Do you believe in free will?

[The Grand Nudger]

What was the mind doing without free will for the first three years? Is it possible that it was gathering intel and writing S.O.P.'s? We're born with the required equipment, but the OS doesn't seem to be complete at birth. What causes you to put those brakes on? What's doing the evaluating? That's the rub. It just sets it back another level which again seems to have programmed responses. I absolutely understand where you're coming from, we probably don't disagree as much as it would seem. For me, the concept of free will is a relic of a time when we knew very little about how our behavior and decisions arose. Now that we know a great deal more we're going to have to completely redefine free will or abandon the idea entirely for a much more accurate description eh?

[Whateverist]

But what causes you to put those brakes on? What's doing the evaluating? That's the rub. It just sets it back another level which again seems to have programmed responses. I absolutely understand where you're coming from. The concept of free will is a relic of a time when we knew very little about how our behavior and decisions arose. Now that we know a great deal more we're going to have to completely redefine free will or abandon the idea entirely for a much more accurate description eh?

Looks that way to me. The bottom line is neither free will nor determinism is such a big deal. In a time when we had less empirical knowledge of the brain and our development it must have been a captivating thought. You can readily appreciate how it would fit right in with a religious frame of mine, especially a Christian one.

[NoMoreFaith]

Just to offer a thought experiment. When do you obtain free will over the atoms in your body? Between your conception and adulthood there is a point where there is no free will and *ping* free will. The nature of the discussion is such that there is no grey area between free will, and the lack of it.

In short, at what did your decision-making process inject itself in the middle of natural, causal interactions that were taking place before you were born? To me, the answer is never. Nothing changed in the state of the universe. You are in control of exactly the same amount of control you had over the universe you had before you were born.

I was reading recently, sorry but I don't have the source, that what we think of as free will doesn't show up until about the age of three. Just as the brain takes some time to put the world together cognitively from the input of vision so, apparently, it takes us a while to realize we have choices to make that require deliberation. So I suspect, empirically at least, there very much is some grey area between free will and its lack.

So what is free will understood in the mundane empirical sense? I suspect it is merely the capacity to put the brakes on responses in order to consider the how new knowledge of the consequences stand to change the evaluation of what we most want. We want to go grab a handful of that cake in the refrigerator but we don't want to piss off mommy or spend the rest of the day in our room away from everyone else. There is a point at which we are unaware of consequences but we are animals that are capable of learning from our experience. Admittedly we still ultimately act to serve wants we never consciously chose, but our conscious involvement in the intake of new knowledge of consequences gives rise to 'free will'. Not philosophy textbook 'free will', just the garden variety described by child development.

If I were to subscribe to that view (which I clearly don't), I would expect it to correlate more heavily with having a defined sense of self rather than putting the world together cognitively.

I don't really see how the ability to put brakes on affects having a free will. Your actions, and reasoning are still a long line of causal events. In order for free will to be true and total, then there needs to be uncaused cognition.

[Whateverist]

In order for free will to be true and total, then there needs to be uncaused cognition.

Agreed, free will is not true or total in the archaic, religious sense. Not sure what you mean by uncaused cognition. In the absence of cause, I prefer my cognition silent.

[NoMoreFaith]

Agreed, free will is not true or total in the archaic, religious sense. Not sure what you mean by uncaused cognition. In the absence of cause, I prefer my cognition silent.

I mean that free will is dependent on cognitive thoughts which can be translated into an effect on the physical universe from a position of being independent of natural, ie. biological and chemical influences.

In many ways, the free will argument to me, is one that states that thought can be partly, or wholly independent of the electrochemical processes of your body. Which I feel is absurd.
If they are wholly dependent on the electrochemical processes of the mind, then you can track a causal relationship to your eventual action. Indeed, if you were omniscient, able to track a causal relationship to the first atom of matter in the universe.

[Whateverist]

Agreed, free will is not true or total in the archaic, religious sense. Not sure what you mean by uncaused cognition. In the absence of cause, I prefer my cognition silent.

I mean that free will is dependent on cognitive thoughts which can be translated into an effect on the physical universe from a position of being independent of natural, ie. biological and chemical influences.

I suspect there is no capacity of the brain to cognitively initiate chemical reactions which result in action. The thing I can say in favor of believing in free will is that we probably do have the capacity to put the brakes on. I speculate that we are able to tap into the body's mammalian capacity for physical response to squelch or delay that response. I further speculate that our mammalian capacity to learn where the hazards and rewards lay in the environment is able to draw on our cognitive appraisal of where the consequences and opportunities lie in our complex human cultures. We're certainly not unique in this, just an extreme case made all the more so by our capacity for language and abstract thought. We cause nothing. We analyze and that which has always made us responsive to our environment, whatever that may be, does the rest, or else it doesn't. This disconnect is probably helpful in making sense of certain aspects of human behavior, whatever the damage to our naive assumptions.

In many ways, the free will argument to me, is one that states that thought can be partly, or wholly independent of the electrochemical processes of your body. Which I feel is absurd.
If they are wholly dependent on the electrochemical processes of the mind, then you can track a causal relationship to your eventual action. Indeed, if you were omniscient, able to track a causal relationship to the first atom of matter in the universe.

To me it makes a difference that it is only partly dependent on the processes of the body and it wouldn't make any sense to me if it weren't at least partly dependent.

