Neuroscience and free will

I don't understand how you are going to model change with only logic, especially if the model is supposed to hold in all possible worlds. I think you will end up with either a set of just-so claims or a set of "rules" so general that they are not useful.

I've no idea what you are trying to say here. If we can describe what it means to change, at a fundamental level, it will hold true in at least all intelligible worlds. Worlds that are irrational, if even possible, wouldn't have explanations for anything anyway.

I'm sorry, but it's obvious that what you see as an answer does not strike me as one. It would be so helpful if you could point to one paragraph that answers the question of why/how we choose a particular decision from the possibility space. Then I can say aha! or explain that the answer does not mean the same thing to me.

It would feel more obvious if you could point to something in the essays/posts I've already linked you to and you said you would check out. I don't there's any satisfying explanation that can be done in a paragraph as that has already occurred in this thread leading up to lengthier posts.

I don't agree with your conclusion about a life without free will. Also, I'm not sure at all why the presence of free will somehow gives my life worth. But I'm not sure we want to go down this path.

It's obvious Physicalism makes life worthless - every decision was really just the swerve of atoms, so you don't accomplish anything nor are you responsible for anything.

If you have any kind of argument, even a sketch of how this isn't the case, feel free to let us know. 

To me, it's a crazy notion. What would possibly be the point? The probability distribution for which particle undergoes an alpha decay is uniform. Why does God bother with this?

I don't think I mentioned God's necessary involvement? Just what it would mean for a particle to have conscious agency.

It doesn't seem like the same thing at all. When you finally have a model of the indeterministic world we have been talking about, you will have brute facts. It sounds like God is a big one.

I don't see how those two posts explain the difference between God and a brute fact. Perhaps it will become clear if you post the paragraph that explains why/how I choose one outcome over the others.

~~ Paul

If the world is intelligible, it has to be intelligible beyond brute facts. So you need to seek some being that, as Laird notes, is necessary in all possible worlds. "God" here is just a word, we could say "Brahman", "The One of Plotinus", etc.

Actually I'm waiting for your responses to things you've already said you'd look at so ball is in your court.

As long as we're waiting maybe tell us briefly how Physicalism - where we know free will is impossible by its assumptions about reality - doesn't mean human life is completely worthless?

Again, I'm losing track of where this discussion is going. I find nothing suggested in this post satisfying.

God: as a creator/director/ultimate determinant ... this seems too close to the old testament version of God the creator, existing above and apart from His creation. This divine micro-management is not my idea of individual freedom of choice.

Luck: reminds me of all the times sceptics use luck (chance) to explain anomalies. A god-of-the-gaps but with luck replacing god.

Randomness: like luck, a chance coming together resulting in something apparently non-random (designed or intended).

Any or all of these things might play a role (there might be local gods, or gods with jobs, for all we know) or maybe none of them do. What matters to me is that I have the freedom to choose between chicken or fish, that I do so by using my conscious will which is informed but not pre-determined. I have yet to see a cogent argument why this should not be the case.

Yeah there's nothing I can see either, seems like every concern that can be answered has been given at the least the sketch of an answer at this point.

Admittedly I may not see the problem, since I think explanations for reality should go from Mind --> World rather than World --> Mind. Maybe if someone implicitly thinks all explanations have to akin to physics explanations there's a point?

I mean I get that Physicalism means life is completely worthless b/c there's no free will but don't see why anyone else needs to worry...

I mean I get that Physicalism means life is completely worthless b/c there's no free will but don't see why anyone else needs to worry...

I can sort of understand, though not agree with, the nihilist view of life but I am aghast that anyone should feel content with that worldview. So I'm not proposing that we should choose a worldview based upon what might make us feel happy and content rather than what is rational but I am a long way from being convinced that nihilism can be demonstrated to be rational. Why someone would willingly prefer to believe that his or her life, including all decisions, acts and achievements, is meaningless is completely beyond me. For myself, given the slightest doubt that nihilism might be true, I'd devote my life to finding truth in the alternative.

Here's an interesting thought - at least to me. We've (individually - Sci and I) canvassed the idea that there is a rational argument for a Ground of Being having a necessary existence - that is, an existence in every possible world - but that would seem to give us only a bare glimmer of the nature of this Being. I wonder whether it has (1) more necessary properties that can be demonstrated via arguments that we haven't yet considered, and (2) if not, then contingent properties that apply simply in a limited set of possible worlds amongst which our actual world is contained?

