Materialism and Consciousness.

[Perfection]

Au contraire since if the timeline is unulterable you have fate and if it is alterable by choice you have free will, I disagree. It has some real relevance.

What if it's alterable but not by choice?

 

[Sidhe]

So what you are saying is that if I am predetermined to die on Crete and I don't then I have altered fate but not by choice? What if the only thing that saved me was a quantum induced random choice that diverted the time line and if I know that this can happen then, I can by reasoning see that my choices are not always cast in stone, if I know this what's to say that in a feedback loop of the predtermined the choices I make are quantum or predetermined? Nothing except of course the very fact that that choice gives me 30 more years of life say to make more choices that in turn could be effected by nothing but the classicaly determined but that my choices now effect every person from then on, who in turn who's choices and possible fates are now diverted, that's a whole mess of non predetermined choice gone the way of the dinosaur, whilst this in itself doesn't indicate free will, what does is that I know that nothing is set in stone so by chosing even if it does seem to be governed by nature in the holistic environment I can make a choice and know I can affect my future to be contrary to that path the materialist or predetemined can set for me because of random influences.

Once I know this and everyone knows it we are not tied to make choices that lead from the unconcious dictated by our natures or genes or material choice but by feed back we know we can have choices that are made that are both indeterminate and determinate, if I know that then I know that I have free will, since the more choices I make the more likely I am to affect my future contrary to materialism by probability if nothing else that freak gust of wind that disturbs the roulette wheel means I know the die isn't cast, sooner or later given enough monkeys I'll affect my future by design of the loop and not by the material of my being or DNA or by fate, if I know it cannot be determined given enough choices this is free will. By constantly chosing and looping the QM effects both the choice I make and the choice I don't make. I know this much, if I know that I can determine my fate independantly of my self my DNA and my material then I have free will.

 

[El_Machinae]

our behavior is completely controlled.

Do you feel like your behaviour is completely controlled?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I disagree that there can be any predefined end as such, Saying that everyone dies is not predestination that's just life. You are fated to die therefore you have no free will, na I can't buy that. Free will is not just about how you die or if you die it's about how you chose to live. Fate would say I was fated say to die on the Island of Crete at the hands of a stranger. I don't accept that, because anything could happen between now and then and once in a blue moon our choices could be purturbed by the quantum.

That clears up some things. Your lack of acceptance seems to be based on anecdotal experience and an established belief that your life is not predetermied. Your trip to Crete could be side tracked, not by a quantum experience, but because you met a pretty girl and she took you to Finland. (Sorry Mathilda, I couldn't resist; consider it a quantum moment).

Once we have accepted that we don't behave solely defined by our natures, that we can to some extent overcome what we are by force of will and by choice then we can say we have will if not free will.

The glass of sand now appears somewhat damp.

You could argue that in fact that is illusion and that we simply think we are forcing our will onto the way we behave but are in fact still following fate;

Yes, I could.

but I say no,I say the fact that your future could be purturbed from a predestined track by the quantum means that you are now on a different time path if you like and that everything you do after that is different from what your choices were on the predestined path, that will have an effect on who you are, which in turn leads you to have a different mentality.

For me the quantum connection is very stretched and forced. If you need it to make a logical case for free will, then your case is pretty weak. The leap from electron spin to high level cognitive decision making is a tenuous one at best and high speculative. It is little better than the Hindu approach which adds sanskaric bindings to consciousness that reflect our karmic past and drive our future. The Hindus might say that karma brings us to a specific decision point and then we choose.

So therefore. At each decision point there could be a single choice which I doubt, but even if there is if you accept the quantum even this choice itself could be sidetracked and if that is the case you have more than one choice even if predetermined. Even being aware of the fact that you can chose and to some extent the random can derail that choice is in itself a view to free will.

Random quantum events could also be meaningless. How do we tell if they are important or not? To get this far you have to assume that a quantum event conveys a rationed choice to the brain. I do not see any evidence for this. Just like I don't see any evidence for sanskaras. Intellectually the karma/sanskara model is more interesting to me.

We can now say I have a choice and that choice may change in the blink of an eye, I may not have control of that choice at a subconcious level but when it becomes concious it is different from the nature driven intent, and I am free to analyse and chose or ignore that choice, you might say my nature would force me into dismissing it but that also is a choice because I may not select the original intended thought, and of course anything I conciously think also but may not be affected by the quantum.

A quagmire of maybe this or maybe this or maybe this, without any way to sort it out.

I'm in no way saying the random or chaotic element is always present but the fact that it can be leaves us devoid of a predeterminist fate, and by its implication suggests free will.

Not quite as black and white as you've painted in the past. The presence of some choice only allows movement aound/within the parameters of that choice. Is there a way to know that "some choice" will keep us from going to crete? Since you don't know that Crete is in waiting in the wings, you can't know if you are avoiding it at all.

