Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

On the question of free-will vs. determinism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

By the way, now that I think about it these people are arguing against Objectivism at it's most fundamental level when they make they baseless assertions.

I mean--- Existence exists, and you know it. If your mind is determined then you can't know anything, let alone that existence exists.

In other words, this isn't just a minor, irritating debate, but essentially a direct attack on the basis of Objectivism and reality itself when these people argue against the self-evident fact of determinism.

If the mind can't exist, according to them, because it must be a physical entity which follows physical law, then what else will they arbitrarily decree can't exist because it must also follow physical laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the mind can't exist, according to them, because it must be a physical entity which follows physical law, then what else will they arbitrarily decree can't exist because it must also follow physical laws?

I understand your point. If there is no free will, then there is no real thinking possible, then there can be no knowledge. That's a strong one. If there is no free will, then everything is pointless including this discussion.

But: What do we do with physics then? And what is the nature of the mind, if it is not physical, that means: if it can't be measured? And how does the mind interact with the body? Can it exist without the body? After all, it's not physical.

If the statement that there is free will is actually true, that means that there is something wrong with the laws of physics as far as we understand it now. And this would throw us directly into the debate of whether our mind can influence matter somehow, because it has to influence us somehow. Somehow I manage to conciously wiggle my toe. How do I do that if my mind is not physical? This is nothing but a complete mind-body split.

I really try to fully understand this position. But so far it just still seems to contradict other objectivist principles (like the primacy of existence), which is why I still struggle with this.

Edited by Felix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to quible, but 2. is wrong. Humans evolved from a species of ape; a human can't be both a human and an ape.

I have no clue what "Volition presupposes [the idea of] evolution and therefore cannot even be considered, if volition wasn't a self-evident entity" means. You appear to be under the donnywithana influence. :P Please elaborate clearly on what you mean by this.

As to the rest, I'll say again that not knowing how free-will arose or how it operates biologically poses no problem for the existence of free-will as such. Indeed, any inquiry of the how, when, from what, etc. nature presupposes the existence of a free-will directing such an inquiry.

I stand corrected on #2, but I don't believe it effects the argument at all. If apes are not volitional, humans evolved from apes, and humans are volitional, somewhere along the line, humans must have acquired volition. How and when?

I believe there are 3 possible answers:

(A or B or C)

A. Volition evolved along with humans.

B. There was no acquisition. Subjective [human] experience presupposes objective reality.

C. In some miraculous event, humans acquired volition.

(By "volition presupposes [the idea of] evolution and therefore cannot even be considered, if volition wasn't a self-evident entity" I mean that we could not know of evolution (have an idea of evolution) without volition, and therefore, volition must presuppose our knowledge of evolution.)

Option B: My abbreviated answer is as follows: (I believe) our knowledge of evolution does not presuppose evolution itself. This must true unless we assert that our subjective experiences (and the resulting knowledge of what we experience) presuppose the objective world we experience. In other words, it must be true unless this desk that I'm sitting at ceases to exist when I turn my back. If you want to use a conceptual example, dinosaurs did not exist until I read about them and trusted the subjective experiences of dinosaur authorities. But I assert that when I leave work, the desk is still here and that whether or not I learn or read about dinosaurs, they still existed. I may not have an idea of dinosaurs if I never learn about them, but I maintain that they existed nonetheless. Again, Objectivism holds that "reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears." Therefore, it doesn't seem to matter whether or not we know evolution happened or what evolution was - only that it did happen and it does exist (outside of our own experience). Therefore, option B does not seem to be feasible.

Option C: This is irrational and raises a number of questions, specifically, how and when?

If it is not B or C (I can think of no alternative options), then it is A.

But something that is self-evident cannot evolve. It just is. If volition is self-evident, it must be either B or C. I already outlined what I believe to be the nature of volition (a social reality) in my last post. If this is the case, then (it would take more explanation) but option A would be feasible. I don't want to reitterate I posted last time - but you can apply my conclusions here.

By the way, now that I think about it these people are arguing against Objectivism at it's most fundamental level when they make they baseless assertions.
I think - at a fundamental level - Objectivism is about living on earth. And in order to live, one must understand the environment that they live in.

