Where does free will come from?

[M14 Shooter]

All biology derives from chemistry.
All chemistry derives from physics.

Free will requires willfull control over the biological functions of the brain, and then, by extension, the willfull control over the physics that drive the chemisty which allows this biological control.

Where does this willfull control of physics come from?

 

[BreezeWood]

All biology derives from chemistry.
All chemistry derives from physics.

Free will requires willfull control over the biological functions of the brain, and then, by extension, the willfull control over the physics that drive the chemisty which allows this biological control.

Where does this willfull control of physics come from?

Where does this willfull control of physics come from?


Physiology has a distinct flaw, it requires nourishment to keep functioning ....

 

[M14 Shooter]

All biology derives from chemistry.
All chemistry derives from physics.

Free will requires willfull control over the biological functions of the brain, and then, by extension, the willfull control over the physics that drive the chemisty which allows this biological control.

Where does this willfull control of physics come from?

Where does this willfull control of physics come from?
Physiology has a distinct flaw, it requires nourishment to keep functioning ....

Not sure how this answers my question...?

 

[BobPlumb]

The notion of free will with that of an all knowing, all powerful, limitless God is a paradox. Assuming these characteristics of God and that he is the creator, he had control of all outcomes that that would occur as a consequence of his creation. The moment before creation he would have known that I would be making this post about free will. Since God had control of all of creation, he had control of "my free will decision" to post this statement on this thread. Simply by choosing a different path of motion of a few atoms during creation, God could have programmed a vastly different set of outcomes the come as a result of his creation, including an outcome in which I would not be making this post to this forum.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The notion of free will with that of an all knowing, all powerful, limitless God is a paradox....

This doesn't answer my question.

 

[dblack]

The notion of free will with that of an all knowing, all powerful, limitless God is a paradox....

This doesn't answer my question.

It 'comes from' human volition, our ability to think and make decisions. There's a lot of confusion and, as BobPlumb pointed out, paradoxical expectations regarding the nature of free will. The most common is that free will requires that, at some level, we are free of deterministic causation. With that expectation baked-in to free will (in it's most popular conceptions), it isn't really a coherent concept. If you give up on that requirement, and recognize that "determined" and "pre-determined" aren't the same thing, you can walk away with a meaningful characterization of free will.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The notion of free will with that of an all knowing, all powerful, limitless God is a paradox....

This doesn't answer my question.

It 'comes from' human volition, our ability to think and make decisions.

This is a circular argument - that our free will comes from our free will.

I am asking for the process that allows us to control the chemisty in our brains as we choose; as chemisty is governed entirely by the laws of physics, control of said chemistry something that can only be had with some degree of control over the application of the laws of physics.

 

[dblack]

This doesn't answer my question.

It 'comes from' human volition, our ability to think and make decisions.

This is a circular argument - that our free will comes from our free will.

I am asking for the process that allows us to control the chemisty in our brains as we choose; as chemisty is governed entirely by the laws of physics, control of said chemistry something that can only be had with some degree of control over the application of the laws of physics.

Ahh, ok, that's subtly different. Understanding how an animated 'will' can occur in inanimate matter is the subject of one of my favorite books: "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter". It's longish, and prone to whimsical meanderings, which annoys some people. But I found it brilliant and quite engrossing.

I doubt I could do his ideas justice here, but one way to sort of see how it's possible, is to consider how we initially viewed biological life itself. At first, we had a really hard time understanding how living things could just 'happen' from inanimate matter. The popular notion, initially, was that there had to be some unseen 'magical' life force ("anima") that caused it all. Under greater scrutiny, and with greater understanding of the chemistry involved, we eventually came to understand how utterly non-alive materials could be organized into a organism that was alive; that moved about and attended to it's own survival.

My take on the central theory of the aforementioned book, is that the human mind (self-wareness, volition, etc...) is the same sort of thing, but applied to representative information systems like the human brain. In other words, when chemical and physical systems are built up and organized in just the right way, a living organism results. Likewise, when informational systems are built up and organized in just the right way, a self-aware mind is the result.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It 'comes from' human volition, our ability to think and make decisions.

