Do Humans Have Compulsary Will? Which best describes your take on 'will'?

[emjay]

At any given moment, any of us could get up and drop our next deuce on the floor. I'm confident that most of us won't for a myriad of reasons. My problem with the determinist position is that the existence of toilets and the practice of putting shit where we usually do is all due to sequential particle interactions set in motion in the very young universe.

The problem arises when someone drops a turd on the floor after 40 years of using a toilet. A determinist must then assert that this behavior was also unavoidable because of a 13B year old chain of particle interaction. I am okay with counterintuitive conclusions; however, determinism lacks demonstration. Also, if everything is determined then the claim is un falsifiable.

Despite claiming a scientific basis by pointing to our increasing knowledge of QM, determinists cannot connect the dots to mind meaning it's pure speculation. For me, the position has only a moderately more stable foundation than the claim that everything is ordered by an old white dude with a beard in the sky.

That's an interesting perspective - I hadn't thought of it like that; I suppose determinism as I see it could be seen as a kind of god-substitute. But just to say that just because I see the big bang as the first cause of everything, and take comfort from that, doesn't mean I don't look for the more recent causes of anything. The brain is very good at finding the common denominator to blame for events whether that be for positive or negative reasons or for problem solving, and it and ultimately whatever it selects needs to be something you can work with - you can't solve a problem by going back to the big bang nor can you work out who or what to be angry with or grateful to by going back to the big bang. So though the clockwork universe is a great comfort to me, especially when I'm dealing with events outside my control, it's not the be all and end all of it.

---

@bennyboy
I'm completely undecided on whether the mind is a byproduct or not. That's why I didn't vote. But were it not for the word 'byproduct' I would have chose number 6. Replace it just with 'product' and I still wouldn't be sure.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd like to add to this a point about the evolutionary narrative.  For selection to work, a trait, or at least a trait precursor, must exist in an individual in order to be tested statistically against the environment.

Of course.  How would selection act on a non-existent thing, eh?  

So let's go to the beinning of mind, and ask a question-- is there a minimal "spark" which constitutes mind?  Some will argue that there's a smooth transition between dumb matter and thinking systems, but I think tha's a semantic cop-out-- either there is a subjective perspective, no matter how simple, or there isn't one.  That means that while the NATURE of mind may have evolved with the complexity of organic brains, the EXISTENCE of mind was necessarily spontaneous.

I think I would agree with the statement, that mind - the "spark", the lowest common denominator of mind, if you will..is a subjective perspective.  I'm not sure what the options are, regarding the last bit.  Spontaneous as opposed to what?  Spontaneous as differing from.....?

What does this mean for the idea that the mind is a product of matter?  In evolutionary terms, that first existence of mind must have been exactly simultaneous with the first existence of the structure supporting it: for if the system preceded the effect, then you'd have to posit some kind of magic light switch whereby a system capable of mind didn't actually have a mind-- and then it did.

Your statement regarding what must proceed what is demonstrably incorrect - particularly so regarding evolutionary biology.  The system that -is- your ceiling fan existed long before it produced any effect, and the system that -is- your ear existed before any human being ever hear with one.   Magic?  I don't think that there is -ever- a requirement of proposing magic in explanation of -anything-.

So it must be said not that the brain evolved, and that mind is a byproduct of the brain, but that mind and brain must have co-evolved.  In other words, there has never been a living thing, with a functioning nervous system, in which some degree of mind wasn't one of the determiners of subsequent evolutionary events.  So this preference of looking at physical structures as dominant, and mind as a byproduct, isn't really correct: mind is ubiquitous in the evolution of all living systems including that of the brain-- this is the opposite of "byproduct."

