The illusion of Free Will

[philosopher]

Not for me. You're calling influences, direct control? That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps you are using cause to mean motivation while I think you are saying cause as in make something happen. Motivation applies to humans. Make something happen is physics.

Why do you guys keep denying that motivation, thoughts, decision-making, stuff that arise from the brain is essentially physics? We KNOW (science knows) that all brain activity is physics. It is like mechanics.

[philosopher]

Are you really gonna do this?

You know how this is gonna turn out.

Why bother?

No. Not doing it. Just pointing out the absurdity of having a debate to change the minds of people who, allegedly, cannot possibly do other than they do...presumably, including their belief patterns.

Now I'm going to do something more useful, like shampooing my cat.

To change the minds of people you need convincing arguments. So far you have made no arguments, let alone any convincing ones. You did present some faulty arguments, which has been refuted in the articles linked in the OP.

I presented some credible links/sources to articles written by scientists. I expected users on a philosophy forum to actually be curious and read the articles.

Instead I'm met with ignorance.

[henry quirk]

"To change the minds of people you need convincing arguments."

If, as you say, life is a movie, then you can't change diddly, I can't change diddly, Mannie can't change diddly.

#

"Instead I'm met with ignorance."

No, we're just folks who see no profit in debating with a person who views the world as predetermined.

If it makes you feel better: our lack of participation is predetermined too (at least, that's how it should seem to you).

[Immanuel Can]

I presented some credible links/sources to articles written by scientists. I expected users on a philosophy forum to actually be curious and read the articles.

Instead I'm met with ignorance.

Yes, yours is a lonely burden.

[henry quirk]

"Why do you guys keep denying that motivation, thoughts, decision-making, stuff that arise from the brain is essentially physics? We KNOW (science knows) that all brain activity is physics. It is like mechanics."

If we deny anything it's only cuz -- according to you -- none of us have any choice in the matter.

Life is a movie; free will is an illusion.

Your words: not mine.

[henry quirk]

Nah, that loneliness, that there is just another bit of programming.

1s and 0s.

[Immanuel Can]

"Why do you guys keep denying that motivation, thoughts, decision-making, stuff that arise from the brain is essentially physics? We KNOW (science knows) that all brain activity is physics. It is like mechanics."

If we deny anything it's only cuz -- according to you -- none of us have any choice in the matter.

Life is a movie; free will is an illusion.

Your words: not mine.

He doesn't get the old axiom, "Coincidence is not causality," Henry. He thinks that if neural activity accompanies thought, then the presence of neural activity must prove that NOTHING BUT neural activity is in play.

But this is old, boring stuff. Nothing new here at all, really...just another case of the causal fallacy accompanied by a prior commitment to materialist eliminative reductionism.

So I've got to see to that cat...

[henry quirk]

Exactly.

[jayjacobus]

Not for me. You're calling influences, direct control? That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps you are using cause to mean motivation while I think you are saying cause as in make something happen. Motivation applies to humans. Make something happen is physics.

Why do you guys keep denying that motivation, thoughts, decision-making, stuff that arise from the brain is essentially physics? We KNOW (science knows) that all brain activity is physics. It is like mechanics.

Brain activity actuates other brain activity creating senses that induce consciousness but the brain does not actuate consciousness. Your mixing connotations of cause.

[philosopher]

"Why do you guys keep denying that motivation, thoughts, decision-making, stuff that arise from the brain is essentially physics? We KNOW (science knows) that all brain activity is physics. It is like mechanics."

If we deny anything it's only cuz -- according to you -- none of us have any choice in the matter.

Life is a movie; free will is an illusion.

Your words: not mine.

He doesn't get the old axiom, "Coincidence is not causality," Henry. He thinks that if neural activity accompanies thought, then the presence of neural activity must prove that NOTHING BUT neural activity is in play.

But this is old, boring stuff. Nothing new here at all, really...just another case of the causal fallacy accompanied by a prior commitment to materialist eliminative reductionism.

So I've got to see to that cat...

