NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't understand the mechanism of my actions. To what extent does biology or 'free will' dictate my actions?

I have no knowledge in advanced medical sciences, but I was taught to believe that in science, the brain is in control of my actions. The brain is a heap of chemistry, where a combination of this would lead to that. When applied, my thoughts and actions are just manifests of extremely complicated chemical equations.

So where does free will come in? I could make a choice right now, to go partying or study for an exam. If I chose to party, is that a choice I made through free will, or my brain naturally thinking that partying is advantageous over studying?


In the macroscopic sense, are there more "advantageous" brains that are biologically inclined to work hard, do well in school, and make the better choices, as opposed to brains that are "disadvantageous," where it favors impulsiveness and shallow thinking?


I personally like to think that free will is an unexplainable phenomenon that is beyond the control of biology, otherwise things like faith would be in my opinion, moot.

You will now obey my every command.

I was like "shit that was a fast response" until I noticed the replier was Hotwife.

You don't understand free will? Join the club. People have been debating the subject in various ways, and through the lenses of various theologies and philosophies for hundreds of thousands of years(or 6,000 years if you're a S. Baptist)

Here's another question for you: Is it more important to understand the motivations of your actions, or to be willing to accept the responsibility for the consequences of those actions?

I could make a choice right now, to go partying or study for an exam. If I chose to party, is that a choice I made through free will, or my brain naturally thinking that partying is advantageous over studying?


Maybe they're the same thing.

I was like "shit that was a fast response" until I noticed the replier was Hotwife.

I'm up in your brain, molding your posts with my ninja skillz.

I have no knowledge in advanced medical sciences, but I was taught to believe that in science, the brain is in control of my actions. The brain is a heap of chemistry, where a combination of this would lead to that. When applied, my thoughts and actions are just manifests of extremely complicated chemical equations.
One could just as easily say that extremely complicated chemical equations are 'just' manifests of your thoughts. The mind-body distinction is an odd and, in my opinion, faulty one.

Your brain is your mind; your mind is your brain. To say that your brain 'makes' you act seems to muddle things up.

Wait, some people got it for free? I paid $50 for my will! :mad:

The brain is a heap of chemistry, where a combination of this would lead to that.
A "combination of this" does not lead to one particular outcome, but to a tree of possible outcomes; the electrons are free to go one way, or the other. Ordinarily, all of these quantum-uncertain choices basically cancel out, so that there is no large-scale effect, but the brain is set up precisely to magnify the effects of the small-scale quantum indeterminacies, so that one electron "deciding" to change orbitals rather than not do so can lead to a neuron firing rather than not firing which can lead to a whole cascade ending with you raising your arm rather than not doing so. And there is no "cause" within the material world for why it happened rather than not happening.

Considering that there is yet to be a firm consensus on what, exactly, free will even means, don't get too down on yourself about it. It's one of those things that I think are the silliest elements of philosophy of mind discussions because it's taken for granted that everyone knows what "free will" is, but no one can adequately define it in such a way that doesn't run counter to their intuitions.

Wait, some people got it for free? I paid $50 for my will! :mad:

Not everybody has the associated clown costs.

I personally like to think that free will is an unexplainable phenomenon that is beyond the control of biology, otherwise things like faith would be in my opinion, moot.
This is such a perfect sentence.

You "like to think" that biology can't explain all this, because if it can then "faith" is moot.

And this sentence comes at the end of a post on an internet forum, where you ask pose this question of where human consciousness and will reside.

Do you honestly think you can begin to understand that QUESTION without years of study?

Your "faith" will, I'm sure, provide you with neat and simple non-answers that can easily fit into the space of an internet post.

Science is not nearly so friendly.

If you want real answer you have to work for them, friend.

Ceiling Hotwife is wathcing you philosophically masturbate.

Ceiling Hotwife is wathcing you philosophically masturbate.

*eyes rambhutan*

A "combination of this" does not lead to one particular outcome, but to a tree of possible outcomes; the electrons are free to go one way, or the other. Ordinarily, all of these quantum-uncertain choices basically cancel out, so that there is no large-scale effect, but the brain is set up precisely to magnify the effects of the small-scale quantum indeterminacies, so that one electron "deciding" to change orbitals rather than not do so can lead to a neuron firing rather than not firing which can lead to a whole cascade ending with you raising your arm rather than not doing so. And there is no "cause" within the material world for why it happened rather than not happening.

This doesn't really amount to "freedom of will" in the sense that most seem to mean it. I actually think it was on this very board that I saw this point made and it really is a very good point. Even the indeterminacy that occurs on the quantum scale falls within a wave function. Regardless of where upon that function is falls, it is bound within it. This is the difference between an open-air prison and a prison cell.

A "combination of this" does not lead to one particular outcome, but to a tree of possible outcomes;

A tree of possible outcomes will eventually lead to one outcome.


the electrons are free to go one way, or the other. Ordinarily, all of these quantum-uncertain choices basically cancel out, so that there is no large-scale effect, but the brain is set up precisely to magnify the effects of the small-scale quantum indeterminacies, so that one electron "deciding" to change orbitals rather than not do so can lead to a neuron firing rather than not firing which can lead to a whole cascade ending with you raising your arm rather than not doing so.

Eventhough I don't want to go into the "there is no such thing as randomness" debat, I do see what your point is.

*eyes rambhutan*

I am in your cellar drinking your beer

A tree of possible outcomes will eventually lead to one outcome.

Life is multithreaded and recursive. There isn't only one outcome.

I am in your cellar drinking your beer

*oh noes*

I will choose a path that's clear; I will choose free will!

Sorry, I'm having flashbacks from massive evening exams in Elliott...

Free will is the only philosophically sound choice, simply because any argument predicated on the veracity of determinism must necessarily eventually decompose into incoherence.

I could make a choice right now, to go partying or study for an exam.

No you couldn't!

Free will is a (highly convincing) illusion, and in reality you merely respond in predictable ways to the various stimuli that you perceive. It's all cause-effect. The brain is as physical as any other biological component, and with enough information, just as predictable. Your muscles respond to nerve impulses by contracting; your brain reacts to stimuli by firing off one of those pulses, or increasing the flow of a hormone, or causing the thyroid to increase the body's metabolism.

Of course, none of this really matters in a day-to-day sense. Knowing that you will inevitably make a predictable response doesn't mean that suddenly you're paralysed with every decision, contemplating some way to fool your own brain and prove that you really do have free will.

Edit: the exception to my insistence on predictability:

A "combination of this" does not lead to one particular outcome, but to a tree of possible outcomes; the electrons are free to go one way, or the other. Ordinarily, all of these quantum-uncertain choices basically cancel out, so that there is no large-scale effect, but the brain is set up precisely to magnify the effects of the small-scale quantum indeterminacies, so that one electron "deciding" to change orbitals rather than not do so can lead to a neuron firing rather than not firing which can lead to a whole cascade ending with you raising your arm rather than not doing so. And there is no "cause" within the material world for why it happened rather than not happening.

---

otherwise things like faith would be in my opinion, moot.

Haha, yeah.

I don't understand the mechanism of my actions. To what extent does biology or 'free will' dictate my actions?

I have no knowledge in advanced medical sciences, but I was taught to believe that in science, the brain is in control of my actions. The brain is a heap of chemistry, where a combination of this would lead to that. When applied, my thoughts and actions are just manifests of extremely complicated chemical equations.

So where does free will come in? I could make a choice right now, to go partying or study for an exam. If I chose to party, is that a choice I made through free will, or my brain naturally thinking that partying is advantageous over studying?


In the macroscopic sense, are there more "advantageous" brains that are biologically inclined to work hard, do well in school, and make the better choices, as opposed to brains that are "disadvantageous," where it favors impulsiveness and shallow thinking?


I personally like to think that free will is an unexplainable phenomenon that is beyond the control of biology, otherwise things like faith would be in my opinion, moot.

That's like asking the origin of the Mind itself, or how consciousness works.

Free will is the only philosophically sound choice, simply because any argument predicated on the veracity of determinism must necessarily eventually decompose into incoherence.
How so?

What about compatibalism?

I will choose a path that's clear; I will choose free will!

Sorry, I'm having flashbacks from massive evening exams in Elliott...

Free will is the only philosophically sound choice, simply because any argument predicated on the veracity of determinism must necessarily eventually decompose into incoherence.

Is free will a choice?

