STORM2K

This is an open-ended discussion.

Free will and consciousness are the two most elusive features of the human experience. Science in all its glory has managed often to make the question more complicated (though offering at times glimpses at the answer). But religion too seems to offer only a cop-out answer: the soul. But what does the soul do exactly? In other words, what is the mechanism, soul or no, that gives us consciousness, that gives us free will? And furthermore, what is free will? and what is consciousness? We all know what they are in a similar way that we know wrong when we see it, but that doesn't say what it is on a fundamental level. In fact, since morals are very much a part of free will, let's talk about those too.

My thoughts: consciousness is very much an emergent property of the complexity of our brain. It's a way of tying together all experiences in a unified fashion order to make decisions for the present. The 'I' that characterizes consciousness is only an illusion. And moreover, since this bleeds over very much into free will, free will is itself an illusion. Not in the sense that we are forced to do things with no choice of our own, but rather that the choices we make are, and must necessarily be, based on the state of our brain and consequently past experiences as well as the human logic we all seem to be built with. I don't like the inclusion of a soul only because it doesn't help at all. What could a soul possibly do to avoid having to make choices based on past experiences and current conditions? It could make random decisions, but the problem with that is that random decisions are useless. All of our decisions are clearly about the real world. When we are hungry and see some food, we don't start clipping our toenails, or screaming at lamp-posts. No, we choose to walk over and pick up the food and eat it. And if we don't, we have a good reason not to: maybe it's not our food, or maybe we have dinner waiting at home. But in any case, the decision was based on factors in the world and past experience (which would include the knowledge, imparted upon us in the past, that there is dinner waiting at home). And if these decisions are made based entirely on factors in the real world (because only real world factors matter) and made using the logical facilities of the mind, who needs a soul to do anything? But worse, though, for free will, is the fact that since all decisions are made based on factors beyond ourselves and not random but based on the real world, all decisions are not really our own. So, how do we save free will? I'm not really sure. Perhaps simply the fact that we have incomplete knowledge of the past, present and future means that we somehow escape true determinism, or at least we aren't aware of it. Or maybe we have incorrectly defined free will. A better definition would then be simply that we have the ability to make a large variety of decisions based on a large number of factors. Certainly given any set of factors, we will make a given decision a certain way, but we would not be unable to make a certain decision given the right factors - that would mean we have no free will. Given that definition, we are only partially saved. We can't make every possible decision and we can't act on every possible factor. So free will is then more of a continuum.

We are more than the sum of our experiences. Yes we do become conditioned to react to our environment, even in complex and subtle ways. However, there's more. We think in highly abstract ways. We integrate, we infer, we synthesize, dare I say, we create?

I've heard of the example of a being that exists in two dimensions. This being could get around and do it's business in a two dimensional world, like on a piece of paper. If that being was really intelligent, it would imagine something more. What would it think of? Another universe? To us, that thought could simply be another piece of paper! That's really simple for us to comprehend. For that poor paper creature, it would take all of its imagination, all of it's ability, to even think of that. And it would only be an abstraction- something that it couldn't see or feel.

And so are we, stuck in this 3 dimensional world. We talk about more dimensions, parallel universes, wormholes, and all that cool stuff. But what does this have with a soul? Really, not much, except for one little thing. I just took you on a little trip of imagination, with the paper beings. Your comprehended, and we were sharing a thought there for a minute. But we have never even met! So humans have this capacity to experience and know things that are more than the sum of our own personal perspectives and experiences. You can call it what you want.

So what about the free will? That will be a little more elusive. Is free will just something we made up to reinforce morality and connect the dots of our theology? If we chose good, we get rewarded?

Here's an example that is a little hokey, but I think it makes the point: I can choose to reply to your topic, or to not reply. Is that somehow connected to my past experiences or my survival instincts? I don't see how. If I take the time to reply, someone else could get the last piece of cake! Possibly counter to my survival instincts. If I take the time to reply and someone gets mad at me for being on the computer too long, again, that's against my interests in having a hassle-free evening. So why would I choose to reply?

It seems that humans have that ability to do something spontaneously, and often without reason, that argues for free will.

It seems that humans have that ability to do something spontaneously, and often without reason, that argues for free will.

But here's the question: how exactly are we spontaneous? In other words, what determines the decision we make when we make a spontaneous decision. If it's random, well, that's useless. Random decisions never make sense. And if it's not, then it is based on other factors, just like other decisions. Maybe the factors aren't always apparent, and maybe they are so complex that the relationship between the factors and the decision is obscured by the complexity. I would say that there always factors but we are not completely aware of them. Certainly you don't know the factors that go into your body determining that it is time to eat, but you certainly act on hunger pangs.

Let me sleep on that one. Must avoid circular logic.

Let me sleep on that one. Must avoid circular logic.

Good idea! The subject is so central to our being that it's hard to think about it objectively. I guess that's why no solution has been found yet. But it's sure fun to try.

I don't have anything specifically (at least now) to add to this thread. I am reading through most of it/scanning and will probably do so from time to time along with the additional responses in it.

Thanks, WidreMann.