• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Free will vs. Determinism

Foreigner said:
I find this really fascinating. It implies that there is some kind of other foundation beyond neurology, which guides neural formation. The theory of memory engrams is false... our memories don't have specific coordinates, they are re-created neurally when consciousness attempts to recall it. My personal belief is that consciousness is a field and neurology simply responds to changing field dynamics. How else can memory be explained? Or consciousness? It doesn't seem like consciousness is in the brain, and many of the higher functions we would ascribe to the brain don't seem to have static physical manifestations. In the case of memory, the neurons seem to recreate the memory via the guidance of some unseen hand.
Click to expand...

Neurology's current understanding is that LTM is encoded by the way in which experiences modify the total structure of the brain due to exposure to particular patterns of signaling, hippocampal activity facilitating these structural changes. And then recall is driven by the brain's ability to reactivate these patterns of activity per these structural modifications. Thus, I don't think that the function of memory need depend on any unseen hand; rather, the system itself functions as a dynamic whole.

Consciousness might be another story, but I think that the Hofstadterian explanation is on the right track. This might give us an inkling of the 'how' of consciousness, but not really the "why".
...
I'm wondering what people's critiques of the compatiblist interpretation of free will are.

ebola
 
I've posted earlier on in the thread, but I'm still working with "Man can do what he wills, but cannot will what he wills."

We can do whatever we want (free will) but what is driving us to make our choices (determinism)?

Obviously our character comes into play, but how much of what we've experienced, what we hold true, our own responsibility?
How much was thrusted upon us? Adopted unknowingly? Indoctrinated?

And if we take active measures to challenge these beliefs e.g. ethics and perspective
we still cannot make ourselves desire something, or stop an already present desire.

I mean, if we say every action has a cause, we must define cause.
Motive/desire is not cause. Emotional/cognitive reactions are not "cause" in the sense throwing a rock at a window causes it to break.

Whether I type this or not, hit post or not, it's all determined.
No matter which route I choose, that is the route I was going to choose.
If I do something else, actively go against my "standard" desire, what brought on the new desire to deviate?

We're in control of ourselves, but what is controlling us?
 
We are as free as the universe allows us to be. You can learn how to fly a airplane but you can't buy one. Obstacles are the challenges of free will.
Emotions like fear stop us from doing things we would like to do because of the consequences we think 'might' happen. If I walk down the road now? Is it an action that will get me towards the shops (which was my original intention) or is it an action that was meant to happen in that moment in time to allow me to speak to that girl I saw on the way and created some sort of bond? Is she a part of this process too? Therefore that means two people are within this spectrum time frame of determinism.
Does determinism only work with certain actions ans decisions in life? Maybe it's a mixture of the two. Determinism is set out in many paths but you have the free will to choose.
 
ebola? said:
Neurology's current understanding is that LTM is encoded by the way in which experiences modify the total structure of the brain due to exposure to particular patterns of signaling, hippocampal activity facilitating these structural changes. And then recall is driven by the brain's ability to reactivate these patterns of activity per these structural modifications. Thus, I don't think that the function of memory need depend on any unseen hand; rather, the system itself functions as a dynamic whole.

Consciousness might be another story, but I think that the Hofstadterian explanation is on the right track. This might give us an inkling of the 'how' of consciousness, but not really the "why".
...
I'm wondering what people's critiques of the compatiblist interpretation of free will are.

ebola
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info on memory. I can't fully buy into it though as it doesn't explain past life memory, transmission of consciousness from point A to point B, OBEs, etc.

I've read Hofstadter's explanation before actually. He does a good job of describing the physical brain, I just don't feel it's the entire picture.
 
Free will sort of strikes me as a quantum state of affairs. For example, if you take a particle's random motion, and multiply it as many times as you need to to reach the macro/classical scale, then all those random motions cancel out and it's a solid object arising from the closest thing in the world to nothing at all. Likewise, free will can be seen as a sort of intuitive cancellation (by process of combination) of all the deterministic mechanisms like chemical gradient, potential vs kinetic energy, electric principles, etc that exist within the brain. Also it's possible that our consciousness is flowing into us, and our bodies have only manifest to support it, and not that it has manifest to support our bodies. This deterministic, meat-based clockwork might've been the natural reaction to the inherently free-radical nature of consciousness, the more complex the brain, the more complex the consciousness that manifests it (thought and self-awareness: the ability to play a guitar and a harmonica at the same time while thinking about a person who lives far away, and being hungry and lonely all at once).

While there are very many computer scientists who have gone to great lengths at modelling brains learning about what it means to process information, and reducing the workings of the brain to the jargon of their particular discipline, I still refuse to accept they have the complete story of cognition and consciousness.

I really think it's foolish not to believe in free-will, it's also foolish not to believe in the power and ubiquity of suggestion in human society.
 
some people believe that someday the human brain will be able to be completely quantized... that the uncertainty principle is just a misunderstanding, and that perhaps someday the entirety of the universe (consciousness included) could be summed up into a single equation.

what if free will existed up until the day that the theory of everything was invented? what if discovering the theory of everything switches the universe from analog to digital?

