The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

Do you believe that free will can be scientifically explained? Why or why not?

 

[ryan]

DBT, try to see the big picture.

Your certainty is not realistic.

Certainty that a breakdown in connectivity/memory function results in the inability to recognize is not only realistic, but proven. Take any hospital in world and you'll find patients who are in various stages of memory loss (expressed in the form of dementia, Alzheimer’s , etc), who, depending on the progression of loss of memory function, cannot recognize, cannot think coherently and cannot make rational decisions.

That is the sad fact of it.

There is no escaping the fact that it is memory function that enables rational information processing which is expressed in conscious form as the ability to think and make meaningful decisions.

Without memory function correlating input information with past experience/recognition, we have no ability to think coherently or make rational, relevant decisions.

You can take that to the bank, ryan.

I don't see how this is a problem for my argument. If something happens to my brain functions that I claim may facilitate free will, then of course we will no longer have free will or the perceived free will that we are used to having.

Juma, this goes for your post too.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you believe that free will can be scientifically explained? Why or why not?

No.

It could be scientifically studied if there were first a very specific definition of what is meant by "free will". But as the whole argument is over that definition then it is a philosophical problem that will never be resolved very much like philosophers have been arguing over the meaning of "moral" for thousands of years.

 

[untermensche]

How about if we start by trying to scientifically define "will"?

And then we can try to determine if it is "free" from what it is.

 

[DBT]

Certainty that a breakdown in connectivity/memory function results in the inability to recognize is not only realistic, but proven. Take any hospital in world and you'll find patients who are in various stages of memory loss (expressed in the form of dementia, Alzheimer’s , etc), who, depending on the progression of loss of memory function, cannot recognize, cannot think coherently and cannot make rational decisions.

That is the sad fact of it.

There is no escaping the fact that it is memory function that enables rational information processing which is expressed in conscious form as the ability to think and make meaningful decisions.

Without memory function correlating input information with past experience/recognition, we have no ability to think coherently or make rational, relevant decisions.

You can take that to the bank, ryan.

I don't see how this is a problem for my argument. If something happens to my brain functions that I claim may facilitate free will, then of course we will no longer have free will or the perceived free will that we are used to having.

Juma, this goes for your post too.

You say that you don't see how unchosen brain state/condition is not a problem for your argument for 'free' will.... so maybe that's what you should explain? Why is it not a problem? Can you explain?

Keep in mind that your explanation should take memory function into account, memory being the 'software,' the instructions, that literally anables recognition, thought and decision making.

That without connectivity/neuronal memory function, self awareness, coherent thought and decision making is not possible. That it is connectivity (through the agency of neural architecture) that determines how you, your will and 'your' thoughts and decisions are made.

So, can you argue for the reality of 'free' will?

 

[Lion IRC]

Do you believe that free will can be scientifically explained? Why or why not?

No predictability.
No repeatability.
No empirical measurement.

 

[Juma]

Certainty that a breakdown in connectivity/memory function results in the inability to recognize is not only realistic, but proven. Take any hospital in world and you'll find patients who are in various stages of memory loss (expressed in the form of dementia, Alzheimer’s , etc), who, depending on the progression of loss of memory function, cannot recognize, cannot think coherently and cannot make rational decisions.

That is the sad fact of it.

There is no escaping the fact that it is memory function that enables rational information processing which is expressed in conscious form as the ability to think and make meaningful decisions.

Without memory function correlating input information with past experience/recognition, we have no ability to think coherently or make rational, relevant decisions.

You can take that to the bank, ryan.

I don't see how this is a problem for my argument. If something happens to my brain functions that I claim may facilitate free will, then of course we will no longer have free will or the perceived free will that we are used to having.

Juma, this goes for your post too.

What goes for what post???

 

[ryan]

I don't see how this is a problem for my argument. If something happens to my brain functions that I claim may facilitate free will, then of course we will no longer have free will or the perceived free will that we are used to having.

