Religion
Related: About this forumIs Free Will an Illusion?
It seems obvious to me that I have free will. When I have just made a decision, say, to go to a concert, I feel that I could have chosen to do something else. Yet many philosophers say this instinct is wrong. According to their view, free will is a figment of our imagination. No one has it or ever will. Rather our choices are either determined—necessary outcomes of the events that have happened in the past—or they are random.
Our intuitions about free will, however, challenge this nihilistic view. We could, of course, simply dismiss our intuitions as wrong. But psychology suggests that doing so would be premature: our hunches often track the truth pretty well [see “The Powers and Perils of Intuition,” by David G. Myers; Scientific American Mind, June/July 2007]. For example, if you do not know the answer to a question on a test, your first guess is more likely to be right. In both philosophy and science, we may feel there is something fishy about an argument or an experiment before we can identify exactly what the problem is.
The debate over free will is one example in which our intuitions conflict with scientific and philosophical arguments. Something similar holds for intuitions about consciousness, morality, and a host of other existential concerns. Typically philosophers deal with these issues through careful thought and discourse with other theorists. In the past decade, however, a small group of philosophers have adopted more data-driven methods to illuminate some of these confounding questions. These so-called experimental philosophers administer surveys, measure reaction times and image brains to understand the sources of our instincts. If we can figure out why we feel we have free will, for example, or why we think that consciousness consists of something more than patterns of neural activity in our brain, we might know whether to give credence to those feelings. That is, if we can show that our intuitions about free will emerge from an untrustworthy process, we may decide not to trust those beliefs.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-free-will-an-illusion
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)
Jim__
(15,222 posts)First, take this excerpt from that article:
Our instincts about consciousness are triggered by specific cues, experimental philosophers explain, among them the existence of eyes and the appearance of goal-directed behavior, but not neurons. Studies indicate that people’s intuitions tell them that insects—which, of course, have eyes and show goal-directed behavior—can feel happiness, pain and anger.
The problem is that insects very likely lack the neural wherewithal for these sensations and emotions. What is more, engineers have programmed robots to display simple goal-directed behaviors, and these robots can produce the uncanny impression that they have feelings, even though the machines are not remotely plausible candidates for having awareness. In short, our instincts can lead us astray on this matter, too. Maybe consciousness does not have to be something different from—or above and beyond—brain processes.
It really looks to me like the author confuses two issues. In the first paragraph of the excerpt, he tells us that our consciousness may be the result of the firing of populations of certain neurons. Yes, I think it is - but I'm not sure what that tells us. Then he goes on to point out that our perception of consciousness in others can be mistaken. Yes, it can. But what does that tell us about our own consciousness? Can our awareness that we are aware be mistaken? The problem of consciousness is how simple neuronal activity, essentially discrete fire/don't fire activity, can raise self-awareness. The argument he uses about our perception of consciousness in others tells us nothing about our own consciousness; and it's our own consciousness that is the issue.
As to whether or not we have free will, the question is open. A good article that presents the other side from what this article presented is Towards a scientific concept of free will as a biological trait ( http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/12/14/rspb.2010.2325.full )
TygrBright
(21,362 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)But my fingers keep typing, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes...
iris27
(1,951 posts)Outside of religion, I don't know why it matters enough for me to care.
I do sometimes get off on a train of thought about the popular conception of parallel universes...that one exists for every possible action you could've taken at any point in time. I find it hard to believe that there exists a world where I've made all the same choices up until now, but that instead of simply going to the doctor to get my blood drawn this morning, I took along my husband's inherited .38 special and shot the place up.
ChadwickHenryWard
(862 posts)Free Will is just opposed to predestination/predetermination. The question is whether God controls our every action, or whether God lets us make our own decisions. You might notice that both of those assume God's existence. If you don't presuppose God's existence, the question of free will becomes meaningless.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)1. The laws of nature disallow some options, but nevertheless permit many options
2. The laws of nature disallow all but one option.
Do actual events proceed along some branching tree of possibilities, or is there merely a single line of events that isn't part of any tree?
Note that I used the words "laws of nature." Science is a human effort to discover and formulate the laws of nature. I'm not referring to that work in progress, but to the actual laws that govern the universe.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The evidence suggests that we unconsciously arrive at decisions before we become consciously aware of having made them. This is contrary to the free will idea that we use our minds to consciously decide.
