Free Will and Science

[grannymh]

I am a neurologist with special interests in neuropsychology/neuropsychiatry, but also a believing Catholic. I wrote an article about the Libet experiments and the more general question of Free Will and Science, but it was rejected by several neuropsychology journals, with one reviewer saying my argument that free will could not be scientifically disproven could just as well be applied to the existence of Santa Claus. Nevertheless I think my argument is valid. Here is the abstract.

In Defense Of Free Will
A Neuroscience Perspective

Summary: Scientific judgments carry great weight in the modern world, so that unrefuted claims that neuroscience has disproven the existence of free will are likely to have a major social impact. In this paper I describe a version of free will that I believe accurately characterizes the essence of a traditional moral doctrine that has very deep roots in Western religious beliefs, but also in Western ethical and judicial systems. I do so to demonstrate that there are fundamental scientific reasons why neuroscience cannot now make the observations necessary to test for the existence or non-existence of even this very strong dualistic version of free will. I base my argument on the known, and very marked (i.e. thousandfold), quantitative spatio-temporal resolution limitations of current neuroscience technology relative to that which would be required for the study of precise brain informational content.

I’d be happy to share the whole article with you if you are interested and provide me with a way to forward it.

I am definitely interested in having the whole article with references etc. I will compare it to “Movement Intention After Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans” Michel Desmurget et all, Science, May 8 2009, as part of an off line article supporting the origin of the fully complete human person from two sole parents. I have approached the Desmurget paper on CAF from an analytical viewpoint before the ban on evolution discussion.

Currently, the Back Fence Forum does allow discussions regarding modern science provided certain guidelines are followed. The thread I am using is
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

Please PM me so that we can figure out how I can read your paper. And please be aware that I am not a scientist only a very curious granny determined to defend our human nature as given to us by God, our Creator.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[edwest2]

I agree, and the Church’s stated doctrine (dogma?) is that the soul and body are one. But what puzzles me as a physicist is how the “soul” achieves physical realization in what it wills. And I’m not willing to believe in physics on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and Church dogma on Sundays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays…they should be integrated. There is one truth, not two.

Science has closed the door on the supernatural. I’m surprised you haven’t heard that before. There is a cartoon that shows a blackboard with some complex looking formula and the words “and then a miracle happens.” The caption gives voice to a professor who points at that phrase and tells the person who wrote it: “You need to be a bit more explicit here.”

Science has zero, zip, to say about the invisible soul and the invisible God, which is part of a good chunk of the debates here - those who say science can say something and those who say science is silent about God and the supernatural. I’m aware of no peer reviewed papers with titles like, “Analysis of brain, soul, mind function and their interrelationship with quantum physics.” On the other hand, some scientists do want to classify humans as biological robots that are totally functional without any supernatural aspect whatsoever.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Exodus]

I hesistate to say what I’m about to say, because I’m almost positive it will be taken out of context…but

“Free” will seems to me a manifest illusion, if what is meant by “free” is “autonomous” or “spontaneous” or a things happening for no reason.

Every action of the will has a reason for its happening. If evil, it is always by the created, finite being. If good, it is always by God. Nothing can pass from potency into act without being acted on by another agent in act. No created being can pass from potentially justified into actually being justified, without God moving the person to do so. This movement must, by its very nature, be infallible and certain. Furthermore, it is not “violent” because God is moving the very will itself, and causing it as it were to soften or consent to what it previously did not consent.

 

[grannymh]

I hesistate to say what I’m about to say, because I’m almost positive it will be taken out of context…but

“Free” will seems to me a manifest illusion, if what is meant by “free” is “autonomous” or “spontaneous” or a things happening for no reason.

I would consider your qualifications of free as a very good way of explaining a manifest illusion.

However, both our real will and our real intellect come with the package known as human nature. Our will goes hand in hand with our intellect which are both powers or abilities of our spiritual soul. I would not say that either is autonomous in the strict sense since we depend on God for our very being. One way of explaining Adam’s original sin is that he, the created one, scorned his Creator.

Every action of the will has a reason for its happening. If evil, it is always by the created, finite being. If good, it is always by God. Nothing can pass from potency into act without being acted on by another agent in act. No created being can pass from potentially justified into actually being justified, without God moving the person to do so. This movement must, by its very nature, be infallible and certain. Furthermore, it is not “violent” because God is moving the very will itself, and causing it as it were to soften or consent to what it previously did not consent.

