Can Free Will Possibly Exist?

[El_Machinae]

What youre observing and mapping is the physical functioning of the brain, not a mysterious form of unseen consciousness.

I think I see what you're saying; but by this idea, we cannot map any thought, then, could we? I mean, we could isolate the neurons that fire when you think of your feet ... but could we then say that we'd mapped where your 'feet thoughts' are? I'd normally say yes, but then I don't know how to reply to you.

Its not a crazy idea at all. All Im saying is that for the most part, psychology is very much like a secular religion, in many respects.

Yeah, that's very true. Psychology is a field where we deal with the subjective so intensely that it's hard not to function with a great deal of assumed belief.

 

[Nylan]

I believe I have full control over what actions I take in my life. There may be certain pressures in life, trying to influence me one way or another, but it is ultimately up to me whether or not I take those actions.

In fact sometimes it scares me to think what some (NOT ALL) people do when they use "I can't choose! This was predetermined!" as an excuse to do whatever they want. However, I accept their decision to believe such

 

[warpus]

Do you believe that dreams are messages from the subconscious mind, to the conscious mind?

I don't think there is such a clear distinction between the subconscious and the conscious... it is all one mind, after all. It is not that static.

I think dreams are simply the subconscious doing its work when we are sleeping; sometimes the conscious peers into that.. extreme example being a lucid dream.

Never mind the fact that if you experience something and are conscious of it, theres nothing 'sub' about it.

Simple fact is that your brain performs a whole bunch of calculations. We divide these up into the 'conscious' and the 'subconscious'.

Its not a crazy idea at all. All Im saying is that for the most part, psychology is very much like a secular religion, in many respects.

Right.. Where are the deities? Where is the worship.. the rituals.. the supernatural beliefs? There is nothing religious about it.

 

[MOTH]

Free Will certainly exists. It is one of my favorite songs.

"If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice"

...

"I will choose a path thats clear
I will choose free will"

 

[punkbass2000]

Very true. It is always your choice, no matter how you may rationalize otherwise and abdicate responsibility.

 

[angeleyes]

Free Will blah blah blah Talk talk talk Talk!

 

[Sidhe]

How so? Because I don't demand absolute proof for nondeterminism?

Or proof, or a consensus in the case that your postulating we will find that the universe is fundamentally non deterministic, we're a long way from being sure of what may come, let alone what we have.

Why exactly do you say that? Given how well wave functions model reality I think denying them isn't the best idea.

Because if you know the history of the Copenhagen Interpretation which happens to be the best most theoretical and accepted interpretation, you'd know that Bohr himself said that the schrödinger equation is not a pictorial representation of reality.

Bohr saw imaginary numbers as a trick and the Schrödinger equation is not derivable from first principals, and if you ask a physicist if the wave function models reality, if they say yes, then they are an idiot, since no one has ever "seen" or directly measured the wave function, they cannot absolutely say this. The Copenhagen interpritation(CI), which is what you will have learnt at university is founded on the measurement issues. And assumes that it's mathematics are not necessary reality. Good experimental representation, as to whether this is what is really going on, we can only guess atm.

A few words from Bohr: the father of the Copenhagen interpretation.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

Bohr thought of the atom as real. Atoms are neither heuristic nor logical constructions. A couple of times he emphasized this directly using arguments from experiments in a very similar way to Ian Hacking and Nancy Cartwright much later. What he did not believe was that the quantum mechanical formalism was true in the sense that it gave us a literal (‘pictorial&#8217 rather than a symbolic representation of the quantum world. It makes much sense to characterize Bohr in modern terms as an entity realist who opposes theory realism (Folse 1987). It is because of the imaginary quantities in quantum mechanics (where the commutation rule for canonically conjugate variable, p and q, introduces Planck's constant into the formalism by pq - qp = ih/2&#960 that quantum mechanics does not give us a ‘pictorial’ representation of the world. Neither does the theory of relativity, Bohr argued, provide us with a literal representation, since the velocity of light is introduced with a factor of i in the definition of the fourth coordinate in a four-dimensional manifold (CC, p. 86 and p. 105). Instead these theories can only be used symbolically to predict observations under well-defined conditions. Thus Bohr was an antirealist or an instrumentalist when it comes to theories.

I don't take everything as 100% truth, but I do take expert opinion as the closest thing to truth that I'll probably get so I listen to it.

