Since we have no free will, what purpose does/did consciousness serve?

[koti]

8 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Some of our cells commit suicide - is that evidence that these cells also have free will?

Frankly, I'm not sure but if most cases of cells "commiting suicide" are based on reasons I suppose the answer is yes - they do have free will? (According to their own capabilities)
 

[Prometheus]

I wouldn't have said so. Those deaths are the result of biochemical signals causing a chain reaction in the cell. The same could be said for humans though - people don't just commit suicide, there are various inputs that lead to feelings of not wanting to live. Ultimately i've a feeling that most of this discussion will boil down to how we define free will.

[koti]

10 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I wouldn't have said so. Those deaths are the result of biochemical signals causing a chain reaction in the cell. The same could be said for humans though - people don't just commit suicide, there are various inputs that lead to feelings of not wanting to live. Ultimately i've a feeling that most of this discussion will boil down to how we define free will.

I agree that this most likely will boil down to the definition of free will.
As you probably have more knowledge on biology - Is there a reason for the bio-chemical signal causing the chain reaction in the cell or is this completely random? Intuition tells me that it cannot be random and has to be based on some kind of reasoning, at least in majority of cases. If there are reasons behind this process then I would lean towards answering yes to your question. The inputs you mention which lead people to not wanting to live anymore are not relevant in a dissection of this scenario (sorry, it does sound horrible) What matters I think, is that the inputs are there and they have to stem from reasons - they do not have to come from an illness (for example commiting suicide and sacrificing your own life to save someone)

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I wouldn't have said so. Those deaths are the result of biochemical signals causing a chain reaction in the cell. The same could be said for humans though - people don't just commit suicide, there are various inputs that lead to feelings of not wanting to live. Ultimately i've a feeling that most of this discussion will boil down to how we define free will.

We do have a choice but no real idea of what influences that choice.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

iNow, you remember writing this, don't you?

Why do you think that on the topic of free will, that this is not the relevant concept of control?

Yes, I do remember writing that, and this is a very fair criticism. I wrote the qualifier “to a large extent” in anticipation of exactly this response, and (also to a large extent) language itself fails me here. I acknowledge the seeming contradiction in my point. 

We call it “control” and we frame our will as “free,” but I cannot escape the importance of the copious evidence to the contrary.

Hold a warm cup in your hands and you perceive others more kindly. Skip a meal and you react to a harmless passing comment viciously. Sleep a bit more or a bit less and all of your responses and capabilities are affected.

Add to this our problem with blind spots and illusions and also the massive impact of the gut microbiome and we see that the point only gets further reinforced and entrenched.

We look to the scans and monitor the electrical signals, the blood flow, the action potentials... No matter how carefully we design the study or how many different methods we use to explore this, the results are every time the same. Our decisions are already made well before the other areas of our brain responsible for sense of self, awareness, consciousness, and executive function ever show any activation whatsoever.

We assert control when instead it’s the concentration of ions and the conductivity of nerve cells or thickness of myelin sheathing and density of the dendrites that drive it all. We are like boats in the ocean claiming to control the weather as we simultaneously get swept along passively by the currents, waves, and winds. 

Theres no avoiding the conclusion that free will is an illusion once you study the underlying dynamics and neuroscience, and this IMO remains true even if I do still sometimes get tripped up with language and word choices.

[koti]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes, I do remember writing that, and this is a very fair criticism. I wrote the qualifier “to a large extent” in anticipation of exactly this response, and (also to a large extent) language itself fails me here. I acknowledge the seeming contradiction in my point. 

We call it “control” and we frame our will as “free,” but I cannot escape the importance of the copious evidence to the contrary.

Hold a warm cup in your hands and you perceive others more kindly. Skip a meal and you react to a harmless passing comment viciously. Sleep a bit more or a bit less and all of your responses and capabilities are affected.

Add to this our problem with blind spots and illusions and also the massive impact of the gut microbiome and we see that the point only gets further reinforced and entrenched.

We look to the scans and monitor the electrical signals, the blood flow, the action potentials... No matter how carefully we design the study or how many different methods we use to explore this, the results are every time the same. Our decisions are already made well before the other areas of our brain responsible for sense of self, awareness, consciousness, and executive function ever show any activation whatsoever.

We assert control when instead it’s the concentration of ions and the conductivity of nerve cells or thickness of myelin sheathing and density of the dendrites that drive it all. We are like boats in the ocean claiming to control the weather as we simultaneously get swept along passively by the currents, waves, and winds. 

Theres no avoiding the conclusion that free will is an illusion once you study the underlying dynamics and neuroscience, and this IMO remains true even if I do still sometimes get tripped up with language and word choices.

