…If they also believe that consciousness is nothing but reactions taking place within the brain? That thought is just some some chemical processing?
Does the firing of neurons cause thinking or does thinking cause the firing of neurons? Or, to word it differently, is the mind separate from the brain? Where is the proof that brain processing is the cause of thoughts or even emotions and that the opposite is not true?
I seem to recall, though I don’t remember if it was fictitious, people raising their arms or having certain tastes (such as sour) in their mouths when their brains were electrically probed in some sort of test. Is there any evidence of induced feelings of contentment, depression, anger, jealousy, aversion, or that you can make someone hold a specific thought (such as making them recite their birth date with no aforementioned, verbal or written, instructions to do so) through direct manipulation of the brain?
I think the main reason people believe in free will is because they don’t understand it, or because they misunderstand it. Most people understand free well as the power someone has to carry out what they desire unhindered by outside forces, where free will actually refers to the power to cause things in the world with one’s body without one’s causing mechanism being an effect of prior causes.
thinking simply is the firing of neurons - it’s not a question of causality to the materialist
conceptually, perhaps, but not physically
there is no proof - only evidence - lack of or presence of certain chemicals in the brain can result in the emotional reactions you refer to - certain specific parts of the brain are more active than others during different types of activity, cetra, cetra
There’s several answers to this. Most people who believe in determinism but hold onto a concept of free will are compatibilists. These guys do it by redefining what is meant by “free will”.
Others might believe that the brain is determined only insofar as we don’t exercise our will, but that we have the power to preempt those deterministic forces if we want. These guys use this line of reasoning to explain why it can be difficult to work against your impulses, desires, habits, etc. - i.e. sometimes the deterministic forces are too powerful.
Well we know what causes the firing of neurons: other neurons. There is a clear chain of causal events that go on in the brain. A neuron fires because neurochemicals bind to it, and those neurochemicals are made available by the firing of another neuron attached to the first. This sequence can be traced back to a point where we leave the brain (either through the senses or into the body). So it doesn’t seem likely that the mind is the cause.
Could it be the other way around? Could mind be an epiphenomenon of the brain? That seems more reasonable, although it would have to be a sort of “side effect” because, just as we know the causes of the firing of neurons, we also know their effect: again, the firing of more neurons or other bodily effects. However, a certain line of reasoning that speaks against this is that if mind were an epiphenomenon, it would probably give off certain observable effects such as a bit of extra energy eminating from the system. Since no such energy seems detectable, there is doubt that anything other than the brain events we see exist.
The only alternative, to my mind, is monism: an identifying of mind with brain. Doesn’t have to be materialism; could be idealism - or, the brand I prefer, the “third option” approach. That’s where we say that brain and mind are indeed one, but ultimately, it is neither physical nor mental, but a third sort of thing, a third option. It would have to exhibit properties of both matter and mind, one under some conditions, the other under different conditions, but as for its underlying essence, we have yet to grasp (and may never grasp) what that is.
You recall correctly. In fact, I recall a case in which a teenaged boy whose brain was being operated on had a certain part of it stimulated and he said “Woaw! Cool! My favorite song from Guns 'n Roses!” I don’t think there’s a specific brain part for Guns 'n Roses, nor for any complex experience or thought, but there are probably brain centers whose stimulation might start the neural process for having one such experience or thought.
Ah, but there must be a reason why, for instance, there would be a lack of or presence of certain chemicals in the brain. Is this what’s causing the, say, anger? Or is the anger causing this?
you’re still assuming that anger is a seperate entity from the brain activity that gives rise to it - i think that’s just an artifact of language - the phenomenon (feelings of anger) simply is a certain type of physical brain activity (biochemical reactions, neurons firing) - the same way heat, for instance, is simply the rapid movement of particles in matter. It doesn’t make scientific sense really to say that heat causes or is caused by the rapid movement of particles in matter because they simply ARE the same thing. If it makes any sense at all to talk about the cause of the phenomena in this case that’s just because of the way the language is set up.
Well, I don’t know if it has any properties per se - just instances. “Blue” for example is an instance of mind - it is a subjective experience.
Matter, I believe is both an instance of mind and a representation. It is an instance in the sense that it boils down to a sensory experience, but also a representation in that it represents that which gave rise to it (which, in my opinion, is more mind).
I subscribe to Daniel Dennett’s view that human free will is the product of the evolution of our brains; that free will is "our capacity to see probable futures, futures that seem like they’re going to happen, and see them in time to take steps so that something else happens instead.”
Dennett’s conception of free will, as developed in his amazing book Freedom Evolves, is entirely compatible with a deterministic universe.
It still seems like this speaks about inner workings of the brain over which we have no control over. I’ll see probable futures and then take steps so that something of my wanting happens only if my brain’s juices are so determined by the forces at work in the universe…like a computer program for Microsoft Word that is designed to predict what sort of letter you are writing and which automatically formats the page in the manner programmed to suit the letter. Basically, the bottom line is that we can’t do anything other than what the brain makes us do, where ‘we’ is a byproduct of the brain much like the capacity to see probable futures. Essentially then we are about as free as inanimate objects.
How can an inanimate object be objective about something? If you, xzc, are compelled by your brain to post the way you just did, you have no way of knowing if your post made any sense. The feeling you have that it did, would simply be a ‘that makes sense’ qualia you are compelled to have.
There are many workings of our brain that we do have control over, or at least it seems to us we have control over (which is what really counts). We can direct our brains to work on a particular task or to consider and choose certain alternatives for action. We can direct our brains to ignore certain things.
To say that “we can’t do anything other than what the brain makes us do” is not to rule out free will. It certainly does not leave us “about as free as inanimate objects,” which after all have no brains and no consciousness.
I haven’t thought this through so I don’t know what you could mean by this, but supposing that this is right, and that ‘we’ do in fact have control over parts of our brain, the question I want to ask is, from whence does this potential arise? For that matter, from whence does ‘we’ come from? The brain. The brain gives rise to the ego, and also to the thought that the ‘we’ has power over the brain. Hence, the brain is really controlling itself through one of it’s functions, namely, ‘we’.
Where free will is defined as the capacity to do other than what one is causally determined to do, and if ‘we’ are wholly a product of our brain, then this certainly does rule out free will.
All I’m saying is that it’s not helpful to depict people as automatons slavishly doing the bidding of their brains.
I also disagree with your definition of free will, which makes it ex hypothesi a violation of the rules of universal determinism. I prefer Dennett’s conception, which as I noted is entirely compatible with a deterministic universe.
couldnt be farther from the truth- an inanimate object has no choice- it must stay inanimate until it deteriorates based on its half-life. we on the other hand have a choice that no other known entities can make- we can commit suicide- as funny as it sounds, this is what free will means- an inanimate object must stay an inanimate object- it has no free will- but humans do- we do not have to exist we can choose whether or no we want to continue our will of existence- therefore it is free
