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

[iNow]

Of course. But I said 'mental events'

A useless term itself already encompassed by my mention of chemical processes

 

The point here is that you assume a naive notion of free will

Well, gosh. Don't be bashful. Tell me what you really think. Don't sugar coat it.

 

The actual point is that I don't waste my time getting caught up in the philosophical meanderings on this topic. I look at the neuroscience and that is clear. The decision is made before entering consciousness. Given most functional definitions of "freewill," this suggests freewill is an illusion.

 

namely one that is based on dualism: a soul interferes with the normal causal run of events , and no events can be found that in its turn have causal influence on that soul

Oh, FFS. Really? Now you're using the concept of "souls" in your position. Really struggling to take you seriously now.

 

 

consciousness developed in an evolutionary process. That means consciousness must have causal impact.

Word salad. The fact that consciousness appears to be an emergent property resulting from other traits that were themselves advantageous and selected for does NOT mandate that the phenomenon of consciousness be causal.

 

Stick to philosophy. You're grasp of evolution is apparently pretty lacking.

 

Of course mental events have a causal history: they do not pop out of nowhere!

Interesting assertion you've got there. Now, what evidence do you have to back it up? I'm guessing zero, but would like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

[/mp]

But that doesn't man that we didn't freely make the decision. Just that our brain "hid" it from our conscious awareness temporarily.

Freedom implies control and conscious ability to choose. If the decision is being made before conscious involvement and is being made unconsciously (out of our control), it seems misguided to call such a process "free."

 

For example, when you pick up a cup of coffee, the visual stimulus (hand touching cup) is almost immediate but the feel of the cup takes hundreds of milliseconds to arrive. The brain has to make those look simultaneous. And hide the long delay between you deciding to pick up the cup and the motor signals reaching the arm.

I agree with your point that we only ever experience the past due to delays in signal processing, but this analogy only seems to further support my position that free will is largely a post-dictive illusion invented by our conscious minds to rationalize the various inputs being received.

 

 

[mp]

Is that true for my decision to reply, or to write this woogawumpthtimoth?

Yes

 

Now, I've gotta be honest fellas. I'm kinda bored by this conversation. I'm not a huge fan of philosophy to begin with. It's consistently a place where evidence matters less than logic chains, and that's not my cuppa coffee. Angels dancing on pin heads and whatnot, and while this thread is located in the biology/evolution subforum, the recent discussion has turned entirely to the philosophical.

 

I've read the evidence. I read a lot about neuroscience actually. It's convinced me that free will is a postdictive illusion that we superimpose on to an otherwise unconscious chemistry based process. It changes nothing about the way we approach the world since it's always been this way. It's just an explanation rooted in evidence that's convinced me.

 

If you're not convinced, then good on ya. No worries. Have fun. Just don't want you thinking my decision to spend time elsewhere and stop wasting my time on this thread is a concession of any sort.

Edited March 1, 2017 by iNow

[dimreepr]

Yes

 

Now, I've gotta be honest fellas. I'm kinda bored by this conversation. I'm not a huge fan of philosophy to begin with. It's consistently a place where evidence matters less than logic chains, and that's not my cuppa coffee. Angels dancing on pin heads and whatnot, and while this thread is in evolution, the recent turn is entirely philosophical.

 

I've read the evidence. I read a lot about neuroscience actually. It's convinced me that free will is an illusion that we superimpose on to an otherwise unconscious chemistry based process. It changes nothing about the way we approach the world since it's always been this way. It's just an explanation rooted in evidence that's convinced me.

 

If you're not convinced, then good on ya. No worries. Have fun. Just don't want you thinking my decision to spend time elsewhere and stop wasting my time on this thread is a concession of any sort.

 

 

I'm happy differ to your greater knowledge, I'm also happy to continue under my illusion (at least, now, I've got an excuse when I screw up) .

It also explains why we're so manipulable by people like this .

Edited March 1, 2017 by dimreepr

[Argent]

 

I'm happy differ to your greater knowledge,

Freudian slip? Amusing either way.

[dimreepr]

Freudian slip?

 

Nope

 

Amusing either way.

 

 

Because of a typo? Freud would have a field day.

