During the course of such explorations in 1991, neurosurgeon Itzhak Fried, now at the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues stimulated the presupplementary motor area, part of the vast expanse of cerebral cortex that lies in front of the primary motor cortex. Activation of different parts of the motor cortex usually triggers movements in different parts on the opposite side of the body, for example, the foot, leg, hip, and so on. The medical team discovered that electrical stimulation of this adjacent region of cortex can, on occasion, give rise to an urge to move a limb. The patient reports that he or she feels a need to move the leg, elbow or arm.
This classical account was elaborated on by a recent study from Michel Desmurget and his colleagues at the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience in Bron, France, that was published in the international journal Science. Here it was electrical stimulation of the posterior parietal cortex, gray matter involved in the transformation of visual information into motor commands—as when your eyes scan the scene in front of you and come to rest on the movie marquee—that could produce pure intentions to act. Patients made comments (in French) such as “It felt like I wanted to move my foot. Not sure how to explain,” “I had a desire to move my right hand,” or “I had a desire to roll my tongue in my mouth.” In none of these cases did they actually carry out the movement to which they referred. But the external stimulation caused an unambiguous conscious feeling of wanting to move. And this feeling arose from within, without any prompting by the examiner and not during sham stimulation.
This was different from the cortical sector explored by the earlier Fried study. One difference between the two stimulated regions was that, at higher current levels, the patient actually moved the limb when the target site was the presupplementary motor area. Parietal stimulation, on the other hand, could trigger a sensation that actual movement had occurred, yet without any motion actually occurring (illusion of movement).
The take-home lesson is that the brain has specific cortical circuits that, when triggered, are associated with sensations that arise in the course of wanting to initiate and then carry out a voluntary action. Once these circuits are delimited and their molecular and synaptic signatures identified, they constitute the neuronal correlates of consciousness for intention and agency. If these circuits are destroyed by a stroke or some other calamity, the patient might act without feeling that it is she who is willing the acting!
In the debate concerning the meaning of personal freedom, these discoveries represent true progress, beyond the eternal metaphysical question of free will that will never be answered.
This article was originally published with the title The Will to Power.
See what we're tweeting about
46 Comments
Add CommentThey described the stimulated area of the brain as creating a "need" to move a particular body part. Is this different to the actual intention of moving that body part, a.k.a, free will?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider having an itch on your head, this could be compared to the stimulated "need" to move your hand from the experiment. Now, imagine you "decide" to put a hat on your head. You still get that "need" to put the hat on your head. Presumably, that need would be created by the sensation of feeling a heat on your face from the sun, combined with the knowledge that if you fail to put a hat on, you will be sunburnt, and the expected feeling of relief after the hat is on. The balance between action (putting on the hat) and inaction (not putting on the hat) has fallen to the side of action, almost like a decision matrix has weighed the two possibilities and selected the most appropriate one; and thus your motor cortex receives a signal which gives you a "need" to pick up the hat and put it on your head. All the while, you are thinking it is your conscious decision, spurred purely by the intention of your will to act.
What is interesting to note is that even if you chose not to put the hat on, your brain may still simulate the movement, so as to prepare you for movement incase you do decide to move.
I see no difference here between a stimulated action and "free will" (the decision to do something of your own accord).
I am in no way saying that there is no such thing as free will, but in my mind, it may all be a big illusion.
This doesn't remove any amount of responsibility for actions on people, they still have agency, but their agency has a limited amount of possiblities, and the choices may be influenced by environment, past experiences, genetic predispositions etc. Life is a series of choices, and it is those choices which you make that determine the outcomes of the future.
To me, the brain undergoes the same laws of cause and effect as the universe, and the existence of a truly "free will" would violate this law, as something had to have caused the will, rather than simply a magical manifestation.
And here I was, not wanting to start a philosophical discussion on free will, almost like I had no choice in the matter ;)
Or, maybe it was my subconscious motivation to start a philosophical discussion which overpowered my desire to converse civilly.
This outlines the importance of making the right decision, as the wrong decision can come back to bite you, even if it wasn't your conscious choice.
I see in the article that there is confusion regarding the definition of free will. Only "will" has been discussed. "Free will" means someone could have willed differently with all prior conditions, including neuron states, being the same. Maybe the author added the adjective "free" because it "sexes up" the discussion. But no one ever established that free will in the classic sense (could have willed differently) exists. There is no such thing as "free will." The notion of free will was invented initially because the human mind wants to blame, and freedom seems to be necessary in order to attach blame. The brain projects these biases. If you are not timid about such things, not afraid to be politically incorrect, you can establish that there is no free will. The result? To always forgive is permissible, even appropriate. In other words, put murderers in prison but smile when you do it. Of course those who are temperamentally driven by the instinct to blame will need the illusion of free will forever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find this especially interesting:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Patients made comments (in French) such as It felt like I wanted to move my foot. Not sure how to explain, I had a desire to move my right hand, or I had a desire to roll my tongue in my mouth. In none of these cases did they actually carry out the movement to which they referred. But the external stimulation caused an unambiguous conscious feeling of wanting to move."
