The Problem of 'Free Will' and the Brain: Can We Change Our Own Thoughts and Behaviour?
One of the issues central to the debate about free will is the way in which thoughts and behaviour are determined by nature and nurture. This poses the problem that humans have lack of capability to change, at the level of thoughts and neurochemistry. My own view is that human beings have reflective consciousness, which is the foundation of potential change.
One book which I have been reading is, 'Evolve Your Brain: The Science of Changing Your Mind', by Joe Dispensa(2007). He looks at the nature of neuroplasticity, and the learning of new skills for healing the body and psyche. He argues,
'The front lobe allows us to make conscious choices, not based on memory but on the ability to choose what we want to choose'.
Dispensa draws upon the work of Elkhonon Goldberg in experiments in subjects' use of geometric symbols, comparing those with various types of brain disease and those with no damage. The conclusions were:
'The frontal lobes are critical and eminent in freewilled decision-making situations, especially when it is up to the individual to decide how to interpret situations in which there is more than one definitive outcome. Second, the frontal lobes are no longer critical when situations are reduced to the simple act of a correct response or an incorrect response. Perhaps making the "right" decision, then, may not require thinking as making a freewilled choice. '
How useful is this area of brain research to the debate between free will and determinism? I am interested in research and also the nature of personal change and self mastery? Do you think that self-mastery is possible? Also, various forms of therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy may be related to this. There is a link between the ideas of CBT and Stoic philosophy? Is this a case in favour of the idea of free will?
One book which I have been reading is, 'Evolve Your Brain: The Science of Changing Your Mind', by Joe Dispensa(2007). He looks at the nature of neuroplasticity, and the learning of new skills for healing the body and psyche. He argues,
'The front lobe allows us to make conscious choices, not based on memory but on the ability to choose what we want to choose'.
Dispensa draws upon the work of Elkhonon Goldberg in experiments in subjects' use of geometric symbols, comparing those with various types of brain disease and those with no damage. The conclusions were:
'The frontal lobes are critical and eminent in freewilled decision-making situations, especially when it is up to the individual to decide how to interpret situations in which there is more than one definitive outcome. Second, the frontal lobes are no longer critical when situations are reduced to the simple act of a correct response or an incorrect response. Perhaps making the "right" decision, then, may not require thinking as making a freewilled choice. '
How useful is this area of brain research to the debate between free will and determinism? I am interested in research and also the nature of personal change and self mastery? Do you think that self-mastery is possible? Also, various forms of therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy may be related to this. There is a link between the ideas of CBT and Stoic philosophy? Is this a case in favour of the idea of free will?
Comments (152)
We are free to act on our will, but not free to choose our will.... We are our will, who would be the "we" apart from our will that wants to change the will.
We can reflect, but without some pre-existing volitional component why would we want to change our will after that reflection. If we would change something, it is just a part of the will (some drive) acting on antother part of our will (another drive).
Free will is a moral/religious concept.
This is an interesting shift to the issue of what free will means. The concept may have begun in relation to religious thinking, with connotations of 'sin'. In that context, there was also the question whether human behaviour was predestined by 'God'.
The different usage of the term is significant. Most discussion in contemporary philosophy focuses upon the extent to which one generates thoughts oneself. It can be argued that even the wish to change is based upon the flow of thoughts. However, this may sidestep the issue of choice of thoughts and pathways of choice in this process.
I don't think that "I" generate thought myself in the sense that there is some agent consciously deciding what to think before I have the thought.
Don't be fooled by language, it not because there is an "I" in "I think" that there is some consious agent behind the thinking.
There is the agency of 'self' in the editing of thought. I am not speaking of self' as an entity but as a central organising process. If this was not the case we would be overwhelmed by stimuli and bombardment of thought, This is as argued by Henri Bergson in his idea of the brain as filter from 'mind at large'. It is only possible to focus on so much in one's awareness in the moment.
However, it may be an active as opposed to passive process because it is possible to select pathways of thinking. Some of it is based on memory but it is possible to change narrative scripts. This may be done through learned experience and intentionality.
these don't seem at odds with each other to me. It can be simultaneously true that thoughts and behaviour are emergent from deterministic stuff, AND true that consciousness is reflective and changing.
The idea of 'self' as 'pre-exists' may be problematic because it would mean that no change or modification is possible. This would be contrary. Wlll is not separate from the self but part of its core basis as motivation. Of course, there are different theories of motivation. The deterministic view would see the scope of modification as limited whereas more cognitive based models would see change as possible through the role of cognition.
There is probably an interplay of determined aspects of thought and behaviour, as well as reflective choices. Complete free will would be impossible because it would be beyond the scope of causality itself. The reflective aspect is that part of critical thinking which can seek new patterns and innovation on the basis of awareness of past 'mistakes'.
Change is possible if one thinks the will is not some unified thing, but rather something compound, or a result of many underlying competing drives. Then some change in circumstance may prompt one part of the will to subdue another part of the will that maybe isn't as appropriate for the changing circumstance for instance.
After you become aware of having a thought, you still have the capability to veto the thought, e.g. ignore it or think of something else.
You don't get to choose (homunculus) what thoughts pop up in your conscious awareness , but you do get to choose to withdraw, distract, focus, or redirect your awareness of thoughts, and change your behaviour accordingly.
Yes, I would agree that the will.is a central aspect of change in the process. It may be viewed as the depths of motivation. Perhaps; that is why choices to make changes from addictions, unhelpful relationships and other situations fail. They may be too superficial and change may require a dramatic shift at the subconscious level. Conscious thoughts may be part of this, probably on a cumulative basis, but will itself is likely to be stubborn, hard to change aspects of automatic thinking and behaviour.
Yes, a person can steer thoughts to some degree. Of course, thoughts can be intrusive, especially negative ones in conjunction with mood. It is complicated because mood affects thinking and, at the same time, thought affects mood and may be the factor which can be a determining factor in altering patterns of mindset.
Dispensa's work sounds consistent with Peter Tse, in his book. "The Neural Basis of Free Will".
It seems reasonable to believe we truly make choices, whether by impluse or after hours of deliberation. No one made the choice for us, and self-reflection assures us that we actually developed the choice.
However, each choice is the product of our prior knowledge, applying thinking skills we've learned to the facts we have accepted, and to the exclusion of those we've rejected. Every part of this, including the physical apparatus of our brains, was caused. So the process is still consistent with determinism.
The mere fact that every part of our thinking apparatus was caused doesn't erase the fact that we went through the mental process. Suppose the choice entailed moving a rock from point A to point B. Had we not made the choice, the rock would have remained at A. We are agents that affect the world, irrespective of the fact we were caused by prior circumstances. Our choices can matter. That's why I think compatibilism is reasonable, and doesn't entail fatalism
Addictions are usually a result of other underlying problems, they typically serve a function, like alcohol may be self-medication because one is too stressed. If one were to merely stop drinking, but doesn't find other ways to deal with stress, or change the circumstances that cause stress... at some point the chances of starting drinking again are probably rather great.
I see willing and the thing willed (two separate things, one being an act the other being an object) as one thing, or one act. I see paradox as the only explanation. Where I see one thing, there are two things.
When we will, we create the will that wasnt there before we willed. So when we refer to my will as if it was something there beforehand out of which some particular object was chosen, we are not speaking properly. We dont have to wonder where our will came from; we dont have to wonder why I want the thing that I want, as if maybe I am only determined and incapable of free-will. The my and the thing in my will are generated at one and the same moment.
When we are not willing (possibly just observing or watching tv), there is no will and no thing willed; they dont exist though we are observing or laughing or falling asleep. I dont have to choose to see something as funny and impulsively laugh at it. But my will can be created in that same instant and resist the laughter. We create the grounds for freedom by willing. Its one motion.
So the brain and the objects of consciousness are one, in the act of braining or thinking or willing.
No dualistic gap that begs any questions in between a brain and a freely chosen object by a subject needs to be bridged.
We are in each instant determined and purely driven by the physics of things, AND, as humans, at times, we also reflect on this determinism in those same driven instants, and NOW, taking a new position in the reflection (of our own creation), still in that same instant, we can begin to demarcate I and my will, making the objects of those reflected descriptions (reflections of of those same driven and determined things that came before the reflection). Its all what being human is, what humans do.
We reflect and either rejoin the deterministic flow or remain in reflection - and that builds the space where any freedom might begin to emerge.
I have no idea how this is, but I also dont see brain science as the essential part of the discussion. We can summarize the drivers of the deterministic world as the humors or biles or chemistry or cutting edge modern brain/neuro-science. But all of the testing that explains the drivers and the deterministic (brain) functions walks you further and further away from where the will is born, which is only in the reflection of those other things, only during a particular act of willing does the object of study persist. A non-deterministic space of possibility where I and will are first capable of birth.
Something must be particular for there to be a possibility of my free will at all. This would quickly seem to be a particular brain. But there needs to also be something else - namely, a reflection of the brain on the brain (which is really a body, which is really a body in an environment, etc ). The free will is born in a reflection of the determined necessities of the brain.
But dualism needs to be resisted to retain the existence of free-will. Constantly resisted as determinism takes hold the moment one is no longer willing to resist.
We have to free ourselves from ourselves in order to first become ourselves and not only be determined. We remain determined in each moment we might be free. And recognize that in the same instant we are free, it is a freedom that can only be used to re-participate with the deterministic necessities.
All of this, just to be a human.
The brain with its self-consciousness - and these are two subjects - at the same time are one subject of the subject is my free will - a wholistic view is necessary, with the physicalist aspects being less interesting; these are each the whole, and each a part of the same whole.
We are a contradiction. Saying I contradicts myself, which is a brain saying I. We are paradox. We fall from this precarious position when we slip into dualistic explanations, or slip into nihilism (no I and no free will).
When I say I am an illusion I am not admitting that I am an illusion to myself.
When I say I cant be free, I am freely consenting to saying so. (Unless we can show there is no such thing as a reflection).
We are better off admitting I dont know what I is, though I know that I is, and I dont know why I will what I will, but I will it when I am willing it, nonetheless.