[Bender]

Freedom implies control and conscious ability to choose. If the decision is being made before conscious involvement and is being made unconsciously (out of our control), it seems misguided to call such a process "free."

The decision is made by you, even if you only become consciously aware of it later; where "later" is ill-defined due to the lack of absolute synchronisation in our brain.

[iNow]

We don't seem to disagree, even though my position requires the part of "me" making the decision to be preconscious.

[Strange]

The decision is made by you, even if you only become consciously aware of it later; where "later" is ill-defined due to the lack of absolute synchronisation in our brain.

 

 

Exactly.

 

If "you" weren't free to make the decision, then someone else must have taken it. Who was that? Your subconscious? Is that a separate person?

 

No. You are free to make the choice. Having made it, you will not let your "conscious" mind know until a little later. Otherwise it would feel like you made the decision before you had made it. Which would be very confusing.

[mistermack]

I apologise in advance for duplicating the post of others. I haven't read back the whole thread, it's a biggy.

 

I don't think we have a free will, no more than a leaf-cutter ant has a free will. The ant can go wherever it wants. Nobody polices it. But it's ordered by it's genes, through the brain that it inherited, and by the pheremones left by others.

 

We are the same. I'm not free to enjoy a gay relationship. I was born straight. I can't enjoy a ginger biscuit. I disliked them right from the start. Those are obvious things, but so much of my decision making is less obvious, but still guided by what I inherited. Like my fear of heights or nervousness around dogs. Even posting on discussion forums, I can look back and see the old traits repeating themselves that I would rather not repeat.

We are free within certain boundaries, that's all. If freedom is a black and white thing, either free or not free, then we definitely don't have free will. If it's shades of grey, then yes, we have a bit.

 

As far as consciousness goes, you need it even if you don't have a free will.

I have to be conscious to reject a ginger biscuit. Even if it's a sub-conscious or pre-ordained decision.

The same goes for every other thing I do that is pre-programmed in my brain.

It's like a computer. It can't do much when it's off, apart from retain the programs and data.

Edited March 2, 2017 by mistermack

[Bender]

I apologise in advance for duplicating the post of others. I haven't read back the whole thread, it's a biggy.

 

I don't think we have a free will, no more than a leaf-cutter ant has a free will. The ant can go wherever it wants. Nobody polices it. But it's ordered by it's genes, through the brain that it inherited, and by the pheremones left by others.

 

We are the same. I'm not free to enjoy a gay relationship. I was born straight. I can't enjoy a ginger biscuit. I disliked them right from the start. Those are obvious things, but so much of my decision making is less obvious, but still guided by what I inherited. Like my fear of heights or nervousness around dogs. Even posting on discussion forums, I can look back and see the old traits repeating themselves that I would rather not repeat.

We are free within certain boundaries, that's all. If freedom is a black and white thing, either free or not free, then we definitely don't have free will. If it's shades of grey, then yes, we have a bit.

 

As far as consciousness goes, you need it even if you don't have a free will.

I have to be conscious to reject a ginger biscuit. Even if it's a sub-conscious or pre-ordained decision.

The same goes for every other thing I do that is pre-programmed in my brain.

It's like a computer. It can't do much when it's off, apart from retain the programs and data.

recap of long thread: you are confusing randomness with free will. The determinism you refer to does not contradict free will.

[Eise]

iNow, you use a few assumptions, and by doing this, you take a philosophical stance, but think you do as if you are purely scientific.

 

Two examples, in one sentence: you define free will as consciously being in control:

 

Freedom implies control and conscious ability to choose.

 

You deny this on basis of the fact that experiments have found decisions are made before they become conscious.

 

First you apply the idea of control on the wrong level. Being alive has everything to with control. Just showing that the mechanism behind it is causal does not mean a (biological) system has no control. A Google car is in control of the way it takes through the traffic. If it wouldn't have, the car would crash immediately. And even a thermostat controls: the temperature. Of course there is a mechanism behind it, but without the thermostat, the heating might never turn off and on at the right moment. So being in control can only applied to a system as a whole: not on the mechanisms behind them. (Note: I did not say that a Google car and a thermostat have free will, or are conscious. They are only meant to show that your application of the concept of 'control' is wrong.)

