Free Will

[Rich Engle]

I'm still trying to work with "Example A."

I think it's "Do a line, if you're into it and can behave yourself. If not, don't do the line."

Doh.

[galtgulch]

. You are actually trying to cut out consciousness itself, but are stopped by the contradiction albeit willfully oblivious to it all. To put it another way, epistemology is a subcategory to metaphysics just as ethics is a subcategory to epistemology and politics is a subcategory to ethics. If there were no suddenly no more humans--mirabile dictu!--all four would disappear immediately although physical reality would remain.

--Brant

Consciousness is one of the doings of a live working brain. It is a physical effect from physical causes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Consciousness including actual thoughts or concepts are not physical entities. You contend that they are physical so I would like to know just what units of measure would apply? In other words, prove it!

gulch

[Rich Engle]

"Consciousness including actual thoughts or concepts are not physical entities. You contend that they are physical so I would like to know just what units of measure would apply? In other words, prove it!"

But, as strong as physical entities are (and they are), it's apples/oranges. At least where humans are involved. Why apply units of measure here? Based on physical actions? That's a trap. What about planned stuff that happens in the background. Thoughts are equally powerful in the end, if not more so. Hitler had thoughts. They manifested physically quite visibly. If you just look at movings in the physical world, it doesn't account for the human quotient. Our nasty thoughts. Where do you think all the trouble comes from? Ideas. So, they might as WELL be physical.

[tjohnson]

Consciousness including actual thoughts or concepts are not physical entities. You contend that they are physical so I would like to know just what units of measure would apply? In other words, prove it!

gulch

If thoughts are not physical then what are they?

[Roger Bissell]

Consciousness including actual thoughts or concepts are not physical entities. You contend that they are physical so I would like to know just what units of measure would apply? In other words, prove it!

gulch

If thoughts are not physical then what are they?

I agree with GS. The mind is the brain/CNS, and the brain/CNS is physical; thoughts are one of the things the brain does, so thoughts are physical, too.

In measuring anything you are aware of, you have to use an attribute accessible and measurable within that mode of awareness. A brain process that you experience as a thought has to be measured introspectively in terms of its intensity and/or its scope. Once researchers are able to pinpoint the part of the brain that activates when we carry out a thinking process, we will also be able to measure the thought in electrochemical terms by instruments whose readings we can perceive.

But until we are able to do so, this does not mean that our introspective awareness and measurement of thoughts is non-physical. It just means that we do not yet have a ~perceptual~ means of being aware of and measuring our thoughts. (But look out for the MRI!)

jAlso, Just because a thought doesn't "look" (i.e., "introspect") like a brain process doesn't mean it isn't one, any more than a thunder clap's not sounding like a lightning bolt looks means that it isn't the same event as the lightning bolt. It ~is~ the same event, just accessed through another channel of awareness -- and a thought ~is~ the same event as a brain process, just accessed through another channel of awareness.

People talk about the mind having causal efficacy, making the body do things. Hmmm. Gosh, the brain also has causal efficacy, making the body do things. Are the mind and the brain fighting for control of the body? Does the non-physical mind sometimes win over the physical brain, but sometimes lose? Or is the whole distinction of mind and brain simply one due to mode of awareness? Hmmm. Could it be that they're actually the same entity, just experienced through different channels of awareness?

Suppose they are? Would that make our lives any less precious? Our selves any less autonomous? Our actions any less self-directed? I don't think so.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Rather than either-or, with one winning over the other, why not be open to the possibility that the mind can be a primary cause for some things and not for others?

I understand volition to be the faculty of identifying and choosing as a primary cause. All other identifications and choices are made based on prewiring and stimulus-response reactions.

In other words, we have both.

I just don't see one faculty negating the other. Instead, I see them interacting and overlapping.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Roger,

Rather than either-or, with one winning over the other, why not be open to the possibility that the mind can be a primary cause for some things and not for others?

I understand volition to be the faculty of identifying and choosing as a primary cause. All other identifications and choices are made based on prewiring and stimulus-response reactions.

In other words, we have both.

I just don't see one faculty negating the other. Instead, I see them interacting and overlapping.

