Other Free Will?

[The Chronicler]

<p>


Let's say that you are on a date you and your partner order some food at a nice restaurant, you decide to get the steak, but what caused you to choose that particular item was it your free choice or was it predetermined. Our intuition tells us that we are the ones who made the decision, we like to think that we have control over our minds. What we think and what we do. But, in 1983 Benjamin Libete performed an experiment that sparked a lot of controversy. In the experiment he had a volunteer make a decision about when to do a simple action such as: Flicking the wrist, they announced out loud when they made the decision while the activity of their motor cortex was being recorded. Shockingly, the motor cortex became active before the conscious decision was made, it appeared like one's free will was just an illusion and while Libete himself even doubted the experiments ability to answer the question of whether or not we have free will. It got a lot of people thinking: Are our actions truly free? A while ago, I read an article about priming meaning that certain events have an effect on how we behave, for example, seeing a briefcase will make people more competitive, they may think that they're acting freely but they don't realize the briefcase had an effect. So, some argue that free will is just an illusion and we are simply not aware of the causes of our actions. But with all that said, what does physics have to say about free will? Well, Sir Isaac Newton would argue that everything you do is predetermined. See, according to his laws of physics, the world was deterministic. Everything that happened in the past had an effect on the future, so the fact that you order that simmering stake on your date was always meant to be but this begs the question. Is anyone morally responsible for their actions? Should Jeffery Dahmer be punished for killing and eating if it was destined to happen. You can see where this can get a bit controversial and creepy. Anyway, so than there's quantum physics, while Newton's laws are deterministic, the behavior of subatomic atoms particles is inherently unpredictable. So some philosophers think that free will makes use of this randomness. Allowing for us to make free, undetermined decisions, but can these tiny effects makeup the macro-level concept of free will. Well, that's still under debate, and so, what do you guys think? Post below your stuff and stuff... [And.. Time to research the second part! Fuck myself. Anyhow, like before, got some help from my friends and teacher.] </p>


<div style="text-align:center;"><p></p></div>


<p>


</p>

 

[Lord Banana]

Well, I think nothing is random. Not because I think everything has a defined meaning but because everything that is, is. For example 1+2=3 simply because of it's factors. That single atom jiggled to the side, not for no reason but because a force acted on it. Now for things capable of thought I think a similar thought process can be applied, you 'decided' not to stab yourself with a knife because you didn't want to die, but the reason you didn't want to die in the first place is simply evolutionarily behaviour, adapted to prolong the species. Thus not choice. I think anyway.

 

[Idea]

In my opinion, our free will does not affect choices directly. I believe it is true that we are influenced by factors we can´t even phantom, but that we remain with the power to decide in our hands. Simply, instead of choosing our actions, we get to pick in what degree we are influenced by things. A criteria of priority, if you will.


Say, as per the given example, that you choose to eat a stake rather than a salad. Your choice was determined by your tastes, by your education, social environment, evolution, etc... however, you yourself choose to give priority to the influence of taste rather than say, health.


The conducted experiment by Benjamin Libete has two great problems. The first one is that choice is not simultaneous to it´s manifestation. The brain activity happened not because the choice was made but because there was about to be made movement or because the person was thinking and focusing on the presented options and their pros and cons. the second detail is that our mind transcends our brains. Now, a lot of people would disagree with this, but in my view, there isn´t enough matter, combinations of DNA or anything of that sort to reach abstraction, the capacity to think in concepts rather than anything concrete. While a computer and a brain are subject to patterns of material impulses, a computer does not see an image. A computer responds to a series of electrical impulses without tying them together. The second argument that validates the idea of a mind beyond the brain is that you can doubt the existence of the body, but as Descartes came to realize, even in the most absurd scenarios you can´t deny your own existence as a thinking being, as a mind ("I think therefore I am"). one of the direct implications of this is that the mind and the body (by extention, the brain) have different essential characteristics and are, therefore, separate.


This goes without saying, but a mind that is not corresponding to a body is only partially, at best, influenced by the material. in that sense, some might argue that, admitting God´s existence, he himself conditions you, thus removing your free will. I would disagree though. as God´s omniscience does not imply dictation, that is, even if God knows what you´re gonna do doesn´t mean you didn´t have a choice or say in doing it.