What is your stance on free will?

[Willamena]

In this case it comes down to whether one equates "conscious decisions" with "free will." If we look at our decisions as primarily a result of the compilation of various subconcious factors reaching some type of trigger point on a decision (and our "conscious decision" being an illusion created after-the-fact in our minds), then it is difficult to define exactly what was "free" about the decision, as it would appear to primarily be a highly automated (mechanistic) process.

Okay. I've seen a number of people refer to "free decision."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Okay. I've seen a number of people refer to "free decision."

What is free will other than primarily the ability to make a free decision?

 

[Sees]

Dualistic type absolutes = :banghead3

 

[Willamena]

What is free will other than primarily the ability to make a free decision?

As indicated earlier, what is a "free" decision? To me, free will is the exercise of self-ability, the association of the idea of "self" with a thought, an action or a state. Free will is expressed in movement. To raise one's arm, to choose one's words, to decide one's course and to assert one's dignity. Decision or choice is the natural outcome of 'movement' applied to 'thought.'

 

[Willamena]

Dualistic type absolutes = :banghead3

Can you explain?

Dualistic, certainty, but not at the expense of any other systems.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As indicated earlier, what is a "free" decision? To me, free will is the exercise of self-ability, the association of the idea of "self" with a thought, an action or a state. Free will is expressed in movement. To raise one's arm, to choose one's words, to decide one's course and to assert one's dignity. Decision or choice is the natural outcome of 'movement' applied to 'thought.'

Okay, so how does this play into the concept that the decision, choice, movement, and thought (along with the idea of self) are the result of subconcious, mechanistic processes? Are you saying that free-will remains intact for you, as long as the feeling of free-choice (even if it's an illusion) is perceived?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Mu. This debate is endless

 

[Willamena]

Okay, so how does this play into the concept that the decision, choice, movement, and thought (along with the idea of self) are the result of subconcious, mechanistic processes? Are you saying that free-will remains intact for you, as long as the feeling of free-choice (even if it's an illusion) is perceived?

As I said, it's all about to whom you're going to give the credit, me or my "subconscious processes" (or "environmental factors" or "experiences" or "external causes"). Lend the credit to either side and deny it for the other, and you have a debate.

And by "the credit" I really refer to composition of a narrative. Saying "subconscious processes done it" or "I did it" is just a matter of how the narrative gets composed, and ultimately that speaks to the paradigms that drive a person's thinking. Free will is "illusion" because self is an illusion, and both are conventions of language.

Necessary, existent conventions of language.

 

[Sees]

Can you explain?

Dualistic, certainty, but not at the expense of any other systems.

People argue opposing concepts that are only cooked up in the mind to begin with.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As I said, it's all about to whom you're going to give the credit, me or my "subconscious processes" (or "environmental factors" or "experiences" or "external causes"). Lend the credit to either side and deny it for the other, and you have a debate.

And by "the credit" I really refer to composition of a narrative. Saying "subconscious processes done it" or "I did it" is just a matter of how the narrative gets composed, and ultimately that speaks to the paradigms that drive a person's thinking. Free will is "illusion" because self is an illusion, and both are conventions of language.

Necessary, existent conventions of language.

Sorry, not really following, but thanks for trying to express your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

People argue opposing concepts that are only cooked up in the mind to begin with.

Who's arguing?

 

[Willamena]

People argue opposing concepts that are only cooked up in the mind to begin with.

Oooohhh... you mean philosophy.

 

[Sees]

Who's arguing?

The "people"

If we enlarge and overlap our version of the free-will and determinism concepts then erase the VS. that was inbetween...it's closer to reality, as is usual I think. Inclusiveness without static borders and pigeon-holing :areyoucra

 

[columbus]

No, they come from you.

The only valid argument against free will is the elimination of "you."

Edit:
By reducing "you" to things like experience and environment, "you" is trivialized in order to be quietly and irrationally ignored.

The "you" is an illusion just as free will is.