But without addressing the above somewhat, I dont know how to address the ability to shape our own character.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The question of free will usually arises when we talk about determinism - if everything is determined by the motion of particles and energy that can (theoretically) be predicted by the laws of physics, where is there room for us to truly act freely.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I think this is right and important. It's at the heart of the misconception at the heart of this discussion. Our minds and brains change all the time. Do we make those changes by free will? This turns it into a circular argument - begging the question. Is it I changing me?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
No. It's metaphysics, although it might have moral implications.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
My thoughts (and feelings, memories, perceptions, and a bunch of other stuff) are me.
Our thoughts are us, although there's more to us than just that,
I explain what I mean with this the rest of my post(s). Since we are our will, and that is the agency part of us, it doesn't make sense to expect that part also to be determined by us, by itself. We are free to act on our will, not to choose it.
Determinism is looking at things from a different perspective. It doesn't preclude the emergence of biological life with wills that determine how they act. Truly metaphysical free will would be impossible under determinism, but that shouldn't really concern us as that particular concept of free will is incoherent to begin with.
Quoting T Clark
Well the one doesn't preclude the other, in fact I think most metaphysics are inspired by morality and religion. As meta-physics is by definition not constrained by anything physical/empirical, it usually ends up being shaped by our moral/religious beliefs, which is typically what we are really after.
Quoting T Clark Yes that is what I meant, there is no I (as a separate agent) doing the thinking, we are our thinking.
Not "useful" at all as far as I can tell. Scientific research can inform, even solve, empirical problems but cannot definitively answer philosophical questions (i.e. aporia) or "debates". I think the most rational-pragmatic proposal that reframes this "debate" is compatibilism (i.e. imo, embodied degrees of freedom volition ).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
Our thoughts, feelings, desires, and the like help us to decide in most situations. There are situations in which thoughts, feelings, desires, and the like cannot help us to decide for example when we have doubts. The existence of doubt together with our ability to decide when we have doubt means that we, whether a mouse in a maze, a human who wants to invest in the market, etc. are not deterministic agents.
And, not to derail, but just for fun. This reminds me of the thirteen seconds of this fun video, beginning at 5:03.
Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek - Economics Rap Battle Round Two
This is an interesting way of looking at it, but I think many would say if we don't determine our will, we don't have free will. You've defined the problem away, but are we automatic programmed machines or aren't we?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I don't know what you mean by saying the concept is incoherent. On the other hand, I think the whole free will vs. determinism controversy much ado about nothing.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
This is not true at all, but it's outside the scope of this discussion, so let's leave it at that.
I don't think there is a real problem, I think there's a problem with the language/concpets we use, i.e. free will. At some level we probably are like "programmed machines", just very very complex ones, and also very different from the machines we build in that we are organic and they are not.
I dunno, it's not because we have a concept for something that that thing necessarily exists.
Quoting T Clark
It's incoherent like a square circle is incoherent.... a logical impossibility. If it's will it's not free, and if it's free it's not will.... we have a will, that is all. Construed that way the free will vs. determinism controversy just goes away, because will by itself is not contradictory with determinism.
Quoting T Clark
It's Nietzsche 101, just to be clear where I'm getting it from.
This gets into an infinite regress problem though. If you make a choice to control your will in a particular way, then... did you also choose the part of your will that made the choice to control that will? And if you did make that choice, did you choose the will that led to that choice?
At some point, you had to have made a choice based on factors you didn't choose, based on your will being what it was, which was in a state you didn't choose.
Indeed. Choiceless, we come into being. (The creed of the American teenager. "I didn't ask to be born.")
Yes, by definition, the first choice was a free choice. If it's not free, it's not a choice. No more than the boulder chooses which path to take as it rolls down the mountain. But when did that choice takes place? At different ages, under different circumstances, for different people. People learn things, and come to understand things, at different ages.
The conditions from which my consciousness - I - emerged are not the same as the conditions from which your consciousness - you - emerged.
We start as the merging of the genetic material of egg and sperm. There are no choices being made at that point. It's all chemistry. Physical cause and effect.
As we grow, even before we're born, the body/brain develops/makes more connections/becomes more able to process information. And for a while, it's all mechanical. Stimulus and response.
At some point, I don't know the specific conditions, we emerge. Awareness.
Of course, many things about the conditions from which I emerge are the same as the conditions from which you emerge. We wouldn't both be people (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) without a lot of common grounds. But there are also many differences. Different genetics. Different people, with different voices and smells, raising us in different ways. Different foods. Different smells coming through our windows as we lay in our cribs. On and on. So, before we awakened, and began choosing, while we were simply reacting to stimuli, we reacted in different ways.
Certainly, all that groundwork plays a big role in our likes and dislikes, and our predispositions. Why do I have an overwhelming preference for Bach over Mozart? An extreme sweet tooth? Why am I heterosexual? Why is blue my favorite color? None of those things are choices.
But I can choose whether or not to listen to music at any given moment. If I choose to, I can choose whether or not to listen to Bach. If I do, I can choose from among his pieces. I did not listen to the Musical Offering on such-and-such a date and time because it was impossible for me to do anything other than exactly that.
I did not marry my wife because the progressions of arrangements of all the constituents of my brain, driven by the laws of physics, did not allow me to end our relationship before marriage.
But when did I make my first free choice? No earthly idea. Maybe something that an observer would have taken for a free choice was not, because I had not yet come to understanding.
Quoting PatternerThe problem here is you define it as something free, then use the definition to justify that it is free. We can certainly take on your definition of choice - that it's not merely a situation where a perhaps considers two or more possibilites, but rather the past does not cause what they next do. Once we have that definition, what is the justification for saying that the previous moment's state didn't inevitably lead to the next moment's state?
Quoting PatternerAre there any changes in the mechanics that lead to this awakening and freedom? What's happening at the ontological level that freedom is now allowed and how do you know this is the case?Quoting Patterner
What motivates the choosing not to listen to Bach or the choosing to listen to Bach? Is it random? Uncaused?
Quoting PatternerWhat makes you think there was one? What specifically leads you to the conclusion 'those actions on my part were not chosen, all those when I was younger than X, but I can know/show that at least this one, when I was ten, for exampel, while not being the first was free'?
So you don't have to have chosen your motivations or your will, in order for a choice that your will chooses to be your choice. In other words, the whole "self-authorship" requirement some people have for free will, is not in fact a requirement you have for free will - someone can make a free choice with no self authorship at all.
Your first choice can be a choice, despite being the product of countless things you didn't choose, and 0 things you did choose - like you had no choice but to make that choice, right?
And please recall, the quote that opened this conversation between you and I was T Clark saying "if we don't determine our will, we don't have free will."
If your first choice is free, despite being based on a will you had no choice in creating or designing, then you're disagreeing with that quote from Mr Clark. You're saying we can make free choices even if we haven't determined one single iota of our will.
Maybe this is not what you're looking for, but I would suggest one can maybe better and more clearly speak of what you are pointing to in terms of weak and strong wills, instead of in terms of free and unfree will.
As I think truely 'free will' is a logical impossibility as it leads to a kind of infinite regress (previous posts), what we really are pointing to is a will that isn't overly constrained by outside social forces, and/or a will that resolved some of its own inner tensions (strong will) and a will that is more influenced by outside social forces, and/or weakened or consumed by its own contradictions (weak will).
And in that quest, for a more unified unconstrained will, philosophy definitely can play a role I would say in resolving some of conflicts in values, and in inoculating oneself from social manipulation/propaganda/plain bad ideas that are floating around.
There is probably a continuum of strong and weak wills. This is likely based on the degree of strength which a person has learned. Also, it is possible to be weak in some areas but strong in other aspects. For example, a person may be strong in resisting violent impulses, but be weak in bingeing on chocolate.
The area of freedom of will is likely to be interconnected to the examination of values. In this respect, it is connected to the nature of 'the examined life', as opposed to robotic automatic functioning.
Compatanilism makes sense because it involves both the physical and mental aspects of agency. Dispenza looks at the way the neurochemistry involves the pleasurable aspects of behaviour. He suggests that this is what hinders change because we are addicted to the chemical aspects of certain patterns of behaviour and thinking.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Does not "resolving its own inner tensions" involve limiting the amount of choices one has going forward vs being "consumed by contradictions" which would be having more choices, some of which are contradictory but are still options one could choose? Most people are equating freedom with choices. So the more choices, contradictory or not, is really just more freeom you can jave. Should I buy a new computer or not buy a new computer? I can't do both but both are options I can choose. By limiting contradictory options are you not limiting your options, and therefore your freedom?
Quoting Jack Cummins
One might say that the person has a strong will to eat chocolate.
You are resolving tensions in what you want, not in what you can or could do. So you still have the choices, you just don't want it anymore... so I would say no it doesn't limit your choices, it just give you a more clear idea of what you really want so you don't get pulled in all direction getting nowhere ultimately.
It certainly is a continuum. And yes the idea is that you give up on/sublimate some desires or values that are contradictory with others that you do want to pursue more.
But some self-control I would presume would typically be part of that process, and that probably would include resisting both bingeing and violent impulses.
By extension, it seems to me that it's (in a sense) painful to be wrong, and it feels better to be right. This pushes us to irrationality.
Does he suggest strategy to avoid the pitfalls?
With the idea of a strong will to eat chocolate there may be conflict between the conscious and subconscious aspects of will. A person may enjoy chocolate but realise a need to not do so, especially for health reasons. This may create a complex dynamic and subconscious aspects, such as comfort, may be a stumbling block.
The other part of this may be where an intention or aspects of will fit in within the larger system of one's motivation and gratification. If one is trying to make change in one area of life a certain amount of stability in various other aspects may be important. That is because to deal with too much conflict and change at once may be too difficult.
The link which you provided on compatabilism is useful. That is because the idea has a history and I have found when reading about it that various authors use the idea differently.