Where I am finding the disconnect from "free will" is that, although one is experiencing a desire to act, nevertheless, the action discussed here still only involves the self directly. The thought of, "I have an itch, I'm going to scratch my head" is quite different than, "This person pissed me off, and now I'm going to kill them." I know this sounds ridiculous, but my point is that the first action only involves a physical stimuli that began with the self in the first place. The second action, however, involves outside stimuli and the need to devise a plan as to how one will carry out the act... basically premeditation.
In no way am I stating that I have the answers for any of this, but rather wanting to raise questions. Am I missing something in this article that allows for one to draw such conclusions as the author and researchers suggest, or am I raising viable questions?
Even if there is an area in the brain that creates choices and intentions, still the question remains: Then what triggers those areas? I think we cannot answer "Other brain areas." because that would cause a chicken and the egg problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“the brain undergoes the same laws of cause and effect as the universe” How do we know that all of the universe obeys these laws of cause and effect? This is belief is produced in the same device producing the idea that “I am in no way saying that there is no such thing as free will, but in my mind, it may all be a big illusion.” So which is the illusion? The idea that free will is an illusion doesn’t pass the smell test. Try it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFree Will is pure illusion. It’s just the simple mathematical response of all those little atoms bouncing around in my head who just happened to conspire to make my fingers compose these sentences just this way as a matter of determinate physics and random chance.
Come on guys! Surely you don’t believe that! But, then I know that you can’t help yourself. It’s all those little atoms...NOT
I think it is more likely that the belief that all the universe satisfies the current laws of cause and effect as have been invented in human brains by this current date is the illusion. And a pretty arrogant one at that. www.MindMadeReal.com.
The problem with the idea of free will is that it's a confused and possibly meaningless concept; I've never heard an explanation that made much sense to me. We all agree that free will is impossible in a completely deterministic universe, but presumably throwing in a bit of randomness to our actions doesn't help either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a way to think about it (belief in God not required): does God, knowing you as well as God does (certainly better than you know yourself), know what you'll do next, down to the last detail? If so, you're living in a deterministic universe, and you have no free will. But if not (that is, if you sometimes do things in a way neither you nor God could have foreseen), aren't your actions a little bit random? Where's the "freedom" in that?
I'm just not sure we even know what we mean, when we say "free will." Makes it kinda hard to debate its existence.
Now in order to see things again in a different light , the same procedure of manipulating the body with current needs to be done on someone who believes in God fervently and prays the whole time to keep their own will eg. they pray to scratch their toes. Their prayer needs to be specific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis experiment provides evidence that feelings of agency and intention can and do arise from purely deterministic and physical causes. Does that prove that a soul does not exist? No, but then you cant prove that my invisible fire breathing dragon doesnt exist either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you know that the murderous feelings of serial killers aren't like an itch that they MUST scratch. Infact from the many accounts of killers, they are DRIVEN by a compulsion to act, almost a subconscious motivation to kill. This to me, seems like a scratch that must be itched. You can stop yourself, but it takes huge amounts of willpower, and given enough time, you will break and act.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat causes those other brain areas to act is a combination of senses and genetic pre-dispositions, which in turn will influence memory and future mental states.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink about it, just because we start with a blank slate (a clear mind) in the beginning, doesn't mean that it's impossible to get the so called ball rolling. It is the senses which do this. Ever wondered why infants explore things with their hands and mouth? They are categorising everything, and these early mental schemas are built upon later in life to the point where thought and action becomes second nature. It all starts from somewhere.
@Donpaul
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, I'm not saying that we should drop the ball and say, "my mind will take care of it" because alot of actions and intent requires conscious intervention, but the majority of mental processes are actually sub-conscious or unconscious processes, our consciousness only experiences the tip of the iceberg of mental processing.
Ever wondered what motivates you to do things? It's not your conscious free will driving those motivations, it is non conscious mental processes all intermixing which finally results in your feeling or perception of being motivated.
@Tucker M
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me the problem of free will stems back to the problem of describing and explaining consciousness, as it too seems like it is impossible to pin down and say "this is where it is located, this is what causes it".
If it were possible to explain consciousness in physiological and scientific terms then free will would merely be an extension of that explaination.
The biggest problem neuroscience is facing with studying consciousness is that half of the field refuse to even acknowledge its existence, even though that every person who is conscious knows it atleast exists subjectively for them. Even if consciousness itself turns out to be simply an emergent phenomena caused by high level neurological functioning, this doesn't make its existence a moot point, it is there. If we start paying more attention to it, we may have a chance at chipping away at it until things become clearer, but until the scientific community pulls their fingers out we will be fighting a losing battle.
The other problem I see is that to fully explain the phenomenon of consciousness, we may need to integrate physics and possibly even philosophy into a single focussed field. This could be a problem.