 

Second, you use free will as it must be some kind of magic, but it isn't. (To ridicule this idea I used the word 'soul'.) And consciousness must not always be involved. In the end a lot of our actions are more or less automatic: walking or driving through the streets we do many things we are not conscious of. But we recognise them as actions that agree with out own motivations. And this perfectly fits to a good definition of free will:

 

A person is said to have free will if he is able to act according his own motivations.

 

As you see, the word consciousness does not appear in this definition. But as said above, to say that an action was my free action, I have to recognise it as being in accordance with my intentions. There of course consciousness plays a role.

 

About evolution: the evolutionary advantage of animals is that they can anticipate the future: they can picture themselves in their environment, their possible actions in this environment, and what the possible consequences of these are (my cat scratches on the door, because he knows someone will come and open it for him; I drink no beer tonight because I know I drive worse then, and I want to drive home). Obviously, from our own experience we know this is consciousness.

 

You call this an 'emergent property'. That's fine. There is no logical ground to say that then this is consciousness. But we know, by our own consciousness, so on empirical grounds, that these capabilities are consciousness, at least in us, human animals.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Eise

[iNow]

you use free will as it must be some kind of magic

If this is what you've taken away from my comments, then I've clearly done an exceedingly poor job of making my point. My apologies for that. Please check my 17,000+ posts at this site. I think you'll find that as a general rule I'm not one to ascribe things to magic. Thanks again for the exchange.

[Argent]

Second, you use free will as it must be some kind of magic, but it isn't. (To ridicule this idea I used the word 'soul'.) And consciousness must not always be involved. In the end a lot of our actions are more or less automatic: walking or driving through the streets we do many things we are not conscious of. But we recognise them as actions that agree with out own motivations. And this perfectly fits to a good definition of free will:

On what basis do you claim this is not more accurately expressed as "we recognise that our motivations agree with our actions"?

[StringJunky]

On what basis do you claim this is not more accurately expressed as "we recognise that our motivations agree with our actions"?

Because motivations precede actions. The action needs to agree with the motivation. The contrary is putting the cart before the horse.

[Eise]

If this is what you've taken away from my comments, then I've clearly done an exceedingly poor job of making my point. My apologies for that. Please check my 17,000+ posts at this site. I think you'll find that as a general rule I'm not one to ascribe things to magic. Thanks again for the exchange.

 

You may be a productive writer, but you are a very bad reader. Why would I assign to you that you believe in the 'magic of free will' where it is obvious that you deny every form of free will. But that is the problem: you see the concept of free will as some form of magic, and thus deny its existence. (If it were magic, you would be right, but it isn't.)

 

No, sure you do not assign anything to magic. But you expect from a kind of free will that you think would make sense, that it precedes events in the brain: You describe how consciousness follows the decision made by the brain. This means that you expect from free will that the brain follows consciousness, or is at least at the same time. But this would mean at least logical precedence of consciousness over the brain: you think that for free will to exist, consciousness must cause brain processes. And of course that would be magic, so sure that is nonsense. I agree with that.

 

But your nonsense lies in your ideas about what control and free will are. Reread my post, and react on the substance of it, and do not react like a bull on a red cloth on superficial reading of my posts.

[Argent]

Because motivations precede actions. The action needs to agree with the motivation. The contrary is putting the cart before the horse.

This is generally considered to be the case and appears superficially to be true. When reflecting on Eise's statement of what appears obvious it occurred to me that this may be an assumption. As inow has pointed out there is apparently research showing that some actions are "decided" in the subconscious before we make a conscious "decision" about them.

 

It therefore seems plausible that we may use motivations to rationalise actions we have taken. This could be countered by providing contrary evidence, hence my question to Eise. I don't believe simply asserting that it is not so constitutes proper evidence.

[Eise]

This is generally considered to be the case and appears superficially to be true. When reflecting on Eise's statement of what appears obvious it occurred to me that this may be an assumption. As inow has pointed out there is apparently research showing that some actions are "decided" in the subconscious before we make a conscious "decision" about them.

 

It therefore seems plausible that we may use motivations to rationalise actions we have taken. This could be countered by providing contrary evidence, hence my question to Eise. I don't believe simply asserting that it is not so constitutes proper evidence.

