Is free-will dependent on something immaterial?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Descartz2000
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between free will and the concept of immateriality, particularly whether free will necessitates a non-physical entity such as a soul. Participants explore various definitions of free will, the implications of physical determinism, and the nature of mental causation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that free will requires a soul or an immaterial variable, suggesting that if physical properties are either random or determined, then something non-physical must account for free will.
  • Others propose that mental causation could be rephrased to require a non-physical element, questioning whether the four fundamental forces are sufficient to explain free will or if a fifth force is necessary.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the immateriality of thoughts and experiences, questioning whether they can be reduced to physical interactions or patterns within the brain.
  • There is a contention regarding the definition of free will, with some defining it as the ability to choose without constraints, while others argue that it is subjectively definable based on awareness.
  • Some participants challenge the notion of a soul, asserting that personality and psychological phenomena can be traced back to neurological processes, as illustrated by examples like brain injuries affecting personality.
  • Discussions on qualia and the nature of experiences like color perception raise questions about whether these experiences are immaterial or can be explained through physical processes.
  • The analogy of mental events as by-products of physical processes is debated, with some finding it inadequate to capture the relationship between brain activity and conscious experience.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of free will, the necessity of immateriality, or the relationship between mental and physical phenomena. Multiple competing views remain, with ongoing debate about definitions and implications.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in definitions of free will and the assumptions underlying claims about physicality and immateriality. The relationship between mental causation and physical processes remains unresolved, with various interpretations presented without agreement.

  • #61
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
wittgenstein said:
"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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 379 ·
13
Replies
379
Views
53K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
12K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 255 ·
9
Replies
255
Views
33K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K