If you believe in free will, respond to these two objections

[shawn001]

Several are involved in the decision process actually. Just prior to the decision, memory and the speech areas of the brain become very active. However at the moment the decision is consciously made the right parietal cortex becomes active.

They are still doing research however I imagine that if this area of the brain becomes damaged a person might find themselves incapable of making a conscious decision.

How does it work. Some perception triggers a memory. That memory is associated with pleasure. The brain would liked to feel that "pleasure" again so the brain creates a road map of actions necessary to recreate that stimulation. The brain then controls the body as necessary to carry out those actions.

The brain wants certain types of stimulation and wants to avoid others, like pain. The brain determines how to get the stimulation it desires. Locks it in place as the best why to accomplish the goal.

Thanks Nakosis

Just fyi

Conciousness has parts to it.

The Electric Brain

How does a three-pound mass of wet gray tissue (the brain) succeed in representing the external world so beautifully? In this interview with noted neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás of the New York University School of Medicine, find out how the rhythm of electrical oscillations in the brain gives rise to consciousness, and how failures in this rhythm can lead to a variety of brain disorders.

How does consciousness come into this view of the brain? Is consciousness a mysterious phenomenon, in your opinion?

I don't think so. I think consciousness is the sum of perceptions, which you must put together as a single event. I seriously believe that consciousness does not belong only to humans; it belongs to probably all forms of life that have a nervous system. The issue is the level of consciousness. Maybe in the very primitive animals, in which cells did not have a single systemic property—in which each cell was a little island, if you wish—there may not have been consciousness, just primitive sensation, or irritability, and primitive movement. But as soon as cells talked to one another there would be a consensus. This is basically what consciousness is about—putting all this relevant stuff there is outside one's head inside, making an image with it, and deciding what to do. In order to make a decision you have to have a consensus.
But it all just boils down to cells talking to one another?

Some people believe we are something beyond neurons, but of course we are not. We are just the sum total of the activity of neurons. We assume that we have free will and that we make decisions, but we don't. Neurons do. We decide that this sum total driving us is a decision we have made for ourselves. But it is not.

NOVA | The Electric Brain


Why free will may be an illusion

New Scientist TV: Why free will may be an illusion

 

[idav]

Thanks Nakosis

Just fyi

Conciousness has parts to it.

The Electric Brain

How does a three-pound mass of wet gray tissue (the brain) succeed in representing the external world so beautifully? In this interview with noted neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás of the New York University School of Medicine, find out how the rhythm of electrical oscillations in the brain gives rise to consciousness, and how failures in this rhythm can lead to a variety of brain disorders.

How does consciousness come into this view of the brain? Is consciousness a mysterious phenomenon, in your opinion?

I don't think so. I think consciousness is the sum of perceptions, which you must put together as a single event. I seriously believe that consciousness does not belong only to humans; it belongs to probably all forms of life that have a nervous system. The issue is the level of consciousness. Maybe in the very primitive animals, in which cells did not have a single systemic property—in which each cell was a little island, if you wish—there may not have been consciousness, just primitive sensation, or irritability, and primitive movement. But as soon as cells talked to one another there would be a consensus. This is basically what consciousness is about—putting all this relevant stuff there is outside one's head inside, making an image with it, and deciding what to do. In order to make a decision you have to have a consensus.
But it all just boils down to cells talking to one another?

Some people believe we are something beyond neurons, but of course we are not. We are just the sum total of the activity of neurons. We assume that we have free will and that we make decisions, but we don't. Neurons do. We decide that this sum total driving us is a decision we have made for ourselves. But it is not.

NOVA | The Electric Brain


Why free will may be an illusion

New Scientist TV: Why free will may be an illusion

I agree completely with the idea that cells are aware and consciousness is due to the consensus between the cells. The second portion though strays a bit to leap to "we don't make the decision". We are aware that the the cells are making a decision but like the first paragraph said it is by consensus. In essence many neurons are reporting to headquarters so that a decision can be made which is what the central nervous system is all about, it is about making an informed decision even if it might be wrong.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I
I think modern neuroscience has learned a ton in the last 10 years on consciouness and how the brain physically works. Not everything however, but a lot more then we use too for sure.

