Do Our Experiences Shape Our Thoughts or Do We Control Our Thinking?

[frost_zero]

Do we really "think" our thoughts or are they just influenced by our experiences with no actual control given to us; or if we do take our own decisions then is the process similar to how computers return true/false values (if, else, else if, etc.)?

 

[anuttarasammyak]

I find no confident ways and methods to distinguish or judge the two postulates you stated.

 

[phinds]

Do we really "think" our thoughts or are they just influenced by our experiences

What possible difference do you see between these two symbiotic characterizations of the human experience?

 

[HAYAO]

How do you define "really" think? You make it sound as if there is some sort of absolute self-aware soul that makes it's decisions freely. If you want to ask this question, then you might want to define things first.

 

[frost_zero]

this thread was moved from biology; but I only wanted the biological answer of how we think, not about anything philosophical like soul, etc.; basically what I wanted to know is how neurons "decide", computers don't have consciousness yet they can take simple logical decisions. So is the process of neurons taking decisions just like that or way more complex?

 

[symbolipoint]

this thread was moved from biology; but I only wanted the biological answer of how we think, not about anything philosophical like soul, etc.; basically what I wanted to know is how neurons "decide", computers don't have consciousness yet they can take simple logical decisions. So is the process of neurons taking decisions just like that or way more complex?

Thanks.
Computers as we are familiar, were not made by nature. They were man-made. Very smart humans tell them how to think.

 

[HAYAO]

this thread was moved from biology; but I only wanted the biological answer of how we think, not about anything philosophical like soul, etc.; basically what I wanted to know is how neurons "decide", computers don't have consciousness yet they can take simple logical decisions. So is the process of neurons taking decisions just like that or way more complex?

What I said as "soul" wasn't meant to be taken seriously. But even though, the argument still stands. If you want to know how neurons "decide" things, you have to define what it means to "decide". For example, let's say that apples were hypothetical objects and no one has ever seen it before (sorry those who love apples). I can define oranges as apples, so if I have an orange in my hand, I could say that apples exist. But that's not a meaningful definition of an apple at all, right? That's the point. Do birds "decide" to mate? Do human "decide" to mate? Before asking such question, you really have to define what it means to be autonomous because you can actually come to a polar opposite conclusion depending on how you define it. And when you define things, it needs to be something meaningful for the discussion.

BTW, I'm not saying your question is bad. Quite on the contrary, it's quite important.

 

[anuttarasammyak]

basically what I wanted to know is how neurons "decide", computers don't have consciousness yet they can take simple logical decisions. So is the process of neurons taking decisions just like that or way more complex?

Libet's experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet would propose the hypothesis that we are disguised to have a right to decision or free will which computers do not own neither.

 

[mattt]

I sincerely have never had an experience of "free will" ( as people normally describe it).

I have the experience that "some decisions" are taking place in my head (if I happen to watch carefully into my mind) but I don't have the feeling that I am "doing" anything.

It is more that I am an "observer" of that process (of which many things I ignore) and I am possibly the first "conscious entity" to access to the end result of that process of decision, but I am more of an "observer" (and only of some parts of this complex process) than a "doer".

Some people that normally practice meditation also have this experience, but most people apparently don't.

That is why for me it is not "hard" to conceive that everything (including our decisions) are ultimately explainable by means of Physics (that is, they are physical processes).

For me, then, one of the most important things that still remains to be done, is finding (creating, defining) adequate mathematical concepts (mathematical structures) that may allow us to better understand (to have a useful, solid model) of when and why a physical system entails "phenomenological experiences" or not.

 

[Jarvis323]

I sincerely have never had an experience of "free will" ( as people normally describe it).

I have the experience that "some decisions" are taking place in my head (if I happen to watch carefully into my mind) but I don't have the feeling that I am "doing" anything.

It is more that I am an "observer" of that process ...

When you say "I", I assume you are talking about your conscious mind. How about the subconsciousmind? Don't you still have to ask whether your subconsciousmind is part of "you" and then ask the questions about how it makes decisions as well, and whether there are phenomenological experiences taking place in your mind that your conscious mind is not privy to?

 

[mattt]

When you say "I", I assume you are talking about your conscious mind. How about the subconsciousmind? Don't you still have to ask whether your subconsciousmind is part of "you" and then ask the questions about how it makes decisions as well, and whether there are phenomenological experiences taking place in your mind that your conscious mind is not privy to?

Yes, it's difficult to put into words these complex experiences.

I am sure that there are "phenomenological contents" constantly forming and that most of them possibly never enter my "conscious sphere".

I don't know if these "lost" contents are experienced by any other entity (inside my head) other than what I call "I", but I doubt it.

The problem is precisely that we still don't have a good model of when and why a physical system give rise to phenomenological contents.

For all I know, what we call "a tree" or "a rock" may entail something similar (or possibly very different) to "phenomenological content", how can we know?

 

[Jarvis323]

For all I know, what we call "a tree" or "a rock" may entail something similar (or possibly very different) to "phenomenological content", how can we know?

You bring up another good point, which is that the "phenomenological content" that we can reliably understand/classify is at best only our own. So how can we classify things which we don't know? At best, we can try to specify our intuition of what we should consider to be "phenomenological content" which is centered around the interpretation of our own experiences.

The only serious attempt at a mathematical model of consciousness that I am aware of is integrated information. But if you accept that as a measure of consciousness, then you have to accept that things like MP3s have a large amount of consciousness. Certainly, we don't think that an MP3 on your hard disk has "phenomenological experiences", or that it is conscious in any significant way.

 

[hutchphd]

Cogito, ergo sum

I'm a solipsist. And quite frankly I'm surprised there aren't more of us.

!

 

[symbolipoint]

Cogito, ergo sum

I'm a solipsist. And quite frankly I'm surprised there aren't more of us.

!

That settles the question!

 

[artis]

Cogito, ergo sum

I'm a solipsist. And quite frankly I'm surprised there aren't more of us.

!

Solipsism is somewhat similar to certain types of Buddhism in it's approach to outside reality, postulating that all existence is the result of ones mind and one's "self". From a purely scientific point of view there I see a problem, we might not know the details of how life came to be on Earth but we do know that the universe existed before our minds, that is undeniable, unless ofcourse one approaches this from a religious standpoint and claims that our mind is just a human version of a higher mind (oneness) that existed before and eventually also made the universe. But scientifically looking at this, there has to be an objective reality outside of what "you think" because stuff was already here before you had the chance to "think" and your own brain/mind is merely the result of this.

computers don't have consciousness yet they can take simple logical decisions. So is the process of neurons taking decisions just like that or way more complex?

Computers have never taken any decisions. A computer works the way it does and that is purely dictated by physics. A CMOS switch within a CPU cannot make a choice to either switch or not , it simply follow what physics dictates it to do. It can not switch when "commanded" to do so but that can only happen in case of malfunction. This is why programs crash eventually, every calculation requires time and as time goes there is a non zero possibility of a transistor malfunction somewhere in one of the chips along the way. (this probability of malfunction also increases with time as the chips age)
Neurons can also malfunction , there are a great number of nerve related issues that can impact their function. In general neurons/axons etc are way way more complex than any computer we have ever built, first of all they are extremely compact if compared to transistors.
Your brain works on an average of 20w equivalent of power yet it has the approximate computing power that is better than our current best supercomputers that consume MW or power and take up whole buildings still.
The only reason why a computer can do calculations faster is because silicone switches are fast and mathematical functions can be well executed within a binary system.
But in terms of general intelligence with very varied tasks our brains still outperforms computers.

Do neurons make decisions? Well I don't know , most likely not conscious ones that you would label as decisions. But the brain does make constant predictions about the world around us.
Try walking up a familiar staircase with eyes closed. As you slowly approach the first step and stumble your foot against it at that moment you have a "mindpicture" with the stairs in front of you and your movements are guided by the memories embedded in your cortical memory which themselves are based on neurons and synapses made earlier while walking down stairs in general as well as this particular familiar one.

What interests me personally is how consciousness arises in the first place. Is it simply the net result of sensory input/output combined with learned memories and all predictions are made solely based on that or is there a higher order "program" running in the background that itself observes the inputs outputs and memories and can intervene at certain points if need be.

 

[BillTre]

Try thinking about how consciousness, as a fancy kind of behavior/behavior control, benefits the organism, so that it is a condition that is selected for and stays around.

To me, this is a biological problem, to basically produce adapative control of the body and its behavior.

Consciousness will have some kind of benefit (like better understanding what is going on, or what you can do).

I like to consider it possible ways it might have evolved, thus how it got built.
And what were the selective forces on them at different times.

As animals evolved, they started moving around. The requires control mechanisms to control muscles (motor controls of a motor nervous system). It also has to generate patterns of muscle activity to generate useful behaviors (which will be selected, when present).
This can be done with very simple nervous systems (like a worm's (some are microscopic)).
As the body grows more complex with additional body parts to control, particular parts of the nervous system expand to meet the need for innervation. There is also a sensory innervation, collecting various sensory inputs, in an organized way from different body parts. Some of this is sensing body conditions and locations which can feedback and control neural activity.

This kind of a nervous system (a worm, or maybe a polycheate worm (has little "legs"), or a velvet worm (has big legs)) is enough to generate simple, un-directed movement, which would have a low adaptive value (it wouldn't be worth much wrt producing successful offspring).
Something with a worm level of organization will have a front end and back end (direction of digestion through a tubular gut). Its predetermined direction of movement also determines where it is most important to sense (where you are going).
Sensory organs would develop on the front end to direct the movement generated in the other parts of the nervous system. (head determines where the worm goes)
More processing required, bigger nervous system evolves.
The front of the nervous system becomes the brain.

Next (or concurrently) they would likely generate general map of things locally around its body.
Than it would generate a map things further away, possibly using distance senses, like vision.
Things like flies can do this. Some of them have brains smaller than a pinhead.
Eventually, it would be able to make and access maps of the local areas they occupy, and the pathways between them.
Honeybees can do this.

I think of consciousness as a self-generated self image (based on your nervous systems sensing of itself and some built in neural mechanisms), that (in your head) tests out possibilities, within it's very complex model it has built up of its physical surroundings.
Simple animals can make simple versions of these kinds of maps. People do it more complexly adn to greater depth.
This is the interaction of an informational representation of the outside world (the stage), and the entity (the actor, whose behaviors will be selected), with the goal of favoring their own success (ultimately reproduction).
A selective mechanism to better choose information from the complex mix of environmental and body information, will have to be directed (by self or not) somewhere to maximize effectiveness.
The nervous system can not examine in detail, every little neural twitch. Not enough processing power.
It has to be picky about what gets the focus of important parts of its functioning (and where it puts its limited amounts of energy) within the nervous system.
Being conscious, (seems to me to) be being the observant thing (a very complex information structure exploring the nervous system's image of its surroundings), within the nervous system's overall functioning.

If I wanted to I would argue that the consciousness experienced by people is probably also experienced by a lot of other animals. To differing levels.

 

[mattt]

Try thinking about how consciousness, as a fancy kind of behavior/behavior control, benefits the organism, so that it is a condition that is selected for and stays around.

To me, this is a biological problem, to basically produce adapative control of the body and its behavior.

Consciousness will have some kind of benefit (like better understanding what is going on, or what you can do).

I like to consider it possible ways it might have evolved, thus how it got built.
And what were the selective forces on them at different times.

As animals evolved, they started moving around. The requires control mechanisms to control muscles (motor controls of a motor nervous system). It also has to generate patterns of muscle activity to generate useful behaviors (which will be selected, when present).
This can be done with very simple nervous systems (like a worm's (some are microscopic)).
As the body grows more complex with additional body parts to control, particular parts of the nervous system expand to meet the need for innervation. There is also a sensory innervation, collecting various sensory inputs, in an organized way from different body parts. Some of this is sensing body conditions and locations which can feedback and control neural activity.

This kind of a nervous system (a worm, or maybe a polycheate worm (has little "legs"), or a velvet worm (has big legs)) is enough to generate simple, un-directed movement, which would have a low adaptive value (it wouldn't be worth much wrt producing successful offspring).
Something with a worm level of organization will have a front end and back end (direction of digestion through a tubular gut). Its predetermined direction of movement also determines where it is most important to sense (where you are going).
Sensory organs would develop on the front end to direct the movement generated in the other parts of the nervous system. (head determines where the worm goes)
More processing required, bigger nervous system evolves.
The front of the nervous system becomes the brain.

Next (or concurrently) they would likely generate general map of things locally around its body.
Than it would generate a map things further away, possibly using distance senses, like vision.
Things like flies can do this. Some of them have brains smaller than a pinhead.
Eventually, it would be able to make and access maps of the local areas they occupy, and the pathways between them.
Honeybees can do this.

