The illusion of volition(AKA free will)

[Nicky]

Considering that causality is the law of identity applied to action - if it is the brain producing the effects, how does the brain not determine the effects?

I think Ruveyn1 is in the right here, but I would like to clarify the position he's arguing from. I think his explanation contains an inexactness: namely, he uses "brain" to refer to a human body and its environment, as a whole.

It is in fact a human body, as a whole, which is functioning, in its physical environment, to produce a conscious mind. It's not just the brain, in a vacuum. The mind is the product of various brain functions (and the body which supports them physically, but that part is implied in Ruveyn's post as well, obviously), but also sensory organs, and through them information from the environment in which it is in (this implication seems less obvious, just from saying "the brain").

The conscious mind is a process that is the result of all these functions working together. The most relevant (to our discussion) functionality of this conscious mind is thinking (the use of certain methods of processing information, which are stored in the brain). This method (thinking) is selective, meaning that the mind is able to choose whether to perform the processing of some input (be it direct sensory input or information, concrete or abstract, stored in memory).

If this method wasn't selective, then the mind would be a deterministic process (its results would be entirely determined by the specifics of the human being and his environment, and so would its decisions). But it is selective. It very clearly is, one can observe this directly. But, direct observation aside, the attempts proponents of determinism make to explain away the results of this ability of the mind to be selective in its thinking (i.e. two people of similar intelligence, growing up with similar information available to them, and one becoming a rational thinker the other a delusional religious fanatic) are laughable.

P.S.

Just to head off any possible misunderstandings, I'd like to make a couple of short points clear:

1. The law of identity does not contradict choice, as long as we make it clear what choice is: the ability to focus or not (the ability to function or not). That is what we choose. We do not choose to break with cause and effect within our bodies. We choose to sidestep a process, and deprive ourselves of what the necessary outcome of that process + a given input is, in favor of a blankout. That's it. We're not choosing between rational thought nr. 1 and rational thought nr. 2, we're choosing between rational thought and blank.

2. The mind is a mechanism, made up of physical components. A mechanism that is conscious of itself and others, and able to turn some of its processes on or off, but a mechanism nonetheless. It's not magic, that ignores causality. Every action within it has one specific reaction, just like every action in the outside world has one specific reaction.

3. Perhaps the most important one, because I think it directly answers your question: "Every action has one specific reaction" does not equal "every action is the result of another action". In fact, the second statement is clearly a logical contradiction, since we're short of at least one "uncaused" action.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Nicky

[moralist]

"Every action has one specific reaction" does not equal "every action is the result of another action". In fact, the second statement is clearly a logical contradiction, since we're short of at least one "uncaused" action.

Simply brilliant, Nicky.

...and that missing uncaused action can be found in our ability to initiate moral choice independent of causality. Only the consequences our actions set into motion follow the laws of causality.

[luktannik]

If the brain is the mind, it's first impulse (in the solely electro-chemical "if-then") must by simple logic supplied by it's own internal program--thereby eliminating"free will", or it ("free will") is outside the brain in metaphysical limbo, which would nearly make us totally unable to accesd it. Free will is either capricious or purposeful, therefore it's origin is either capricious or purposeful.

[Hairnet]

I agree. It's a moral issue.

Drug companies only respond to the what people demand, and they demand that chemicals be formulated and marketed which will solve all of their personal problems. The idea that all brain activity is solely chemical and that drugs can control any behavior and compensate for any mood has become the dominant paradigm of this society. And it's rise can be directly linked to the decline of the idea that people are personally morally accountable for their free choice of how they behave.

It can be linked? Do you even have anything to back up this claim??

If you had sophisiticaed enough technology you could probably do a lot of things to the brain, and thus effect the mind. However this would require very advanced technology. As Euiol pointed out, you seem to be under the impression that we are living in a brave new world type dystopia. However, no one is implementing drugs as a form of social control. The only problem is that there are poor incentive structures when it comes to selling drugs.

[ruveyn1]

If there is a Mind-Body problem then there is also a Stomach-DIgestion problem. Digestion is what the Stomach does. Mind(ing) is what the Brain does.

ruveyn1

[My 99 are free]

Chemicals are the answer when the reality of the existence of volition is denied.

I'm claiming that the physical processes observed in the brain are symptoms, and not causes.

If you claim that the mind is wholly physical, then then there is no such thing as free will, and the answer to every problem known to man lies in finding just the right chemicals to ingest.

wrong, there could be a chemical that is free will and is thus the answer to all our questions about consciousness.