 

At least you are reading my posts...

 

There are many different kind of actions, which can be free or not:

1. conscious decisions (e.g. deciding if you will marry, which subject you want to study, if you will become vegetarian or not, etc). In these you are weighing pros and contras, you even might talk about it with others. Such decisions can be stretched over long periods (days, months)
2. decide to make a drawing to understand some complex geometrical drawing, and so solving it.
3. direct reactions on some state you are conscious of, e.g drink water while you are thirsty, or go to the bar you know is a few streets away for the same reason
4. changing gear, braking, give gas etc on your way to work
5. react on smash in tennis to play the ball back
6. conscious decisions that are 'break even' and you just choose one of the options because you must choose something (Bordeaux or Primitivo)

For 1. and 2. it is absurd to assume that the decision comes after consciousness. Conscious thinking and discussing about the pros and contras can per definition not be pre-conscious, and I never met a mathematician who solved mathematical problems completely unconscious. In 3. I also do not see how this can happen unconscious. And I am not bothered at all if some neurologist can predict that I will decide to go to the bar before I even know I am thirsty. It is still my action, i.e. according to my motivations: it is my thirst, and my choice to go to the bar, nobody else's. This already shows that neurologists' findings are not relevant for free will at all.

 

4. and 5. are different levels of automatic actions. They have in common that one must train them. Some actions are very fast, and consciousness is notoriously slow. A tennis player would nearly never catch a ball if he first must be fully aware of the direction and speed of the ball. But it is still his action, it is according his motivations. So again: free will is not touched at all. Even that the tennis player would only become conscious of what he has done a fraction of a second later.

 

6. is the kind of choice that is often used in experiments of neurologists. Take as example the Libet experiment. First research subjects are instructed what they have to do (no idea how this would be possible without consciousness...). The task is to flex a hand spontaneously on a self chose time, for no reason at all. So clearly the most important aspect of free will drops out: to act because of reasons. Even the tennis player has his reasons, even if his consciousness is too slow to be involved: but he wants to get the ball, because he wants to win. So he will recognise his action as an expression of his will.

 

So what is the difference between free or not free actions? Let's do a little science fiction. The perfect neurologist is able to map all brain states to mental events, and also how the brain will develop further based on its neurological state now. So he can perfectly predict what I will do (given he knows what input I will get). Then there are two categories of actions:

* those that fit to what I usually want to do

* those that are not according to it, but are motivated by e.g. fears for other's possible retributions, or by manipulation by others, etc.

 

Both categories are determined of course. Both categories can be predicted by the neurologist, measuring my brain. But the first can be categorised as free actions, because they are coming forth from motivations I recognise as my own.

 

So having free will or not has nothing to do with 'decisions being made before they are conscious', or even with the capability of neurologists to predict them. But it has everything to do with my actions being in accordance with my own wishes and beliefs.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Eise

[Argent]

Thank you for your detailed post. I asked my question largely on a whim. It has often proved useful to me, in seeking to solutions to problems, to consider the silly options. Hence my query.

 

Having now read and considered the points you make I realise there may be something in the notion that our motivations are simply conscious rationalisations of the actions imposed on us by our subcomscious or unconscious systems. I appreciate this is the exact opposite of what you were seeking to demonstrate, but thank you nonetheless.

 

I take a single example to illustrate my thinking. You talk of "direct reactions on some state you are conscious of, e.g drink water while you are thirsty, or go to the bar you know is a few streets away for the same reason". You note that "I also do not see how this can happen unconscious. And I am not bothered at all if some neurologist can predict that I will decide to go to the bar before I even know I am thirsty. It is still my action, i.e. according to my motivations: it is my thirst, and my choice to go to the bar, nobody else's. This already shows that neurologists' findings are not relevant for free will at all."

 

Your statement "I also do not see....." appears to be the logical fallacy called Argument from Ignorance. If I am mistaken I hope someone properly versed in formal logic will correct me.

 

Simply stating that it is your action and therefore according to your motivations appears to be another logical fallacy. I think this one is called Begging the Question, but again I may be mistaken in detail, though not in the main point. Simply asserting that your actions must follow your motivations does not make it so. The sequence of events could just as readily be Action==>Motivation as Motivation==>Action.