The coexistence of the empirical aspects of neuroscience and the questions of philosophy may be complementary. One without the other may be insufficient. Many of the important thinkers were speculating about the nature of 'mind' and free will. In the understanding of consciousness there can be an opposite tendency to see neuroscience as replacing this. The philosophy of the question of the
hard problem of consciousness and free will do not go away and it may be possible to build bridges between the findings of neuroscience and the underlying philosophical ideas.
The strategy which Dispenza suggests for coping with conflicts of will is mental rehearsal. Personally, I do find that visualisation and imagining a situation in advance can be helpful for desired outcomes. It is far from absolute because life has so many unpredictable variables. However, imagining scenarios mentally is a potential way of preparation for affirmation of intent and will.
As I noted in another post in this thread:
Quoting T Clark
The question of what 'I' is a big one in thinking, especially in relation to free will. In her volume on consciousness, Susan Blackmore thought that acknowledging perplexity was important.
With the idea of willing in the moment, there is the contrast with sustained will. In particular, a feeling of intent may arise in a situation or as an ongoing aspect of the establishment of goals. The momentary aspects of choice and the longer term ones may compete.
As far as where the will comes from it is likely to be complex, including nature and nurture as well as in connection with factors in the social environment. A person is a system within the context of larger systems. The individual is both acted upon and acts upon other systems. The elusive 'I' could be viewed as the narrative author weaving all this together in a personal context.
Doubts may be experienced so often by an individual. I certainly feel in a maze, or even a fog of confusion of possibilities on a frequent basis. That is often because it is difficult to see the larger picture, especially of the unknown future. What I like about Watson and Skinner's picture of rats iand mouses n mazes isn't the actual deterministic picture of behaviorism but the metaphor of the creatures within the maze.
Behaviorism certainly paints a picture of determinism. However, the later development of cognitive behavioral approaches may alter this. That is cognition plays a part in making sense of it all, including the mazes, even if there are not any easy solutions.
Well, imo, that's because both are pseudo-problems generated (mostly) by 'philosophical grammar' and not themselves scientific, or empirical, problems. Re: embodied metacognition (+ property dualism) contra disembodied "consciousness" or "will". :sparkle:
So what? For the sake of this discussion, only what we you and I think about these topics is relevant no matter how informed we might be by other sources. Stop hedging and think things through for yourself. :chin:
The balance between reading others' ideas and usage of language alongside a unique personal or independent opinion is tricky, but important. It is possible to get lost in the labyrinth of thoughts of others, especially in thinking of the issue of free will. This is because it is a philosophy problem throughout history. Ultimately, each person arrives at a unique personal perspective through sifting through ideas in conjunction with experience of life. It is an issue which can be explored for a lifetime, and what matters most is how it contributes to living life with the greatest freedom.
I do believe in the existence of free will. It is not absolute because we are affected by so many variables outside of oneself. I may even go a stage beyond the position of free will as such. That is to say that one's conscious and subconscious will, apart from affecting one's actions can have a determining effect in leading to the circumstances which manifest in one's life. Intention is so powerful.
If the agency we experience gives us no conception of what is happening, presuming a 'determinism' is not an argument against the reality of deliberation.
This is useful for expressing that we do have the ability to react to those things unless our wants (or original environment) overpowers additional factors, in which case you could sometimes say a person lacks free will situationally.
Quoting BylawThe alternative is saying something is a choice, then saying it was the only possible outcome. That means that, although there are more variables, and more kinds of variables, going into the final choice I make than there are going into the final resting place of a boulder rolling down a mountain, it's all the same. Just physical things bouncing into each other, until the only possible resolution is reached. How can we say the boulder chose the spot in which it came to rest when the factors that went into the choice were gravity, density of materials, and the lay of the land? How can we say that I chose what music to listen to just because the factors that went into the choice included things like molecules called dopamine and serotonin, and records of past stimuli stored in arrangements of connections between neurons?
Quoting BylawNot mechanics. Again, I'm thinking subjective experience and freedom from physical determinism are part of the same packages. It there was any hint of mechanics, Brian Greene would not write this in [I]Until the End of Time[/I]:I'm not aware of any other scientist who contradicts him. Nobody is saying the charge of X, combined with the mass of Y, when surrounded by the flow of Z, all in a medium of a certain density causes consciousness. There is just an unspoken acceptance that, it just happens.
Quoting BylawI don't know how many guesses there are about how this is happening. And I can't imagine a way to test any of them. Including the one I suspect is there cases, which is proto-consciousness. A property of matter. But, unlike things like charge, mass, and spin, it is a mental property, rather than a physical property.
Quoting BylawI don't. I believe it. I see no logic in the idea that conglomerates of particles that do nothing but bounce around according to the laws of physics have, for no reason, the feeling that they are something other than conglomerates of particles that do nothing but bounce around according to the laws of physics. If there was nothing but the physical and laws of physics, there's no reason that such conglomerates would have subjective experiences of [I]any[/I] kind, much less the specific subjective experience that they are also something else.
But we do have this experience. And I believe the experience needs an explanation. I don't believe any number or mixture of physical building blocks can give rise to something that is not physical, so there must be something else.
Quoting BylawThe very notion of listening to Bach can be caused by various things. Maybe I see his name in an article. Maybe I see the word "pass", and it makes me think [I]passacaglia[/I]. Maybe I read about Mickey Mantle's 565-foot home run, and it makes me think of Bach's BWV 565. Or, more directly, I hear a snippet of hiss music. Whatever the specifics, specific arrangements of connections between neurons have been stimulated, and the records of certain past stimuli are brought to consciousness.
But choosing to listen or not, and choosing which piece to listen to if I choose to listen at all, are a different matter. They aren't just memories brought to the surfaces, unbidden. I don't choose the same way the arrangement of the pool balls after the break is chosen.
Quoting BylawIt seems to me that the mind grows as the brain becomes more complex. Even if we aren't controlled by our memories, we use them when we make choices. I can choose between desserts I've never heard of, or between desserts that I have heard of, or some combination. But if I don't have memories of specific desserts, of even memory of what dessert is, because my brain has not yet become complex enough... We don't have memories back beyond a certain point in time, and weren't doing much in the way of thinking clearly or making choices, because we were not yet capable.
He's not, there, writing about free will.
Further Brian Greene could be wrong. Notice that you hinge the truth of free will on the fact that someone says something. Further...
Quoting Patterner
There are scientists who disagree with him.Quoting Patterner
So, mental properties can cause matter to do things and there is no causation in the other direction? And why is there free will in the non-physical? What don't processes in that substance cause the next processes/phenomena to happen? Is there no causation in the non-physical, yet it can cause things to happen in the physical?
Quoting Patterner
What do you think the physical is? It seems you think the physical is particles only. Is that true?
Quoting Patterner[are you Swedish?] In any case, so these physical causes are leading to your decision, it seems.Quoting Patterner
But what is making you decide: desire, interest, curiosity, preference? ARe you by any chance thinking that determinism means only causes external to the person lead to what the person does/chooses? That's not most people's idea of determinism.Quoting Patterner
So, changes in the physical lead to choice?
Quoting Patterner
And what do you think motivates you to choose between two desserts that you've never tried? What is the motivation? Is your choice in that situation motivated or random?
You seem to be arguing here that it has nothing to do with memory, so it is free. But what motivates the choice?
Is it random? Is it motivated by desires and goals you have? why are these causes not determined causes in a causal chain? The physical vs. mental to me is a non-issue here. Determinism is the idea that each effect is caused by what went before and in turn is a cause. Doesn't matter if these are mental causes or physical causes or some others.
Something leads to your decision/choice. If you chose because of your desires, for example, well these were causes by prior mental states and external causes also. If the choice is not caused by what went before and not caused by you and what you are, it seems a pyrrhic 'freedom' and random.
The gap between what a person seeks in their intent and finding the means to reach that end is central to human agency. It is where human choice makes deliberate acts to bring about chosen ends consciously.
The coexistence of determinism and free will makes sense. I subscribe to a biopsychocial model of influence in life. Factors from genetics, socialisation and the environment have a determining role. The physical laws and the weather have a determining effect on thinking and behaviour. The variables always come together and interact.
Free will, as the deliberate art of innovation is more likely as an act of rebellion against pain and suffering. If one is comfortable and content there may be no need to make changes at all. In this respect, the existence of pain and discontent may break cycles of repetition. This may be evolutionary as ongoing evolution of human consciousness, with free will as the mover towards creativity on a personal and cultural level.
The interesting thing for me about this coexistence is that it makes determinism less powerful. It means that true determinism only exists if someone knows about our actions before we make them. Otherwise, it can just be concluded that even if you still think determinism exists in a universe with the coexistence, it is the weakest kind, given that we would have the free will to choose and the only way it is determined is by the factors that influence our choices.
It seems to me that part of resolving tensions in what you want is resolving what you can or could do.
Quoting Jack Cummins
You speak as if everyone has split personality disorder where multiple personalities, or wills (subconscious and conscious) battle to control the decision-making process. There is one will that has many options at any given moment. I enjoy chocolate but I also like to be healthy. I have a decision to make. It doesn't necessarily have to be a black and white issue. I can eat chocolate in moderation thereby achieving both eating chocolate and being healthy. Notice how I was able to explain it using just one will - I.
Quoting Jack Cummins
It seems quite obvious that we can. You just need to look at the many people that have been able to break their dependence on drugs, change their lifestyle to be healthier, manage their anger, etc. You can change your behavior. You just need to want it more than eating chocolate or taking drugs. You have one will that is faced with multiple options, not multiple wills fighting over one option.
I find it shocking that in discussions of free will no one is willing to actually describe the decision-making process - what it is like for them to make a decision from the moment they are faced with some set of circumstances, how they become aware of the options available to them and how they filter out all options to arrive at one choice.
Are you questioning how doubt could arise due to neurobiological processes or how they could be resolved? We don't know how neurobiological processes could cause all sorts of brain states, such as thoughts, feelings, etc. So the answer to the first question is that we don't know. The answer to the second question is, that although we know that doubts are caused by neurobiological processes in the brain, the brain cannot possibly resolve doubts since the brain is a deterministic entity. Therefore, I think that doubts are resolved by the mind which has the ability to freely decide.
