Human Instinct and Free Will

[DBT]

It's the underlying unconscious process of choosing that determines the choice that is made conscious in the form of thought and action that is the problem for free will. We have 'will' a desire or impulse to act, but will can't be described as 'free will' because it directs nothing, itself being shaped and formed by unconscious processes from inputs, memory function, etc, to thought and action.

 

[untermensche]

It's the underlying unconscious process of choosing that determines the choice that is made conscious in the form of thought and action that is the problem for free will. We have 'will' a desire or impulse to act, but will can't be described as 'free will' because it directs nothing, itself being shaped and formed by unconscious processes from inputs, memory function, etc, to thought and action.

It is the "mind" that puts the movement in action and determines the extent and timing of the movement. The brain makes the movement smooth.

And despite the "mind's" unknown mode of production it is still the apparent mover.

Hard to say it is underlying undefined "processes" when the timing and manner is a decision of the mind.

It just seems an evasion from the truth; We don't know.

But there is evidence available to us to show the body can be moved "freely" by the "will". "Freely" being defined as; Not coerced.

"Will" not defined at all.

 

[Juma]

It's the underlying unconscious process of choosing that determines the choice that is made conscious in the form of thought and action that is the problem for free will. We have 'will' a desire or impulse to act, but will can't be described as 'free will' because it directs nothing, itself being shaped and formed by unconscious processes from inputs, memory function, etc, to thought and action.

It is the "mind" that puts the movement in action and determines the extent and timing of the movement. The brain makes the movement smooth.

And despite the "mind's" unknown mode of production it is still the apparent mover.

Hard to say it is underlying undefined "processes" when the timing and manner is a decision of the mind.

It just seems an evasion from the truth; We don't know.

But there is evidence available to us to show the body can be moved "freely" by the "will". "Freely" being defined as; Not coerced.

"Will" not defined at all.

Then any insect has free will because they act without being coerced.

 

[DBT]

It's the underlying unconscious process of choosing that determines the choice that is made conscious in the form of thought and action that is the problem for free will. We have 'will' a desire or impulse to act, but will can't be described as 'free will' because it directs nothing, itself being shaped and formed by unconscious processes from inputs, memory function, etc, to thought and action.

It is the "mind" that puts the movement in action and determines the extent and timing of the movement. The brain makes the movement smooth.

And despite the "mind's" unknown mode of production it is still the apparent mover.

Hard to say it is underlying undefined "processes" when the timing and manner is a decision of the mind.

It just seems an evasion from the truth; We don't know.

But there is evidence available to us to show the body can be moved "freely" by the "will". "Freely" being defined as; Not coerced.

"Will" not defined at all.

Nah, mind is what the brain is doing. You are what the brain is doing.

Mind is not the controller of the states and inputs of the brain.

Mind does what the brain is doing. You are what the brain is doing, neural architecture, inputs and memory function determines behavioral output, whether coerced by circumstances or not.

The latter just means the input of information, the weighing of cost to benefit ratio, shifts the balance in favour of an option you/the brain would not normally have taken...hence you feel coerced. Which has nothing to do with the ill defined concept of free will.

 

[untermensche]

It is the "mind" that puts the movement in action and determines the extent and timing of the movement. The brain makes the movement smooth.

And despite the "mind's" unknown mode of production it is still the apparent mover.

Hard to say it is underlying undefined "processes" when the timing and manner is a decision of the mind.

It just seems an evasion from the truth; We don't know.

But there is evidence available to us to show the body can be moved "freely" by the "will". "Freely" being defined as; Not coerced.

"Will" not defined at all.

Nah, mind is what the brain is doing. You are what the brain is doing.

Are you claiming you can't move your finger, your entire body, with your "mind"?

I can. Any time I want and in a manner of my mind's choosing.

This phenomena of being able to move at "will" is not so easily evaded by the meaningless point that somehow the brain is involved.

 

[untermensche]

It is the "mind" that puts the movement in action and determines the extent and timing of the movement. The brain makes the movement smooth.

And despite the "mind's" unknown mode of production it is still the apparent mover.

Hard to say it is underlying undefined "processes" when the timing and manner is a decision of the mind.

It just seems an evasion from the truth; We don't know.

