Neuroscience and free will

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.

I mean change as the actualization of a potential, which requires something actual to facilitate.

That doesn't sound like a physical law to me.

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.

I mean there were the Tallis essays you were going to read, but if you are going to read Of Time & Lamentation we can just wait for you to finish that.

Beyond that, the answer is Final Cause by way of Rationality / Intentionality / Subjectivity. Perhaps if there is some specific issue you have with some specific explanation in some specific post it might help to see what the problem is...I'm quite sure Physicalism of varied types -- like if angels had to have their own type of physics that bound everything there is to say about their reality --  has a problem and I agree there's no free will there...

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.

Don't you mean the swerve and bounce of particles are what actually accomplished things? Seems to me under Physicalism you were just along for the ride.

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?

Ah I was just giving the bare bones understanding there, re: your questions -> that's the kind of thing you'll probably have to ask the Panpsychic types. Maybe start with this essay?

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.

Ok, then free will is a brute fact.  

Seriously though if there is a being that is necessary in all possible worlds, that being is not a "just so" fact like "the laws of nature never change" which is just an expression of probabilistic confidence.

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

I don't think that's necessary, just the posts and essays you already said you'd go back to would suffice?

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

Yes - that was intentional. I was pointing out that we do make that choice given the alternatives. Not the choice between comfort and unease but the choice of competing worldviews. In other words, it seems to me that nihilism is as much faith driven as any alternative worldview so opting for a belief in a meaningless, worthless existence is a curious, if not disturbing, choice. There's a difference in my mind between choosing comfort (safety and solace) and choosing meaning (understanding and value).

I don't see how one could qualify meaninglessness. Something (life, actions, etc.) either has meaning or does not. 

Nevertheless, this is somewhat of a diversion from the main debate so I'll withdraw.

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

I think it's just a question of what we decide. In the law, we require that the person wasn't coerced, brainwashed, forced, etc. If the law is also going to require libertarian free will, then things will get tricky.

I'm happy to assume responsibility even if my decision was entirely deterministic and random.

Perhaps this suggests that the point of imprisonment is to keep people off the streets, not to punish them per se. Which suggests that everyone in prison for, say, a couple ounces of pot ought to get let out.

~~ Paul

I mean change as the actualization of a potential, which requires something actual to facilitate.

That doesn't sound like a physical law to me.

No? Interesting. Physics talks about potential all the time. But whatever the lowest-level actualizers are, they are going to be axiomatic.

I mean there were the Tallis essays you were going to read, but if you are going to read Of Time & Lamentation we can just wait for you to finish that.

That'll take awhile. I can take just a little bit of heavy philosophy at a time.

What I might do is look around the interwebs to see if anyone addresses my specific question.

Beyond that, the answer is Final Cause by way of Rationality / Intentionality / Subjectivity. Perhaps if there is some specific issue you have with some specific explanation in some specific post it might help to see what the problem is...I'm quite sure Physicalism of varied types -- like if angels had to have their own type of physics that bound everything there is to say about their reality --  has a problem and I agree there's no free will there...

That answer is a proper name and three proper attributes that have something to do with making the decision. Beyond that there are no details. It doesn't get to how that tetrad decides for chicken rather than fish.

Don't you mean the swerve and bounce of particles are what actually accomplished things? Seems to me under Physicalism you were just along for the ride.

I am the ride. I suppose I might think free will makes my decisions "more mine" if I understood how those decisions were made.

~~ Paul

Ok, then free will is a brute fact.

Fair enough!

Seriously though if there is a being that is necessary in all possible worlds, that being is not a "just so" fact like "the laws of nature never change" which is just an expression of probabilistic confidence.

I don't understand why all possible worlds have to involve that being. How about one that is entirely deterministic?


~~ Paul

No? Interesting. Physics talks about potential all the time. But whatever the lowest-level actualizers are, they are going to be axiomatic.

Are the mentions of potential in physics something that has to be true of all change in any possible world where change exists?

That answer is a proper name and three proper attributes that have something to do with making the decision. Beyond that there are no details. It doesn't get to how that tetrad decides for chicken rather than fish.

The longer explanation is in one of the posts you said you'd check out.

I am the ride.

That makes no sense at all, given any time you worked hard you couldn't have done otherwise unless it was a swerve of atoms.