I have to admit that what you wrote qualifies as exceptional. iNow have to figure out whether your undoubtedly well served post above fits into the definition of free will which I have in my mind, I'm not sure about that yet.

[Prometheus]

6 hours ago, koti said:

I agree that this most likely will boil down to the definition of free will.
As you probably have more knowledge on biology - Is there a reason for the bio-chemical signal causing the chain reaction in the cell or is this completely random? Intuition tells me that it cannot be random and has to be based on some kind of reasoning, at least in majority of cases. If there are reasons behind this process then I would lean towards answering yes to your question. The inputs you mention which lead people to not wanting to live anymore are not relevant in a dissection of this scenario (sorry, it does sound horrible) What matters I think, is that the inputs are there and they have to stem from reasons - they do not have to come from an illness (for example commiting suicide and sacrificing your own life to save someone)

I don't know loads about it but cells can kill themselves if they are under certain stresses or in the presence of certain biochemicals secreted by other cells. It's a highly regulated process, essential to the overall organism's health. For instance cells no longer responding to kill signals are liable to become cancerous.

How different is that to humans suicide? It may be a far more complicated series of inputs interacting with each other and intrinsic pathways but it seems to me essentially the same. We can identify people at risk of suicide because of this predictability, despite the overwhelming complexity of the system.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, koti said:

I have to admit that what you wrote qualifies as exceptional.

Thanks, man. I appreciate that, and am glad to have once more found at least a little bit of common ground with you. Cheers.

[Outrider]

iNow

I agree with koti that was a very substantial post  your gut bacteria wrote. But then again it's not like you had much choice. 

I am well aware of the experiments and observations that show activity in our subconscious before the choice is made. I just happen to think that the conscious side of me is, at least in part, what trained my subconscious to make these decisions. I think it's a mechanism that in the past helped us avoid becoming mammoth pancakes and now helps me survive the freeway. If everytime someone swerved into my lane I had to consciously work through my evasive maneuvers I wouldn't be here. Even if we don't (I think we do) have freewill in every momentary decision we at least get to choose what direction our lfe takes. Wether we will be honest or deceitful, honorable or less so, etc.

I think my subconscious is me and I also think the many microbes that inhabit this body maybe could be considered me as well. Maybe sometime in the future the gut will be thought of as being an extension of the brain or even visa versa. Yes I'm really serious, chuckling a bit as I write, but yeah I meant what I said.

Here is an article from The Atlantic discussing some experiments where one group was read an article explaining how freewill was an illusion and the control group was not. Then their actions were observed. The main point of the article is not my point I am just using it to illustrate my point. But it's still a good read and I hope you do.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/
 

Quote

 

It seems that when people stop believing they are free agents, they stop seeing themselves as blameworthy for their actions. Consequently, they act less responsibly and give in to their baser instincts. Vohs emphasized that this result is not limited to the contrived conditions of a lab experiment. “You see the same effects with people who naturally believe more or less in free will,” she said.

Snip

The list goes on: Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative, more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes, and less grateful toward one another. In every regard, it seems, when we embrace determinism, we indulge our dark side.

 

 

So who or what here is "believing that freewill is an illusion"? 

 

[iNow]

57 minutes ago, Outrider said:

I just happen to think that the conscious side of me is, at least in part, what trained my subconscious to make these decisions

The conscious/subconscious division is one I abandoned long ago, but I do appreciate the point you’re making. Even accepting this structure you propose, I’d still push back and ask about the mechanism.

What controls this consciousness you mention if not chemistry itself? You seem to be positing a god-like perspective... some version of “you” that is magically separate and independent from the ion channels and sensitivity to electrolytes and plastic neural structures. 

Well, okay. I’m willing to entertain that, but what is the mechanism? If you “consciousness” is training your “subconscious” to do these things, then what’s driving your consciousness to do so?

I suggest your feeling of control and sense of freedom is a postdictive illusion. I acknowledge there are strange implications to this assertion, but that doesn’t ipso facto render it false. 

57 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Maybe sometime in the future the gut will be thought of as being an extension of the brain or even visa versa. Yes I'm really serious, chuckling a bit as I write, but yeah I meant what I said.

No need to wait until the future. This is already very much established and accepted fact. Here is one overview among many, the keyword being “gut brain axis.” 

http://psychscenehub.com/psychinsights/the-simplified-guide-to-the-gut-brain-axis/

57 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Here is an article from The Atlantic

Thanks for sharing. The Atlantic does some wonderful pieces and I’ll be sure to check this out. 

EDIT: Interesting piece. I’d only add that social structures and norms very much influence the firing patterns within us, and I think this touches on a point Zapatos made a few posts back. 

Edited November 11, 2017 by iNow

[koti]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Thanks, man. I appreciate that, and am glad to have once more found at least a little bit of common ground with you. Cheers.

