Where does free will come from?

[Derideo_Te]

The neurobiological function of the brain has been factually provided and explained in detail proving that there is no imaginary biomechanical reaction" anywhere to be found inside the skull.

Then explain the physiological means thru which our brains exert willful control over our thougts, decisions and actions.[/QUOTE

Let's recap this thread for the sake of clarity.

You started out with a specious premise based upon faulty "leaps of faith" logic. Once it was established that you could not defend your illogical premise you invented the imaginary "biomechanical reaction" that magically occurs in the brain. Once it was factually established that the brain has neurobiological physiology you started demanding "proof" that your mythical "biomechanical reaction" be provided since you could not fathom the factual data provided.

Since no "intellectually honest adult" is going to state that they know for absolute certain exactly how the brain functions we faced with your claim that you know for certain that your imaginary "biomechanical reaction" is exactly how it functions. But we are faced with the situation that you have provided nothing in the way of factual peer reviewed documentation to support your ludicrous allegation.

The way this works is that when YOU make an allegation the onus in YOU to prove it. So far you have provided zilch. Now is the time to prove your position. No one will be holding their breath waiting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The neurobiological function of the brain has been factually provided and explained in detail proving that there is no imaginary biomechanical reaction" anywhere to be found inside the skull.

Then explain the physiological means thru which our brains exert willful control over our thougts, decisions and actions.[/QUOTE

Let's recap this thread for the sake of clarity.

As I said:
You know you cannot provide the informatuion I asked for, and you will do what you can to avoid doing so - including, as we see above, lying about just about everything contained within this discussion.
Thank you for proving me correct. I shall waste no more time on you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Then explain the physiological means thru which our brains exert willful control over our thougts, decisions and actions.[/QUOTE

Let's recap this thread for the sake of clarity.

As I said:
You know you cannot provide the informatuion I asked for, and you will do what you can to avoid doing so - including, as we see above, lying about just about everything contained within this discussion.
Thank you for proving me correct. I shall waste no more time on you.

I provided you with the information you asked for. However YOU have failed to reciprocate. That makes you the one with the shortcoming in the honesty category.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually, we aren't, as I am not trying to convince you of the existence of free will.

Well, we're considering your questions about what makes free will possible. But we can't really do that without a clear understanding of what you mean by free will; In particular, we need clarity on whether the conception of free will you posit is bound by deterministic cause and effect.

I think we've been over this - is there something you arent clear on?

IIRC, it is your position that our experiences send all of these impulses whizzing thru our neural pathways in such a way that when a choice is presented, the already in motion pulses move/arrive in such a way that they create our choice for us. This being the case, you do not believe there is free will as our choices are then
not made baed on what we want, as is the case with free will, but on what must be.

That said, the question I asked does not apply to you.

So is it then your contention that free will requires a control which originates outside the physical universe? That seems to be the case, since you are equating physical actions in the brain to a lack of free will. Unless there is a non-physical means of controlling those physical actions, by what you've stated in this thread, there can be no free will.

This sounds like an attempt to equate the existence of a soul, spirit, or other such supernatural component within mankind to free will. If so, fine....but I do wish you'd simply state your position instead of filling us with leading questions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, we're considering your questions about what makes free will possible. But we can't really do that without a clear understanding of what you mean by free will; In particular, we need clarity on whether the conception of free will you posit is bound by deterministic cause and effect.

I think we've been over this - is there something you arent clear on?

IIRC, it is your position that our experiences send all of these impulses whizzing thru our neural pathways in such a way that when a choice is presented, the already in motion pulses move/arrive in such a way that they create our choice for us. This being the case, you do not believe there is free will as our choices are then
not made baed on what we want, as is the case with free will, but on what must be.

That said, the question I asked does not apply to you.

So is it then your contention that free will requires a control which originates outside the physical universe?

No.

It does, however, require willful, deliberate control over the physiology, which, at its most basic level, requires control over the laws of physics.

The question is: What mechanism gives the brain that control?

This sounds like an attempt to equate the existence of a soul, spirit, or other such supernatural component within mankind to free will

That's the easy way out. I'm looking for the secular explanation.

