Materialism and Consciousness.

[El_Machinae]

In general, rats will do more work for more food

Numbing a certain part of the rat brain (the BLA) increased the chance that rats would choose the 'easy' path (even for less food). The rats still knew the difference between the two paths (if you equalize the work, they will do the work that results in more food).

The BLA is a fairly primitive part of the brain.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So if we can eliminate beneficial (?) decision making or self control via surgery or drugs what dose that say about free will.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm having a hard time differentiating self-control from free will ... but I would guess that it would show that free will is based in a certain part of the brain.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm having a hard time differentiating self-control from free will ... but I would guess that it would show that free will is based in a certain part of the brain.

If it/they are brain based and locatable. And if rats can be deprived of whatever control/decision making powers they have, then it would seem to indicate that free will etc. are on a continuum that stretches back along the chain of evolution. And if rats have some capability to choose, then they also face the predeterminism free will problem: can they determine their own fate or not?

 

[Sidhe]

Oh thank the lord we are finally using science to make points in what started as a philosophical thread. if nothing else I hope I pissed you off with my message enough to resort to the tangible not the spiritual

 

[WillJ]

This thread is getting way, WAY too long for me to bother reading much of anything besides what's necessary to continue my current conversation.

But the trick in your argument is that, while you use your own new, scientific definitions (including one for free will) you talk about 'free will' as if you're using the old definition, and so it seems like the usual grand, wonderful concept! When, in reality, you've proven something totally opposed to the older definition of free will, one undeserving of the same name

The logic is good, the argument is sound, but the terminology gives it an element of sophistry. If you're going to set up a new definition of free will - especially one as radically different as yours is - don't call it free will.

I didn't make up this viewpoint. Hobbes, Hume, and I'd imagine dozens of other big philosophers have argued along the same lines as me for hundreds of years. I don't see how this version of "free will" is less valid than any other.

And the whole reason I use this definition is that it DOES make free will a grand, wonderful concept. Unlike, say, the idea that if your decisions are partly random, you're somehow free. That's not wonderful.

 

[cgannon64]

Sidhe: This thread started scientifically, you know. It's been very much about science all the way through, even if our collective sight has wavered a bit...

This thread is getting way, WAY too long for me to bother reading much of anything besides what's necessary to continue my current conversation.

Don't worry, that's an OT tradition.

I didn't make up this viewpoint. Hobbes, Hume, and I'd imagine dozens of other big philosophers have argued along the same lines as me for hundreds of years.

Yes, in a "very brief" introduction to the problem of free will I picked up at the library today, they just got into Hobbes. Nasty stuff, in my opinion - clean, logical, and intolerable. (I'm just reading this quickly to see if there is anything new - I'm much more excited about the books about brains, machines, and consciousness. I almost picked up "The Metaphysics of Star Trek." And the stupid, soulless man behind the counter wouldn't let me get to the copy of Duns Scotus I wanted - first cuz he couldn't understand his name, and then becuase the library was closing too soon for him to get off his ass and get it. Jerk.)

I don't see how this version of "free will" is less valid than any other.

It's not that it's invalid, it's that it's totally opposed to the usual sense of 'freedom'.

And the whole reason I use this definition is that it DOES make free will a grand, wonderful concept. Unlike, say, the idea that if your decisions are partly random, you're somehow free. That's not wonderful.

Hardly. It makes free will nothing more than the manifestion of desire - that demeans free will, and makes it brutish and animal-like.

And to say that my concept of free will relies on randomness is untrue. Being unpredictable does not mean random, except in the purest statistical terms. Random means uncaused, and without sense - but the decisions of a being with free will have causes, in that will, and sense, in its reasons acting as it did.

 

[punkbass2000]

You can go on failing to grasp simple philosophy as long as you like. Just don't make the mistake of denying thousands of years of great psychologists and free thinkers and philosophers is going to make your case seem credible is all. Your ideas are fairly inconsistent and not backed up by anything except saying one or the other or both or neither and then pointing out that one can exist at the same time with the other or something even more preposterous.

If it's not determinism then it's free will

OK then. You've made your position clear

 

[punkbass2000]

You, Birdjaguar, and Perfection on one side? What strange bedfellows!

