If you see a difference, then please explain the difference between the ability to choose and free will.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Supernaut on January 27, 2010 at 10:48am

According to Benjamin Libet (a scientist, not a philosopher) we have "free won't". Here's the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

and here is a link to his book:

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Time-Consciousness-Perspectives-Neurosci...

He takes the concept of free will out of the subjective world of philosophy and into the objective world of science. Interesting stuff.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on January 27, 2010 at 7:14pm

These are great links. The second one is also fascinating just looking at the titles (and subtitles) of the suggested books in 'also liked' at the bottom. It seems apparent that, even among neuroscientists, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of choice, decision making, imagination, and creativity the jury is still out ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gila Guerilla on January 27, 2010 at 6:40pm

QM does have effects in the macro world. Two examples are:-

1. Radioactive material decays with a half life. The moment and momentum of each decay is indeterminate, but the effect it has on a photographic plate is observable, and in the macro world. That is how Marie Curie discovered the effects of radioactive radium.

2. When an electron in an atom becomes excited, (has energy added), it may correspondingly moved to a higher region of orbital probabilities. Subsequently it may lose the previously added energy, moving back to a lower region of orbital probabilities. When and where it will move back is indeterminate.

However, as the electron drops back, it emits a photon whose wavelength corresponds to the energy gained then lost, (a quantum). This results in flashes of visible, (or invisible), electromagnetic radiation, which we use in fireworks for pleasure, in street lights for illumination/safety reasons, and in x-ray machines for medical and other purposes. These effects are in the macro world yet due to QM.

Yes, QM works at the sub-atomic level, but can have effects at the supra-atomic level. Thus it is not illogical to think that QM might be able to affect our minds, (but I know of no evidence for that -yet).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on January 27, 2010 at 7:21pm

Yes. To assert that what happens at the quantum level - considering that it is the foundation of everything - isn't significant to consciousness, seems a bit myopic. But to assert anyone knows precisely what role it plays is also, to say the least, suspect.

I really don't get how anyone can actually look at the world and see anything that isn't intrinsically part of the overall thing - the universe. Determinism itself is an expression that all things interact. Nothing is fully isolated from anything else. The iron in my hemoglobin that brings the oxygen to the cells in my brain so they can metabolize and operate as key features of my consciousness was formed in the alchemical furnace of supernovae billions of light years away and ago. The significance of that is only a matter of scale in all dimensions, including time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on January 27, 2010 at 10:57pm

I tend to agree Glen - with the caveat that simple assertion that one thing operates completely separately from another is also on the border of woo woo land. The universe is like a giant wool sweater - pull on a loose bit of yarn sticking out anywhere and the whole thing could start to unravel .... ;^)

Seriously though, if you are tempted to attempt to jump to any specific conclusions about the nature of a relationship between QM and 'option selection mechanisms in the human brain' without a clear pathology - then give all your money to J.Z. Knight, do not pass go, do not collect $200, and start over.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wonderist on January 28, 2010 at 12:45pm

"At the moment QM is unusable by the best minds."

I wouldn't say that. There are countless practical uses of QM. You're using several of them to read this post. QM is one of the most successful and accurate theories in science. It's undeniably true. If it's ever overturned, it will be overturned like Newton was, by something even *more* accurate.

The question is "what does QM mean for determinism?" That connection has not been, and probably never will be, fully established. I stick with determinism for the simple reason that it doesn't give up looking for deeper causes, whereas indeterminism can lead to us stopping the search. "Well, the universe is fundamentally random. No point asking how or why. It just is."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on January 28, 2010 at 1:15pm

I tend to keep looking because I there is still stuff that remains to be seen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on January 29, 2010 at 11:49pm

Hi Gila,

There are quantum theories of mind, though, from what I gather, they've got some fundamental problems to resolve.

Quantum mechanics has absolutely NO bearing on free will, that I can see, other than undermining the determinists argument that everything is predetermined.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wonderist on January 30, 2010 at 1:47am

"Quantum mechanics has absolutely NO bearing on free will, that I can see, other than undermining the determinists argument that everything is predetermined."

Only pre-determinists argue that. In contrast, post-determinists don't argue that. Both are determinists. And in any case, it is not QM that undermines pre-determinism, since QM can be interpreted deterministically. What would undermine pre-determinism is either indeterminism or arguments such as the anti-prophecy machine argument.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The 502 on January 30, 2010 at 11:44am

Interesting thread - I'm not all the way through it yet, but figured I would throw out what I first thought when I read the initial post.

I've personally not given 'free will' much thought. I was not raised in a religious family, and the term had never come up. The only time I've ever heard it mentioned is in religious circles. Basically, I've heard that God gave people free will, and since there is no God, the idea was pointless and not worth my attention. I viewed it as the gift itself and not the ability to choose.

