Is free-will dependent on something immaterial?

[WaveJumper]

I think it's an aspect of the human mind and body changing to adapt to a new environment.

Brain and mind aren't the same(brain is physical, whereas mind is not). Have you changed your mind that besides brain there is also the mind?

 

[WaveJumper]

“Honestly I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the freedom of the human will. I have a feeling, for instance, that I will something or other; but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand at all. I feel that I will to light my pipe and I do it; but how can I connect this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing? Schopenhauer once said, "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."…When you mention people who speak of such a thing as free will in nature it is difficult for me to find a suitable reply. The idea is of course preposterous.”
Einstein

A neanderthal couldn't explain a nuclear chain reaction. Does that mean that such a reaction would be caused by the banging of a stone onto another stone? What if the Neanderthal hasn't reached the intellectual level to comprehend nuclear chain reactions? Should he be assuming his stones are the be-all end-all?

 

[wittgenstein]

I think what Einstein is saying is that for a free will act to exist it must involve an infinite regress. Perhaps a soul can plow thru an infinite regress.*

* Note that for the purposes of this thread I am not taking a pro or con position regarding the soul. I am only agreeing with Einstein that if an entity has free will it must be able to accomplish an infinite task. I find that doubtful, but that's another subject.

 

[kldickson]

No. I have not. Brain and mind are one and the same; the 'mind' is a collection of processes of the brain. Mental and physical, when it comes to the brain, are the same.

(I'm a neurobiology student. I think I'm more informed than the average yutz about this.)

The Neanderthal, in this case, frankly wouldn't know, since he hasn't assumed the right technological level. I'm not sure what he ought to do. He's not at the same technological level.

 

[kldickson]

Speaking of brain and 'mind', you would do well to remember the story of Phineas Gage, which proves quite well that you can change personalities by injuring brains, either temporarily or permanently.

 

[kldickson]

Moreover, there's no evidence to suggest the notion that the mind is separate from the brain - all available evidence comes down solidly on the side of physicalism.

 

[kldickson]

Life is not an emergent property of quantum particles. It is an emergent property of organized nucleic acids and associated proteins which utilize an energy source to replicate and form under certain conditions. (Which is discussed in another thread on the 'anthropic principle', which is fraught with connotations of pseudoscience and claims of the supernatural, but seems to me to simply say the obvious -that the universe contains the proper conditions to sustain life, since we happen to exist; no implications of pseudoscience or supernatural at all. It's a question of figuring out what the specifics of those conditions are.)

 

[wittgenstein]

Kldickson
I think the posts are getting confused here. Wavejumper responded to my Einstein quote with that neanderthal analogy. My post was about the logical difficulty in postulating free will. It was not pro or con as to mind-brain duality.

 

[Descartz2000]

I think the question comes down to:

If one choice is made over another, and for free will to be true, someone or some mechanism in the brain must be doing the choosing, yet it can not be tied to a physical process, because if it is, all observable facts point to it being determined or random in principle. So, we are left with a choice that has been made from something non-physical: a soul or something equal to it. Something must guide the choosing. If this 'something' is not correlated with my physical brain and its processes, then it must derive from a source other than the physical brain. One can say emergence may account for free will. However, it seems unlikely a physical process develops among many separate parts and then releases any governing powers it has over what it has emerged. I thought a part of emergence is higher order processes that are dependent on lower level processes. If true, then at what point might free will insert itself into the equation? There is no scientific evidence to date that emergence can lead one towards a path of free will. From what I have read, it seems most of the evidence is on the side of physicalism.

 

[WaveJumper]

Moreover, there's no evidence to suggest the notion that the mind is separate from the brain - all available evidence comes down solidly on the side of physicalism.

What evidence is there that determinism is at play when people who fall in an irrational love(a certain chemical reaction in the brain) and are fighting this chemical abberation? Links please.

 

[WaveJumper]

Life is not an emergent property of quantum particles. It is an emergent property of organized nucleic acids and associated proteins which utilize an energy source to replicate and form under certain conditions. (Which is discussed in another thread on the 'anthropic principle', which is fraught with connotations of pseudoscience and claims of the supernatural, but seems to me to simply say the obvious -that the universe contains the proper conditions to sustain life, since we happen to exist; no implications of pseudoscience or supernatural at all. It's a question of figuring out what the specifics of those conditions are.)

Being a neurobiology student, i think you must know, that all cellular Life is theorized to have evolved from a simple RNA molecule. The first RNA molecule started off by as an emergent property of quantum particles and a molecule is just a configuration of atoms. Those 2 sentences are an essential and fundamental basis for your future knowledge in neurobiology.