The first paragraph of this article uses an argument that befuddles evolutionism vs creationism. The logic of these arguments is "I cant explain something therefore it must be due to ...(insert argument of choice)". I believe such arguments dance around the issue but solve nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second part of the argument is stronger. ie We can physically manipulate the brain in such a way to produce a feeling related to or simulating a sensation of free will. Therefore free will is actually a result of a similar stimulation or event and thus an "illusion". The ultimate outcome of such pursuits could be to find a physical correlate of every aspect of free will - in which case free will would indeed be shown to be an illusion.
I actually doubt that will happen. There is no doubt that free will is manifested through physico-chemical mechanisms in the body in the later stages of this chain of events. However, this does not really touch on on the subjective sensation of free will. Secondly when we get so close to the initiating event such that it is is essentially random molecular activity, it will be unknowable whether this is truly random activity or some dualistic notion of free will.
@PoweroftheMind,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that consciousness and free will are inter-related and equally vexing topics, but I do think they're distinct. The problem of consciousness relates to our passive, subjective experiences (of color, self, wishing, etc.), while free will is about the reality or un-reality of agency (not just the passive experience of agency, but whether it's even a real thing).
If you're going to protest that a field refuses to acknowledge the existence of a thing, you at least have to be ready to say what that thing is. "Consciousness" is easy to talk about (as elusive as it may be) - it's our subjective world; nothing ambiguous about that. But free will? What does that even mean?
When I say I want my will to be "free," I really mean that I want my thoughts and intentions to be allowed to run their own course, undictated by outside forces. Fine; but what about the inside forces, all those components of my psyche that make me who I am? Do I want to be free of those, too...?
Of course not; that would mean I'm less in control of my actions, not more. But then what do I care whether those reliable inside components (the ones that make me who I am) are made of just brain chemicals, or a "will," or a "soul"? What difference does it make to the freedom of my will?
Other than the use of 'quiddity', not much novel here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFree will is an elusive beast. Let's cage it with this thought experiment.
You are the recipient of some cash through a very quiet transaction. Only you are aware of this. Your adult child is requiring an influx of some cash to resolve a debt.
Why it's the re-emergence of Scylla and Charybdis from the seas of possibility!
Do you give them the money?
Do you give up your daily jelly doughnut to lessen your kid's burdens?
Do You?
Seems like free will may have to be expressed here.
I have 2 mosquito bites on my leg. As I write this line, I will scratch one. I have waited a few minutes, the itch intensity is the same. I have decided not to scratch either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few minutes have passed, no scratching.
Interesting illusion, is it not? this will that I do not have.
@ralphskinner:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one disputes whether we have a will - that would be as silly as disputing whether we are conscious. Like you, I clearly have a will, and I certainly decide to do or not do things. There's no illusion in that, and no one is saying there is.
But what seems to really bug people is whether that will is "free" or not. And to me, the question doesn't even make sense. Free from what, after all?
Koch writes of the sensation of agency the feeling you get when you initiate an action, like moving a part your body. He say such sensations are like tasting chicken soup and can be elicited by electrode stimulation of the brain. They can also be illusory. In this context, he questions whether free will is an illusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKoch writes that the electrode experiments do not speak to the metaphysical debate about whether will is truly free. He's right. The fact that an electrode in my brain could give me a feeling of intention to move implies nothing about whether I can elicit the feeling myself through the exercise of free will.
But Koch's main thesis is the one he explains in the first paragraphs. Raising the specter of a ghostly (i.e., immaterial) soul, he asks what sort of physical laws Casper follows.
Leaving aside Kochs condescension toward one of the greatest debates of all time, its true that his question is central and important to the question of free will, and it requires an answer. I will attempt one. However, I must suggest an answer without explaining all my reasons, since that's impossible in the space available.
Boiling it down, Kochs question is, Does it make rational sense, within the context of physical science, to consider the possibility of a immaterial substance (a free will) influencing physical reality (the movement of a part of the human body)?
It makes sense in quantum mechanics.
In QM, everything that exists has a wave form and a particle form. This is the wave-particle duality, a central principle of QM. (Duality is also a central principle, albeit a philosophical one, in the soul-body debate, as Koch notes.)
The wave form, however, is an immaterial entity. It is a mathematical functionconceptual and non-material. Yet according to QM, the wave function influences physical reality by specifying the probabilities of the forms physical reality can assume. Moreover, the wavefunction is transformed into physical reality through a process called collapse as described in the usual Copenhagen interpretation.
Here is the suggestion: The exercise of free will involves an intention, which exists as the wave function of the brain at that moment. When the intention is carried out, the brain wave function collapses into the physical state of the neurons that carry out the intended action.
The suggestion provides a basis in physics for dealing with Kochs main issue. QM provides for scientific consideration of an immaterial essence that perturbs the networks of the brain" and "leads to behavior."