[NoMoreFaith]

I suspect there is no capacity of the brain to cognitively initiate chemical reactions which result in action. The thing I can say in favor of believing in free will is that we probably do have the capacity to put the brakes on. I speculate that we are able to tap into the body's mammalian capacity for physical response to squelch or delay that response. I further speculate that our mammalian capacity to learn where the hazards and rewards lay in the environment is able to draw on our cognitive appraisal of where the consequences and opportunities lie in our complex human cultures. We're certainly not unique in this, just an extreme case made all the more so by our capacity for language and abstract thought. We cause nothing. We analyze and that which has always made us responsive to our environment, whatever that may be, does the rest, or else it doesn't. This disconnect is probably helpful in making sense of certain aspects of human behavior, whatever the damage to our naive assumptions.

I am probably being dense, but I see no reason how this is an example of free will over determinism. All of which have a causation. Hence no free will.

In many ways, the free will argument to me, is one that states that thought can be partly, or wholly independent of the electrochemical processes of your body. Which I feel is absurd.
If they are wholly dependent on the electrochemical processes of the mind, then you can track a causal relationship to your eventual action. Indeed, if you were omniscient, able to track a causal relationship to the first atom of matter in the universe.

To me it makes a difference that it is only partly dependent on the processes of the body and it wouldn't make any sense to me if it weren't at least partly dependent.

So what is the other part? If only partly dependent on the electrochemical reactions. Anything else seems like unnecessary 'Wooo'.

[Whateverist]

To me it makes a difference that it is only partly dependent on the processes of the body and it wouldn't make any sense to me if it weren't at least partly dependent.

So what is the other part? If only partly dependent on the electrochemical reactions. Anything else seems like unnecessary 'Wooo'.

That depends on your definition of woo. Do think your 'you' is woo? Do you feel as though your sense of self is nothing but a ghost in the machine? If so, I'd really like to know exactly what this inner critic/analyst is, how your neural activity gives rise to it and what makes you regard it more highly than your ordinary woooey you.

---

I suspect there is no capacity of the brain to cognitively initiate chemical reactions which result in action. The thing I can say in favor of believing in free will is that we probably do have the capacity to put the brakes on. I speculate that we are able to tap into the body's mammalian capacity for physical response to squelch or delay that response. I further speculate that our mammalian capacity to learn where the hazards and rewards lay in the environment is able to draw on our cognitive appraisal of where the consequences and opportunities lie in our complex human cultures. We're certainly not unique in this, just an extreme case made all the more so by our capacity for language and abstract thought. We cause nothing. We analyze and that which has always made us responsive to our environment, whatever that may be, does the rest, or else it doesn't. This disconnect is probably helpful in making sense of certain aspects of human behavior, whatever the damage to our naive assumptions.

I am probably being dense, but I see no reason how this is an example of free will over determinism. All of which have a causation. Hence no free will.

I guess that is kind of my point, that our actual free will ain't no big thing. Neither is the sense in which we are completely determined any big deal. It is naive to suppose you have complete independence from your underlying processes and also naive to desire that it was otherwise. But if you begin to doubt that 'you' are anything but unavoidable nose in the system which doesn't require you anyway .. then in my opinion you are the one who has passed over into wooo. Who is it that is having these thoughts or are they having you? Wooo wooo indeed.

[NoMoreFaith]

That depends on your definition of woo. Do think your 'you' is woo? Do you feel as though your sense of self is nothing but a ghost in the machine? If so, I'd really like to know exactly what this inner critic/analyst is, how your neural activity gives rise to it and what makes you regard it more highly than your ordinary woooey you.

Of course not, the illusion of free will is incredibly strong as we simply cannot conceive or sense the number of variables involved.

My sense of self is based upon my experiences (stored electrochemically) and to a certain extent some genetic factors. The entire point is that we can't conceive of the full extent of factors which govern a free will decision, but what I can promise which a high scale of probability is that none of it is magic.

Certainly I see nothing metaphysical in how we conceptualise ourselves as central to the universe, even if we are aware it is not the case. We persistently believe that we are in control of our senses, thoughts and feelings even where we know the universe is absolutely not.

But its pure egotistical thinking at its finest, that we are somehow an exception to the rules.

Or, I might be wrong. The advantage to the illusion of free will, is that I am free to continue in my delusions of being special.

---

I guess that is kind of my point, that our actual free will ain't no big thing. Neither is the sense in which we are completely determined any big deal. It is naive to suppose you have complete independence from your underlying processes and also naive to desire that it was otherwise. But if you begin to doubt that 'you' are anything but unavoidable nose in the system which doesn't require you anyway .. then in my opinion you are the one who has passed over into wooo. Who is it that is having these thoughts or are they having you? Wooo wooo indeed.

Woooooooooo

You're stealing MY point That the illusion of free will, and the possibility of genuine free will independent from cause makes the question more or less meaningless.

Am I having these thoughts... well yes, these thoughts are a product of biochemical reactions and their interactions in a complex system of stored electrochemical memories, they are indeed me, and who I am. I find it amazing, and incredible, and frankly, its unnecessary to believe I am somehow mystically detached from it.

On the other hand, there is something extremely satisfying about saying Woooooooooo

[Neo-Scholastic]

Whateverist, I suspect that the secret ingredient will be found in some form of pan-psychic paradigm, in the sense that subjective experience is somehow fundamental to the universe rather than an emergent property of electro-chemical reactions.