 

The stumbling block appears to be that we have observed a mental position, called it motivation and defined it as the initiator of action without considering the alternative. I need to ask again, what evidence or logical train of thought do we have that demonstrates that actions arise out of motivation rather than the other way around?

 

 

Largely as an aside, your opening comment, "At least you rare reading my posts" seemed to include a dismissive attitude to what I had written. If someone I knew said it I would have understood it as a veiled insult. Just a sort of head's up from me for you. I'm probably too sensitive to spend time on forums.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Argent

[mistermack]

recap of long thread: you are confusing randomness with free will. The determinism you refer to does not contradict free will.

It does by my definition.

If people want to talk about something else, that's fine. But as far as I'm concerned, if it's not free, it's not free will.

 

My suggestion, call it unique will. Or personal will. At least the expression will fit it's words.

[Eise]

Largely as an aside, your opening comment, "At least you rare reading my posts" seemed to include a dismissive attitude to what I had written. If someone I knew said it I would have understood it as a veiled insult. Just a sort of head's up from me for you. I'm probably too sensitive to spend time on forums.

 

Sorry, that was not meant to you. I am a bit frustrated, because iNow does not read my posts very well. I am glad with every thoughtful post, like yours. Sorry it seemed to point at you.

 

Hopefully more contents later.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Eise

[Argent]

 

Sorry, that was not meant to you. I am a bit frustrated, because iNow does not read my posts very well. I am glad with every thoughtful post, like yours. Sorry it seemed to point at you.

 

Hopefully more contents later.

Appreciated. I look forward to your further comments.

[dimreepr]

 

I am a bit frustrated, because iNow does not read my posts very well. I am glad with every thoughtful post, like yours.

 

It seems to me you're both essentially cross posting.

 

iNow thinks there's scientific explanation that excludes philosophy and you think there's a philosophical explanation that includes science, I think you're both right; I also think you'll both destroy my argument, but hey it's just another opinion.

[delboy]

 

It seems to me you're both essentially cross posting.

 

iNow thinks there's scientific explanation that excludes philosophy and you think there's a philosophical explanation that includes science, I think you're both right; I also think you'll both destroy my argument, but hey it's just another opinion.

 

 

I think I think all three of you are right.

[iNow]

You may be a productive writer, but you are a very bad reader.

<...>

No, sure you do not assign anything to magic. But you expect from a kind of free will that you think would make sense, that it precedes events in the brain

No, that's not valid at all. What I understand is that different parts of the brain engage and activate at different times. Freewill appears to be a postdictive illusion formed by the prefrontal cortex after unconscious "decisions" are made in the limbic system and rest of the CNS.

 

But this would mean at least logical precedence of consciousness over the brain: you think that for free will to exist, consciousness must cause brain processes.

Oh, FFS. No. This is why I avoid philosophers. What's obvious based on the evidence (that consciousness follows brain activity) gets twisted to suggest the exact opposite.

 

And of course that would be magic, so sure that is nonsense.

The only thing magically here is how difficult it seems to be to communicate accurately with one another. Once more, I'm not motivated to devote the time to this thread it will require to rectify that.

 

But your nonsense lies in your ideas about what control and free will are. Reread my post

No thanks. I've really devoted more time here already than I'd intended to. Thanks again for the exchange.

[Eise]

Having now read and considered the points you make I realise there may be something in the notion that our motivations are simply conscious rationalisations of the actions imposed on us by our subcomscious or unconscious systems. I appreciate this is the exact opposite of what you were seeking to demonstrate, but thank you nonetheless.

I think the main point I want to get across is that free will has not so much to do with the order in which brain processes, consciousness and actions occur. One can formulate what free will is independent of any metaphysical assumptions, and that is what I did:

 

A person is said to have free will if he is able to act according his own motivations.

 

Note I put 'his own' in italics. If I want to drink beer, and I can take a beer from the fridge, then that was a free action. I nowhere refer to where exactly my lust at a beer comes from: if it is because of my genes, comes from my subconscious, or is the result of a long conscious deliberation doesn't matter. But then, if my wife stops me, and forces me to drink water, then my drinking of water is not a free action anymore. I drank water, because I did not act according my own motivation, but because of my wife's.