I am not sure how to respond.
God has given humans the soul’s ability to move their will toward the supreme good which is God Himself. But our human nature is flawed, not totally destroyed. Thus, our intellect can present a lesser good, material possessions for example, and our will can choose the means of obtaining them by white collar crime for example.

There are some interesting Catechism paragraphs regarding our human nature which we inherited from the two, first, sole progenitors of the human species.

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and sin is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»
»

 

[inocente]

Responses from psychologist/neurologists, philosophers, physicists sought and welcomed.

Shamefully, none of the above.

I vaguely remember a piece of work by Glenn Held at IBM (sorry can’t find any good links). He dropped grains of sand one by one with extreme precision. A little hill builds up until there’s an avalanche, then builds again and so on. Sometimes one grain causes an avalanche while at other times hundreds fall before one occurs. The variable is that each grain has a different geometry and so the stability depends on how they slide and nestle together. It may sound dull but the implication is that complex systems like economics may be just as unpredictable no matter how hard we try. We can’t predict weather or earthquakes with absolute precision either because it would need far too much telemetry, even in principle.

Eventually, my point. We could never precisely map an entire human nervous system along with its exact state and transitory (name removed by moderator)uts. Everything involved may be deterministic but the system is far too complicated. That means we will never be able to predict (unmanipulated) thoughts. If we can’t predict then we effectively have free will. We can have our cake and eat it.

 

[grannymh]

Eventually, my point. We could never precisely map an entire human nervous system along with its exact state and transitory (name removed by moderator)uts. Everything involved may be deterministic but the system is far too complicated. That means we will never be able to predict (unmanipulated) thoughts. If we can’t predict then we effectively have free will. We can have our cake and eat it.

Could this indicate that within the complicated nervous system consisting of matter, there is also some non-matter which acts through the nervous system?

Could it be consciousness in non-human animals? Could it be both and/or consciousness and spiritual soul in humans?

 

[inocente]

Could this indicate that within the complicated nervous system consisting of matter, there is also some non-matter which acts through the nervous system?

Could it be consciousness in non-human animals? Could it be both and/or consciousness and spiritual soul in humans?

It says there are systems that we can understand and yet are so chaotic or complicated they can never be modeled in enough detail to know exactly what will happen next. The “butterfly effect” of some small detail cascading or amplifying means our predictions can be badly wrong. This isn’t because we don’t have top notch theories, equipment or anything, it’s a fundamental limitation on how much knowledge we can expect to gain. Interestingly, this applies even in a Newtonian clockwork universe, without appealing to relativity or quantum fluctuations.

So: we can understand every nut and bolt of a system but still not be able to predict what it will do next. This leaves the door open for free will and for your questions.

But, personal view – Currently I don’t think we can even define consciousness sufficiently to get within a mile of understanding it. Neuroscience is working on smaller and more tractable questions but in time it may come up with the answer and I’ll bet it will be nothing like any of our expectations. Without trying too hard to define consciousness, other animals possess it in various degrees, none of them anywhere close to ours. And I prefer an all-natural universe, with the soul overlaying the physical. God doesn’t share our limitations, and doesn’t need recourse to the supernatural. That sounds … more natural, but that’s just me.

 

[grannymh]

It says there are systems that we can understand and yet are so chaotic or complicated they can never be modeled in enough detail to know exactly what will happen next. The “butterfly effect” of some small detail cascading or amplifying means our predictions can be badly wrong. This isn’t because we don’t have top notch theories, equipment or anything, it’s a fundamental limitation on how much knowledge we can expect to gain. Interestingly, this applies even in a Newtonian clockwork universe, without appealing to relativity or quantum fluctuations.

So: we can understand every nut and bolt of a system but still not be able to predict what it will do next. This leaves the door open for free will and for your questions.

But, personal view – Currently I don’t think we can even define consciousness sufficiently to get within a mile of understanding it. Neuroscience is working on smaller and more tractable questions but in time it may come up with the answer and I’ll bet it will be nothing like any of our expectations. Without trying too hard to define consciousness, other animals possess it in various degrees, none of them anywhere close to ours. And I prefer an all-natural universe, with the soul overlaying the physical. God doesn’t share our limitations, and doesn’t need recourse to the supernatural. That sounds … more natural, but that’s just me.

