Free Will - an illusion?

RoxyRollah · 02-02-2015, 10:10 PM

I dont belive in free will.How bout dat?

The Batlord · 02-02-2015, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoxyRollah

I dont belive in free will.How bout dat?

Well, you're a Christian, so you shouldn't. Free will is impossible with an all-powerful, all-knowing God.

RoxyRollah · 02-02-2015, 10:24 PM

woah hey now.....That has a small amount to do with it.Very small.

The Batlord · 02-02-2015, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoxyRollah

woah hey now.....That has a small amount to do with it.Very small.

If you believe in God, but not free will, then I should think that would be a pretty big thing to ponder when praying to the Ol' Man.

RoxyRollah · 02-02-2015, 10:36 PM

Who says I pray?

The Batlord · 02-02-2015, 10:39 PM

No point if there isn't free will I guess. If God wants to guide you he'll just do it without your consent, and trying to appeal to him to change something is pointless if the outcome is pre-determined.

Neapolitan · 02-02-2015, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xurtio

But this still confuses the issues of (let's call it willpower) with will. Let's divide the process between two events. First the will is constructed, then the will is carried out. What you and Chula are talking about is carrying out the will, not the origin of will. That would have more to do with "willpower" - obviously Chula couldn't negate gravity and fly unaided just because he wanted to. And sometimes competing brain regions will make it harder for you to achieve your will (your flight or fight response takes over when you try to talk to a pretty girl). But these are all about what you do once you have the will, not the origin of the will itself.

"Free Will" implies that our will is freely constructed based on... nothing, basically. Just the whim of some spiritual entity that can act independently of the cause and effect events taking place in the brain. Behavioral determinists, like myself, or Sam Harris (to appeal to a known neuroscience authority) are saying that the evidence points to our will being constructed deterministically as a result of our biopsychosocial history.

Thought precedes action. It is in thought one might run through several possible consequences in his or her mind.There are several things to consider, if there is a possibility of something harmful happening or perhaps a lack of confidence that there will be a safe outcome, in which case there would be a fear of the unknown. Whatever the fears are, and whether the fears are from biological, or psychological causes, those fears would only influence ones judgement in one's decision making process. That influence is one of many things that contribute to making a decision, and though they can be understood through a bio-psychosocial history I don't think that negates "free will." There is nothing that say one who has fear will act a certain way. One can overcome fear. "Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." –Ambrose Redmoon

Xurtio · 02-03-2015, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Thought precedes action. It is in thought one might run through several possible consequences in his or her mind.There are several things to consider, if there is a possibility of something harmful happening or perhaps a lack of confidence that there will be a safe outcome, in which case there would be a fear of the unknown. Whatever the fears are, and whether the fears are from biological, or psychological causes, those fears would only influence ones judgement in one's decision making process. That influence is one of many things that contribute to making a decision, and though they can be understood through a bio-psychosocial history I don't think that negates "free will." There is nothing that say one who has fear will act a certain way. One can overcome fear. "Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." –Ambrose Redmoon

Yes, thought precedes action; but it's more than thought! Neural processes that aren't part of conscious thought also precede action. Making decision and overcoming fear are all deterministic processes in which different brain regions compete. People with an overactive amygdala will have more trouble overcoming fear. People with overactive social reward systems (somewhere in the frontal lobes) will be extroverts. People with broken social reward systems will be psychopaths. And it's more complicated than that - if a normally strong social reward system is being inhibited by another brain region (which is responding to a minute novel stimulus) then the fear system may over come the brain (whereas usually, for that person, it doesn't).

There is "degeneracy" in that different underlying neural processes can lead to the same conditions - and there is sensitivity in the transients, whereby small differences can lead to different outcomes, but they can all be accounted for deterministically. Again, the argument is that the brain is deterministic and mind comes from brain.

You have to remember that the brain is very complex system. Every point you've raised does not require free will, just complexity that allows for a diversity of responses based on novel differences in stimuli.

Of course, this would just be speculation if there wasn't evidence that suggested the merit.

DwnWthVwls · 02-03-2015, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

honestly though that example isn't a good one for lack of free will. which is what i think x was saying

I don't see a problem with it. If you can't carry out an action you desire because of some preventative brain function that is a loss of free will. Xurtio is just using a more complex theory and getting at the real roots of the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xurtio

Behavioral determinists, like myself, or Sam Harris (to appeal to a known neuroscience authority) are saying that the evidence points to our will being constructed deterministically as a result of our biopsychosocial history.

@JWB - You don't think the events I made examples of when added up overtime are part of this biopsychosocial history of development?

Xurtio · 02-03-2015, 12:45 PM

Well the issue is that something like shooting laser beams out your ass is physically impossible. But we're interested in whether people's motivations and decisions come from some entity (i.e. that our "self" is independent of our brain), not whether they can shoot lightning out their ass. So dividing the two processes into will vs. What you do with that will is helpful for understanding what we're really after.

For instance, we may have free will (we magically decide things in a whim) and still not be able to shoot lightning bolt out our ass, so whether or not we can shoot lightning bolts out our ass doesn't really tell us anything about free will. We still have to determine where the desire to shoot lightning bolts out our asses came from in the first place.

02-03-2015, 12:45 PM	#100 (permalink)
Xurtio Brain Licker Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 1,083	Well the issue is that something like shooting laser beams out your ass is physically impossible. But we're interested in whether people's motivations and decisions come from some entity (i.e. that our "self" is independent of our brain), not whether they can shoot lightning out their ass. So dividing the two processes into will vs. What you do with that will is helpful for understanding what we're really after. For instance, we may have free will (we magically decide things in a whim) and still not be able to shoot lightning bolt out our ass, so whether or not we can shoot lightning bolts out our ass doesn't really tell us anything about free will. We still have to determine where the desire to shoot lightning bolts out our asses came from in the first place. __________________ H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