PDA

View Full Version : Free Will


BaseOnAc1d
04-23-2008, 7:52 PM
So this is a paper I wrote on free will and the soul (lack of) and I thought it could spark some discussion here. It's a bit long, but I promise it's good.

Also, I'm turning this in (might just be my last high school paper if I can drop english next year,) so if you want to critique it feel free. I promise that's not why I'm posting it though.

Through the last several millennia man has constantly conceived myths or gods to explain phenomena that they did not understand. Pagans attributed the weather to various deities; with the advent of satellites we now understand its cause and have even begun to predict it. Since the origin of man was still unknown, the concept of creationism took hold in many religions. It was a puzzling mystery to society and could only be explained by divine intervention, until the theory of evolution. Religion still serves a similar role in today’s society. A conundrum that has irritated philosophers since pre-historic times is that of free will and the human spirit. We wonder what separates us from other animals, and why we have progressed to the point where we can ask such a question. The common approach to this problem is to introduce the soul. Saint Augustine, dictating what would become the widely accepted definition of the soul, once described it as “a certain substance partaking in reason and suited to rule the body.” The soul plays a similar role in the manifestation of free will as God does as the creator of time and space. It is a simple answer that fails to actually give an answer.

Some say that the soul, a metaphysical structure, is exercising free will and humans are the vessels to carry out its actions. Consider the following situation, a stray photon hits the retina, stimulating a cone cell, less than a second later a man lifts his hand. Whatever image he read from his retina is irrelevant; it caused the man to raise his hand. Between these two events is a chain of reactions; a specific path of neurons takes in the wave, processes it, and transfers it to a muscle somewhere else. There is a distinct cause (photon) and effect (muscle twitch), but the development to this is still unclear. However, in order for a human to twitch a muscle just the right charges must be manipulated in the brain, causing an impulse to travel down the arm. Therefore, a soul, or any manifestation of free will for that matter, must have some tangible aspect to it: the energy and means to move ions anywhere in the brain. This could effectively bring the brain out of a clockwork cycle destined to a certain outcome by the infallible laws of physics set by God. As no such force has been detected, it seems unlikely that this force exists at all.

A generally accepted, and rather intuitive postulate of physics states that if one has knowledge of every particle in a system as well as every physical law governing them, it would be possible to calculate properties of every particle at any future time (Quantum Mechanics has, in some ways, refuted this claim, but the postulate can be edited to allow leeway for probability over determinism.) Therefore, unraveling the details of what happens between the photon impact and the muscle twitch would reveal when, and if, free will interferes with the predictable chemical reactions of the brain. Our knowledge of this process is limited by the resolution of functional MRI brain scans, which are themselves limited by how much energy we can safely focus on a human. However, we can often predict the actions of a human or even alter them (through medicine or magnetic waves.) We do know that this process often takes place without the knowledge of the consciousness. All instinctual and even many informed decisions are made several seconds before humans are consciously aware of them. Such decisions are similar to those knee-jerk reactions of the spinal cord in that the human is only conscious of them after they are made. These findings seem to attribute more powers of free will and the human spirit to the physical brain.

The soul has introduced the concept that the mind is separate from the body; this line of thinking requires free will to manifest as a metaphysical entity. Accepting consciousness and personality as aspects of the brain itself makes it seem more plausible. Aristotle once argued that the soul is “an actuality of a living body.” That is, it is tied to and comes from, the corpus. As the body dies, the soul follows suit, it is the part of a human that grants free will. In other words, free will is simply the function of the brain that facilitates intelligent decision making. Evidence to this lies in neurological disorders. Changes to sectors of the brain can often translate to changes in the actions and personality of a human. For example, damage to the temporal lobe can result in increased aggression and social regression while damage to the frontal lobe often results in juvenile behavior. This indicates that the human spirit is entirely human and is tied to physical aspects of the brain. Otherwise, why would a free will, which would remain unaffected by changes of a physical variety, choose to act differently after an accident?