 

[kldickson]

Because they're aware of the fact that somehow giving into the chemical impulses is maladaptive. The chemical component of 'love', et cetera, is merely an impulse to go one way or the other; the human has the capacity to act on that or not act on that, much the same way they can have the capacity to murder or not murder when they feel something such as rage.

WaveJumper, your assertion about RNA and life I cannot find in my search of the literature; in any case, RNA is composed of nucleic acids; if by 'quantum particles' you mean 'elementary particles', the thing about, for example, up quarks and down quarks is that from what I know they have a tendency by their nature to form baryons, which include protons and neutrons, with other up quarks and down quarks. These compose the nuclei of atoms, and so on. This really needs more of a chemical perspective than a physical perspective, though you can't neglect the physical perspective.

WaveJumper, am I right in inferring that your background is probably in physics so you probably have relatively less exposure to material on these things?

 

[kldickson]

In fact, the frontal lobe, particularly the areas that regulate executive function, which includes areas that regulate inhibition of impulses, has much to do with the ability to 'bypass instincts'.

 

[wittgenstein]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
Here is a site that offers a interesting take on the mind body issue. Jaynes is now being taken seriously. Perhaps he will be like Alfred Wegener ( continental drift). What do they say? " All truth goes through 3 stages - 1st it's ridiculed. Then it's violently opposed. Finally it's accepted as self-evident. " PS; I love this quote from the site
"If we are going to use this top-down approach, we are going to have to be bold. We are going to have to be speculative, but there is good and bad speculation, and this is not an unparalleled activity in science. […] Those scientists who have no taste for this sort of speculative enterprise will just have to stay in the trenches and do without it, while the rest of us risk embarrassing mistakes and have a lot of fun"
Daniel Dennett

In the same spirit my favorite quote is from Napoleon ( pardon the gender bias but he was from a different time)
"He who fails to risk his reputation is sure to lose it."

 

[JoeDawg]

All truth goes through 3 stages - 1st it's ridiculed. Then it's violently opposed. Finally it's accepted as self-evident. "

The favorite quote of every crackpot.

 

[WaveJumper]

Because they're aware of the fact that somehow giving into the chemical impulses is maladaptive. The chemical component of 'love', et cetera, is merely an impulse to go one way or the other; the human has the capacity to act on that or not act on that, much the same way they can have the capacity to murder or not murder when they feel something such as rage.

And this is explained How by physicalism? Why is the human able to act counter to its instincts? It is a doomed endeavour to try and explain high-level emergent behaviour(high level simplicity) by a reductionist approach(high level complexity). You can't get a woman in your bed by beating her. For some reason certain approaches just don't work while others do in this universe.

WaveJumper, your assertion about RNA and life I cannot find in my search of the literature

The RNA world hypotesis is pretty old(a few decades, that's an eon in your field of study hehe).

in any case, RNA is composed of nucleic acids; if by 'quantum particles' you mean 'elementary particles', the thing about, for example, up quarks and down quarks is that from what I know they have a tendency by their nature to form baryons, which include protons and neutrons, with other up quarks and down quarks. These compose the nuclei of atoms, and so on. This really needs more of a chemical perspective than a physical perspective, though you can't neglect the physical perspective.

The RNA world hypothesis supposes that the first Life molecule was a very simple self-replicating molecule(not its today's vast information carrier equivalent). This self-replicating molecule must have assembled itself on its own out of a number of atoms. If we reject this idea, we have to seek supernatural origins.

WaveJumper, am I right in inferring that your background is probably in physics so you probably have relatively less exposure to material on these things?

Only partly, i changed my major mid-term but my fascination with physics has remained ever since.

 

[wittgenstein]

"The favorite quote of every crackpot."
JoeDawg Probably true. But its also true that Wegener, Georg Cantor and Einstein* would ( tho perhaps not put it at the top) look very favorably on it.Or are you labeling Jaynes a 'kook" without bothering to read the recent papers about his theory?
* Or even Wittgenstein. At first the Tractatus was considered unworthy of even being published. Now the Tractatus is considered one of the seminal works of 20th century philosophy.

 

[Descartz2000]

"The favorite quote of every crackpot."
JoeDawg


Probably true. But its also true that Wegener, Georg Cantor and Einstein* would ( tho perhaps not put it at the top) look very favorably on it.Or are you labeling Jaynes a 'kook" without bothering to read the recent papers about his theory?
* Or even Wittgenstein. At first the Tractatus was considered unworthy of even being published. Now the Tractatus is considered one of the seminal works of 20th century philosophy.

I have read some of his theory and it seems to me that higher order thinking and consciousness is likely correlated with language development. However, I would question if one causes the other, my guess is that they both emerged in sync with one another. However, I highly doubt that earlier man found insight and guidance through voices. It seems if the evolution of the human brain is developed enough to create the voices in the first place, then why would these voices be required to guide his actions? This illustrates a type of dualism within the brain, which seems unlikely. I thought science has moved beyond dualism?

