6 ms·

I would argue that it's pretty obvious nobody has free will in the sense that there's some kind of "soul" controlling your thoughts and actions. Your brain is

I would argue that it's pretty obvious nobody has free will in the sense that there's some kind of "soul" controlling your thoughts and actions. Your brain is a biological computer. You zap parts and it makes you move. You give it some chemical inhibitors or promoters and your mood changes. You give it drugs and it hallucinates and thinks differently. The brain isn't supernatural and there is zero evidence that supports the concept of spiritual will influencing it. Just like there's zero evidence of psychics, magic wands, or physics-violating miracles. It's all make believe.

teilo 5y ago
If you think it is that simple, then you do not quite understand superdeterminism and the hard problem of consciousness. Also, your examples are not entirely accurate. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that zapping a part of the brain cannot consistently override the will, and the correlation to, for example, the motion of a limb to the activity of the brain does not stay consistent, but disappears after multiple attempts when the subject under experimentation resists. That doesn't prove that the will is independent from the brain, but so far, no one has found where the will expresses itself in the brain. Right now it is just taken on faith that it does so somehow. And then there is perception. We can find general correlations for areas of the brain that respond to shape, color, smell, and kinesthetic sense, but nowhere where the various senses are assimilated and correlated into a cohesive perception. We can alter mood, and induce hallucinations, but again, have no model as to how either translates to perception and self-awareness. Before we can determine whether the will is free, we first need to define what the will and perception and self-awareness even is, and how it arises. And we don't have a clue where to start.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  > for example, the motion of a limb to the activity of the brain does not stay consistent That makes sense tho, because the motion of your limbs are controlled in part by neurons (and other things) that are not in your brain. Muscle memory, for example, isn't just a metaphor, you literally have neurons in your foot that have memory which allows you to react faster than it takes for signals to reach your brain, eg if you step on a bed of hot coals. > no one has found where the will expresses itself in the brain Why does there have to be one place? Your "will" is the combination of interactions between not only all parts of your brain, but all parts of your body. > nowhere where the various senses are assimilated and correlated into a cohesive perception. This is the part that gets me. I have a cohesive cognitive experience where I can sense and think many things simultaneously. I don't understand any reductionist explanation for the existence of my experience. It seems like an impossible thing for a collections of atoms in the brain to create. That hard problem of consciousness is really and truely hard. However, "free will" to me seems easy by comparison. Your brain (and body) acts based on its structure. You are the structure, and the structure determines what you decide to do. You have some starting conditions, you use those starting conditions to decide to do things (go to school, find a job, cross the street) and at the end of it, you've changed the structure of your brain such that you'll make different decisions now. I think that's as free as free will gets really, despite the fact that we may live in a deterministic universe.
  - BeKindAndLearn 5y ago
    > This is the part that gets me. I have a cohesive cognitive experience where I can sense and think many things simultaneously. I don't understand any reductionist explanation for the existence of my experience. It seems like an impossible thing for a collections of atoms in the brain to create. I only said that there's no spiritual force acting on the body. It's clearly evident by the fact brain damage can radically alter your personality. That wouldn't make sense with free will. But I never claimed to know anything at all about the perception of existence, that's a much more prickly discussion because any answer is basically impossible to actually prove. I personally see no contradiction with the reductionist model here though. You aren't one individual part of the system that has everything fed into you, you are the entire whole of moving parts in unison perceiving itself. The problem some people have with this is that they think that because they are one person and perceive one "them" that their must be a single "thing" making that perception. The idea of consciousness as an abstract emergent property is therefore hard to accept. You don't feel like a billion neurons, you feel like Dave (sorry if your not Dave and I ruined the immersion). But if those billion neurons are coordinating together to form a thought about feeling like Dave while juggling all those senses, the state exists in the system. Thus the abstract construct that believes itself is Dave exists in some ephemeral way. Dave exists because the state that makes up "Dave-ness" exists. And even if there's an ethereal component, ultimately that ephemeral state is what determines all perception. They're instrinsically tied and therefore trying to distinguish them doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Especially when there is no reason to believe the ethereal exists at all. I'll be completely honest, this paradigm shift was made easier for me from a couple acid trips back in the day. It's a lot easier to come to terms with if you're able to cast off the philosophical hindrance of an ego for a moment and think about how, say, an ant feels. And if the colony acts a single unit, does the colony experience "ant colony-ness" - whatever that may be? Does that emergence apply to molds? And why would this perception only apply to the biological state of nervous systems. Wouldn't such a perception of existence also apply to inanimate things like atoms "feeling" like an atom or enormous scales like ecosystems or planets as a whole? So in my opinion (feel free to laugh or disagree, haha) it only makes sense that this fundamental perception is shared by all things that exist at every level and in all combinations of state. The state of my full brain's experience and senses and thoughts exist, and therefore I do as well. A little twist on Descartes. :) Anyway, I find this desperate search for meaning lower and lower is counter productive. Your brain is segments. Your segments are nerves. Your nerves are cells. Your cells are organelles. Organelles are structures. Structures are molecules. Molecules are atoms. Atoms are, etc etc etc. Even if someone wants to look toward quantum mechanics for the soul, there would still not be one single place where this would happen, it would be the coordination of countless subatomic systems interacting and your experience of being you would still be emergent. Sorry if I rambled a bit there. I hope you have a fantastic day!