You're talking about that "spooky action at a distance" stuff not information transfer.

yes I know how it is explained. it's just hardly proven or firmly established yet, we just don't know enough.

So? I don't claim to have proof, just a knowledge of what is currently accepted

I wouldn't make a very good devil's advocate if I didn't question the accepted, and scientists wouldn't make very good scientists if they didn't either.

Yes, but for any practical application involving the perspective of one self you treat it like it's nondeterministic. You don't know which universe "you" will end up in.

In MWI the wave function is treated as real, unlike CI, which means that all events happen in all realities,so from a holistic view and philosophically speaking this makes it hard to warrant the term non-deterministic, which is why it is touted as a deterministic interpretation.

Is it still half-baked ideas with little support from the scientific community

You don't remember the last time this was discussed a couple of months ago, I went deep into the CI to explain how the universe was non-deterministic, I even spent a deal of time showing why and how. Apparently if this is not science you should speak to my sources, the university links which I quoted. I'm not talking about what you think I'm talking about but established science.

Of me!

Socratic method, switch sides in a philosophical argument if it looks like one side is gaining the upper hand.

of me actually

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I think I see what you're saying; but by this idea, we cannot map any thought, then, could we? I mean, we could isolate the neurons that fire when you think of your feet ... but could we then say that we'd mapped where your 'feet thoughts' are? I'd normally say yes, but then I don't know how to reply to you.

My feet moving requires many different things to take place. Blood has to flow to the feet, muscles have to expand and contract, etc, and the process begins with a burst of firing in the locomotion part of the brain. None of these things has anything to do with consciousness. Theyre strictly mechanical.

I don't think there is such a clear distinction between the subconscious and the conscious... it is all one mind, after all. It is not that static.

I think dreams are simply the subconscious doing its work when we are sleeping; sometimes the conscious peers into that.. extreme example being a lucid dream.

You mean its a glimpse into the 'Thought Workshop', where chaotic, irrational consciousness is hammered into thought? Well, possibly I guess, if you put it that way.

Simple fact is that your brain performs a whole bunch of calculations. We divide these up into the 'conscious' and the 'subconscious'.

I dont think these calculations have anything to do with consciousness. Computers can calculate, is that consciousness? Dont confuse the television with the television show.

Right.. Where are the deities?

The individual. The Self is the deity of psychology.

Where is the worship..

Group therapy?

the rituals..

Laying on the couch?

the supernatural beliefs?

You kidding me? Freud and Jung? Why is mumbo jumbo that calls itself psychology more credible to you than the same calling itself religion?

 

[El_Machinae]

My feet moving requires many different things to take place. Blood has to flow to the feet, muscles have to expand and contract, etc, and the process begins with a burst of firing in the locomotion part of the brain. None of these things has anything to do with consciousness. Theyre strictly mechanical.

Right, but sometimes you're moving your feet consciously and sometimes you're moving them unconsciously.

I think it's the term 'subconscious' that's giving us trouble. I tend to think of the subconscious as the parts of the brain that are not being dealt with in a conscious way.

 

[GenMarshall]

I believe in God as well as see that we all have Free Will.

 

[warpus]

I dont think these calculations have anything to do with consciousness. Computers can calculate, is that consciousness? Dont confuse the television with the television show.

That's all the brain does - it's just a bunch of seemingly random neurons firing, which other neurons pick up and fire as well, etc. That's what I mean by 'calculations'

What else does the brain do that could produce consciousness?

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

In fact sometimes it scares me to think what some (NOT ALL) people do when they use "I can't choose! This was predetermined!" as an excuse to do whatever they want. However, I accept their decision to believe such

I accept their acceptance of being idiots!

Free Will blah blah blah Talk talk talk Talk!

What insight!

And to adress the OP:

I don't believe so.

I've been thinking a lot about fate and predestination this week, and I've come to the point where I'm inclined to believe in complete determinism. To me, the concept of free will is an arrogant, almost foolish idea.


Think for a second about how much of who we are is based purely on genetics and living environment. If most psychologists are right, then a great majority of our habits are developed while we are still infants, simply by being placed in a specific environment. Think about if you were placed in the very same position as any number of historical dicators growing up, living the same experiences with the same genetics and the same influences. Do you really think you would grow up any differently?

This is a subject I really love discussing. Does anyone have any insights?

Ummm, same this that and what not, makes you the almost the same person dunnit? But still, its unlikely one will always choose all the same things.

