Will is like love - it’s a word we use to describe an amalgamation of processes, a collection of attributes, a panoply of motive forces. Some of these are voluntary and some are not - the way that choosing a shirt to wear is voluntary (usually) and breathing is not. It’s like body processes because it is body processes. We can “control” our breathing - sometimes and to an extent. Within limits. In certain ways. Some of us do better at this than others, and in different contexts at different times. Will is the collective motive force in us.
What about this is free or unfree?
Some.
It’s both and neither. And the degree to which it is either changes over time, and depending upon context.
The trouble is that this is the common sense we have about will. It’s embedded in language and custom. But philosophy is notable for its lack of common sense. Religion even moreso. Will is like a dream we just had - the more we think about it, the less we know of it. The more we analyse it, the less of it we can see. For under analysis, we divide will into its components - but those components are not parts of will. Will exists only as a combination. It is a combination.
Will is a relation. That’s what fucks everyone up about will. It’s not that which is related - it’s the relation itself. Will is not a thing, and so cannot be free or unfree. It’s a relation. It doesn’t exist literally.
Yeah, I’m fuckin’ witchya. But I mean it. That last part - I mean it.
Why, if will not being a “thing” rules out the attribution of free and unfree, does it not also rule out voluntary and involuntary. Why rather, is not free and unfree a relation in the same way that you propose will is?
The post was a bit of a process. I was trying to walk the dear reader through a cognitive process. As I indicated. It does rule out voluntary and involuntary, as applied to will as a whole (but not a whole thing).
What I am trying to get across is that the notions of free, unfree, voluntary, involuntary have been hostorically overblown when applied to will. Useful in a given context? Sure. Literally true? Nope.
I propose a new thread: “Let’s get down and dirty with ‘relation’”.
But in the interest generated by the relationships between physics and the state of my brain, body, and environment i shall indulge this predetermined seemingly chaotic reactionary process which we call a “rumble” (or gang fight).
I agree that will is a relation, and what it is would be a power relation.
For instance, choosing a shirt to wear. It’s generally a free choice because we are not usually captive to a certain shirt or anything else that would cause us to make that choice. We have power over the shirt. The choice becomes a little less free when choosing a shirt to wear to work, at least sometimes. Your employer has some power over you in this regard, so you must choose a dress shirt. Aside from that, you can choose any dress shirt you want, so the shirt itself does not have power over you and your will is somewhat free. When you are a convict, you must choose a prison shirt and they are generally all the same. The prison makes you wear this shirt and you can’t call off from prison like you can work. The prison has power over you, and your will is not free. In fact, you have no individual will in this scenario. If you attempt to act as though you do have will, the prison’s power will be asserted and often violently.
When it comes to breathing, there are very few people who can intentionally stop breathing to such an extent that they pass out, at least not without the use of an outside instrument. Even when an individual accomplishes this, the subconscious will then begin the breathing process again. You have no power over yourself in this regard, the will is not free even to thyself.
Analyzing will the way theorized in the OP would be like trying to understand soccer by analyzing the stadium, the ball, the dimensions, the players and the rules, but not analyzing the overall effect or outcome; soccer.
Soccer is in the heart and in the mind. It is in a laugh and a cheer, and perhaps more so in a jeer. We like soccer, it’s what we do. We have it and want to keep it. It seems to have come from nothing. Two posts, a pitch and a ball…
Soccer serves a purpose… It gives opportunity to the competitive warriors among us; it gives purpose to our generals. Our zealous find direction and as a collective we progress…
The production and evolution of soccer (or the competitive nature of any sport) mimics the wills continual push for improvement. Will implies direction (regardless of source), the direction of soccer is provided by the combatants, producers and observers, groups of small parts with similarities forming groups with differences within groups.
An alien race watching our soccer games has no reason to say they are not “free”. Sure they are taking place within the confines of possibility, probability, or determinable what have you, but it is a phenomenon composed of millions of tiny parts, each with their millions of tiny parts and there is no direction beyond the interaction of these parts within the confines of the universe. In other words, it’s really really random.
Sure it’s free, just not the whole way free… I think the old “free” will existential/personal value dilemma needs serious reconsidering.
My theory is that if things were infinitely random (undetermined, free (to be somebody) we would all be spontaneously exploding now and then and that if we were absolutely free to do anything we would run around in a circle out of excitement so fast that we die or commit suicide due to the resulting insanity…
These are my mere humble theories… just words that i shape by banging my head against this keyboard, and you, the rest, will hopefully decide whether or not they will make it to global consciousness…
Oh, idea for a story, “the little braincell that could!”
This contrasts nicely with what i said above. It puts “freedom”, in this case “freedom of will” into a context with varying degrees. Constraints can act upon the will as a prison guard acts on your mobility…
Okay … would you kindly ask yourself this question and answer it: Who am I?