Was it your question as to how the soul uses the physical? Or something similar?
I hadn’t found the answer. But now I’m getting some ideas.

Since human nature is one, it is the “prediction” which can’t be measured in material terms. Since “prediction” is not possible because the person can always choose the opposite, then that “choice” can be attributed to the spiritual soul which makes you and me a human.

I keep getting this mental picture of the brain and running along it, inside and outside, are the non-material wires which are the stimulus to thinking and choosing. This is a better explanation than offered by Cartesian (extreme) dualism.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[inocente]

Was it your question as to how the soul uses the physical? Or something similar?
I hadn’t found the answer. But now I’m getting some ideas.

There’s an interesting aside to Held’s sand cone experiments (post #25).

Although the number of grains between avalanches is unpredictable, the average rate is. Now, ever been on a crowded urban freeway where the traffic stops for no good reason, then starts moving again, then bunches and stops again? It turns out that the average rate of bunching can be calculated using the same math as for the grains of sand. Each driver is a free agent, but is no more in control of the big picture than a grain of sand. In these ways God humbles us.

Think on that a while. We can study the nervous system, find out how it ticks, even explain consciousness, but will still never be able to predict individual thoughts. So I don’t believe even your non-material wires are needed. That’s the way God made us.

Disclaimer – still couldn’t find any links, so the science is from memory alone.

 

[grannymh]

There’s an interesting aside to Held’s sand cone experiments (post #25).

Although the number of grains between avalanches is unpredictable, the average rate is. Now, ever been on a crowded urban freeway where the traffic stops for no good reason, then starts moving again, then bunches and stops again? It turns out that the average rate of bunching can be calculated using the same math as for the grains of sand. Each driver is a free agent, but is no more in control of the big picture than a grain of sand. In these ways God humbles us.

Think on that a while. We can study the nervous system, find out how it ticks, even explain consciousness, but will still never be able to predict individual thoughts. So I don’t believe even your non-material wires are needed. That’s the way God made us.

Disclaimer – still couldn’t find any links, so the science is from memory alone.

Disclaimer – Just woke up and have not finished my morning Pepsi.:yawn:
I may end up disagreeing with myself later in the day.

Perhaps, I should start thinking about God in terms of a paradox. Your comment that “in these ways God humbles us” is quite true. From square one, we start out as humble creations. The paradox is that being who we are, we are the most stupendous living organism alive or dead.

Another paradox would be that while we can’t control the big picture of traffic bunching neither can we be controlled by the big picture. Maybe this is what is meant by the Catholic concept that our nature, in itself, unites the material and spiritual worlds. Through the material world of science, the average speed of sand or cars moving can be determined. And in a sense, this rate is controlled by particular mathematical principles. While our car is hemmed in, our spiritual intellect and will are not.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[BTW]

There are several points about the meaning of the term free will that need to be specified to avoid confusion in discussions.

First, free doesn’t simply mean free from external constraints. Our constitution guarantees free speech, but that means that our speech is not limited by laws or extra-legal threats; it doesn’t say anything about whether we ourselves have the power within us to choose to say something or leave it unsaid; that is where the issue of free will comes into play.

Second, free doesn’t mean uncaused, it means “not completely causally determined by the sum of the forces operating in the universe at the moment preceding the choice”. Catholics believe that God gives each of us the power to make certain choices in specific situations, but that doesn’t mean our options are unlimited.

Third, free doesn’t simply mean unpredictable, or random, as in quantum indeterminacy. Free will presumes that we make free choices for reasons, and once we choose, that choice determines the outcome; we don’t just roll the dice.

 

[abucs]

I think the view of comparing God and the laws of physics somewhat to a computer programming team programming a virtual reality is interesting.

In a large virtual world with many factors and many users it is impossible (resource wise) to calculate everything that is happening and update the whole virtual world and at the same time give each user a real time interaction.

The programming solution i believe rests in two sets of parallel code, one for the overall virtual reality and one that is based on user interaction.

Thus if no user is in a particular virtual room (or Solar system) the priorities of updating that area is less than that where there are users. The programming based on the user (choices) has a constant rippling effect across the virtual reality. Because there is two sets of programming sometimes there will be inconsistancies between the two at the smallest level. Also, because a virtual world is primarily constructed for users then the position of users will have a special place in the position of the virtual reality and its programming/laws.