I think of consciousness as a self-generated self image (based on your nervous systems sensing of itself and some built in neural mechanisms), that (in your head) tests out possibilities, within it's very complex model it has built up of its physical surroundings.
Simple animals can make simple versions of these kinds of maps. People do it more complexly adn to greater depth.
This is the interaction of an informational representation of the outside world (the stage), and the entity (the actor, whose behaviors will be selected), with the goal of favoring their own success (ultimately reproduction).
A selective mechanism to better choose information from the complex mix of environmental and body information, will have to be directed (by self or not) somewhere to maximize effectiveness.
The nervous system can not examine in detail, every little neural twitch. Not enough processing power.
It has to be picky about what gets the focus of important parts of its functioning (and where it puts its limited amounts of energy) within the nervous system.
Being conscious, (seems to me to) be being the observant thing (a very complex information structure exploring the nervous system's image of its surroundings), within the nervous system's overall functioning.

If I wanted to I would argue that the consciousness experienced by people is probably also experienced by a lot of other animals. To differing levels.

I think you will like (you probably already have it) the book "Principles of Neural Design" by Peter Sterling ( I also really liked his other book "What is Health? Allostasis and the evolution of Human Design").

 

[BvU]

Or else Hofstadter: Goedel Escher Bach, The mind's I, I am a strange loop ...

 

[Lord Jestocost]

To me, this is a biological problem, to basically produce adapative control of the body and its behavior.

Consciousness will have some kind of benefit (like better understanding what is going on, or what you can do).

But then human beings are merely "conscious automata":

All physical events, human behavior included, are explicable in terms of physical/biological processes; and the phenomena of consciousness are causally inert by-products, epiphenomena.

 

[artis]

But then human beings are merely "conscious automata"

If looking at consciousness from an evolutionary perspective (assuming macroevolution and abiogenesis is correct) then I think that is the only conclusion at which one can arrive.

What I do find interesting in terms of consciousness is the simple fact that our closest biological relative the chimpanzee has about 1/3 the brain size as we do and the parts also have equal relative size to one another when adjusted for size, but in terms of cognitive abilities and general consciousness they are not just 1/3 from ours but much lower than that. One other interesting aspect is that a pilot whale for example has roughly twice as much neurons in it's neocortex as our human brain does and yet it doesn't come anywhere close to our cognitive abilities.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter1/

All of this makes me to suspect/ draw a conclusion that apart from physical size, neuron count , CNS complexity etc, there must be some other aspect that is very influential in how advanced a organism is in terms of cognitive ability and overall consciousness. Most likely this "other" unknown aspect is the most important one given there are animals with rather similar brains as ours yet they don't come anywhere close to us in terms of performance.
Could it be the specifics of how interconnections are made or specifics of the inner architecture of the neocortex?...
Anyway this seems to me a bit similar to how we could put side to side a ICE V8 engine from 1920's and one from 2010's , both would be roughly the same size , similar metals, similar geometry and inner workings yet one makes about 10x the power as the other one, the only problem is this analogy doesn't quite work for the brains because there we don't even know where the major difference lies, although I might be missing something , maybe someone better versed in biology could comment like @BillTre

 

[david2]

Everything is meant to be, and you choose what to see.

 

[256bits]

Sensory organs would develop on the front end to direct the movement generated in the other parts of the nervous system. (head determines where the worm goes)

Then there is the neuro net, such as with jellyfish, functioning of an organism with which to determine surroundings and take appropriate actions.
Or an ameoba, a single celled organism, that functions quite well without 'nerve' sensory capability and 'muscular' exitement as commonly known.

It seems that when nerve cells conglomerate into a brain they specialize in function, or if one prefers retain and/or expand and extend the capabilities of function. The visual sensory function, for example, can produce a more complex eye, with color and distance discretion - the eye sensory organ proper becoming an extension of the brain so the speak,
So if there was a part of the complex brain, say of an ancient worm, that stated ' I think therfor I am', that may have had an influence upon the individual creature however strong or not so strong, but if an adaptable feature such as that that better ensured survival it would be selected.
Knowing where and what that is, is the difficult part to pin down.

If I wanted to I would argue that the consciousness experienced by people is probably also experienced by a lot of other animals. To differing levels.

 

[HAYAO]

This is an interesting conversation IMO. Basically, this is where evolutionary psychology found itself. Human don't really have an "autonomous free-will" although we can think we do. Our thoughts, emotions, and behavior is dictated by what kind of brain people are born with, and what kind of environment they are put in. And humankind has been doing that for millenniums.

One example is ADHD in modern world. From a clinical aspect, ADHD is uncontrollable attention (contrary to common belief that ADHD is a "lack" of attention). Uncontrollable attention means that one can be hyperfocused on one thing and be unable to shift that attention elsewhere until the task is done. This is actually advantageous in life-threatening/urgent situation (one of the types of procrastinator is ADHD where they become hyperfocused at the last minute).

The evolutionary psychology hypothesizes (hunter vs farmer hypothesis) that hunters benefited from having ADHD-like behavior because it is usually life-threatening and requires short-term but intense concentration. Modern society, on the other hand is more of a farmer type society where being able to control that concentration is more advantageous than impulsive concentration. Thus people with ADHD is diagnosed ADHD because their personality is disadvantageous in modern society, and it's the reason they suffer. However, they can find their place where flexibility is important, for example in creative workplaces where being orderly and industrious does not necessarily lead to production. From psychology perspective, ADHD is characterized by having a very low conscientiousness (part of the Big 5 personality trait model). Having low conscientiousness is seen as a bad trait, but in reality, it makes people with such trait to be flexible when put in various situation.

Coming back to the actual discussion, do the ADHDs decide to be ADHDs? Can they "fix" ADHDs? The answer is a big no. They have been hardwired to be that way because certain group of people survived on that trait. In most cases where ADHDs seek help is when they haven't found a productive way to adapt to the society, usually due to their parents and teachers scolding them that makes them feel like they are fundamentally broken. The reality is that none of them are actually broken. They just haven't found a way to use it due to the environment during youth. The answer is actually right in front of them, but they were conditioned to ignore that and was never given a chance to realize the answer.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Human don't really have an "autonomous free-will" although we can think we do.

Up to now, this is merely a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. One has to provide empirical evidence for or against.

 

[Rive]

All of this makes me to suspect/ draw a conclusion that apart from physical size, neuron count , CNS complexity etc, there must be some other aspect that is very influential in how advanced a organism is in terms of cognitive ability and overall consciousness.

Regarding those 'apart from' factors our brain is supposed to be comparably ~ within the same range through the least 100+k years, yet what we call 'cognitive' is definitely very different through the same period. It's very speculative, but tempting to account the difference to culture and knowledge base, as kind of a starting point.

Do we really "think" our thoughts or are they just influenced by our experiences with no actual control given to us

You are asking about 'influence', but the discussion feels more like about the word 'determined'.
I see no exclusive relation between 'really think' and 'being influenced'.

 

[mattt]

I don't think that the potential cognitive ability of Homo Sapiens has changed much (if at all ) in the last 50,000-70,000 years.

They were able to get to Australia (more than two hundred kilometers of open waters) 45,000 years ago (or earlier), and prosper there...

They must have been extremely able.

 

[HAYAO]

Up to now, this is merely a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. One has to provide empirical evidence for or against.

Well, there's a reason why there's a double quotation on that. Most psychologists would consider using "soft" deterministic definition for free-will, especially in clinical psychology where they encourage clients to be more conscious about their behavior in hopes of getting it changed in more productive way (but this itself might not require free-will). In the end, if we completely reject determinism, we end up rejecting the scientific approach to predicting human behavior, which data clearly shows that human behavior can be predicted fairly well (by factoring in personality traits, IQs, upbringing, genetics, etc). There are (overwhelmingly) more empirical evidence in experimental psychology, brain science, and biology to suggest human are fully deterministic in their behavior than the opposite position. There is no full consensus, but it is relatively acceptable to claim that people do not have autonomous free-will than to claim that people do.

On a side note, philosophically speaking, free-will goes in loop and fails itself logically. For example, let's say we have to choose freely whether to eat an apple or an orange right now at this moment. I can choose an apple because either I like them better, or because I ate an orange last night and wasn't "feeling for it", or etc. The point is, if free-will really existed, we should be able to decide if we like apples better, or control "feeling for it". Basically, free-will should be able to free-will the free-will, and that free-will should be able to free-will that. How far can we go with this? Any reason you try to come up for choosing the apple is uncontrollable and predetermined.

 

[hutchphd]

The point is, if free-will really existed, we should be able to decide if we like apples better, or control "feeling for it". Basically, free-will should be able to free-will the free-will, and that free-will should be able to free-will that.

Yes it exists. But

It's turtles all the way down.
.

 

[HAYAO]

Yes it exists. But

It's turtles all the way down.
.