I see here that the discussion is not about 'free will' as I understand it, but about the 'how' and 'why' of the choices we make. Like I said, interesting read - look forward to reading more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on January 31, 2010 at 11:43pm

Hi 502,

Free will is actually a doctrine that didn't fully develop until about 70 years after the Roman Catholic Church was established by Emperor Constantine. St. Augustine fleshed out the ramifications of free will (circa 400 A.D.) in order to overcome the pitfalls of the deterministic Bible with more socially redeeming benefits like: good works, repentance, and responsibility for our own actions.

Determinism is intimately tied to belief in God(s). The whole world (East and West), with rare exception, was deterministic, believing that God(s) controlled every facet of every event; past, present and future. Even their prevailing "science" (astrology), took determinism for granted.

Today, most Christians accept free will despite the Bible. This represents the success of secondary sources (doctrine) over primary sources (the Bible). Much later, even the majority of Protestants accepted the doctrine of free will.

Free will, accordingly, gets a bad rap from atheists . . . after all, it was developed and advocated by the Roman Catholic Church. However, they weren't the ones who "invented" the idea. We have Epicurus to thank for that. He departed from the Atomists of his day by claiming the motion of atoms is random -- breaking the cascading causal chain reaction kick-started by the Prime Mover -- and that this was enough to allow for free will. His contrarian assertion (randomness at the atomic level) foreshadowed Quantum Theory by thousands of years.

Today, free will is a well-known, established, concept. Whether or not you believe in free will, you know (roughly) what it is. More importantly, you live your life as if you have free will. You work, play and plan as if you have free will. Free will is taken for granted. Do you take credit for your own actions? Do your officemates recognize your work and ideas? Do you weigh consequences before instructing your children? Of course you do. Because you have free will . . . or at least, because you think you have free will. What you don't do is trip through life aghast to find that you keep performing actions you don't intend; like a hapless puppet dancing on strings of causality.

So which is true? Free will or determinism? Every moment of your life is empirical evidence for free will. The claim that your entire experience is an illusion is an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence. What evidence is there? None. Zero. Zilch.

So why is it that the majority of atheists appear to be determinists? The biggest reason is causality. Cause and effect. It's a binary concept: it doesn't get much simpler. By and large, determinists deny the reality of their experience in favor of this simple concept: causality. They apply causality to literally everything.

But I say they're mistaken. More precisely, I say they're dogmatic. Why? Because it's always dogma behind fundamental denials. And it doesn't get more fundamental than experience. Does it? After all, "I think, therefore I am." When all else might be an illusion, we find bedrock in our overall experience.

What's the dogma? "Causality is absolute." or "Everything is predetermined."

I say there's an obvious difference between inanimate matter and animate beings. Inanimate matter reacts to causality with mathematical precision and predictability. It has no choice. Animate beings react to causality in unpredictable ways.

Consider this . . .

A worm finds itself exposed to too much sunlight. What does it do? Does it continue forward or retreat back where it came from? Maybe it makes a lateral move, left or right. Who knows? Unlike a comet, it might do ANY of these things. Life introduces an entirely different mode of response to causality. Living things react differently than the rest of the universe. It seems too obvious to state but: animate beings are radically different than inanimate matter.

This brings up my main point: causality is 100% predictable (outside the quantum realm) with inanimate matter but not with animate beings. Assuming Earth is the only place with life, then after 10 billion years of cosmic clockwork, life introduced an entirely new kind of object to the universe.

You can claim that our experience of free will is an illusion or you can explain how we differ from rocks, comets, meteors, planets and stars.

One last thing. Free will doesn't mean immunity from causality. It means that causality is not absolute with us humans. It need not take much independence to empower free agency. If a meteor crashes through my roof and obliterates me, that's causality. If we send a spacecraft to intercept the meteor and deflect it from Earth, that's free will.

We are both subjects to and masters of causality. How do I know? Because we can understand, anticipate and use causality to do our bidding in every facet of our lives.

Seems pretty clear to me . . .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on February 1, 2010 at 2:23pm

We are both subjects to and masters of causality. How do I know? Because we can understand, anticipate and use causality to do our bidding in every facet of our lives.

This appears to be the 'crux of the biscuit' (as Frank Zappa would say.) Causality appears to occur within our consciousness. No one can deny this. In fact, our illusions are, nevertheless, participants in causality. I guess the only question that remains is this - do we alter the causal gestalt (my term for the complex, multi-dimensional web of cause and effect) in ways that weren't, in turn caused and affected by the overall causal gestalt - that is to say - does causation pass through us or does some part of it originate inside us.

I would say that the last thought of a dying man is an effect without further cause. Why is this also a critical difference in the case of consciousness v. physics? Because physical determinism is an unending chain. Every cause is an effect and every effect a cause. If an effect has no further cause - it ends the thread. Any causal gestalt with unpredictably ended threads in it contains a further layer of complexity. I don't know if this removes the absolute predictability at the absolute level - but it does change the game up a bit.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• Next ›
• Page