:)
 
TNW said:
some people believe that someday the human brain will be able to be completely quantized... that the uncertainty principle is just a misunderstanding, and that perhaps someday the entirety of the universe (consciousness included) could be summed up into a single equation.
Click to expand...

Hidden variable approaches to interpretation of QM have fallen far out of favor over the history of the discipline's development (David Bohm notwithstanding, but it seems like experimental work has ruled out the possibility of local hidden variables).

ebola
 
I'm glad you mentioned hidden variables. That seems to be the crux of the anti-free-will people's debate, which seems to be more of a decision than a logical conclusion. AKA They are using their free will to support the metaphysical viewpoint that argues against free will.

I don't get why determinism appeals to so many people. Are they looking for an excuse not to be held accountable for their actions? Is it just the absolute most logical conclusion one can ascribe their reality?
Determinism should scare the hell out of everyone I would think. The world really might as well be no different than an Orwellian pig pen and a trough if that's all that was going on.

The idea that there is no free will because there might possibly some hidden variable which makes you want the things you want seems to be in the same class of ideas as "you can't disprove god and you can't disprove the spaghetti monster." The idea is not falsifiable because there always the possibility that there is another variable right around the corner that the whole debate hinges on. Just like the idea that you can't guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow. The debate of determinism is another spaghetti monster, and another problem of induction IMO.

Determinism certainly works for things like balls rolling down hills, and osmosis of water from low density to high density, but it seems to be a supreme act of ignorance to extend the concept to human behavior. The debate is regarding the existence of free-will, not that all people are always stellar examples of free-will. It doesn't matter how many instances of people who's entire lives could be thought to be determined, but they only need to display an act of free-will once to prove that they have it. It certainly is much easier to just roll down hill, or go from high density to low, and I probably stick to that behavior most of the time, but it doesn't worry me because I know I could stand still, or walk uphill if I want, whenever I want.
 
^ I've heard the view of determinism that you describe. I've also heard it described as a "program" that is running for you to learn specific lessons, but unlike the co-creation concept, determinism believes that the program is concretely pre-set so that it is merely being carried out verbatim. I guess that's the difference between soft and hard determinism, though I think the co-creation concept is not exactly soft determinism.
 
Maybe I'm too guided by intuition, but philosophy seems like the activity you use to see through bullshit, even your own, and this tends to make me feel better, even at the low grade I currently study it. What does one mean when they speak of things being pointless or not?

Foreigner said:
^ I've heard the view of determinism that you describe. I've also heard it described as a "program" that is running for you to learn specific lessons, but unlike the co-creation concept, determinism believes that the program is concretely pre-set so that it is merely being carried out verbatim. I guess that's the difference between soft and hard determinism, though I think the co-creation concept is not exactly soft determinism.
Click to expand...

The thing I can't get past at the moment is the fact that the debate comes down accepting there's a program causing the intuitive feeling of free-will (as opposed to having proof of such inevitability of all things, humans are pattern seeking after all. Confirmation bias is a motherfucker), but I don't see how you can't just as easily accept the possibility of an unconscious decision making process whose action isn't noticed, but its outcomes remain, and it informs the mechanics which inform the conscious mind.

I guess the problem also arises based on your starting point: Some people think of the mind as existing, some people can't justify the existence of anything but the brain.

This is one debate that seems like there could be an infinite regression of avenues for the advocates of each side to retreat to, but what in philosphy isnt?
 
Last edited:
Roger&Me said:
^what if everything is pointless?

i suspect that's probably the case, although its a very depressing thought
Click to expand...

this might be true on a macro-scale, but it isn't true on a micro-scale, objective scale. you could be wrong, but there are many things in your own life that you do not think are pointless, i am sure. you're a fairly successful person, so obviously there is a point to your actions (at least on a personal basis).
 
free will is myth

universe can be counted,its just math.... 1+1 will always be 2.... the constalation of atoms,energy values,distances... its just sum of values that gives result

people cope with things beyond their power with denial,its mental defense system.... if u constantly have in mind that u die and dive in dark oblivion forever,and that u have no real control over anything it would drive u insane... so lets pretend there is life after death and that god gave u free will
 
^ you don't believe in free will, and you seem to believe in god

if god didn't give us free will, then why did he cause us to question whether or not we have free will?
 
thenightwatch said:
^ you don't believe in free will, and you seem to believe in god

if god didn't give us free will, then why did he cause us to question whether or not we have free will?
Click to expand...

i dont believe in god in traditional sense

human question everything,its just matter of arrangement of matter in your brain,all of witch can counted..... again if you couldnt question yourself if you have free will and then embrace honest as possible belief that u indeed have free will,most people would get bat shit crazy,becose thats way too heavy shit for common sheeple to handle,denial,self lies are mental defense systems old as mankind
 
DOB said:
i dont believe in god in traditional sense
Click to expand...

well, the question still stands, even if its your unique version of god

why would your god make the world that way it is? why would he create creatures that have cognitively dissonant existential questions about whether or not free weill exists?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top