The most important part of humans is not their illusions of identity and freeness. It is their connectedness and ability to learn that is what matters.

Tom

 

[Sees]

The "you" is an illusion just as free will is.

The most important part of humans is not their illusions of identity and freeness. It is their connectedness and ability to learn that is what matters.

Tom

The "you" is an illusion...illusion of identity....signed Tom

 

[Willamena]

The "you" is an illusion just as free will is.

The most important part of humans is not their illusions of identity and freeness. It is their connectedness and ability to learn that is what matters.

Tom

What is it that is connected?

 

[Thief]

The "people"

If we enlarge and overlap our version of the free-will and determinism concepts then erase the VS. that was inbetween...it's closer to reality, as is usual I think. Inclusiveness without static borders and pigeon-holing :areyoucra

pigeon-holing?......as in your typical grave site?

We don't have a choice about dying.
Are you 'willing' to surrender what little choice you DO have?

Some say angels have no free will.
I don't believe that.
There would be form of nay saying....no objection.....no denial....

And here we are......

 

[shawn001]

Not at all.


This is basically true of all decisions, just as it's true of an empiricial reality that it exists prior to our being aware of it. The free will debate is not about how decisions get made but about who makes them (you vs. external factors), so how is this fatal to free will?

That we are not conscious of decisions until after we have made them is natural to the empirically thinking person, and in no way a threat to free will.


To reword this in light of the abused terminology mentioned earlier: 'But you become aware that you made the decision.' But if not you, then who?


I refer you to post #10.


I don't see the free will debate as being about whether the choice is consciously or unconsciously made, but whether you or some external factors are given the credit for the choice.

We made choices based on reasons, influences, opinion, versions of truth, and all sort of factors, but it's that we made the choice and not those factors that is an indicator that free will was in play.

I understand now because you don't study modern neuroscience and its more philosopy, but what is being talked about here in regards to a "Decision or thought" and "freewill" and the difference between "you" "thinking" your CONSCIOUSLY making a thought and that fact that the working of your brain has made the thought for you before your consciously aware of making it.


How Free Is Your Will?
A clock face, advanced neurosurgery--and startling philosophical questions about the decision to act


Think about the last time you got bored with the TV channel you were watching and decided to change it with the remote control. Or a time you grabbed a magazine off a newsstand, or raised a hand to hail a taxi. As we go about our daily lives, we constantly make choices to act in certain ways. We all believe we exercise free will in such actions – we decide what to do and when to do it. Free will, however, becomes more complicated when you try to think how it can arise from brain activity.

Do we control our neurons or do they control us? If everything we do starts in the brain, what kind of neural activity would reflect free choice? And how would you feel about your free will if we were to tell you that neuroscientists can look at your brain activity, and tell that you are about to make a decision to move – and that they could do this a whole second and a half before you yourself became aware of your own choice?

Scientists from UCLA and Harvard -- Itzhak Fried, Roy Mukamel and Gabriel Kreiman -- have taken an audacious step in the search for free will, reported in a new article in the journal Neuron. They used a powerful tool – intracranial recording – to find neurons in the human brain whose activity predicts decisions to make a movement, challenging conventional notions of free will.

How Free Is Your Will? - Scientific American



Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them

'You may think you decided to read this story -- but in fact, your brain made the decision long before you knew about it.
In a study published Sunday in Nature Neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them..."

"Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done," said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.

Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them


On an aside here, does this patient of Neurologist VS Ramachandran who is considered the Sherlock Holmes of Neuroscience have "freewill"?

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."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

 

[Willamena]

Do we control our neurons or do they control us?

Your narrative is either about neurons or about a self. If the latter, free will is evident.

 

[shawn001]

Your narrative is either about neurons or about a self. If the latter, free will is evident.

Tell me what is the difference between neurons and self?

Also what about this

On an aside here, does this patient of Neurologist VS Ramachandran who is considered the Sherlock Holmes of Neuroscience have "freewill"?

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."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64