IGX

According to what some call the strong definition of free will, articulated by René Descartes in the 17th century, you are free if, under identical circumstances, you could have acted otherwise...The soul freely chooses this way or that, making the brain act out its wishes, like a driver who takes a car down this road or that one. This view is the one most regular folks believe in.

The results told an unambiguous story, which was bolstered by later experiments...The brain acts before the mind decides! This discovery was a complete reversal of the deeply held intuition of mental causation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -free-will

I dont click links

One could have acted otherwise but one doesn't because the brain rules due to cultural influences and programming. One cannot change that until he musters the courage to tell culture, friends and family to fuck off.

Yes. I own Permanent Waves on CD and I also have numerous live versions.

msr2112 wrote:Yes. I own Permanent Waves on CD and I also have numerous live versions.

Beat me to it. Damn schoolwork.

protobuilder wrote:I dont click links

But could you have if you had wanted?

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

BOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I don't have that but I think my neighbor has a copy of "Free Willy" since he's got kids. I can see if he'll loan it to you if you want but you gotta give it back.

Shape has already sampled my willy. Although it wasn't free if you know what I mean ;)

No free will here. My brain is made up of atoms, protons, quarks and other sub-atomic particles which obey the laws of physics. It thinks using a language it didn't choose or invent, and lives in an environment it has little control over.

There is no personal ghost in my machine, there is only the continuous interplay of phenomena, underpinned by conciousness.

Descartes was wrong.

Even got the vinyl.

BucketHead wrote:The brain acts before the mind decides!

Does that statement even make sense?

If you could rerun an exact same decision point, reproducing everything including all of history and all that, that provided the background for the decision, for you to choose something different the second time around would tell me that you're not rational, i.e., somewhere inside is a little roulette that is hooked to the switch, and then you after the wheel is spun and the "decision" is made you pretend you actually decided it.

In short, if you could replay the event, either you'd do the exact same thing each time which means you're a rational being, or you'd randomly take different actions, which means you're just a pinball bouncing off of bumpers. I choose the first.

This time.

I'm not convinced by the experiments at all. They seem pretty flawed to me, and I'm not the only one to think this. See:

Klemm, W. (2010). Free will debates: Simple experiments are not so simple Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 6 (-1), 47-65 DOI: 10.2478/v10053-008-0076-2

Abstract

The notion that free will is an illusion has achieved such wide acceptance among philosophers and neuroscientists that it seems to be acquiring the status of dogma. Nonetheless, research in this area continues, and this review offers a new analysis of the design limitations and data interpretations of free-will experiments. This review presents 12 categories of questionable conclusions that some scholars use to promote the idea that free will is an illusion. The next generation of less ambiguous experiments is proposed.

Then there's the scientific work that seems to contradict even Libet's own conclusions:

But, you might ask, maybe this behavior isn't truly unpredictable--maybe we just don't have complete information about what is going on in the brain and body. So, as Brembs describes in his paper, William Kristan ran an experiment on a nervous system about which he did have complete information and control. Leech nervous systems were removed and isolated, this way they could not be influenced by the body or any other stimuli. When hit with the same electrical stimulus, the nervous system sometimes chooses a swimming behavior and sometimes a crawling behavior. The choice can not possibly be based on an outside stimulus, or a stimulus from inside the body since it does not have one, as the Harvard Law of Animal Behavior states, "under carefully controlled experimental circumstances, the animal behaves as it damned well pleases." This shows that there is no "hidden" signal causing the animal--be it a leech or a fly or a human baby--to act the way that it does. There is a true element of randomness that defies the notion of perfect determinism.

Through the analysis of this variability, Brembs argues, "Free will becomes a quantitative trait." According to Brembs, randomness is everywhere in the universe--"free will" is the brain's process of selecting among all of the randomly-generated alternative possibilities.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova ... .html#more

Yep, despite the assuredness of my last post, I think a balanced look at the subject will show that the jury is still out.