The field of cognitive neuropsychology is in quite a bit of disarray. This isn't just because of the normal disagreement in every field or because of what we still don't know. Rather, we know have a massive amount of data, but we lack the ability to interpret is. fMRI, ERP, MRI, and EEG data (among other new techniques) have provided us with many different ways to look at how the brain functions. Great. But what does it mean? Take a typical fMRI experimental paradigm: a subject is exposed to stimuli, such as a number of images and words for actions and the same for objects. Some areas of the brain which are indicated in conceptual representation will show increased activity for action stimuli, another for non-action. Then a flurry of papers will result, interpreting the experiment as demonstrating a neural differentiation between actions and non-actions, or verbs and nouns, or that the differences found do not relate to conceptual representation but rather to a process necessary prior to access to semantic knowledge, and so on. That's without getting into the problems associated with the experiments themselves (improper controls), or the problems resulting from the equipment (improper selection of voxel size, improper methods for selecting ROIs, too much 'noise"), or an improper use of statistical analysis of the data.

In short, it may be that an increase in data over the last decade or so has actually decreased our knowledge by replacing a lack of knowledge with inaccurate knowledge. I don't see any strong evidence that we are closer to understanding "consciousness" or the "mind" than we were ten or twenty years ago.

Do you believe we have free will or not?

That depends on how you define it. I do not believe that our decisions are completely determined by the physical laws of the universe.

Do you by any chance study any of behavioral neurologist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran work?

The name sounds familiar, but I can't be sure. This is the field I work in now. After you've read hundreds and hundreds of papers from journals and conference proceedings, not to mention the monographs and books intended for specialists, it's impossible to keep track of most of the names. I probably can't tell you names of 1% of the authors who've written or co-authored something I've read.

 

[shawn001]

I agree completely with the idea that cells are aware and consciousness is due to the consensus between the cells. The second portion though strays a bit to leap to "we don't make the decision". We are aware that the the cells are making a decision but like the first paragraph said it is by consensus. In essence many neurons are reporting to headquarters so that a decision can be made which is what the central nervous system is all about, it is about making an informed decision even if it might be wrong.

But you can show decisions via neurons and neural synapses being made in the brain before your conciously aware of them.

Just out of curisosity did you read the whole article?

On the brain being asleep and on the different part of conciousness with brain damage?

 

[shawn001]

The field of cognitive neuropsychology is in quite a bit of disarray. This isn't just because of the normal disagreement in every field or because of what we still don't know. Rather, we know have a massive amount of data, but we lack the ability to interpret is. fMRI, ERP, MRI, and EEG data (among other new techniques) have provided us with many different ways to look at how the brain functions. Great. But what does it mean? Take a typical fMRI experimental paradigm: a subject is exposed to stimuli, such as a number of images and words for actions and the same for objects. Some areas of the brain which are indicated in conceptual representation will show increased activity for action stimuli, another for non-action. Then a flurry of papers will result, interpreting the experiment as demonstrating a neural differentiation between actions and non-actions, or verbs and nouns, or that the differences found do not relate to conceptual representation but rather to a process necessary prior to access to semantic knowledge, and so on. That's without getting into the problems associated with the experiments themselves (improper controls), or the problems resulting from the equipment (improper selection of voxel size, improper methods for selecting ROIs, too much 'noise"), or an improper use of statistical analysis of the data.

In short, it may be that an increase in data over the last decade or so has actually decreased our knowledge by replacing a lack of knowledge with inaccurate knowledge. I don't see any strong evidence that we are closer to understanding "consciousness" or the "mind" than we were ten or twenty years ago.


That depends on how you define it. I do not believe that our decisions are completely determined by the physical laws of the universe.



The name sounds familiar, but I can't be sure. This is the field I work in now. After you've read hundreds and hundreds of papers from journals and conference proceedings, not to mention the monographs and books intended for specialists, it's impossible to keep track of most of the names. I probably can't tell you names of 1% of the authors who've written or co-authored something I've read.

I work with some top researchers who use FMRI and PET to study issues in the brain.

These tools have advanced brain research majorally. Not that there still not improving them or the information they provide.

However, if you are not that familar with Neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran, I highly recommend his work.


Vilayanur Ramachandran has been called a Sherlock Holmes of neuroscience. Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, San Diego, and adjunct professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, Ramachandran has brilliantly sleuthed his way through some of the strangest maladies of the human mind.


I think if you watch these you will find them facinating and part of your field of study.

Vilayanur Ramachandran: A journey to the center of your mind


[youtube]Rl2LwnaUA-k[/youtube]
Vilayanur Ramachandran: A journey to the center of your mind - YouTube



Vilayanur Ramachandran tells us what brain damage can reveal about the connection between celebral tissue and the mind, using three startling delusions as examples.


