Free will, a proposal (and the confusion about determinism)

This is in response to the many arguing against the existence of free will. To some extent I agree with user papackar, it may be that as of today it has normative and not descriptive meaning. The confusion of many I think is that they view those in favor of the existence of free will as refuting physical laws. I disagree.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• free
• will
• determinism
• indeterminism
• causality
• veto
• quantum
• physics
• papackar
• GnosticAtheist
• g0at
• burnvictim77
• Elaina43

[optifog]

The part of you that matters in certain contexts is your conscious awareness. If your conscious awareness is merely a result of inevitable processes in the brain, then your consciousness has no more free will (control) than the heat generated when a computer makes a decision. It's just a by-product. It is merely aware of some of the processes behind the decision being made, not in control of the process.

[schrodcat]

"your consciousness has no more free will (control) than the heat generated when a computer makes a decision. It's just a by-product"

Problem is. A by-product of WHAT? I've asked several times, nobody ever answered. If it's irrelevant, then, evolutionarily speaking, consciousness (awareness) shouldn't exist, because it serves no purpose. My foot obeys my brain's orders, but he cannot explain why. That should happen to me. Why it doesn't? Making comparisons with computers misses the whole point.

[optifog]

I know that sounds bizarre but to the best of my knowledge, no one has identified the process that causes consciousness. Therefore, we have no reason to assume that it must be unique to the brain. Parts of the human brain are merely the only objects capable of both thinking and communicating about the experience of consciousness. For all we know, other parts of the brain, body and even inorganic matter have consciousness too, but the consciousness is connected to much simpler chemical reactions.

[schrodcat]

"computers generate heat as a by-product"

Well, that's an easy way out, isn't it? But it doesn't answer my question anyway. We know what generates heat. On the other hand, consciousness, or awareness, is this big mystery that, in your view, could just not have been, and for me is a giant scientific problem (much harder than heat, because I would argue it is highly complex).

"we have no reason to assume that it must be unique to the brain"

It could be, hypothetically. I would be shocked though.

[schrodcat]

"Way out of what?"

I just meant that it could become a universal answer to difficult questions: because there is stuff that is by-product, then any stuff can be by-product. But to say that it is by-product, without effectively KNOWING that it is, is to say nothing.

"I know of no theory for how something non-material [...] can influence the workings of material objects"

I guess you have never heard of the wave function of quantum mechanics. Can you touch it? No! Does it influence objects? Yes!

[optifog]

Just noticed that the fact that I'm thinking that means that consciousness has indeed influenced the workings of my brain, or I wouldn't be thinking about it. =P I should clarify: I don't see how it can deliberately and directly control the workings of a material object. If it did, wouldn't I be consciously aware of every chemical event that facilitates every conscious decision? Instead I'm just aware of the sensations (including feelings and ideas) and conclusions that result.

[optifog]

Way out of what? It's just an analogy for how powerless consciousness might be. If your question is what causes consciousness, then I don't know. Whatever causes it, I see no reason to think that it has any power, or any theory to explain how it might have power, as it's a subjective experience. I know of no theory for how something non-material (you can't reach out and touch consciousness, but you can touch a brain because it's matter) can influence the workings of material objects.

[optifog]

"My foot obeys my brain's orders, but he cannot explain why. Why it doesn't?"

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but your foot cannot explain why because it doesn't have the processing capabilities to do so. Certain parts of your brain do have the ability to process that sort of information. I don't know why this activity produces consciousness of some of that process, but until we know what causes consciousness, in theory your foot could be conscious of processes too, but different ones.

[optifog]

I agree that the process that produces consciousness doesn't seem to be known yet. I don't see reason to assume that it would arise only if it conferred evolutionary advantage though. Again, computers generate heat as a by-product because it's inevitable, not because it's useful. Perhaps certain parts of the brain undergo chemical or subatomic reactions that produce consciousness. Or perhaps consciousness is not unique to living beings. Only humans can talk about it but other things may have it.

[MSlapik]

I though this for a while, but the only logical conclusion is that one should lose faith in his ideas. Because thought is predestined, it occurs only because of the environment and not because it holds true. Any theories people have only exist because they are the products of the environment. Although from your perspective it may seem like it makes sense, (just as it appears you have free will) it well may not hold true. Because of this one should not hold on to their ideas as fact.