It not actually predestination, since prior experience and learnings condition the unconscious. Predicting the condition of the unconscious and how a decision will be taken a few weeks from now for an individual is probably like predicting the weather -- it can't be done because there are too many non-linear and probabalistic phenomena involved.
The "free won't" idea (see below) is probably consistent with the conscious mind exercising some executive function to censor the "proposed" decision bubbling up from the unconscious. This is probably one of the functions of the prefrontal cortex.
struggle4progress
(126,151 posts)that one takes in discussions, then discussions have no content: a conversation is simply a sequence of meaningless pre-determined noises
I suppose a person could take such a point of view, but I cannot see any point at all in discussing anything with someone who does take that point of view
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)It was a show on consciousness, and the show's host went to a lab that was able to predict what action he would take 10 seconds or more before he performed the action. The computer knew even before he made a conscious decision what he was going to do.
It was kind of freaky to watch and to know that there's so much going on outside our consciousness. There may be a lot that is "programmed" into us (for lack of a better term).
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That time is real...that is that what has happened in the past is gone and what happens in the future has yet to happen...
It may well be that time itself is an illusion...which is very dificult to understand if we are trapped in the illusion of time.
And this idea is nothing new...it goes way back to the Veda's and is pondered in many acient religons....they call this the grand illusion.
There is little hope we can ever understand it as long as we are in a human form and have our phisical brain that works in time and space.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Show me some evidence that time isn't real.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Show me that it is real...and don't use your own perceptions as evedence sense if it is an illusion you observations will be faulty.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Such as clocks.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)It is our perception that they measure time that is faulty...
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)If it is a clock it has allways been there and allways will be there.
And don't tell me it makes no sense...illusions never do...
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Or did you mean to say that you don't believe in Plato's theroy?
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You're asserting quite a lot, and are noticeably short on evidence.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I am questioning the common beliefe....but what I am talking about is things that we cannot have evedence of.
And we have a lot of things that we believe that we have no evedenc for other than what we conclude in our mind.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And are still coming up short on evidence.
tama
(9,137 posts)If they don't, what is the source of these shadows on the cave wall?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Eat some majic mushrooms and you might be convinced those shadows on the wall are alive...
and it's quite likely I've dropped it. 
Couple nights ago when listening and dancing to live music I experienced strongly that *I* am all of that - the Source of Light, the Forms, the Shadows, the Wall.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And that should be obvious to you.
The old saying applies here...Are we men dreaming we are butterflies or butterflies dreaming we are men?
tama
(9,137 posts)Psychological time experiences, varieties of imaginable and unimaginable - and yet potentially experienced?
Geometric times that are theorized in space-time theories with various dimensions and multiple arrows etc?
Relations of psychological and geometric times?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)No matter how it is experienced or theroised...
ChadwickHenryWard
(862 posts)So the Planck duration, the speed of light, and things like the speedometer on your car are all made up by scientists for... some reason?
We know time exists because it is empirically measurable. It even comes in discrete units. We know this already.
tama
(9,137 posts)what EVER is meant by that, does not exist independently from all and other spatiotemporal considerations - and the math to describe those. It is customary to call all purely relativistic phenomena "illusions" in certain metaphysical traditions. Personally I don't consider such language especially helpful.
AFAIK Planck duration = Planck length = Planck energy, the scale where measurability (for observers like us) ceases as does continuity and we are left with quanta that cannot be further divided.
"According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed of all massless particles and associated fields—including electromagnetic radiation such as light—in vacuum, and it is predicted by the current theory to be the speed of gravity (that is, gravitational waves). Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. "
It could be said that both Plack scale and speed of light are limits of availability of information. There is still no generally accepted unificatory theory to combine special relativity with quantum theory - and gravity and thermodynamics, but we can say that no scientific notion of time(space) exists independently from these theories.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The question of wheather matter itself is illusion....and I guess I will get in big toruble for this
But tell me what matter is....it is mostly void....99.9999999999...% void and you still can't explain what a particle is....just emergy?...then tell us what energy is.
There is no doubt that if this is illusion that we must believe it because it is too compelling not to believe...but believe is not proof of what is real.
What is the meaning of "is"? Thinking hard consumes much exergy - master chess players lose few pounds per game, so it's good to eat and sleep well.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But there is no reason the illusion cannot be measured too
But if time is an illuson then of course we believe it because we can measure it.