I mean--- Existence exists, and you know it. If your mind is determined then you can't know anything, let alone that existence exists.

I would argue that existence exists whether or not you know it.

In other words, this isn't just a minor, irritating debate, but essentially a direct attack on the basis of Objectivism and reality itself when these people argue against the self-evident fact of determinism.
Like I said, the goal of Objectivism shouldn't be self-preservation. It should change as we learn about our environment. If I question the environment that I live in, I looking for truth, not to destroy Objectivism. This isn't propoganda. It's raising questions. If I'm not satisfied with the answer, I'll keep questioning until I am satisfied or I can't question anymore.

If the mind can't exist, according to them, because it must be a physical entity which follows physical law, then what else will they arbitrarily decree can't exist because it must also follow physical laws?

As an Objectivist, I am surprised that you're using the "us" and "them" mentality. It should be "you and "I."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, the goal of Objectivism shouldn't be self-preservation. It should change as we learn about our environment. If I question the environment that I live in, I looking for truth, not to destroy Objectivism. This isn't propoganda. It's raising questions. If I'm not satisfied with the answer, I'll keep questioning until I am satisfied or I can't question anymore.
Again, the notion of self-evidency, as in your sexuality thread, must be clearly understood for us to move on to more specialized questions. What have you read of Ayn Rand?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the notion of self-evidency, as in your sexuality thread, must be clearly understood for us to move on to more specialized questions. What have you read of Ayn Rand?

Something that is self-evident is something that cannot be otherwise. In this case, you argue that volition is self-evident because you need volition in order to argue against it. And I see where you're coming from. I can understand your point. But I think there may be a possibility that volition is a social reality, and I'd like to explore that possibility (on this forum), but I can't because there's a law against it.

A social reality: A perceived reality fundamentally based on interactions with other individuals (i.e. were it not for social interaction, that reality would not exist).

I forgot to add books: The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Fountainhead, parts of Peikoff's introductory book and various essays. I don't think this is that important though, I don't consider myself a 100% bonafide Objectivist (therefore I cannot be an Objectivist), but I agree with a lot of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Let me restate, that I think that "reason must assume freedom as a condition of its existence in order to act, even if freedom was not actually a fact of its existence." Therefore, this is not a practical problem for Objectivism. It's just a matter of curiosity (and the possible reality of the situation).

Edited by NewYorkRoark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to forgive me, I apologize. I really thought that the debate forum was for one on one discussions and not only for objections. Otherwise, I would not have taken up everyones time. I won't say anything else, until I'm in the debate forum.

I respect and understand the fact that this forum is privately run and if you wish that I not question Objectivism on this forum, I will abide or take it to the debate forum. When I joined, it seemed that there had been a precedent set that allowed for objections in general topics, and I didn't realize how important it was that those rules be followed. It was not my intention to be this much of a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This is from an article I read in the Apr '04 issue of Discover Magazine, titled "Whose Life Would You Save?". I think it's very illuminating on the inner workings of the mind.

Paraphrasing actually....

Joshua Green is a postdoctoral researcher who uses an MRI to watch how the brain solves ethics problems. Like in the final episode of MASH where a group of villagers is hiding in a basement while enemy soldiers are searching the rooms above. There is a crying baby with the villagers. Moral delema: Do you kill the baby and save a dozen villagers, or do you do nothing and let the baby attract the soldiers and everyone dies?

Green says most modern theories of moral reasoning were shaped by either Kant or Mill. "Kant puts what's right before what's good", says Greene, and "Mill puts what's good before what's right."

Green cites an earlier study: De Waal observed a colony of chimpanzees that got fed by their zookeeper only after they had all gathered in an enclosure. One day, a few young chimps dallied outside for hours, leaving the rest to go hungry. The next day, the other chimps attacked the stragglers, apparently to punish them for their selfishness. The primates seemed capable of moral judgment without benefit of human reasoning. “Chimps may be smart,” Greene says. “But they don’t read Kant.”