Then, let’s see if the exercise of your will is restricted to the domain of the knowledge you have of “I” and if you are willing to allow your valued knowledge to cease to be in your possession so as to allow your relations to be less restricted.
I just thought about this as I was getting a bottle of pop from the machine.
I allow myself 1-2 bottles of pop per week because pop is nothing more than empty calories with very few other benefits, so that is me exerting my power over myself.
More importantly, though, I considered that when it comes to objects (animate or inanimate) that we exercise our power (will) over, we not only exercise our power on objects that we take direct action on, but we also exercise our power by not taking action on an object.
I stood at the Pepsi machine with my dollar and a quarter in my hand and debated internally as to whether I would buy a Pepsi or an Orange Crush (Orange Crush) and I realized that I have power over whatever I select, but also over what I don’t select. All of these varieties of pop are the bottle at the end of the row, so when I chose Orange Crush, I actually chose for it to be released and dropped into the chute. By doing that, I simultaneously chose for the Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Sierra Mist, Aquafina and Cherry Pepsi bottles that were also at the end of their respective rows not to be dropped. I also chose items not to be dropped from the Coke machines.
The point is that I had the power and the tools of power (dollar and a quarter) that I could make any bottle fall that I wanted to and make all of the other bottles that I wanted to stay do so. I think that the tools of power are interesting because we must have power over the tools of power because we manipulate those tools, but without those tools, we could not exercise our power over something else or even have it to begin with. That is to say that I could not make any of the bottles drop without the money, despite the fact that I have power over the money and power over the bottles so long as I have the money.
All these words identify things that we experience, and while I agree that philosophers have historically attempted to found these experiences by giving them independent metaphysical status, I do not agree that defining them in a grounded way leads to the conclusion that they are not literally true or don’t exist literally. The will is not something that we made up anymore than pain is something that we made up. It is that which allows us to distinguish a certain type of action from another, and without going into what these actions are, that ‘thing’ is in existence even if it is reduced to being nothing but the experience itself. Likewise, things like voluntary and involuntary, free and unfree, are also distinctions that we experience, and can be accounted for in a very concrete and grounded way.
It doesn’t make sense that something has to be a literally physical object to exist, when every part of any fact we give about any physical object ever requires the mental - our access to the physical is the mental.
Anyway, I’ll stop here and wait for your response, as I may be misinterpreting certain ambiguous phrases in your post.
It is, I agree, when talking about the relation of someone to something. As far as the social play of language goes, we say “she wants X” to state the relation, to allow others to know what we think she will do and how she is disposed. The confusing part is when we say “I want X” - the other person still only has that relational information, but we associate that with the feeling of wanting something. More so with something like “Do you know what it’s like to want someone you know you can never have?” - you evoke the same feeling in others.
At least, you assume you do.
There’s the whole beetle-in-a-box problem… the whole philosophical edifice of free will comes about by trying to use public language for private sensation, and then the confusion at using the same word for two things. One of which is not a thing, the other of which we can’t meaningfully talk about.
If I may troll on with the standard free will arguments, in both cases you can only wear the shirts that are available. You’re in both cases a prisoner of your history, your so-called “choice” of shirts or the “choices” that led you to be a prisoner
Transubstantiation, reincarnation, world carried on a turtle’s back, virgins waiting in paradise, sounds reasonable to me. And, let’s face it, what organisation in its right mind wouldn’t attempt to suppress all evidence of child abuse within its ranks?
Then I guess the question becomes precisely how does will emerge from its constituent parts? How is it that the relation between processes (remember too that these processes themselves are also relations) becomes something more, something of a different type?
Or is will merely an illusion of distance and perspective?
Are you arguing that “will” is nothing more than a human definition, only a term we use that bears no relation to the reality of the processes which we attempt to describe with such a term? Or, are you arguing that will in fact does exist in reality, but that this existence is only of an indivisible, miraculous or ‘gestalt’ nature being that as soon as we look beyond the level of will into its parts it ceases to exist in fact?
Hmmm…I’m not sure it makes sense for me to respond directly to each post, but thanks to all for the reponses.
Wonderer -
Soccer is the relation between all those things. Maybe not the stadium. But soccer is not the rules, for instance.
Finishedman -
I am my body. In most contexts, that suffices. If we look to a moral context - and remember that morality is “made up”, then I may be something else - something more or something less, depending upon the moral system in play. Certainly I am also my “soul” in some cases. But I can only come at this as the materialist that I am. And I think that this will result in a minimal case. Which is extremely useful. I cannot restrict other posters to that minimal case, but I can keep to it, myself. Which I will.
