It seems to me the opposite is happening; when has free will meant anything but a conscious decision to do something? The argument for free will here seems to be that, since the brain is part of the biological system of the person who thinks they're making the choice, then free will exists for that biological system. By that logic, I have free will over my heart function tooThis whole thing seems like a definitional argument where we want to define free will and consciousness in such a way that we can proclaim that for a certain set of accepted definitions, we have no free will. No free will sounds edgy! Proclaim it! Now buy my interesting book on philosophy.
It's my (limited) understanding that the direction of an emitted photon is completely random. Either way, it doesn't change the original pointPhoton transmission through an uneven medium is unpredictable to a point, but not random, because we don't have a complex enough predictive model. Just because we lack the tools or knowledge to understand a pattern does not make it random. Or are you seriously arguing that two identical particles in identical closed systems will behave completely differently under identical circumstances? Because that pretty much flies in the face of the basics of scientific physical laws.
I don't think it sounds edgy, I think it sounds nihilistic and depressing on its face. Thinking it through, it loses that at some point. At least for me. To declare "free will exists" is to basically declare that magic exists. And maybe one day we'll see that it does and is just hidden from us in some respect. But given what we know right now, it's just not there. There's no little man in your head or mine, things just happen and occur, independent of what we will.This whole thing seems like a definitional argument where we want to define free will and consciousness in such a way that we can proclaim that for a certain set of accepted definitions, we have no free will. No free will sounds edgy! Proclaim it! Now buy my interesting book on philosophy.
Unless the liver malfunction is flooding my brain with pneumonia, then it has no link or affect on my personality or the 'biological sense of me'. And there in lies the difference. I can illustrate tons of inexorable links between 'who you are' and your brain function. You're attempting to separate an organism that is not functionally separable. Your consciousness is PART of your brain, that 'biological sense of me' simply does not exist as a separate entity--it is all 'one thing'. In order to make this argument, he needs to construct that sense of me and then deconstruct it to 'blow everyone's minds'.Harris isn't making a distinction between the brain and the mind. He's a materialist through and through. But there is a fundamental difference between believing you're making a conscious decision and actually making a conscious decision. He's saying you can no more take credit for the thoughts and actions that enter your brain than you can for your liver filtering your blood. The difference being that we don't feel like we're responsible for the action of our livers. He's not arguing a sort of soul, but is saying we have a biological sense of "me". And we all feel like the "me" is driving, but when we look closer, it seems it is not.
Do we give the man with a tumor a break? I mean, we pity him the same way we pity someone who had a childhood where cigarettes were put out on his skin and locked in a dark room, and then became a serial killer. The organism fundamentally changed, the function by which it made choices did change--yes. But it can still make choices, right? So it does have 'free will'. In order to deny this you have to attempt to 'separate' cognition from the organism, as said though, they are linked, your cognition changes with brain structure. It's not a separate thing.And in the case of blame and justice, he brings up brain tumours all the time. The man who develops a tumour and ends up with a criminal fetish is no more or less at fault for his brain physiology than the man who is born with a brain that results in the same desires. Only we give the man with the tumour a break (that's not to say the tumor-free man shouldn't be thrown in jail. I'm with Chaos in that lack of free will shouldn't have any bearing on our current justice system)
Decision. You're adding 'conscious' to it, again, your consciousness is merely a product of the sum of your brain, these two things can not be separated anymore than time can be spoken of without space. People sometimes have a fundamental inability to grasp what being 'me' is, and we do this with a lot of abstract concepts that are difficult to think about (Again, time and space...It's useful for us to think of them as separate but that doesn't mean that they are.)What is free will if not a conscious decision?
Not at all. Your heart does not affect your cognition directly. Your cognition is baseddirectlyoff of the structure of your brain. They are linked in a loop that makes the choices for the organism. It is your decision making body, and thus that is where your 'free will' comes from. Your heart doesn't affect that chain.It seems to me the opposite is happening; when has free will meant anything but a conscious decision to do something? The argument for free will here seems to be that, since the brain is part of the biological system of the person who thinks they're making the choice, then free will exists for that biological system. By that logic, I have free will over my heart function too
Yes. An alien didn't jump in and take over your brain. This is disconcerting the same way people who realize how time truly is, find it disconcerting. (Edit: Because, people show the ability to navigate complex tasks while sleep walking. You can make choices, you piss on the couch one night, the next you go eat peanut butter. You're making choices.)When I sleep walk into the living room and piss all over the couch, am I demonstrating free will?
Your bar for free will is set extraordinarily low. We probably won't get anywhere with thisYes.
And this is completely irrelevant. A lack of free will doesn't affect cognition of events. The lack of free will would be demonstrated in where the idea of locking yourself in the room came from. (eg, why did it only come on the 3rd time you pissed on the couch and not the second? Why was locking the door the solution and not wearing a diaper? etc)Beyond that though, can your cognition of these events (Later) alter your will in the future? Clearly yes. If you're a sleep walker, you can choose to lock yourself in the room or even to your bed in a manner that makes it difficult to do so again, and impossible to remove while sleep walking. Illustrating your cognition of events affected your choices in the future--which represents even 'conscious free will' outside of moment to moment determinism.