I don't think that doubts can be resolved by a deterministic entity such as the brain since doubts are not deterministic states. Hence, I think doubts are resolved by the mind that has the ability to freely decide.
One thing with many aspects, or many things that combine and "fight" to result in one outcome at a particular time seem philosophically the same to me. I'm not sure how one would differentiate between to two empirically?
So it seems like maybe this is just quibling over how we would want to name and frame the same underlying thing.
And ultimately I think my kind of framing is closer to how I experience it. I really do sometimes seem to be torn between two minds. One simple example is, I want to stay fit as a longer term goal, but then I also like eating food that isn't the best for reaching that longer term goal. Is that one will with two aspects, or two wills that battle with eachother? Does it really matter how we frame it ultimately?
I don't know, I don't get it I think, the tension is in what you want... and then you maybe refrain from doing certain things to resolve the tension in what you want.
Maybe an example can help. Let's say I want two things that compete with eachother. I want to be healthy, and I also want to smoke (because I'm addicted). The one (smoking) has an adverse effect on the the other. To resolve the tension in favour of health, I should try to reduce my addiction, my wanting of nicotine, otherwise I will keep having to deal with these two conflicting wants. The way to do that is to try and refrain from smoking. The first couple of weeks after I quit, I'm probably still addicted to nicotine, I still want sigarettes. But then this addiction gradually wanes the longer you stop with it, until you don't want it anymore. At that point, it's not that you have to limit yourself, you just don't want it anymore.
This works if you equate one mind to one goal. It seems to me that I have one mind with many goals and many options to achieve each. If you did have two minds then how do you distinguish yourself from someone with split personality disorder?
In your example, you have two goals, not two minds. One is to experience the feeling of eating sugary/salty food and the other is to be healthy. From this point you weigh your options mostly based on one thing - what will make you the happiest? You eliminate one or the other based on this ultimate goal. For some, continuing to eat sugary/salty food is what makes them happy. Maybe they decided that they are going to eventually die one day healthy or not, so why not enjoy the ride before you drop dead? For others being healthy is what makes them happy. I can certainly vouch for seeing your weight drop each day and sleeping better, etc. can be more immediate results that can keep you on the track of eating healthy. Seeing your weight drop makes you happy and keeps you going.
So the question is are you trying to keep multiple selves happy, or just one? I seems to me that the person that wanted to eat a lot of chocolate is the same person that wants to be healthy. I can change my mind and changing my mind does not change who I am. I am a decision-making entity who simply wants to be happy and I have many ways of achieving this.
You act as if a mind or a self is a thing. A brain is a physical thing, a mind is merely a kind of metaphor for what the brain does. Strictly speaking we do no 'have' a mind, we have thoughts following eachother. That's why I don't think any of this matters a lot, 'en matière'... one mind/two minds, a mind is just a kind container concept to point at the amalgam of thoughts the brain produces. One forest, two forests, a bunch of trees together, to some extend its arbitrary where you want to draw the lines for the concepts you are using.
I prefer to be carefull not to reïfy things, because usually that muddles more than it clarifies... So I'm happy leaving it at "I have conflicting thoughts and drives" without any talk of minds, selfs or wills.
Yes, in that our actions have an effect on our thoughts and behaviors (ignoring the free will problem).
Because how else would you describe changing your thoughts and behaviors in a universe that allows perfect free will? Are we not as free as it gets?
Even if our thoughts, behaviors and choices are decided by a set of factors we don't always have complete control over, I believe free will is simply our senses of reason or want being a factor and influencing the importance of other factors at play.
This seems to me as free as you could be without being omnipotent, being able to choose based on these factors, as opposed to being forced to pick a choice.
And while many say this allows and even proves determinism in the subject universe, I would say that determinism only really makes sense as a concept if the future is realized by anything before it becomes the present. If the idea of the future is not literally real (which is another matter of debate), then determinism doesn't make any sense. You could say that determinism deal with the past, but this is only because you have hindsight. From that point in the past, the outcome you are talking about cannot have been determined if the future doesn't exist (either as a prediction of some entity or if you subscribe to the block universe theory, or others).
If the future is literally real, then yes, this is determinism.
Yes, and I find the roots of this in Aristotle as well. Whereabouts in Spinoza could this be found?
The rejection of the idea that the Creator is a copy of us or vice versa permeates the Ethics to a degree that is difficult to narrow down to a single proposition. In terms of what is a free choice in the language of this OP, this conversation touches upon some of what Spinoza said directly about it.
Quoting BylawNo, he is not. he is talking about something that would seem to be less complex then free will. If there is no physicalist explanation for the simple thing, I don't see how there can be a physicalist explanation for the more complicated thing that It makes possible.
Quoting BylawI don't. I thought free will was obvious long before I ever heard of him. I only point out that there is no hint of a physicalist explanation for it, according to one of the experts in physics. If what seems obvious is wrong - which is certainly not impossible - I would like to hear the evidence. I am not aware of any. Physicalism seems to be saying that, since the physical is all we can detect and study, it [I]must[/I] be the answer. I think that, since we are aware of something that we cannot detect or study with the tools of physicalism, there is something else in play.
Quoting BylawI would love to see this! Not being sarcastic. Please tell me where I can find a scientist explaining how the "mindless, thoughtless, emotionless particles come together and yield inner sensations of color or sound, of elation or wonder, of confusion or surprise." How "mass, electric charge, and a handful of other similar features (nuclear charges, which are more exotic versions of electric charge), [which] seem completely disconnected from anything remotely like subjective experience" nevertheless give rise to subjective experiences.
Quoting BylawIt is certainly a two-way connection. And that's only logical. Why would the physical lead to the mental, but things not go in the other direction?
Quoting BylawThe way I'm using it, free will means free from the one-and-only possibility offered every moment by physicalist determinism. Freedom from the rules that billiard balls must follow, which allow nothing that deviates in the slightest from exactly X.
This doesn't mean the physical doesn't play a huge role in the mental. It is both the vehicle and the companion of the mental. It is what the mental experiences. Without the physical, there would be nothing for the mental to experience. There would be no mental at all.
Quoting BylawI don't know why you think I think the physical is particles only. No, I don't think that. Sure, there are certainly a lot of particles. Aside from all the matter everywhere, my understanding is that energy, such as light and electricity, is streams of particles, photons and electrons respectively.
I don't think the physical properties of particles, - mass, charge, spin, etc. - are particles. In fact, it is not known what such things are. Brian Greene again:
They aren't particles, and we don't know what they are. Still, they are physical properties.
I don't think liquidity and solidity are particles. But I think they are physical. Physical characteristics. Macro physical characteristics, as opposed to the micro physical characteristics like mass and charge.
I don't think movement, flight, or life are particles. But I think they are physical. Physical processes.
I don't think gravity is particles. But I think it is physical. I don't know how else to classify the shape of space-time. (I've often heard they are looking for the fundamental particle of gravity, which they would call a graviton. I don't have any idea why they are looking for such a thing if gravity is caused by the warping of space-time.)
Quoting BylawAnother very interesting question. :grin: No. American. Mainly Irish, English, German, and Dutch ancestry.
Quoting Bylaw These physical causes are why I'm thinking about Bach at all. They aren't why I decide whether or not to listen to his music, or which pieces I listen to. I'm not programmed like a robot that receives sensory input, and has no choice but to do a specific thing. The robot walks at times; sits at times; makes noises at times; etc. But when it perceives sensory input X, it can do nothing but act in the one specific way it is programmed to act. It has no option, despite the many things it is physically capable of doing. I have options.
Quoting BylawNo, I'm not thinking determinism means only external causes. Many things within us are involved, from memories, to the feel of our own heartbeat, the physiological reactions we get when seeing someone we consider attractive, to upset stomaches...
Quoting BylawThey may lead to a fork in the road. They don't dictate which way I turn.
Quoting BylawI am sure I sometimes choose randomly. I'm always getting grief for taking so long to order food. I debate endlessly. I'm told it's called Analysis Paralysis. LoL. I usually ask the waitress which one comes with the most food. That seems like a good way to break a tie.
Sometimes one dessert is much more to my liking than the others. Lots of icing, or cream, or syrup. So I choose that. But choosing based on my preferences is not the same thing as there being no possibility that I could have chosen against them.
Quoting BylawI don't know why you think I'm arguing that. I'm not. But my memories don't determine that there is one-and-only-one option I am able to pick from among the possibilities.
Quoting BylawI'm saying the way physics forces all the particles in the head to move around is not determining the choices I make.
Quoting BylawNot being capable of making a choice at any instant of our lives other than one determined by the laws of physics doesn't seem to be 'freedom' at all.
Hi Jack, I think that your op, and the title, show an inadequate approach to the issue. The questions you ask imply a separation between what we call "self", and what we call "thoughts", so that you ask "can we change our thoughts", and "do you think that self-mastery is possible". The latter even suggests a separation between "self", and something further which masters the self. Notice that "mastery" implies a master and something which is mastered, and the two are distinct.
So I believe questions like this are somewhat mistakenly expressed, and are therefore ill-fated to being forever discussed without being resolved. The problem is with what is assumed as implied, by the question, a separation between the thing directing and the thing being directed. The implied separation is not a true representation, so the question is doomed by the implicit falsity. The common example I've seen is "have you quit beating your wife?". Notice that the assumption implied by the question can make the question impossible to answer.
Instead, I suggest that you approach the issue with the attitude that thoughts are an inseparable part of one's self. Thoughts are not separable from the self, in a way that would allow the self to control the thoughts, rather the thoughts are an integral part of the self. And, we can look at the self, itself, as a changing being. From this perspective we can ask to what degree does the self, as the changing being, have control over its own changes. Then we ask about "self-control". Notice that "self-control" implies one unified being, rather than "self-mastery" which implies a master/slave separation.
