Do we have free will?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 8, 2015

Mind, Neuroscience, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Prager University, here. From transcript of audio:

Now, if all you are is a brain, an exhaustively physical system of neurons and synapses, then there’s no “you” that’s gonna be making a “choice” at all. Your thought processes are basically just a complex series of colliding electron-dominos crashing into one another. It’s just physical cause and effect, right — something that can be exhaustively understood in terms of physics and chemistry? There’s no “you” that’s an agent that’s deliberating, or choosing, or exercising free will.

And that’s why, if you are just a brain, you cannot have free will. You would just be a physical machine — a very complex but programmed computer.

But, if you’re something more than your brain — if you’re the thing that has the brain — then, when I ask you “Where do you want to go for lunch?,” you’re going to start deliberating — you’re going to be weighing your taste preferences, the commute time, perhaps even counting calories. You’d be weighing various reasons to choose one place over another. You wouldn’t be caused to think about any of these things. You would choose to think about these things, and you could stop anytime you wanted to.

So, what we have here, therefore, are two different types of things: an immaterial mind and the material brain. You are the thing that has the brain — you are not your brain.

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Mapou #11: there can be no thinking without the brain (...) I believe the brain does the job of thinking and that the spirit simply guides it.
So, a non-thinking spirit guides the thinking activity of the brain—which consists of non-thinking unintentional dumb matter. The blind is leading what does not want to see. It doesn’t make sense.
Mapou: Note that I am not a materialist. I am a dualist.
I know.
Mapou: Certainly. However, while importance is not determined bottom-up, there is no question that learning is bottom up and is done by the brain.
Wrong. There is no rational activity that is a bottom-up process. Understanding anything—foundational to any rational activity— is not possible without context. In fact “understanding” is to place something in a context—top-down. It follows that any bottom-up (non-contextual) process is not rational. To be sure, the brain is chemistry and chemistry can be neither learning nor thinking.
Mapou: This is how context is built.
Context is not being built, but is foundational to rationality. Consciousness is the ultimate context.
Mapou: I do agree that the importance of things is not determined by the brain but by the spirit. But that is not thinking, IMO. That is just a selection process by a top-down authority.
It must be thinking. Determining the importance of e.g. an argument is an irrational act if it is not based on reason. So, if the spirit is unthinking (irrational) then it is not capable of selecting / determining / weighing the importance of an argument.
Mapou: Thinking is goal-driven planning and goal-oriented behavior. This is what the brain does under the supervision of the spirit.
Matter has no goals. And an irrational unthinking spirit has no goals either.
Mapou: The spirit is helpless without the brain.
Your unthinking spirit is helpless no matter what. Luckily for us, your theory doesn’t make sense and our spirits are profoundly rational.Box_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

this is america. this is what freedom is. "gummint" is just more of us doing what the rest of us want done. if you are really interested in changing anything then focus on the banks. on the career politicians. if we don't care, then democracy is useless.evnfrdrcksn_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

Maybe every person does what they do. Maybe a bunch of persons make a system of laws about their community. because they don't want random persons doing whatever they want in their community. so they make some laws. they adapt them to their changing community.evnfrdrcksn_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

...and haven't we had this conversation a thousand times before? Perhaps there is a real difference of opinion?..no? Perhaps there isn't a "UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW", hmm?evnfrdrcksn_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

since barry has chased all the 'disagreeables' away...i suppose it falls upon me to say..."WHAT?" None of this makes any sense whatsoever.evnfrdrcksn_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

Do we have free will?
Yes. To a degree.mike1962_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Box @9, I now realize I inadvertently and wrongly used a double negative in my sentence earlier. Change:
... there can’t be no thinking without the brain
to:
... there can be no thinking without the brain
I believe the brain does the job of thinking and that the spirit simply guides it. You are apparently arguing against naturalism. Note that I am not a materialist. I am a dualist. You wrote:
A story is more important than sentences, which in turn are more important than words, which in turn are more important than letters. It’s not bottom-up, as it is in fact in chemistry, so the letters are not in charge.
Certainly. However, while importance is not determined bottom-up, there is no question that learning is bottom up and is done by the brain. This is how context is built. I do agree that the importance of things is not determined by the brain but by the spirit. But that is not thinking, IMO. That is just a selection process by a top-down authority. Thinking is goal-driven planning and goal-oriented behavior. This is what the brain does under the supervision of the spirit. The spirit is helpless without the brain. But even our strongest instincts, such as survival or pain avoidance, can be overpowered by the spirit.Mapou_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

We most likely don't, especially according to the atheo-gods. Coyne got invited to an Indian restaurant by Larry Moran in Vancouver. He absolutely couldn't refuse it even though the owner "is very, very religious".KevNick_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Mapou,
Mapou: 1. Thinking is a cause-effect process. 2. The brain is a cause-effect mechanism.
There is a disconnect between (1) and (2), as Reppert points out:
(...) let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
I would like to add that thinking is impossible without 'context'. Letters have words as context, words have sentences as context and sentences a story as context. IOW there is hierarchical top-down causation—which results in a hierarchical coherence of meaning. A story is more important than sentences, which in turn are more important than words, which in turn are more important than letters. It's not bottom-up, as it is in fact in chemistry, so the letters are not in charge. So cause and effect wrt to rationality (1) is entirely different than cause and effect on a chemical level (2). For now, I won't address (3),(4) and (5).Box_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

" You are the thing that has the brain — you are not your brain." True, but what is this "thing" that is you? Plenty of labels- mother, son, employee at abc, coach, wife, etc etc etc. But as soon as you put a label on you, you are a "thing" and that's not you. You is deep down. Without label. Thingless. A Soul. Yes, "soul" is a label too:) Meditation is hard. Prayer is easier;) Feel the Holy Spirit and be glad. BTW, does Soul have a biological gender? I doubt it.ppolish_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Box:
Mapou: (…) there can’t be no thinking without the brain.
Why not? What is your argument?
There are many reasons. Here are a few off the top of my head. 1. Thinking is a cause-effect process. 2. The brain is a cause-effect mechanism. 3. The spirit is not a cause-effect mechanism. It is not a mechanism. 4. The spirit is the knower and the brain is the known. 5. Spirit and matter are opposites: matter can be destroyed or changed but spirit can neither be destroyed nor changed. I know that thinking in the human brain requires the help of the spirit, otherwise we would be like robots and animals. The spirit is what gives us likes and dislikes such as our infatuation for the beauty and the arts. Physical systems have nothing to do with beauty.Mapou_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Now, if all you are is a brain, an exhaustively physical system of neurons and synapses, then there’s no “you” that’s gonna be making a “choice” at all.
And if that is the case, you cannot "choose" to perform an experiment or a measurement, and there is no science.Mung_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Mapou: (...) there can’t be no thinking without the brain.
Why not? What is your argument?Box_{June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

Free will is a fact. The brain does the thinking automatically but the spirit chooses what it likes and dislikes and what to think about, i.e., what to pay attention to. But even though the spirit is the inner eye (or seven inner eyes according to my own research) that moves back and forth from one end of cortical memory to another, there can't be no thinking without the brain. This is why I don't believe in so-called out of body or near-death experiences. One man's opinion.Mapou_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

Scientific materialism is just nihilism in a straight jacket!DillyGill_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

Here's the Prager-U link with video. I'm a layman. A picture is worth a thousand words.bb_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

Do We Have Free Will? - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDkLUBdvOkwbornagain77_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply