Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree that animals, especially low animals like insects, are subject to instincts. The more complex the level of organization of the nervous system, the more complex the behavior. But I think that what is applicable to caterpillars may not be applicable to humans. Of course, the functions and the principle of action will be similar, but we see a huge difference in complexity. After all, other animals do not fly into space, do not build universities, and so on. In one study, I read that neurons responsible for decision-making were found and that they work by expressing genes located in nerve cells. Since each person has their own genome, this can explain the specific tastes and preferences you are talking about. I also agree that our behavior is limited by past experience and upbringing. But what about difficult decisions? Someone thought that he loved physics, he liked it all his life, but after this person worked as a scientist in the field of physics, he decided that he was not interested in it. And then a long process of thinking about what to do next in life began? What specialty to choose instead? Who to choose as a spouse? How to help society and loved ones? Take the same science. A scientist conducts research, implying that he observes objective truths, but if this scientist is an unconscious robot, his brain can give him illusory ideas about the subject of research. What to do with this type of decision?
I completely agree with you. Your answer is very close to my question. We do the vast majority of our actions automatically, out of habit. But the most important decisions that we make, which require thinking, we can make consciously, although limited by many factors. But some scientists deprive people of conscious choice even in such situations, saying that choice, any conscious choice, is an illusion. This is exactly what worries me. I wanted to know if these statements are scientifically proven or are they just philosophical interpretations of individuals who pass off wishful thinking as reality?
Low and high species don’t really exist though. We are all from a common ancestor and have evolved over billions of years. We are animals just as much as a caterpillar. Instincts would have evolved in us just as much as in anything else. Natural selection led them in one direction and us in another.
Another thing to consider is how medication, physical trauma to the brain and diseases of the mind can all change us. It’s like who we were died, and a new person is there who makes very different choices than what we would make and it seems those different choices occur because of what parts of the brain works. So does the old man choose to react more violently to seemingly nothing or is it because of dementia. If it’s the dementia then it seems like his free will is gone, if it was ever there to begin with. But I’m sure they still feel it’s purely freedom of choice. That same illusion could apply to us.
It is true that we are animals and descended from a common ancestor with all species. But I mean the differences in the degree of organization. I think it is easy to see that human behavior and insect behavior differ quite a lot, although they may have common features. Human behavior is more complex, humans have abstract and symbolic thinking, experiments were conducted with different animals, where the ability of animals, including humans, to solve problems, plan and find a way out was assessed. Of all the animals, only humans coped with this task the first time. Although all species descended from a common ancestor, I do not think it is correct to compare the level of organization of humans and insects. I want to note that I do not think that humans are some kind of “crown of creation”, and other species are unimportant. I am simply trying to say that humans have a very developed brain, superior to the brain of other species and are the dominant species, which obeys not only biological factors of evolution, but also social ones. As for changes in behavior with a sick or damaged brain. The word “sick” by definition means a brain that does not work correctly or with impaired functions. I am interested in a healthy, fully functioning brain. For example, a person graduated from university, received a degree in humanities, he is 25 years old. A year later, he realized that he no longer liked it and decided to get another specialty. And after long, intense discussions, he decided to study biology. He has no mental illnesses, senile dementia at 26 years old, etc. Is this choice conscious or is it an illusion?
Sounds like you’ve already made up your mind on what you hope comes out of this. Free will exists .
No. I’m just asking questions that concern me. My goal in this discussion is not to prove free will, but to get closer to the truth in this matter. That’s why I ask questions and don’t give any arguments in favor of free will (I don’t give them). In my response to Mitchell, I indicated that I doubted the relevance of the concept of free will and emphasized that the term self-control would be more appropriate here.
I’ll throw ins my $0.02 as this question used to cause me concern as well.
If there is no free will then how can you truly accept or reject the arguments of neuroscientists? The idea that neuroscientists put forth arguments that we can assess and be swayed by assumes the very thing you think their work is disproving. Peer review has no meaning anymore and without free will what is the difference between flood geology and real geology? We all just accept whatever our brains and evolution tell us to as true. What are the grounds for thinking evolution would make my thoughts true but someone else’s false? How can a determined brain state be any more right or wrong than a rock siting on a hill? We have no reason to even trust our thoughts anymore because we are not actually accessing information and deciding anything without choice or freedom.
Free will, much like the law of non-contradiction is an axiom that we are all stuck with. It seems to me like you may have put yourself into a corner. Are you expecting the brain, which is made of material stuff not to obey material laws? Emergent properties are real in my view but I would not look for magical gaps in how the brain operates anymore than I would look for magical gaps in the respiratory system. I also do not accept that humans are entirely material. We may have less “freedom” in some areas than we would like but in the end, we are stuck with the notion of freedom. We are destined to be free and make choices.