Juma, this goes for your post too.

You say that you don't see how unchosen brain state/condition is not a problem for your argument for 'free' will.... so maybe that's what you should explain? Why is it not a problem? Can you explain?

Keep in mind that your explanation should take memory function into account, memory being the 'software,' the instructions, that literally anables recognition, thought and decision making.

That without connectivity/neuronal memory function, self awareness, coherent thought and decision making is not possible. That it is connectivity (through the agency of neural architecture) that determines how you, your will and 'your' thoughts and decisions are made.

So, can you argue for the reality of 'free' will?

Is your point that there are many different parts, not a whole consciousness, that make a decision?

 

[ryan]

Do you believe that free will can be scientifically explained? Why or why not?

No predictability.
No repeatability.
No empirical measurement.

Right, I meant scientifically explainable. In other words, the question is really about whether or not there is a matching of each philosophical feature of free will to each physical feature in the brain.

 

[DBT]

You say that you don't see how unchosen brain state/condition is not a problem for your argument for 'free' will.... so maybe that's what you should explain? Why is it not a problem? Can you explain?

Keep in mind that your explanation should take memory function into account, memory being the 'software,' the instructions, that literally anables recognition, thought and decision making.

That without connectivity/neuronal memory function, self awareness, coherent thought and decision making is not possible. That it is connectivity (through the agency of neural architecture) that determines how you, your will and 'your' thoughts and decisions are made.

So, can you argue for the reality of 'free' will?

Is your point that there are many different parts, not a whole consciousness, that make a decision?

It is not consciousness itself that makes decisions but the information processing activity that is generating conscious activity and feeding information for conscious experience: ongoing recognition and associated thoughts, feelings and decisions.

 

[ryan]

Is your point that there are many different parts, not a whole consciousness, that make a decision?

It is not consciousness itself that makes decisions but the information processing activity that is generating conscious activity and feeding information for conscious experience: ongoing recognition and associated thoughts, feelings and decisions.

Yes, the consciousness is not the only part of the decision making process, but I argue that it may be at least part of it. We may avoid pain because of its sensation; however, I will admit that we flinch autonomously (I forgot the correct biological term) because we evolved to avoid damage to our bodies. But for some strange reason, we have this mental feeling that our "conscious free will" can reflect and override a choice set in motion.

Within this conscious decision making process that is correlated to the physical phenomena, any QM behavior would at least be what we would expect from the physical implications of free will.

 

[Lion IRC]

No predictability.
No repeatability.
No empirical measurement.

Right, I meant scientifically explainable. In other words, the question is really about whether or not there is a matching of each philosophical feature of free will to each physical feature in the brain.

It would be hard to avoid the composition fallacy if you were to try and align the broad idea of free will (soul) with the individual parts of a deconstructed anatomical brain.

And there would still be the problem of ascertaining whether the bran scan was showing the effect (result) of a given thing or the cause of that same thing. Eg. Prayer/meditation.

 

[Juma]

It is not consciousness itself that makes decisions but the information processing activity that is generating conscious activity and feeding information for conscious experience: ongoing recognition and associated thoughts, feelings and decisions.

Yes, the consciousness is not the only part of the decision making process, but I argue that it may be at least part of it. We may avoid pain because of its sensation; however, I will admit that we flinch autonomously (I forgot the correct biological term) because we evolved to avoid damage to our bodies. But for some strange reason, we have this mental feeling that our "conscious free will" can reflect and override a choice set in motion.

But that feeling comes after the fact.

 

[ryan]

Yes, the consciousness is not the only part of the decision making process, but I argue that it may be at least part of it. We may avoid pain because of its sensation; however, I will admit that we flinch autonomously (I forgot the correct biological term) because we evolved to avoid damage to our bodies. But for some strange reason, we have this mental feeling that our "conscious free will" can reflect and override a choice set in motion.

But that feeling comes after the fact.