Michael

So you are saying that the "mind" is that part of brain activity that is not under our involuntary control? So some of our brain/CNS activity we can control and some we cannot (pre-wired)?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

I started to answer you, but that phrase "under our involuntary control" suddenly caught the corner of my eye. Then it got bigger and bigger. Then it loomed up taking center stage.

I have no idea what that could mean in concrete terms (as stated), but is certainly sends my mind off in tangents.

Michael

[tjohnson]

GS,

I started to answer you, but that phrase "under our involuntary control" suddenly caught the corner of my eye. Then it got bigger and bigger. Then it loomed up taking center stage.

I have no idea what that could mean in concrete terms (as stated), but is certainly sends my mind off in tangents.

Michael

Well, I was referring to your use of 'prewired" and I sort of replaced it with that but I admit it is kind of awkward. What about my 2nd question? So some of our brain/CNS activity we can control and some we cannot (pre-wired)? So would 'mind' refer to activities we can control?

[bmacwilliam]

Roger,

Rather than either-or, with one winning over the other, why not be open to the possibility that the mind can be a primary cause for some things and not for others?

I understand volition to be the faculty of identifying and choosing as a primary cause. All other identifications and choices are made based on prewiring and stimulus-response reactions.

In other words, we have both.

I just don't see one faculty negating the other. Instead, I see them interacting and overlapping.

Michael

What I don't understand is the usefulness of arguing pro or con free will without facing up to whether or not it's possible - ever - to tell the difference between free will and perception of free will. Just because we feel like we have it, doesn't mean jack. Again, this is one of the reasons I find Rand tough to read when she so strongly adheres to a position that is probably wrong, or at best questionable and rather obviously so.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but free will is hardly assured or even likely. I'd say it's more likely that it's only an illusion, but philosophically, is there any way - ever - we could know the answer???

Edited February 2, 2009 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Self-awareness is part of volition. I don't understand the insinuation that self-awareness somehow detracts from the mind's existence.

As for the mind per se, all you have to do is look at your own thoughts and look around you at at the behavior of everyone else. You often see people doing stuff for no other reason than they want to. That's the mind. If you really want to see the mind (conceptual volition) at work, look at productive achievement.

Brain + mind? Brain only? Whatever...

The truth is that what I call a mind is a causal agent, a primary cause, a prime mover. It has a specific nature, but it is not an effect of its components. There is interaction between the mind and components, but the mind is far more than that. (This is often expressed as the whole is greater than the parts.)

Rand's position is quite simple. If it exists, say so. Then figure out what it is made of.

That approach works for me. Frankly, I don't understand why people go to great lengths to try to somehow prove that the mind doesn't exist. But they do. Maybe they are not using their minds at such time?

(Actually and ironically, they are.)

Michael

[Flagg]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but free will is hardly assured or even likely. I'd say it's more likely that it's only an illusion, but philosophically, is there any way - ever - we could know the answer???

An illusion of what?

[bmacwilliam]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but free will is hardly assured or even likely. I'd say it's more likely that it's only an illusion, but philosophically, is there any way - ever - we could know the answer???

An illusion of what?

What I mean is that because of extreme complexity, even if we are completely classically deterministic and have no free will at all, or have complete free will or anywhere in between, is there any way we could ever, even hypothetically, tell the difference? Just because it 'feels' like we have free will, to me at least, is a very weak argument.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but free will is hardly assured or even likely. I'd say it's more likely that it's only an illusion, but philosophically, is there any way - ever - we could know the answer???

An illusion of what?

What I mean is that because of extreme complexity, even if we are completely classically deterministic and have no free will at all, or have complete free will or anywhere in between, is there any way we could ever, even hypothetically, tell the difference? Just because it 'feels' like we have free will, to me at least, is a very weak argument.

I have not been following this thread very closely, but I'd like to point out that we develop patterns of behavior in our minds over time for various reasons and that these are like well trod paths that we naturally follow creating the illusion we have no choice but to be on that road at that time. It's mostly habit and sometimes laziness or failure to think, introspect and otherwise understand what we are doing and why. "We have no choice!" is not an argument against free will. Free will is not an atomistic characteristic of a human being, but part of his multi-faceted living, breathing context. The fact one has it doesn't mean one is going to use it.

--Brant