This is a circular argument - that our free will comes from our free will.

I am asking for the process that allows us to control the chemisty in our brains as we choose; as chemisty is governed entirely by the laws of physics, control of said chemistry something that can only be had with some degree of control over the application of the laws of physics.

Ahh, ok, that's subtly different. Understanding how an animated 'will' can occur in inanimate matter is the subject of one of my favorite books: "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter". It's longish, and prone to whimsical meanderings, which annoys some people. But I found it brilliant and quite engrossing.

Will have to look it up.

I doubt I could do his ideas justice here, but one way to sort of see how it's possible, is to consider how we initially viewed biological life itself. At first, we had a really hard time understanding how living things could just 'happen' from inanimate matter. The popular notion, initially, was that there had to be some unseen 'magical' life force ("anima") that caused it all. Under greater scrutiny, and with greater understanding of the chemistry involved, we eventually came to understand how utterly non-alive materials could be organized into a organism that was alive; that moved about and attended to it's own survival.

My take on the central theory of the aforementioned book, is that the human mind (self-wareness, volition, etc...) is the same sort of thing, but applied to representative information systems like the human brain. In other words, when chemical and physical systems are built up and organized in just the right way, a living organism results. Likewise, when informational systems are built up and organized in just the right way, a self-aware mind is the result.

Well, OK...

But, somehow, if we have free will, we have the ability to fire/not fire nuerons whenever we want in whatever way necessary to make whatever decision we want. If we have free will then we have full control over this process, rather than this process acting as it would if left to the laws of physics - this differs from "life" which requires only chemical interatction, all of which follows entirely along with the laws of physics.

Indeed, "life" exists because it has to, whereas as "choice" exists only because we have the ability to make a choice. The question is then, at the very most basic level, by what process do we contro/manipulate the physical laws that govern the chemical interactions within our brain that allows us the ability to make these choices?

 

[BobPlumb]

The notion of free will with that of an all knowing, all powerful, limitless God is a paradox....

This doesn't answer my question.

The notion of free will comes from not being able 100% predict or understand the decisions we make. The human decision making process may very well be programmed by the physics, chemistry, biology, experiences, etc. of each individual. There are too many variables to grasp. If you know someone very well, you may be able to predict a particular decision, 80,90,or maybe even 99% of the time. However, often times the discussions people make are surprising to themselves as we'll as to others. Thus, we chalk up people's decisions up to free will.

 

[dblack]

This is a circular argument - that our free will comes from our free will.

I am asking for the process that allows us to control the chemisty in our brains as we choose; as chemisty is governed entirely by the laws of physics, control of said chemistry something that can only be had with some degree of control over the application of the laws of physics.

Ahh, ok, that's subtly different. Understanding how an animated 'will' can occur in inanimate matter is the subject of one of my favorite books: "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter". It's longish, and prone to whimsical meanderings, which annoys some people. But I found it brilliant and quite engrossing.

Will have to look it up.

I doubt I could do his ideas justice here, but one way to sort of see how it's possible, is to consider how we initially viewed biological life itself. At first, we had a really hard time understanding how living things could just 'happen' from inanimate matter. The popular notion, initially, was that there had to be some unseen 'magical' life force ("anima") that caused it all. Under greater scrutiny, and with greater understanding of the chemistry involved, we eventually came to understand how utterly non-alive materials could be organized into a organism that was alive; that moved about and attended to it's own survival.

My take on the central theory of the aforementioned book, is that the human mind (self-wareness, volition, etc...) is the same sort of thing, but applied to representative information systems like the human brain. In other words, when chemical and physical systems are built up and organized in just the right way, a living organism results. Likewise, when informational systems are built up and organized in just the right way, a self-aware mind is the result.

Well, OK...

But, somehow, if we have free will, we have the ability to fire/not fire nuerons whenever we want in whatever way necessary to make whatever decision we want. If we have free will then we have full control over this process, rather than this process acting as it would if left to the laws of physics - this differs from "life" which requires only chemical interatction, all of which follows entirely along with the laws of physics.