Here's another moral example: Imagine you're at the wheel of a trolly and the brakes have failed. There's a fork in the track. On the left, 5 rail workers are fixing a the track. On the right, there's only 1 worker. If you do nothing, the trolly will go left & kill 5 workers. Or you could veer right and only kill one.

Now imagine you're watching the trolly from a footbridge. There is no fork in the track, but 5 workers are working on the track. There is also a rather large man on the footbridge. You realize that you could push the large man down onto the the track and that his body would stop the trolley and you'd save the 5 workers.

Logically these two scenarios are the same. Kill one to save five. Green says the evolutionary theory of morality explains why the 2nd one feels wrong and the 1st one feels right. He says the 2 scenarios triggers different cirguits in the brain. Killing someone with your bare hands would most likely have been recognized as immoral millions of years ago. It summons ancient and overwhelmingly negative emotions. It just feels wrong.

On the other hand, throwing a switch on a trolley isn't something our ancestors had to deal with. So we rely on more abstract reasoning (weighing costs and benefits) to choose between right & wrong.

Green started using an MRI to watch subjects brains while they considered questions ranging from from deeply personal to innocuous. Some questions were easy, like do you kill your friend's sick father so he can collect on the insurance? Of course not! Others were harder, like the baby in the MASH episode.

Green saw a pattern: Impersonal moral decisions (like whether to throw a switch on a trolley) triggered many of the same parts of the brain as nonmoral questions do (like whether you should take the train or bus to work). A patch on the surface of the brain near the temples, called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex - vital for logical thinking, were among the regions activated. It is believed that this region keeps track of several pieces of information at once so that they can be compared.

Personal moral decisions lit up other areas. One, in the cleft of the brain behind the center of the forehead, plays a role in understanding what other people are thinking or feeling. A second, known as the superior temporal suclus, located just above the ear, gathers information about people from their expressions and gestures. A third made up of parts of two adjacent regions called the posterior cingulate and the precuneus, becomes active when people feel strong emotions. Green suspects these regions are part of a neural network that produces the emotional instincts behind many of our moral judgements.

As Green's database of brain scans grew, he began to see patterns emerging. When a moral question elicits an equal response from both sections of the brain, an area known as the anterior congulate cortex (ACC) switches on to mediate between them. (Look up the Stroop test - this activates the ACC). It's the area of the brain that says "Hey we have a problem". This is the biological root of anguish. The ACC is slightly different in people which is why some people are Kantians, and others are utilitarians.

Greene knows that his results can be disturbing: “People sometimes say to me, ‘If everyone believed what you say, the whole world would fall apart.’” If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good? But Greene insists the evidence coming from neuroimaging can’t be ignored. “Once you understand someone’s behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, it’s very hard to look at them as evil,” he says. “You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level.”

The brain is unable to sense itself. If you hold something in your hand, you can feel that it is in your hand. But if you're contemplating the moral judgements as described above you are not conscious of the different parts of your brain working on the problem. This ambiguity leads to the feeling that our brain is somehow separate from our body. That, coupled with the complexity of our brains, leads to the impression that we have free will, since we are not aware of how our decisions are being made.

In the sense that our brain is not controlled by another person or god, we do have free will. But I believe it is a deterministic system. I believe that if (in the future) your brain was scanned at a high enough resolution, it could be modelled and simulated (in a kick-ass computer), and would respond to simulated external stimuli just as the real you would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I believe [the brain is] a deterministic system.
Just to clarify, is that belief outside your control? i.e. you cannot help but believe it?

This is a long thread and I'm sure the point must have been made before, but these types of experiments prove that there is a material aspect to thinking. That's been known for a long time. They don't disprove free-will.

However, wouldn't you say that there is no point discussing this topic or any other if the beliefs of either side are determined beyond personal control? Or, do you mean something else by "deterministic"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By deterministic, I mean that because our brains are made of physical matter it obeys the laws of physics. Every thought we have is as a result of its initial conditions (the way our brains formed because of evolution, the traits passed down from our parents, nourishment received while in utero, etc), input from our senses, and oxygen/nourishment received throughout our lives.