I see a lot of similarities between the quantum physics descriptions of our world and the affect of computer programming for virtual worlds.

I don’t see it as our choice as reaching backwards in time but our reality (programmed for choice) catching up.

P.S. a somewhat related link :

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.3974v1.pdf

Another tangential link:

truthabouttm.org/DocumentFiles/40.pdf

 

[grannymh]

Speaking about science …

This is from the opening of a paper published in Science, Vol 324, May 8, 2009. Title “Movement Intention After Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans” by Michel Desmurget, et al.

“A central question in the study of human behavior concerns the origin of willed actions. Where in the brain are intentions formed? How do we become aware of these intentions? According to the dualist philosophy, (Footnote 1. R. Descartes, Meditations Metaphysiques,1641 Flammarion, Paris, 1992) our encephalon is just the recipient of conscious intentions formed elsewhere in a non-physical realm. This implies that conscious intention comes first, as the leading cause of our actions.”

“Although appealing from a spiritual point of view, this hypothesis was progressively challenged by a large set of studies.” Footnotes 2-4 list the three studies: 1. P. Haggard, Trends Cogn. Science 9, 290 (2005); 2. P. Haggard, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9, 934 (2008); and3. C.D. Frith, S.J.Blakemore, D.M. Wolpert, Philos.Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 355,1771 (2000)"

This research was conducted in France during Awake Brain Surgery, also called Awake Craniotomy. It is based on brain mapping techniques used as part of surgical procedures for brain tumors and epileptic seizures previously considered inoperable. For an overview of Awake Brain Surgery, refer to Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, U.S.A., web site www.mayoclinic.org/awakebrainsurgery


Say what?

In other words, some scientists would like to demonstrate that free will does not belong to a spiritual soul but rather free will is part and parcel of the human anatomy.
What better place to observe the brain than to watch it laid bare on the operating table?


And your point?

The medical implications of this research are very valuable as surgeons seek better ways to perform complicated brain surgery. Regarding the brain mapping portion, some contrasting findings were found. However, it is my impression that overall, the research was beneficial in its contribution to medical knowledge. It is not my intention to question the results.

It is my intention to question the validity of paper’s interpretation regarding volition or what might be called willed actions.

This rather technical paper is being used as an attempt to prove that free will is located in the material brain because when a particular section of the brain is stimulated with a bipolar electrode there is a corresponding movement in a limb. Verbatim samples from the experimenter and patient are included as a way to show that the patient was intending to move or that the patient was aware of the movement.

When dealing with non-material free will and material/physical science, one first needs to question if the methods and materials are such as would be needed to actually examine freely willed actions.

I am hoping that BTW, Anselm33 and others who like “to question” will contribute their discussion abilities.

 

[Anselm33]

Speaking about science …

In other words, some scientists would like to demonstrate that free will does not belong to a spiritual soul but rather free will is part and parcel of the human anatomy.
What better place to observe the brain than to watch it laid bare on the operating table?


And your point?

The medical implications of this research are very valuable as surgeons seek better ways to perform complicated brain surgery. Regarding the brain mapping portion, some contrasting findings were found. However, it is my impression that overall, the research was beneficial in its contribution to medical knowledge. It is not my intention to question the results.

It is my intention to question the validity of paper’s interpretation regarding volition or what might be called willed actions.

This rather technical paper is being used as an attempt to prove that free will is located in the material brain because when a particular section of the brain is stimulated with a bipolar electrode there is a corresponding movement in a limb. Verbatim samples from the experimenter and patient are included as a way to show that the patient was intending to move or that the patient was aware of the movement.

When dealing with non-material free will and material/physical science, one first needs to question if the methods and materials are such as would be needed to actually examine freely willed actions.

I am hoping that BTW, Anselm33 and others who like “to question” will contribute their discussion abilities.

up to the challenge Granny. There is a very relevant anecdote in Roger Penrose’s book, “The Emperor’s New Mind” (Penrose by the way is a physicalist, but of a different order from the folks you’ve quoted) in which similar experiments were performed by a Montreal surgeon on a conscious patient undergoing brain surgery to treat epilepsy. The motor area of his brain was stimulated such as to cause him to raise his left arm; he (the patient) said it felt like someone else was raising the arm, not me. ( I apologize for not giving the page reference, but dinner calls! ) So much for the zombie theory of action . (The psychologist / philosopher, Daniel Robinson, in his Teaching Company CD on “The Implications of Consciousness” is very careful to distinguish between “zombies”, who are capable of carrying out mentally directed actions, but are NOT self-aware.)

