Is free will an emergent property of the human brain?

[Evil]

but Iacchus32
u miss my point...what i mean is that everything u do is of free will.just like u can have cooffee then tea or vice versa.so this is where free will comes in. but tis free will is seemingly under the pretext of predestination cos whichever choice u make i can say it is predestined to do so...hence u can say everything is predestined ( this is sort of becoming like mentat's arguement)

 

[Iacchus32]

So at what point does the present not become the present? When it's no longer present and becomes the past. At which point you can't change that which has already happened but, you can change that which is happening currently, and that does involve free will.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the past is based upon the present, and not the other way around ... albeit I will admit that things are predisposed to happen in certain matter, and that these tendencies which, are indicative to determinism, interact with free will as well. Indeed, we can't have things exactly the way we want them which, would be ideal, but that doesn't preclude us from trying!

We also need to consider that we probably don't have the wisdom to know what we really want anyway, in which case it's probably better that we don't always get our way all the time either!

 

[Evil]

but i dun beileve in a exisitent present... look at the thread there is no present...there is only the past and the future
prove me wrong by proving there is a present:p

 

[Iacchus32]

I exist in the present. And I know that I exist in the present. At no other point do I know that I exist. So it's from this standpoint that I have my being, and from this standpoint that I choose -- and it does involve the act of choosing -- what "seems" fitting for me to do.

If I cease to exist in the present then I cease to exist. Which indeed, is what my consciousness tells me.

 

[hamlet69]

free or not to be free that is the question?

to be free in this world requires money because you can choose what you do day to day, but for the poor man who dreams of riches he has to work every day or get lucky, but if he did'nt what to be rich he is free to do what he want even though he can only be free in his mind, is that where we are trully free?

I can walk around in my mind but to travel the world cost's money,

my idea get rid of MONEY,

rambling's from a man who has seen to much , knows to much, and yearns to be a care free child again

 

[Adam]

Ages ago on another forums I posted this question:

We have a few users here obsessed with power, mental slavery, and the words of dead people. How about we define this mental slavery?

Or better yet, define freedom, and in so doing define its opposite.

A simple question can get us started:
1) Is a man in a cage free, if he has no wish to leave that cage?[/color]

It seems to me there are two possible answers:

• A) No. In which case we determine freedom based on the physical.
• B) Yes. In which case freedom is in the mind.

No answers itself.

In the case of B, move forward...

However, if "yes", that gives us one more question:
2) Is the man in the cage aware of a world beyond his cage?[/color]

If the man is aware of all the world beyond his cage, and yet chooses to remain in his cage, is he:

• A) Still help captive be fears and such? (which takes us back to 1)
• B) Free, because he has veiwed all options and made a choice?

In the case of B, he is free.

However, if the man is not aware of the world beynd his cage, that gives rise to a third question:
3) Is ignorance bliss?[/color]

• A) Ignorance of other options means slavery.
• B) Ignorance of other options does not mean slavery.

Would anyone care to create further logical constructs, or answer the final two questions?

This question, I feel, can be applied to the debate about free will and determinism. Consider all past events as the bars of the cage.

 

[Bernardo]

prove me wrong by proving there is a present:p

Go ahead and have a cup of tea or coffee in the future or the past then deny the present.

Without the present you would not be aware of anything. There would be no past and no future. How can you have a future without something for it to come before? How can you have a past without having something it to come before?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Bernardo
prove me wrong by proving there is a present:p

Go ahead and have a cup of tea or coffee in the future or the past then deny the present.

Without the present you would not be aware of anything. There would be no past and no future. How can you have a future without something for it to come before? How can you have a past without having something it to come before?

Simple, the future comes after the past, and the past comes before the future. No other being (other than sentient beings, that is) ever questions that they are not a fundamental entity, but a conglomerate of subatomic processes that are never static...ergo, there needn't be any present for them, merely a continuing movement along the t axis, so why should we need a present?

 

[Canute]

Hmm. That's a very good way of putting the question. I hadn't thought of it from that angle.

 

[Iacchus32]

Why is it that when we open our eyes and become aware that it's always in the present tense?

 

[full-time-climb]

A persons mind may exist in the present, but all of the information reaching it is from the past. We can observe nothing in the present as all information that reaches our senses is information about past events.

John

 

[Iacchus32]

And which past is that? The past that only exists because it was at one time the present?

And what if I were somehow capable of erasing my memories of the past, I would still have my "awareness" of the present wouldn't I?

Hmm ... perhaps like a "newborn babe."

 

[Bernardo]

Honestly I find debating if the present exists ridiculous.

Such thoughts hold no value or benefit to life. They do no advance our understanding of anything. Debates on topics like this are like a washing machine - they only spin and squeak.

