Science of Self (Humans)

by romansh , Saturday, March 22, 2014, 14:59 (3897 days ago) @ dhw

It is becoming increasingly clear that the disagreements between us boil down to matters of definition.
> 
> 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.-True but then you have forgotten to add the enrgy that goes into assembling the the brain cells. When I get a dendritic crystal of copper growing in an electrolysis experiment it would be churlish of me to omit the energy that goes into making that crystal ie energy should be included sum of the parts side of the equation. Similarly for arranging 'cells into a brain'-And should I find meaning in Shakespeare's words, I also find meaning in a crystal.
> 
> .... 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. 
You will have to make this clear to me ... 
especially in the light of the following sentence.
> 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!
I am asking is there anything we can do that is not influenced by: 
"i.e. chemicals, heredity, our environment, experience etc."
All of which are part of the universe. You are asking here exactly the same question as I am. My answer is I don't see how. So I should not hold a belief in free will. (Note I did not say have an active disbelief).-As far as I can tell, while philosophically speaking you have an agnostic position on free will (as I do), but pragmatically in your day to day activities you are with the free will side (it's OK the universe shaped you that way, ) Whereas I have been shaped to be less pragmatic about the prevailing belief.-> 
> 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.-This is only true-> 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.-While my position may well be flawed, a position where something "immaterial" that does not respond to cause and yet can cause effects is also more than just a little flawed. I sincerely hope you are not suggesting we should take this at all seriously?-So my question remains why should we have free will as our default position in our pragmaticism? Can we not take up a lack of free will as default position?