I am always puzzled when materialists talk about 'free will'. It is entirely a religious term, used to explain why a 'loving god' could be so mean. "But Eve ate the apple of her own Free Will!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFree-will is a self contradictory phrase. Will is caused by internal stimuli of the brain and body or external stimuli of the outside world. It does not spring up on its own or freely. That is so obvious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRajnish Roy
http://rewiringthebrain.net/
Didn't Benjamin Libet's research, see "Mind Time - The Temporal Factor in Consciousness" HUP 2004, suggest that free will lies in the milliseconds of conscious or unconscious editing between the physical, electrical manfestation of the intention to act and the start of the action itself?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe found (p134) that
the brain initiates the voluntary proces first
The subject becomes aware 350-400msec later
The movement happns 150-200msec after that.
Because it takes c50msec for the impulse to travel frombrain to muscle, that means free will has c100msec to prevent the action.
Anders Eriscsson's research has show other, almost incredible effects of 'deep practice' on perecption, response times and voluntary actions suggesting that capability cna be increased 3000 fold and that this is what we call expertise.
@Mark Pine
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order for the QM wave function to collapse, someone must observe it, therefore PHYSICAL action is required to collapse that wave function. Now how can something physical, which has no free will, collapse the wave function of the brain which supposedly is the source of the free will? That sounds like a catch 22 to me. Free will does not exist in the brain itself APPARENTLY, and in your model, it is the wave function of the brain itself which contains this free will, to collapse itself by observing itself phisically, even though it is just an expression of probablility.
In the above discussions there seems to be a tendency to haphazardly add the adjective "free" when the subject being discussed appears to be simply "will." There is a classical notion of free will, and it does not mean "free from" some influence or control. It means "could have chosen otherwise." That's a different concept. The classical concept comes from the notion that blame can be attached to "could have chosen otherwise" but blame does not attach to "could not have chosen otherwise." Blame can be serious stuff, often invoked by religions, and sometimes a matter of life or death. I think that the New Testament is consistent with the non-existence of "free will" where certain actions "had to happen" and forgiveness is a natural consequence. The Scientific American article does not deal with free will at all. For reference there is a useful book by Robert Kane, "The Significance of Free Will."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother confused essay by a social scientist. How does any of this relate to free will? What is the connection?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because you can induce an urge to do something doesn't mean you will will to do it. I have all kinds of urges to do and say things but never actually will them into actual actions. You can induce an urge in someone without messing directly with their brains. I yawn; that induces urges in other (non autistic) people near me to yawn often. But that doesn't mean they will yawn. They might try to suppress that urge and usually they will succeed if they suppress it. It's not made clear what the relationship between urges and free will is. There might be one but the author doesn't spell that out. He missuses the concepts of "urge," "desire," "intention," and "free will," by getting these concepts muddled together in a morass.
Thank you for your comment. I think it is a good one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not know what happens in the collapse of a wave function, and I don't believe that Bohr or anyone else has explained it. You correctly point out that observation of a wave function is said to be the event that triggers collapse, although there is controversy about who or what must do the observing.
In regard to your specific issue, I have no trouble with the idea of a being with consciousness and free will observing itself and triggering the collapse of its own wave function. Perhaps that's what is involved from a subjective perspective in making a decision.
However, the dealing with question of what happens in collapse was not my intention. Rather, I wanted to tackle these issue raised by Koch in this comment: --How can this ghost, made out of some kind of metaphysical ectoplasm, influence brain matter without being detected? What sort of laws does Casper follow?--
Leaving aside his condescension in using the term metaphysical ectoplasm, he is asking how can it possibly happen that a immaterial entity could influence matter. What physical law pertains? For most scientists, the question is a reductio ad absurdum and provides its own answer: It can't happen.
My main point is pointing out that it does happen in quantum mechanics. The wave function is mathematical and conceptual, and therefore it is immaterial. Yet it influences matter by specifying the probabilities of the arrangements that its material correlate can assume.
Making that point is enough, I think, to demonstrate that immaterial entities can influence material ones. Once that point is accepted, it becomes possible to think rationally, within the context of science, about the connection between free will and matter. It is one of the great problems of the ages, and I think it's necessary to deal with it within the physical sciences.
I also wanted to suggest that whatever happens in the process of the collapse of a wave function (whatever that process is), it may be that process that occurs when free will is carried out in the material world. The physical law that pertains when the immaterial ghost (his term) of free will acts to influence material things is the law of the collapse of the wave functions.
@Mark Pine,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough the mysteries of quantum mechanics are marvelous, I don't think invoking them or any other sort of "immaterial entity," as you put it, helps to make a will any more free than if it were made of gears and springs.
Whether you're talking Casper or quantum physics or steam-powered computation machines, the question is whether the entity "could have chosen otherwise," as Sergei Heurlin puts it above. And that's the question that, I submit, is much more confused than it sounds. Do we as people make choices and act upon them? Of course. But what does "could have chosen otherwise" mean?
I decided to have chicken with cranberry chutney for lunch today, a decision I'm very happy with. If I'd wanted to, could I have chosen something else? Of course, but I didn't want to; I wanted chicken with cranberry chutney. Naturally, I could have chosen something else capriciously, perhaps as a result of reading this article. But would that have been a "free" choice, or something prompted by reading this?
