If you think that free will could exist in a clearly deterministic system perhaps we are seeing it differently. Certainly the definition I proposed earlier wouldn't fit. OK, then. Free will exists because we think it does, because it's part of the way humans interpret the world. Is it, then, anything more than an artificial construct? A concept, which is used to simplify our perception of the real thing?

Consider the defence of a prisoner in the dock:

"I admit I committed all those crimes, since the prosecution has done such a good job of proving it. But, your honour, what you must bear in mind is that none of it is my fault. I was abandoned as a child, brought up in terrible circumstances, neglected and abused. I was never shown any love. Really, what chance did I ever have? Crime was the only avenue open to me. I never had the choices and opportunities that you had, so by punishing me all you will do is add to the cruelty and injustice I have already endured."

Clearly the prisoner is attempting to rid himself of responsibility for his own actions, but there is nevertheless a lot of truth in what he says. We are a product of our own pasts, and ultimately that comes down to factors outside our control. It just isn't very helpful to dwell on this.

Having children certainly brings the purpose of blame and responsibility into sharper focus. I know that my son is largely a product of his upbringing, so if he misbehaves why should I blame him? It's as much my fault as his own. That is largely the way I see it, but I wouldn't tell him that. As far as he's concerned, I hold him completely responsible. Taking responsibility is what he needs to do to become a better person, so as a parent I maintain a facade of infallibility and blame him completely for his every misdeed.

The judge in the prior example of the prisoner may take a similar view. While privately acknowledging the truth behind what the prisoner is saying, he does not wish to allow people to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions, as this would only encourage more crime. So the prisoner is held responsible, even though he did not choose or control the past that made him the person that he is, or the circumstances in which such a person would commit crime.

If you always hold people responsible for their actions, inevitably some situations occur in which the morality of this fails. The execution of deserters in World War 1 is today widely viewed as a terrible injustice. Certainly many of these could be considered conscientious objectors, choosing their own moral judgement over their official orders. But post traumatic stress disorder was probably the major factor in this. Since then PTSD has become more properly recognised and a different attitude is forming towards military personnel who desert for this reason. At some level of stress, there must come a point where individual judgement is so impaired that to hold an individual responsible for a failure to perform their duty becomes pointlessly inhumane.

Responsibility serves a practical purpose. In situations where it ceases to serve that purpose it becomes meaningless and pointless. I didn't hold my son responsible for crapping his nappies as a baby, because it wouldn't have made any difference if I did. There would only be sense in doing that if he had a choice in the matter, AND (this is the important bit) if holding him responsible was going to affect that choice.

[unreality]

I agree with you 100%

And I thought it was interesting that your last word was "choice" - this is what I mean by free will. I thought about it more last night and early this morning, and came to the conclusion [via some free will paradoxes and stuff and that we clearly affect the world around us with the choices our brain makes] is that free will is this:

Free Will = we have the ability to choose what we think

And, in a way, we do. Our brain chooses what to think about and how to think about it, and then comes up with a conclusion. We are our brain and thus we are this thinking process. So our consciousness is actively making these choices. The brain uses its biological makeup to think, solve problems and even be creative.

Most of our brain's activity is largely out of the control of our thinking, of course. We feel emotions, we don't choose to feel them. Same for many thoughts, urges, etc. I'm definitely not saying that we have total free will, and most of the "decision-making" falls under the 'unconscious' circle of our brain, or rather OUTSIDE of the 'consciousness' circle (think of an intersecting Venn diagram), but part of the "decision-making" of the brain intersects with the 'consciousness' part. Think of two circles, the left is "consciousness", the right is "decision making". The intersect is free will, at least with my definition of it, and I think yours too

Aaaanyway, I think responsibility is more interesting, actually. Free will is so vague and paradoxical that I'm starting to not care as much lol. Can we be held responsible for our actions? I say yes. Can an animal? It depends on the animal. We aren't much different from many other intelligent mammals, ones that know what they're doing, and as long as they know what they are doing is wrong according to the society that can punish them, they shouldn't do it. I mean that's what it boils down to, right?