A major problem in our understanding of the brain stems from our inability to objectively interpret how we think. Words like thought or emotion reveal the fundamental difference between the mechanics of the brain, and our perception of its outcome. As we understand the intricacies of neural networks better, these words, which allow room for spiritual rationale, will give way to physics. Even derived from physical law, free will retains an identical control over the human as a soul. In any given situation, it reacts based on the sum of its external influences, psychological experience and current physical state. In this case however, the human spirit has been normalized with its surroundings; it is no longer an unexplainable phenomenon.

Shagg
04-23-2008, 8:13 PM
This should probably be in the Showcase forum...

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/eventlog.php)
Reason: Backseat modding.

Mr. Crow
04-23-2008, 8:14 PM
Scientists have already debunked free will. (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision)

Apparently, your brain automatically decides what you're going to do before you're consciously aware of it. If that's true, then it's confirmed that we're basically only highly advanced biological robots, using preprogrammed responses to stimuli (instinct and personality) and collective data (experience and memories) to filter through the possible choices in any given situation and unconsciously decide on what our brain considers the best output. Free will is an illusion.

As for your paper, I think I agree with its conclusion. You've used unnecessarily tedious language, but I guess that's what everybody does when they're writing a paper.

BaseOnAc1d
04-23-2008, 8:38 PM
Well you could argue that our soul isn't tied to our consciousness at all, it could make decisions before we're aware.

But I won't go around defending that.

Mr. Crow
04-23-2008, 8:45 PM
Define soul, because a soul in the metaphysical religious sense doesn't exist. If you're using the term soul to simply describe unconscious brain activity, then I agree.

TangerineOrange
04-23-2008, 9:07 PM
Spinoza doesn't believe in free will. Then again, he doesn't believe that there was a creator. He believes that we are all a part of God, and that he is all of us. Essentially, that we are equals.

Behaviorists, such as Skinner, don't believe in the mind, just the body.

My opinion is that the soul is synonymous with the mind. To me, they are very similar, assuming the mind exists. I'm in a philosophy class right now, and I must say these are concepts that I'm having trouble grappling with at the present moment. Part of me wishes to believe in the existence of a soul or a mind, but then another part of me views it as being like Chomsky's Language Acquisition Device (LAD). The LAD doesn't really exist, it's just a theory that we have this "device" that helps us learn language that disappears around the age of 12. Essentially the "device" is made up from actual brain parts/functions. This meaning that I'm tempted to view in the mind in the same manor; that it doesn't really exist, but through the combination of other brain parts/functions we get a "mind" or a "soul".

As for free will? I don't think I believe we have free will I say "think I believe" because it is a concept I have fought with for a long time. In the end, I think we're all predestined to make the choices we make. I'm also tempted to agree with Spinoza on his view of God - that he is not superior, that there is no creator. Otherwise, things become contradictory. In the Judeo-Christian faith God just kinda appeared. There is no explanation for where He came from. And in my mind, Spinoza's philosophy begins to explain it (for me).

Dauntasa
04-23-2008, 9:10 PM
There is no "Human Spirit". There is no soul. "Consciousness" is simply our brains interpretation of the masses of hormones and electrical impulses that swirl around up there. We're basically the same as animals, and the only way we differ from robots is that they don't use hormones. We are, in essence, meat-bots.

jewishjosh
04-23-2008, 9:23 PM
I too am a monist and agree that the soul can be defined as the unconscious part of the mind, just another yet-to-be-explained phenomenon; the mind is just part of the body and is controlled by the same chemical processes and physical laws that control the body. Our subconscious decisions are predetermined, removing free will, as I have argued numerous times in the old Debate Zone. There is no metaphysical soul that makes free decisions to guide our subconscious, and any wacky personification of it is merely an attempt to explain the unexplained and imagine the unimaginable, no different from ancient (and modern) religions.