And anyways, as a christian, predetermination makes God the worst creature possible. Religion is better off not towing that line.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Right, but sometimes you're moving your feet consciously and sometimes you're moving them unconsciously.

I think it's the term 'subconscious' that's giving us trouble. I tend to think of the subconscious as the parts of the brain that are not being dealt with in a conscious way.

Yes its not a concept problem, its a label problem, as usual. To you, subconscious seems to mainly mean the functions of the brain that control our movements, and all of our bodily processes, 'behind the scenes'. More commonly, IMO, the term 'subconscious mind' is used as a large convenient rug we can use to cover things about the mind (as opposed to the brain) that we dont understand. A whole psychological theology has sprung up around it. Thats diminishing though as we move more towards medicating away all of our problems. Psychology is another dying faith. The neurologists are taking over.

That's all the brain does - it's just a bunch of seemingly random neurons firing, which other neurons pick up and fire as well, etc. That's what I mean by 'calculations'

What else does the brain do that could produce consciousness?

To me, its an open question as to whether the brain actually does produce consciousness, or merely serves as a receiver, or 'wireless broadband' connection.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, it's not just our movements (and the like). The subconscious is also what does our calculating when we're not thinking about something. Sometimes you'll study material and try to memorise it; other times your subconscious will choose to memorise material all on its own (without active instruction). In business and problem-solving, we rely very heavily on the subconscious to come up with solutions while we're resting; I can't count the number of times I've set a 'hard' project aside in the evening and then had an 'easy' solution the next time I thought about it (the next morning). The subconscious was working on it, while I watched my TV or read a book.

The brain controls functions, but it also does thinking. The subconscious is the brain doing its thinking without my conscious participation. In brain mapping, the subconscious would be where the consciousness isn't.

 

[punkbass2000]

What else does the brain do that could produce consciousness?

How do you determine what produces consciousness?

 

[scy12]

To rephrase it better : I have tow balls . A and B . A is red and B is blue. As long as i can choose either ball for any reason free will exists. The reasons that i choose the ball may be subconscious (not easy to intensify) or actual thoughts at that very moment. , example : A is dirty i will rather B . Again in the thought itself i choose B because i prefer to get a ball that isn't dirty. My thought's also show a preference , a decision. I call that free will. Actions that we do without deciding to do it is therefor not free will. Or is it ? I remember an occasion where a person tried to wake me and he said that i was shouting while he did. After i woke i didn't remember anything about this .
I assumed that either A) he was lying B) I acted in that occasion without free will or i had free will but i never had consciousness of that situation afterwards.
Anyway i never remember having control so whatever i did , it wasn't me. Likewise if i have total amnesia whatever actions i had done were not done by me but by someone else. If then i am locked in jail i will consider it unfair. So i think Consciousness has everything to do with free will. If i lost my consciousness then the choices that a criminal (for example) had where not mine as i never thought about them or i don't remember i did. (Amnesia).

 

[El_Machinae]

How do you determine what produces consciousness?

How do you?

 

[warpus]

To me, its an open question as to whether the brain actually does produce consciousness, or merely serves as a receiver, or 'wireless broadband' connection.

And where, pray tell, does consciousness come from, then? The ass?

How do you determine what produces consciousness?

I look to the most likely source - the place where all thinking and higher cognitive functions occur - the brain. Why, can you think of a better candidate?

 

[aneeshm]

I look to the most likely source - the place where all thinking and higher cognitive functions occur - the brain. Why, can you think of a better candidate?

You approach it from one direction - that of the material world creating consciousness.

Have you ever thought that it could be the other way round?

 

[mdwh]

I don't really positively believe it, but I don't see why it can't exist. So no point worrying that it doesn't.

Think for a second about how much of who we are is based purely on genetics and living environment. If most psychologists are right, then a great majority of our habits are developed while we are still infants, simply by being placed in a specific environment. Think about if you were placed in the very same position as any number of historical dicators growing up, living the same experiences with the same genetics and the same influences. Do you really think you would grow up any differently?

No. Our actions are determined by our genetic makeup, which determines our brain's chemical makeup, and our upbringing.

But saying that we may be influenced by genetics/environment is not the same thing as saying we have no free will, unless outside influences control us 100%.

Consider that if the last 5 minutes were run again, with exactly the same stimuli, and you with the same mental state as beforehand, you would do precisely the same thing.

How do you know this?