Can Free Will Possibly Exist?

[punkbass2000]

Apropos of not much in particular:

If consciousness is omnipresent, then is there any point in speaking of individual consciousnesses ("my consciousness," "your consciousness")?

No. However, since our experience is primarily based upon our sensory perceptions, which are disparate, and not our consciousness per se, there can be value in the concept.

 

[punkbass2000]

I must admit to not having followed this thread from the start, and really just getting back into it because someone quoted me... but weren't you previously asking warpus/bill3000 for details on how one observes consciousness yourself?

I suspect that your argument is no more or less "true" than saying that the spatial extent of consciousness lies somewhere in the brain, and the temporal extent is from "birth" to death, since we both admit to never having observed either.

It's not an argument. Just an observation. I have thought on this problem for many years, changing which animals I thought to have consciousness, considering whether anyone other than myself has consciousness. I eventually realized that consciousness has no beginning nor end.

 

[punkbass2000]

Right, it originates nowhere specific in the brain, although I'm sure it likes to play around in a specific area of it.

Prove that the brain produces it.

What does that even mean?

Are you unfamiliar with any of those words?

I would agree; nobody as of yet in this thread has produced a convincing argument outlining another origin..

Nobody has provided a convincing argument for the brain being the origin, either.

 

[punkbass2000]

otherwise you couldn't hold anyone responsible for his/her own actions.

Yes you could. Quite easily.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

q: Do you believe in the concept of free will?
a: Yes, to a point (please elaborate)

I think you must believe in free will, otherwise you couldn't hold anyone responsible for his/her own actions.

Yes you could. Quite easily.

No you couldn't, but you don't need to. Remove free will and the justice system remains essentially the same, but now as a set of incentives.

 

[punkbass2000]

Sure we can. We can hold people responsible for whatever we want to.

 

[sourboy]

a great majority of our habits are developed while we are still infants, simply by being placed in a specific environment. Do you really think you would grow up any differently?

What you're describing has no relation to given decision making abilities, but rather chance/genetics. Genetics are not a choice, so they can be ruled out. Environment is only "encouragement" -- not a guaranteed outcome.

 

[Mise]

It's not an argument. Just an observation. I have thought on this problem for many years, changing which animals I thought to have consciousness, considering whether anyone other than myself has consciousness. I eventually realized that consciousness has no beginning nor end.

Okay, well, in that case, I'll continue to side with warpus when he points to the brain as the most likely candidate for consciousness, since, while I don't believe that all things with brains (as we know them) have consciousness, I do believe that all things without brains lack consciousness.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Okay, well, in that case, I'll continue to side with warpus when he points to the brain as the most likely candidate for consciousness, since, while I don't believe that all things with brains (as we know them) have consciousness, I do believe that all things without brains lack consciousness.

Mise, you live in a house. Would Warpus be correct to assume that your house created you?

 

[CartesianFart]

I do believe that all things without brains lack consciousness.

Really?If a rock have no brain,can you say that the rock have no consiousness?

 

[Mise]

Mise, you live in a house. Would Warpus be correct to assume that your house created you?

No, but lacking any other information, it would be the most likely candidate.

Imagine we found a brand new mineral buried deep within a very specific rock formation. We've never found this mineral anywhere else. Wouldn't it be sensible to conclude that there was something about the rock formation that allowed the mineral to form, that was lacking in other rock formations?

Really?If a rock have no brain,can you say that the rock have no consiousness?

I can't say for certain, but no, I don't believe that rocks have consciousness...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

No, but lacking any other information, it would be the most likely candidate.

Imagine we found a brand new mineral buried deep within a very specific rock formation. We've never found this mineral anywhere else. Wouldn't it be sensible to conclude that there was something about the rock formation that allowed the mineral to form, that was lacking in other rock formations?

It would be sensible, but at least we do know that in the case of you and your house, that it would be an incorrect assumption.

I think the brain is like a lens that focuses the suns rays. The lens is using the light, changing it, focusing it, but its not the light.

 

[Brighteye]

Prove that the brain produces it.

Nobody has provided a convincing argument for the brain being the origin, either.

Consciousness stops when the brain stops working. Consciousness returns when the brain starts working. Nothing without a brain displays symptoms of insight. Short of discarding the scientific method, it's a fact that brains cause consciousness

Imagine we found a brand new mineral buried deep within a very specific rock formation. We've never found this mineral anywhere else. Wouldn't it be sensible to conclude that there was something about the rock formation that allowed the mineral to form, that was lacking in other rock formations?

It depends on the rarity. If it was new, it'd be rare, and then we might explain it's specificity for that rock by its rarity rather than any correlation.

 

[Mise]

It depends on the rarity. If it was new, it'd be rare, and then we might explain it's specificity for that rock by its rarity rather than any correlation.

And if it were found in abundance in the rock, but only in the rock?

 

[punkbass2000]

Consciousness stops when the brain stops working. Consciousness returns when the brain starts working. Nothing without a brain displays symptoms of insight. Short of discarding the scientific method, it's a fact that brains cause consciousness.

Is there anything to your argument which is not tautological?

 

[punkbass2000]

Okay, well, in that case, I'll continue to side with warpus when he points to the brain as the most likely candidate for consciousness, since, while I don't believe that all things with brains (as we know them) have consciousness, I do believe that all things without brains lack consciousness.

That's fine, but I'd like some proof if you can provide it.

 

[aneeshm]

Consciousness stops when the brain stops working. Consciousness returns when the brain starts working. Nothing without a brain displays symptoms of insight. Short of discarding the scientific method, it's a fact that brains cause consciousness

This supports the "brain as a necessary interface" theory as much as it does the "brain as a cause" one.

 

[warpus]

I eventually realized that consciousness has no beginning nor end.

I still don't understand what you mean by that!

Prove that the brain produces it.

I don't know of any other organ that would be capable of such a thing. Can you? All signs seem to point to "brain".

Any alternate origin should be considered an extraordinary claim and be accompanied by extraordinary evidence, or be discarded.

Nobody has provided a convincing argument for the brain being the origin, either.

We are able to alter consciousness by poking around in the brain. That to me is a huge indication that that's where it originates.

Again, do you have any evidence to suggest it might originate elsewhere? If so, where?

I think the brain is like a lens that focuses the suns rays. The lens is using the light, changing it, focusing it, but its not the light.

Source?

 

[punkbass2000]

I still don't understand what you mean by that!

I don't see what's not to get. Consciousness does not stop. Everywhere, always, it is. All-pervasive. Surely you are at least casually familiar with the idea that the universe may be infinite? It is like that.

I don't know of any other organ that would be capable of such a thing. Can you? All signs seem to point to "brain".

Why should it be an organ at all?

Any alternate origin should be considered an extraordinary claim and be accompanied by extraordinary evidence, or be discarded.

Why must it have an origin at all?

We are able to alter consciousness by poking around in the brain. That to me is a huge indication that that's where it originates.

What does it mean to alter consciousness?

Beyond that, as aneeshm points out, this would no more indicate that the brain is the interface through which consciousness operates than that the brain is where it originates.

Again, do you have any evidence to suggest it might originate elsewhere? If so, where? The liver?

I'm not sure why you are so certain the brain must originate in somewhere at all, let alone an organ. Quite frankly, consciousness feels like it's in your head because that's where the bulk of your senses are. You think "you" are behind your eyes, nose and mouth and between your ears. You can "move" this residing feeling of consciousness from the head, if you're so inclined.

 

[Shylock]

It doesn't matter. We seem to have free will and even if we didn't the system is set up so we can't find out anyway.