[moralist]

Do you even have anything to back up this claim??

No.

It is only my own personal conclusion drawn from the fact of being able to observe and reflect upon the workings of my own mind... as well as observing the world around me. This conclusion only applies to me. If you have arrived at the different conclusion that there is only a chemical brain and no mind and that behavior is amoral and driven solely by chemical reactions, I'm totally ok with that, as each of us gets exactly what we deserve as the consequences of acting on our different views.

If you had sophisiticaed enough technology you could probably do a lot of things to the brain, and thus effect the mind. However this would require very advanced technology. As Euiol pointed out, you seem to be under the impression that we are living in a brave new world type dystopia.

The prevailing social narcoculture solidly agrees with your sophisticated technology view. In 2011 alone, more than 4 billion drug prescriptions were filled in the US at a cost of $319,000,000,000. That's $1,000 per year for every man woman and child living in the US.

However, no one is implementing drugs as a form of social control.

The technology has already been evolving for some time as billions of dollars of psychotropic drugs are ingested every year. And whatever their effects... no amount of drugs will never make evil people good.

[dream_weaver]

3. Perhaps the most important one, because I think it directly answers your question: "Every action has one specific reaction" does not equal "every action is the result of another action". In fact, the second statement is clearly a logical contradiction, since we're short of at least one "uncaused" action.

In the case of the brain is to mind analogy, it is closer to hand is to grasp than stomach is to digestion.

As to actions, it is only entities which act. Reactions are processes. Actions and reactions apart from the entities which act and/or react is, at best, confusing.

[dream_weaver]

Moral laws.

The mind of man, which Ayn Rand held in such high esteem, is what gives us the objective self reflective rationality to be aware that we are morally accountable for our behavior.

Would you consider moral laws to be derived from the wholly physical?

[moralist]

Would you consider moral laws to be derived from the wholly physical?

The effects of moral law are most definitely physical as well as mental and emotional. I regard moral law as operating in exactly the same way as the law of gravity. Both are absolutely objective, and neither is the least bit affected by our emotions, thoughts, beliefs, or theories about them. Both are utterly impersonal... and no one is exempt.

Edited January 20, 2013 by moralist

[Hairnet]

No.

It is only my own personal conclusion drawn from the fact of being able to observe and reflect upon the workings of my own mind... as well as observing the world around me. This conclusion only applies to me. If you have arrived at the different conclusion that there is only a chemical brain and no mind and that behavior is amoral and driven solely by chemical reactions, I'm totally ok with that, as each of us gets exactly what we deserve as the consequences of acting on our different views.

The prevailing social narcoculture solidly agrees with your sophisticated technology view. In 2011 alone, more than 4 billion drug prescriptions were filled in the US at a cost of $319,000,000,000. That's $1,000 per year for every man woman and child living in the US.

The technology has already been evolving for some time as billions of dollars of psychotropic drugs are ingested every year. And whatever their effects... no amount of drugs will never make evil people good.

So? Policy makers and scientists are not claiming to make a morality pill. Mental illness is a real problem, and sometimes drugs are the only things that can help. For example people with anxiety disorders can be crippled in many aspects of their life. They may be unable to drive a car, or may be unable to concentrate unless they satisfy a compulsion. They may obsess over details that are irrelevant. I have known people with OCD, and it is a terrible mental illness, not relate to moral character. Treatment through mental and verbal exercise can take years to have positive effects, where as certain drugs can help alleviate symptoms quickly so that the person may function.

[ruveyn1]

The effects of moral law are most definitely physical as well as mental and emotional. I regard moral law as operating in exactly the same way as the law of gravity. Both are absolutely objective, and neither is the least bit affected by our emotions, thoughts, beliefs, or theories about them. Both are utterly impersonal... and no one is exempt.

Are we pre-Newtonian or post-Newtonian. I would say in the area of morals and ethics we are right where Aristotle was. Which means no laws of a quantitative and testable kind. We are in the Age of Pop Psyche which is mostly scientifically worthless.

ruveyn1

[moralist]

So? Policy makers and scientists are not claiming to make a morality pill.

Quite correct. Never quite that overt of a claim. Just controlling the behavior of millions of "ADHD" children and the epidemic of depression and anxiety in adults. These are only symptoms. They are not causes.

Mental illness is a real problem, and sometimes drugs are the only things that can help.

Then you are living in just the right place at the right time, for the narcoculture will provide a pharmaceutical solution to every problem you can possibly imagine. Mental illness is also only a symptom, and not a cause.