 

[wittgenstein]

Science has gone beyond dualism in what sense? Jaynes is talking about the brain having separate areas for separate functions and in his theory he is speaking of two parts (dualism).

 

[wittgenstein]

One side "tells" the other side what to do. We have integrated the two functions, but according to Jaynes back then the functions were more separate. Therefore there is a sense that the information is separate and given to us ( or at least one side of the brain).

 

[Descartz2000]

Science has gone beyond dualism in what sense? Jaynes is talking about the brain having separate areas for separate functions and in his theory he is speaking of two parts (dualism).

It seems there is no reason to assume that earlier man is guided by voices similar to a psychotic episode. There is a dualistic nature to this approach: the voices and the experiencer.

 

[wittgenstein]

Or are you saying that language caused the integration? If you prefer you can speak of language as a bio-chemical processing of information and ignore the qualia aspect of language.
The above was written before I saw your response.
In response to what you just said. Isn't it true that we "hear" a voice in our head when we think. When I think I create sentences in my mind. The only difference is that now ( as opposed to primal people) I see them ( the sentences) as part of me because both sides of my brain are integrated. I am not taking a pro or con position as to Jaynes only trying to understand his ideas and why they are no longer considered unworthy of investigation.

 

[Descartz2000]

Or are you saying that language caused the integration? If you prefer you can speak of language as a bio-chemical processing of information and ignore the qualia aspect of language.
The above was written before I saw your response.
In response to what you just said. Isn't it true that we "hear" a voice in our head when we think. When I think I create sentences in my mind. The only difference is that now ( as opposed to primal people) I see them ( the sentences) as part of me because both sides of my brain are integrated. I am not taking a pro or con position as to Jaynes only trying to understand his ideas and why they are no longer considered unworthy of investigation.

I would agree that when I 'think' it correlates to a voice type phenomena of some kind (not really a voice, but more of a recognition of language that I have in my head). I just doubt this relationship was separate in earlier man. I am not sure it was required for thought. I mean why couldn't thought develop without this separation?

 

[kldickson]

And this is explained How by physicalism? Why is the human able to act counter to its instincts? It is a doomed endeavour to try and explain high-level emergent behaviour(high level simplicity) by a reductionist approach(high level complexity). You can't get a woman in your bed by beating her. For some reason certain approaches just don't work while others do in this universe.

The RNA world hypotesis is pretty old(a few decades, that's an eon in your field of study hehe).

The RNA world hypothesis supposes that the first Life molecule was a very simple self-replicating molecule(not its today's vast information carrier equivalent). This self-replicating molecule must have assembled itself on its own out of a number of atoms. If we reject this idea, we have to seek supernatural origins.

Only partly, i changed my major mid-term but my fascination with physics has remained ever since.

The reason my explanation works is that we have a set of functions known as the executive functions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions ), which governs, essentially, cognitive control and expression of other aspects of, well, oneself. It governs everything from attention to sexuality; people with frontal lobe injuries can have issues controlling their temper or their urge to grab food when they are hungry when they did not have these problems before the injury.

I would appreciate it if you would point me to some resources about the RNA world hypothesis so I can read in depth about it a little more; as it stands, I am skeptical of the RNA world hypothesis's claims of emergence from quantum molecules and of any necessity of supernatural origins.

 

[wittgenstein]

"There is a dualistic nature to this approach: the voices and the experiencer."
Descartz2000
But does this not also apply to our own situation? The speaker of the voice in our mind is also the listener ( or as you put it the experiencer). Why would the speaker talk? To explain his own ideas to himself? Perhaps, this is why we feel that we can directly see into ourselves ( thoughts) and also why we can be objective about our internal states. But can an eye see itself? Does not this imply that what we think are one are actually two? In dreams we are the script writer and the actor. And sometimes the actor does not know what the script writer has in store for him or her! Note that I am not postulating a soul or anything like that. Only that the brain having two parts theory can explain the phenomenon.

 

[Anticitizen]

Yes, that's pretty much what Jaynes was getting at - and that before this mechanism took place, mankind was not truly conscious.

Whether you buy his theory or not, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind was one of the most interesting and well-written scientific books I've ever read. I think the first few chapters, which address a working definition of (and the 'problem' with) consciousness should be required reading for psychologists and philosophers.

 

[JoeDawg]

"The favorite quote of every crackpot."
JoeDawg


Or are you labeling Jaynes a 'kook" without bothering to read the recent papers about his theory?

No, I just don't think the fact someone is called a kook means we should listen to them.