Consciousness and Free Will

[Speedlimits]

My first thought as a human being was when I was 3 years old, I was riding on a plastic bicycle. Was I conscious before this? When I was 1 or 2 years old was I simply alive but not conscious?

When you are born and come out of the womb, you breathe. But it is not your decision to breathe, it is instinct. You eat, but you do not make a decision to eat, it is encoded into your dna. You do not make any conscious decisions for the first years of your life, you are a primitive animal that lives off instinct alone. Until you reach the point of sentietence. Now you can make decisions, Do I want to eat tomato soup or just the crackers. You choose the crackers and you don;t eat the soup.

Now you have free will right? Free will is determined by our consciousness, therefore primitive animals do not have free will. There is no morality when it comes to why a dog attacks someone or doesn't attack someone. It acts. There is no decision.

So is it fair to say that humans are the only animals that possess free will? Not quite. If we can agree on the premise that without a self-aware consciousness, we cannot have freewill. We can then proceed even further. Suppose you knew
a man that performed the same routine every morning, each morning he would wake up, shower, shave and eat a bagel. In that order. He did this everyday and he never changed his routine. Now when he does this he does not make a conscious decision to do this, he has been conditioned.

He eats his bagel and does not think about why he is eating a bagel and not a banana. Let's take this a step further, now he drives to work after he has showered,shaved and eaten his bagel. One day he makes a decision to not go to work, this is where free will comes in right? If humans didn't have free will then it would be impossible for him not to go to work.

False. Since humans are inherently more complex than other animals, we have to apply a more sophisticated technique to judge whether or not this decision was in fact "free." In so much as he had another option, but did not use it.

Humans are animals, every "choice" we make is a product of the circumstance that is before us. The fact that we are conscious creates the illusion that we have freedom. When in reality the process is just more complex. It is so complex that it is not possible to prove to a definitive degree.

If I was to take all the variables in the universe, and put them in my "universe machine," I could accurately predict every single event that will happen. Since our brain is not advanced enough to calculate this on such a large degree, our subsconious (which is far more powerful than our conscious) sometimes hits the jackpot. This is where "pyschic occurences happen."

For instance, I have predicted things but never with a conscious mind. It always my subsconsious feeding me this information, of course this is the only real alternative because the conscious mind is not nearly sophisticated enough to handle all of this data.

Every event in your life is a product of other events, there are no random happenings. The only reason it seems random is because no one can figure out the pattern. This is the illusion, that we are in control. That we dictate what we do, that we are free.

[guesswest]

I don't substantially disagree with that - but I do think this analysis allows room for free will to emerge. I'm working on a paper on this at the moment.

My idea is, that from a monist perspective, human thought is a series of reactions - neurons firing etc. These interactions are decidedly causal, but we do not think of this experience of reactions as negating free will, because we consider these reactions to be in some way 'internal'. In fact, we view these causal chains as exactly what free will would be, a single consciousness making decisions about its external world. I'd contend that 'free will' in some meaningful sense of the term, arises when the sum of these internal reactions is more forceful than the sum of external forces, or when these internal reactions have more bearing with regards to precipitating action.

Both are required, if we don't have the ability to act based on our environment, free-will is just flailing around uselessly - but we consider an individual to be 'free' when their consciousness holds the casting vote.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't substantially disagree with that - but I do think this analysis allows room for free will to emerge. I'm working on a paper on this at the moment.

My idea is, that from a monist perspective, human thought is a series of reactions - neurons firing etc. These interactions are decidedly causal, but we do not think of this experience of reactions as negating free will, because we consider these reactions to be in some way 'internal'. In fact, we view these causal chains as exactly what free will would be, a single consciousness making decisions about its external world. I'd contend that 'free will' in some meaningful sense of the term, arises when the sum of these internal reactions is more forceful than the sum of external forces, or when these internal reactions have more bearing with regards to precipitating action.

Both are required, if we don't have the ability to act based on our environment, free-will is just flailing around uselessly - but we consider an individual to be 'free' when their consciousness holds the casting vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a good definition of free will. But what is controlling the thoughts? How can you control a thought when the thought is just a product of environment. Like I said initially it is impossible to prove/disprove because it is such a complex process. I am stating that since animals do not have free will, it is more probable that human beings would not have free will. Consciousness is simply a more evolved instinct.

[MidGe]

I agree it is impossible to prove/disprove whether you have free will or not.

But, it doesn't matter. If you have no freewil, no amount of discussion or differing viewpoint is going to be an issue. If you have, then try to live your life without harming others and maximising yours and others enjoyment and/or well-being.

You may as well live as if you had free will, whether so or not, under this philosophy. Can't go wrong! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree it is impossible to prove/disprove whether you have free will or not.