 

[Iacchus32]

What is it about the quality of consciousness? And why is it that we can only experience it in the present? And why does our "identity" seem to be associated with it? Indeed, without an identity there would be "no choice" now would there?

Doesn't the fact that you're conscious mean anything to you?

Oh and by the way, if you happen to be looking for God, this is the only place you will find Him, in The Present.

 

[full-time-climb]

Could someone explain to me how we can experience a "present" event?
I don't think is is phyisically possible. All the information coming in arrives after the event has occured. We see and experience only the past.
John

 

[Bernardo]

What is it about the quality of consciousness? And why is it that we can only experience it in the present? And why does our "identity" seem to be associated with it? Indeed, without an identity there would be "no choice" now would there?

I'm not sure if this post is in response to my voice of frustration with this debate but I'll clear up my view; There can be no denying of the present. It's all we have - where we dwell - our own eternity.

I think this debate over 'the present' is a rabbit trail away from the question originaly asked, So... Can anyone show proof that free will exists? That we are not merely directed by past events?


Oh and by the way, if you happen to be looking for God, this is the only place you will find Him, in The Present.

I agree.

 

[Canute]

Back to freewill. I thought this might be interesting.


“First, there is the gap of rational decision making, where you try to make up your mind what you are going to do. Here ths gap is between the reasons for making up your mind, and the actual decision that you make. Secondly, there is a gap between the decision and the action. Just as the reasons for the decision were not causally sufficient to produce the decision, so the decision is not causally sufficient to produce the action. There comes the point, after you have made up your mind, when you actually have to do it. And once again, you cannot sit back and let the decision cause the action, any more than you can sit back and let the reasons cause the decision…There is a third gap that arises for actions and activities extended in time, a gap between the initiation of the action and its continuation to completion… Even once you hace started you cannot let the causes operate by themselves; you have to make a continuous voluntary effort to keep going with the action or activity to its completion.” (Searle)

The first gap that Searle describes is between reasons for decisions, which can be certain combinations of beliefs or desires, preferences or some emotions, and the decision or the intention to be formed. The second and third gap are between the decisions or the intentions to act and the initiation of the intended action as well as the sustained execution and implementation of the intention. Whereas the first gap is between some thoughts (reasons) and another thought (a decision or intention), the second and the third gap are between thoughts (decisions or intentions) and actions (actual voluntary bodily movements). Searle maintains that these gaps are the source from which some traditional philosophical problems, such as ‘the freedom of the will’, arise, and where the mental activities conventionally called ‘volitions’ take place (see Searle 2000). A comprehensive, unifying conception of volition has been proposed and developed in light of recent finding in psychology and neuroscience, which views volitions as special kinds of mental acts or activities by which an agent actively and consciously bridges the gaps in his practical reasoning and intentional action that Searle describes (see Zhu J. forthcoming ‘Understanding volition’ Philosophical Psychology and forthcoming ‘Locating volition’, Consciousness and Cognition)

Zhu J. ‘Reclaiming Volition: An alternative interpretation of Libet’s experiment’ Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol 10 No. 11 p 61.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why is it that when we open our eyes and become aware that it's always in the present tense?

A trick that has evolved to keep us focused on current necessities?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by full-time-climb
A persons mind may exist in the present, but all of the information reaching it is from the past. We can observe nothing in the present as all information that reaches our senses is information about past events.

John

I'd take that one step further, John, but you're on the right track. Our brains are a part of the rest of reality, therefore they also are "information from the past", and the information reaching our senses takes time to do so, along with the time to process this new information...well, clearly we can see that our own conscious mind is not in "the present".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Bernardo
Honestly I find debating if the present exists ridiculous.

Such thoughts hold no value or benefit to life. They do no advance our understanding of anything. Debates on topics like this are like a washing machine - they only spin and squeak.

Interesting. If there was a present, an actual present, then much of science would be invalidated (since a lot of it requires constant travel along the axis of time) and we would also have to wonder how much of our subjective experience (which is really the only thing that produces the illusion of a "present" ITFP) we confuse for truth about objective reality. This question is indeed important to many areas of philosophy...even if it is rather silly, in the face of all the evidence against the existence of a "present" .

 

[Bernardo]

Interesting. If there was a present, an actual present, then much of science would be invalidated (since a lot of it requires constant travel along the axis of time) and we would also have to wonder how much of our subjective experience (which is really the only thing that produces the illusion of a "present" ITFP) we confuse for truth about objective reality. This question is indeed important to many areas of philosophy...even if it is rather silly, in the face of all the evidence against the existence of a "present" .

I have only one thing to say,

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGG! Make it stop, make it stop...

 

[Iacchus32]

But what do we mean when we say the "here and now?" Is this not where time and space intersect? ... And hence The Present?