Jiggz
04-24-2008, 1:47 AM
Scientists have already debunked free will. (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision)

Apparently, your brain automatically decides what you're going to do before you're consciously aware of it. If that's true, then it's confirmed that we're basically only highly advanced biological robots, using preprogrammed responses to stimuli (instinct and personality) and collective data (experience and memories) to filter through the possible choices in any given situation and unconsciously decide on what our brain considers the best output. Free will is an illusion.

John Searle is one of the most recent philosophers to attempt to debunk determinism, he uses the Turing Machine as an exercize. I'm not going to explain it, mostly because I don't understand it yet. Check it out.

Also, as far as the existence of god goes, a prolific argument put forth was by St. Anselm, called the Ontological Argument. This argument has been computated through a process called computational metaphysics, and according to the laws of formal logic, they can conclude that god in fact exists! This (http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.pdf) is far too complicated for me, but check it out if you're interested.

As far as the essay goes, it's well written and fairly concise. I'm not too inclined to agree with the conclusion though, but that's just because I have differing beliefs.

Pieman
04-24-2008, 1:50 AM
You may think you decided to read this story -- but in fact, your brain made the decision long before you knew about it.

In a study published Sunday in Nature Neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them.

Thats not 'long' into the future.

charcoal
04-24-2008, 3:14 AM
A conundrum that has irritated philosophers since pre-historic timesSeriously? Pre-historic philosophers? Do you have any grounds at all for such a statement?

Some say that the soul, a metaphysical structure, is exercising free will and humans are the vessels to carry out its actions.Who says that? What d'you mean by 'humans' - are you talking about human qua person or human qua animal? Human qua person has free will, human qua animal is what acts, pre-theoretically.

Therefore, a soul, or any manifestation of free will for that matter, must have some tangible aspect to it: the energy and means to move ions anywhere in the brain. This could effectively bring the brain out of a clockwork cycle destined to a certain outcome by the infallible laws of physics set by God. As no such force has been detected, it seems unlikely that this force exists at all.A soul is not a manifestation of free will - an action is debatably a manifestation of free will, a soul would be the seat of free will. Infallible laws of physics, set by God - there are so many problems with that phrase that I don't even know where to start. Just because we don't know the laws of psychophysical interaction doesn't mean it is impossible. When science is both complete and known to be complete, I'll grant you that us having not discovered forces means that the forces don't exist, but until then that is pure non sequitur.

(Quantum Mechanics has, in some ways, refuted this claim, but the postulate can be edited to allow leeway for probability over determinism.)Determinism does refute the unrefined notion of free will, but cutting determinism in favour of probability totally undermines the refution.

We do know that this process often takes place without the knowledge of the consciousness. All instinctual and even many informed decisions are made several seconds before humans are consciously aware of them. Such decisions are similar to those knee-jerk reactions of the spinal cord in that the human is only conscious of them after they are made. These findings seem to attribute more powers of free will and the human spirit to the physical brain.If anything, these findings show that free will can be bypassed.

Accepting consciousness and personality as aspects of the brain itself makes it seem more plausible.Conceivability is a fair indicator of possibility, but implausibility is just an indicator of intuitive unpalatability, which is not a sound reason to reject a theory.

Aristotle once argued that the soul is “an actuality of a living body.” That is, it is tied to and comes from, the corpus. As the body dies, the soul follows suit, it is the part of a human that grants free will. In other words, free will is simply the function of the brain that facilitates intelligent decision making.That isn't what Aristotle argued when I read him. In fact, he wasn't touching on the sort of soul you're talking about - the Aristotelian soul is a precondition of being an organism. Unless you're asserting that the free will debate extends to plants as well.

This indicates that the human spirit is entirely human and is tied to physical aspects of the brain. Otherwise, why would a free will, which would remain unaffected by changes of a physical variety, choose to act differently after an accident?
It doesn't show that it is entirely physical, though. Also, a free will doesn't choose, it is the faculty by which we choose (compare - my sight doesn't see, my sight is the means by which I see).