I don't understand how the leech experiment contradicts Libet though?? Not saying it doesn't, just don't see where it fits in. Looks like an isolated piece of neurological machinery behaved in 2 general patterns under the same stimulus. It's a leap to insert the idea of choice into this though, as choice suggests (to me) a decision on a concious level.

These experiments, (and others like them) show that the mechanism of choice is not as straight forward as it appears to be in everyday life though. A related question that is relevant is who or what is making the choice? I haven't really seen that discussed much in research of this nature. Either a mechanistic view of the brain is assumed or there still seems to be the Descartian hangover of some ghostly soul making a choice.

An interesting topic anyway. Way better than glossing the woodwork in my hallway, which is what I should be doing.

Define same electrical stimuli.
There are fluctuations in even the most calibrated of equipment.

odin wrote:No free will here. My brain is made up of atoms, protons, quarks and other sub-atomic particles which obey the laws of physics. It thinks using a language it didn't choose or invent, and lives in an environment it has little control over.

There is no personal ghost in my machine, there is only the continuous interplay of phenomena, underpinned by conciousness.

Descartes was wrong.

Good luck getting a jury to believe that.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:I'm not convinced by the experiments at all. They seem pretty flawed to me, and I'm not the only one to think this. See:

Klemm, W. (2010). Free will debates: Simple experiments are not so simple Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 6 (-1), 47-65 DOI: 10.2478/v10053-008-0076-2

Abstract

The notion that free will is an illusion has achieved such wide acceptance among philosophers and neuroscientists that it seems to be acquiring the status of dogma. Nonetheless, research in this area continues, and this review offers a new analysis of the design limitations and data interpretations of free-will experiments. This review presents 12 categories of questionable conclusions that some scholars use to promote the idea that free will is an illusion. The next generation of less ambiguous experiments is proposed.

Then there's the scientific work that seems to contradict even Libet's own conclusions:

But, you might ask, maybe this behavior isn't truly unpredictable--maybe we just don't have complete information about what is going on in the brain and body. So, as Brembs describes in his paper, William Kristan ran an experiment on a nervous system about which he did have complete information and control. Leech nervous systems were removed and isolated, this way they could not be influenced by the body or any other stimuli. When hit with the same electrical stimulus, the nervous system sometimes chooses a swimming behavior and sometimes a crawling behavior. The choice can not possibly be based on an outside stimulus, or a stimulus from inside the body since it does not have one, as the Harvard Law of Animal Behavior states, "under carefully controlled experimental circumstances, the animal behaves as it damned well pleases." This shows that there is no "hidden" signal causing the animal--be it a leech or a fly or a human baby--to act the way that it does. There is a true element of randomness that defies the notion of perfect determinism.

Through the analysis of this variability, Brembs argues, "Free will becomes a quantitative trait." According to Brembs, randomness is everywhere in the universe--"free will" is the brain's process of selecting among all of the randomly-generated alternative possibilities.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova ... .html#more

Haven't read the first linked paper but the second was a weak defense, imo. First, they talk of "free will" as random perturbations. I doubt anyone would say that is an equivalent definition.

Second, they go on to say that quantom physics and uncertainty have disproved determinism. Again, the leading edge free will deniers use Heisenberg as an explanation of probabilistic determinism, which only supports the illusion of free will.

Of all G_d's creatures, humans have the freest will. Measuring cultural ranges of behavior in specific circumstances would show the range of freedom we exhibit as a species.

Measuring our ability to break outside of boundaries set up by genetics, society, and our own "self" would be interesting. How much freedom do we have and how much do we use? How much do we even want to use, because we certainly don't use all that much of what we have.

BucketHead wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:I'm not convinced by the experiments at all. They seem pretty flawed to me, and I'm not the only one to think this. See:

Klemm, W. (2010). Free will debates: Simple experiments are not so simple Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 6 (-1), 47-65 DOI: 10.2478/v10053-008-0076-2

Abstract

The notion that free will is an illusion has achieved such wide acceptance among philosophers and neuroscientists that it seems to be acquiring the status of dogma. Nonetheless, research in this area continues, and this review offers a new analysis of the design limitations and data interpretations of free-will experiments. This review presents 12 categories of questionable conclusions that some scholars use to promote the idea that free will is an illusion. The next generation of less ambiguous experiments is proposed.