But, it doesn't matter. If you have no freewil, no amount of discussion or differing viewpoint is going to be an issue. If you have, then try to live your life without harming others and maximising yours and others enjoyment and/or well-being.

You may as well live as if you had free will under this philosophy. Can't go wrong! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is purely a philosophical issue. I think the issue of free will is very important when it comes to how you view the world though.

[guesswest]

Well, my argument is that a thought is not 'just' a product of environment. Present environment anyway. As you point out in your OP, we develop a concept of self over time. Self-identity is more than a term, it's both a process and an entity - specifically it's the sum of all thought experiences. Self, in some sense, becomes bigger over time.

With that in mind, when we react to our environment, we're reacting partially to what is in front of us, but also with reference to previous experience that has been integrated into 'self'. If I look at an apple, part of that experience is the apple itself, the other part is my previous experience of apples (I like them, I associate them with something etc). So when we make a decision to pick up the apple and eat it, our action is not determined only by what is in front of us. It's determined in some part by the external world, or else we could choose to pick up a unicorn instead, but I believe free will emerges as the potency of emergent self overpowers that which the environment dictates. You can argue that this is not free will, in so far as it is in some part dictated by environment, but I'd counter by saying that free will was never meant to equate to omnipotence.

I'm not convinced, btw, that animals don't have free will. Not all of them anyway.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the issue of free will is very important when it comes to how you view the world though.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is not, if you have no freewill. You could not change how you view it! Just act as if you had it! You cannot go wrong. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sounds to me like arguing/or be interested in about how many angels can stand on a pinhead!

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, my argument is that a thought is not 'just' a product of environment. Present environment anyway. As you point out in your OP, we develop a concept of self over time. Self-identity is more than a term, it's both a process and an entity - specifically it's the sum of all thought experiences. Self, in some sense, becomes bigger over time.

With that in mind, when we react to our environment, we're reacting partially to what is in front of us, but also with reference to previous experience that has been integrated into 'self'. If I look at an apple, part of that experience is the apple itself, the other part is my previous experience of apples (I like them, I associate them with something etc). So when we make a decision to pick up the apple and eat it, our action is not determined only by what is in front of us. It's determined in some part by the external world, or else we could choose to pick up a unicorn instead, but I believe free will emerges as the potency of emergent self overpowers that which the environment dictates. You can argue that this is not free will, in so far as it is in some part dictated by environment, but I'd counter by saying that free will was never meant to equate to omnipotence.

I'm not convinced, btw, that animals don't have free will. Not all of them anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

So free will is a product of intelligence. Something must be conscious in order for it to have free will. Therefore basic animals are neither conscious nor have free will. I respect your position and concede that arguing against/for free will would just end up with a circular argument.

But what animals do you think have free will?

[guesswest]

Ones with a concept of 'self'. Which looks like being a pretty small list - higher primates, dolphins etc.

Self-identity is key in so far as my argument goes, because that's the point at which 'you' consists of a series of internal determinant factors to compete with external ones. Up until that point an organism is just a series of disparate reactions, it's not really a single thing at all except for convenience of human classification.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
You may as well live as if you had free will, whether so or not, under this philosophy. Can't go wrong!

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true Sklanskyesque assumer! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the issue of free will is very important when it comes to how you view the world though.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is not, if you have no freewill. You could not change how you view it! Just act as if you had it! You cannot go wrong. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sounds to me like arguing/or be interested in about how many angels can stand on a pinhead!

[/ QUOTE ]

Free will is one part of my post. The other part is consciousness. Do you agree that most animals/insects etc have no thought process and simply "do."?

[Darryl_P]

I think my 18 month-old son has free will. Whenever he does something he's not supposed to do (which is very often), and one of us tells him to stop, he definitely makes a conscious decision on whether or not to stop. He has an amazing ability to sense whether or not he's likely to get punished if he ignores us. It depends on our tone of voice, body language etc. Of course he won't remember any of it but he definitely does have a finely tuned decision making process already at 18 months.

I also think dogs have free will. One example is selective hearing. Basset hounds are very stubborn. They understand what you want them to do, but pick and choose when they feel like doing it. There is a decision happening there. They very cleverly make it look like stupidity but if you analyze their decisions closely and note the correlation between understanding something and that something being favorable to them, the results are very interesting.

Also, if you are walking down the street and an untied dog barks at you to protect his property, his decision to actually attack you or not is based on a host of complex variables. While he's barking he'll be watching intently on your every move. If you make certain moves he'll attack, then with others he'll retreat etc. He's definitely sizing you up, assessing the various risks for himself and acting accordingly. You just have to look more closely at his situation, paying attention to the fine details, and not just consider whether he barks or not, because that's obviously instinctive.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
I think my 18 month-old son has free will. Whenever he does something he's not supposed to do (which is very often), and one of us tells him to stop, he definitely makes a conscious decision on whether or not to stop. He has an amazing ability to sense whether or not he's likely to get punished if he ignores us. It depends on our tone of voice, body language etc. Of course he won't remember any of it but he definitely does have a finely tuned decision making process already at 18 months.