But there is evidence available to us to show the body can be moved "freely" by the "will". "Freely" being defined as; Not coerced.

"Will" not defined at all.

Then any insect has free will because they act without being coerced.

So?

But all we really know, in terms of a "mind", is ourselves.

And when I move my finger at "will" there is no coercion. Nothing is forcing me to do it. It is appropriate to external circumstance not some activity in the brain.

 

[Juma]

Then any insect has free will because they act without being coerced.

So?

But all we really know, in terms of a "mind", is ourselves.

And when I move my finger at "will" there is no coercion. Nothing is forcing me to do it. It is appropriate to external circumstance not some activity in the brain.

That is just "by will". Why bother with "free"?

 

[iolo]

Then any insect has free will because they act without being coerced.

So?

But all we really know, in terms of a "mind", is ourselves.

And when I move my finger at "will" there is no coercion. Nothing is forcing me to do it. It is appropriate to external circumstance not some activity in the brain.

As I understand it, if you are, for instance, ordered to move your finger, the muscle-action is well on the way before you make a conscious decision to obey.

 

[untermensche]

So?

But all we really know, in terms of a "mind", is ourselves.

And when I move my finger at "will" there is no coercion. Nothing is forcing me to do it. It is appropriate to external circumstance not some activity in the brain.

As I understand it, if you are, for instance, ordered to move your finger, the muscle-action is well on the way before you make a conscious decision to obey.

Calling any action in the brain an "order" is pure speculation.

There is continual brain activity. None of it understood in terms of the generation of the "mind".

If one is conscious.

 

[untermensche]

So?

But all we really know, in terms of a "mind", is ourselves.

And when I move my finger at "will" there is no coercion. Nothing is forcing me to do it. It is appropriate to external circumstance not some activity in the brain.

That is just "by will". Why bother with "free"?

Our experience of "will" appears entirely free to us.

We feel we are responding to circumstances in the world, our coherent picture of the world, not some underlying coercion.

So for us to merely use the concept "will" implies the notion of freedom.

We use the word to describe certain experiences.

Our freedom to move. Our freedom to express ideas. Our freedom to imagine any number of things.

To humans all those activities comprise what is described as "will".

It really is not possible for a human to imagine "will" and not see it as free or imagine some way it could not be free.

 

[Juma]

That is just "by will". Why bother with "free"?

Our experience of "will" appears entirely free to us.

We feel we are responding to circumstances in the world, our coherent picture of the world, not some underlying coercion.

So for us to merely use the concept "will" implies the notion of freedom.

We use the word to describe certain experiences.

Our freedom to move. Our freedom to express ideas. Our freedom to imagine any number of things.

To humans all those activities comprise what is described as "will".

It really is not possible for a human to imagine "will" and not see it as free or imagine some way it could not be free.

Thus your definition of "free will" is nothing but "will".

 

[iolo]

As I understand it, if you are, for instance, ordered to move your finger, the muscle-action is well on the way before you make a conscious decision to obey.

Calling any action in the brain an "order" is pure speculation.

There is continual brain activity. None of it understood in terms of the generation of the "mind".

If one is conscious.

I wasn't so calling. I mean that someone else says 'Raise one finger!' and it starts to happen well before you make a conscious decision. I agree that very little is understood, yet, but since I don't find any reason to believe in 'free will' it doesn't desperately bother me. I'd have thought it was more a problem for those who do have that belief.

 

[untermensche]

Calling any action in the brain an "order" is pure speculation.

There is continual brain activity. None of it understood in terms of the generation of the "mind".

If one is conscious.

I wasn't so calling. I mean that someone else says 'Raise one finger!' and it starts to happen well before you make a conscious decision. I agree that very little is understood, yet, but since I don't find any reason to believe in 'free will' it doesn't desperately bother me. I'd have thought it was more a problem for those who do have that belief.

What starts?

My finger always moves immediately as I order it to move with my mind.

You are merely labeling some activity as the "start".

Pure speculation.

 

[iolo]

I wasn't so calling. I mean that someone else says 'Raise one finger!' and it starts to happen well before you make a conscious decision. I agree that very little is understood, yet, but since I don't find any reason to believe in 'free will' it doesn't desperately bother me. I'd have thought it was more a problem for those who do have that belief.