If Physicalism is true you (or me. or anyone else) never accomplished anything in your life, anymore than a river "accomplished" flowing into the ocean. (Assuming there's no river spirit doing anything...)

Can you explain how, if I am not the cause of my actions (good or bad), I am responsible for them? By simple logic this seems impossible, so I still have no inkling how this could be true.

=-=-=

Fair enough!

I don't understand why all possible worlds have to involve that being. How about one that is entirely deterministic?

~~ Paul

Well if such a being - really a Ground of Being - is necessary it would also be necessary to sustain that deterministic world's existence. Or, at the least, it would have presence there.

Word of advice Paul. It may be helpful to set aside all the weirdness you may associate with ‘matter’. Discard any sublime, miraculous and bizarre phenomena that physics, and the examination of the natural world, might have revealed. Strip ‘the physical’ down to its kindergarten representation, and then underestimate its properties a little further. That may make it easier to converse with your audience.

Are the mentions of potential in physics something that has to be true of all change in any possible world where change exists?

No. But I'm really not sure how we can come up with axioms or whatever for change in all possible worlds.

The longer explanation is in one of the posts you said you'd check out.

Any chance you could link to that post?

That makes no sense at all, given any time you worked hard you couldn't have done otherwise unless it was a swerve of atoms.

If Physicalism is true you (or me. or anyone else) never accomplished anything in your life, anymore than a river "accomplished" flowing into the ocean. (Assuming there's no river spirit doing anything...)

Can you explain how, if I am not the cause of my actions (good or bad), I am responsible for them? By simple logic this seems impossible, so I still have no inkling how this could be true.

I accomplished the things because it is my brain and body performing the actions. I am responsible because I performed the actions. That's sufficient for the law. For a personal philosophy, well:

I agree that if, somehow, I am making free decisions about my actions, then there would be a greater sense of accomplishment. However, since I have no idea how I make those free decisions, I'm not seeing any improvement in my feelings of self-worth.

Well if such a being - really a Ground of Being - is necessary it would also be necessary to sustain that deterministic world's existence. Or, at the least, it would have presence there.

I can understand that philosophically, but I don't think we should simply assume that god is required for all possible worlds. That's a bit too faith-based for me.

~~ Paul

No. But I'm really not sure how we can come up with axioms or whatever for change in all possible worlds.

What is change but something potential becoming actual?

Any chance you could link to that post?

I linked to it before [in reply to you]? It was a reply to Kamarling....it was a few pages back...I think around page 52?

I accomplished the things because it is my brain and body performing the actions. I am responsible because I performed the actions. That's sufficient for the law.

So if I rewire your brain and make you a super villain, who is responsible? And if the answer is me, what if some swerve of indeterminism begets a change in your brain to accomplish the same change in your personality?

And while there is a legal standard, this obviously doesn't give a sense of personal responsibility, just a [motivation] to avoid getting caught for crimes for those who want to act out their desires.

Beyond that it's just atoms, really all the constituents of the Universe (energy, fields, particles, etc) that comes together via Order/Chaos to make a decision? And then, as Tallis points out in Of Time and Lamentation, isn't it really just one cause when all consciousness is cashed out - like the Big Bang - just as an arrow released has its cause in the bow?

Is each "I" then the Universe? That seems like too much overlap to be logical, at least under Physicalism given all mentality is cashed out before getting to the real causes.

For a personal philosophy, well:

I agree that if, somehow, I am making free decisions about my actions, then there would be a greater sense of accomplishment. However, since I have no idea how I make those free decisions, I'm not seeing any improvement in my feelings of self-worth.

So Physicalism is the major philosophy for much of the skeptical movement, but no one stopped to figure out how to preserve personal moral responsiibility?

Surely there's some way a person who can avoid any justice by the law could be argued into taking personal moral responsibility under Physicalism?

Some way that someone who isn't causally capable of actually making free decisions can feel proud of an achievement, or feel guilty for bad actions? I mean I have not even the slightest inkling how this could be so, but there must be some way right?

I can understand that philosophically, but I don't think we should simply assume that god is required for all possible worlds. That's a bit too faith-based for me.

~~ Paul

I believe Laird was talking about varied proofs, like Aquinas' 5 Ways, to show all possible worlds would have to have thing being.

So God as Universal Intellect holding the Math/Logic we use in Its mind, or God as the Supreme Intellect who assigns Final Causes...that sort of thing.