It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by backwardluminary
I'm just curious--how do you (any/all) justify "free will" in the context of naturalism? Can an autonomous reason arise from a biologically-constructed "brain?" If so, how? If not, where does this "free will" come from? Or is it illusory?
The brain is a product of consciousness. Consciousness is primary to biology.
Consciousness and freewill are really synonyms.
Freewill is an inherent part of consciousness.
Explain how consciousness necessarily implies free will.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by backwardluminary
I'm just curious--how do you (any/all) justify "free will" in the context of naturalism? Can an autonomous reason arise from a biologically-constructed "brain?" If so, how? If not, where does this "free will" come from? Or is it illusory?
The brain is a product of consciousness. Consciousness is primary to biology.
Consciousness and freewill are really synonyms.
Freewill is an inherent part of consciousness.
Explain how consciousness necessarily implies free will.
Originally posted by Jezus
Freewill isn't just fundamental to consciousness; freewill IS consciousness.
What we call consciousness is our recognition of our ability to make decisions based on a remembered past and an imagined future.
Without freewill we would simply be biological robots responding to stimulation.
Thoughts, feelings, and emotions are all there result of a directed response rather than an automated response to the external world.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
How can you say with certainty that all of your thoughts, decisions, and emotions are *not* automated, though?
Originally posted by backwardluminary
Is it ridiculous to think that all of our thoughts/feelings/actions are predetermined based on our experiences and our biological makeup?
Originally posted by Jezus
The fundamental nature of what consciousness is; intelligent creativity.
Thoughts, decisions, and emotions are indistinguishable from "free will"
Consciousness is primary. The brain does not create consciousness.
Even the physical structure of the brain is created (developed over time) by the "mind's" response to the external world.
But it can be understood in a much simpler way. We make decisions. Even attempting to remove the responsibility of "free will" is a choice. Our past experiences and biology may influence our options, but our mind still has to make a choice at each fork in the road. The very act of thinking is decision making.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
Interesting claim. Where does consciousness come from if not the brain?
Originally posted by backwardluminary
it seems far, far more likely that consciousness is a property that emerges from the complex interactions that occur among the vast numbers of neurons in the brain.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
As far as I can tell, your main argument is "because I believe that I have the freedom to make different choices, free will exists."
Originally posted by backwardluminary
I also want to clarify exactly what I mean by "free will." Some take this to mean "actions taken voluntarily." I think that this is too narrow. In my view, "free will" means that, when an individual makes a choice, there is no prior cause of that choice.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
You've stated the belief that consciousness does not come from the brain. I'll take it to mean that, in general, you do not believe that consciousness emerges from any natural causes. As such, by your view, it must originate from some transcendent source. You're going to need to provide some pretty good reasons to make this claim convincing
Interesting question, but utilmatly the answer is unnecessary to understand that the brain can not create consciousness.
Not only is it unlikely, but if you comprehend the fundamental nature of consciousness it is a ridiculous notion. Moving matter in "complex interactions" = the message that is experienced Consciousness = that which experiences
The very act of thinking (or believing) is inseparable from freewill. Freewill is the unavoidable result of consciousness.
The prior cause of that choice is also a result of freewill.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
Originally posted by Jezus
Freewill isn't just fundamental to consciousness; freewill IS consciousness.
What we call consciousness is our recognition of our ability to make decisions based on a remembered past and an imagined future.
Without freewill we would simply be biological robots responding to stimulation.
Thoughts, feelings, and emotions are all there result of a directed response rather than an automated response to the external world.
How can you say with certainty that all of your thoughts, decisions, and emotions are *not* automated, though? Choice may well be an illusion. Is it ridiculous to think that all of our thoughts/feelings/actions are predetermined based on our experiences and our biological makeup? Reason itself may just be a tool of our unconscious "instinct" or "will."
It seems almost more reasonable to think that "free will" is an illusion and that we are directed by biology. It's really a stretch to think that some part of us has transcended the physical and biological determinism of the natural world.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
You're limiting your claim to "consciousness comes from somewhere other than the brain." I'll ask a different question, then: On what ground do you believe that consciousness comes from elsewhere?
Originally posted by backwardluminary
While my knee-jerk reaction is to focus on your dismissal of the favored theories of neuroscience and philosophy as a "ridiculous notion," that would be petty of me.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
What's missing from this picture? Something "that experiences." There is no identifiable "mental entity" that I am aware is doing the perceiving. So really, perception is experienced..."Consciousness" is always *of* something other than itself
Originally posted by backwardluminary
You consider the idea of free will emerging from consciousness to be tautological.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
To even begin attempting this, you *need* to explain how exactly "consciousness" necessarily implies "free will."
Originally posted by backwardluminary
'If consciousness does not originate in the brain, why do brain injuries inhibit various aspects of conscious thought? Why do drugs affect human consciousness if consciousness is a transcendent non-brain property?'
______________________
Excuse me...but, you seem to have an elephant in your room!
Akushla
Originally posted by backwardluminary
I give up. You're repeating yourself; you're not making arguments. As such, this is like arguing with a brick wall.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
If the relationship between "consciousness" (which you've failed to define in a satisfactory manner) and free will is as self-evident as you believe, why is this a problem for philosophy and neuroscience?
Originally posted by backwardluminary
If consciousness does not originate in the brain, why do brain injuries inhibit various aspects of conscious thought? Why do drugs affect human consciousness if consciousness is a transcendent non-brain property?
Originally posted by backwardluminary
The brain activity corresponding to the buildup of an action potential leading to the actual wrist movement started just *before* subjects reported that they had made the decision! The implication of this is obvious--the decision originated outside of consciousness.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
Would a robot know that it does not have free will?
Originally posted by backwardluminary
You're operating under the presumption that belief in free will necessarily suggests the existence of free will.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
What is the best evidence that "consciousness" as a unified, experiencing entity even exists?
Originally posted by backwardluminary
Unlike you, I realize that this vague intuition is not sufficient.
This shows the gap between our pure consciousness and our inner monologue.
A robot reacts to stimulation. It does not know. A human theoretically could be a biological robot without any consciousness. It would be impossible to scientifically determine the difference.
The capacity to "believe" is the result of free will. All thought is freewill.
Originally posted by backwardluminary
reply to post by Jezus
This shows the gap between our pure consciousness and our inner monologue.
Now we're getting somewhere. If I'm not mistaken, your "pure consciousness" is my "unifying ego." I do find it interesting that the "pure consciousness" is an unconscious entity, though (which is what I assume that you mean when you say we cannot observe consciousness directly). The distance between the unifying ego and the "internal monologue" is, indeed, an interesting topic. Is this the entity that you feel has free will?
A robot reacts to stimulation. It does not know. A human theoretically could be a biological robot without any consciousness. It would be impossible to scientifically determine the difference.
This is exactly what I'm arguing. How, then, are you privy to the knowledge that humans are not, in fact, "biological robots?" How have you done the impossible?
The capacity to "believe" is the result of free will. All thought is freewill.
This is the main point that you've been repeating without explaining. I do not understand the logical progression from "belief" to "free will" or "thought" to "free will." Please explain in detail.
I am glad to see that you advocate the use of logic. For my sake--because, you're right, I don't understand your argument--please present a formal, logical proof of the proposition that "all thought is free will." Clearly state your premises and explain how you progress from those premises to your conclusion.
Truly--and I say this without sarcasm--the philosophical community has been waiting for a logical proof of free will for...well, forever. If your years of "deep thought and concentration" have given you the insight necessary to progress to a logical realm beyond which no other has been able to progress, please enlighten me.