Imagine if you will a roulette wheel will always stop on the same number if you apply x force and this force is applied over and over again in a loop, what is to say, that once in a blue moon that wheel will be hit by a freek draft and stop sooner or later than it otherwise would? now of course it will allways arrive at some diferent number untill the quantum happens again if you like, each time we alter the ordered permutation we alter the future and therefore fate and our path and it is a feedback loop that is constantly adjusted by the quantum, thus nothing we can do can alter that we have free will if we accept the quantum.

It doesn't sound like free will at all. You have us being buffeted by random events that change the future. We may alter some choice, but that opportunity is determined by some quantum event and by your reasoning, the quantum event could even force the new decison we make towards the same predetermined end, just via a different path. I think for free will to exist it must reside in the conscious brain, be independent and be a high level function of the brain. If it is not, then something else is making the choices that matter.

 

[cgannon64]

Sidhe: I'm going to try one last time, since this is seeming really hopeless.

Let's say, according to the deterministic viewpoint, your brain is at a certain moment completely skewed towards choosing to close out the box and leave CFC. It is clear, here, that when you close the program, you did not choose that - it was chosen for you, by the past configuration of all the particles in your head.

Now, let's say that, according to the quantum viewpoint, your brain seems like it is configured to do just the same thing as it was earlier: it's all geared up and ready to close the box. But suddenly, by quantum randomness, particles shift, and you don't close the box. Did you choose this, or was it chosen for you - exactly as in the first case, except this time chosen for you in a non-predictable way?

(Of course, this whole debate is moot anyway since, as was said before, all things on the macro scale obey classical laws for an incredibly, enormously, stupendously large majority of the time.)

Do you feel like your behaviour is completely controlled?

Of course not - that's what's causing me such trouble. What appears to be the scientifically valid viewpoint is so wild and so opposed to our thought, it's unacceptable. And it's not wild in the way all the wild discoveries are: it's not like the relative nature of time, or quantum mechanics, which are things that challenge conventional thinking but leave it intact. This simply doesn't. It destroys everything involved in the way we think, act, and feel. To fully understand it and beleive it would be the purest intellectual way to negate your own existence.

Anyway, I've been giving your viewpoint some thought. I'm realizing that, in the midst of all this, I've been ignoring how unsettled I was with free will anyway, before all this came to light. This is really just the old question recast: instead of asking whether someone's behavior can be predicted by knowing their predispositions and their past, we're substituting electrons and particles.

This doesn't eliminate the problem of how to reconcile free will with materialism: it just grounds it even further, in the debate of how to reconcile free will with life.

 

[El_Machinae]

How do we distinguish free will from self-control?

When trying to describe where free will was in the brain, I keep describing the areas involving self-control.

edit: X-post - but it's very thoughtful

 

[cgannon64]

I'm not sure what you mean here. The terms sound synonymous...

 

[Sidhe]

It doesn't sound like free will at all. You have us being buffeted by random events that change the future. We may alter some choice, but that opportunity is determined by some quantum event and by your reasoning, the quantum event could even force the new decison we make towards the same predetermined end, just via a different path. I think for free will to exist it must reside in the conscious brain, be independent and be a high level function of the brain. If it is not, then something else is making the choices that matter.

That we can both agree on I'm merely arguing that I have control over my future and by this fact that I have free will. And using quantum you could substitute any chemicle unpredictable conclusion or any seemingly random postulate. The point is if you have any sort of random force no matter how small or how little it effects the imediate out come in any equation then by feedback eventually the random significance will show in a myriad of interactions within the brain, be it something as small as the quantum (Think of an amplifier and it's feedback loop) this increases the power of the random because eventually something truly random will happen and this feed back in turn will lead to more randomness or less according to my will or how events proceed, and by extension the chances the random will at least once in a blue moon prevail. Thus if I know this I can by choice say that everything I do is not predetermined by reasoning alone. Insert any randomness and there is plenty of chaos in the world as it is into behaviour or use QM as an example or anything, it is as far as I'm concerned an argument. Is it provable directly, probably not but then this is philosophy not science, will it be proven. Depends if we ever figure out the hard problems

 

[El_Machinae]

CG: I was thinking of Birdjaguar's statement

I think for free will to exist it must reside in the conscious brain, be independent and be a high level function of the brain

In a classical biological approach, we destroy pieces until something breaks, to find out what's important to what. So, what area of the brain needs to be destroyed to eliminate Free Will - accepting that: drugs, alchohol, sleep deprivation, and a sharp hammer blow all seem to reduce Free Will?

But then, I too noticed that self-control and Free Will were nearly synonyms in my thinking. I can point to an area of the brain and say "we're pretty sure self-control resides here", but I'm not sure that I'm adding anything to the conversation.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This doesn't eliminate the problem of how to reconcile free will with materialism: it just grounds it even further, in the debate of how to reconcile free will with life.

Read my sig and get on with life.

 

[cgannon64]

They've found a part of the brain which houses self-control? Please explain more. I'm interested because, from what I understood, consciousness is notoriously difficult - if not impossible - to find in a specific section of the brain.