Proceeding in this way, we see that thinking, and thoughts, are a means of self-control. Therefore we do not have to ask the ill-fated question, "does the self control the thoughts", we can accept as an observed fact, that the self has some degree of control, over itself, through the use of thoughts. Then we can proceed to investigate the nature of this self-control, and what it consists of.
I would say 'motivations' and 'preferences' are different things. My preferences seem to be largely built in. As I've touched on, I am a lunatic for Bach, but don't care too much for Mozart. I didn't choose this arrangement, and it has stood since there first time I heard Bach. My preference for Baroque over Classical came first. That began the moment I heard the Prelude to Henry Purcell's [I]Dido and Aeneas[/I]. Then I heard Bach, the pinnacle of Baroque.
I don't think these preferences are motivations. I'm sometimes motivated to choose in agreement with my preferences, and I listen to something I'm very familiar with and love. I'm sometimes motivated to choose against my preferences, and I listen to something new. Are those opposing motivations also built-in preferences?
I believe I am free from the physics-driven interacting constituents of my brain, and am not listening to the one I'm listening to because there was no possibility that I could listen to anything else.
Adding
And I think this also address your question,
Regret seems a funny thing. When I was only several years old, my mother took me to the store for sneakers. I had narrowed my choices down to a pair of blue and a pair of gold. I struggled over the decision for a while, and finally went with the gold.
I regretted my decision within minutes. Possibly before I even got to the car. I wasn't traumatized, but I remember it clearly enough. I'd have taken them back and exchanged them, if I'd know at the time that that was allowed. But I didn't know that at the time, so I resigned myself to the fact that I'd be wearing sneakers I regretted having chosen, until it was time to get another pair.
I don't see how this makes sense from the standpoint of physical determinism. All of my brain's structures and particles are exactly where they are because of all the chains and webs of events that came before, all determined by the laws of physics. And when it came to this decision, it worked out the only way it possibly could, considering the state of all things and the laws of physics. I chose because all things were weighed, and gold was what came out on top.
Then those same laws of physics continued acting upon my brain's constituents, and determined that I should have chosen otherwise, and that I should have a useless feeling of regret.
Comes right down to it, the actual preference of blue over gold that my choice opposed wasn't even important. Color preferences? Of sneakers? What is the value of the physical arrangements of my brain's constituents giving me a preference of blue over gold, or Bach over Mozart, that evolution chose for it? This isn't about survival, like preferring the taste of apples over dirt. Nor is it about choosing a mate, like a woman preferring a man who looks like he can provide food, or a man preferring a woman who looks like she can bear children. The physical arrangements of my brain's constituents could discriminate important things, like the color of something beneficial over the color of something deadly, without my having any feeling about it at all. So why have the feeling? Especially when there are instances where physics determines a decision that physics them feels to be wrong?
[And, as always, the HPoC. How does the physical arrangements of my brain's constituents even give me the subjective experience of feeling these preferences the way I do? No, not the same issue. But I think they are closely related.]
I think it's very relevant. I think it's apparent why, but I can explain in more detail if you like.
I'm good. Just wasn't sure if you were getting at something different.
Either the choice is made based on who you are in that moment or it has nothing to do with you at all. Then it's random. Still trying to see what this freedom is. This uncaused choosing.Quoting Patterner
'and i am trying to get you to focus on what would lead you to choose one thing over another. If it has nothing to do with you, what would that supposed freedom be worth and how is it not mere randomness. If it has something to do with you - matches your desires, preferences motivations, than it is caused by your state.
The fact that you choose things that you haven't had a preference for earlier, does not mean that typ eof choice is not a preference of yours. There are all sorts of motivations for trying something new or different, certainly once, then possibly more.
I can see the weaknesses you mention in my line of argument. I guess that I am coming from the angle of seeing determinism as fatalistic.
Also, a few months ago, I read John Gray's ' The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom' (2015), which connects the concept of freedom and free will. It goes as far as questioning to what extent do human beings wish to be free. Gray suggests,
'Many people today hold to a a Gnostic view of things without fully realising the fact. Believing that human beings can be understood in the terms of scientific materialism, they reject any idea of free will. But they cannot give up hope of being masters of their destiny. So they have come to believe that science will somehow enable the human mind to escape the limitations that shape its condition.'
Gray argues that the illusion of lack of freedom and free will enables people to be 'like fairground puppets', escaping the 'burden of choice'. In that respect, determinism is an ideology.
To the contrary, operating a brain is like riding a bike, one learns to both steer and balance by the same manipulation of the handlebars. The inherent instability of thought - its propensity to veer off in unexpected directions is the very feature that allows control by awareness. Mathematical rigidity must be laboriously imposed by much practice and training along with constant vigilance and a blackboard and chalk.
As the old witch spells have it, one cannot not think about a black cat to order, but panic not, you will stop thinking about it soon enough.
You speak of 'multiple personality disorder', which is a rare diagnosis. It is the extreme end of splits in personality and will, but it is likely that many people do experience degrees of splits, which may trigger some underlying mental health problems and imbalances.
The idea of schizophrenia as being about a split personality were a gross caricaturistic overgeneralisation. Nevertheless, it is likely that divisions in thinking are the source of psychotic breakdown. This was suggested by RD Laing in, 'The Divided Self'. He spoke of contradictions in socialisations which give rise to internal conflicts. His writings were part of the antipsychiatry movement, which is not predominant now, but the idea of 'the divided self' is still a useful metaphor or idea for considering divisions and split in the psyche and will.
Yes, determinism as a perspective is limited by reductionism to brain states, which denies the existential nature of choices in human awareness. The deterministic argument is often choice is a feeling, but that leaves out the specific choices in their own right.
There is inconsistency in the belief that all reality is governed by the laws of physics, and the belief in free will. The fundamental discrepancy in its base, is derived from the way that we interpret Newton's first law of motion. This law indicates that for a body's motion to be altered there is required an external force. If we interpret this law as applicable to all bodies then a belief in determinism is the outcome. On the other hand, if we allow that some special bodies, living bodies, may be moved by an internal force such as "spirit" or "soul", then we provide for ourselves the principle required to believe in free will.
Quoting Jack Cummins
This appears to be an oversimplification of a very complex situation. My opinion is that belief in science, and confidence in science's capacity to provide for us a very powerful understanding of the world, is well supported by experience. This produces a complacency in the majority of human beings, in relation to aspects of the world which science does not provide an adequate understanding of, like freewill. The underlying current is, science will figure it out, and this feeds the illusion of lack of freedom (if it is in fact an illusion). So the majority of human beings just go with the flow, allowing the external forces of the world to move them this way and that way, and in many contrary, conflicting, and confusing ways, believing that this is their fate. That creates what the spiritual would call tormented souls. The conflicted soul does not give proper attention to the capacity of will power.
The idea of 'soul' is useful here, not as a disembodied spirit but as a way of describing the inner world. It is the interface of the inner and outer aspects of 'reality', just as emotions are the interface between brain and body. This is a basis of nondualism and the concept of soul is useful for differentiating between brain and the nature of experience. This is also in line with compatabilism, which sees determined and determining aspects of human consciousness.
Yes, we have an inherent disposition. In many ways, this is akin to having (being) a perspective. How does this not make sense conceptually? And just because we have a disposition, why should this mean we are not free to change our disposition? Your argument is like saying that a sailboat being driven by a northerly wind is not able to change its course.
Let me try to approach this from the angle I was coming from in the things I said most recently, when I added you to my post to FJ. For me, this issue comes down to the HPoC. First, there isn't a physicalist explanation for why there is, as Nagel famously put it, "something it is like" to be me. How is it that the physical processes do not take place "in the dark"? They could. Nerves could feel damage being caused by something very hot being in contact with skin, and action potentials could be initiated so that the hand pulls away. Reflexes work like that, without any involvement from me. The events could be stored in the brain, and the same situation avoided in the future, without my feeling of pain. There's no need for it.
And there's no explanation for it. Koch just paid up on a bet with Chalmers, because he couldn't find an answer. Greene says nothing can be seen as a basis for it. Physicalism has nothing to offer in the way of explanation. Only faith that we will, eventually, find a physicalist answer.
I'm not trying ro derail the conversation. The reason all of that is important to the current discussion is the specific kinds of things "it is like" to be me. Eating preferences is a good example. Beets, cucumbers, and watermelon are three foods I can't stand. I can't emphasize enough how much I can't stand them. But there is no purpose, no function, to my feeling toward them. Most people are perfectly fine with them. Many people have even been incredulous about my feelings toward beets and watermelon, because they are, apparently, among the most loved foods of all. So it's not a problem for the species. I've eaten them all at times, when the rest of the food masks the flavor enough that I can manage it, or when I occasionally try them to see if my tastes have changed. I take extreme pleasures in eating, and consider it a negative to not like every food there is. So I occasionally try, hoping. There is no hint of any kind of allergy to any of them. In short, there is no objective, physical reason for me not to eat them.
I wish I liked beets, in particular. They are more than somewhat appealing in every way but taste. Density, texture, color. It would be very annoying if I was very hungry, and had nothing to eat but this thing I can't stand, despite wanting and trying to like them for decades.
Can there possibly be a reason for the way the molecules of beets interact with my taste buds and brain, such that they ruin nearly every dish I've ever tried that contains them, and I won't eat beyond the first bite?
There's no reason for food preferences at all. Even if we could distinguish poison just from taste, there wouldn't be a reason to not like it. And we don't dislike the taste of things we're allergic to. Often enough, people like the taste of things they're allergic to, and are very sad that they can't eat it. Or, unless it's a risk of death, they eat it anyway, and deal with the rashes, itching, or diarrhea. We could all just eat some bland slop every day. There's no physicalist reason we don't. We don't need restaurants that make certain kinds of food (french, Italian, Mexican, etc.), or certain dishes (Beef Wellington, shrimp scampi, salmon encrusted with pistachios, etc.). But the restaurant industry is huge, because we have feelings about food that have nothing to do with anything physicalism can explain.
I'm not saying i have a non-physicalist explanation, but there sure isn't a physicalist one. I have subjective experience that can't be explained, and that subjective experience gives me strong preferences that have no objective value.