Stating that mind and brain co-evolved does not, in any way, make a contradictory claim to the statement mind evolved as a byproduct of brain.  In fact, mind evolving as a byproduct of brain explains both -how- and -why- the two co-evolved (course, there are some ways we could take the phrase "mind evolved" to be nonsense......I'm just trying to run with it). That the tissues we use now for mind haven't always been engaged thusly seems pretty clear from both living representatives possessing that tissue, and what we can put together of evolutionary history.  After all, jellyfish's neurons (never quite made it to "brains", poor bastards....) are and have been evolving - and yet we (in the general, perhaps you and I might?) don't credit them with an evolving mind.  I'm not sure what you mean with the bit about mind being a determiner of subsequent evolutionary events.  I don't think that pathogens are interested in this mind business - they'll kill you and all your buddies with, without, and in spite of....for example.  In evolutionary biology -survival- is -always- the determiner.  It is the only "determiner".   Do we think that creatures with mind/brain have a survival advantage yes (precisely in the same way that lungs or teeth may confer advantage), but we don't think that mind is a magic bullet which can be influencial in any selective scenario (and we certainly -know- that our minds do not have this sort of power).   There's no room to budge here or you aren't commenting on evolutionary biology -at all-.   Mind/brain can be a modifier for survival - but they are not determining the survival even of creatures that have them, either wholly or touching upon every aspect in some way, as you seem to be implying.  Minds or brains aren't -always- a factor, or even a saving grace...sometimes the other guy is just a badass motherfucker and our days are numbered, but they're sure nice to have.  

I would think that, though...wouldn't I?  

[bennyboy]

I think I would agree with the statement, that mind - the "spark", the lowest common denominator of mind, if you will..is a subjective perspective.  I'm not sure what the options are, regarding the last bit.  Spontaneous as opposed to what?  Spontaneous as differing from.....?

I'm saying that there is mind or not-mind, with no gradation between. The gradation runs from simplest mind to most complex, but not from nothing to something.

Your statement regarding what must proceed what is demonstrably incorrect - particularly so regarding evolutionary biology.  The system that -is- your ceiling fan existed long before it produced any effect, and the system that -is- your ear existed before any human being ever hear with one.   Magic?  I don't think that there is -ever- a requirement of proposing magic in explanation of -anything-.

I don't think your counter-examples are sufficiently similar to mind to draw conclusions from, at least for me.

Stating that mind and brain co-evolved does not, in any way, make a contradictory claim to the statement mind evolved as a byproduct of brain.  In fact, mind evolving as a byproduct of brain explains both -how- and -why- the two co-evolved.

There was never a moment in history where the existence of mind influenced the course of evolution of a species and in which the mind did not already exist. However, the were certainly moments in evolution in which the brain influenced the course of evolution without there being anything we'd call mind. So while the proximate cause of a mind seems to be a brain, the ultimate cause of mind is not supervenience on the brain-- because the first brain capable of elemental awareness must have had that awareness at the SAME time that it itself was brought into existence. There is no temporal lag, and therefore no causation. You could just as well say that at the moment mind popped into the universe, the first mind-supporting structure was simultaneously brought into existence-- and then claim that the brain evolved to accommodate mind, rather than developing the property of mind. But I would take neither position.

In evolutionary biology -survival- is -always- the determiner.  It is the only "determiner".  

First of all, that's not correct-- fitness depends on survival and also on the ability to procreate, and BOTH of those are largely dependent on the ability of an organism to subjectively perceive and interact with its environment.

Second, I said mind was "one of the determiners." We could spend 20 pages arguing about what a "determiner" is, but I'd rather not. It's pretty clear that I'm saying there was no part of the evolution of mind in which there was no mind, except for that spontaneous first jump from non-mind to mind.

[Angrboda]

So let's go to the beinning of mind, and ask a question-- is there a minimal "spark" which constitutes mind?  Some will argue that there's a smooth transition between dumb matter and thinking systems, but I think tha's a semantic cop-out-- either there is a subjective perspective, no matter how simple, or there isn't one.  That means that while the NATURE of mind may have evolved with the complexity of organic brains, the EXISTENCE of mind was necessarily spontaneous.

(bold mine)

You're assuming that subjectivity is a unitary, unified thing that is either present as a whole or absent as a whole. This is exactly the assumption that the contrary view denies. Simply assuming your way to your conclusion is worth nothing. I dismiss your assumption and with it the conclusions that follow.

---

Accuracy in the scientific sense.  I'm primarily concerned with explaining metaphysical details with naturalistic explanations.