teilo 5y ago

If you think it is that simple, then you do not quite understand superdeterminism and the hard problem of consciousness. Also, your examples are not entirely accurate. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that zapping a part of the brain cannot consistently override the will, and the correlation to, for example, the motion of a limb to the activity of the brain does not stay consistent, but disappears after multiple attempts when the subject under experimentation resists. That doesn't prove that the will is independent from the brain, but so far, no one has found where the will expresses itself in the brain. Right now it is just taken on faith that it does so somehow. And then there is perception. We can find general correlations for areas of the brain that respond to shape, color, smell, and kinesthetic sense, but nowhere where the various senses are assimilated and correlated into a cohesive perception. We can alter mood, and induce hallucinations, but again, have no model as to how either translates to perception and self-awareness. Before we can determine whether the will is free, we first need to define what the will and perception and self-awareness even is, and how it arises. And we don't have a clue where to start.

billytetrud 5y ago
> for example, the motion of a limb to the activity of the brain does not stay consistent That makes sense tho, because the motion of your limbs are controlled in part by neurons (and other things) that are not in your brain. Muscle memory, for example, isn't just a metaphor, you literally have neurons in your foot that have memory which allows you to react faster than it takes for signals to reach your brain, eg if you step on a bed of hot coals. > no one has found where the will expresses itself in the brain Why does there have to be one place? Your "will" is the combination of interactions between not only all parts of your brain, but all parts of your body. > nowhere where the various senses are assimilated and correlated into a cohesive perception. This is the part that gets me. I have a cohesive cognitive experience where I can sense and think many things simultaneously. I don't understand any reductionist explanation for the existence of my experience. It seems like an impossible thing for a collections of atoms in the brain to create. That hard problem of consciousness is really and truely hard. However, "free will" to me seems easy by comparison. Your brain (and body) acts based on its structure. You are the structure, and the structure determines what you decide to do. You have some starting conditions, you use those starting conditions to decide to do things (go to school, find a job, cross the street) and at the end of it, you've changed the structure of your brain such that you'll make different decisions now. I think that's as free as free will gets really, despite the fact that we may live in a deterministic universe.
- BeKindAndLearn 5y ago
  > This is the part that gets me. I have a cohesive cognitive experience where I can sense and think many things simultaneously. I don't understand any reductionist explanation for the existence of my experience. It seems like an impossible thing for a collections of atoms in the brain to create. I only said that there's no spiritual force acting on the body. It's clearly evident by the fact brain damage can radically alter your personality. That wouldn't make sense with free will. But I never claimed to know anything at all about the perception of existence, that's a much more prickly discussion because any answer is basically impossible to actually prove. I personally see no contradiction with the reductionist model here though. You aren't one individual part of the system that has everything fed into you, you are the entire whole of moving parts in unison perceiving itself. The problem some people have with this is that they think that because they are one person and perceive one "them" that their must be a single "thing" making that perception. The idea of consciousness as an abstract emergent property is therefore hard to accept. You don't feel like a billion neurons, you feel like Dave (sorry if your not Dave and I ruined the immersion). But if those billion neurons are coordinating together to form a thought about feeling like Dave while juggling all those senses, the state exists in the system. Thus the abstract construct that believes itself is Dave exists in some ephemeral way. Dave exists because the state that makes up "Dave-ness" exists. And even if there's an ethereal component, ultimately that ephemeral state is what determines all perception. They're instrinsically tied and therefore trying to distinguish them doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Especially when there is no reason to believe the ethereal exists at all. I'll be completely honest, this paradigm shift was made easier for me from a couple acid trips back in the day. It's a lot easier to come to terms with if you're able to cast off the philosophical hindrance of an ego for a moment and think about how, say, an ant feels. And if the colony acts a single unit, does the colony experience "ant colony-ness" - whatever that may be? Does that emergence apply to molds? And why would this perception only apply to the biological state of nervous systems. Wouldn't such a perception of existence also apply to inanimate things like atoms "feeling" like an atom or enormous scales like ecosystems or planets as a whole? So in my opinion (feel free to laugh or disagree, haha) it only makes sense that this fundamental perception is shared by all things that exist at every level and in all combinations of state. The state of my full brain's experience and senses and thoughts exist, and therefore I do as well. A little twist on Descartes. :) Anyway, I find this desperate search for meaning lower and lower is counter productive. Your brain is segments. Your segments are nerves. Your nerves are cells. Your cells are organelles. Organelles are structures. Structures are molecules. Molecules are atoms. Atoms are, etc etc etc. Even if someone wants to look toward quantum mechanics for the soul, there would still not be one single place where this would happen, it would be the coordination of countless subatomic systems interacting and your experience of being you would still be emergent. Sorry if I rambled a bit there. I hope you have a fantastic day!