We don't have a problem accepting the existence of dark matter/energy, even though we cannot detect it in any way. But we know it's there, because something is responsible for what we observe. I think something else that we can't detect in any way is responsible for consciousness; something it is like to be me. I think that same something is responsible for free will.
I had never heard of Dispenza until I came across the book, 'Evolve Your Brain' in my local library. I have just looked him up on Google and it does appear that he is a controversial figure. Some web entries suggest he wrote pseudoscience. Of course, my outpost is not about the author as such and, hopefully, stands as one which examines the philosophical ideas, especially free will and the brain. Nothing more...
:up:
I do think that it matters what credentials Dispenza has and it is unclear, because I do not know what the faculty of Life Sciences in Atlanta is. Nevertheless, those who label his ideas as pseudoscience are only expressing their opinion. It is not as if those on the internet who criticise Dispenza come up with clear evidence based arguments. As for 'woo' and 'gobbledegook', I find that many people dismiss all philosophy as fitting into that category, much to my horror!
Too often they are looked at as Complimentary antonyms by some who argue with others who view them as Relational antonyms. This can then lead to the argument going around in circles with each party accusing the other of contradiction or wordplay. I imagine some would even propose Gradable antonyms (likely those fond of panpsychicism).
I agree with you about the testability of science. Anecdotal evidence is problematic. With neuroscience it is about mapping and is different from experiments. As far as I see, Dispenza's ideas are consistent with mainstream science.
NO. Neuroscience is HARD science.
It is true that a lot of intellectual discussions about free will vs determinism go round in circles. It may be about the nature of opposites in human thinking and living with paradoxical aspects of life. Each person is part of so many chains of cause and effect in the web of life.
Not knowing much about the author that book appears to be an attempt at a self-help book like thousands of others. I think it might be a bit rich to call yourself a 'researcher' though :D Perhaps he is an amateur scholar of neuroscience (like me) and nothing more.
I had never heard of him before tbh. When it comes to pop-neuroscience I go for Damasio or Gazzaniga.
Neuroscience is HARD science insofar as it can be backed up by medical evidence. However, there is a lot to be learned at this stage, especially as each person is unique. For example, when people are given psychiatric medication some of the effects vary so much from one person to another, often making it a case of hit and miss. Also, the role of chemicals in will are complex. In particular, neurotransmitters affect motivation but so do experiences.
This means that there is a complex interaction between brain chemicals and human interpretation of experiences. So, understanding human will and choice involves both science of the brain and a person's meanings. The latter is harder to formulate into science. The most positive way forward would involve quantitative and qualitative research, possibly involving the psychological therapies as well as forms of psychoactive medication.
This is a common misconception. A great deal can be elicited from a comparatively small sample. I know this because an actual practicing researcher in neuroscience from Italy told me this. Granted, when it comes to medication and such all pharma is doing is basically carpet-bombing the brain it is far, far away from laser-guided missiles AND even then there is the issue of negative feedback (eg. drugs for depression).
Quoting Jack Cummins
It is not simply HARDER it is not science. I do not think taking psychoactive drugs will reveal much about will or choice and I am unsure why you even suggest that they would? Psychology is a SOFT science and is too poorly grounded in empiricism - yet still clings to it. I prefer the phenomenological approach (which I discovered reading cognitive neuroscience textbooks).
Speculation is fun, but if you want to get serious you have to get your hands dirty and commit to the grind ;)
:up: :up:
This looks cool!: https://epdf.pub/the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-mind-a-tribute-to-michael-s-gazzaniga.html
The ones I have on my shelf are called Principles of Neuroscience and The Cognitive Neurosciences III (the later by Gazzaniga and is a selection of studies split into specific areas of research) There will be newer editions now I am sure!
The area of philosophy and neuroscience is complicated. That is because neuroscience is a growing field of empirical understanding of the brain. This opens up so much dialogue between philosophy and psychology, in thinking about cognition and what free will entails and means.
The issue with determinism is that what has happened in the past determines what will happen in the future. A determinist and a free willist may both agree that the past has been determined, but where they would disagree is on how the past relates to the future, the free willist denying that the past determines the future in the way of necessity. The two cannot be made compatible. Distinguishing a determined part from a determining part denies determinism because under determinism the determined part (past) is the determining part. And for the free willist the distinction only recognizes the difference between the past-looking and future-looking aspects of consciousness.
The issue of the past is different from a deterministic perspective from that of the free will outlook. The necessity of the deterministic view carries so much inevitability which may bring about self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, it is not easy to do things differently because learned patterns are hard to break.
There is also the question as to whether the direction of time is two way. The future may affect the past, probably on an unconscious level, because it is about becoming and development. I am not sure that this is different according to whether one believes in free will or not. However, the deterministic perspective is far more about linear causation and can even imply a person is a victim of the past, especially if one has experienced traumas. It can involves seeing one's childhood as the source of difficulties, with some sense of victimhood. The idea of free will allows more focus on the present and being the author of one's future self.
Well those are expensive! :rofl: I wouldn't mind the price if I had a chance of understanding them. Gazzaniga's [I]The Conscious Instinct[/I] is a good deal more affordable.
Indeed, the most fascinating topic of all, imo.
The Gazzaniga one's are particularly good. I think I still have studies printed out somewhere on the section of Language comparing human capacities with various other animals. It was pretty cool!
Anyway, his pop science is probably a good way in too. I would recommend Damasio too as they are likely quite different perspectives - I personally find Gazzaniga's work more rigid.
Also, check out these too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGtZek7RPts&t=1695s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilrelFkDYls
It might be interesting or useful if choices were made by brains. But choices are made by people.
We have learned a bit about the strings and the pulling of them but are completely in the dark about the puppet master.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Sure. At least, I don't see what is problematic about self mastery.
Perhaps because "the puppet master" is merely a grammatical illusion (i.e. "doer" attributed to doing "subject" of a predicate) that amounts to folk psychology's homunculus fallacy. Consider (e.g.) Buddha's anatt?¹ ... Hume's bundle² ... Metzinger's PSM³ ... :chin:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81 [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory [2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_model [3]
@Jack Cummins
You could be possessed. You don't know.
:yikes:
Yes, that did come out much more literal than it should have. It's a metaphor, not literal, meaning, we can see how certain activities are reflected in the brain, we can see a certain patterns between a person doing one thing vs. a person doing another and what that reliably may trigger.
But what we don't know is how we do X rather than Y. For that we don't have a way to do research.
It's been a while since I read Metzinger - very interesting from what I recall.
As for Hume, yes, but he was analyzing the self in so far as it could be subject to empirical investigation, meaning his system.
But he was very clear that his system concerning the self was "very defective". and concluded, lamentably that:
"In short there are two principles, which I cannot render consistent; nor is it in my power to renounce either of them, viz., that all our distinct perceptions are distinct existences, and that the mind never perceives any real connexion among distinct existences. Did our perceptions either inhere in something simple and individual, or did the mind perceive some real connexion among them, there woud be no difficulty in the case. For my part, I must plead the privilege of a sceptic, and confess, that this difficulty is too hard for my understanding."
Self-mastery may be POSSIBLE but not that easy to achieve in the full sense. That is because few people have the degree of discipline that they need to live up to highest ideals of what they would like to be able to in all areas of their lives. That is because in spite of choice most people have flaws and blindspots, especially in being affected by the subconscious, or the internal saboueur.
Full sense meaning being experts or elite at something? I mean, very few, there is an important genetic component to consider when talking about elite level anything.
But I think the of a highest ideals "in all areas of life" is probably not possible. Or if it is, it is very very rare. Unless you have in mind something else.
I realise that what I am speaking of may seem elitist, almost like Plato's idea of the 'philosopher kings', or Nietzsche's 'superman'. However, the perspective which I am coming from is that of not viewing evolution as having been reached ultimately.
It is possible that evolution of consciousness is still ongoing. The choices human beings make can be seen as that ongoing development of going beyond the aspects of 'robotic' functioning. I am thinking of the developments of certain individuals, such as great artists and thinkers, such as spoken of by Robert Bucke in 'Cosmic Consciousness'. It may be seen as intent and freedom of thought.
Ah. Maybe. It's hard to say.
It is hard to say, and I do wonder if suffering and crisis itself is what may lead to shifts in thinking. I hope that I am not being too optimistic. It just seems rather strange if evolution is reached, with no further possibilities in terms of consciousness.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology) [1]
I would say that the idea that evolution has reached some kind of end, would be very foolish.
Other forms of consciousness are not even hypothetical, we have all kinds of animals which, according to all available evidence do experience the world in a very different way.
But as for shifts in human consciousness - well, so little is understood from a scientific perspective, that speaking of "evolution" of consciousness may be premature.
But possible. For us right now? We likely won't see a massive change. But, who knows?
I have wondered if artificial intelligence, or the combination of sentience with it, will be the next stage of evolution of consciousness. This is especially in the light of the ecological crisis and James Lovelock suggested this in his final writings.
However, there is the question of whether artificial consciousness has will independently of human programming. Also, it is a move in the direction of some disembodiment. That would make it like some form of spirit beings beyond the confines of human mortality.
It is true that animals have consciousness which is beyond human experience. It is anthromorphism when humans claim superiority.
As far as the current situation, life is so unstable and changing constantly, that some kind of shifts are going to occur in consciousness, for better or worse. The ecological crisis, wars and poverty are turning life upside down rapidly for so many. It is like the REM song,' It'sThe End of the World (As We Know It'). Humanity may have entered into the stage of post-apocalyptic consciousness.
The issue is how much organic life combined with simulated consciousness will it take to lead to pain emotions. The presence of a brain and nervous system is probably of significance.
Also, as such simulated forms of consciousness would not have gone through experiences they would not have gone through the developmental processes of narrative self identity. This would mean lack of reflective consciousness which is necessary for free will.
It does depend whether pain and emotion is central to self-awareness. That is unless such simulations are able to develop as independent forms and evolve as such, like the 'gods' which were imagined in myths.