From what I’ve been reading you for the past year, we seem to have common ground in vast majority of issues. The „glitch” was a specific subject. Besides, life would be boring if everyone would agree with everyone all the time.

[Eise]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, I do remember writing that, and this is a very fair criticism. I wrote the qualifier “to a large extent” in anticipation of exactly this response, and (also to a large extent) language itself fails me here. I acknowledge the seeming contradiction in my point. 

We call it “control” and we frame our will as “free,” but I cannot escape the importance of the copious evidence to the contrary.

<snap>

Theres no avoiding the conclusion that free will is an illusion once you study the underlying dynamics and neuroscience, and this IMO remains true even if I do still sometimes get tripped up with language and word choices.

Thanks for you very reasonable post. You make very clear where you are standing, and why. But... you did not answer my question!

This is what I asked:

Why do you think that on the topic of free will, that this is not the relevant concept of control?

It is essential that you see that we have two different concepts of control here. The first one is the one I was citing from you:

On 7/30/2017 at 2:56 PM, iNow said:

You don't control your death, though in large part you do control your life.

This is what I described as the control an organism has over its environment, or as the control a thermostat has over the temperature in its environment.

However, in your above posting, you shift your position from the relation between the organism and its environment to the relation between consciousness and our bodily processes. What I am saying is that the latter relation is not relevant for the question of free will. The idea of free will only applies to the relation between the organism and its environment. Obviously, you do agree that we have much control over our lives ('... large part...'). There where we really have such control, i.e. we can act according to our wishes and beliefs, we are acting freely; there where we are obstructed to do what we want we are not free.

It is the organism as a whole that can act free or not. It needs some basic capabilities, that we human animals obviously have, and maybe some higher non-human animals as well: the capability to observe its surroundings, anticipate possible futures, and the causal role it plays itself in the possible actualising of a future  (in other words, it needs also a self-image).

Do you see how far this is of the Libet-kind of experiments (like the one Harris is doing in the video in the 'inner peace' thread): to do something for no reason at all? That these kind of experiments have nothing to do with the relation between the organism and its environment?

[dimreepr]

31 minutes ago, Eise said:

Thanks for you very reasonable post. You make very clear where you are standing, and why. But... you did not answer my question!

This is what I asked:

Why do you think that on the topic of free will, that this is not the relevant concept of control?

It is essential that you see that we have two different concepts of control here. The first one is the one I was citing from you:

This is what I described as the control an organism has over its environment, or as the control a thermostat has over the temperature in its environment.

However, in your above posting, you shift your position from the relation between the organism and its environment to the relation between consciousness and our bodily processes. What I am saying is that the latter relation is not relevant for the question of free will. The idea of free will only applies to the relation between the organism and its environment. Obviously, you do agree that we have much control over our lives ('... large part...'). There where we really have such control, i.e. we can act according to our wishes and beliefs, we are acting freely; there where we are obstructed to do what we want we are not free.

It is the organism as a whole that can act free or not. It needs some basic capabilities, that we human animals obviously have, and maybe some higher non-human animals as well: the capability to observe its surroundings, anticipate possible futures, and the causal role it plays itself in the possible actualising of a future  (in other words, it needs also a self-image).

Do you see how far this is of the Libet-kind of experiments (like the one Harris is doing in the video in the 'inner peace' thread): to do something for no reason at all? That these kind of experiments have nothing to do with the relation between the organism and its environment?

You can have control but no choice as in your thermostat analogy or you can have choice but no control as in the Harris video, neither is truly free.

[iNow]

59 minutes ago, Eise said:

There where we really have such control, i.e. we can act according to our wishes and beliefs, we are acting freely

I’m disinclined to call this free since those wishes and beliefs also are a byproduct of the same underlying chemistry, an underlying chemistry that completely shapes us. We don’t shape them from on-high, we’re not separate or above them, and my sense is that we’d have to be in order to assert either freedom or control.

[eurekajo]

The purpose of consciousness, is to make us suffer.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, eurekajo said:

The purpose of consciousness, is to make us suffer.

Why?

[Eise]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m disinclined to call this free since those wishes and beliefs also are a byproduct of the same underlying chemistry, an underlying chemistry that completely shapes us. We don’t shape them from on-high, we’re not separate or above them, and my sense is that we’d have to be in order to assert either freedom or control.

Yes, I understand that you see it like this. You very eloquently showed us why you think so in your posting I cited above. But again: you did not answer my question. Don't you see the question, or are are you intentionally evading it?

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You can have control but no choice as in your thermostat analogy or you can have choice but no control as in the Harris video, neither is truly free.