Assuming that is true, and I know about the experiments suggesting it is true, choices seem to be made according to that feeling. This is like a feedback loop. The "uncontrolled" choices sample the result of that choice. Then the consciousness reflects on it. Then it is stored as a memory so that if that particular situation arises again, the automatic responses will know what to do.

 

[ryan]

Right, I meant scientifically explainable. In other words, the question is really about whether or not there is a matching of each philosophical feature of free will to each physical feature in the brain.

It would be hard to avoid the composition fallacy if you were to try and align the broad idea of free will (soul) with the individual parts of a deconstructed anatomical brain.

And there would still be the problem of ascertaining whether the bran scan was showing the effect (result) of a given thing or the cause of that same thing. Eg. Prayer/meditation.

Yeah, my argument is really only about leaving a possibility of free will. I am usually arguing against the claim that free will is practically ruled out; I don't believe it should be.

 

[DBT]

It is not consciousness itself that makes decisions but the information processing activity that is generating conscious activity and feeding information for conscious experience: ongoing recognition and associated thoughts, feelings and decisions.

Yes, the consciousness is not the only part of the decision making process, but I argue that it may be at least part of it.

Consciousness/experience is always after the event. The decisions are made by underlying information processing while feeding conscious activity with relevant information. That is, feelings and thoughts enter consciousness in response to the stimulus of an event.

An event happens, information is conveyed to the brain via the senses, the brain processes the information forming a conscious mental representation of the relevant information while the rest remains as unconscious activity. Attention is a narrow field.

We may avoid pain because of its sensation; however, I will admit that we flinch autonomously (I forgot the correct biological term) because we evolved to avoid damage to our bodies. But for some strange reason, we have this mental feeling that our "conscious free will" can reflect and override a choice set in motion.

All of which is after the event/fact. First the bump then at least 125 milliseconds later a reflex response. Reflex actions being nerve loop response that may bypass brain processing....which extends response time to around 500 milliseconds.

Within this conscious decision making process that is correlated to the physical phenomena, any QM behavior would at least be what we would expect from the physical implications of free will.

No, as I've pointed out, memory is the information base that tells the brain what is to be avoided, what is to be gained forming a cost to benefit ratio - hold off now for a greater reward next week - and a decision is made. Not 'free will' but an intelligent, adaptive, interactive system. Which is the best you can hope for.

 

[Malintent]

I do not believe in the existence of what is commonly called "free will".

There are directions I take.. choices I make.. but my "will" (that which I consciously do - events with agency) is not "free". I am bound by many things. Most basically, I am bound by who I AM. I cannot choose to be someone else. therefore, I have no freedom of choice. I am "stuck" with who I am and how I think (choose).

 

[DBT]

That pretty well sums it up.

 

[untermensche]

I do not believe in the existence of what is commonly called "free will".

There are directions I take.. choices I make.. but my "will" (that which I consciously do - events with agency) is not "free". I am bound by many things. Most basically, I am bound by who I AM. I cannot choose to be someone else. therefore, I have no freedom of choice. I am "stuck" with who I am and how I think (choose).

Freedom of will is always considered a freedom within human constraints.

You are able to make some real world choices freely. We can choose to turn left or right at a crossing as we walk through the woods.

That is the freedom of will.

But none of this makes one bit of sense, scientifically, without a scientific understanding of the concept of "will". And we are nowhere near to that.

 

[ryan]

Yes, the consciousness is not the only part of the decision making process, but I argue that it may be at least part of it.

Consciousness/experience is always after the event. The decisions are made by underlying information processing while feeding conscious activity with relevant information. That is, feelings and thoughts enter consciousness in response to the stimulus of an event.

An event happens, information is conveyed to the brain via the senses, the brain processes the information forming a conscious mental representation of the relevant information while the rest remains as unconscious activity. Attention is a narrow field.

That is an oversimplification. There is so much more going on than this and so many crucial unknowns. Things are changing almost daily in neurology.