What starts?

My finger always moves immediately as I order it to move with my mind.

You are merely labeling some activity as the "start".

Pure speculation.

The beginnings of the necessary nervous impulses start. I can't recall the detail, but I think you'll find that it's based on pretty solid research several years back. Nothing moves 'immediately', obviously.

 

[Malintent]

"override" is a word. no need for a hyphen.. no one (not no-one) is in the doghouse (not dog-house) over using a proper compound word.

Anyway, "in the animal sense" is unnecessary.. in that it is not a real distinction. Perhaps you may have meant "in the self-aware sense", in that degrees of awareness vary between the animals. Humans are very complicated animals, with the highest degree (that we know of) of awareness, but we're animals nonetheless. I know... most Christians have some problem with that very fundamental fact... but one might as well argue the sky is green and the grass is blue.

to answer your excellent question, though... none. There is exactly no evidence there exists this thing called "free-will", outside of our ability to understand our own conscious thought processes.

No evidence?

What you just wrote is evidence of free will.

You have a lot of evidence for free will.

Try to move your finger with your mind. Move it in a manner of your choosing and at a time of your choosing.

If you can do it, how is that not free will?

What is the proof the clear evidence of free will is in fact not free will?

The 'proof' is in the inability to define either "free" or "will" in a meaningful way to continue discussion.
If I were to have moved my finger, it would not have been "free will", it would have been YOU imposing some kind of will upon me. Did you forget that you "told" me to move my finger? If I don't move it, I am perhaps "free", but I haven't exerted any "will".

 

[Trausti]

http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

Perhaps "instinct" and behavioral genetics are synonymous. Anyway, our genes may have more power over us than we think.

 

[untermensche]

What starts?

My finger always moves immediately as I order it to move with my mind.

You are merely labeling some activity as the "start".

Pure speculation.

The beginnings of the necessary nervous impulses start. I can't recall the detail, but I think you'll find that it's based on pretty solid research several years back. Nothing moves 'immediately', obviously.

I'm very familiar with what you're talking about.

The conclusions you mention were never made by the original researcher.

They are speculations made by others.

Nobody has any idea what the "beginnings of the necessary nervous impulses" are.

There is constant activity in the brain. Labeling some part of it "necessary beginnings" is an empty phrase.

 

[untermensche]

No evidence?

What you just wrote is evidence of free will.

You have a lot of evidence for free will.

Try to move your finger with your mind. Move it in a manner of your choosing and at a time of your choosing.

If you can do it, how is that not free will?

What is the proof the clear evidence of free will is in fact not free will?

The 'proof' is in the inability to define either "free" or "will" in a meaningful way to continue discussion.
If I were to have moved my finger, it would not have been "free will", it would have been YOU imposing some kind of will upon me. Did you forget that you "told" me to move my finger? If I don't move it, I am perhaps "free", but I haven't exerted any "will".

Nonsense.

You move it at the timing of YOUR choosing and the manner of YOUR choosing.

Or you decide to not move it, another expression of your "will".

The conversation can't move forward if you deny clear evidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

The 'proof' is in the inability to define either "free" or "will" in a meaningful way to continue discussion.
If I were to have moved my finger, it would not have been "free will", it would have been YOU imposing some kind of will upon me. Did you forget that you "told" me to move my finger? If I don't move it, I am perhaps "free", but I haven't exerted any "will".

Nonsense.

You move it at the timing of YOUR choosing and the manner of YOUR choosing.

Or you decide to not move it, another expression of your "will".

The conversation can't move forward if you deny clear evidence.

If it was nonsense then all you have to do is give a clear, precise, unambiguous definition of "free will".

I have never seen those who seem to enjoy arguing about free will that are willing to.

 

[DBT]

Nah, mind is what the brain is doing. You are what the brain is doing.

Are you claiming you can't move your finger, your entire body, with your "mind"?

I am saying, quite obviously, that it is ultimately the brain that performs these functions....partly through generation of conscious mind and largely unconsciously.

I can. Any time I want and in a manner of my mind's choosing.

Only because 'your' brain is producing both 'you' and your experience of conscious agency.....which, fine while the brain is functional, is ultimately an illusion.