Can Free Will Possibly Exist?

[puglover]

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%.

I'm under the impression that they do control us 100%.

 

[mdwh]

Question: Could it ever be possible to determine whether free will exists or not?

 

[Ayatollah So]

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.

Habits being determined by genetics and environment doesn't conflict with free will, necessarily. I had a daughter with the genetic potential to think for herself. I made darn sure to provide an environment whereby this potential was realized in spades. Does this mean she doesn't act freely when she applies these abilities?

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.

Then there wouldn't BE a "me". There would only be an Idi Amin (or whoever).

I believe that free will CAN exist (and can do so independently of whether or not the universe is deterministic, incidentally).

I'm with Mise on this one. Or is he with me?

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

I'm under the impression that they do control us 100%.

Determinism is a silly theory. And people who dismiss free will because, gasp! we're greatly influenced by many factors are making the mistake of looking at it how someone here considered omnipotency: anything logically impossible becomes possible! I haven't seen any compelling arguments that show free will isn't a fact.

 

[punkbass2000]

How do you?

I don't. Consciousness is zero-dimensional. As such, everything has it. It's a simple matter of recognizing that some things can't demonstrate it. If you were to take a human and strip them of all sensory organs you would have no method to know they were conscious, even if their heart still beat, etc. You would presume they were, though, I think.

 

[punkbass2000]

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?

My suspicion is that if we look into this further, we would find this to be a circular argument. Do you think that all things with brains are conscious?

 

[Bill3000]

If you were to take a human and strip them of all sensory organs you would have no method to know they were conscious, even if their heart still beat, etc. You would presume they were, though, I think.

Yes, you could, by looking at the human's brain activity.

 

[punkbass2000]

And how would that show it?

Also, suppose for a moment, it's 500 years ago and you do not have such ability. How would you know?

EDIT: But then, we're working backwards here. There's not much point in discussing whether or not something is consciousness if you haven't given a practical method for determining whether they have it.

 

[Mise]

I'm with Mise on this one. Or is he with me?

I'm glad you agree with me

 

[Bill3000]

And how would that show it?

MRI? EEG? CAT scan? If the person's concious, the brain activity has specific patterns.

Also, suppose for a moment, it's 500 years ago and you do not have such ability. How would you know?

Irrelevant to the fact that it can still be done!

 

[El_Machinae]

MRI? EEG? CAT scan? If the person's concious, the brain activity has specific patterns.

Until we have a viable "Theory of Mind", additional detection systems are merely more sophisticated ways of asking "is he sufficiently 'like me' to be considered conscious?". We don't have ways of detecting consciousness directly, merely ways of guessing if something is conscious or not (these ways are fairly agreed upon, though, and we use them all the time in everyday life)

 

[warpus]

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?

Of course!

However, is there any indication whatsoever that it might? I'm not even asking for direct proof.. I'm asking for anything that might be an indication that it might come from elsewhere..

What's that.. there is no such thing? hmmmm

I don't. Consciousness is zero-dimensional. As such, everything has it. It's a simple matter of recognizing that some things can't demonstrate it. If you were to take a human and strip them of all sensory organs you would have no method to know they were conscious, even if their heart still beat, etc. You would presume they were, though, I think.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.. because that's pure gibberish.

My suspicion is that if we look into this further, we would find this to be a circular argument. Do you think that all things with brains are conscious?

No, but what does that have to do with anything? Nothing!

 

[CartesianFart]

Kinda sad to see that some comments that are somewhat Cartesian res cogitans in addition to all this brain-and-body activity that connotes consciousness as being a "seperate box" as D.Dennet have once said.

 

[punkbass2000]

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.. because that's pure gibberish.

OK. Handy that that reply (nor any of my discussions about the zero-dimensionality of consciousness) was not directed at you, isn't it?

No, but what does that have to do with anything? Nothing!

If your argument is that brains produce consciousness because things with brains are conscious, it's not a very useful definition.

 

[punkbass2000]

MRI? EEG? CAT scan? If the person's concious, the brain activity has specific patterns.

So how do you know when a person is conscious? You need to know when someone is conscious in order to determine which brain activities indicate consciousness.

 

[El_Machinae]

So how do you know when a person is conscious? You need to know when someone is conscious in order to determine which brain activities indicate consciousness.

We use approximations (reports from other people), but we don't need to. A researcher can record his own brain functions when trying to correlate waves to his consciouness. At a personal level, we seem to be aware of our own consciousness.

 

[Bill3000]

So how do you know when a person is conscious?

Take a Bioelectricity course and come back to me. It's not my job to lecture you science. Ultimately though, it's what El_Mach says. You know when a person is conscious because you define consciousness as a certain state of the body and compare signals as a result of the models found through experiment.

If your argument is that brains produce consciousness because things with brains are conscious, it's not a very useful definition.

Doesn't matter, as he said that it wasn't his argument.

 

[Kozmos]

The illusion of free will is so complete, that it might as well be real.

 

[punkbass2000]

We use approximations (reports from other people), but we don't need to. A researcher can record his own brain functions when trying to correlate waves to his consciouness. At a personal level, we seem to be aware of our own consciousness.

Yes. But I want to know how you know when someone/something other than yourself is conscious. You can assume that other's with similar characteristics are conscious like yourself, but this sort of reasoning has been revised time and time again throughout history. It seems plausible, if not likely, you yourself have revised your definitions in this regard within your lifetime. Perhaps you once held that animals (either in general or specific) did not hold consciousness, for example.

 

[punkbass2000]

Take a Bioelectricity course and come back to me. It's not my job to lecture you science.

Perhaps I will, some day. In the meantime I imagine there's no sense in this discussion if we can't communicate.

Doesn't matter, as he said that it wasn't his argument.

I don't see a point in this line of argument, so I will discontinue.