Because it is deterministic, if a team of researchers could model my original zygote, and exactly simulate every bit of nourishment and sight, sound, smells, taste, touch, that I have received thoughout my life, and simulate how the zygote would grow into an embro, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, man, etc based on the correct physical laws, they could predict that at 38 years, 335 days after my birth, I would be writing this sentence. (Hello researchers, good job!)

I think everything from quarks to galaxies to people are deterministic because everything is governed by natural laws. There is no metaphysical. True, quantum mechanics isn't supposed to be deterministic, but we do not have a complete theory of everything yet. I believe that in the true workings of the universe, when everything is known, the state of everything in the universe can be predicted at any time afterwards.

So why do I feel that I have free will? Complex systems are chaotic. Which means that our brains and/or computers do not have the computational ability or the resolution/bits required to accurately track all the variables. Like Arthur C. Clark says: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". We are complex enough to give the appearance that we have free will. Even to ourselves. But not to MRI scans.

Just to clarify, is that belief outside your control? i.e. you cannot help but believe it?

Beliefs come from a feature that has been evolved into our brains. Our brains constantly develop a "world view" to help us cope with the world. (I got that from something I read 20 years ago as a freshman in college from a library book. I have no idea what the book was, but there seemed to be some evidence behind that.) It provides a reference to compare information that we absorb. As we learn new things our mental world view is updated. It also allows us to make predictions, i.e. based on what we know, if A happens, then B will result. A belief is a piece of our world view.

However, wouldn't you say that there is no point discussing this topic or any other if the beliefs of either side are determined beyond personal control? Or, do you mean something else by "deterministic"?

They may be deterministic (in a physics sense) that's not a reason to give up on it. There's still much to learn about how our brains work.

Edited by DrBaltar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more time, determinism that is a fact in the physics of how the brain functions does NOT in any way imply nor negate the fact that the mind IS a volitional facaulty. Why do you people make that absurd "connection" over and over again. The brain is the "hardware" the mind is the "software".

The ability to bring one's mind into focus is the "bridge" between determinism and free will. It is like a switch and once that switch is flipped on "you" are in control of your mind to the degree that "you" choose to focus. The only thing that may be "determined" is the initial "flipping of the focus switch". Because how can one choose to focus if the mind is still completely out of focus. I.e., in a state similar to a drunkard during a blackout. That is a what a deterministic state would be like. You would be walking around and talking and doing things randomly with just your past subconcious automatized actions to guide you. You would walk until you bumped into a wall then fall down, or turn and go the other way like a kid's toy, or punch a hole in the wall if the sudden impulse hit you. All these actions would just take place almost at random, without choice, and you wouldn't retain anything you did long enough to form a long-term memory that you could recall later. That in NOT the state of your average human being, but of the deterministic robot you all seem to proclaim that we are.

What I think is determined is-- that some data of some kind will impinge itself upon one of your sense organs which will then in a deterministic manner flip on into some degree of focus your rational, volitional faculty. At that point you are "in control" you can increase your focus or evade it, but it will be there for as long as you are a live, your brain is intact, and your senses are working properly and have data to send to your brain. That is the ONLY "deterministic" part to a human-- data from his environment MUST turn on his volitional faculty if everything is intact.

Now, I hope that is the end of all the non-sense in these kind of threads about determinism "versus" volition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The brain is the "hardware" the mind is the "software".

Software is deterministic.

You would be walking around and talking and doing things randomly with just your past subconcious automatized actions to guide you. You would walk until you bumped into a wall then fall down, or turn and go the other way like a kid's toy, or punch a hole in the wall if the sudden impulse hit you. All these actions would just take place almost at random, without choice, and you wouldn't retain anything you did long enough to form a long-term memory that you could recall later. That in NOT the state of your average human being, but of the deterministic robot you all seem to proclaim that we are.

The robots here refute that. They are simplistic, but they do show learning behavior, and they're able to navigate over a variety of surfaces. There's also robots in the Grand Challenge which are completely autonomous, but are able to navigate over rough terrain from one place to another. The 'choices' they make are due to their programming. Their algorithms dictate why they would choose to take one path over another, and that's all completely deterministic.

