Is Free Will Incompatible with Neuroscience?

[Aupmanyav]

But you can choose to break the law at any point you want, and in fact a lot of people does this constantly.

Yeah, people do that, based on their maths, as to whether they are going to be caught or will escape the consequences. Or what kind of punishment will be given to them. In many countries the punishment is so harsh that hardly any one dares to exercise the option of breaking the law. In other countries the jail facilities may equal the facilities provided by a three star hotel.

by and in, what do you see the difference as being?

Is it different? Store and defrag evey night.

 

[Heyo]

by and in, what do you see the difference as being?

As an example the computer stores information like chalk on a board whereas the brain stores information as if you carved it in. There is a physical change, not only a fleeting state change that can be flipped back and forth without leaving any indication of the previous state.

 

[Heyo]

I don't really think that God is important in this, unless they are influencing our free will.

For the religious person who thinks that free will is given by a god and can't be explained by any other means, god is important.
For a dualist who thinks that the free will exists outside of the physical brain in a god given soul, god is important.

 

[Nimos]

For the religious person who thinks that free will is given by a god and can't be explained by any other means, god is important.
For a dualist who thinks that the free will exists outside of the physical brain in a god given soul, god is important.

But it shouldn't be, because it hasn't been demonstrated to be that way.

I mean we don't know whether true free will exists or not. That religious people, which believe in a god or gods think it should be important is obviously linked to them already working off another assumption, which haven't been demonstrated either.

To me, and have said it before in other posts, beliefs should not be sacred. They are simply what we think things are at a given point in time, without having a clue whether they are true or not.
Therefore one should be willing to change these beliefs at the blink of an eye, if something else seems more rational. And in some cases the most rational explanation is simply that "we don't know".

Anything is possible or important if one's starting point is flawed.

"I believe that these powerful aliens created the Universe and especially designed humans as a reflection of them in this material world. Given that this is what I believe, it is important for me to know whether these aliens would like humans to have free will or if we are merely puppets."

It hasn't been demonstrated that such powerful aliens exists, it hasn't been demonstrate that they created the Universe or humans. So for me to use it as a baseline believe for trying finding answers to another question, I don't know about, simply doesn't make a lot of sense. That I as an individual decide to make that baseline believe important, might simply be because I did not ask the right questions about the aliens to begin with, and therefore my assumption is simply that they exists. But it does nothing for answering the question of whether we have free will or not.

Because you would be able to come up with a very long explanation and probably one that is logical as well of how free will would work in such scenario. But in the end, another person would always end up asking for you to demonstrate that these aliens even exists to begin with. Because an explanation of how free will works in this setup, solely depends on whether or not they even exists, if they don't, it's wrong.

 

[Nimos]

Yeah, people do that, based on their maths, as to whether they are going to be caught or will escape the consequences. Or what kind of punishment will be given to them. In many countries the punishment is so harsh that hardly any one dares to exercise the option of breaking the law. In other countries the jail facilities may equal the facilities provided by a three star hotel.

In regards to free will, the consequences doesn't matter. You want to jump off a cliff and kill yourself, there is nothing to stop you, the consequences are huge from doing it, but they don't prevent you from doing it. That is why I said that there are only biological and realistic limitations.

 

[Polymath257]

I wasn't arguing for free will, I was arguing against total determinism.

Even if neural activity is driven by quantum events (and there is evidence for that*) it makes decisions random instead of deterministic. I don't see "freedom" in either case.

* The ion pumps of the synaptic gap are on the scale of single molecules. Differences in the opening that are on a quantum scale can determine if an ion gets through or not.

But seldom is it just one ion pump that is relevant for neuron firing. It takes a lot of them to depolarize the membrane.

 

[Heyo]

But seldom is it just one ion pump that is relevant for neuron firing. It takes a lot of them to depolarize the membrane.

Yep. Unfortunately the research on that topic isn't conclusive (or was last time I looked into it). Numbers from "negligible" to "up to 10%". I think and hope the former is closer to the truth. My thinking isn't that clear (any more) but it still feels more consistent than 10% random noise.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In regards to free will, the consequences doesn't matter. You want to jump off a cliff and kill yourself, there is nothing to stop you, the consequences are huge from doing it, but they don't prevent you from doing it. That is why I said that there are only biological and realistic limitations.

Yeah, some people do it, but most are hindered thinking of consequences, in such crimes as theft, robbery, rape, murder, etc. These are, as you say, realistic limitations.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It seems to me that the concept of "free will" or the idea that we have control over actions is incompatible with a materialist understanding of neuroscience. We know that our neurophysiology is what determines our actions, and no one chooses her/his neurophysiology, therefore, no one is ultimately in control of her/his actions. If you were to replace all of my brain cells, neuron for neuron, with those of a psychopath, I think it's safe to say I would make vastly different decisions. So how can one believe in the notion of "free will" while simultaneously believing in modern neuroscience? How can a person truly be in complete control of their actions if their brain is what makes their decisions and they did not choose the physical makeup of their own brain?

I tend to disagree when you say that "no once chooses her/his neurophysiology." In fact, I think that you begin doing that as soon as neural cells differentiate in the womb, and you continue that throughout life (although the process slows down as we age). Everybody who makes the effort to learn something new, to train to be better at a task, like tennis or typing, is making plastic brain cells adjust. Throughout our life, especially our early life, as we observe the reactions of ourselves and others to the activities of ourselves and others, we are training our plastic neurons to "be ourselves" in our own unique way.