I also think dogs have free will. One example is selective hearing. Basset hounds are very stubborn. They understand what you want them to do, but pick and choose when they feel like doing it. There is a decision happening there. They very cleverly make it look like stupidity but if you analyze their decisions closely and note the correlation between understanding something and that something being favorable to them, the results are very interesting.

Also, if you are walking down the street and an untied dog barks at you to protect his property, his decision to actually attack you or not is based on a host of complex variables. While he's barking he'll be watching intently on your every move. If you make certain moves he'll attack, then with others he'll retreat etc. He's definitely sizing you up, assessing the various risks for himself and acting accordingly. You just have to look more closely at his situation, paying attention to the fine details, and not just consider whether he barks or not, because that's obviously instinctive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just proved my point. If I make a move he only has one action, bark. If I make another move he only has one action, retreat.

Dogs act based on instinct and conditioning, they do not have conscious thoughts.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
You just proved my point. If I make a move he only has one action, bark. If I make another move he only has one action, retreat.

Dogs act based on instinct and conditioning, they do not have conscious thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming that those moves can be predicted in advance and that a given type of dog will always act the same way to those moves. Surely for the most blatant and obvious moves this is true, but I'm saying it's not true for the finer stuff. Different dogs will react differently to those.

Of course you could argue that it's still conditioning, but then you could also argue it's the same for humans.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree it is impossible to prove/disprove whether you have free will or not.

But, it doesn't matter. If you have no freewil, no amount of discussion or differing viewpoint is going to be an issue. If you have, then try to live your life without harming others and maximising yours and others enjoyment and/or well-being.

You may as well live as if you had free will, whether so or not, under this philosophy. Can't go wrong! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

But alas, I dont have the free will to either pretend as if I do or to refrain from discussing the topic obsessively!

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You just proved my point. If I make a move he only has one action, bark. If I make another move he only has one action, retreat.

Dogs act based on instinct and conditioning, they do not have conscious thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming that those moves can be predicted in advance and that a given type of dog will always act the same way to those moves. Surely for the most blatant and obvious moves this is true, but I'm saying it's not true for the finer stuff. Different dogs will react differently to those.

Of course you could argue that it's still conditioning, but then you could also argue it's the same for humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right different dogs will act differently but they will still act, not think. And I am arguing that it is the same for humans, just on a more complex level. Consciousness is a product of evolution which is reached once a certain intellect has emerged. Dogs do not have the intellect to make decisions.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Your right different dogs will act differently but they will still act, not think. And I am arguing that it is the same for humans, just on a more complex level. Consciousness is a product of evolution which is reached once a certain intellect has emerged. Dogs do not have the intellect to make decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK then this type of debate could go on ad nauseum (as it already has in some older threads), so I'll just ask...

What is that certain level of intellect required to make concsious decisions? What percentage of adult humans have it?

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
What is that certain level of intellect required to make concsious decisions? What percentage of adult humans have it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It emerges at 1025+ posts. Beat you.

[Jshuttlesworth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is that certain level of intellect required to make concsious decisions? What percentage of adult humans have it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It emerges at 1025+ posts. Beat you.

[/ QUOTE ]

AWESOME

very nicely done

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
It emerges at 1025+ posts. Beat you.



[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. nh

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was to take all the variables in the universe, and put them in my "universe machine," I could accurately predict every single event that will happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

False, and I can't believe no one has brought this up yet. Borodog, where are you?

Or at least hotly debated. This was the view back in the day of Newtonian mechanics, but then quantum theory came along and shot the whole thing to hell. Until we have a Theory of Everything, we will not know whether such determinism is possible. It may very well turn out that the progress of the universe is controlled at some level by random or otherwise indeterminate events.

~MagicMan

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is that certain level of intellect required to make concsious decisions? What percentage of adult humans have it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It emerges at 1025+ posts. Beat you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm almost there! And you guys better watch out once I come out of the coccoon.

EDIT: Crap, I am there, and by a wide margin. I just passed 1k like two days ago! Perhaps the required level of intelligence is closer to 1100?

[valenzuela]

I agree with your OP, however that doesnt mean that if we cant have the real thing the ilusion of freedom is something we shoudlnt look forward to.
Anyway what control do we have on our life?
I didnt choose my enviroment nor did I chose my DNA, and I personally think all desitons are DNA + Enviroment.

[John21]

Does determinism rule out a posteriori reasoning?

[guesswest]

Well if you're right, I wouldn't be sufficiently sentient to judge the situation, so I have to entertain the possibility.

Okay you've convinced me, you can harvest my organs.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Does determinism rule out a posteriori reasoning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think determinism + a posteriori reasoning = compatibilism.