 

[inocente]

What better place to observe the brain than to watch it laid bare on the operating table?

… It is my intention to question the validity of paper’s interpretation regarding volition or what might be called willed actions.

As someone who doesn’t believe in a supernatural component, it’s always nice to be proved right by empirical results.

Another example of awake-surgery is this Good Morning America report on restoring Eddie Adcock’s ability to play bluegrass.

Noting that the report doesn’t mention anything other than the amazing results, I’ve a question about the politics. In 50 year’s time today’s surgical procedures may be seen as relatively coarse pioneering, and the techniques will have filtered into public consciousness (pardon the pun). Kids will learn about this stuff in school, there will be documentaries about it, there will be someone in every bar droning on about how a procedure changed their life.

So my question isn’t about any technical or philosophical debate, but rather about what most people will come to believe. Will the belief in a supernatural component shift to the kind of idea given in posts #25 & #27 – the mind is purely physical, but that’s OK because the soul overlays the material rather than being separate?

 

[BTW]

Speaking about science …

This is from the opening of a paper published in Science, Vol 324, May 8, 2009. Title “Movement Intention After Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans” by Michel Desmurget, et al.

“A central question in the study of human behavior concerns the origin of willed actions. Where in the brain are intentions formed? How do we become aware of these intentions? According to the dualist philosophy, (Footnote 1. R. Descartes, Meditations Metaphysiques,1641 Flammarion, Paris, 1992) our encephalon is just the recipient of conscious intentions formed elsewhere in a non-physical realm. This implies that conscious intention comes first, as the leading cause of our actions.”

“Although appealing from a spiritual point of view, this hypothesis was progressively challenged by a large set of studies.”
Say what?

In other words, some scientists would like to demonstrate that free will does not belong to a spiritual soul but rather free will is part and parcel of the human anatomy.

It is my intention to question the validity of paper’s interpretation regarding volition or what might be called willed actions.

This rather technical paper is being used as an attempt to prove that free will is located in the material brain because when a particular section of the brain is stimulated with a bipolar electrode there is a corresponding movement in a limb. Verbatim samples from the experimenter and patient are included as a way to show that the patient was intending to move or that the patient was aware of the movement.

When dealing with non-material free will and material/physical science, one first needs to question if the methods and materials are such as would be needed to actually examine freely willed actions.

I am hoping that BTW, Anselm33 and others who like “to question” will contribute their discussion abilities.

I read the Desmurget paper and a couple of other relevant articles. The brain-stimulating methodology appears to have become fairly well-established through animal studies, but the reporting of perceived inclinations is of course subjective, and one could raise questions about patient suggestibility.
I was struck by the introductory reference to Descartes’ dualism as being more a gratuitous slam than really relevant to the rest of the paper; a case of jumping on the “no soul” bandwagon. I say this because there is no further open discussion of the definition of free will. Rather the argument against it is implicit.
The unspoken underlying argument seems to be that 1) the popular belief in free will depends on our subjective experiences of making conscious decisions to do or not do certain actions prior to the actual physical initiation of the actions; 2) brain stimulation with electrical current can excite brain cells so as to produce the same conscious experience of having actively decided to act, even though no initiation of action by the subject has taken place; therefore, 3) the subjective experience of freely willing arises solely through brain activity that can under special circumstances be artificially physically triggered, and thus certainly cannot serve as evidence for activity of an immaterial soul.

My own belief is that traditional free will, meaning the power to choose one action rather than another, all other circumstances being equal, really exists, but that it necessarily implies both the dualism of a material and a spiritual world, and the power of the spiritual to causally affect the material. I further believe that the material world is the only province of science, and that as a consequence the methods of science can neither prove nor disprove the existence and the causal efficacy of the spiritual. Therefore belief in God first of all, and in free will as a gift to us from God, requires an act of faith.

I most certainly do not believe that rational thinking is restricted in the same way as science, and I do not think there is any contradiction between faith and rationality.
I do think it is potentially ill-advised to try to use scientific methodology to “prove” the truth of our religious Faith, because I think it opens the door to destructive counter-attacks. I think the Catholic Church has over the centuries learned this lesson the hard way (e.g. Galileo).

