(May 16, 2025 at 7:48 pm)Alan V Wrote:(May 16, 2025 at 6:28 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: But of course, the problem with those who oppose free will is that they just handwave things like this as illusions.
This is why I think the burden of proof falls on the determinists, since they have to demonstrate why appearances are incorrect.
From a neurocognitive point of view, our brains have executive functions which can pass for free will of a limited kind, and our brains are an essential part of us from a materialistic point of view. But many atheists still object to using the concept of free will, which has religious connotations to some people. So perhaps we should be talking about top-down and bottom-up causation.
And just to be clear, there are both emergent materialists and determinists within atheistic ranks. Atheists don't agree with each other on a number of issues.
Heya Alan, been a long time. Just thought I'd give my 2c since we've talked about free will extensively in the past, and never really reached an accord... or even been on the same page (but it was still a fun conversation
)... and I'm still a card carrying determinist. At the end of the day I don't think our failure to get on the same page was due to any fundamental disagreement but rather a difference in how we frame what free will actually is... with my own framing of it perhaps being far more reductionistic than yours. Ie I don't necessarily dispute what you guys are calling bottom up and top down causation in the brain, those being or seeming qualitatively different, the latter being the so-called executive functions that seem to be able to override the former... and if that is the level of description we're talking about when we define free will, then I can agree that the top-down part is, or can be seen under that framing as, free compared to the bottom up part. If that's what you've meant all along, then we don't necessarily disagree at all. But what I've personally always meant by free will, the altogether more reductionistic view, is that ultimately both the bottom up and the top down functions in the brain are enacted via the same physical mechanisms, eg neurons. Different areas of the brain may have different functions relative to each other, but they are all achieved through the same physical mechanisms, which follow the laws of physics and thus, barring quantum effects, are determined in my view, and thus cannot be considered 'free'.
Ultimately I accept that my framing of the meaning of free will is probably less useful philosophically than the other, less reductionistic view, but that being said it does inform my own personal philosophical speculations, so there is that... I guess what I'm saying is I don't think there's necessarily any 'right' way of framing it, just different strokes for different folks so to speak, depending on how their minds work and how they perceive things. I'm just someone who is always reductionistic by nature, in everything I do, and thus that's how I usually frame things, and that's the sort of philosophy that would appeal to me... whereas you may be altogether more 'big picture thinking' as you seem to be... just different ways of perceiving. So I still doubt we'll ever get on the same page about this, but just saying I think that's fine and perfectly understandable, just different ways of looking at and framing the issues (probably).