It still sounds like a real question, but it really isn't - because none of the alternatives are more free than any of the others. If, given everything I'd read and thought today, my lunch choice was pre-determined, most people would say my choice wasn't free (though I was certainly happy with it). But if, given everything I'd read and thought today, I "could have chosen otherwise," meaning my choice could have varied in unpredictable ways...does that make my choice more free? I don't think so; I think it makes it less free.
And contrary to some posts above, note that the meaninglessness of "free will" does not imply lack of responsibility. When we scowl at someone's selfishness, put criminals in prison, hold someone accountable for their actions, or tell each other that running a red light is wrong, we are attempting to influence each other (to "blame" each other, if you will) to be better members of society, and that's good, not bad. Could your puppy have helped chewing your shoes last week? Even if he couldn't have, punishing him may deter it in the future. Infinite forgiveness may be nice in theory, but it's not a logically inevitable result of free will's meaninglessness (and is certainly not very practical, here on Earth).
All our actions are intentional or they shouldn't be defined as
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisactions. If someone pulls our arm, and we don't resist, there's no action of ours involved - unless there's an action involved in deciding not to resist. And any type of resistance, or even some sort of passive cooperation with the pulling, is to act by intent, consciously so or otherwise. Free will has little or nothing to do with intent. The questions should be about the mechanism that triggers intention and the purposes served by the triggering.
RE: Is Freewill all in your head? -- Absolutely!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKoch concludes that "In the debate concerning the meaning of personal freedom [whether implicit or explicit], these discoveries represent true progress, beyond the [subjective or implicit] eternal metaphysical question of free will that will never be answered [explicitly or objectively]."
On the contrary, I thought the renowned Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield (1891-1976) had pioneered all these experiments in the 1950s, in his epileptic patients before!? -- as I recently pointed out here: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090507/full/news.2009.454.html?q=2#last-comment "I think therefore I move? -- RE: More research on "Intentionality," "Attentionality," Consciousness, etc." (NatureUK; May 8).
Furthermore, I think the current theory of mind or consciousness research -- including the freewill hypothesis or theory of ME, for short -- is still plagued by the conventional AI (artificial intelligence) cognitive reductionist incomprehension of our many innate thought-memory-consciousness development-mechanisms and recall properties in our brain, as one ME debate that I just presented here: http://thequantumlobechronicles.blogspot.com/2009/11/somniloquy-hypothesis-how-immature.html?showComment=1258581366859#c3095002467643976355 "The somniloquy hypothesis: How the immature brain learns facts -- RE: The somniloquy hypothesis -- A misinterpretation of how adolescents learn facts in sleep!?" (TheQuantumLobeChroniclesUSA; November 18). (to be continued in Part 2 below)
RE: Is Freewill all in your head? -- Absolutely!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKoch concludes that "In the debate concerning the meaning of personal freedom [whether implicit or explicit], these discoveries represent true progress, beyond the [subjective or implicit] eternal metaphysical question of free will that will never be answered [explicitly or objectively]."
On the contrary, I thought the renowned Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield (1891-1976) had pioneered all these experiments in the 1950s, in his epileptic patients before!? -- as I recently pointed out here: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090507/full/news.2009.454.html?q=2#last-comment "I think therefore I move? -- RE: More research on "Intentionality," "Attentionality," Consciousness, etc." (NatureUK; May 8).
Furthermore, I think the current theory of mind or consciousness research -- including the freewill hypothesis or theory of ME, for short -- is still plagued by the conventional AI (artificial intelligence) cognitive reductionist incomprehension of our many innate thought-memory-consciousness development-mechanisms and recall properties in our brain, as one ME debate that I just presented here: http://thequantumlobechronicles.blogspot.com/2009/11/somniloquy-hypothesis-how-immature.html?showComment=1258581366859#c3095002467643976355 "The somniloquy hypothesis: How the immature brain learns facts -- RE: The somniloquy hypothesis -- A misinterpretation of how adolescents learn facts in sleep!?" (TheQuantumLobeChroniclesUSA; November 18). (to be continued in Part 2 below)
Part 2: Is Freewill all in your head? -- Absolutely!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecifically, the problem of freewill phenomenon -- or the misunderstood ghost in the machine, so to speak -- can only be resolved by our currently new (more dynamic and universal) neuroscientific understanding of our thought-memory-recall mechanisms in our brain: whereby the will to power is clearly elucidated in my objective theory of ME -- mind and emotion (including morality and ethics): the intrinsic properties and contents that make each of us a very unique Self, especially in the thought-memory-recall dynamism within Oneself -- that delves into 2 very basic and holistic and dynamic involuntary and voluntary mechanisms of our body-mind system:
1) our memories are always modulated subconsciously in our brain, especially by the autonomous limbic (neuro-endocrino-cardiac) system (one which implicitly gives rise to our subconscious dreams, involuntary somniloquys, etc); and
2) our memories can also be easily recalled (implicitly) and/or manipulated consciously (or explicitly) by our (attentive) prefrontal cortex, the executive center, where our intentional (implicit or explicit) thoughts of life experiences -- including feelings; perceptions; creations: real (as in science and technology) or imagined (as in religions and the spiritual concept of souls, gods, afterlife, heavens, etc) -- are all coordinated and generated physiologically -- or "memophorescenically" -- especially in a neural, electrochemical dynamism of "particle-wave" function and "imagery" process, that I coined in my seminal book "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (URL links below), as a holistic "psycho-panoramic" holography or topography of "memophorescenicity" -- or the ultimate quantum mechanics of consciousness and the memory-thought-recall phenomenon, in our brain!?
