Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
No, he doesn't, Mason. OTOH, I can see that the mere fact you mentioned it was a good thing. Congrats, sir!
Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
No, he doesn't, Mason. OTOH, I can see that the mere fact you mentioned it was a good thing. Congrats, sir!
The fact that my brain is making choices does not constitute proof of any kind that free will does not exist
I am an human individual, whether or not a philosophical and religious concept of self is warranted. As an individual, my brain is imbued with complex reasoning faculties, memory, and experience which allows me to reflect, deliberate, weigh options, make choices.
I haven't heard any convincing arguments that I am a meat puppet
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
No, be correct: you've IGNORED any arguments that you are a meat puppet.
You got so lost in attacking me personally you just skipped past the discussion of findings from various brain studies that call into question the possibility of free will.
ZenMode
Well-known member
When you say "allows me to...." you're implying that there is some kind of separate entity, a self, that is doing all of the things you're describing - deliberating, reasoning, deciding, etc. What is the thing exercising free will? Is it your skin? Bones? Neurons? Eyes? Is it the parietal or temporal lobe of your brain? Are "you" a lobe?
What is the thing using it's free will to do all this stuff, because, without a self doing all this stuff, your body is no different than a marionette (your body) being controlled by the strings (your brain) and claiming free will.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
That's because, unlike you/Mode, people with Free Will aren't meat puppets. This has been repeated consistently all month.
This logic doesn't follow:
"Because you do not have a Christian soul, a Hindu Atman, a Confucian Qi, it proves you are a meat puppet."
That's an assertion not a proof. The underlying premise requires as much proof as the conclusion.
You are free to claim we are not unique, individual humans, shaped by our faculties of reason, memory, and experience.
But that's not how people experience the world.
It is self evident to virtually everybody, outside of the mentally ill, that we make choices.
If you want to claim we are meat puppets, the burden is on you to give concrete scientific proof why self evident sensory experience is wrong
ZenMode
Well-known member
Going in reverse order....
I've already said that we are all unique. We have a unique combination of genes and life experiences that, before we even know were alive , are structuring our brains and making us who we are.
I said previously that there's no requirement to have a Christian soul. A self could exist in a number of ways but, if there is no self, no "me", that is doing the reasoning, thinking, deciding, etc, how can free will exist? With no self, how would you (aka your body) not be a marionette being controlled by the strings of your brain? Without a self, what is it that is exercising free will?
Every common definition of self independent of biology is ultimately based on religious percepts of a lasting and permanent life essence which persists through time and space.
That context cannot be ignored to try to create a new novel definition of self to shoe horn into a theory of meat puppetry.
The individual human is psychologically capable of reason, reflection, and choice. This is self evident to virtually everybody as a matter of sensory and psychological perception.
The burden rests with you to provide concrete scientific proof that our sensory perception is just mere illusion.
Margot
Verified User
ZenMode
Well-known member
I agree, at least in the US where most of the population is Christian, that a "self" is generally associated with an eternal, god-given soul, but I'm not putting a theological limitation on the basis of a self in this discussion
I agree. Our brain reasons, reflects and chooses all the time. My view is that the brain functions as the strings for the marionette. The belief in free will says that there's something (a self?) pulling the strings on the brain, which then pulls the strings of the body in the form of decisions, actions, etc.
If there's nothing consciously pulling the strings of the brain, and the brain is doing all the work and pulling the strings, where do you get free will?
I understand that's your opinion.
But that's not proof that our sensory and psychological perception that we have an ability to choose is just a mere illusion.
I might be wrong too. But my belief in an ability to choose is based on self evident sensory perception that almost all human beings experience.
Your opinion is on an obtuse theoretical and philosophical extrapolation that is supported by neither science nor sensory experience.
It's not a widely accepted hypothesis, but even mathmatical physicists as prominent as Roger Penrose are considering the possibility that conciousness operates on a quantum level.
You obviously weren't aware of this, otherwise you wouldn't have burst into the thread giggling and chuckling about philosophical bullshit.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
People are limited in their "free will" based upon previously discussed factors, but most normal people both have and make choices.
In some ways this is reminding me of the atheist "disbelief" argument. Believing there is no God is a belief, regardless of what atheists want to call it. The only logical argument is "I don't know". Both Belief or Disbelief are not supported by logic, they are opinions.
Same for the lack of free will argument from certain parties; they choose not to believe they have a normal human ability. Fine. Maybe they don't because of mental incapacitation. I don't know.
People are limited in their "free will" based upon previously discussed factors, but most normal people both have and make choices.