As we understand the intricacies of neural networks better, these words, which allow room for spiritual rationale, will give way to physics.Read about Davidson's theory of anomological monism.

Even derived from physical law, free will retains an identical control over the human as a soul. In any given situation, it reacts based on the sum of its external influences, psychological experience and current physical state. In this case however, the human spirit has been normalized with its surroundings; it is no longer an unexplainable phenomenon.Here, you're talking about free will as though it is a theory of mind - in which case perhaps I'm mistaken to have been interpreting you as discussing free will; really you'd've been arguing for functionalism or mind-brain identity over dualism.

Mr. Crow
04-24-2008, 6:12 AM
John Searle is one of the most recent philosophers to attempt to debunk determinism, he uses the Turing Machine as an exercize. I'm not going to explain it, mostly because I don't understand it yet. Check it out.

Also, as far as the existence of god goes, a prolific argument put forth was by St. Anselm, called the Ontological Argument. This argument has been computated through a process called computational metaphysics, and according to the laws of formal logic, they can conclude that god in fact exists! This (http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.pdf) is far too complicated for me, but check it out if you're interested.

As far as the essay goes, it's well written and fairly concise. I'm not too inclined to agree with the conclusion though, but that's just because I have differing beliefs.

That article overcomplicated a very simple idea. Here's a wiki excerpt on the Ontological Argument.

The argument works by examining the concept of God and arguing that it implies the existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God, God exists. The argument is often criticized as committing a bare assertion fallacy, meaning that it offers no outside premise to support it other than qualities inherent to the unproven statement. This is also called a circular argument as the premise relies on the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.

In other words, it states that the very fact we can believe in god if proof in of itself of god's existence. It's a ridiculous argument.

Loc
04-24-2008, 10:35 AM
In other words, it states that the very fact we can believe in god if proof in of itself of god's existence. It's a ridiculous argument.
Indeed, it indicates that either all concepts are real, or god is just another concept.

jewishjosh
04-24-2008, 10:33 PM
In other words, it states that the very fact we can believe in god if proof in of itself of god's existence. It's a ridiculous argument.

It's ridiculous when people who use it to justify god try to use their subjective interpreted perspective of reality to define the absolute, objective, particles-and-waves fabric-of-the-universe reality. Otherwise it works alright for demonstrating the power that perspective holds over our lives.

gannz
04-29-2008, 5:40 AM
Coincidently we are discussing free will in psychology although its very basic stuff as the class is only a first year unit.
My opinion vastly differes from the oh so intelligent breed of women that seem to think that psychology is the path that they have been pre-determined to tread.
Anyways, from a psychological persepective, the arguement that has been going on for decades is the 'nature-nurture' debate, a debate over whether genetics or the environment are responisble for an individuals personality and thus there free will.
Most the girls agree with the nature side of the arguement and state that genetics pre-determine your actions etc etc. Recently there has been quite a lot of research and evidence pointing towards this with the mapping of the human genome which many scientists believed would put an end to the debate of whether free-will is pre-determined, however the actual arguement is still in the air and i choose to sit on the fence and throw down theories as there is j
just not enough evidence to choose between either.

On a side note, your essay has no referencing in it. Unless you're in year 10 and don't use in-text referencing that is a big no for any kind of essay.

Make sure you do a little research on how to reference, use quotes from authors to back up your own opinions and dont simply generalize. Teachers, especially in year 11 and 12 expected referencing and were, as a rule of thumb, very impressed when you exhibit referencing at the harvard standard(which is the referencing benchmark).

Depending on the class there might be different referencing methods, for isntance psych uses APA referencing (which is only a way for psychologists to make ridiculous amounts of money because they have to 'amend' the standard every freaking year meaning that new books about the standard need ot be read).

Good luck with your essay kid.