Free will again (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 28, 2012, 11:38 (4651 days ago) @ David Turell

I have objected to Romansh's definition of free will as "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". It defines free will out of even the possibility of existence, since NOTHING we know of is independent of the universe (see below).-DAVID: This is not meant to avoid direct discussion with rom, but my observation of my enlightening conversation with him, which helped clarify my own thoughts, is his concept of interaction of chemical, electrical and quantum influences on our mental states. He ascribes some sort of primordial influence,which is hard for me to fathom. An organic chemical is totally inert. it must be placed in a living milieu full of interaction with other chemicals to show its own activity. A photon is a photon, is a photon. It is emitted by something, but from our standpoint, it takes intelligent input in experiment for it to do its thing. When it hits the eye, there is an enormous cascade of events, and I propose that what we 'see' is really what there is to be seen. There is too much rumination otherwise. The action spike a fraction of a second before we act is a sign of our intentionality preceding our consciousness. This comment is my conscious attempt to make a contribution to this discussion. I intended to do it, and here it is, by my free will.-Thank you, David. Your proposal that "what we 'see' is really what is there to be seen" is precisely my argument in the context of commonsense philosophy. However, in view of my earlier conversations with Romansh, this needs clarification. It doesn't mean that our interpretation of what we perceive is correct, but only that the object itself exists. For instance, there is an unusual shape in the water. X thinks it's the Loch Ness Monster, Y thinks it's a dolphin, and Z thinks it's a freak wave. The consensus is that there's an unusual shape in the water, so that is what X,Y and Z "know". And that is the "given". -As for free will, first of all we have to agree on what we mean by it! The universe encompasses everything, including the laws of Nature, the environment, our own body. And so according to Romansh's definition, if I have free will (= able to act independently of the universe), I should be able to fly, go swimming in the middle of the desert, or grow to be 20 ft tall. This is not what I mean by free will, and I doubt if it's what he means either, but that's why we have to be precise with definitions. I'd be interested to know if you and others agree with my own version: "an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints." -If we can agree on a definition, we can then discuss whether or not we do have that ability. Romansh's concept of interaction of chemical etc. influences would be one of my category (2) constraints. We don't know the extent to which our material cells and chemical processes ... or our upbringing, illnesses, education etc. ... determine our decisions. And we don't know whether brain cells give orders to other brain cells to make choices, because we don't know the source of consciousness. And so, since we don't know a damn thing, I take up my usual position on the picket fence!