Criminals should be held responsible not just philosophically (we are our brains, our brain did choose to commit that crime. Choices are definitely part of life), but also in a more grounded way, based on the fact that they are likely to commit another crime in the future. "Detain the uncooperative organisms" would be a nice evolutionary way to say it lol

[Guest]

And I thought it was interesting that your last word was "choice" - this is what I mean by free will.

I realised that this was a somewhat ironic use of language, but what the hell, our language is based around these concepts and sometimes there's no other way to say things, more about "choice" in a moment...

Free Will = we have the ability to choose what we think

Maybe you're interpreting this in a different way, to me it doesn't help. Choosing and thinking amount to more or less the same thing, but I'm sure you don't mean anything so banal as "the ability to think what we think". Which leaves me with the conclusion that you view choice as being something which takes place on a different level, and I can't help but wonder if you are trying to imply something beyond causality. In my opinion what we think is determined entirely by our previous state of mind, plus any further stimuli that arrived in the meantime. Cause and effect, in other words. Maybe with some degree of randomness. But choice? Where does the ability to "choose" come into it? The idea of choice has appeal to those who believe in the supernatural because such belief allows us to throw any inconvenient rules out the window and say "there is a supernatural element to our minds which goes beyond causality (in some mysterious supernatural way that nobody can understand so don't bother trying)". But without the supernatural you're stuck with causality. Like the AI system I mentioned a few posts back, all behaviour is determined entirely by what goes into the system. So what are you really saying about "choosing what we think"? Are you referring to the illusion of potential to do things differently, which is largely a result of the fact that we cannot predict choices and therefore they seem not to be causal (because we cannot fully see the causality)?

Aaaanyway, I think responsibility is more interesting, actually. Free will is so vague and paradoxical that I'm starting to not care as much lol. Can we be held responsible for our actions? I say yes. Can an animal? It depends on the animal.

I agree provided the word "can" is understood in an entirely practical sense, rather than some general moral/philosophical sense. That's kind of the point I was making about responsibility being a false construct, used for practical (social) reasons. It is not a thing that exists in a wider philosophical sense. And I would say that the same applies to free will.

[unreality]

Yeah, like I said, I agree with you there. And as I've said, at the basic level we are all just particles. Clearly we have no control over that. There is nothing "extra" to our mind. And that's exactly why we choose what we choose! I know it doesn't make any sense yet lol, but think about it this way: we are our brain, right? Our consciousness, self-awareness, thinking, etc, are actions of our brain. However the conscious part only covers a small part of what goes on in the brain of course. A tiny percentage. And the entire brain is the thinking process. So what we think is controlled by previous states and randomness, yes, but we did choose to think that, because we ARE our brains, and our brain DID choose to think that.

You seem to be operating on the premise that the 'brain' and 'mind' are different, and the 'brain', based on its previous experiences, decides what the 'mind' thinks. That's true - however it's also true that the 'brain' and 'mind' are the same thing (or one is part of the other, that is), so 'the brain decided what the mind thinks' also means 'the mind decided what the mind thinks' etc. It may all be an illusion, but it actually doesn't matter

And that's the extent of my opinion on this one, take it or leave it I guess

edit: the interesting thing about this is that if you add in a religious concept of a "soul", this takes away free will, rather than vice versa. Because it's essentially proved that the 'brain' does the thinking, so if someone thinks the 'mind/soul' is somehow different and unconnected, than they don't have free will, whereas if your mind=brain, then you do (At least by my definition)

Edited October 4, 2008 by unreality

[unreality]

Octopuppy, if we cannot choose what we think and what we do, then why do we think at all? Why are we conscious? I think evolution must give creatures the ability to control their brain somehow; it's well known that the brain reconnects its neurons all the time. Atoms and particles are the units we are based on, but life has grown to be so much more.

So, if we cannot have any impact on what we think or do, what do you do? What do I do? Should we just sit around glumly? But then choosing to do so means we had a choice in the matter! We should choose to not do that, and continue making choices - but then we made a choice! It's sort of like the Lazy-Bones paradox, but different too

For most of my life I've thought we had free will, just because it's the default sensation of the human brain. Then in the past couple months I thought more about it and concluded, like you, that we cannot possibly have free will. But then I thought of how emergent behavior arises from complex systems, and then about how we seem to be able to think about what we want to think about it, which in turn affects what we do which affects the physical world. I'm not sure how exactly it's possible, but I'm definitely beginning to think that we have some sort of free will

[Guest]

Free Will = we have the ability to choose what we think

Bull Crap.