Pav - this is a sticky wicket. There is a very big difference between your power over the Orange Crush and your power over yourself. The first is your will. The second is a metaphysical notion. It’s moral. I am excluding the second case for the moment - but it is central to the debate as it’s usually framed. It’s that removal of common sense that i speak of. It’s philosophy.
Sitt - very generally, the components literally exist. Will does not. If we can get back to football - “football game” does not literally exist. Football games do. Acts of will exist - will does not. It’s particularism.
Humean -
Bingo. You sure are a sweet talker.
Last Man -
Not miraculous, but gestalt. Not “real” but an entirely useful concept. And this is a vital distinction. Keeping this distinction is a prerequisite to disallowing a metaphysics of will, or of morality.
all the posts are misleading the seek to define wills, there is a major error that i noticed how everyone expressions make,
you seem to lake the conscious of the fundamental difference between existance and life, what is living is of what exist but what exist is not of what is living, what exist define what lives but through its existance bases that are always the conceptualisation of certainty,
so the manifestation of wills are livings realities of wills but they cannot define the nature of wills, knowing the roots certainty in wills existance can be the way to true manifestation of wills life
that is why it is very important to get to the sources of things and not to their manifestations realities to define their lives
realities manifestations of something is always that same thing as it is conscious of being existing, it is just the element of constance since it is existing so it is still there but it is not its life
and it is proven of what it become less constant in chaotic manifestation when its constance is not related to conscious manifestation of roots certainties that only justify existing and existing constances realities being there
that is why a child is more existing than an adult because a child is still related to a geniun reality existing that he didnt yet act of
so what is the source of free wills,
the source of free wills is the conscious of truth life, you have to picture what it means that truth is alive
it means that positive as always and all what is, that certainty of positive being the truth that justfiy constant realities associations on straight line that include always what was realized before, well that truth is alive mean that it moves itself alone to justify itself existing reality in absolute ways, generating positive truth life sense in all elements it deals with
all conscious deep down know that, it is the basic rules of positive energy free expressions, meaning being positively true is meaning that energy essence of truth life , that ones conscious about can act then of wills from and be happy from what they can add to that positive essence that is not of them essentially, things realisations of them they think and in certain perspective they are right, to think that it would make them more really happy about them as existing or living too
so no wills are not of relations, wills is about positive constances investments meaning add and individual constance of positive existing life
what is to relation is not of wills is of truth more, since truth is always a certainty that in moves is realistically absolutely
that is why the relation element is always a necessity since only truth justify free existance and free living realities from its own reality absolute life
and that is why relations are always done in suffer as noone wants it but it is a must they cant avoid and the notion of powers is from that fact appearing as a remedy way to what you dont want, god creating ways of forcing it
powers are to force which is the opposite of truth and surely definitive opposite fact to certainty concept freedom
now what is the problem exactly why truth dont seem to work in ones conscious and apparantly gods dont seem to act as true livings
the problem is that truth dont give, truth is itself and that is why it justify itself absolutely, it wont justify something else that is not true or of truth reality justifications
conscious about truth certaintly life, all react to think what that mean their free lives
but true conscious would react to think that truth life would define its true lviing relative reality, would see the consequence of truth life logics and would want or will that consequence of truth and not a free will inventions of that opportunity to grasp in understanding being a positive essence relatively alive
that is why the consideration to truth objectively is making the whole difference here, only who appreciate the positive peace of knowing that all is always positive straight right and absolutely realized so they dont have to follow or confirm or worry about anything there have that sense of being free conscious true
so the positive true conscious is not about the positive you are justified as positive of truth essentially but you are a true conscious positive existing when the positive is your consideration to objective truth absolute reality you sense existing
that is why it become truly you and noone else , the appreciation you manifest to truth existance life
Anyway. I’m crap at philosophy so, I not going to philosophize. All I’m going to do is try to decide if it is mechanically possible for the will to be indeterminate.
So. First - What in the universe, that we have some evidence for, is indeterminate…?
Anyway, I’m crap at maths too, so if Bell says “quanta are indeterminate” I’ll simply say “Sir, yes sir.” And salute.
So, okay, quantum level systems are indeterminate, anything bigger however quickly succumbs to cause and effect.
So, next question, does the brain have a quantum component…?
Answer: yes, it does.
Which is all well and good, but who give a shit about it if quantum effects remain indeterminate at only a quantum level, and the gross brain is a macroscopic system, at which point, any quantum effects would be rendered void.
But again, it all well and good having macroscale quantum indeterminancy, but no good at all if the system it is a part of is not sensitive enough to be overtly effected by its strange and mysterious ways. I mean, the brain is fucking huge comparitively. It’s like expecting a see-saw weighing 20,000 tones with gravel for bearings to move wholly on the addition of a flea to one side.