The thing with naturalistic explanations is that they can only point to causes of various levels of proximity, but can never point to ultimate causes.  For example, if you ask why I have a mind, it's simple enough to say that it's a byproduct of the brain.  If I disbelieve you, you can smack me in the head in a baseball bat, and it will be clear that my mind is no longer functioning.  But that's like saying "If I pull away this magnet, the magnetic field isn't there anymore.  Therefore the reason magnetic fields exist is that's what magnets do."  That's true, but it's no really the right kind of answer.

It seems to me that all naturalistic explanations have a simple ontology-- they end at a statement of brute fact.  But "The Big Bang diddit" isn't really much more satisfying than "Goddidit," in my opinion.

(bold mine)

You're conflating "have not" achieved a picture of sufficient proximity with "cannot." Who are you to say what future discoveries in the brain sciences will or will not satisfy our desire for a satisfactory explanation. This is simply an argument from ignorance; it's fallacious, and I dismiss it as such.

[bennyboy]

You're assuming that subjectivity is a unitary, unified thing that is either present as a whole or absent as a whole.  This is exactly the assumption that the contrary view denies.  Simply assuming your way to your conclusion is worth nothing.  I dismiss your assumption and with it the conclusions that follow.

However you define mind's gradations or evolutions, the fact is that in a given system, either some type of mind exists or it does not. Are you suggesting there are some cases in which it both exists AND does not?

You suggest that mind may be present in a third state-- a part of a mind. But that's not right-- this "divided" mind either still has the capacity to hold a subjective perspective, in which case it is still mind, or it does not represent a subjective perspective, in which case it is not mind at all. You are really arguing against the sentence AFTER the on you bolded, in which I clearly differentiated between the nature of a particular kind of mind, and the existence of mind as opposed to its non-existence. Psychology is not psychogony.

You're conflating "have not" achieved a picture of sufficient proximity with "cannot."

I have a reason for thinking we cannot point to ultimate causes. "Ultimate" means end-of-the line, can't go further, that's all there is, there are no more links in the chain of causality to follow. But to determine we've arrived at the ultimate cause would require us to know what we don't know, which is a logical impossibility.

[Cato]

I'm saying that there is mind or not-mind, with no gradation between.  The gradation runs from simplest mind to most complex, but not from nothing to something.

Benny,
I understand your broader argument, even if I can't immediately agree. I am okay with the concept of mind or not-mind, but where in the tree of life do you make this distinction? When I look across all species I see the gradation of cognitive ability that you imply doesn't exist. To invoke the 'mind spark' that goes from mind to no-mind we should attempt to define mind based on the behaviors we see in animals. It's tough. Coming up with an agreed working definition of mind is a bit like nailing jell-o to a wall.

Plants, insects, spiders, jellyfish, and barnacles don't have mind, but I could make room for birds and reptiles depending how mind is defined. I can also accept a more restrictive definition, but cannot accept a position that only humans have mind. To be ostensible as possible, what is the lowest animal form that you would describe as possessing mind?

[nihilistcat]

I picked other, but only because I think a philosophical understanding of free will should be informed by a scientific understanding of how the brain works. Clearly, regardless of what people say, there is a presumption of free will in our society. How could we ethically hold people accountable for their actions if we assumed all action is compulsory? But beyond that ... our nervous system is extremely complex. We have an autonomic nervous system (which we have no control over), and central and peripheral nervous systems, which transmit sensory information to the brain or motor information from the brain. Memorizing complex ideas usually requires repetition, association, or shock, and there's limitations on how we recall memories from our brain. There are tendencies that nature selected for (that in some cases we don't fully understand yet), and of course we have physiological needs that must be satisfied. So I guess it's a free will that has numerous parameters of constraint.

[Angrboda]

So let's go to the beinning of mind, and ask a question-- is there a minimal "spark" which constitutes mind? Some will argue that there's a smooth transition between dumb matter and thinking systems, but I think tha's a semantic cop-out-- either there is a subjective perspective, no matter how simple, or there isn't one. That means that while the NATURE of mind may have evolved with the complexity of organic brains, the EXISTENCE of mind was necessarily spontaneous.

(bold mine)

You're assuming that subjectivity is a unitary, unified thing that is either present as a whole or absent as a whole.  This is exactly the assumption that the contrary view denies.  Simply assuming your way to your conclusion is worth nothing.  I dismiss your assumption and with it the conclusions that follow.