I agree that coincidence is not causality. But consciousness is generated by neural activity.
I know that correlation does not (neccessarily) imply causation, but with this specific topic, we know that the correlation and causation are linked.

http://n.neurology.org/content/early/20 ... 3404.short

"Conclusions: Injury to a small region in the pontine tegmentum is significantly associated with coma. This brainstem site is functionally connected to 2 cortical regions, the AI and pACC, which become disconnected in disorders of consciousness. This network of brain regions may have a role in the maintenance of human consciousness."

Brain activity actuates other brain activity creating senses that induce consciousness but the brain does not actuate consciousness. Your mixing connotations of cause.

The brain actuates brain activity. Brain activity then actuates other brain activity that induce consciousness.

I don't see where you're going with this nitpicking.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't see where you're going with this nitpicking.

He's not being nitty. He's being right.

You're not recognizing that the causal fallacy means that you will never deduce from the presence of neural activity that it is being the cause of consciousness. It might be that consciousness causes neural activity. It might be that a third entity causes both. Or it might be that they are simultaneous manifestations of effects of a third thing in two detectable realms, but linked by a different kind of causality.

You're simply never going to know. And to declare that "science" has told anybody otherwise, well, that's just hubris. The causal fallacy, in reference to mind-brain activity, has been debunked to death.

But worse than that: in arguing at all, you are making an appeal to consciousness. In particular, to us as conscious entities. But you have insisted that consciousness is nothing but neurons; so why aren't you appealing to neurons instead of consciousnesses? The answer to that, of course, is that you believe neurons are predetermined, so free will is an illusion. But then, so is consciousness: so you've got absolutely nothing and nobody to which to appeal. It's all fated anyway.

So this is just a reeeediculous position. And while it may be new to you, it's awfully old stuff to us. So we just haven't got the appetite for playing out this self-defeating determinist game again. If it's true, there would be no point in arguing. If it's false -- and obviously it is, since it's self-contradicting -- then it's not worth arguing.

And there it is.

[jayjacobus]

Brain activity actuates other brain activity creating senses that induce consciousness but the brain does not actuate consciousness. Your mixing connotations of cause.

The brain actuates brain activity. Brain activity then actuates other brain activity that induce consciousness.

I don't see where you're going with this nitpicking.

Consciousness reacts selectively to inducements not mechanically. Hence choice and free will.

[philosopher]

He's not being nitty. He's being right.

You're not recognizing that the causal fallacy means that you will never deduce from the presence of neural activity that it is being the cause of consciousness. It might be that consciousness causes neural activity. It might be that a third entity causes both. Or it might be that they are simultaneous manifestations of effects of a third thing in two detectable realms, but linked by a different kind of causality.

You're simply never going to know. And to declare that "science" has told anybody otherwise, well, that's just hubris. The causal fallacy, in reference to mind-brain activity, has been debunked to death.

But worse than that: in arguing at all, you are making an appeal to consciousness. In particular, to us as conscious entities. But you have insisted that consciousness is nothing but neurons; so why aren't you appealing to neurons instead of consciousnesses? The answer to that, of course, is that you believe neurons are predetermined, so free will is an illusion. But then, so is consciousness: so you've got absolutely nothing and nobody to which to appeal. It's all fated anyway.

So this is just a reeeediculous position. And while it may be new to you, it's awfully old stuff to us. So we just haven't got the appetite for playing out this self-defeating determinist game again. If it's true, there would be no point in arguing. If it's false -- and obviously it is, since it's self-contradicting -- then it's not worth arguing.

And there it is.

I've read about the traditional objections to the Identity Theory. I must say, these objections are by far the worst bullshit I've ever read.
They are attempting all sorts of escape routes way from the reductionist view, such as Multiple Realizability Theory. They've all been refuted perfectly well by later reductionists.

[Eodnhoj7]

If free will is an illusion, and illusions decieve, how can one be decieved if no choice is present?

[philosopher]

If free will is an illusion, and illusions decieve, how can one be decieved if no choice is present?

Why shouldn't one be decieved without a choice?

Btw. here's an interesting thread:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=24841

Apparently, we can chemically alter thoughts.

Now, this is perfect evidence against the anti-reductionist point of view.