You just expanded the definition of "Free Will" so much that includes everything including no free will as well.Yes. An alien didn't jump in and take over your brain. This is disconcerting the same way people who realize how time truly is, find it disconcerting. (Edit: Because, people show the ability to navigate complex tasks while sleep walking. You can make choices, you piss on the couch one night, the next you go eat peanut butter. You're making choices.)
Beyond that though, can your cognition of these events (Later) alter your will in the future? Clearly yes. If you're a sleep walker, you can choose to lock yourself in the room or even to your bed in a manner that makes it difficult to do so again, and impossible to remove while sleep walking. Illustrating your cognition of events affected your choices in the future--which represents even 'conscious free will' outside of moment to moment determinism.
My bar for free will is essentially the capability to take actions that are more complex than the stimuli presented (IE it's not a simple cause/effect relationship). Sleep walkers can take any number of actions depending on what their mind is constructing, just because its not based on outside stimuli doesn't mean it isn't will. You're confusing the ability for humans to distinguish reality with actions taken.Your bar for free will is set extraordinarily low. We probably won't get anywhere with this
This is just Reductio ad absurdum ask why enough and you'll deconstruct reality. There is a reason why determinism needs to attempt to whittle this down from moment to moment, the problem is, just like a single cell won't give us the picture of how an organ works--determinism's abstraction of 'time space' doesn't give us the full picture of choice.And this is completely irrelevant. A lack of free will doesn't affect cognition of events. The lack of free will would be demonstrated in where the idea of locking yourself in the room came from. (eg, why did it only come on the 3rd time you pissed on the couch and not the second? Why was locking the door the solution and not wearing a diaper? etc)
It's a fugue state to you, the outside observer. You have no idea if he's making choices in whatever reality he's observing. Again, this is less about free will, and more about free will through the abstraction of 'what is reality'. As I said above, if I plugged you into the Matrix, and you made choices, you obviously have free will--but to me, on the outside, staring at your body not moving? You don't. You're just displaying the concept is relative.Stumbling around in a fugue is not "making choices". That is just taking actions.
Again,what is consciousness? Your consciousness is made up of those chemical processes--this isn't something you can take apart. If the chemical processes in your brain interpreted photons differently, you consciousness would beradicallyaltered. These are not discrete concepts outside of basic function. Consciousness is an aspect of the brain. Discussing it alone is like trying to explain abstract concepts of space time without relativity; it breaks down because these concepts are the same thing.You just expanded the definition of "Free Will" so much that includes everything including no free will as well.
By free will at least I usually mean a conscious decision not something that got foisted upon us by our subconscious or by chemical process of our brains.
You missed my point. Your heart function is controlled by your brain. The unconscious "decisions" you're making are controlled by your brain. You have no free will over either. if you're taking credit for the latter, you have to take credit for the formerNot at all. Your heart does not affect your cognition directly. Your cognition is baseddirectlyoff of the structure of your brain.
Consciousness is an emergent property of our brains, it is a byproduct of all of our other brain functions. You are saying that free will is the same which is changing the definition of what is accepted as "Free Will"Again,what is consciousness? Your consciousness is made up of those chemical processes--this isn't something you can take apart. If the chemical processes in your brain interpreted photons differently, you consciousness would beradicallyaltered. These are not repeatable concepts. Consciousness is an aspect of the brain. Discussing it alone is like trying to explain abstract concepts of space time without relativity; it breaks down because these concepts are the same thing.
That maybe a bad example as some people can learn to control their heart rate to at least some degree.You missed my point. Your heart function is controlled by your brain. The unconscious "decisions" you're making are controlled by your brain. You have no free will over either
Reality exists, but we don't see it. We perceive it through our meat sensors. If you plugged me into the matrix, I didn't make choices anymore than I did in real life. I reacted to stimuli via a process that no one can comprehend, based on factors I'm not even aware of. That's not relativity.It's a fugue state to you, the outside observer. You have no idea if he's making choices in whatever reality he's observing. Again, this is less about free will, and more about free will through the abstraction of 'what is reality'. As I said above, if I plugged you into the Matrix, and you made choices, you obviously have free will--but to me, on the outside, staring at your body not moving? You don't. You're just displaying the concept is relative.
Perhaps... lets go with gall bladder thenThat maybe a bad example as some people can learn to control their heart rate to at least some degree.
I think the problem here is I'm not communicating what I mean. Your consciousness, who you believe you are, is based off of those functions. Depression, for example, is a stress reaction--something in your 'unconscious' is broken and sending you stimuli that you are under stress or in emotionally traumatized. This changes your cognition. Depressed people think differently, we know this. In essence, who you 'believe you are' is just an abstract of those processes...The choices those processes make,isyou.You missed my point. Your heart function is controlled by your brain. The unconscious "decisions" you're making are controlled by your brain. You have no free will over either