Ergo, in short, the freewill hypothesis shall now fall into -- or be explained by -- the quantum mechanics of consciousness, ME-2, above!?
Best wishes, Mong 11/20/9usct3:59p; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0595379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778 ).
Part 2: Is Freewill all in your head? -- Absolutely!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecifically, the problem of freewill phenomenon -- or the misunderstood ghost in the machine, so to speak -- can only be resolved by our currently new (more dynamic and universal) neuroscientific understanding of our thought-memory-recall mechanisms in our brain: whereby the will to power is clearly elucidated in my objective theory of ME -- mind and emotion (including morality and ethics): the intrinsic properties and contents that make each of us a very unique Self, especially in the thought-memory-recall dynamism within Oneself -- that delves into 2 very basic and holistic and dynamic involuntary and voluntary mechanisms of our body-mind system:
1) our memories are always modulated subconsciously in our brain, especially by the autonomous limbic (neuro-endocrino-cardiac) system (one which implicitly gives rise to our subconscious dreams, involuntary somniloquys, etc); and
2) our memories can also be easily recalled (implicitly) and/or manipulated consciously (or explicitly) by our (attentive) prefrontal cortex, the executive center, where our intentional (implicit or explicit) thoughts of life experiences -- including feelings; perceptions; creations: real (as in science and technology) or imagined (as in religions and the spiritual concept of souls, gods, afterlife, heavens, etc) -- are all coordinated and generated physiologically -- or "memophorescenically" -- especially in a neural, electrochemical dynamism of "particle-wave" function and "imagery" process, that I coined in my seminal book "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (URL links below), as a holistic "psycho-panoramic" holography or topography of "memophorescenicity" -- or the ultimate quantum mechanics of consciousness and the memory-thought-recall phenomenon, in our brain!?
Ergo, in short, the freewill hypothesis shall now fall into -- or be explained by -- the quantum mechanics of consciousness, ME-2, above!?
Best wishes, Mong 11/20/9usct3:55p; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0595379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778 ).
When you follow a river downstream, its course is determined by the law of physics and the river makes no decisions about where to go and clearly there is no free will involved there. If you pre-program a robot with sensors to evade obstacles, it can be made to go from point A to point B by deciding according to the parameters of its programming how to navigate and avoid obstacles still no free will .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, when a human can alter its own programming and conditioning by being conscious and self-aware, that is when you can have free will . Even if someone could demonstrate that human decision making is nothing more than an expression of the electro-biochemical brain-states, our thinking process is reflexive and we alter our brain biochemistry as a result of thinking and emoting, thus creating a feedback loop that transcends system levels.
Excellent point! Furthermore:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you follow a river downstream, its course is determined by the law of physics and the river makes no decisions about where to go and clearly there is no “free will” involved there.
If you pre-program a robot with sensors to evade obstacles, it can be made to go from point A to point B by “deciding” according to the parameters of its programming how to navigate and avoid obstacles– still no “free will”.
However, when a human can alter its own programming and conditioning by being conscious and self-aware, that is when you can have “free will”.
Even if someone could demonstrate that human decision making is nothing more than an expression of the electro-biochemical brain-states, our thinking process is reflexive and we alter our brain biochemistry as a result of thinking and emoting, thus creating a feedback loop that transcends system levels. Cause-and-effect get very tangled.
This discussion omits any consideration of what a human mind/brain (take your pick) can actually understand, or even what it means to "understand" something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionary theory tells us that we are evolved animals with physical characteristics that are tuned to our environment. One such characteristic, the human mind, is implemented in a physical brain and sensor system within this animal. This brain is designed to extract and process “information” from the environment with the evident purpose of deciding or “choosing” what to do next.
The “information” extracted by human minds appears to be little more than a summary of repeated experiences as presented to the brain by the sensor system. If something happens repeatedly in response to a given set of circumstances, it is expected to happen again if those circumstances present themselves again. This is the essence of cause and effect reasoning and the resulting interconnected relationship network called “understanding.” It seems highly unlikely that the design of the human brain allows us to extract anything other than those repeating patterns. After all, trying to summarize NON repeating events with a view to expecting them to repeat would clearly be impossible and so a waste of time and energy. Natural selection tends to eliminate organisms which waste time and energy.
