What is your stance on free will?

[shawn001]

Some interesting takes.

Steven Pinker is Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. Until 2003, he taught in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Republic, and is the author of seven books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate, and most recently, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature

Steven Pinker: On Free Will

There's no such thing as free will in the sense of a ghost in the machine; our behavior is the product of physical processes in the brain rather than some mysterious soul, says Pinker.


[youtube]VQxJi0COTBo[/youtube]
Steven Pinker: On Free Will - YouTube



Daniel Dennett Explains Consciousness and Free Will

Dan Dennett argues that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes.


[youtube]R-Nj_rEqkyQ[/youtube]
Daniel Dennett Explains Consciousness and Free Will - YouTube

 

[Willamena]

They are registered in your unconscious memory, still you and still the way the brain works. That unconscious memory can make choices for you before your consciously aware of making them. The unconscious brain does it all the time.

There is also a physical limited to how much information and data the brain can store.

"Unconscious memory" as opposed to what? What I'm saying is the incorrect terminology dictates a section or area of memory to be "unconscious," when that's not the case. Unconscious is simply not being aware. You can be unconscious of it all, as when you're in a state of unconsciousness, but that hasn't changed the memory faculty one bit.

Memory doesn't make choices for you, it's just a register. Mind doesn't make choices, where mind is that register.

 

[Willamena]

Let me ask you this what is a thought? How does that work?

First, "a thought" is different from "thought"; the latter denotes a faculty closely equated with mind and memory, the former is an idea.

What is thought? Thought is mind; it is the observer "I," the seer; it is passive awareness of everything; it is the register of everything. In many senses, it is everything registered.

A thought is a discrete bit of information, whether simple or complex, stored in memory.

 

[Willamena]

Self-determination is still a form of determinism. It arises through a dynamic system of cause/effect.

The significant difference is "I." Where "I" is argued as a thought, it is not longer argued as "I."

Where a thought dictates the world, meaning where thought can cause things to happen and still only be a passive observer consciously aware of the world as it is as memory, we have a contradiction.

Where, on the other hand, you can do things and make things happen, you are not just a thought.

 

[technomage]

How would you define freewill? Is free will a reality or an illusion of false power fostered by an awareness of self and the choices we think we make consciously? I'm in the con freewill camp. What about you and why do you believe as you do?

My stance of freewill? Relatively unconcerned. If freewill is an illusion, it is a very persuasive illusion--so persuasive that it seems to be indiscernible from the reality.

 

[Willamena]

My stance of freewill? Relatively unconcerned. If freewill is an illusion, it is a very persuasive illusion--so persuasive that it seems to be indiscernible from the reality.

That illusion stands in contrast to reality is only one context for use of that word. A mirage, for instance, is quite real--there is really is the illusion of water on the horizon. It's testable, repeatable and definable. There's no reason free will be different, except for some people's insistence that it is.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How would you define freewill? Is free will a reality or an illusion of false power fostered by an awareness of self and the choices we think we make consciously? I'm in the con freewill camp. What about you and why do you believe as you do?

I think we have a long forgotten thread around here dealing with this subject.

My personal take on it is this...As an atheist I don't believe in such a thing. We have the ability to do lots of things but having the ability to do many things doesn't mean some of them should be done. In the confines of laws of the land (country, state, city etc.) they're are limitations set as to what one can and can't do.

In my own personal view..when it comes to the three big religions I see their take on "free will" granted to them by an omnipotent and omniscient being to be illogical. This "free will" granted to them comes with conditions and they will be judged on how they lived their lives here on Earth which determines their afterlife. I find such a notion preposterous. My view is that such a being would have no "need" (?) to judge its creation if it knows the outcome of every action or inaction its creation takes or doesn't take. In their view just the mere thought conceived by its creation is known by this being....so in my view "free will" in this context is an illusion.

 

[shawn001]

The significant difference is "I." Where "I" is argued as a thought, it is not longer argued as "I."

Where a thought dictates the world, meaning where thought can cause things to happen and still only be a passive observer consciously aware of the world as it is as memory, we have a contradiction.

Where, on the other hand, you can do things and make things happen, you are not just a thought.

Some people with certain types of brain damage don't have a sense of "I."

I am talking about having a "thought" and how it works.

"Every thought, feelings and action originates from the electrical signals emitted by our brain cell circuits."

They are chemical and electrical nerve impulses and communication between billions of neurons talking to each other.


"you can do things and make things happen, you are not just a thought"

You can't do anything or make anything happen without the chemical and electrical nerve impulses and neurons talking. An action potential inside the brain. All of it takes place with neurotransmission.

Again

Neuroscience and Free Will - Libet's Experiment

[youtube]IQ4nwTTmcgs[/youtube]
Neuroscience and Free Will - Libet's Experiment - YouTube


I highly recommend reading this wholle article.

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."

