Free Will as Brain Scans Reveal

[Gjallarhorn]

Did anyone notice that part where the scientist talks about the brain is GENERALLY acting in harmony and cahoots with our consciousness. In other words, there is a synergy that develops in each persons union, to where some like pickles and others don't. So the brain USUALLY isn't going to force you to eat a pickle.

I just find it fascinating.

Kind of hard for your brain to control you when you are an extension of your brain.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Kind of hard for your brain to control you when you are an extension of your brain.

But, what we are exploring here is that relationship that all of us know so very little about. I imagine it is akin to the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.
Again, to me it is fascinating to try and tackle the workings of this semi-symbiotic relationship and how it works, and what we can learn from it.

 

[Skwim]

But can't any old will do this? What's so special about a freewill?
And, again, isn't this what the will already does; make choices? If so, then what freedom does the "free" in freewill refer to? Seems to me it's enough to say, we have a will. What's the big deal with FREEwill?

But when we say, "I am doing it out of my free-will", somewhere it implies there is no pressure of any circumstance, it is of my own choice, I am doing so.

Then you're implying that sometimes our will isn't free; that we have part-time freewill. Hmmm. Doesn't sound like that big of a deal to make an issue of. It's like proclaiming that sometimes I can go to the bathroom and sometimes I can't.

Name one thing that's free, and tell me why it's free.

The air we breath. It's free because it costs nothing, money-wise or otherwise.

 

[Willamena]

The air we breath. It's free because it costs nothing, money-wise or otherwise.

Then the equivalent is, what distinguishes air from free air?

Will is free because it costs you nothing to exercise it.

 

[Skwim]

Then the equivalent is, what distinguishes air from free air?

Will is free because it costs you nothing to exercise it.

So, just as we never refer to air as "free air," why bother to refer to the will as "freewill"? Yet some people do, and passionately so.

 

[George-ananda]

So, just as we never refer to air as "free air," why bother to refer to the will as "freewill"? Yet some people do, and passionately so.

Skwim or anyone, help me out

Did you watch the video of the experiment?

It never approachs the question of why his subconcious chose the right button and not the left button. Sounds like there's still a mystery there.

Is this all based on the assumption that free-will would only be associated with the concious mind and not the subconcious mind? Couldn't free-will be involved with the whole brain?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Skwim or anyone, help me out

Did you watch the video of the experiment?

It never approachs the question of why his subconcious chose the right button and not the left button. Sounds like there's still a mystery there.

Is this all based on the assumption that free-will would only be associated with the concious mind and not the subconcious mind? Couldn't free-will be involved with the whole brain?

If you want to ignore the entire concept of what volition is, sure.

 

[Willamena]

So, just as we never refer to air as "free air," why bother to refer to the will as "freewill"? Yet some people do, and passionately so.

Somehow we just don't consider the air around us to be significant in whether or not we have a destiny, or are free to determine our own fate. Will, on the other hand, is a chunk of the world that does impact that debateable topic. So it gets mention.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim or anyone, help me out

Did you watch the video of the experiment?

No I didn't, but only because I don't find the results all that surprising.

It never approachs the question of why his subconcious chose the right button and not the left button. Sounds like there's still a mystery there.

Physiologically, I'm sure there is. But as a matter of "doing/not doing" it's quite understandable.

Is this all based on the assumption that free-will would only be associated with the concious mind and not the subconcious mind? Couldn't free-will be involved with the whole brain?

Not sure what you're referring to by "this" because the video is only about the findings of science. As for what freewill might be associated with I leave that to those who champion it. Personally, I've always looked at the claim for freewill as an assertion that one could have done differently if they had wanted.

 

[Willamena]

Is this all based on the assumption that free-will would only be associated with the concious mind and not the subconcious mind? Couldn't free-will be involved with the whole brain?

"The subconscious mind" isn't a part of the brain, it's just the brain doing its stuff when we're not looking.

 

[Skwim]

Somehow we just don't consider the air around us to be significant in whether or not we have a destiny, or are free to determine our own fate.

Only answering your question.

Will, on the other hand, is a chunk of the world that does impact that debateable topic. So it gets mention.

Yup.

 

[Willamena]

Only answering your question.

Ah.

It was rhetorical.

 

[George-ananda]

If you want to ignore the entire concept of what volition is, sure.

Ok let's say there's cash lying there and the person knows if he just takes it no one would ever know he took it if he acts fast

Why would one person have a subconcious drive to take it and another person's subconcious drive is not to take it.

Are you saying there's no subconcious impulse involved in the quick decision? Why do people's subconcious react differently to the exact same situation?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Ok let's say there's cash lying there and the person knows if he just takes it no one would ever know he took it if he acts fast

Why would one person have a subconcious drive to take it and another person's subconcious drive is not to take it.

Are you saying there's no subconcious impulse involved in the quick decision? Why do people's subconcious react differently to the exact same situation?

Doesn't matter how the mind comes to its decision, as long as the conscious mind intended to act. Volition involves conscious intent. Acting without thinking is not the same as an involuntary movement. The former involves the conscious mind intending to act, though the processes leading to the action are still mostly hidden from the conscious mind. The latter involves no conscious intent. Free will would certainly require will, which comes from the conscious mind, meaning free will cannot take place only in the subconscious.

 

[George-ananda]

"The subconscious mind" isn't a part of the brain, it's just the brain doing its stuff when we're not looking.

Where are these subconcious events occuring (electrical bio-chemical activity). It's got to be in the brain, right?

 

[Willamena]

Where are these subconcious events occuring (electrical bio-chemical activity). It's got to be in the brain, right?

Yes, it's the brain, but it's the same brain function whether you do a conscious act or a subconscious one.

For instance, your breathing is most often subconscious. You don't think about it, you're not aware of it. When it is called to your attention, you become aware, it gains the focus of your attention, and is now a conscious act. But it's the same part of the brain that operates breathing--that hasn't changed. All that's changed is where you're "looking."

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, it's the brain, but it's the same brain function whether you do a conscious act or a subconscious one.

For instance, your breathing is most often subconscious. You don't think about it, you're not aware of it. When it is called to your attention, you become aware, it gains the focus of your attention, and is now a conscious act. But it's the same part of the brain that operates breathing--that hasn't changed.

I understand

All that's changed is where you're "looking."

So there's still a 'you' and a 'looker'. Can these have free-will?

I guess it comes down to your assumptions. If you assume a human is just a complex physical matter construction then where is free-will?

If you assume humans have a non-physical soul that incarnates in a physical body animating the physical matter then free-will can make sense,

A lot of these RF debates in the end come down to which of the two assumptions you start with.

 

[Willamena]

So there's still a 'you' and a 'looker'. Can these have free-will?

Yes. Absolutely. That's the ticket.

I guess it comes down to your assumptions. If you assume a human is just a complex physical matter construction then where is free-will?

If you assume humans have a non-physical soul that incarnates in a physical body animating the physical matter then free-will can make sense,

A lot of these RF debates in the end come down to which of the two assumptions you start with.

Yes, although "a non-physical soul" and the religious dressing is unnecessary extraneous imagery. The observer "me" exists in grammar, as does its free will (expressions of "me" in action, interacting with a world that is "not-me").

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If there was no free will we would always make the same choices as everyone else.
and never change our mind.
I suspect there are many modes we use, from the instantaneous to the deeply considered.
Our brain has well rehearsed pathways for the common choices, but they can still be changed.

 

[PolyHedral]

If there was no free will we would always make the same choices as everyone else.
and never change our mind.

Complete non-sequitor.