Wow, that book is quite some time ago.

Just a little note (not directed at you): People didn't have MRI's back then to monitor human brain activities. The discussion about "free-will" before those time was more based on experimental psychology and very rough form of brain scans. Most brain science today usually use some sort of tomographic method, hence why we know more than ever. Sure we can't fully prove free-will doesn't exist, but there are overwhelmingly more evidence to support that than not, which is my point.

 

[hutchphd]

Let's See, MRI vs. John Locke. ...sorry I'll take Locke. Not to be flip but I don't see what brain scans bring to the argument.

 

[bland]

Do we really "think" our thoughts or are they just influenced by our experiences with no actual control given to us; or if we do take our own decisions then is the process similar to how computers return true/false values (if, else, else if, etc.)?

We have an intellect, and hopefully we use it to both think and to also filter our thoughts.

 

[HAYAO]

Let's See, MRI vs. John Locke. ...sorry I'll take Locke. Not to be flip but I don't see what brain scans bring to the argument.

No? That's too bad. Brain science tells you a lot about consciousness and stuff like that. Definitely worth studying if that's what you're interested.

 

[artis]

In the end, if we completely reject determinism, we end up rejecting the scientific approach to predicting human behavior, which data clearly shows that human behavior can be predicted fairly well (by factoring in personality traits, IQs, upbringing, genetics, etc). There are (overwhelmingly) more empirical evidence in experimental psychology, brain science, and biology to suggest human are fully deterministic in their behavior than the opposite position.

I disagree, the reason it is "scientific" to claim that these environmental factors impact human nature in a deterministic way is simply because most people cannot overcome their depression or laziness if given "bad cards" but there are plenty of examples on the contrary where folks have used free will against all odds and overcome the harshest of obstacles even in the absence of any motivation (like a prize or money etc).
Here just a few examples, Bach the great composer was deaf at the end of his life, yet he used his teeth to clamp onto his piano and learned to recognize notes by sound frequency.
The American writer Helen Keller was blind and deaf after a unknown illness when she was just a child, she learned to speak and hear sounds afterwards and became a writer. I'm sure that was not easy for her yet she had that motivation within her that many let go of even with perfect sight and hearing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller
I know people who have given up on life with 10 times lesser problems. Determinism? No, free will!

Now this is a story worth telling , During the German siege of what was then called Leningrad , there was a seed bank named Pavlovsk Experimental station which had a large collection of various seeds that scientists had gathered there in case of need.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129499099
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/20/campaign-russia-pavlovsk-seed-bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlovsk_Experimental_Station

During the siege people quickly ran out of food, it was a harsh Russian winter back then it was basically the closest thing to hell one could imagine.
The scientists at the seed bank decided to protect the collection both from starving people as well as themselves. Sit back and think for a second what level of self determination that would involve. They chose to die for a goal that was not even certain against every imaginable reason to survive and definitely against any "evolutionary" instinct.
Here in my country there were folks who back in WW2 decided to hide and save Jews from Nazi extermination, they had families and they knew that if they were to be caught both them and their families would be murdered and yet they chose to do it anyway.
There are examples like these throughout history and to me that is the highest proof of the existence of free will , a proof that no MRI or Xray or EEG will ever be able to disprove.

On a side note, philosophically speaking, free-will goes in loop and fails itself logically. For example, let's say we have to choose freely whether to eat an apple or an orange right now at this moment. I can choose an apple because either I like them better, or because I ate an orange last night and wasn't "feeling for it", or etc. The point is, if free-will really existed, we should be able to decide if we like apples better, or control "feeling for it". Basically, free-will should be able to free-will the free-will, and that free-will should be able to free-will that. How far can we go with this? Any reason you try to come up for choosing the apple is uncontrollable and predetermined.

Again I disagree, not everything within your physical body has to be about free will, whenever a human feels the need to urinate, for example, has nothing to do with free will, we are both biological as well as consciousness entities, mixing up biological needs with consciousness has no point in explaining either. You can have both biological urges that "run in the background" and free will on top of those urges that you use to apply to the more important parts of life like choosing to save a Jewish person during a nazi attack.

All I can say is consciousness is not a computation. As is said by Roger Penrose, I don't agree with him on everything but this statement according my understanding is definitely true.