 

[dblack]

Well, we're considering your questions about what makes free will possible. But we can't really do that without a clear understanding of what you mean by free will; In particular, we need clarity on whether the conception of free will you posit is bound by deterministic cause and effect.

I think we've been over this - is there something you arent clear on?

IIRC, it is your position that our experiences send all of these impulses whizzing thru our neural pathways in such a way that when a choice is presented, the already in motion pulses move/arrive in such a way that they create our choice for us. This being the case, you do not believe there is free will as our choices are then
not made baed on what we want, as is the case with free will, but on what must be.

That said, the question I asked does not apply to you.

So is it then your contention that free will requires a control which originates outside the physical universe? That seems to be the case, since you are equating physical actions in the brain to a lack of free will. Unless there is a non-physical means of controlling those physical actions, by what you've stated in this thread, there can be no free will.

This sounds like an attempt to equate the existence of a soul, spirit, or other such supernatural component within mankind to free will. If so, fine....but I do wish you'd simply state your position instead of filling us with leading questions.

The question of the OP - how does will animate matter? - is fairly straightforward if we don't assume dualist definitions of the mind or will. The will pushes the brain/body around in the same way a computer program makes things happen in a computer. If, on the other hand, you assume that the mind and the will exist 'outside' of physical reality, you need some kind of mechanism for explaining how something supernatural connects with the natural world. Which is (I guess ) what the OP is after.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I think we've been over this - is there something you arent clear on?

IIRC, it is your position that our experiences send all of these impulses whizzing thru our neural pathways in such a way that when a choice is presented, the already in motion pulses move/arrive in such a way that they create our choice for us. This being the case, you do not believe there is free will as our choices are then
not made baed on what we want, as is the case with free will, but on what must be.

That said, the question I asked does not apply to you.

So is it then your contention that free will requires a control which originates outside the physical universe? That seems to be the case, since you are equating physical actions in the brain to a lack of free will. Unless there is a non-physical means of controlling those physical actions, by what you've stated in this thread, there can be no free will.

This sounds like an attempt to equate the existence of a soul, spirit, or other such supernatural component within mankind to free will. If so, fine....but I do wish you'd simply state your position instead of filling us with leading questions.

The question of the OP - how does will animate matter? - is fairly straightforward if we don't assume dualist definitions of the mind or will. The will pushes the brain/body around in the same way a computer program makes things happen in a computer. If, on the other hand, you assume that the mind and the will exist 'outside' of physical reality, you need some kind of mechanism for explaining how something supernatural connects with the natural world. Which is (I guess ) what the OP is after.

Isn't that what the OP is trying to claim is the "function" of this magical "biomechanical" device that he has invented?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I think we've been over this - is there something you arent clear on?

IIRC, it is your position that our experiences send all of these impulses whizzing thru our neural pathways in such a way that when a choice is presented, the already in motion pulses move/arrive in such a way that they create our choice for us. This being the case, you do not believe there is free will as our choices are then
not made baed on what we want, as is the case with free will, but on what must be.

That said, the question I asked does not apply to you.

So is it then your contention that free will requires a control which originates outside the physical universe?

No.

It does, however, require willful, deliberate control over the physiology, which, at its most basic level, requires control over the laws of physics.

The question is: What mechanism gives the brain that control?

This sounds like an attempt to equate the existence of a soul, spirit, or other such supernatural component within mankind to free will

That's the easy way out. I'm looking for the secular explanation.

My earlier silly post that was not meant to be taken remotely seriously aside, I don't know that you're going to be able to get a secular explanation of free will that will satisfy. Whatever the mechanics of free will, the idea of it is a human construct, and while the mechanics and biological functions involved might be explored, it is still a metaphysical consideration at it's core. Philosophically, it falls squarely under the branch of metaphysics.

That's not meant to say that metaphysics cannot be discussed within a secular environment. The Greeks were fond of it. But a secular explanation is not likely to satisfy a religious perspective. I suspect the conversation will likely whirl around and around, since the debate will be conducted in a largely hostile manner for the parties involved. I use 99.99% of all threads in the Religion & Ethics board as my basis for that prediction.