I wouldn't say there are sides But then again, it may turn out that I have to be on side or the other. Anyway, you may be seen as "with us". Hopefully BE doesn't show up to let us know we're "PC"

(Just so you know, I made a note earlier about how this thread has turned out so strangely, because I'm now defending an aspect of materialism - which I only brought up to show how it is outrageous and destructive - which I brought up in a thread to point out a hole in materialism. )

Well, it's a complex subject. You don't have to accept all of materiallistic theory; just the parts that make sense to you.

 

[punkbass2000]

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.

Well, if you take the Deterministic viewpoint, you could conclude that you were destined to feel as though you were making choices.

 

[cgannon64]

Well, it's a complex subject. You don't have to accept all of materiallistic theory; just the parts that make sense to you.

I disagree. Although I think materialism can certainly be supplemented, you can't just reject what you dislike.

Well, if you take the Deterministic viewpoint, you could conclude that you were destined to feel as though you were making choices.

I could: but that doesn't sound fun.

 

[WillJ]

Don't worry, that's an OT tradition.

Indeed!

Duns Scotus

Who? I can hardly blame the guy for not understanding the name.

It's not that it's invalid, it's that it's totally opposed to the usual sense of 'freedom'.

I disagree, of course.

Hardly. It makes free will nothing more than the manifestion of desire - that demeans free will, and makes it brutish and animal-like.

I have no clue why you say that. Again, "desire" doesn't mean "instinct." I probably shouldn't be using the word "desire" anyway, since it is indeed a loaded term.

And to say that my concept of free will relies on randomness is untrue. Being unpredictable does not mean random, except in the purest statistical terms. Random means uncaused, and without sense - but the decisions of a being with free will have causes, in that will, and sense, in its reasons acting as it did.

Hehe, sorry for being unclear: I wasn't talking about your viewpoint. We actually agree on the issue of randomness, I think.

Now I'll talk about your viewpoint. You seem to think that your actions being predictable makes you unfree. Disagreement with that is probably what's most fundamental to my viewpoint. How does predictability equate to a lack of freedom?

Let's say that I, being the genuis that I am, invent a machine that is able to predict with 100% certainty what you will do. It says that you will have a cupcake for dessert. I don't even tell you this, yet sure enough, you have a cupcake for dessert.

Regardless of what the machine predicted, YOU decided to have a cupcake. No one else did. No thing else did either. You might say, "The electrons in my brain did!" But the electrons in your brain are what make YOU. Sure, in this hypothetical situation, science has allowed us to discover and understand every square inch of you, but me understanding you doesn't make you any less YOU than you were before I understood you.

You seem to desire (oops, I mean want ) to have a will that's unpredictable, yet not random. You say this makes sense in every way except "the purest statistical terms." What other (valid) terms are there?

You want your decisions to have causes. On that we agree. The fact that my decisions are based on neural activity (and a plethora of other things) is a good thing, because those are causes. But you seem to think it's a bad thing, which makes your opinions quite inconsistent. You want your decisions to have causes, yet when we scientifically discover them, the causes are somehow bad.

Imagine your free will is some sort of mystical, almost ghost-like entity in another world, able to interact with your brain, which is in this world (I think I'll give this idea a name ... how about dualism ). I suppose this is the traditional idea, and I'll take a wild guess and say that's what you want it to be like. But, wait a minute, you say you want this mystical free will to base its decisions on causes. And if its activity is based on causes, then surely we humans (or at least an infinitely intelligent being) could discover the causes. Which is what science is all about, finding the causes of things.

 

[punkbass2000]

I disagree. Although I think materialism can certainly be supplemented, you can't just reject what you dislike.

It's not about which you dislike. It's which you don't find sensible. And ultimately, you make that decision in every moment.

I could: but that doesn't sound fun.

It's an interest spot you've worked yourself into, I must say. You want "the" answer, I gather. However, no matter what you conclude you cannot rule out the possibility that you were predestined to conclude what you did. By the same virtue, whatever you conclude you won't know that you didn't just choose it with your free will. You're trying to ask yourself what answer you will ultimately conclude with, in some senses.

Incidentally, why not just go to the fridge and open it? Pick something you want, and have it. If that's not good enough for free will, what more do you want? Or, alternatively, pray and ask god himself. Only he could give you a truly meaningful answer to such a question, I think.

 

[punkbass2000]

If you don't mind a general discussion on Free Will (ie. without Materialism being particularly discussed), this thread discussed the central issue and fundamental meaning of Free Will. Gothmog's posts in particular outline the concept of Free Will and the ultimate irrelevance of it quite well, IMO.