PS. A little bit of opinion if I'm allowed for such so that the members here can better understand my position.
Now I have to say my opinion is biased just as everyone elses, but I want to be honest, I'm a believer , I believe in God and the supernatural, and not because I was raised to believe it, No! I believe because I have had countless paranormal/supernatural experiences in my life, I have documented them as well as talked to folks I know who have had similar experiences. I dislike religion for matters I cannot go into detail here , but for me there is no doubt in my mind of how can a universe seemingly begin from nothing... Now I can;'t expand on this topic as it won't meet scientific criteria , but I just want to say that if we want to be rational we have to also understand that the universe came before math not the other way around, not all life's mysteries can be solved by trowing them under a scanning electron microscope or a MRI.
Free will exists to my opinion and you won't be able to find it under a diagnostic apparatus because in it's highest form it;s spiritual not physical. The thing you see under a diagnostic apparatus is the physical result of neurons and impulses that are set in motion due to free will, but you can't "measure" will itself.

 

[artis]

In the end, if we completely reject determinism, we end up rejecting the scientific approach to predicting human behavior, which data clearly shows that human behavior can be predicted fairly well (by factoring in personality traits, IQs, upbringing, genetics, etc). There are (overwhelmingly) more empirical evidence in experimental psychology, brain science, and biology to suggest human are fully deterministic in their behavior than the opposite position

Just to expand a bit more on the known popular position you stated here, if this is true then essentially we could put a person in prison not after but before a crime is committed, why? Well let's say in the future we could have complicated algorithms that can indeed put together a person's whole life experiences and upbringing , IQ, genetics etc, and what would we do if such an algorithm would give us the result that with 99% probability this person will commit a crime?
In this "all is deterministic" philosophy approach we could very well send someone to jail before the crime simply out of public safety.
There are examples in history were similar approaches have already been done, one example is Nazi Germany and their Eugenics program.
I am not saying science itself was responsible for this but science can definitely be interpreted by conscious observers and used in different ways based on that interpretation, if you interpret theory (hypothesis) of macroevolution, neurology, etc in a dangerous way you can very well end up with a system that artificially selects for the survival of the fittest simply based on artificially determined variables made by people who think that free will doesn't exist even though ultimately they have no physical proof for that, much like many think God does or does not exist also without the "hard evidence" , that is why I myself advocate for accepting science only if it can produce hard evidence, for the existence of higher consciousness VS consciousness as simply chemo/electrical reactions we so far have insufficient evidence to go either way.

 

[Rive]

On a side note, philosophically speaking, free-will goes in loop and fails itself logically.

On the other side of the same note, people deterministically tends to bet on a range of choices even when the optimal choice is known. There are always rebels.
So kind of: in a group only the indeterminism is determined.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

On a side note, philosophically speaking, free-will goes in loop and fails itself logically.

All assumptions one makes about human beings concern the issuer him-/herself. Thus, to deny the freedom of choice of human beings undermines the scientific approach. Harald Atmanspacher and Hans Primas in “Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science” (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13, 3, 5–50, 2006):

“A most consequential accomplishment of Newton was his insight that the laws of nature have to be separated from initial conditions for these laws.⁵⁹ In experimental physics it is always taken for granted that the future differs from past and present and that experimenters have the freedom to choose or to manipulate (within appropriate limits) the initial conditions and to repeat their experiments at any particular instant.”

 

[mattt]

All assumptions one makes about human beings concern the issuer him-/herself. Thus, to deny the freedom of choice of human beings undermines the scientific approach. Harald Atmanspacher and Hans Primas in “Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science” (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13, 3, 5–50, 2006):

“A most consequential accomplishment of Newton was his insight that the laws of nature have to be separated from initial conditions for these laws.⁵⁹ In experimental physics it is always taken for granted that the future differs from past and present and that experimenters have the freedom to choose or to manipulate (within appropriate limits) the initial conditions and to repeat their experiments at any particular instant.”

So you think that for 13,800 million years, the Universe evolved in a way described with great precision by our current mathematical-physical theories ( based on deterministic and/or deterministic + stochastic dynamical descriptions, that don't allow anything similar to what normal people conceive as "free will"), and then, suddenly, in the last 50,000 - 100,000 years ago, (just here and just us), something completely different arose (non-describable by means of neither deterministic nor stochastic methods) and you call it "free will".

Is this your (or anyone else's) take on this?

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

Unless @Evo sees a reason to re-open this thread, it will stay closed.

After a Moderator discussion, this thread is too philosophical for PF and will stay closed.