This doesn't really amount to "freedom of will" in the sense that most seem to mean it. I actually think it was on this very board that I saw this point made and it really is a very good point. Even the indeterminacy that occurs on the quantum scale falls within a wave function. Regardless of where upon that function is falls, it is bound within it. This is the difference between an open-air prison and a prison cell.
The freedom is only within the delimited set of possible outcomes that the physics allows. I can choose to stand up or stay seated, but cannot choose to flap my arms and fly.
This is the same reason why faith-healing miracles of certain kinds can occur, and others cannot. Cancerous tumors can suddenly break up and go into remission, since that is among the physical possibilities; but amputated limbs don't regrow, because there is no physical pathway for it.

This is such a perfect sentence.

You "like to think" that biology can't explain all this, because if it can then "faith" is moot.

And this sentence comes at the end of a post on an internet forum, where you ask pose this question of where human consciousness and will reside.

Do you honestly think you can begin to understand that QUESTION without years of study?

Your "faith" will, I'm sure, provide you with neat and simple non-answers that can easily fit into the space of an internet post.

Science is not nearly so friendly.

If you want real answer you have to work for them, friend.


Thank you for such an insightful post. You obviously did not understand the implications or the context of my statement.

There are many schools of different faiths that understands the openendedness of faith. Why are there religious thinkers, if faith can answer everythiing? The answer is that faith does not answer everything.

It is in fact a concept in Islam, where empirical procedure prevails over one-answer systems like astrology.


Please grow up. This is a discussion, where I intended to explore different viewpoints, primarily in the context of faith, which everybody has so courteously provided, including the rejection of the question.

This isn't a critical debate, please take your elitist shit elsewhere to circle jerk with the [science = atheist] fuck buddies.

This isn't a critical debate, please take your elitist shit elsewhere to circle jerk with the [science = atheist] fuck buddies.
Way to kill a promising thread...

The freedom is only within the delimited set of possible outcomes that the physics allows. I can choose to stand up or stay seated, but cannot choose to flap my arms and fly.
This is the same reason why faith-healing miracles of certain kinds can occur, and others cannot. Cancerous tumors can suddenly break up and go into remission, since that is among the physical possibilities; but amputated limbs don't regrow, because there is no physical pathway for it.

I don't see how you'd want to put that as your basis for free will, though. I can produce similar results in a lab and on a computer, give me enough time and enough resources and I can produce a very large and very complicated computer. Would it then be exercising free will? If your fine with saying yes, then cool, but if not then you can't maintain the quoted position and remain consistent.

Not a critical debate? Why not so say initially then? "Go away, Science, I'm trying not to think about this too hard, alright?"

Would it then be exercising free will?

I think first we'd need to show that the computer was actually sentient and aware. Which is of course its own can of worms.

Thank you for such an insightful post. You obviously did not understand the implications or the context of my statement.

*evil grin*

Way to kill a promising thread...

Like Bottle said, this is a hard question worthy of the number 42. The dialogue is not intended for critical thinking or to come to conclusions, it's just a casual and non-hostile discussion.

"Go away, Science, I'm trying not to think about this too hard, alright?"

If were to reject science, I wouldn't even be asking questions. What I am rejecting is attitudes similar to "haha you simple-minded Christfag, science is too hard for you," which I find hostile and counterproductive.

The dialogue is not intended for critical thinking...
Then what is it intended for?

Silly thinking?

Like Bottle said, this is a hard question worthy of the number 42. The dialogue is not intended for critical thinking or to come to conclusions, it's just a casual and non-hostile discussion.

You can't clamp down on people's contributions too hard, or they just stop contributing, and then you're left talking to yourself, like that weird guy on the bus who's always got one hand inside his trench coat. You have let your threads run wild and free because like the old saying goes, 'let your threads run wild and free.'

Then what is it intended for?

Silly thinking?

Take a look at some of the other responses, where everybody provided their own POVs without critically assessing others and as a result, redundantly debating science vs faith.

Yes, in a sense you could call it silly thinking, because the casual thinking itself produces nothing. It's just a past-time that some humans like to enjoy, like middle aged ladies sipping tea over the latest gossip.

Predestination is what happens to you. Free will is how you deal with it.

There is no free will of humans. There are just cats hypnotising humans.


Frankly, I don't even TRY to define free will. Too complicated.

We're living in a universe where particles spontaneously appear our of nothing and that has infinitely dense holes where all physics cease to function properly. Unpredictability is a fundamental component of existence and our very interpretation of reality is dependent on the observer.

One thing that's for sure is that true determinism is completely and utterly dead in the water. I don't know if that guarantees the existence of free will, but it does guarantee that behavior can at best be predicted only in general and only to certain degrees of confidence.