 

Another confusion is that 'free will' is supposed to mean free from any influence. But that is simply wrong. 'Free will' is the capability to act according your will. So this has nothing to do with that you are who you are: that is determined by your biological, cultural, and personal history (including past decisions you made). Free will is not 'free from': it is 'free to'.

 

It also makes no sense for this to 'dive into the brain'. The only reason one can say one is not free is when one is coerced by something else. But you are your brain. To think it makes sense to say that the brain causes consciousness, and therefore consciousness is not free is a category error. Unless you are a dualist. Somebody who defends libertarian free will because he thinks that consciousness can dictate what occurs in the brain is a dualist. But just the other way round: somebody who defends that the brain dictates what occurs in consciousness is also a dualist. And of course opposed to the libertarian he will say we have no free will. But the distinction becomes absurd when you realise that consciousness is the functioning brain. It makes no sense to say that something is forced, or caused, by itself. The discourse of free will has nothing to do with the brain, the same as literature analysis has nothing to do with the chemical composition of ink.

 

Just think of the examples 1-6 I gave in my previous posting: those are all examples of free will as it is used in daily life. How these actions arise from my sub- or unconscious systems is in normal cases of no importance. (it can be in abnormal cases, like OCD, or in science fiction examples of philosophers).

 

So as a neurologist cannot decide what beauty is, he cannot decide what free will is. What a neurologist can do, is find out what happens when I have an experience of beauty, or act freely. But he must trust on subjective reporting to correlate this reporting with what happens in the brain. (This method is called heterophenomenology by Dennett).

 

Your statement "I also do not see....." appears to be the logical fallacy called Argument from Ignorance. If I am mistaken I hope someone properly versed in formal logic will correct me.

 

I can formulate it positively: when I make a difficult decision consciousness is involved. I think, talk, read, (maybe even dream) about it. In all these activities consciousness is involved. But do not interpret this dualistically! Consciousness is just a part of what the brain does.

 

Simply stating that it is your action and therefore according to your motivations appears to be another logical fallacy. I think this one is called Begging the Question, but again I may be mistaken in detail, though not in the main point. Simply asserting that your actions must follow your motivations does not make it so. The sequence of events could just as readily be Action==>Motivation as Motivation==>Action.

 

I do not just state it. I am not even interested in the exact order, as said above. And of course there might be actions in which you rationalise something you did. But I think that is just a psychological mechanism to keep up your self image. And one can construct manipulations so that people think they act according their own motivations, but in fact do it because of other people's motivations. But to generalise from such cases to all our actions is methodologically unjustified, and certainly has nothing to do with how we use the concept of free will in daily life.

 

The stumbling block appears to be that we have observed a mental position, called it motivation and defined it as the initiator of action without considering the alternative. I need to ask again, what evidence or logical train of thought do we have that demonstrates that actions arise out of motivation rather than the other way around?

I think I have answered this question now. And I think also that your own experience says so. Or do you drink a beer and only afterwards discover that you did this because you were thirsty?

iNow thinks there's scientific explanation that excludes philosophy and you think there's a philosophical explanation that includes science, I think you're both right; I also think you'll both destroy my argument, but hey it's just another opinion.

 

Warm. I am saying that iNow's use of the concepts of 'control' and 'free will' is wrong. I have no idea how he scientifically wants to research in what the meaning of these concepts are. I showed how these concepts are used in daily life, and not in the metaphysical dreams and ideologies of scientists and a whole class of philosophers, who think there is a contradiction between determinism and free will.

 

iNow hides his philosophical assumptions behind his scientific knowledge.

 

For the rest he really does not even understands what I am writing. He assigns ideas to me (that I think that he suffers from magical thinking) which only can be explained by superficial reading.

 

Just note: I did not deny one single neurological fact he brought in. I invite him to show with citations from my posts where I understood him wrongly.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Eise

[iNow]

What are you asking me to demonstrate?

I think we're too far apart on this for me to do so quickly.

 

As noted, I feel I've already wasted more time on this topic than I'd intended. I'm okay accepting that we disagree or approach the subject differently.