ChadwickHenryWard
(862 posts)if it is empirical and objectively external to human perception? I don't you are using any definition of the word "illusion" with which I am familiar.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)There are fare to few people framiliar with religon in the broder sense here...maybe this will help.
Maya (Sanskrit माय māyaa[›]), in Indian religions, has multiple meanings, usually quoted as "illusion", centered on the fact that we do not experience the environment itself but rather a projection of it, created by us. Maya is the principal deity that manifests, perpetuates and governs the illusion and dream of duality in the phenomenal Universe. For some mystics, this manifestation is real.[1] Each person, each physical object, from the perspective of eternity, is like a brief, disturbed drop of water from an unbounded ocean. The goal of enlightenment is to understand this — more precisely, to experience this: to see intuitively that the distinction between the self and the Universe is a false dichotomy. The distinction between consciousness and physical matter, between mind and body (refer bodymind), is the result of an unenlightened perspective.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)There was a thread about it on DU2. The basic conclusion of the study is we make decisions before we are consciously aware of the decision, but we still have the ability to reject the decision. Hence, "free won't."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x82922
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)but by the same token I don't know my decisions till I make them. So it's interesting nonetheless to find out what I want.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)does it matter if our free will is real, or simply a convincing illusion?
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)I will be shocked and stunned if free will exists.
Yes I think it does matter, all the legal systems I know are based on the existence of free will, that the criminal chose to commit the crime. If that's not true then the whole judicial/penal system will have to be rethought.
Then there's sin, all those religions that tell us we're guilty, well I doubt they'll change their tune.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)If everyone is under the same illusion that free will exists and that we each have the ability to exercise it, then I don't see how that is substantively different from the actual existence of free will.
I suppose it might be helpful to note, however, that when I accept the premise of free will as illusion, I'm basing my concept on the idea that certain brain activities have been observed happening long before decisions were confirmed by subjects that predicted the outcome. I quoted The Matrix as a joke, not as a reference to the idea that we are all possibly living in a dream world and it doesn't matter.
Jim__
(15,222 posts)There is a link at this site to a 90 minute video.
An excerpt of some of Pigliucci's thoughts:
Let’s take a brief look at some of the above claims, starting with the issue of determinism. The best that neuroscience can do is to show that behavior X is neurally correlated with activity in brain structure Y. This has precisely nothing to do with determinism because non-deterministic effects could be present at much more physically fundamental levels than those dealt with by neuroscience and never show up on the neuroscientist’s radar. That’s why determinism is really an issue for physics. And let’s clear the air about oft-repeated claim (most recently by Alex Rosenberg, in an awful book that I’m currently reviewing for The Philosopher Magazine) that physics has shown determinism to be true. Au contraire, mon ami, physics has, once and probably for all, shown determinism to be wrong, via of course quantum mechanics. Before the good reader’s ire leads him straight to the comments section of this post, let me be clear that I know perfectly well that random quantum events do not rescue naive conceptions of free will (because randomness is not at all the same thing as deliberative decision making). But the fact remains that the best of modern physics shows us that determinism is not of this world — you are free (so to speak) to draw your own metaphysical conclusions from that bit of science, as long as you keep in mind that it ain’t neuro-science.
What about Libet’s experiments? You know, the one showing that people make unconscious decisions about when to push a button hundreds of milliseconds (according to more recent evidence, even several seconds) before they become aware of having made the decision? I always thought this was a strange way to attack either free will or consciousness, and my panelists readily agreed. First off, Libet-type experiments are conducted by telling subjects to push a button when “they feel the urge rising.” This is hardly the sort of deliberative reflection we associate with human volition, so it’s not testing anything like “free will.” Second, it would be truly surprising if a lot of decisions were not actually made by our unconscious. Indeed, we know this is the case, for instance for all automated tasks (driving a car, hitting a baseball), and we know why: conscious reflection would be too slow in most of those cases, sometimes potentially costing us our lives. Third, it is simply bizarre to think of my unconscious decisions as “not really mine.” Whose are they, then? “I” am not just the conscious processing of information and awareness of that processing, “I” am also my distributed cognition at all levels of my nervous system, including unconscious processing of information. If you disagree, this means that most of the times you are not actually driving your car, your inner zombie is (did he also decide where to go?).