Science,implemented in a physical brain which is designed for cause/effect reasoning, leads us to the conclusion that free is a physical impossibility. It is believed that our physical brains simply fool us into believing that we are in “direct control” of our actions whereas careful examination of the physical substrate reveals a system of passive responses to antecedent causes over which the brain has no control.
Given these observations, it appears likely that the design of the human brain is such that it is INHERENTLY INCAPABLE of understanding true free will. Instead, designed to encode the world as a collection of causes and effects, it is forced to the conclusion that any evidence or experience of free will must be an error.
The design of the human mind/brain has proven reasonably productive, but blinds us to the existence of other possibilities. Instead, we assume that Cause=>Effect accurately copies the nature of ALL of reality including the operating characteristics of the brain itself. A dangerous assumption.
www.MindMadeReal.com
It seems "Other brain areas" stimulate specific areas in the brain that creates choices and intentions. Feeling of Sun's heat by the skin would stimulate us to choose to seek shade, signals from stimulated eyes may make us feel hungry (on sight of tasty food) etc, Why just physical stimulus but just the memory of taste of this tasty food may be enough to make ones mouth water, and memory of being hurt my make someone (not everyone) feel violent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFreewill....is the ability to choose between at least two options
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbased on reason, desire or necessity..man gets in trouble when these are out of balance...freedom from harmful addictions is an example of a will that is free to make rational descisions on what is in one's best interest..people who are not free are unable to do what is best for their own survivial , comfort or long term well being . This can be applied both socially or personally ..The Christian God offers freedom from harmful addictions that harm self ,family and society without altering your ability to choose things that are not in your best interest. Hence leaving your free will intact. That is the beauty of the Christian faith. The abilty to pass up short term gratifications for a more satisfying long term goal. That is freedom indeed. A person only ruled by desire is a slave to his passions and the consequences of that behavior. A person ruled only by reason would be miserabley enslaved by doubt and unable to act until all possibities were explored. A person who acts only by neccessity is easily enslaved by others and is dependent on his enviroment and benevolence of others for any joy or sense of accomplishment a true slave in every sense... Christ offers us true freedom. By freeing us from the guilt of poor decisions made in the past. And by giving us the ability to make better decisions in the future. IF that was not enough He also promises us an eternal life in a much better world than we live in now. IF you are enslaved in anyway Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God is your answer. HE has promised that he will not turn anyone away who will come to Him. Even the vilest offender can be saved is what the Christian scriptures teach.
I'm not convinced that freedom comes from God or Jesus. Most of the religious adherents emphasize a surrender of the will to God's will, thus eliminating the moral responsibility and cuplability of the person who so surrenders. I found this article very interesting and stimulating, not for a philosophical or religious purpose, but because it is contributing to the accumulation of empirical evidence for the functioning of the human brain. It would be a good question as to how the brain decides between alternatives, and a recent book by Read Montague, 'Why Choose This Book?' provides some thoughtful reading. I've read the Bible several times and hope to read the Koran, but nothing is more revealing than well written science to a mind in search of reality. Truth comes from a process of empirical validation, not from self-confirming illusions of certainty because someone said it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you have read the Bible you know the Christian scriptures teach those who try to keep their autonomy apart from God in the end loose everything. " He that loveth his life shall loose it; he that hateth his life in this world shall save it unto life eternal".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose of us who have surrendered our will to Jesus Christ know fully well we are still able to act apart from scripture and often do. The act of obeying what is written in scripture is of our own volition. There is empirical evidence for the liberty promised in the Christian faith. Anyone that has experience in a evangelical church has witnessed the transformation of people enslaved in all kinds of self destructive addictive behavior. They regained their liberty by surrendering their will to Jesus Christ. Sin is a terrible taskmaster. Jesus said " Come to me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy ,and my burden is light." Without Christ, I know from personal observation people are enslaved by their own passions and the opinions of others. Christ has offered mankind freedom from self destructive behavior and the courage and liberty to live your life without the need of the approval of others.
From what I observed is that adicts go from one addiction to another and rely on the opinions of the religious group they submit their will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiblical Christianity is just what it says, biblical. Scripture is the basis of faith and conduct inside or outside of church. Those who believe the Bible to be true are not bound by opinion or creed, only by the word of God. We are free from having to give in to our own destructive desires but not forced to. We are free from having to go along with opinions or creeds we know are not biblical but not forced to reject them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving a stable unchanging foundation of truth we are not as easily preyed upon by the cunning of unscrupulous peddlers of ideas. We voluntarily submit to Christ and voluntarily obey His written word..I know of no freer people than biblical Christians.
well, I just want to say that it must have been Some egg there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know why this whole discussion and all of your
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscomments are pointless? There are many reasons. Let me
enumerate a few...
1) You're human. THat's a huge strike against you right
off the bat. It's not like you're a super intelligent
1,000 I.Q. universe traveling alien. Instead, you're
little more than barely conscious pond scum which does not
qualify you to have a worthwhile opinion on anything.
Look at the bandwidth of your consciousness for example.