What I think is determined is-- that some data of some kind will impinge itself upon one of your sense organs which will then in a deterministic manner flip on into some degree of focus your rational, volitional faculty. At that point you are "in control" you can increase your focus or evade it, but it will be there for as long as you are a live, your brain is intact, and your senses are working properly and have data to send to your brain. That is the ONLY "deterministic" part to a human-- data from his environment MUST turn on his volitional faculty if everything is intact.

I'm having trouble following your argument, since you stated that the mind is like software. As a programmer, I have never heard of any program doing anything that was creative, since any output a program could give is a product of its inputs and its algorithms. Can you explain this better?

From an earlier post you said:

To argue that a mind is determined to make certain choices because it requires a physical medium that obeys the laws of physics is the same thing as saying that a car is automatically determined to make certain road trips the second it's made because it's physical and also has to obey physical laws. That is complete nonsense.

There's a problem with your analogy. A car without a driver just sits there obeying physical laws. It's the driver that causes a car to do more than just sit there.

Or is that what you're saying? That the brain is a physical thing acting, like Park Zoo says in the t and t+1 example, and that a "mind" causes it to behave a certain way? If so, I think we're back to the software thing, with software being deterministic.

What do you make of the anterior congulate cortex (ACC) that I mentioned yesterday? The part of the brain that acts as mediator when neither the logical side of the brain or the instinctive side of the brain are dominant? Brain scans show that the ACC is biased towards one side or the other in different people. Where's the free will in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why do I feel that I have free will? Complex systems are chaotic. Which means that our brains and/or computers do not have the computational ability or the resolution/bits required to accurately track all the variables. Like Arthur C. Clark says: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". We are complex enough to give the appearance that we have free will. Even to ourselves. But not to MRI scans.
If your free will is but an illusion, then you are not in control of your mind. Therefore, you cannot know that the content of your mind is a product of a process of thought governed by logic; you may think you are being reasonable and logical, but that, too, could be a mere illusion created by deterministic forces. Thus, you cannot know anything about the validity of your beliefs; they may be true or laughably false. Why, then, should we listen to anything you have to say?

You cannot escape the fact that any claim to knowledge -- including the claim that determinism is true -- presupposes that one has the ability to choose the logical over the illogical, to choose to think instead of evade, to choose to speak the truth and not to lie. Absent the power of choice, you have no way to validate or verify your beliefs -- and thus no business making any claim to knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ability to bring one's mind into focus is the "bridge" between determinism and free will. It is like a switch and once that switch is flipped on "you" are in control of your mind to the degree that "you" choose to focus. The only thing that may be "determined" is the initial "flipping of the focus switch". Because how can one choose to focus if the mind is still completely out of focus. I.e., in a state similar to a drunkard during a blackout. That is a what a deterministic state would be like.
Yes, I believe this is key to the issue. It is also important to note that the ongoing process of focusing requires effort. The initial process of focusing may take place automatically, but continued focus must be learned. Also, one must make the choice to exert the effort necessary to focus. Some people decide that the energy needed to focus is too much. They inevitably become drunks or drug addicts, choosing to live in a state of foggy inebriation rather than clear mental focus.

The robots here refute that. They are simplistic, but they do show learning behavior, and they're able to navigate over a variety of surfaces. There's also robots in the Grand Challenge which are completely autonomous, but are able to navigate over rough terrain from one place to another. The 'choices' they make are due to their programming. Their algorithms dictate why they would choose to take one path over another, and that's all completely deterministic.

Of course it's possible to program a robot to "choose" among several options in a given situation. What isn't possible, is for a robot to have volitional consciousness like that of a man. A robot will never have free will because it doesn't have the ability to choose whether or not to focus its computer "brain" and to have that choice require effort. If a robot were to be given that "choice" and it was programmed to act "rationally", why would it ever "choose" to exert the effort necessary to focus? The rational choice for the robot would be to not expend the energy and remain out of focus. A robot doesn't prefer life over death.