 

[Anselm33]

There are several experimental and theoretical results from science that demonstrate the
In this connection I recall an anecdote from Roger Penrose’s “The Emperor’s New Mind” in which a Canadian neurosurgeon does brain surgery (to correct seizures) on a conscious patient, gives an electrical impulse to the motor area of the brain, the patient lifts his arm as a result, but says “it feels like someone else was moving the arm”. And this signifies?

 

[Anselm33]

.

My own belief is that traditional free will, meaning the power to choose one action rather than another, all other circumstances being equal, really exists, but that it necessarily implies both the dualism of a material and a spiritual world, and the power of the spiritual to causally affect the material. I further believe that the material world is the only province of science, and that as a consequence the methods of science can neither prove nor disprove the existence and the causal efficacy of the spiritual. Therefore belief in God first of all, and in free will as a gift to us from God, requires an act of faith.

I most certainly do not believe that rational thinking is restricted in the same way as science, and I do not think there is any contradiction between faith and rationality.
I do think it is potentially ill-advised to try to use scientific methodology to “prove” the truth of our religious Faith, because I think it opens the door to destructive counter-attacks. I think the Catholic Church has over the centuries learned this lesson the hard way (e.g. Galileo).

I tend to concur with you, but then “inquiring minds” will ask (as John Searle did) how does the spiritual component interact with the material. Maybe the solution is in quantum mechanics, consciousness affecting observations? (The last statement is very loose and hand-waving; I apologize but if it were to be more specific, it wouldn’t fit on this post.)

 

[grannymh]

I read the Desmurget paper and a couple of other relevant articles. The brain-stimulating methodology appears to have become fairly well-established through animal studies, but the reporting of perceived inclinations is of course subjective, and one could raise questions about patient suggestibility.
I was struck by the introductory reference to Descartes’ dualism as being more a gratuitous slam than really relevant to the rest of the paper; a case of jumping on the “no soul” bandwagon. I say this because there is no further open discussion of the definition of free will. Rather the argument against it is implicit.

I do agree that the reference to dualism was a case of jumping on the “no soul” bandwagon. It set the stage for an interpretation of the scientific results as applying to free will which is a faculty of the soul. However, for me, the Descartes reference signaled the possibility that the researcher may not have been familiar with the Catholic understanding of free will. Consequently, I looked at the paper and verbatims to see if the conditions for free will were actually present.

I took the reference to Descartes’ dualism as a kind of explanation of why there was no free will. Yes, I realize that this is an odd explanation and I am probably off base.

Descartes claimed that the mind and body are two different types of substance, yet interacting with each other. As subsequent philosophers struggled with the “how” the interaction happened, the material dimension of dualism became the primary focus. I am not all that familiar with David Hume; however, someone pointed out that his skepticism furthered the demise of the spiritual dimension. The scientific explosion which followed Darwin effectively eliminated the spiritual dimension. We live surrounded by a materialistic view of life – from the amoeba to you and me.

Please note that it is my intention to respect the current ban on evolutionary theory discussion.

Thus, in my humble opinion, the paper is implying that the will to choose an action goes from material brain cells straight to the corresponding limb with no need of another substance. In a sense, extreme Cartesian dualism separated soul from body and today’s research wants to verify the philosophical separation by eliminating the need for any spiritual substance such as the intellect and will.

Am I even close to saying what you said? By the way, I am experimenting with this kind of reasoning to see what really works.

In other words, I want to look at this paper from a materialistic view of life. I want to be on the researcher’s turf so I can understand her or his choice of methods and materials. Is this choice of protocol in keeping with practical reality as taught by the Catholic Church. If not, what is missing?

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worth the adventures of the journey.

 

[BTW]

I tend to concur with you, but then “inquiring minds” will ask (as John Searle did) how does the spiritual component interact with the material. Maybe the solution is in quantum mechanics, consciousness affecting observations? (The last statement is very loose and hand-waving; I apologize but if it were to be more specific, it wouldn’t fit on this post.)

From what little I know of quantum indeterminism, there might be an opening for probabilistic outcomes to be influenced in a purposeful way without violating general physical laws, but the truth is I don’t really know.