In some ways this is reminding me of the atheist "disbelief" argument. Believing there is no God is a belief, regardless of what atheists want to call it. The only logical argument is "I don't know". Both Belief or Disbelief are not supported by logic, they are opinions.
Same for the lack of free will argument from certain parties; they choose not to believe they have a normal human ability. Fine. Maybe they don't because of mental incapacitation. I don't know.
Free will and no-self are slippery philosophical contexts that are ripe for wild speculation and conjecture.
For sure our ability to choose is bounded and constrained by social convention, moral expectations, and legal code.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
True, but mostly when the "soul" argument is brought up.
Agreed on those limitations of choice, but people can still choose. They can choose to abide by the law or break it. The speeder doing 90MPH in a 65MPH made a choice. S/he wasn't compelled, forced or otherwise unable to choose their actions.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Absolutely. Our subjective experience and perception makes us believe that we are in the drivers seat, when we're actually anything but in the drivers seat. Our brains are constantly looking forward and predicting what is going to happen next, so at the point that you believe you are making a decision, the decision was actually made by the brain and you are just being made aware of it.
There's also the reality that many people don't want to believe that there is no self and there is no free will. I'm sure it can be very destabilizing.
But, yes, my opinion is supported by science:
Our Brains Make Up Our Minds Before We Know It
Brain activity can foretell some choices before subjects are conscious of them.
Posted December 21, 2020 | Reviewed by Matt Huston
We like to think that when it comes to our daily decisions, we’re the ones running the show. For example, when you opt for the Matcha Green Tea Latte instead of your usual Cinnamon Dulce Latte, you’d like to believe that you made the conscious decision to switch. But what if that purchase intention was already made before you became aware of your decision to buy it?
Philosophers have argued about the concept of free will for thousands of years. In recent decades, neuroscientists have joined in on the debate. Some argue that our awareness of decisions may merely be a neurochemical afterthought, without any influence at all on one’s actions. These cognitive scientists cite brain imaging studies revealing that the decision-making process begins before a person is able to realize it.
Startling evidence to support belief in the role of the unconscious in decision-making was demonstrated in an experiment by a group of scientists led by John-Dylan Haynes from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany. Using fMRI brain scans, these researchers were able to predict participants’ decisions as many as seven seconds before the subjects had consciously made the decisions. As the researchers concluded in Nature Neuroscience, “Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions, we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings.”
The decision studied was a simple choice of whether or not to push a button with one’s left or right hand. Participants were free to make the decision whenever they wanted, but they had to indicate at what point they made the decision in their mind. By observing micropatterns of brain activity, the researchers were able to predict the subjects’ choices before they indicated knowing the choices themselves. “Your decisions are strongly prepared by the brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,” says Haynes. This unprecedented prediction of a free decision raises profound questions about the nature of free will and conscious choice.
But because this study involved a very simple and less reasoned choice, Haynes and his team decided to explore whether or not these observations would generalize to more complex and considered choices. In a follow-up study, researchers presented a series of numbers on a screen and asked subjects to make a decision to either add or subtract two numbers. While participants were in the process of deciding, the researchers used fMRI brain imaging to decode and predict responses based on brain activity. The researchers argued that this task was a more realistic model of everyday decision-making as it involved more abstract intentions.
Similar to the earlier experiment, the researchers were able to predict the subjects’ choices based on brain activity up to four seconds before research participants were consciously aware of their choices. As published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the report concludes, “Our results suggest that unconscious preparation of free choices is not restricted to motor preparation. Instead, decisions at multiple scales of abstraction evolve from the dynamics of preceding brain activity.”
Haynes is quick to point out, “Of course a single experiment is not going to rewrite two and half thousand years of thinking about free will. I like to think of this as a starting block.” But by better understanding our volitions, experiments such as these may provide important practical applications. For example, the research may have implications for informing consumers to make better choices or informing legal systems and juries to better deliberate about involuntary and voluntary acts. In addition, it may shed light on illnesses like schizophrenia and Parkinson’s disease, where patients feel as if their actions are not the result of their choosing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...g/202012/our-brains-make-our-minds-we-know-it
BidenPresident
Verified User
How do you know what your brain is doing. And why mystical force is making its decisions? You cannot answer.
Margot
Verified User
Most Americans give lip service to Christ,but their heart is Secular American
My suspicion, and I can't prove it, is that free will as an illusion was adopted as a precept by some college professors because it is "edgy" and makes them stand out from the multitudes of mediocre philosophy professors.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
LOL No doubt some are like that. Some may just be playing devil's advocate for their students to push them out of their comfort zone. There's been a few times on JPP where, during academic discussions, I began wondering if someone was working on a thesis and needed ideas and/or discussion to kick-start their paper. LOL