You cannot even process more than one miniscule thought at
a time. Your brain filters out 99% of what comes in
through your senses because your puny conscious bandwidth
cannot handle it. Try listening to a book-on-tape while
also reading a book, and see if you can tell me what both
were about when you're finished.
99.9999% of the humans on this planet are so friggin stupid they won't even produce a single technological, scientific, or noteworthy invention in their entire life.
After tens of thousands of years of evolution, we still
cannot establish a definition of what life even is, or how
to identify it. You think you're smart? Gimme a break.
So now that we've established you're pretty darn stupid,
lets move to the next point.
2) Assume their is a God. So what. That doesn't mean
that you have an eternal soul. Your still a steaming pile
of flesh that will evaporate into nothingness after you
die.
3) Assume that there is life after death. So what. That
doesn't mean there is a God or creator. It simply means
you've moved to another state that you're not familiar
with and cannot establish anything about it's source or
purpose.
4) You incorrectly assume that life has inherent value.
That completely rediculous ludicrous invalid false premise
starts you down the path to a whole pantload of other
false conclusions. I'll leave it to your small mind to
figure out what those are.
My opinion is that the question (Do I have free will?) is a bad question, and thus cannot be answered unambiguously, or even reasonably. It presuposes that we have unambiguous definitions of the terms involved ("I", "free" and "will"), which we do not. Until these terms have real meaning, the question is an invitation to philosophical debate, or argument, little more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom a practical standpoint, I have many internal mental states and predispositions to act that environmental stimuli can evoke, resulting in reflexive action or thought. "I" also have the limited ability to become aware of some of these states and to influence them. It would seem that the "will", whatever it is, cannot be "free" of the material sunstance within which it exists, and that that material cannot be free of the laws of nature which govern the interactions possible to that material.
I am not free to have a positive impression of Rush Limbaugh when presented with his image or voice, unless I make a conscious effort to train myself to have a positive association with the man. But I am free to choose to watch football on a sunday, or to work on the leaky roof.
From my limited understanding of the neural forces at work, the "will" to act sometimes, perhaps often, originates in subconscious areas of the brain, and occassionally such will can be consciously overridden by the executive function sometimes called conscious awareness in the neocortex. The measurements of the potential to act (physicaly move) unambiguously show the potential arrises before the awareness of the perception - the brain is primed to act 1/2 sec before we are aware of the fact, which seems to suggest that for the will to move, the subconscious structures are the source of the "will".
Am "I" (or is the "will") located in my neocortex, or in the structures that comprise my subconscious?
What causes you to believe that natural law leads to a deterministic universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Genetic predispositions"? Seems unlikely. Genetic expression - the physical shape that the brain grows into is determined by that predisposition interacting with the environment. One genetic code allowed to grow in different environments will lead to significantly different genetic expression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, once some neural tissue appears, it begins to be shaped by its environment, with some neural networks strengthened (by use or interaction with the environment), and some left to wither with disuse. The brain of an infant contains significantly more neural connections than the brain of an adult - those neural connections wither and cease to exist in the process of growth and maturation, while simultaneously new neural structures continue to grow at different rates, creating even more new neural structures - to be either nurtured or left to wither.
It is less our genetic potential and more our environmental interaction that is responsible for our brains, or so it would seem. Perhaps I am mistaken.
1. Hardly seems pointless for humans to question and to try to understand their nature. Assuming the existence of other more "intelligent" beings, even those of limited intelligence may possibly find answers when they dare to question. IQ - a rather arbitrary scale for "intelligence", and invention a rather arbitrary requirement for such.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe low bandwith is a real phemonena, but exists within specific neural networks, while other neural netowks operate at much higher bandwiths. Identifying one structure as "consciousness" seems arbitrary, given the available evidence.
10's of thousands of years of evolution? I rather think we have evidence of billions of years of that. Yet we have only been concerned with defining life for a few thousand years, at best. Equating 10's of thousands with a phenomena that has occured over billions of years, and also to an effort that has been ongoing for thousands of years at best shows a rather limited intelligence, at best.
2. Who assumes "god"? Who dismisses the concept without consideration? What is this "soul" thing? For that matter, what is this "god" thing? If you can't discuss something in unambiguous terms, you can't really have an intelligent conversation, or a scientific investigation, can you?
3. I thought that "life" was something that has not yet been defined? Perhaps I misunderstood you. "Purpose" seems to require the existence of a being with a perspective and cause for action. A being which creates "life" for a "purpose" - what would such a being be called?
4. "Life has value". Not a provable statement, but a useful axiomatic statement for beings that find existence preferable to the alternative. Much like the axiomatic, unprovable assumption of existence, of an "I" which can think, and therefore exist. As Goedel, Schroedinger, and Zeno have demonstrated, not all statements can be proven within their own logical systems, but some a priori assumptions are necessary for such systems. Further, many such assumptions can be proven by other orders of logical systems or analyses. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to win a criminal conviction, or to support a logical structure - unless and until such evidence can be indisputably disproven. Good luck with that.