So, just how sensitive is brainstate to variables…?
Sorry - a very short Neurophys 101.
First, you must think of the brain, physically, as a network. A point is formed anywhere where two neurones contact at a synapse.
Let’s use the most famous network of all:
Here let’s say the nodes are the stations. You can think of the impulses travelling through the brain’s networks as the trains. Each length of track between two nodes has two states - train or no train.
Now - from my homework thread - the total number of possible ‘states’ the london underground system could have is:
(S) to the power (n x (n - 1) / 2)
Where S is the number of states (train/no train) ie 2
And n is the number of nodes. Which wiki says is 274.
ie: configuration total - 2power(274x273 / 2)
Which is a whopping great 2 to the power 37401. ie. a lot.
The average brain however, has - where you say n = number of synapses:
Thass a lot of nodes. And probably more configurations than even god can think of.
One thing to notice however is that the above equation is only for perfectly connected networks - each node connected to every other. That’s not true for the london underground, nor is it true for the brain. So the real figure for total configuration will be a hell of a lot lower.
The trouble is, this base schematic approach to brain maps is wrong. The ‘S’ - train/no train - is misleading. The network has more states than simply on/off. There are degrees of on-ness and off-ness. Just as with trains - they might be full of passengers, or thay might just be carrying one drunk with puke on his shirt.
Another picture:
This time, the amount of light on any particular street, and the street’s broadness also reflects its state. Say this time, the impulses in our ‘London at night brain’ are people moving about. When the streets are wide and well lit, the peopulses move about rapidly, easily, but when the streets are less well lit, or narrower, they slow down. If a street is almost dark, and very narrow indeed, poor peopulse wets his pants and doesn’t go down it at all, or if he does, he does so v e r y s l o w l y.
Which means, though the brain is not perfectly connected, its S number is higher than 2, which more than makes up for it.
By now I’m sure you are beginning to think, who give a shit - what’s this got to do with anything…?
I thought so.
Basically, intuitively when we try to visulaize thought processes we tend to think of an impulse speeding around a path in the brain from A to B, with A being somehow thought number one, and B being sequentially, thought number two. Which tends to make us assume causal linkage. ie thought A causes thought B.
But this is not true. Thought A is not a single impulse but a state involving pretty much the whole city of the mind - the whole brain all at once. It’s not a case of point A to point B but brainstate A becoming brainstate B.
The brainstate is the true language of the mind/brain/thingy.
You know those weird waves you get sometimes at the beach, or on white water…?
These waves only look static - in reality they are constantly collapsing at one end, and being rebuilt at the other.
Well, not to put too finer point on it - that’s a thought. It only seems static while we are thinking it, holding it in our conscious minds but in reality it’s constantly being reitterated by the mechanics of the gross brain a gazillion times a second.
Now - back to sensitivity.
So, quantum events in the brain are not like a single set of points opening and closing once in a strict sequence as a train passes along a single track. But more like the sum of all the points opening and closing on all the lines all the time all along the entire world’s rail networks.
That’s a lot of indeterminacy.
Anyway. If you’ve got this far, well done, I’d probably have fallen asleep by now.
One last thing, then I’ll let you go.
Self-sustaining criticalities. Wassat then huh…? This is the principle underlying things like avalanches, or more mundanely - piles of sand or gravel at quarries.
The snow stacks up and up, beyond sometimes, the point where it should have fallen. And it’s the weight of the last snowflake, or the disruption of the last skier, that suddenly collapses the whole lot from state A - cohesive mass - to state B - completely fucking deadly mass of wite death.
Then of course, more snow falls, and the whole systems recreates itself over time.
In the brain, thoughts held consciously during deliberation are like snow banks - the brain expends effort in holding them in a certain form, way beyond the point where they’d normally collapse into the next state - the outcome of deliberation. This renders them increasingly sensitive to very small events…
…very very small events…
…very very very small events.
Well you see where the process of adding very’s to the adjective ‘small’ in a sentence goes… All they way down to quantum.
So, in answer to the initial aim:
I’d say there is at least some evidence for a ‘Yes it could be’.
I think you have to get beyond brain state, though. The entire neural system is in play. And just about everything else in the body.
I mean, what does “I am hungry” mean, biologically?
And so we have “I want to eat” and “I think I’ll check out the fridge” and then the acts that follow.
When does the snow avalanche? When it wants to.
We anthropomorphise a lot of phenomena - not that i propose we take that literally - but it’s not so outlandish.
This gets tricky when we think of Nietzsche ascribing will to rocks and flowers and stars. But as an analogy, it works. WE know as much about our own will as we do of rocks, in the end. It’s just plain religious arrogance to talk of Free Will - or Unfree Will. We just don’t know that shit.