Then there's the scientific work that seems to contradict even Libet's own conclusions:

But, you might ask, maybe this behavior isn't truly unpredictable--maybe we just don't have complete information about what is going on in the brain and body. So, as Brembs describes in his paper, William Kristan ran an experiment on a nervous system about which he did have complete information and control. Leech nervous systems were removed and isolated, this way they could not be influenced by the body or any other stimuli. When hit with the same electrical stimulus, the nervous system sometimes chooses a swimming behavior and sometimes a crawling behavior. The choice can not possibly be based on an outside stimulus, or a stimulus from inside the body since it does not have one, as the Harvard Law of Animal Behavior states, "under carefully controlled experimental circumstances, the animal behaves as it damned well pleases." This shows that there is no "hidden" signal causing the animal--be it a leech or a fly or a human baby--to act the way that it does. There is a true element of randomness that defies the notion of perfect determinism.

Through the analysis of this variability, Brembs argues, "Free will becomes a quantitative trait." According to Brembs, randomness is everywhere in the universe--"free will" is the brain's process of selecting among all of the randomly-generated alternative possibilities.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova ... .html#more

Haven't read the first linked paper but the second was a weak defense, imo. First, they talk of "free will" as random perturbations. I doubt anyone would say that is an equivalent definition.

Second, they go on to say that quantom physics and uncertainty have disproved determinism. Again, the leading edge free will deniers use Heisenberg as an explanation of probabilistic determinism, which only supports the illusion of free will.

I partly agree with you here, but it seems that the free-will deniers are saying precisely that our actions are deterministic, it's just that what we would call "free-will" has no say in it. But we know, I think, that there are hierarchical levels of organization in the brain, and the leech experiments show that the same impulse can trigger different responses, but, it is observed in context specific conditions, that our actions are tempered by further neuronal/nervous processing, and these accord to something that in the real world we wouldn't describe as random.

But I suppose, though, that all that does is beg further questions.....

MarcoFP wrote:Define same electrical stimuli.
There are fluctuations in even the most calibrated of equipment.

What does actual scientific knowledge have to do with trying to justify not being responsible for your own actions? Stop your buzzkill!

BucketHead wrote:

The brain acts before the mind decides!

To poke at that one some more, if the mind is what the brain does, then that statement doesn't make any sense. If that is not the case, then the mind ought to be embodied in something (ether?) If that thing is governed by the laws of physics, then it would seem that the mind is what that thing does.

Nafod, you'll have to read up on the experiments of Libet, etc... I took two things out of it. First, it seems that the body and brain already begin prepping about a half second before the conscious person "makes the decision". Second, there seems to be evidence that we sometimes immediately jump to "decision" and then back-navigate a reasoning. This is weird only because the conscious person would swear that the whole process moved forward - reasoning and then decision.

Even though Turd is getting worried that all that molesting may have been for naught, I don't see any reason any of this would negate responsibility or even choice. After all, right now, we have a subjective experience of a "self" and of choice. As long as we have that experience, we have concrete motivation for choice and responsibility. And, if we get beyond this current experience, responsibility and choice will not have the same meaning.

BucketHead wrote:Nafod, you'll have to read up on the experiments of Libet, etc... I took two things out of it. First, it seems that the body and brain already begin prepping about a half second before the conscious person "makes the decision". Second, there seems to be evidence that we sometimes immediately jump to "decision" and then back-navigate a reasoning. This is weird only because the conscious person would swear that the whole process moved forward - reasoning and then decision.

Even though Turd is getting worried that all that molesting may have been for naught, I don't see any reason any of this would negate responsibility or even choice. After all, right now, we have a subjective experience of a "self" and of choice. As long as we have that experience, we have concrete motivation for choice and responsibility. And, if we get beyond this current experience, responsibility and choice will not have the same meaning.

Stop your nonsensical. Napoleon Hill demonstrated most of the things you should be looking for decades ago. The rest, unless you care about some greater metaphysical meaning of life, is just noise.