However you define mind's gradations or evolutions, the fact is that in a given system, either some type of mind exists or it does not.  Are you suggesting there are some cases in which it both exists AND does not?

Yes. I am suggesting that the line between subjectivity and no subjectivity is blurred. It's a vague property. And your appealing to your belief that it is not a vague property cuts no ice; it's just an assumption. And it's an assumption that appears undercut by the biology of basic organisms that, while they may not possess subjectivity, appear to possess mind in varying levels depending on the complexity of the organism's nervous system. Mind and subjectivity are both vague properties. Look at the psychological development of a baby. Babies are born with subjectivity but without the full complement of mind features that an adult has. They acquire new properties of mind, such as theory of mind and object persistence, over time.

You suggest that mind may be present in a third state-- a part of a mind.  But that's not right-- this "divided" mind either still has the capacity to hold a subjective perspective, in which case it is still mind, or it does not represent a subjective perspective, in which case it is not mind at all.  You are really arguing against the sentence AFTER the on you bolded, in which I clearly differentiated between the nature of a particular kind of mind, and the existence of mind as opposed to its non-existence.  Psychology is not psychogony.

Repeating your assertion doesn't make it more true. I bolded the right sentence.

The thing with naturalistic explanations is that they can only point to causes of various levels of proximity, but can never point to ultimate causes. For example, if you ask why I have a mind, it's simple enough to say that it's a byproduct of the brain. If I disbelieve you, you can smack me in the head in a baseball bat, and it will be clear that my mind is no longer functioning. But that's like saying "If I pull away this magnet, the magnetic field isn't there anymore. Therefore the reason magnetic fields exist is that's what magnets do." That's true, but it's no really the right kind of answer.

It seems to me that all naturalistic explanations have a simple ontology-- they end at a statement of brute fact. But "The Big Bang diddit" isn't really much more satisfying than "Goddidit," in my opinion.

(bold mine)You're conflating "have not" achieved a picture of sufficient proximity with "cannot."

I have a reason for thinking we cannot point to ultimate causes.  "Ultimate" means end-of-the line, can't go further, that's all there is, there are no more links in the chain of causality to follow.  But to determine we've arrived at the ultimate cause would require us to know what we don't know, which is a logical impossibility.

Do we really care about "ultimate causes"? I think this is just a position you've taken to be contrary. Newtonian physics doesn't describe ultimate causes, but it is sufficient for explaining why billiard balls behave as they do. Are you interested in an understandable explication of the nature of mind, or are you just holding out for an unreachable perfection. This is the nirvana fallacy in full bloom. It's also an example of the fallacy of the beard if you are holding that there are unsatisfactory explanations, but no satisfactory explanations. What are you really looking for here? Some unimpeachable metaphysical truth, or a plausible and understandable explanation of the phenomena?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think your counter-examples are sufficiently similar to mind to draw conclusions from, at least for me.

Then your comments regarding systems, effects, and the relationship between them could not support your statements- even if they were correct - which they demonstrably aren't.  

The problem that you propose, requiring magic, simply does not exist for systems and their effects (or for mind/brain upon those grounds), and you are not willing to modify your statements about systems and effects when presented with clear counterexamples. Mind/Brain is different than systems and their effects when those systems plainly do precede their effects. Fine. So, I assume you had a system in mind which you did think was similar enough..and of which this statement regarding their effects -is- true.......since you began all of this by means of observing the relationship between systems and effects......?

Hey, don't get me wrong, maybe the brain/mind bit is different, and maybe mind did arise simultaneously with a brain that could support it - but regardless of whether either is true it won't be for any reason you've given in this thread.

[bennyboy]

Plants, insects, spiders, jellyfish, and barnacles don't have mind, but I could make room for birds and reptiles depending how mind is defined.

oic

I guess that's why definition of terms is important. I've defined it for this thread not in terms of ideas or complexity of processing, but simply in terms of having a subjective perspective, i.e. that something can experience qualia. I do not know whether plants meet this definition or not, or barnacles, but I'm pretty sure spiders and jellyfish do.