"Our brain is about one-and-a-half liters, or three pounds, but it has 1010 cells, which is a huge number of cells. Ten billion cells. And each cell has 1,000 to 10,000 or so synapses—the connections between the cells. So the brain has trillions of synapses.

NOVA | The Electric Brain


"consciously aware of the world"

We are actually more subconsciously aware of the world and our surrounding then consciously. Our brain is taking in tons of in formation without us being consciously aware of it all.

So I was talking about "having a thought and that thought be a chemical and electrical impulse and neurons communicating. If you would like to show me we are more then our neurons firing and the brain that would be fine.

 

[sinner]

A student asked professor "how do I know I exist?"
Professor responded: "who shall I say is asking?"

 

[Gjallarhorn]

A student asked professor "how do I know I exist?"
Professor responded: "who shall I say is asking?"

The presence of "I" has no bearing on this debate.

 

[shawn001]

"Unconscious memory" as opposed to what? What I'm saying is the incorrect terminology dictates a section or area of memory to be "unconscious," when that's not the case. Unconscious is simply not being aware. You can be unconscious of it all, as when you're in a state of unconsciousness, but that hasn't changed the memory faculty one bit.

Memory doesn't make choices for you, it's just a register. Mind doesn't make choices, where mind is that register.

This seems to be because you don't understand neuroscience well and how the brain works.

Memory does make choices for you. Without you be consciously aware.

I am talking about a ton of new brain research being done on how the brain physically works. There is no specific area of the brain for the unconscious.

The brain/mind is the subtotal of all those neurons communicating together.


Harvard Health

Unconscious or Subconscious?

"Some neuroscientists find the concept of an unconscious to be a problem, because the terminology implies that the unconscious is a place, a true anatomical location, as it were, in the brain. Freud, as a neurologist, did think in terms of neurobiology. But he didn’t have twenty-first century tools to help him analyze the structure, function and complex interactions among nerve cells, neural circuits, or brain regions.

Today, most psychoanalysts and psychodynamically-oriented therapists do not think of the unconscious as a neuroanatomical structure. Rather, they use the term as shorthand to refer to a complex, but familiar, psychological phenomenon. That is, a good deal and perhaps most of mental life happens without our knowing much about it. Neuroscientists are clued into these processes too. So they appreciate that any understanding of the neurobiology of mental life must go beyond conscious thoughts and feelings."

Unconscious or Subconscious? - Harvard Health Blog - Harvard Health Publications


Card trick reveals the subconscious mind is on watch

Card trick reveals the subconscious mind is on watch - life - 16 November 2011 - New Scientist

 

[sinner]

God DID NOT create an "imperfect world" - He created a PERFECT world - only mankind damaged it by breaking the only rule, not on their own, they had a lot of help from satan - so blame him, not god. Anyone who's had kids knows they have free will. Besides, nature's perfection is evident all around you.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

God DID NOT create an "imperfect world" - He created a PERFECT world - only mankind damaged it by breaking the only rule, not on their own, they had a lot of help from satan - so blame him, not god. Anyone who's had kids knows they have free will. Besides, nature's perfection is evident all around you.

Who created the "perfect" Satan?

 

[technomage]

God DID NOT create an "imperfect world" - He created a PERFECT world - only mankind damaged it by breaking the only rule, not on their own, they had a lot of help from satan - so blame him, not god. Anyone who's had kids knows they have free will. Besides, nature's perfection is evident all around you.

Let me make sure I've got this correct.

Nature's perfection is broken, BUT it's still evident?

Must not be too badly broken, then. Perhaps nature just needs a bandaid until the scab drops off?

 

[sinner]

Agreed - define will & The free part becomes obviously inherent.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Agreed - define will & The free part becomes obviously inherent.

desire, wish: as
a : disposition, inclination <where there's a will there's a way>
b : appetite, passion

 

[Willamena]

Today, most psychoanalysts and psychodynamically-oriented therapists do not think of the unconscious as a neuroanatomical structure. Rather, they use the term as shorthand to refer to a complex, but familiar, psychological phenomenon. That is, a good deal and perhaps most of mental life happens without our knowing much about it. Neuroscientists are clued into these processes too. So they appreciate that any understanding of the neurobiology of mental life must go beyond conscious thoughts and feelings."

Yes. This is what I've been saying. There is no unconscious area of the mind that makes decisions for us; rather, decisions are made unconsciously.

 

[Willamena]

desire, wish: as
a : disposition, inclination <where there's a will there's a way>
b : appetite, passion

That's will in the context of "where there's a will, there's a way," but not in the context of "he did it of his own free will."

 

[Gjallarhorn]

That's will in the context of "where there's a will, there's a way," but not in the context of "he did it of his own free will."

That's because the second context is fallacious, as is being debated in this thread.

 

[idea]

The more will power you have, the more free will you have.