There seem to be many variations on the Ground of Being...I've slowly begun looking into this question b/c I think it provides the necessary shift to all causes involving mentality in some way.

The qualities I've seen are the Mind that holds the Universals of Math/Logic, Prime Mover (Pure Actuality), Author of Final Causes, Non-Composite, and something about God as Ground of Being having its Essence unified with its Existence...I confess I've yet to understand what the last one even means...

I can sort of understand, though not agree with, the nihilist view of life but I am aghast that anyone should feel content with that worldview. So I'm not proposing that we should choose a worldview based upon what might make us feel happy and content rather than what is rational but I am a long way from being convinced that nihilism can be demonstrated to be rational. Why someone would willingly prefer to believe that his or her life, including all decisions, acts and achievements, is meaningless is completely beyond me. For myself, given the slightest doubt that nihilism might be true, I'd devote my life to finding truth in the alternative.

Oh, I think Physicalism is just impossible since it has to mean - as per the physicalist Alex Rosenberg - we don't have thoughts.

But yes, I think the skeptical evangelist project is one of the oddest faith-based endeavors in history - that somehow telling people they are on a choiceless course toward oblivion in a world where there are no objective values is going to make the world a better place...

...doesn't add up in my book.

I've no idea what you are trying to say here. If we can describe what it means to change, at a fundamental level, it will hold true in at least all intelligible worlds. Worlds that are irrational, if even possible, wouldn't have explanations for anything anyway.

I do not think you can come up with a description of what it means to change that won't sound like a set of physical laws. But I'm entirely willing to watch such a project to see how it goes.

It would feel more obvious if you could point to something in the essays/posts I've already linked you to and you said you would check out. I don't there's any satisfying explanation that can be done in a paragraph as that has already occurred in this thread leading up to lengthier posts.

Well then, we can leave it at that. I don't recall any posts that seem to me to address my question. The posts are primarily about naming agents and naming various kinds of effects. I don't recall anything that addresses why these agents and effects result in a particular choice from among the possibility space. I have heard words like "wants" and "desires," which I agree have some part in the decision, but I still don't know how I got to wanting chicken instead of fish, or to wanting fish instead of chicken in exactly the same circumstances.

It's obvious Physicalism makes life worthless - every decision was really just the swerve of atoms, so you don't accomplish anything nor are you responsible for anything.

I accomplish many things and I'm responsible for them. I don't understand how free will makes the situation better than this. But then again, I don't understand free will.

I don't think I mentioned God's necessary involvement? Just what it would mean for a particle to have conscious agency.

What sort of consciousness does an atom have? And why does it choose to emit alpha particles at random intervals? And how can you possibly know the answers to those questions?

~~ Paul

If the world is intelligible, it has to be intelligible beyond brute facts. So you need to seek some being that, as Laird notes, is necessary in all possible worlds. "God" here is just a word, we could say "Brahman", "The One of Plotinus", etc.

I see no reason why we necessarily have to understand the brute facts. Nor do I understand why I should treat that being as something special other than a brute fact.

Actually I'm waiting for your responses to things you've already said you'd look at so ball is in your court.

Perhaps I will be inspired to read the past 30 pages yet again.

As long as we're waiting maybe tell us briefly how Physicalism - where we know free will is impossible by its assumptions about reality - doesn't mean human life is completely worthless?

Not to me. But I don't understand the difference that free will can make to make it worth something.

~~ Paul

I can sort of understand, though not agree with, the nihilist view of life but I am aghast that anyone should feel content with that worldview. So I'm not proposing that we should choose a worldview based upon what might make us feel happy and content rather than what is rational but I am a long way from being convinced that nihilism can be demonstrated to be rational. Why someone would willingly prefer to believe that his or her life, including all decisions, acts and achievements, is meaningless is completely beyond me. For myself, given the slightest doubt that nihilism might be true, I'd devote my life to finding truth in the alternative.

Whoa. First you said that we should not choose a worldview based on what is satisfying. Fine. Then you asked why someone would willingly prefer to believe that life is meaningless. Perhaps that are not believing it willingly, but just because no one presented an alternative they find coherent. And perhaps they don't have the same concept of meaninglessness.

~~ Paul

I accomplish many things and I'm responsible for them. I don't understand how free will makes the situation better than this. 

Am I wrong to see a contradiction here? Doesn't responsibility imply free will?