 

[Sidhe]

Saying free will is an illusion is as laughable as saying time is an illusion or that fate is an illusion, it's just words and there are no ways in which you could prove it. It sounds to me that if you say something contentious like free will doesn't exist or that materialism doesn't because fate doesn't or that time doesn't because we're really experiencing evrything at once, it's just the mind puts it in order is lame. I can no more proove that free will exists than I can that time exists or in which direction it flows. So any blanket statement that it doesn't exist because a) I say it's an illusion b)erm because it just is c) well I don't know maybe something about God is semantics and bluff of the worst kind some people will pass anything off as fact contrary to the fact that conceptuals are unproovable either way. That's why it's called philosophy if we could prove free will did or did not exist beyond doubt then it would be science

Saying it's irrelevent in a discussion about materialism(in which materialism depends on the establishment of predeterminism as the ruling force in people is pretty pointless as well) Which is why the person who presented that paper I made a link to also wrote a paper blowing materialism out of the water.

If your going to start a thread about Godel Escher and Bach, which is a pretty heavyweight philosophical tome, then you can't just dismiss one side of the aregument or another cause some pseudo philosopher on another thread has proved free will doesn't exist, that's just sophistry surely?

 

[aneeshm]

My two cents - free will is a perceptual . Try it . As long as a consciousness exists , and is conscious of itself , it needs no further proof of its own existence . As long as this consciousness can perceive that it has free will , it has free will . That is the observed fact . Now you have to fit your theories to that fact that "free will exists" , and not try to reconcile the facts will theories .


Your problems exist , cgannon , because you try to reconcile the facts to the theory , instead of finding a theory to fit the facts . The minute you start to accept , from your own perception , that free will exists , and that any theory you evaluate has to be able to fit this into its conceptual framework , instead of you trying to intellectually reverse the process , your doubts will melt away .

 

[punkbass2000]

My two cents - free will is a perceptual . Try it . As long as a consciousness exists , and is conscious of itself , it needs no further proof of its own existence . As long as this consciousness can perceive that it has free will , it has free will . That is the observed fact . Now you have to fit your theories to that fact that "free will exists" , and not try to reconcile the facts will theories .


Your problems exist , cgannon , because you try to reconcile the facts to the theory , instead of finding a theory to fit the facts . The minute you start to accept , from your own perception , that free will exists , and that any theory you evaluate has to be able to fit this into its conceptual framework , instead of you trying to intellectually reverse the process , your doubts will melt away .

Interesting post. Well said.

 

[Sidhe]

My two cents - free will is a perceptual . Try it . As long as a consciousness exists , and is conscious of itself , it needs no further proof of its own existence . As long as this consciousness can perceive that it has free will , it has free will . That is the observed fact . Now you have to fit your theories to that fact that "free will exists" , and not try to reconcile the facts will theories .


Your problems exist , cgannon , because you try to reconcile the facts to the theory , instead of finding a theory to fit the facts . The minute you start to accept , from your own perception , that free will exists , and that any theory you evaluate has to be able to fit this into its conceptual framework , instead of you trying to intellectually reverse the process , your doubts will melt away .

I agree I think free will exists, but I can't prove it, personally I think your right though stop banging on about materialism and predeterminism it is an evolutionary dead end, the human mind is simply not predetermined any more than conciousness is or what you chose to do at any given moment, to me it's self evidently true that I have free will, and if I don't, unlikely but whatever

 

[a space oddity]

Interesting thread CG & gentlemen.

It kept me reading here way past my bedtime yesterday. Questions and considerations as these discussed here, are fundamental for anyone who thinks about the world we live in, and are what has resently piqued my interest in Buddhism. I need to make time to read more about it, but it is good to see some fellow CFC-ers interested and you're doing a good job of putting me on track of that again.

 

[a space oddity]

On topic: I think that our ability to rationally consider different options for behaviour before actually acting, is crucial for our sense of consienceness. We can 'see' ourselves thinking. Our sense of 'free will' has to do with the choices we make. Knowing our motives in considering pro's and con's of the options is key to making the 'right' choice. This is what I've found sofar in what Buddism is about: knowing where certain feelings and leanings stem from by careful observation. It has more to do with science i.e. knowing than with mysticism.

However we will never be sure that we know all the 'reasons' why we eventually select any one of the available options and therefor one can still assume that it's the combination of all factors: knowledge, genes, experiences, external circumstance that will always lead to the same choice.

edit: I'm aware that the English is not entirely correct, but I hope you still understand what I'm trying to say.