Consciousness: no free will says Hossenfelder (General)

by dhw, Monday, October 12, 2020, 14:37 (1290 days ago) @ David Turell

HOSSENFELDER: "These deterministic laws of nature apply to you and your brain because you are made of particles, and what happens with you is a consequence of what happens with those particles.”

It is totally impossible to discuss “free will” without discussing consciousness. Free will depends on conscious decisions, and nowhere in this article does she even begin to tackle the mystery of how particles can combine to create consciousness. Of course there are folk like Susan Blackwell who tell us that consciousness is an illusion, but as far as I can see from this article, Hossenfelder doesn’t even take its existence into consideration. The word itself is only mentioned in passing at the very beginning. The implication is that physics holds the answer to everything. Let physics explain consciousness, and then we can discuss free will. (I am not championing free will. I am agnostic on the subject, as on so many of our mysteries, but I object to one-sided arguments.)

HOSSENFELDER: "You see, that thing you call “free will” should in some sense allow you to choose what you want. But then it’s either determined by what you want, in which case it’s not free, or it’s not determined, in which case it’s not a will.”

Why is it not free if it is determined by what you want? The very essence of the concept is that our decisions ARE determined by what we want, but opponents will argue that what we want is determined by factors beyond our control (e.g. heredity, upbringing, chance events etc.). Our view on the subject will be determined by our definition of free will and by our understanding of our own identity. In a previous discussion I defined free will neutrally as "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints" (such as the given situation, or our physical and mental capabilities). As regards identity, we can then argue that either all the influences on our identity, both internal and external, deprive us of our “freedom”, or that these influences are part of the unique entity that is “us”, and so it is “we” and “we” alone who consciously make the decisions. No one and nothing else makes them for us.

DAVID: Entirely deterministic and nuts. Mind and consciousness are immaterial states that arise from an intact brain, which is more than just its initial particles that appeared/ originated in the Big Bang. She is totally concentrated on the brain as meat. This demonstrates why theoretical physicists are not philosophers of biology. Frankly, I enjoy her blogsite, as her explanations are very clear, concise and fully understandable.

I agree with your criticisms, but am slightly surprised at your statement that mind etc. “arises” from the brain. That is indeed the essence of my own attempt to reconcile materialism and dualism, but I thought you believed in an immaterial soul which used the brain, as opposed to being its product.