When I used to go to L.A. Fitness I remember the men there have a habit of walking around the locker room naked- especiallly old, old men....

If I could "choose my thoughts," I wouldn't have spent my entire workout reliving those gruesome images in my mind.

No matter how many attractive women I saw in the gym afterwards, those saggy, hairy old men had been permanently etched in my mind.

Maybe a better definition of free will wouldn't involve choosing what we think about, but how we think about it?

Basically our personality (on the inside- that conveys to our words and actions on the outside).

Just tossin' that out there...

[unreality]

Yeah.... if you read more of my post, I said that most of what we think is reaction to stimuli. I agree with the personality thing

[Guest]

And as I've said, at the basic level we are all just particles. Clearly we have no control over that. There is nothing "extra" to our mind. And that's exactly why we choose what we choose! I know it doesn't make any sense yet lol, but think about it this way: we are our brain, right? Our consciousness, self-awareness, thinking, etc, are actions of our brain. However the conscious part only covers a small part of what goes on in the brain of course. A tiny percentage. And the entire brain is the thinking process. So what we think is controlled by previous states and randomness, yes, but we did choose to think that, because we ARE our brains, and our brain DID choose to think that.

What exactly do you mean by "choose to think that" as opposed to just "think that"? I still don't get what sort of point you're making about free will or the existence of choice.

Octopuppy, if we cannot choose what we think and what we do, then why do we think at all? Why are we conscious?

We are a product of evolution. We have information processing capabilities that we have developed to give our species an edge over others. We recognise decisions that need to be made and until we have made those decisions we consider their outcome to be unknown. Thinking we have a free choice is part of the decision-making process.

I think evolution must give creatures the ability to control their brain somehow

Here we get to the heart of the matter. The brain controls the creature, not the other way around. What controls the brain? Circumstance.

If you think that creatures control their brains, what part of the creature is exercising this control? Their soul?

So, if we cannot have any impact on what we think or do, what do you do? What do I do? Should we just sit around glumly? But then choosing to do so means we had a choice in the matter!

...or that making that decision was inevitable under those circumstances (or not inevitable but a random outcome). We do what we do. We think what we think. We think we have choices because that's part of the way we think. Even if we think (theoretically) that we don't really have choice, our thinking processes are relatively unaffected.

For most of my life I've thought we had free will, just because it's the default sensation of the human brain. Then in the past couple months I thought more about it and concluded, like you, that we cannot possibly have free will. But then I thought of how emergent behavior arises from complex systems, and then about how we seem to be able to think about what we want to think about it, which in turn affects what we do which affects the physical world. I'm not sure how exactly it's possible, but I'm definitely beginning to think that we have some sort of free will

I wonder if it's maybe subconscious input that's confusing you. I'm sure this is a gross oversimplification, but I think it would be fair to say that humans have two minds. The conscious mind has the wonderful ability to be aware of its own workings, and is able to be used in very versatile ways. It's like the debug version of a piece of software; inefficient, slow and processor-hungry, but useful nevertheless. In my opinion the conscious mind is the major development that separates humans from other animals (not that they don't have a conscious mind, but we have developed it further and turned it to new uses). As such, it is a recent development in evolutionary terms, which is perhaps why it is so inefficient and requires effort to use.

The subconscious, on the other hand, is a lean, well-developed, information processing engine, honed over many more millions of years of evolution. It's more like the release version of the software; fast, efficient, but effectively a black box when it comes to understanding what's going on inside. In terms of processing power it easily beats the conscious mind, but it simply takes available input and tells us what to do (largely based on evolutionary imperatives), giving the conscious mind very little control over it. In practice I think we use the two together quite a lot, but it creates a situation where we have a clear conscious stream of thought, which we are aware of, plus input from the subconscious which seems to pop out of nowhere with no explanation. So when you talk about "choosing what to think" perhaps you are talking about (invisible) subconscious processes making decisions which drive the (visible) conscious mind.

[unreality]

Yeah probably I think we've discussed everything to be discussed