It partly comes down to the question of what is consciousness? It also depends on what do the artificial simulations serve, and in accordance with whose will? If one has any sympathy with panpsychism, there is a consciousness which may have rudimentary developments.
Human consciousness may be where it involves self awareness and reflective ability. If the artificial are mere intelligent bots with no consciousness they are hollow automations dependent on programming. This would be degeneration rather than evolution potentially, the opposite of beings with free will.
Maybe for you ... a stipulative definition suffices, however, for a subject matter-informed, speculative discussion: consciousness = pain-awareness (i.e. what bodily activity-feedback feels like, not just PNS reflexes).
AGI =/= "artificial simulations" (whatever those are). As for "programming": same as neonatal pair-bonding + socialization in humans but with powerful neural nets instead: training metacognitive systems to self-learn within enabling-constraints. IMO, 'intelligence' = outside-the-box thinking that surpasses repurposes "programming" (i.e. not just "bot automatons").
I don't it's only a reductionist appeal to ignorance (i.e. woo-of-the-gaps) and/or compositional fallacy.
E.g. such as ...
I just had an experience that makes me question just how much free will we have. I went to Hawaii with my sister and two other women. We stayed in her timeshare. Some problems came up and the stress took a toll on my sister, reverting her back to a three-year-old in a daycare center having to fight for a toy. Her reactions to me were insane but not unexpected. before leaving, I told all my friends I didn't want to go because I was afraid this would happen. The point is I am sure this is not what my sister would want to happen if she truly had freedom of will. Obviously, she did not have freedom of will but was thrown back in the past and lost all self-control in relation to me but oddly could snap back to appropriate behavior when speaking with others.
The most helpful information I have gotten is dog breeders do not put puppies with the same mother in the same home because since birth they competed with each other. The life story my sister created for herself, was running her, not her better judgment and in her mind, I was competing with her and inconsiderate of her feelings. This is pretty common in sister and brother relationships and it goes against any chance of having a good outcome because the person is not wholly in the here and now but has a childhood perspective of what is so.
Going by your definitions of consciousness and intelligence, the idea of truly free thinking AGI is probably a long way off at present. It would come down to beings capable of insight, as the eureka moments of creativity. This is rare in humans, especially as humans make very flawed choices.
Some of this comes down to the aspects of lower self, or ego as opposed to altruism. However, with AGI there is the question of the development of balance based on sensation, intuition, rationality and emotions. Rationality alone without the other aspects may lead to the absence of empathy and compassion, necessary for altruistic consideration.
Of course, it may be possible to programme AGI with the categorical imperative for consideration of the needs of others, but applied without discernment it may lead become too utilitarian. The existence of an inner world may be necessary for a sense of duty inherent in free moral choices.
What you are saying about your experience with your sister shows the power of nurture inherent in our core thinking. As Freud suggested, so much of our basic personality structure is determined in our first 5 years. This is also consistent with the neurochemistry of thought, with the added factor of nature, including genetics, alongside nurture.
It is so difficult to break free from our constructions and defence mechanisms of the past. I don't have brothers or sisters, but I am aware that I am restricted by aspects of childhood patterns of thinking. In particular, I am inclined to go into the victim mode as a doorway into negative thinking.
Cognitive behavioral therapy is more focused on the present as opposed to the analysis of the past in psychoanalytic therapy. Making changes is very far from easy though, as it may require a need to reframe the past. It may require a lot of work on oneself to do this effectively and consistently. In this sense, free will may not be a given aspect of thinking but as a mode of ability which needs to be developed.
Quoting Jack Cummins
@Jack Cummins - Yes. The past and present are intertwined and affect our behaviour. Defence mechanisms can be helpful or otherwise. Our predictions or expectations in close relationships are susceptible to memories and events replayed in our minds. Attitudes towards others can be ingrained and become part of who we are, our personality and sense of morality.
We all make judgements, rightly or wrongly. The issue of free will is important when it comes to crimes of passion. Just how much responsibility or accountability a person has.
It can come down to self-mastery and control of emotions. Some people's 'bad' behaviour can be triggered by others who are apparently 'rational' with a 'higher' degree of self-knowledge. Rationality is privileged by those who stand in judgement. Who is more likely to be heard/listened to and understood in a system dominated by males?
There is still a prevalent attitude where females are deemed more irrational and emotional then males.
The police are still 'learning lessons' when it comes to processing domestic/sexual abuse/rape.
There is nothing 'odd' about people behaving better towards 'distanced' others than ones closer in their lives, minds and memories. This can be seen in how carers of elderly parents can be disbelieved by health professionals. The mask is switched from personal angry attacks by the 'demented' to charming and congenial smiles to those in higher authority. Nothing to see here. Move on...
So, there is still some degree of free will left. Even if instinctual. Some control.
However, degree of responsibility is another thing... not easy to assess...
When it comes to our stories, it's not always possible to see the perspective from the 'other side'.
This is where careful and considered questioning comes into play. To examine assumptions and presumptions and so forth...
Please explain what you mean by this phrase. Also why are you anthropomorphizing prospective AGI's metacognition (i.e. why assume that 'nonbiological thinking' is to think like humans)?
You triggered some thoughts in my head.
Number one thought is how important is the first 5 years. I think that information is stored in our subconscious and pops up automatically when something in the present triggers it. As for the recent drama with my sister, I would swear that was a frightened 3-year-old child with no developed self-defense skills other than screaming and attacking, and no language to explain the situation and the choices in that situation.
Number 2 is linguistics therapy, that explores those hidden thoughts and emotions and rewrites them. Many years ago stress triggered my PTS and instead of being one person having different experiences, I became several people fighting for control and one was a murder. Not a fun experience. My therapist regressed me to the traumatized one-year-old and helped me rewrite the story created by the infant. Amazingly that snapped me back together and I was once again one person having different experiences. I am a firm believer in the power of linguistics therapy and rewriting our personal life stories.
Number three is Eastern philosophy. From this Eastern perspective, we intentionally learn virtues and intentionally practice and practice them until they become habits. That might be the key to freedom that you are looking for. If we do not use a spot in our brain, the cells will atrophy. The cells we do use grow. Imagine the intentional adult in control and freedom from the past.
I work on both rewriting the past and focusing on virtues. But I have the luxury of security that a younger person is not apt to have. It is insane to leave a person with intense insecurity and expect good results. It is a little crazy to feel safe when in fact one is not safe. :rofl: Much of my life was an exercise of insanity. Trying to make myself believe things were better than they were and functioning without the social support we need. Man, it is not easy being human. But we can use Virtue cards, and use them when we are not sure of what to do and in so doing make living with virtues a habit.
PS Quoting Amity post is a good one. When I came of age, women were expected to marry, have children, and stay home to be homemakers. I strongly value that and believe it is essential to civilization, but it is not 100% good. There were problems with that.
I think a good compromise would be returning to college, getting a degree, and then having a career. Individually we can not make a perfect world, but I believe together we can manifest a better reality.
There is so much 'assumption' involved in the concept of free will, which may be one of the reasons why many have sought to think outside of the idea. The phenomena of human judgmentalness can be a stumbling block in how behaviour and choices are made. It comes down to ideas of judges, and biases, including racism and sexism.
It may be a grey and debatable area, because moral responsibility may be relinquished under determinism or seen too rigidly in ideas of free will. This may mean that all aspects of specific choices need to be looked at clearly. This would suggest the need for individuals to be able to analyse or think about the factors involved in choice and even examine them in understanding the psychological and philosophical aspects of choice.
Language and linguistics is important in the navigation of choices. This may be where human beings differ so greatly from animals. Lqnguage is at the core of human meaning and understanding. As the cognitive behavioral thinkers suggest, emotions and behaviour are not caused by experiences but by our interpretation of them. Nevertheless, it is a difficult area because while humans may struggle with interpretation and framing, the experiences of perceived 'trauma' has lasting effects, including upon the brain and biochemistry, This includes PTSD and the basis of so much which is experienced and diagnosed as 'mental illness'.
I am aware of your previous references to the idea of 'free thinking.' I do see it as thinking independently of socialised and conventional forms of thinking. I would go a stage further and see it as being about standing back from one's own thoughts as far as possible in critical thinking.
The whole issue of anthromorphising ideas of AGI is also an important area for philosophy. Today, I came across a book which explores this. . It is, 'The Book of Minds: Understanding Ourselves and Other Beings, from Animals to Aliens', Philip Ball (2022). He looks at the nature of anthromorphism about human 'minds', as well as questioning ideas of 'intelligence'. I have been reading it this evening and hope to add a further entry tomorrow, especially as there is a chapter on the nature of choice.
With all due respect, I suspect a less superficial (non-technical) gloss on the topic of 'nonhuman intelligence' is popularist Yuval Noah Harari's Homo Deus (2016). YMMV.
As far as I'm concerned, Jack, anthropomorphizing intelligence / mind (as you and others do) shows a basic lack of knowledge of cognitive sciences in general, artificial intelligence in particular and related concepts covered by the philosophy of mind. Your subjectivist / folk psychological qualifiers such as "intuition" "truly free will" "consciousness" "inner world" "emotion" "insight" "empathy and compassion" "truly free thinking" etc have nothing substantive to say about nonhuman nonbiological metacognition such as prospective AGI (or 'strong AI' ... rather than mere chatbots/LLMs & expert systems).
And you still haven't addressed, Jack, (1) why you assume 'self-aware intelligence requires consciousness (i.e. any phenomenology whatsoever)' or (2) why compatibilism (re: embodied volition whether in biological or nonbiological systems) does not suffice to address the concerns of your OP.
The gist of Ball's argument is that there is a great diversity of 'minds' ranging from animals, humans and artificial 'minds'. He argues that there is a tendency towards mindedness in the path of evolution and this involves 'agency'. He does not rule out the creation of 'mind' artificially points to the role of meaning and purpose in this process within systems. One point which he makes, which I think is extremely important is that it is highly likely that organisations will have a shaping role in the forms of technology created. This is a very basic summary of his ideas.