Indeed, "life" exists because it has to, whereas as "choice" exists only because we have the ability to make a choice. The question is then, at the very most basic level, by what process do we contro/manipulate the physical laws that govern the chemical interactions within our brain that allows us the ability to make these choices?

We run into dead ends like this when we start with incoherent premises. And here's where I'd suggest that the view you're describing is circular. You're assuming the concept of choice requires that it be free from causation, that it not be bound by the laws of physics; and then asking "how can this be?". My answer would be that it can't. I'd also say that if it could, it wouldn't make much sense. It wouldn't provide you with the 'agency' you presumably imagine it does.

What would it mean for choice to be free from causation? If your current state of mind, your volition, your conscious desires, fears, etc... , weren't connected to a previous state by a causal link, what would that mean? The idea that mental states are random occurrences doesn't strike me as a meaningful conception of volition. It's certainly no more satisfying that being bound to a determined fate - which is seemingly the boogeyman driving our misperceptions of free will.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ahh, ok, that's subtly different. Understanding how an animated 'will' can occur in inanimate matter is the subject of one of my favorite books: "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter". It's longish, and prone to whimsical meanderings, which annoys some people. But I found it brilliant and quite engrossing.

Will have to look it up.

I doubt I could do his ideas justice here, but one way to sort of see how it's possible, is to consider how we initially viewed biological life itself. At first, we had a really hard time understanding how living things could just 'happen' from inanimate matter. The popular notion, initially, was that there had to be some unseen 'magical' life force ("anima") that caused it all. Under greater scrutiny, and with greater understanding of the chemistry involved, we eventually came to understand how utterly non-alive materials could be organized into a organism that was alive; that moved about and attended to it's own survival.

My take on the central theory of the aforementioned book, is that the human mind (self-wareness, volition, etc...) is the same sort of thing, but applied to representative information systems like the human brain. In other words, when chemical and physical systems are built up and organized in just the right way, a living organism results. Likewise, when informational systems are built up and organized in just the right way, a self-aware mind is the result.

Well, OK...

But, somehow, if we have free will, we have the ability to fire/not fire nuerons whenever we want in whatever way necessary to make whatever decision we want. If we have free will then we have full control over this process, rather than this process acting as it would if left to the laws of physics - this differs from "life" which requires only chemical interatction, all of which follows entirely along with the laws of physics.

Indeed, "life" exists because it has to, whereas as "choice" exists only because we have the ability to make a choice. The question is then, at the very most basic level, by what process do we contro/manipulate the physical laws that govern the chemical interactions within our brain that allows us the ability to make these choices?

We run into dead ends like this when we start with incoherent premises. And here's where I'd suggest that the view you're describing is circular. You're assuming the concept of choice requires that it be free from causation, that it not be bound by the laws of physics; and then asking "how can this be?". My answer would be that it can't. I'd also say that if it could, it wouldn't make much sense. It wouldn't provide you with the 'agency' you presumably imagine it does.

Well... if you are bound by something other than your ablity to make whatever choice you decide you want to make, then you do not really possess free will.

What would it mean for choice to be free from causation? If your current state of mind, your volition, your conscious desires, fears, etc... , weren't connected to a previous state by a causal link, what would that mean? The idea that mental states are random occurrences doesn't strike me as a meaningful conception of volition. It's certainly no more satisfying that being bound to a determined fate - which is seemingly the boogeyman driving our misperceptions of free will.

Problem here is that people choose to do all kinds of things that run contrary to these causal links. People choose to act contrary to their fears, their upbringing, their experience, their moral holdings, etc, all the time -- and so, while these things may very well shape the decisions a great many people make, to possess free will means you also have the capacity to choose outside these things.

Free will means you are free from that predermination; absent free will, all of your choices are already made.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The notion of free will with that of an all knowing, all powerful, limitless God is a paradox....

This doesn't answer my question.

The notion of free will comes from not being able 100% predict or understand the decisions we make.