 

[numan]

'
SHAUN NICHOLS is a philosopher and cognitive scientist at the University of Arizona, where he directs the Experimental Philosophy Laboratory.

It seems obvious to me that I have free will. When I have just made a decision, say, to go to a concert, I feel that I could have chosen to do something else. Yet many philosophers say this instinct is wrong. According to their view, free will is a figment of our imagination. No one has it or ever will. Rather our choices are either determined —- necessary outcomes of the events that have happened in the pas —- or they are -- random....

In the past decade, however, a small group of philosophers have adopted more data-driven methods to illuminate some of these confounding questions. These so-called experimental philosophers administer surveys, measure reaction times and image brains to understand the sources of our instincts. If we can figure out why we feel we have free will, for example, or why we think that consciousness consists of something more than patterns of neural activity in our brain, we might know whether to give credence to those feelings. That is, if we can show that our intuitions about free will emerge from an untrustworthy process, we may decide not to trust those beliefs....

Imagine a universe in which everything that happens is completely caused by whatever happened before it. So what happened in the beginning of the universe caused what happened next and so on, right up to the present. If John decided to have french fries at lunch one day, this decision, like all others, was caused by what happened before it.

When surveyed, Americans say they disagree with such descriptions of the universe. From inquiries in other countries, researchers have found that Chinese, Colombians and Indians share this opinion: individual choice is not determined. Why do humans hold this view? One promising explanation is that we presume that we can generally sense all the influences on our decision making—and because we cannot detect deterministic influences, we discount them.

Of course, people do not believe they have conscious access to everything in their mind. We do not presume to intuit the causes of headaches, memory formation or visual processing. But research indicates that people do think they can access the factors affecting their choices.

Yet psychologists widely agree that unconscious processes exert a powerful influence over our choices. In one study, for example, participants solved word puzzles in which the words were either associated with rudeness or politeness. Those exposed to rudeness words were much more likely to interrupt the experimenter in a subsequent part of the task. When debriefed, none of the subjects showed any awareness that the word puzzles had affected their behavior. That scenario is just one of many in which our decisions are directed by forces lurking beneath our awareness.

Thus, ironically, because our subconscious is so powerful in other ways, we cannot truly trust it when considering our notion of free will. We still do not know conclusively that our choices are determined. Our intuition, however, provides no good reason to think that they are not. If our instinct cannot support the idea of free will, then we lose our main rationale for resisting the claim that free will is an illusion.

emphases added

.

 

[numan]

'
Has everyone here been sleeping like Rip van Winkle?

Years ago, it was discovered that well before a person consciously makes a decision to raise his hand or not, the regions in the brain which control arm movement have already been activated !!!

Which means that the "decision" occurred quite independently of the subject's "conscious decision." !!!

This stuff has been well publicised for many years : no one has any right not to know it !!!

Are you all purposely blind !! · ·

.

 

[dblack]

'
Has everyone here been sleeping like Rip van Winkle?

Years ago, it was discovered that well before a person consciously makes a decision to raise his hand or not, the regions in the brain which control arm movement have already been activated !!!

Which means that the "decision" occurred quite independently of the subject's "conscious decision." !!!

This stuff has been well publicised for many years : no one has any right not to know it !!!

Are you all purposely blind !! · ·

.

Those experiments have also been roundly criticized for both their techniques and conclusions. They were based on comparing timings of neural activity and reports from test subjects indicating 'when' they made the decision. Their reports of making a conscious decision came well after the associated neural activity. So they concluded the decision was made at a 'lower' level and the conscious mind rationalized it after the fact.

But the experiment has many potential holes and unwarranted assumptions. How long does it take for the test subject to process their conscious decision and report it to the tester? Assuming there is lag there, from where in the brain is the decision originally made? It certainly seems plausible that the decision is made - quite consciously - and neurons fired to act (eg. move a finger) much faster than the report can be made.

 

[Montrovant]

I think we've been over this - is there something you arent clear on?

IIRC, it is your position that our experiences send all of these impulses whizzing thru our neural pathways in such a way that when a choice is presented, the already in motion pulses move/arrive in such a way that they create our choice for us. This being the case, you do not believe there is free will as our choices are then
not made baed on what we want, as is the case with free will, but on what must be.