What is 'truly free'? Acting otherwise then you want, independent of your wishes and beliefs, independent of what you are? But that is a chimera! 

I suggest you go to the restaurant and do not choose a dish from the menu card.

[eurekajo]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why?

Nobody really knows.

[iNow]

On 11/10/2017 at 6:55 AM, Eise said:

Why do you think that on the topic of free will, that this is not the relevant concept of control?

Not certain I follow. Please clarify... That WHAT is not the relevant concept of control?

[dimreepr]

44 minutes ago, Eise said:

But that is a chimera! 

 

Of course, since my position on control is it's illusory. 

Edited November 11, 2017 by dimreepr

[Outrider]

14 hours ago, iNow said:

The conscious/subconscious division is one I abandoned long ago, but I do appreciate the point you’re making.

You may freely abandon it if you will it. But it remains a useful, if somewhat arbitrary, division for me.

14 hours ago, iNow said:

What controls this consciousness you mention if not chemistry itself?

Me.

14 hours ago, iNow said:

You seem to be positing a god-like perspective..

Is it god like for me to make decisions for myself? I disagree I think nothing could make me more distinctly human.

14 hours ago, iNow said:

.. some version of “you” that is magically separate and independent from the ion channels and sensitivity to electrolytes and plastic neural structures

It's all me I think we agree here. No...yes?

The disagreement comes from where I insist I drive this bus where the "I" is the part of me that is having this conversation with you. My subconscious is recording and analysing all this and will at some point have input perhaps in my dreams perhaps in other ways. Meanwhile my gut microbes are planning my next meal. Just a joke, a bad joke, sorry. I think my microbes have the most influence over my emotions which is another input into my decisions. I think there are many inputs both internal and external. You are an external input. In the end the final say is mine. The conscious me responsible for the long range planning of my life. The subconscious and other parts of me have influence I have control not absolute but a measure of.

Of course I could be completely and utterly wrong about all of it. I am aware of that fact. At the end of the post I will let you know why it dosent matter. 

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Well, okay. I’m willing to entertain that, but what is the mechanism?

Mechanism for training subconscious? I think my subconscious takes it's cues from my conscious decisions and also what I watch, read and listen to. See subliminal messages.

I see you drop some money without noticing and no one else is around. I pick it up. My next decision will train my subconscious either to help others or to grab everything I can for myself. These decisions little by little add up to make me who I am today.

15 hours ago, iNow said:

No need to wait until the future. This is already very much established and accepted fact. Here is one overview among many, the keyword being “gut brain axis.” 

http://psychscenehub.com/psychinsights/the-simplified-guide-to-the-gut-brain-axis/

Thank you for the article. As I mentioned before I am fairly aware of this research but somewhat out of date. This read did alot to catch me up.

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Thanks for sharing. The Atlantic does some wonderful pieces and I’ll be sure to check this out. 

Your welcome but I think you missed my question. 

In the article it states "The list goes on: Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative, more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes, and less grateful toward one another."

I don't care if the statement is true or false. I want to know who or what is believing that freewill is an illusion? In other words if our beliefs drive our decisions who or what is doing the believing?

As to why none of it matters I will leave that up to @Strange in this thread.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99341-interface-theory-of-perception/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-949220

Strange said:

Quote

 

The idea that the world is not how we perceive it (and that we cannot ever perceive what it "really" is) is a very old idea. And, really, it is in unavoidable conclusion from a logical point of view.

 

But, like free will, it is also pretty irrelevant. What difference does it make if the world around us really is just as perceive it (naive realism) or is completely different (idealism) or completely created by your mind (solipsism) or just a simulation.

 

As we can never tell the differnce between any of these, they are all equally irrelevant.

 

 

[iNow]

43 minutes ago, Outrider said:

 

16 hours ago, iNow said:

What controls this consciousness you mention if not chemistry itself?

Me.

Will you please elaborate, here specifically?

[Outrider]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Will you please elaborate, here specifically?

Consciousness emerged from chemical processes and in so doing gained a limited yet very meaningful control over those same processes. I am, at least in part, that consciousness. 

Now will you please answer some of my questions? In particular the one I have asked twice.

[iNow]

40 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Consciousness emerged from chemical processes and in so doing gained a limited yet very meaningful control over those same processes.

Citation needed 

2 hours ago, Outrider said:

I want to know who or what is believing that freewill is an illusion? In other words if our beliefs drive our decisions who or what is doing the believing?

This bag of water and chemicals that form each of us as an entity. 

[StringJunky]

Much of what  we do repetitively is hard-wired through neuroplastic processes and these actions will be performed automatically and that is what is likely being seen in the MRI images: the process of learned behaviour, which probably doesn't require a lot of cognition. i would like to see what the brain is doing in totally novel situations.