Science of Self (Humans)

by dhw, Thursday, March 20, 2014, 14:21 (3899 days ago) @ romansh

It is becoming increasingly clear that the disagreements between us boil down to matters of definition.-ROMANSH: (re emergence) Again we go back to how can a whole be greater than the sum of its parts?-I have given two examples of what I mean by this. 1) If it's true that we are nothing but our cells, a few billion cells combined higgledypiggledy will not produce the mental capacities of the organized combination we call the brain. This particular combination ADDS something to the collection of cells, and that is the sense in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 2) A few million letters combined higgledy-piggledy will not produce the same effects as those letters combined into King Lear. The particular combination ADDS something to the collection of letters. If you believe that the particular combination ADDS nothing to the higgledy-piggledy cells/letters, so be it. I think it adds a great deal, and that is what I and others mean when we say the whole is (or may be) greater than the sum of its parts.-Your definition of free will is "The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". In the finely argued article you have referred us to (and most of which I agree with), you write: "I can't help wondering if it is the definition of free will that I have chosen that makes free will difficult to defend." It makes free will impossible to defend! The universe contains everything, and so of course no choice can be independent of it. If we did not exist and if the subjects of choice did not exist, we could not choose. We and they are in and dependent on the universe. We have had this discussion before. I came up with the following definition of free will: "an entity's conscious ability to control the decision-making process within given constraints" ... the latter being imposed by the situation and by Nature (no problem), but also by factors connected with the decision-making process itself, i.e. chemicals, heredity, our environment, experience etc. It is the latter category that causes us so many problems. Your definition is like an atheist defining God as "a power that does not exist". If your definition precludes discussion, there is not much point in having a discussion!-ROMANSH: If we are truly conscious then yes we have free will by that definition.-By my definition, being "truly" conscious still doesn't mean we have free will, since we do not know the extent to which our consciousness is influenced by factors beyond our control.-ROMANSH: I would like to hear your explanation for free will that does not fall into either of those camps.-I argued that both theories (compatibilism and libertarianism) were flawed. So is your own theory, or supposition, that we are entirely physical. You cannot explain consciousness, and by entertaining the possibility that we are not conscious, you fly in the face of all experience (which in my view is not a factor to be ignored until it is proven to be fallacious). However, the explanation for free will would have to be the libertarian belief that there is an immaterial form of mind that can influence the chain of cause and effect rather than be coerced by it. I can't subscribe to that, any more than I can subscribe to the idea that my awareness of my "self" and of my ability to make decisions is a delusion. I can only echo your own well chosen words in the article: "...just because I cannot see a mechanism for free will, it does not mean free will does not exist." That is why I remain agnostic on the subject.