That said, the question I asked does not apply to you.

So is it then your contention that free will requires a control which originates outside the physical universe?

No.

It does, however, require willful, deliberate control over the physiology, which, at its most basic level, requires control over the laws of physics.

The question is: What mechanism gives the brain that control?

This sounds like an attempt to equate the existence of a soul, spirit, or other such supernatural component within mankind to free will

That's the easy way out. I'm looking for the secular explanation.

So, again.....something that can control the laws of physics, which would be something not bound by the laws of physics, yes? That would leave something non-physical, such as the soul, spirit, or whatever other supernatural construct you wish to use.

You seem to be looking for a physical answer to something you are defining as outside the physical realm.

 

[dblack]

So, again.....something that can control the laws of physics, which would be something not bound by the laws of physics, yes? That would leave something non-physical, such as the soul, spirit, or whatever other supernatural construct you wish to use.

You seem to be looking for a physical answer to something you are defining as outside the physical realm.

That's only necessary if you start with the assumption that the mind is a supernatural entity.

 

[editec]

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?

Sans magical thinking one cannot prove the existence of FREE WILL.

The concept of FREE WILL is inextricably tied up with the concept of a soul.

Now I happen to think that we experience what APPEARS to be free will, but it is not magical, it is merely the outcome of chaotic forces working on the electo-chemical functions of our brains and bodies.

It's the CHAOS happening down at the subatomic levels that makes it seem like FREE WILL.

Pure theory on my part, of course.

I can not remotely begin to prove it so if one wanted to accuse me of magical thinking I wouldn't entirely disagree.

 

[dblack]

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?

Sans magical thinking one cannot prove the existence of FREE WILL.

Depends entirely on what we mean by 'free will'. The folksy characterizations don't give us anything coherent to work with, which is why I've been trying to pin the concept down to something more explicit.

The concept of FREE WILL is inextricably tied up with the concept of a soul.

Which, again according to the definitions we choose, isn't necessarily a supernatural entity.

Now I happen to think that we experience what APPEARS to be free will, but it is not magical, it is merely the outcome of chaotic forces working on the electo-chemical functions of our brains and bodies.

It's the CHAOS happening down at the subatomic levels that makes it seem like FREE WILL.

Pure theory on my part, of course.

I can not remotely begin to prove it so if one wanted to accuse me of magical thinking I wouldn't entirely disagree.

- well said. We're all flinging bullshit here!

 

[editec]

Yup, Dblack, it's all BS without doubt.

How does one prove the existence of that which is without substance?

We can more PROVE the existence of free will than we can PROVE the existence of gravity "waves".

 

[RKMBrown]

Yup, Dblack, it's all BS without doubt.

How does one prove the existence of that which is without substance?

We can more PROVE the existence of free will than we can PROVE the existence of gravity "waves".

Just because muscles can move based on autonomic response, does not mean all muscle movement is autonomic. Just because someone says you can't prove free will exists does not make them correct.

That said, democrats like Numan don't exhibit much free will. They seem to just flop around wasting the life they have been given by their parents.

 

[dblack]

How does one prove the existence of that which is without substance?

I don't think the lack of substance is the real problem. Lots of other things lack substance and we comprehend them without difficulty. The problem with free will, in my opinion, is that we (usually) aren't working with a coherent definition.

 

[RKMBrown]

How does one prove the existence of that which is without substance?

I don't think the lack of substance is the real problem. Lots of other things lack substance and we comprehend them without difficulty. The problem with free will, in my opinion, is that we (usually) aren't working with a coherent definition.

Ayup... it's like fairness. We all pretend to know what it means, but really it is just a subjective measure.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How does one prove the existence of that which is without substance?

I don't think the lack of substance is the real problem. Lots of other things lack substance and we comprehend them without difficulty. The problem with free will, in my opinion, is that we (usually) aren't working with a coherent definition.

Ayup... it's like fairness. We all pretend to know what it means, but really it is just a subjective measure.

Agreed, and as soon as you start trying to pin it down to specifics you end up trying to nail jello to the wall. Our physical "free will" is restricted by limitations and our mental "free will" has no impact on the physical world unless we act upon it.