Is free-will dependent on something immaterial?

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

The discussion centers on the relationship between free will and the existence of an immaterial soul, with participants debating whether mental causation necessitates a non-physical variable. Key arguments include the assertion that if only the four fundamental physical forces operate in the universe, a fifth force may be required to account for free will. Emergence and top-down causality are explored as potential frameworks that could reconcile physical properties with the concept of free will. Participants also emphasize the inadequacy of current physical laws to fully explain consciousness, asserting that thoughts and experiences are not merely physical patterns.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the four fundamental physical forces: gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and electromagnetic forces.
  • Familiarity with concepts of emergence and top-down causality in philosophy and science.
  • Knowledge of the philosophical debate surrounding mental causation and epiphenomenalism.
  • Basic comprehension of consciousness and its relationship to brain activity.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of emergence in cognitive science and philosophy.
  • Explore the concept of supervenience in the philosophy of mind.
  • Investigate the arguments for and against epiphenomenalism in relation to free will.
  • Study the neurological basis of consciousness and its impact on the understanding of free will.
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, cognitive scientists, and anyone interested in the intersection of free will, consciousness, and the physical sciences will benefit from this discussion.

  • #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

Free Will, Soul & Determinism/Probabilism: Debate Consequences
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
Is free will compatible with the probabilistic nature of QM?
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
8K
Graduate Algorithmic information theory's QM view of reality
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Admissions Seeking Feedback on my Physics Personal Statement for Uni Application
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad How Do Kochen-Specker Theorem and Contextuality Relate to Financial Markets?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Does Neuroscience Challenge the Existence of Free Will?
  • · Replies 379 ·
13
Replies
379
Views
53K
Why Do Materialist Compatibilists Believe in Free Will?
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
11K
High School Quantum Entanglement information transmission idea to knock down....
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?
  • · Replies 255 ·
9
Replies
255
Views
32K
Graduate The Blessings of Dimensionality and Hilbert's 6th Problem
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K