For example people with anxiety disorders can be crippled in many aspects of their life.

Anxiety is also a symptom, and not a cause. But never fear, for there is a huge open 24 hour 7 day a week all you can eat buffet of drugs to eliminate all of your emotional symptoms.

They may be unable to drive a car, or may be unable to concentrate unless they satisfy a compulsion. They may obsess over details that are irrelevant. I have known people with OCD, and it is a terrible mental illness, not relate to moral character.

Then you will be happy to know that drugs are readily available which can control every possible symptom of human behavior without ever needing to address a cause..

Treatment through mental and verbal exercise can take years to have positive effects, where as certain drugs can help alleviate symptoms quickly so that the person may function.

That's great news, because this is the perfect society for you.

[Nicky]

...and that missing uncaused action can be found in our ability to initiate moral choice independent of causality. Only the consequences our actions set into motion follow the laws of causality.

This is not what I mean. Moral choices always have a cause. The only choice we have is between focusing and not focusing, as I explained in point nr. 1.

Simply brilliant, Nicky.

Thank you for the compliment. However, it's not. The secret to my "brilliant (well, they're coherent, for the most part) posts" is actually that it's not my brilliance at all. My big secret is not any kind of super-intelligence or extraordinary mental effort, it's that I have the exact opposite attitude to this:

No.

It is only my own personal conclusion drawn from the fact of being able to observe and reflect upon the workings of my own mind... as well as observing the world around me.

....

Instead of trying to figure things out by myself, I read, understand, and then accept or reject ideas. I do this almost exclusively. I almost never try to come up with original ideas, except in my own field of work (which is unrelated to philosophy), and in my personal life of course. I would never ever consider myself able to do better than actual philosophers at answering problems like volition (unless of course I changed professions).

I think you should do the same. Understanding philosophy is hard enough. Re-inventing it, on a part time basis, is impossible.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Nicky

[moralist]

This is not what I mean. Moral choices always have a cause. The only choice we have is between focusing and not focusing, as I explained in point nr. 1.

I see your point. I interpreted it in a completely different way. I see animals as operating completely within the causal laws of genetics and environment. A dog cannot choose to act like a cat, because it is a dog. However Humans are distinctly different in that they are free to choose to act outside the boundaries of causality. We are free in every moment to transcend all of the genetic and environmental stimulii to do evil, simply by choosing to do good.

Thank you for the compliment. However, it's not. The secret to my "brilliant (well, they're coherent, for the most part) posts" is actually that it's not my brilliance at all. My big secret is not any kind of super-intelligence or extraordinary mental effort, it's that I have the exact opposite attitude to this:

Instead of trying to figure things out by myself, I read, understand, and then accept or reject ideas.

We're on the same page, as I don't try to figure out things myself either. I observe both myself and the world simply by watching how events unfold. When I see what happens I can then draw a conclusion from what I actually see.

I do this almost exclusively. I almost never try to come up with original ideas, except in my own field of work (which is unrelated to philosophy), and in my personal life of course.

Same here. No idea that has ever occured to me hasn't occured to lots of others.

I would never ever consider myself able to do better than actual philosophers at answering problems like volition (unless of course I changed professions).

I think you should do the same. Understanding philosophy is hard enough.

I'm far more interested in morality than philosophy. I love the beautful justice of moral law as I observe the design of how the consequences of actions unfold.

Re-inventing it, on a part time basis, is impossible.

I believe someone said a long time ago that there's nothing new under the sun, and I have yet to see anything which renders that to be false..

Edited January 20, 2013 by moralist

[Eiuol]

Anxiety is also a symptom, and not a cause. But never fear, for there is a huge open 24 hour 7 day a week all you can eat buffet of drugs to eliminate all of your emotional symptoms.

There are so many strange assertions here, leaving aside Doomsday Prepper-esque assertions about your so-called narcoculture. Maybe not strange, but denying a sense of causality at all of the mind. What would anxiety be a symptom of? Presumably a moral problem of irrationality according to your view. How does that happen? How can a moral problem cause a mental problem, if one can choose to not be anxious, just like that?

...and that missing uncaused action can be found in our ability to initiate moral choice independent of causality.

I suppose then anxiety, too, is only self-inflicted upon an immaterial mind. It is only caused by an individual. But wait! How then would anxiety have any physical effects? Bottom line, you're trying to get the apparently body-less mind to act upon the material world. It's impossible, as impossible as a body-less god creating a material world.