On the other hand, man must make a continuous choice between life and death. For men, life (and focus) requires effort. Life has value to men because it is not eternal, because we will all eventually die. Life would have no value to a robot unless it was programmed to always try to preserve its life (in which case it would not have free will).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot escape the fact that any claim to knowledge -- including the claim that determinism is true -- presupposes that one has the ability to choose the logical over the illogical, to choose to think instead of evade, to choose to speak the truth and not to lie. Absent the power of choice, you have no way to validate or verify your beliefs -- and thus no business making any claim to knowledge.

How is this choice made? Did you read the article I paraphrased yesterday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this choice made? Did you read the article I paraphrased yesterday?
The fact that we do know how it is made does not mean it does not exist, and I don't believe you're saying that. Just to confirm, are you saying that people can make choices or not? For instance, there was a recent thread about divorce. Would you agree that how you think about the subject, and how you act is a choice you can make?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DrBaltar - I agree with pretty much everything you say. However, if we were to accept that our minds are deterministic, then there really would be no point to life. I started a similar thread a while ago, trying to find proof for Free Will, but I am now convinced no such proof can be offered at this time. I do believe, though, that it is because of gaps in our understanding of the Universe. I'm sure that a few more decades will advance the field of Physics enough, where the concept of Free Will will no longer contradict Physical Laws. For example, consider the following book:

The main argument boils down to this: the human brain may exploit certain quantum mechanical phenomena, key to intelligence and/or consciousness, that effectively make the brain's activity uncomputable, and hence beyond the reach of Turing machines/classical computers. To allow for this, Penrose suggests that current models of quantum physics are flawed, and hints at how they might be modified.

So at this point I choose to accept Free Will as a fact, and blame any contradictions the concept introduces, on flaws in our current understanding of Physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brain scans show that the ACC is biased towards one side or the other in different people. Where's the free will in that?

Funny, I just wrote on this.

Correlation does not equal causation, and any recorded brain activity does not eliminate the fact that a person can choose to approach a problem with one side or the other. To say that different people happen to choose to use one side more often is not to say that they are biologically determined or even predisposed to do so. It is only to say that they have done so.

To draw the conclusion that they had to do so from a simple brain scan is an error. As I said, correlation does not equal causation. Data about human behaviors cannot be understood by using the same models as for physical systems, or even the models that apply to animals.

In a sense, this is a case of begging the question: you believe that human beings do not have free will, and so you try to explain them with mechanistic models.

In case you haven’t guessed, this is a major problem with modern science and psychology and is the main reason why much of what comes out of it is total nonsense. So I’m not railing against you specifically, but rather the sheer preponderance of this flawed thinking.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's possible to program a robot to "choose" among several options in a given situation. What isn't possible, is for a robot to have volitional consciousness like that of a man. A robot will never have free will because it doesn't have the ability to choose whether or not to focus its computer "brain" and to have that choice require effort. If a robot were to be given that "choice" and it was programmed to act "rationally", why would it ever "choose" to exert the effort necessary to focus? The rational choice for the robot would be to not expend the energy and remain out of focus. A robot doesn't prefer life over death.

On the other hand, man must make a continuous choice between life and death. For men, life (and focus) requires effort. Life has value to men because it is not eternal, because we will all eventually die. Life would have no value to a robot unless it was programmed to always try to preserve its life (in which case it would not have free will).

I used the example of the robots to refute what EC said which was that people operating deterministically would bumble around like a kid's toy, and that they wouldn't form any long term memories. These deterministic robots learn to emulate biological behavior (like walking and navigating) without it being specifically programmed in. And the memories of the learned behavior is stored long term. Human brains are vastly more complex than robot CPUs (and likewise exhibit vastly more complex behavior), yet there is still a physical basis for everything that happens within our brains.