By the way, even if there was a slight delay in our perception of the present, doesn't mean the present doesn't exist, otherwise there would be "no-thing" to perceive. Yea, if we don't perceive anything of the present, then what is there to act upon, by which we base our lives and hence, free will?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Bernardo
I think this debate over 'the present' is a rabbit trail away from the question originaly asked, So... Can anyone show proof that free will exists? That we are not merely directed by past events?

But it's obvious people are trying to argue against the existence of The Present -- which, if true, says we are merely directed by past events (as suggested above). Therefore, in order to have a place to exercise our "free will," we have to argue in favor of The Present. Because clearly the two are synonymous with each other ... You can't have free will without a present tense to set it in action.

 

[Bernardo]

You can't have free will without a present tense to set it in action.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh - now that's a light bulb.

So to follow this through in my mind,

no present = no free will = predestination.

Our lives are established in the future only to bee seen in the mirror of the past with never an action of our own. We are but observers.

Is this what you nonpresent advicates are saying? I don't buy it. Thought I cannot do this argument justice.

 

[UltraPi1]

It would seem many are argueing that there is no free will, because our actions are based on past events? I.E. (A) moves (b) in accordance with the physical laws, and (B) moves (C) under the same rules?
I would argue that our existence is not physical at all.

To those argueing that there is no free will for whatever reason. You must be saying there is a God. For why would a car get made? Or a nose hair trimmer

If we have free will. Is it based on past events?

I would say - You are here ... right now in the present making decisions on past and future events. You are free to do as you please within the context of known alternatives. Right now I've got my foot half way out the door on my way to work, and right now I'm finishing with this typing, and now I'm really finshed typing. No wait! I changed my mind - Now I'm finished.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Bernardo
Interesting. If there was a present, an actual present, then much of science would be invalidated (since a lot of it requires constant travel along the axis of time) and we would also have to wonder how much of our subjective experience (which is really the only thing that produces the illusion of a "present" ITFP) we confuse for truth about objective reality. This question is indeed important to many areas of philosophy...even if it is rather silly, in the face of all the evidence against the existence of a "present" .

I have only one thing to say,

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGG! Make it stop, make it stop...

Take two Tylenol, put an ice pack over your currently swelling head, and learn nothing more until you've fully recuperated...doctor's orders .

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But what do we mean when we say the "here and now?" Is this not where time and space intersect? ... And hence The Present?

Not at all, if it were the space where space and time intersected then the smallest incriment of time would have to be several milliseconds long...this is not the case.

By the way, even if there was a slight delay in our perception of the present, doesn't mean the present doesn't exist, otherwise there would be "no-thing" to perceive. Yea, if we don't perceive anything of the present, then what is there to act upon, by which we base our lives and hence, free will?

If there is no present moment, then all that has changed is a few people's perception of the Universe as though it existed in "slices" of time.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Bernardo
You can't have free will without a present tense to set it in action.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh - now that's a light bulb.

So to follow this through in my mind,

no present = no free will = predestination.

Our lives are established in the future only to bee seen in the mirror of the past with never an action of our own. We are but observers.

No, no, no, if there is no present but there is still free will, all that means is that free will is a process (like everything else in the Universe) and that it takes a certain amount of time for it to occur in.

 

[Bernardo]

I can accept that there is no infinitely small measurement of time. I realize that time never stops, but I have thought of something.

In another thread on the 'speed of thought' the process on what the velocity and mechanism of thought is debated. It's helped me think of something.

Even though time may pass, we process events in our minds. I believe that is where the present exists. The time it takes to process and evaluate. Even the fact that I brought something from my memory and used it (from the more distant past to the nearer past) means there must be some reference point.

How about the times when 'time flies' or 'stands still'. this isn't due to how time behaves but on how we perceive it. So the present exists in our perception, our intellect and our ability to consider the world around us.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Bernardo
I can accept that there is no infinitely small measurement of time. I realize that time never stops, but I have thought of something.

In another thread on the 'speed of thought' the process on what the velocity and mechanism of thought is debated. It's helped me think of something.

Even though time may pass, we process events in our minds. I believe that is where the present exists. The time it takes to process and evaluate. Even the fact that I brought something from my memory and used it (from the more distant past to the nearer past) means there must be some reference point.

Why? There is a broad area of time (spanning many milliseconds, perhaps even seconds) that can be called a "reference point" of the "present" but that would just be a "specious present" as mentioned by hypnagogue in the thread "there is no present".

How about the times when 'time flies' or 'stands still'. this isn't due to how time behaves but on how we perceive it. So the present exists in our perception, our intellect and our ability to consider the world around us.

Indeed. That's why I say that "the present is an illusion". It exists only in our mind, and is nothing but a biased notion that serves a purpose (that of satisfying current needs now, and long-term needs later).