Without the ability to access information and make choices, the whole concept off truth and the enterprise of science is one big charade. So is morality. You shouldn’t stress over people who tell you life is meaningless (there is no free will) when their very work assumes the opposite. They are just sawing off the branch they are sitting in. Not only that, but ultimately their philosophy leads to nihilism and ends up leading to the notion --whether they admit it or not— that child sex predators and pedophiles who groom and rape children are not actually accountable for their actions since they had no real choice in the matter. These are not people to be trusted or listened to. The only thing concerning here is this abhorrent, anti-God nihilism and how it will influence the spiritual and mental health of humans.
I wonder if these same people consciously recycle or suggest lowering our carbon footprint or expect people to believe their views? The irony is strong…
That is one way to use your free will.
Vinnie
And then, how does the presence or absence of free will intersect with faith issues? Calvinist or Arminian? And, if you truly have no choice in the matter, what is justice?
Hello, Vinnie! It’s nice to see you again. I completely agree with you. The nervous system helps living organisms to better adapt to environmental conditions. The more complex the nervous system, the more diverse the behavior and the higher the adaptability of the organism to new conditions. All this requires a fairly high level of precision. If our consciousness and free will are an illusion, then it is unclear why natural selection preserved modern people, who have a more developed brain than Neanderthals. Neanderthals were physically stronger, but modern people, due to their intelligence, learned to create more advanced weapons and survived better. If our senses gave illusory ideas about the world, I do not understand how a predator would kill a prey, because hunting requires precision, waiting and calculation. A person would not be able to leave the house unless he pressed the door handle precisely.
I don’t think free will is something magical that lies beyond the brain. For me, free will exists if I can make a conscious choice in at least some of my actions. Even if the conscious choice is 0.05 of all my actions. If I can consciously decide something, guided by my upbringing, my worldview, being limited by genetics, biology and the environment, if I have self-control, I will be happy.
There are studies on this topic. People who were given an article to read about their lack of free will before the experiment behaved completely differently than people who did not read the article.
Agreed. If consciousness and free will are an illusion, then science loses all meaning. These studies are just nonsense created by a programmed brain, and those who believe in something else do not have the freedom to change their worldview.
If we are unconscious robots, we cannot choose between different options for our actions. In my opinion, this simply abolishes the concept of sin and the concept of morality. If someone killed someone, a modern neurobiologist will say that this person is not responsible for this because he has no choice. If someone believes in God, this is just an unconscious effect of his brain, and so on.
I can’t think of any modern neurobiologist that would say that and even if some did, why should we listen to them?
Sapolsky, Haggard, Whiteley, a group of German neurobiologists, unfortunately I don’t remember their names (Ruth, perhaps), one of these german neurobiologists said that consciousness is a useless product of the brain, because man is controlled by the limbic system, Christoph Koch suggested something similar, but not so categorically, he said that he doesn’t know what free will is and modern research shows that we are determined.
For many people, scientists are an authority, scientists are professionals in their field and they deal with these issues in the most detail and as close to the truth as possible. Science in the modern world is considered the main engine of progress and so on. And when people like me, journalists, non-professionals in the field of natural sciences, read or hear statements by leading scientists that we are unconscious pieces of meat, it causes alarm, because I am not a specialist in neurobiology and I have nothing to object to. Another issue is that some researchers simply pass off their philosophy as scientific truth.
Jesus: “Go and sin no more.”
Us: “Sorry Jesus, the neuroscientists said we have no choice.”
Does that make poorly chosen neuroscientists false idols? Believer beware I guess.
In my opinion, it makes no difference what religion a person belongs to. It is one thing when God created the world predetermined, populated by people without free will, in any case it serves God’s plan. And another thing is a world with living beings that appeared as a result of a blind process of evolution without any meaning or purpose. If God decided to limit your freedom, it is not as unpleasant to realize as the fact that you are just a piece of meat in an indifferent universe.
Exactly. Science correctly applied is the gold standard but so far no one has gotten consciousness or volition under a microscope. I’m more of a philosophy guy but we have our own false prophets like the late Daniel Dennett.
I would say that the belief in the absence of free will and that consciousness is an illusion is not the opinion of individual scientists. It is increasingly becoming a trend and the prevailing opinion in science. This is what is scary. Maybe I am mistaken and you know the works of neurobiologists who do not agree with the illusory nature of freedom and consciousness. In that case, I would be very grateful for links or even titles of works. Thank you!
I can see all sorts of bad results if legislatures decide there’s no free will.
Great question, @ARus . It sure makes me think.
It does seem to boil in part down to the definition of self, doesn’t it.