It would be fascinating if self-control (call it free will, to be dramatic) resides in a certain section of the brain, but consciousness doesn't. What kind of implications that would have, I don't know...

Read my sig and get on with life.

I can't get on with life philosophically, if that's what you mean! This question affects everything!

(Of course don't take this to mean I'm not going to sign off CFC later, log on AIM, do my homework, read a little, and eventually go to bed... If anything, this illusion of free will knows how to fight for itself, and push the question aside so it's not discovered.)

 

[Sidhe]

Read my sig and get on with life.

I read it I just don't agree with it as being an illusion any more than the contrary argument is or materialism is or the contrary. The fact is if I know that I can change my fate by direct action(a feed back loop of concious decision making skewed by the random occasionaly) and that this in itself proves that nothing I think is ever completely determined by nature, then materialism is junk and so is the argument that there is no free will. The argument that there is free will is just as philosophical but then that's the point. Like I said a million and one pages back if anyone agreed with me I'd probably switch sides

 

[El_Machinae]

It would be fascinating if self-control (call it free will, to be dramatic) resides in a certain section of the brain, but consciousness doesn't.

Consciousness certainly resides in the brain. It's the part of the brain that becomes muddled when you fall into deep sleep or get knocked out. Other parts of the brain stay active, conscious or not (like the parts controlling your heart, etc.)

 

[El_Machinae]

If anything, this illusion of free will knows how to fight for itself

I like this!

 

[Birdjaguar]

In a classical biological approach, we destroy pieces until something breaks, to find out what's important to what. So, what area of the brain needs to be destroyed to eliminate Free Will - accepting that: drugs, alchohol, sleep deprivation, and a sharp hammer blow all seem to reduce Free Will?

But then, I too noticed that self-control and Free Will were nearly synonyms in my thinking. I can point to an area of the brain and say "we're pretty sure self-control resides here", but I'm not sure that I'm adding anything to the conversation.

Interesting. I cannot imagine this hasn't been tried on mice already. Does a lobotomy qualify for depriving someone of freewill?

 

[El_Machinae]

This isn't specifically my area of expertise (self-control) - but I don't believe that mice have this higher brain function. Let me look around for a bit (I've got some other data that I need to collect for a report later today, too, so I might take a bit of time)

edit: regarding lobotomy - yeah, I'm pretty sure we can say that a patient of this procedure has less free will.

 

[cgannon64]

Consciousness certainly resides in the brain. It's the part of the brain that becomes muddled when you fall into deep sleep or get knocked out. Other parts of the brain stay active, conscious or not (like the parts controlling your heart, etc.)

I know it resides in the brain as a whole, but I meant a certain part.

By the way, El Machinae, if it's not too intrusive, what exactly do you do? I know that you once had to pitch something about stem cells to Catholics, but that's all...

 

[El_Machinae]

pubmed link

It's a lot of blah, blah, blah - but the bolded sentence helps.

The present study was performed to examine the relationship between schizophrenia-related personality and brain morphometry. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and schizophrenia-related personality scales extracted from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) were administered to 42 university students. Analysis of the relationships between the gray matter segmented from the MR images on a voxel-by-voxel basis through the use of the statistical parametric mapping technique and the schizophrenia-related personality subscale scores from the MMPI revealed that lack of self-control subscale scores were negatively related to the gray matter volume of the supplementary motor area (SMA). Furthermore, it was suggested that self-control including self-inhibition is associated with the density of the SMA, the precuneous and the cerebellar vermis, which govern voluntary movements and motor imagery. These results provide important clues to the neural basis for the disturbance of self commonly observed in schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

My hunch is that rodents have no concept of self-control, and will always perform an action based on reward

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, I was very wrong .... lookee here!

(googling any words you don't understand will go a long way. To save time, I'll underline words that describe parts of the brain)

Pubmed Link

Amygdala-Prefrontal Cortical Circuitry Regulates Effort-Based Decision Making.

The basolateral amygdala (BLA) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) region of the prefrontal cortex form an interconnected neural circuit that may mediate certain types of decision-making processes. The present study assessed the role of this pathway in effort-based decision making using a cost-benefit T-maze task. Rats were given a choice of obtaining a high reward by climbing a 30-cm barrier in 1 arm (4 pellets; high-reward

---

arm) or a small reward in the other arm with no barrier (2 pellets; low-reward [LR] arm). In Experiment 1, bilateral inactivation of the BLA via infusion of bupivacaine [a anesthetic - el_m] impaired decision making, reducing the preference for the HR arm. This effect was not due to spatial or motor deficits because BLA inactivation did not alter behavior when the amount of effort required to obtain either reward was equalized by placing a 2nd barrier in the LR arm. In Experiment 2, disconnection between the BLA and ACC, entailing a unilateral BLA inactivation combined with a contralateral ACC inactivation also impaired decision making. These data suggest that the serial transfer of information between the BLA and ACC guides response selection when evaluating the value of an expected outcome relative to the costs of performing a particular action.

---

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ok, now can you translate into English for peasant class?