In thinking about Ball's writing and the nature of artificial intelligence, my own position is that such forms are unlikely to be merely neutral but bound up with ideological values. In particular, as with transhumanism, there are political aspects, especially the interests of the wealthy and powerful elite. Freedom and will as concepts does not involve equality of interests necessarily Just as the philosophy of Christendom protected the powerful, the philosophy of AGI is connected with ideological interests within science and, those who fund research and projects
Quoting Amity
I wish I had remembers the words '"emotions and behaviour are not caused by experiences but by our interpretation of them." when I was in the heat of an emotional storm with my sister. I was so aware of that, but could not put the right words to that awareness at the time. :rofl: It can be hard to be rational when the bombs are falling. But I did know my sister was in her little girl story and ideas of competition.
The chemical component of past trouble concerns me. That does not seem fair to me. A bad experience is bad enough, but to live with it our whole lives just isn't fair.
WOW! I just looked for more information and especially this jumps out at me as very important!
I so wish I could get my brain to write books. One would be "Our Shared Trauma" and it would about how the Great Depression and Second World War traumatized us. Us being worldwide but my thoughts are limited to knowledge of the US experience. There are some good books about what war does to human beings, and always periods of war and famine have scarred human beings. The way we talk about this today gives us some hope for a more civilized future.
And relevant to the thread title, what does an inability to live life free from the effects of such scars say about free will?
I have worked with many people who have experienced PTSD, including those who have suffered serious effects from war situations in various parts of the world. So many aspects of trauma affect people, including childhood sexual abuse. Such trauma can be seen as extremely damaging and there is also a crossover between people diagnosed with PTSD and personality disorders.
Of course, it would be an error to see such damage as being damaging beyond repair necessarily. But, it may take a lot of therapy and support for healing to occur. This is especially true when those who have a history of early childhood trauma experience severe life stresses at later points in life as well.
Again, reread and address the rest of my post ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/932449
The nature of childhood trauma and development of AGI are different. That is because while traumas do have a damaging effect, such traumas impair quality of life mainly. The creation of AGI is more about the development of a different kind of being entirely.
I have looked back at your previous linked post and it seems that you value 'intelligence' in an extremely abstract way. I am certainly not of the opinion that human thinking is always supreme. However, what the danger of AGI involves is the attempt to surpass the human in the darkest sense of Nietzche's idea of going 'Beyond Good and Evil'.
The danger of trying to create intelligence which is different from the human is that it is 'cold' and brutal and may be the death of ethics itself. The idea of artificial intelligence and machines is becoming an ideal, as being greater than the human values. It involves a shift in seeing intelligence as primary as opposed to consciousness as being. Itis a way of legitimising brutality and mass destruction, which is happening in so many parts of the world . It is the opposite of the idea of wisdom in thinking and choice.
The path of creating AGI is the radical alternative to the idea of the development and value human consciousness itself. It signifies the idea replacing human beings with the non-human. Do you not see this as being problematic at all?
:roll: Strawman. I never claimed or implied anything about "childhood trauma".
Only to conspiracy paranoids who are terrified of a robo-apocalypse (e.g. The Terminator). Nonsense non sequitur.
I don't have this "problem", Jack :sweat:
It is not about whether you or I have a 'problem' with certain ideas. It is about the future of humanity. As for apocalyptic scenarios, we have already had the Second World War and Hitler in the twentieth first century. In the world presently, there is so much conflict and war, such as the Ukrainian situation and the Middle East. It is not simply science fiction scenarios.
Of course, this involves the dark side of human nature itself. So, what I am querying is for whose benefit is AGI? Surely, what we need is more wisdom which is about development of human values as opposed to the illusionary glamour of AGI. The pursuit of philosophy for human thinking is more important than the artificial in choices.
AGI's "benefit" in the long run. To paraphrase Freddy Zarathustra: Man is rope stretched between animal and AGI ... :smirk:
Nothing I've speculated on above is incompatible with your/my need for wisdom.
Nietzsche was not in the position to judge the benefits or disadvantages of AGI. He was an existential philosopher/poet offering a critique of the consequences of Christianity. He was also not able to see how his ideas would be used by the Nazis. I am not opposed to the idea of AGI but have questions about ethics, and the 'free will' which AGI would offer. This is for humanity and all forms of life.
At the present time, we are in the position to think about 'wisdom'? With the current developments information is replacing 'wisdom'. I would say that freedom of thought involves being able to think about the future consequences of thought. Would AGI ever be able to develop wisdom?
The idea of free will was a doctrine in the past which came loaded with ideas of sin, the fall of mankind etc. However, what the notion of free will, even seen in the paradox of compatabilism, does maintain the idea of moral responsibility.
I imagine that AGI will not primarily benefit humans, and will eventually surpass us in every cognitive way. Any benefits to us, I also imagine (best case scenario), will be fortuitous by-products of AGI's hyper-productivity in all (formerly human) technical, scientific, economic and organizational endeavors. 'Civilization' metacognitively automated by AGI so that options for further developing human culture (e.g. arts, recreation, win-win social relations) will be optimized but will most of us / our descendants take advantage of such an optimal space for cultural expression or just continue amusing ourselves to death? :chin:
Thus, as I've already pointed out, the human "need for wisdom" (e.g. ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics) will remain to be cultivated by us reflectively and dialectically (like other modes of hygiene & fitness) so long as the human condition (i.e. facticity) remains. the advent itself of AGI will not change that. And compatibilism (re: embodied metacognitive volition, ergo moral agency) suffices, so I don't see it's conceptualization as either paradoxical or problematic (i.e. like the MBP, "free will vs determinism" is a pseudo-problem).
It is crazy making when something triggers emotions that bring past feelings into the present and the person experiencing this is not aware of the problem being in the past. The person may know the present reactions are inappropriate for the present but have no control over the feelings. Awareness of the traumatizing event is essential to regaining sanity.
Because preverbal children have no verbal explanation of what happened, they can't be aware of it without someone explaining what happened. Fortunately, my mother told me of discovering I had one leg shorter than the other and I had trouble walking. That is why I was put in a body cast and the doctor was pretty careless with me when he dropped me on the table like a suitcase and told my mother she could take me home. But I didn't understand the chaotic terror I felt until I did EST and regressed to that moment in time.
I would say preverbal babies record such moments emotionally and don't have words to explain what happened. I might be stuck with that time in my history if my mother had not told me, and I had not found the explanation of PSTD and had not read a book about traumatized children. I was diagnosed as having PSTD but the event that caused it was unknown. When I told professionals what happened to me they ignored the possibility that the medical procedure could have been traumatic. I had been molested when in my teens and the therapists were hung up on that. When I asked why that would cause a problem I was told the child's body could not cope with such a terrible thing. Huh?. The molestation led to a family problem but in itself was not so terrible compared to being encased in cement for a year. :lol: I am angry about people being unaware of how badly medical procedures can affect a child. Hopefully today, doctors recognize there is a sentient being in the body they are treating and the primary caregiver may need extra support to feel confident in their ability to care for the child.
I think what we know now can result in a better world. Human beings have been very barbaric, Wars are very barbaric and it is shocking to me that some nations today are still acting like chimpanzees in the wild. We have nations acting like preverbal animals and thinking their barbaric behavior is justified. For every baby in the world, I am saying that barbaric behavior can never be justified. War is a crime against children.
Pain requires an organic body that can be aware of pain. This is true for any pain or feelings of joy. Without the body, feelings can not exist and without feelings, judgment is lacking an important piece of information.
The experiences before language has been grasped are probably not processed fully. That may be what is so problematic about childhood traumas. This applies to desires and will as well. Language is so central to understanding, choices of thinking and choices in behaviour. The development of ability to articulate experiences and choices is so variable in adults too.
Kahneman's ideas on 'Fast and Slow Thinking' are relevant here. The experience of are useful here. In particular, his differentiation between the experiencing self and the narrative self is useful. Even though he says that the two constructs are interrelated, the two modes are related to how life is experienced in the moment and seen in retrospect. The framing of past experiences can be seen as important in the construction of future choices, especially as the ongoing development of will.
I did most certainly notice your paraphrasing of Nietzsche and its relevance. Also, having read Yuval Noah Harari's 'Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow' (2016) about 6 or 7 years ago, I have reread it on the basis of this thread discussion. It has given me a lot to think about and I am seeking to focus it on the topic of free will, even though the discussion of artificial intelligence is interrelated.
A lot seems to have happened in the world since 2016, including the pandemic and large scale wars. If anything, I am wondering if a lot of what is being seen is to do with the biotechnical, or transhuman agenda. My worst fear is that what may be happening in the world is bound up with a strategic attempt to reduce the population globally. This would be connected to the attempt to upgrade humans, mainly the elite, into symbolic 'gods'. The increasing division between the rich and poor would suggest this in an alarming way.
But, back on track with the topic of free will, one interesting parallel is ideas of freedom in libertarianism and its philosophy. He suggests that such philosophy has been challenged by neuroscience. One key argument, which corresponds with your own view, is the emphasis upon intelligence as opposed to consciousness. He suggests that intelligence is more important than consciousness in the larger scheme, with consciousness being 'optional'.
His argument culminates in the idea of dataism. This seems to suggest that information is more important than experience. What seems lacking is any central purpose if consciousness of embodied existence ceases to exist. Of course, it may exist for those sentient beings and humans who continue to exist, but that makes it extremely elitist politically.
As @Athena suggests pain is bound up with sentience and consciousness. The idea of information as the goal seems a little bit pointless, although I am seeing it from the human perspective as opposed to that of a god. But what is the point of a disembodied 'god'?
Nevertheless, Harari does suggest that the shape of artificial intelligence is not deterministic. So what may be important is human thinking in shaping it. One aspect which he points to is how human will may be changed in the engineering of humans in the future. This involves the engineering of desire itself. What happens here is critical and the basic philosophical principles on which this is crafted. If what Harari is saying is an accurate reflection of what is happening, humanity is at an extremely critical crossroads of choice.