The issue is treating the mind as an epiphenom, as a symptom of having a brain (yes, I'm also addressing a point ruveyn made). That's the problem, for many people who think about the mind. Either the mind is a ghost in a shell, driving the body like driving a robot, or put another way, the mind is connected to the body with a spooky "controller" in your head. Mind as an epiphenom is basically saying the mind is the end result of the chemical reactions in the brain, and the process of thinking is just causally impotent. Only dualists can maintain this viewpoint, specifically because it requires a wholly separate mind and body as separate *things*. I reject the concept totally, though. The entire experience of thinking is what the brain *does* on the conceptual level, not quite a thing. Problem solved, provided one accepts volition to have some causal origin to it. For me, I see the mind as information processing, which by nature makes selections under uncertainty. Humans make the most complex decisions, and it's not implausible to say that the very selection that goes on in information processing (i.e. conceptual thought in humans) is free will. However, it will *not* function without chemicals and electrical signals.

name='Nicky]"Every action has one specific reaction" does not equal "every action is the result of another action"

This doesn't make sense to me. I'd switch it. While it is true every reaction IS the result of another action, that does not mean every action has one specific reaction. Chemicals are part of how the mind works, but that's not the whole story. Moralist denies chemicals serve *any* purpose in how the mind functions as far as I've seen.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Eiuol

[moralist]

There are so many strange assertions here, leaving aside Doomsday Prepper-esque assertions about your so-called narcoculture.

It's actually not my narcoculture because I don't belong to it.

What would anxiety be a symptom of?

Anxiety if a symptom of a morally violated Conscience.

How can a moral problem cause a mental problem, if one can choose to not be anxious, just like that?

Choosing to to what's morally wrong violates your Conscience which negates the choice not to be anxious about it because being anxious is a consequence of violating your Conscience.

I suppose then anxiety, too, is only self-inflicted...

Yes. It is a natural consequence of a morally violated Conscience.

Chemicals are part of how the mind works, but that's not the whole story.

Chemicals are how the brain works, but that's not the whole story.

Moralist denies chemicals serve *any* purpose in how the mind functions as far as I've seen.

Yes. Chemicals serve a purpose in how the brain works.

The mind is what observes, reflects upon, and evaluates the how the brain works.

[Eiuol]

Yes. Chemicals serve a purpose in how the brain works.

How is it that anxiety causes physical symptoms?

[thenelli01]

I'm far more interested in morality than philosophy. I love the beautful justice of moral law as I observe the design of how the consequences of actions unfold.

Moral issues are philosophical issues. Morality is a subset of ethics, which is a branch of philosophy. Just thought I'd point that out.

[moralist]

How is it that anxiety causes physical symptoms?

In exactly the same way that violating your Conscience causes anxiety.

Edited January 21, 2013 by moralist

[moralist]

Moral issues are philosophical issues. Morality is a subset of ethics, which is a branch of philosophy. Just thought I'd point that out.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm most interested in that particular branch... because there is nothing that humans do that does not have moral implications... or set into motion consequences.

Edited January 21, 2013 by moralist

[Eiuol]

In exactly the same way that violating your Conscience causes anxiety.

How though? How does your mind possibly interact with your body if they are separate? The mind is wholly immaterial according to you, so how can an immaterial thing cause material consequences?

[moralist]

How though? How does your mind possibly interact with your body if they are separate?

How do you interact with another person when you are two separate beings? Because you have a reliationship as a bridge.

The mind is wholly immaterial according to you, so how can an immaterial thing cause material consequences?

How can an immaterial thought about a bowl of ice cream cause the material consequence of you going to the refrigerator to get some?

[Hairnet]

Quite correct. Never quite that overt of a claim. Just controlling the behavior of millions of "ADHD" children and the epidemic of depression and anxiety in adults. These are only symptoms. They are not causes.

Then you are living in just the right place at the right time, for the narcoculture will provide a pharmaceutical solution to every problem you can possibly imagine. Mental illness is also only a symptom, and not a cause.

Anxiety is also a symptom, and not a cause. But never fear, for there is a huge open 24 hour 7 day a week all you can eat buffet of drugs to eliminate all of your emotional symptoms.

Then you will be happy to know that drugs are readily available which can control every possible symptom of human behavior without ever needing to address a cause..

That's great news, because this is the perfect society for you.

Yeah modern mediicine is great.

Do you have a response?

[Eiuol]

How can an immaterial thought about a bowl of ice cream cause the material consequence of you going to the refrigerator to get some?

I dunno, I asked you the same thing. Indeed, how does that happen?