Actually, no - it comes from the idea that when presented with a choice, we have the ability to make the choice we decide we want to make, rather than our actions be predertmined by the laws of physics.

The human decision making process may very well be programmed by the physics, chemistry, biology, experiences, etc. of each individual. There are too many variables to grasp. If you know someone very well, you may be able to predict a particular decision, 80,90,or maybe even 99% of the time. However, often times the discussions people make are surprising to themselves as we'll as to others. Thus, we chalk up people's decisions up to free will.

Ok... but this still doesn't answer my question.

 

[dblack]

Well... if you are bound by something other than your ablity to make whatever choice you decide you want to make, then you do not really possess free will.

It all depends on how you define free will. I'm saying that our free will is a by-product of cause and effect, and not a contradiction of causality. If you go the traditional route, and define free will such that it is free from cause, then no, we don't possess that kind of free will. But again, I have to ask, what does that even mean? How are decisions made free from cause and effect any different from, or any less meaningless than, random occurrences?

What would it mean for choice to be free from causation? If your current state of mind, your volition, your conscious desires, fears, etc... , weren't connected to a previous state by a causal link, what would that mean? The idea that mental states are random occurrences doesn't strike me as a meaningful conception of volition. It's certainly no more satisfying that being bound to a determined fate - which is seemingly the boogeyman driving our misperceptions of free will.

Problem here is that people choose to do all kinds of things that run contrary to these causal links. People choose to act contrary to their fears, their upbringing, their experience, their moral holdings, etc, all the time -- and so, while these things may very well shape the decisions a great many people make, to possess free will means you also have the capacity to choose outside these things.

How do you know people choose contrary to causal links? Surely you recognize that human minds are complex things, with many many competing causal factors. It doesn't seem at all surprising to me that unexpected results will come out of something as complicated as the human mind.

Free will means you are free from that predermination; absent free will, all of your choices are already made.

I think it's a mistake to equate 'predetermined' with 'determined'. To say that all things result causally from those that preceded them (ie the future is determined by the past and the present) isn't the same as saying things are 'predetermined'. We still can't know the future until it gets here. And this isn't simply a practical limitation. The only way to have dependable knowledge of the future, would be to have complete information about the state of the universe at any given moment. And the only way to 'house' that much information would be the equivalent of recreating the entire universe - and in any case no simulation of the entire universe could 'run' faster than time itself. Meaning we could never do better than 'wait and see'. ie Laplace's demon isn't possible.

 

[theword]

The question of "free will" is very simple to answer.

If man could create energy, then he would have "free will", just like our Creator has. Our Creator has the "free will" to create anything he planned, even the entropy that he planned to confuse man's mind in this age. Man actually believes that the world we live in is real when it's not real at all. There's no such thing as mass (matter) or time in the mind of our Creator. It's only His thoughts that we're made of and He created us and this world to make us believe in it. I like to call it a make-believe world that we all live in.

Acts 17: 24-31

24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'

 

[BobPlumb]

Related to the idea that we have free will is the soul. Some believe that each of us have a supernal spirit that has moral values. Each person's spirit transcends the physical, but is somehow able to influence/control our physical brain and body. The existence of a soul for each person would explain free will if we define it as the ability to make decisions that are not predetermined by the laws of physics. But do we have free will? Do each of us have a soul that will live on after the body is dead and gone?

 

[BobPlumb]

The question of "free will" is very simple to answer.

If man could create energy, then he would have "free will", just like our Creator has. Our Creator has the "free will" to create anything he planned, even the entropy that he planned to confuse man's mind in this age. Man actually believes that the world we live in is real when it's not real at all. There's no such thing as mass (matter) or time in the mind of our Creator. It's only His thoughts that we're made of and He created us and this world to make us believe in it. I like to call it a make-believe world that we all live in.

Acts 17: 24-31

24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'

That's deep!

 

[dilloduck]

we couldn't even identity free will if there wasn't something to inhibit it. It's dynamic energy.

 

[BobPlumb]

we couldn't even identity free will if there wasn't something to inhibit it. It's dynamic energy.

Like a fire?

 

[dblack]

nevermind