VS Ramachandran: The neurons that shaped civilization

Neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran outlines the fascinating functions of mirror neurons. Only recently discovered, these neurons allow us to learn complex social behaviors, some of which formed the foundations of human civilization as we know it.


[youtube]t0pwKzTRG5E[/youtube]
VS Ramachandran: The neurons that shaped civilization - YouTube


Consciousness, Qualia, and Self (V.S. Ramachandran)

[youtube]jTWmTJALe1w[/youtube]
Consciousness, Qualia, and Self (V.S. Ramachandran) - YouTube


V. S. Ramachandran on the Uniqueness of Human Consciousness

[youtube]LaVoiXbaVZU[/youtube]
V. S. Ramachandran on the Uniqueness of Human Consciousness - YouTube


There are quite a few more in youtube, including

Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist

Neurologist VS Ramachandran explains the case of split-brain patients with one hemisphere without a belief in a god, and the other with a belief in a god.

[youtube]PFJPtVRlI64[/youtube]
Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist - YouTube

 

[shawn001]

LegionOnomaMoi

"That depends on how you define it. I do not believe that our decisions are completely determined by the physical laws of the universe."


How so?

 

[idav]

What trips me out about Ramachandran was that he is the real life version of House healing that amputee of chronic pain. That dude is awesome.

 

[not nom]

What trips me out about Ramachandran was that he is the real life version of House healing that amputee of chronic pain. That dude is awesome.

at first I thought you mean house music, and was confused to say the least

 

[shawn001]

What trips me out about Ramachandran was that he is the real life version of House healing that amputee of chronic pain. That dude is awesome.

"That dude is awesome"

I concur.

From Ramachandran's Notebook

In cases of phantom limbs, amputees and even those born without one or more limbs feel pain and other sensations in their missing body parts. Here, read neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran's vivid descriptions of his experiences with phantom-limb patients and how he has managed to understand their singular dilemmas and thereby help them.

NOVA | From Ramachandran's Notebook

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LegionOnomaMoi

"That depends on how you define it. I do not believe that our decisions are completely determined by the physical laws of the universe."


How so?

I've written several posts which are part of this thread. You can read them. If, after doing so, you find that they don't answer your question, I'd be more than happy to expand on and/or clarify what I've said.

 

[elmarna]

"Free will" which humans posses is contrary to a animal bound by instinct and some unseen guidence that supports the code of behavior od them.
Angels are said to be bound by god's laws and can not deviate from the program.
We have free will in thinking and the ways we express.
The responsibility or accountability is in our higher thinking anddoes not restrain the free will - it is there in considering in a greater sense from the animal! Being a higher thinking
being we need the balance from the primitive action and the service of thought.
Casualty - is the same ways - it is not there to set limits. It is there to call upon restraint. To poop in the middle of the store room floor is not likely a higher thinking individual!

 

[Thief]

It's more like you are free to make choices. You just wouldn't at that point in time made any choice different then the one you made.

Yes, if you were put in prison then your freewill would be severely restricted. However you could still make some choices. However just because you are free to choose doesn't mean your life wasn't determined from birth.

Your choices, if a person knew you, your knowledge, your experiences, every book you read, every movie, everything that influenced your thinking could predict the choices you've made through life. People who know you well enough can sometimes fairly accurately predict you behavior.

Doesn't mean you didn't freely make the choice. Only that if enough information about you was known, your choices could have been predicted.

We are under religious debates.

Are you now implying that all of creation is one chemical reaction following another?

God is lacking freewill?....God in spirit....can't help Himself?

And unable to bestow said will, unto you?

 

[cablescavenger]

It can be demonstrated; it is merely very difficult to, since (as mentioned) humans are not generally intelligent enough to do it, and modern computers have great difficulty. Your friends, the computers of the future, might be perfectly capable.

I think I will give science fiction a miss.

 

[cablescavenger]

Argument from ignorance?

Nope. Arguments from ignorance with an agenda.

Here is the argument.

 

[Thief]

Nope. Arguments from ignorance with an agenda.

Here is the argument.

I took a look....
This discussion fell apart immediately...as it leans to 'what God knows'.

So...God....was 'self predestined' to be the Creator?
He just couldn't help Himself?

He knew He was going to do it...He couldn't stop Himself.
The creation could not have been denied.

