Granny, why can’t it be “both… and”? Free will is the product of matter and physical laws, and it is also a quality of our spiritual beings? After all, the appreciation of music depends both on matter and physical laws, and on the aesthetic dimension of the human mind and spirit. Why must it be exclusively one or the other?
StAnastasia
You have touched the soft spot of my heart. I am allergic to the mutually exclusive or. However, the “both…and” principle is not an universal “get out of jail” card. There must be discretion in its use which involves the principle of “choice.”
This morning my choice to use “both … and” is based on my bias that there is unity within the human being. While I cannot explain completely both the tangible and intangible aspects of my being, I know that they are intertwined somehow in the “whole” which is known as human.
First, let’s look at the example of music. One can say that making sound is an ability that belongs to animals and thus to me as human. Sound involves the use of vocal cords, etc. No need to go into the various types of sound, we can agree that sound needs matter and physical laws to be produced. But changing basic sound into music involves an ability or power or talent on the part of humans in order to reach an aesthetic dimension. Vocal chords, of themselves and by themselves, cannot produce an aria. If they could, I would be at the Met.
Like the ability to make sound, free will is an ability or power which uses the physical part of us, the brain and other elements of the human being to make choices or not make choices. The brain, of itself and by itself, being physical matter, does what it is able to do. It does not sing an aria on its own. However, once a human chooses to sing an aria over some modern forms of music, the brain is set in motion which starts motor activity etc.
A good example of the relationship between the brain and motor activity is the brain mapping technique used in awake brain surgery. Since it is obvious to the surgeons involved that the brain on its own will not demonstrate which part is related to which activity, stimulation is used on various parts of the brain which produces a “map”.
Apparently, some researchers are implying that because physical stimulation is used on the physical brain with physical results, the conclusion is that the idea of a non-physical intangible is challenged by the evidence. In other words, their idea of intention (which appears as a misuse of the free will concept) is a product of matter and physical laws. Those who use the free will concept correctly will spot some flaws in the conclusion.
Now, let’s look at the idea that free will is a product of matter and physical laws. Thus, free will would do what it is able to do according to that which produced it. When one looks a second time at “Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans,”
Science 324 811 – 813 (2009) reference in post 322, one sees that to get a physical brain moving intentionally etc., a physical bipolar electrode is used.
But, do we really want to undergo awake brain surgery to activate our brains when they are needed to carry out a serious intentional choice?