The second problem usually discussed on the subject of free will is the result of the Benjamin Libet experiments, which showed that decisions are made BEFORE we are conscious of them. But I do not see this as a barrier to free will, either. If my own unconscious -- trained, as it has been by me throughout my life -- is not just as much part of me as my conscious self, then whose is it? The fact that I make a decision without being conscious of it does not make it any less mine -- any more than the fact that my own brain can regulate my heartbeat entirely without my conscious awareness. It's a part of me that I have to admit I'm rather glad I have, and that works as well as it does. And it doesn't matter to me at all that I'm not conscious of it!

Every baby is born with a small set of behaviours that get it through the earliest part of life. Sucking at the nipple, watching faces, and a bunch more. But every single thing that it does thereafter becomes a part of a unique human being, molded in part by the feedback of its own reaction to what it observes, as well as the reactions of others -- and how it feels about them.

So every choice I make, is a choice made by a neurophysiology largely created by myself, and trained by me to BE MYSELF.

 

[Nakosis]

As an example the computer stores information like chalk on a board whereas the brain stores information as if you carved it in. There is a physical change, not only a fleeting state change that can be flipped back and forth without leaving any indication of the previous state.

Do you have a reference?

In a computer obviously we have to physically change the hardware to increase storage capacity or speed or interconnectional access.

Also, let's say I need to remember a two-word sequence. I can do this pretty quickly. How does this process "carve" itself into my brain?

I've found information on where different types of memories are stored but nothing on how that storage is done. We can "upload" memories. Memories can be removed. The difference seems more one of complexity.

 

[Nimos]

Yeah, some people do it, but most are hindered thinking of consequences, in such crimes as theft, robbery, rape, murder, etc. These are, as you say, realistic limitations.

Its not exactly what I mean with realistic limitations.

For instant I could say to you that, im using my free will to buy a car tomorrow, not just any car, but a really expensive Ferrari. Given the fact that I don't have X amount of money to buy one, it would be wrong for me to say that my free will is limited or none existing, because I can't buy one. Simply because it is not realistic given how a person would obtain a Ferrari, if they want to buy one. Therefore for me personally it is not realistic, however for a person with lots of money, it would be.

Simply because a law say that you can't do something, doesn't mean that you can't. If I were a maniac and just wanted to make a point of showing that I had free will, I could go out and kill someone and no one could stop me from doing it, therefore it is not an unrealistic thing to do. That I will probably be thrown to jail etc afterwards, is unimportant in regards to free will.

 

[Heyo]

Do you have a reference?

In a computer obviously we have to physically change the hardware to increase storage capacity or speed or interconnectional access.

Also, let's say I need to remember a two-word sequence. I can do this pretty quickly. How does this process "carve" itself into my brain?

I've found information on where different types of memories are stored but nothing on how that storage is done. We can "upload" memories. Memories can be removed. The difference seems more one of complexity.

Here is a short video explaining the basics:

and this goes a bit deeper:

 

[Nakosis]

Here is a short video explaining the basics:

and this goes a bit deeper:

Thanks, I've come across most of this. This seems mainly to refer to the hardware. Not so much the encoding process which it seems we know less about than more. However, encoding is encoding. The brain encodes and stores these memories.

I was think as I watched the presentations that, most of the information prior was written. I used to read a lot. That was how learning was done. Now however, it seems my brain has adapted to visual presentations like what you provided. This now seems the easier way to learn. My brain has physically adapted to this new way of learning. The old reading process has weakened through limited use.

Anyway, this doesn't change my view much. There is the hardware of the brain which provides the "platform" of information storage and the actual encoding of information which seems to be separate from the hardware. IOW the information is not stored by the structure of the brain, it is stored by the encoding within the structure.

 

[Tambourine]

Because free will is an assumption of all empirical science, including neuroscience. Additionally, all one could learn from neuroscientists that assert we have no free will is that they believe themselves to be mindless.

Complete control and free will are not the same.

What is free will, by that understanding though? As far as I can tell, empirical science tends to view it as an epiphenomenon that cannot affect the physical world (because that, in turn, would violate the principle of causality, as physical phenomena could solely be caused by other physical phenomena). Would I be correct with that assessment?

But if I am, then how would a "free" will differ from a will that is not free?

 

[Nakosis]

What is free will, by that understanding though? As far as I can tell, empirical science tends to view it as an epiphenomenon that cannot affect the physical world (because that, in turn, would violate the principle of causality, as physical phenomena could solely be caused by other physical phenomena). Would I be correct with that assessment?

Aren't humans physical phenomena that can cause other physical phenomena?

But if I am, then how would a "free" will differ from a will that is not free?

Free will, enough control to choose between alternate future paths.

No free will would then be to lack any actual control over our future paths.

We may not be able to choose the number of paths available to us but we could make a decision on which fork in the path to follow.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Aren't humans physical phenomena that can cause other physical phenomena?

Free will, enough control to choose between alternate future paths.

No free will would then be to lack any actual control over our future paths.

We may not be able to choose the number of paths available to us but we could make a decision on which fork in the path to follow.

In physical terms what is control? Please explain that. The same with choice, what is choice in physical terms?

 

[Nakosis]

In physical terms what is control? Please explain that. The same with choice, what is choice in physical terms?

Control, the ability to affect behavior. Like when a solenoid activates to control the path of electrical current
Choose, decide on a course of action. Like if a computer program were designed to find the shortest path through a maze by evaluating all alternative paths.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Control, the ability to affect behavior. Like when a solenoid activates to control the path of electrical current
Choose, decide on a course of action. Like if a computer program were designed to find the shortest path through a maze by evaluating all alternative paths.

So these are examples of free will?

 

[syo]

the concept of "free will"

There are many people questioning harshly free will. Why? Isn't their questioning harshly their choice???

 

[Nakosis]

So these are examples of free will?

They are examples of causality which I'd see as a necessary mechanic of free will.