Science of Self (Humans)

by dhw, Sunday, March 23, 2014, 15:26 (3896 days ago) @ romansh

Dhw: 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.

ROMANSH: True but then you have forgotten to add the energy that goes into assembling the brain cells. [...] And should I find meaning in Shakespeare's words, I also find meaning in a crystal.
-You can find meaning in whatever you like, and you can bring in as much energy as you like, but energy, cells, letters as individual units will not produce the brain or King Lear unless they combine in a certain way, and that is what most of us mean when we use 'emergence' to indicate that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.-dhw: .... 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. 

ROMANSH: 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). 
-I agree with your conclusion ... we should neither believe nor disbelieve. But your definition of free will is: "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". That is not the same as questioning the degree to which our decisions are influenced by chemicals etc. If the universe did not exist, we would not exist and the subjects of our choice would not exist (the endless chain of cause and effect), therefore your definition makes free will impossible. My definition allows for what most of us FEEL we have ... namely, the ability to control the above influences, and even to choose between them if we are aware of them. (My body says: "Chocolate!" My reason says: "Weight!" My will decides.) Experience sometimes teaches us that "feelings" are more reliable than reason, so they should not be dismissed, but as I see it, whether we have control or not depends initially on there being an immaterial part of the self (see later).-ROMANSH: 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 [...] Whereas I have been shaped to be less pragmatic about the prevailing belief.

I do not believe for one moment that when faced with a choice in your pragmatic day to day activities you turn yourself into a zombie and allow all your subconscious influences to take you over. They may do so, but I'd be shocked if you said you did not FEEL responsible for your decisions and act as if you were.
 
ROMANSH: 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?-Of course it is flawed, and I said so in the passage you responded to. If there was a theory without flaw we'd have nothing to discuss and we'd all know the truth. However, I did not say that the something "immaterial" does not respond to cause. If it did not respond to cause, there would be no choice to make. The question is (a) whether it exists, and (b) whether as a part of the unique combination of elements that is "me" it can overcome the influences we have listed and can control my decision-making process. I don't know the answer to that, but yes, I take it very seriously, because I don't know the source or nature of consciousness, and I don't understand vast areas of human experience, including some so-called psychic experiences. If you don't take this seriously, and since we are all clearly dependent on the universe, may I ask why you do not actively disbelieve in free will?
 
ROMANSH: 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?

I would suggest that if you managed to convince everyone that nothing they do is their responsibility, you might find yourself living in a society that is even more chaotic than the one we live in now. But if you are prepared to limit the discussion to a philosophical level, I would say the default position ought to be that we just don't know.