[FortunaMaximus]

The illusion of free will is necessary in smaller scales.

If it didn't exist, we'd have to invent the illusion to cause change.

The distinctions are irrelevant though, whether it actually exists or not, the perception is that it does.

And that will always be enough.

Aside: <sighs> googol > pin < googolplex. The pin exists!

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your right different dogs will act differently but they will still act, not think. And I am arguing that it is the same for humans, just on a more complex level. Consciousness is a product of evolution which is reached once a certain intellect has emerged. Dogs do not have the intellect to make decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK then this type of debate could go on ad nauseum (as it already has in some older threads), so I'll just ask...

What is that certain level of intellect required to make concsious decisions? What percentage of adult humans have it?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a somewhat gray area because I cannot 100% accurately give you a precise answer. But I would say any human that is not mentally retarded.

[FortunaMaximus]

Wrong.

Set two bowls of identical food for a cat.

Repeat for 500 days.

Does it choose the same bowl every time? Do you know that without running the experiment? There's your answer.

Intellect is not required for conscious choice.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree it is impossible to prove/disprove whether you have free will or not.

But, it doesn't matter. If you have no freewil, no amount of discussion or differing viewpoint is going to be an issue. If you have, then try to live your life without harming others and maximising yours and others enjoyment and/or well-being.

You may as well live as if you had free will, whether so or not, under this philosophy. Can't go wrong! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

But alas, I dont have the free will to either pretend as if I do or to refrain from discussing the topic obsessively!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a real problem but it answers the question! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong.

Set two bowls of identical food for a cat.

Repeat for 500 days.

Does it choose the same bowl every time? Do you know that without running the experiment? There's your answer.

Intellect is not required for conscious choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because a cat chose a different bowl doesn't mean it made a choice. There are other variables that can influence it.

[FortunaMaximus]

Who said it chose a different bowl? What made you conclude that?

And that's the point, you assume that it will, and when it does, which of you actually has the free will?

That's the joke, Speed. It doesn't matter.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
Who said it chose a different bowl? What made you conclude that?

And that's the point, you assume that it will, and when it does, which of you actually has the free will?

That's the joke, Speed. It doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I already came to that conclusion that it doesn't matter but I am discussing it because I am curious.

Good joke though

[DougShrapnel]

I'm going to point out a few things and never discuss the topic you want.

[ QUOTE ]
Was I conscious before this?

[/ QUOTE ] You aren't conscious about it either way.

[ QUOTE ]
Now you have free will right? Free will is determined by our consciousness

[/ QUOTE ] You now are conscious of some choices.

[ QUOTE ]
If we can agree on the premise that without a self-aware consciousness, we cannot have freewill.

[/ QUOTE ] How do we make the case for free will when we can't observe something elses consciosness?

[ QUOTE ]
One day he makes a decision to not go to work, this is where free will comes in right?

[/ QUOTE ] Or before when something(probably him) asks him about going to work. It's iterative.

[ QUOTE ]
Humans are animals, every "choice" we make is a product of the circumstance that is before us.

[/ QUOTE ] But we also exist in time and are able to model the future. We can say that we attemp to exist in multiple futures and attemp to choose the future we like the most.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
But we also exist in time and are able to model the future. We can say that we attemp to exist in multiple futures and attemp to choose the future we like the most.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, nice. But there's the rub, in that the amount of those multiple futures and plausible paths don't change whether or not you choose. You cannot not choose.

So you could say realities where the conscious is in the perpetual now are surfing time, and you're the singularity. The past and future would look like a human circulatory system spread flat. But as many possible pasts make up a singularity as possible futures exist, which is to say they are infinite.

It's not like you're condemened to one future. You just have a profusion of choice that it renders free will a rendundancy.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, nice. But there's the rub, in that the amount of those multiple futures and plausible paths don't change whether or not you choose. You cannot not choose.


[/ QUOTE ] I have no trouble conceding limits to freedom of will.

[ QUOTE ]
So you could say realities where the conscious is in the perpetual now are surfing time, and you're the singularity. The past and future would look like a human circulatory system spread flat. But as many possible pasts make up a singularity as possible futures exist, which is to say they are infinite.


[/ QUOTE ] I don't understand the circulatory thing. But if it helps I view the human organism modeled in time looking like a miliped. With each body segment a snapshot of time. Freewill being the attemp to affect change in those future body segments. I also believe that the measurement of freewill depends on how many body segments in the entire miliped like view one is aware of, and able to act on.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not like you're condemened to one future. You just have a profusion of choice that it renders free will a rendundancy.

[/ QUOTE ] Can I say that we agree but are just using different terms?

[FortunaMaximus]

An analogy's an analogy, I don't think it's you or anybody else I'm trying to dissaude here. I just took your point and ran with it.