Now to the much talked about fMRI data. Let’s set aside the well acknowledged (by neuroscientists) fact that this is still a very blunt instrument, that it doesn’t really measure brain activity (only oxygen consumption by brain cells, used as a proxy for brain activity), and that it is still next to impossible to carry out the scans in real time (those beautiful pictures of brains “doing” this or that are actually sophisticated statistical composites of various individuals) and in realistic situations. At the moment, all that an fMRI scan can establish is that there is a correlation between activity X and oxygen consumption by brain area Y. That’s it. While this is much better than we could do until a few years ago, and while Lau at the roundtable cautiously explained how this sort of information may help us discriminate among some functional hypotheses, it is a far cry from the sort of claims that are made these days on the basis of fMRI research.
To begin with, of course, just remember the old mantra: correlation is not causation. Correlations may be spurious or the result of a third, as yet unmeasured process, that is affecting both correlates. Moreover, even if we could establish causality, this would constitute only a very partial explanation for whatever it is that is going on. Take, for instance, the much talked about fMRI of people immersed in deep prayer. They do show that certain areas of the brain are preferentially involved in that activity. But then again, how could it be otherwise? Everything we think or do has to pass through some sort of neural signal after all. What the fMRI cannot tell us is whether, say, the mental state induced by deep prayer (or meditation) indicates a reduced proprioception (which would explain in entirely materialistic terms the sense of expanded consciousness and detachment from one’s own body that sometimes accompany the experience), or the fact that subjects are actually accessing a non-material realm, just as they claim they are, based on their phenomenological experience. Indeed, it isn’t even clear what sort of evidence could discriminate between the two “hypotheses” (just for the record, yes, I do think the second possibility doesn’t have a prayer — ah! — of being true).
more ... ( http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/11/free-will-roundtable.html )
Here's more from Pigliucci about the complexities involved with the issue of determinism ( http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/12/handy-dandy-guide-for-skeptic-of.html )
westerebus
(2,978 posts)Free will is not an illusion, humans understand the concept but confuse it with choice which is what humans have under limited conditions. To posess free will you would have to have god like powers which humans do not have. An example would be the mythos of jesus' power to have raised the dead or to change water into wine. This is a demonstration of free will. To materially affect change by willing it to happen.
Humans have limited choice. We can choose to be kind. We can choose to be cruel. We can't will some one to be kind. We can't will someone who is cruel to us to stop. We can choose to be kind in the face of cruelty. Or we can if possible choose to end the abuse with the options available to us.
If we had free will, the ability to control our destiny but affecting the universe around us by will alone, we wouldn't be here.
Where this gets interesting is how it is applied to form deterministic mythology. Again, jesus as god was fullfilling his role in the sacrafice of a god as attonement for the sins ( choices ) of man. Right up to his death he possessed free will, the power of a god to affect change beyond human means. Despite this power he died begging for the cruelty to stop. Some take this as a lesson that their god has a plan for them and life while predetermined still requires adherence to a mythology that is conflicted with its teachings. Blind obedience to authority is not a christian concept, it's much older than that.
The ability to get people to choose to obey because they believe they have free will, a power they share with the gods, helps. Having the biggest and cruelest god willing to sacrafice his only son is a hard act to follow.
The teachings of jesus don't rely on the power of a god. They don't rely on free will. They were simple to follow. Choose to be kind. Choose to forgive. Choose to stop cruelty. The example of cruelty that many see is that of jesus nailed to a cross and abandoned by his god. It is at that point in time the god of abraham stops dead. Just gone from the world of the Hebrews. Leaving the sacrafice behind without so much as an explaination as to why hell itself wasn't emptied in exchange.
As the myth continues, jesus completes his rescurection from the dead to prove that he is a god. Mythology is all there is to explain the difference between man and god. All the silliness that followed from the myth just comes full circle. Away from kindness and returning to cruelty in the name of he who forgives sins.
Yes, I'm still an agnostic. I do try to practice kindness. Not because jesus wants me to. It's a choice that as a human I can.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Since god is omnipotent, he could have an indefinitely large number of sons.
Having only one son would be a matter of choice for god.
westerebus
(2,978 posts)The precurser being the plagues on Egypt, the death of the first born son as the mythology goes.
Or the rift in the Muslim world based on the sucession of the Prophet.
An omnipotent god wouldn't need a son.
A mortal human would need one to sustain the family bussiness if monarchy was the political form for the time.
The sun god's son.
god's son.
Might lead one to propose that the only way to the kingdom of the passed father was through the son.
Not that that thought would ever cross anyone's mind.