Seeking Free Will in Our Brains: A Debate

Comments

Free Will and Evolution
John S Legasey

9/12/2010 8:38:18 AM

 I take free will to mean, at a minimum, that a conscious being is able to partially or completely direct its body to make a decision, and or take one course of action as opposed to another. Although the mechanism(s) underlying consciousness have yet to be precisely determined, it is clear that the human body expends a good deal of energy maintaining the brain, including whatever the underlying neural correlates of consciousness may be. The process of evolution will not permit the expenditure of large amounts of energy on non-advantageous adaptations. Of what use is consciousness if there is no free will? Why would evolution have honed this complex process, which requires a substantial investment of resources by the body, if the conscious being cannot act upon the information provided by consciousness?

Free Will(2)
Derek

2/19/2008 4:52:40 PM

 Yes, I agree that free-will is nothing more than a trick of the mind and have a website set up with a free will experiment that anyone can try: http://www.whatyouseeyoucannotbe.com/inves/freewill/freewill.html

Freedom and Brains
Bob Kovsky

11/1/2007 1:28:40 PM

I have a new approach to these questions. In brief, I propose a physical principle of freedom based on thermodynamics that is different from common approaches based on mechanics. Mechanics presupposes "cosmological models" that exclude freedom while thermodynamics has no cosmology and is consistent with freedom. Thermodynamics does not "explain consciousness" but my approach suggests an account for consciousness without an "explanation."

My view is that human intelligence is not strong enough to formulate a correct cosmology or to "explain" freedom. However, there are useful constructions and models. My background includes a BS in electrical engineering (MIT 1968, Tau Beta Pit) and a Master's degree in physics (UC Berkeley, 1971) where I began a Ph.D. project in related projects. Then I went to law school (JD, UC Berkely, 1974) which introduced me to the "engineering of freedom," chiefly focused on practical decisions of judges and juries.

My Web postings are as follows: www.embodiment-of-freedom.com -- stating high-level principles of physics and psychology (in progress) http://www.quadnets.com/timingdevices.html -- showing why brains are not computers http://www.quadnets.com/ -- the full scientific presentation I will welcome any comments or suggestions.

Free Will and Other Cultures
Nomi

10/26/2007 4:09:49 PM

 Comparing human thinking and behavior across cultures, creeds and classes, one can find causal factors such as informational-influences (genetic, cultural, personal) and perceptions of power, pivotal in determining what choices we make. Instead of fighting over free will, one can think about one's thinking and deconstruct it thoroughly enough, and may be do something about it if one is sufficiently motivated. But motivation-quotient is the real mystery.

Mu
Cory

10/21/2007 9:20:37 PM

People generally make a couple of mistakes when looking at this problem. First, what constitutes free will? Hard determinists say that since the very first moment when our universe was set in motion, everything has been determined. Advocates of free will are bothered by this, because they think it means that they don't have a choice to be a certain way. Most of them try to point to something in humans that transcends the physical universe, which could intervene in the causal chain.

First off, this immediately delves into religion, but beyond that...let's say they want their soul to decide. The problem with this view is: what is a soul, meaning, who gave you this soul? What was given, and to whom was it given? See the problem? If you want your soul to be responsible, but were not responsible for the creation of your soul, then it's just a soul doing what it does and either way you had no say in it.

So since you didn't get to choose your supposed decision-making soul in the first place, then that doesn't help us. So if it's not that, then it's your "self." Fine. How did this "self come into being? The point is, if you didn't create it, it's still determinism. But I will now point out why that is a good thing.

Think about the process of making a decision. It's based on all your past experience, learning, parenting, knowledge of history, intuition, and so forth. Now, you didn't choose where you were born, nor which brain you would get, nor who your parents were, nor the entire history of the world that happened up until your birth. Everything you experienced had already been set in motion. So, you learned with your incredible learning machine, and you base your decisions on that.

Opponents of free will seem to want more than that, but what could be better? The only other option, other than basing decisions on experience, would be making random decisions. Why would anyone want to interrupt the causal chain with arbitrariness? I'm saying, what kind of free will do you want? You already have an incredible tool for evaluating your situation and placing it in context, and this has all been determined, but what is the alternative? This is why asking for "free will" doesn't make sense. There's nothing to make the decision that isn't part of causality, and if it wasn't part of causality, it wouldn't help you make better decisions.

Religious v. Naturalistic Notions
Dr Neil Levy

10/10/2007 4:05:22 PM

 I am a philosopher, at the University of Melbourne in Australia and at Oxford University. I specialize in free will and in neuroethics: I have just published a book entitled Neuroethics with Cambridge University Press. I'm afraid that neither of these writers would be taken seriously by the philosophical community: they are working with a notion of free will that is essentially religious, whereas philosophers work with a naturalistic notion. Of course if you think free will requires a soul, then you will think that neuroscience provides evidence against it.... Neuroscientists might have something to teach us about freedom, but it will be about particular cases, not about the general concept.

Wisdom?
Michael Kelly

10/10/2007 3:59:31 PM

 "Freedom they have in abundance; it’s wisdom they lack." - Firstly; this is quite an insensitive and needless remark, but then I suppose you're just generating business! Secondly; I fail to appreciate your mechanism for ascribing this 'lack wisdom' to free will, surely you can appreciate that this lack of will could exist in both a free and a determined mind?