God is predictable ....to Whom?

 

[PolyHedral]

I think I will give science fiction a miss.

People have been saying variants of that for the last 70 years. A shocking number of them have been proven wrong. It turns out that computers are very good at information processing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

People have been saying variants of that for the last 70 years. A shocking number of them have been proven wrong. It turns out that computers are very good at information processing.

Watson's notoriety is vastly overrated. The main reason behind its success was the capacity common to all modern computers: the ability to store and access massive amounts of data. Its ability to understand language was extremely limited.

A newborn infant has a superior capacity for pattern recognition, learning, adaption, inference, etc., then extremely complex programs and/or artificial neural networks.

Computers are VERY good when it comes to explicitly defined rules. However, after being presented with an image of a chair, their ability to recognize the same chair when its position is shifted, or a shadow is cast upon it, or someon is sitting in it, is inferior to higher functioning non-human animals.

Back before modern computers existed and Turing published his famous paper, researchers interested in A.I. thought that computers with human abilities were only a few years away. Decades later, and even the more modest of their predictions have failed to materialize.

 

[cablescavenger]

People have been saying variants of that for the last 70 years. A shocking number of them have been proven wrong. It turns out that computers are very good at information processing.

Science fiction is fiction, so it hardly proves anything wrong.

I think what you are trying to say is that things that have once been thoughts in science fiction have become reality, and that is true.

That does not mean everything that has been created in science fiction has come true, or is ever going to come true.

You are suggesting a computer that can predict the outcome of a decision a person might take.

I bought one of my children a toy a few years ago, where you think of something and the toy asks a number of questions, and eventually it tells you what you are thinking of. It is a nice little decision tree program and very entertaining, I guess you could call it artificial intelligence, but would you be able to build one which would help me negotiate my way through life?

You can easily do a little decision tree, but many decisions are far more complex than those that can be imagined by a computer programmer.
Often decisions draw in a complex set of influencing factors, they pull upon life experiences, feelings, superstition, risk assesment, personal living conditions, responsibilities, family situation etc. and no two people are alike.

 

[Tathagata]

What makes it unpredictable? Is it that we humans can't possibly take into consideration every single causal factor, or is it that some aspect is uncaused? If it's the latter then the second objection in the original post applies.

By unpredictable I mean that consciousness has many possible reactions and it could be any one of those whereas a cue ball being hit with a stick has one possible outcome.

I like those quotes and they might be useful as inspiration, but I don't see the relevance here.

You dont see how a philosophers explanation of determinsim is relevant?

And no, its not inspirational, its making a point. Hes saying that things happen in the present moment and that the past is just a trail left behind the present moment. Given this explanation, it would be absurd to say that the trail left behind a plane caused it to be where it is now. The main point is, the past doesnt determine the present nor does it anything, the past is the past. The present leaves the past events behind in its trail.

Self determined things are still subject to the first objection in the original post.

Please elaborate.

 

[Falvlun]

Well a cause produces (determines) an effect by definition, so maybe you mean that events aren't completely caused, that some element of the event is uncaused.

No. It's similar to what Legion is saying. There are multiple influences upon our decisions, that can be said to be causes, but they do not guarantee that that particular decision would have been made. In other words, I believe that you can have a long line of causes that lead to a particular decision, but that same long line of causes may not result in the same decision the next time.

The element (in humans, at least) that would allow a different result to occur with the same set of causes is self-awareness. So I suppose you can say that individual self-awareness is the ultimately "determining" cause. (Though I don't like to word it so... I think it just plays into the deterministic assumptions that are so popular of late.)

All of the causal factors that produce an effect, together, can be called the cause of the effect. The agent is one of the causal factors, along with the environment or whatever other causal factors there may be. Together they are the cause of the effect. The effect is the choice. The cause produces the effect. That is synonymous with saying the cause determines the effect.

The reason you keep saying the cause doesn't determine the choice is that you continue to exclude the agent as part of the cause, even after I've pointed it out to you, twice.

This was written in response to Legion, but if I may: The agent is not excluded at all. It is the intrinsic factor. Our agency is the ultimate cause of our choices. I do not understand the feeling of "gotcha" that this stance engenders among people of your point of view. If the person is the ultimate cause for his decisions, then that means that that person has free will.

As Tathagata put:
P1: There exists things not determined by an external agent or cause.
P2: If it is not determined by anything else but itself, it is self-determined.
P3: If it is self-determined, it is free.