If the mind is not physical, then what is it? EC says the mind is like software. Yet when software is loaded into a computer it's loaded into memory chips. Each bit in memory is set to a 1 or a 0. That's a physical state. The CPU acts upon the program stored in memory by incrementing through it, and executing the assembly code. The way that happens is completely deterministic. And it's the same way in brains. Memories are stored in neurons as protiens if I recall (physical), and the brain acts on memories and sensory input using various regions like the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the superior temporal suclus, the posterior cingulate, the precuneus, or the anterior congulate cortex (ACC). These are all physical objects and operate in a t, t+1 manner. If I missed what you're talking about when you say the "mind", please be more specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that we do know how it is made does not mean it does not exist, and I don't believe you're saying that. Just to confirm, are you saying that people can make choices or not?

If a ball is on a hill does it choose to roll down hill? We see it roll downhill and know that it's because of gravity and the slope of the hill. In the much more complex realm of the brain, there is still a cause and effect. It's just much harder to trace. Do people make choices? I think we need a working definition of the word choice. As it is, it's the ability of someone to make a selection. Yes, people do have that ability. But with an MRI, or even better equipment that will come in the future, we will be able to see why someone chose one thing over another.

For instance, there was a recent thread about divorce. Would you agree that how you think about the subject, and how you act is a choice you can make?

Most of the people on this forum are rational thinkers. There was another thread about personality termperments. Most people said they were an INTJ. I am too (INTP sometimes though). I think just as people are born blond, brunette, etc, people are born with ACCs that are biased towards logic or intuition. Add other bias of all the other regions of the brain and you get the full spectrum of human personality. Let's assume you're an introvert. Can you choose not to be? Can you walk into a room full of people and become the life of the party if you wanted to? Can a person born with a dominant intuition side of the brain and who is religious ever choose to accept our rational arguments that god does not exist and that there is nothing metaphysical?

There is another part of that article that I will quote here:

Another way to study moral intuition is to look at brains that lack it. James Blair at the National Institute of Mental Health has spent years performing psychological tests on criminal psychopaths. He has found that they have some puzzling gaps in perception. They can put themselves inside the heads of other people, for example, acknowledging that others feel fear or sadness. But they have a hard time recognizing fear or sadness, either on people’s faces or in their voices.

Blair says that the roots of criminal psychopathy can first be seen in childhood. An abnormal level of neurotransmitters might make children less empathetic. When most children see others get sad or angry, it disturbs them and makes them want to avoid acting in ways that provoke such reactions. But budding psychopaths don’t perceive other people’s pain, so they don’t learn to rein in their violent outbreaks.

On the divorce subject, I was thinking about that as I read the article about Green. My ACC is definately coming into play to mediate between my intuitive and logical sides. It seems to be confused as well though lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free-will does not imply that the brain is not material, it does not imply that some part (let's call it "the free-will part") is non-material (nor that it is material). It also does not mean all brains have the same capacities.

All it means that you can read what I wrote and you can then choose to agree or disagree with it.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DrBaltar - I agree with pretty much everything you say. However, if we were to accept that our minds are deterministic, then there really would be no point to life. I started a similar thread a while ago, trying to find proof for Free Will, but I am now convinced no such proof can be offered at this time.

Just because we are deterministic doesn't mean that we can percieve of the exact state of the universe and are aware of every influence on us. The ultimate outcome of life, the universe, and everything, are not foregone conclusions because we have nowhere near the ability to solve what it is. (well we know it's 42, but what are the units? lol) So what happens next in life is still a mystery to us, and since there is no god, we are all "free" to "choose" our own purposes. Just don't get too hung up in the fact that a hyper-intelligent being could have done precise analysis of you and your surroundings and wouldn't have been surprised at what you chose as your purpose.

We have no complete theory of laws of physics yet. Quantum mechanics and relativity are just very good approximations. Despide quantum mechanics, I believe that ultimately, everything is deterministic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no complete theory of laws of physics yet. Quantum mechanics and relativity are just very good approximations. Despide quantum mechanics, I believe that ultimately, everything is deterministic.
But let's be clear. This is not your conclusion. You have no choice in the matter. The notion that you have thought about the issue, carefully and logically considered the evidence, and then adopted this position is an illusion. You did not make up your mind on this issue. The conclusion was forced upon you by deterministic forces outside your perception and control. Thus, you have no idea what you actually believe, because you are not free to believe anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...