The mechanism of free will

[Wulfgar]

I am assuming that free will exists on the spiritual rather than on the material level (because if it were the latter, that would imply naturalism, which doesn’t really correspond with most mainstream religions in general). Suppose you remove every other material factor that would play in to your decision of accepting or rejecting God - genetic predispositions, upbringing, material pleasures and distractions, personal desires, social pressure, etc. - as well as spiritual factors (for instance, Satan tempting you), until you are left with nothing but your raw free will and God. What exactly would be the “mechanism of free will” - in other words, what causes one decision over another (heaven vs. hell) without any superficial distractions/factors? Again, it cannot be a material cause, because that implies naturalism; nor can it be chance, because that contradicts the notion of free will, which involves conscience, which furthermore implies order rather than chance.

 

[tonyrey]

Welcome to the forum!

I agree with your analysis. “mechanism” suggests a physical factor - although you have wisely used inverted commas. I think “spiritual energy” is the best description for those of us who reject the notion that we are merely biological machines…

 

[wanstronian]

I am assuming that free will exists on the spiritual rather than on the material level (because if it were the latter, that would imply naturalism, which doesn’t really correspond with most mainstream religions in general). Suppose you remove every other material factor that would play in to your decision of accepting or rejecting God - genetic predispositions, upbringing, material pleasures and distractions, personal desires, social pressure, etc. - as well as spiritual factors (for instance, Satan tempting you), until you are left with nothing but your raw free will and God. What exactly would be the “mechanism of free will” - in other words, what causes one decision over another (heaven vs. hell) without any superficial distractions/factors? Again, it cannot be a material cause, because that implies naturalism; nor can it be chance, because that contradicts the notion of free will, which involves conscience, which furthermore implies order rather than chance.

It’s a good question, and there’s no good answer. Nobody can explain how we are able to overcome the physical processes of our brains and insert “free will.”

However, neuroscience is starting to show that in fact, free will is nothing but an illusion, which clearly and understandably causes anxiety to some (especially those who can’t grasp the repercussions, or grasp the wrong ones), but at least has the advantage of demonstrating that the question isn’t even required in the first place.

Incidentally, the same branch of science, along with the branches of medicine, chemistry and biology, have produced much evidence that strongly suggests that the “soul” is nothing but a product of physical-chemical brain function, rather than the ethereal substance favoured by the superstitious.

All the evidence is stacked firmly against “the soul” and “free will.”

 

[tonyrey]

All the evidence is stacked firmly against “the soul” and “free will.”

If all the evidence is stacked firmly against “the soul” and “free will” all thoughts are electrical impulses and nothing is true or false!

 

[Sair]

If all the evidence is stacked firmly against “the soul” and “free will” all thoughts are electrical impulses and nothing is true or false!

That depends upon your concept of truth - if truth is the correspondence between what we perceive to be the case and what actually is the case, then there seems little difficulty in proposing a physical explanation for why we might be capable of perceiving reality to at least a useful extent. After all, if our evolved brains had led us profoundly astray in that regard, we would probably be extinct by now. Those things we imagine to be the case, which don’t necessarily impact upon our survival - like the existence of gods, for example - are pretty much irrelevant unless they lead us to sacrifice ourselves for mere ideas rather than tangible circumstances.

 

[Sair]

All the evidence is stacked firmly against “the soul” and “free will.”

Yes, it is. We seem to be faced with the choice of rejecting free will completely, or radically reimagining the concept.

 

[tonyrey]

If all the evidence is stacked firmly against “the soul” and “free will” all thoughts are electrical impulses and nothing is true or false!

The fact that correspondence is not a physical phenomenon disproves physicalism.

Moreover perception implies the interpretation of what is perceived which is beyond the scope of electrical impulses.

After all, if our evolved brains had led us profoundly astray in that regard, we would probably be extinct by now.

Amoeba don’t need brains to survive!

Those things we imagine to be the case, which don’t necessarily impact upon our survival - like the existence of gods, for example - are pretty much irrelevant unless they lead us to sacrifice ourselves for mere ideas rather than tangible circumstances.

Those things which some imagine to be the case, which don’t necessarily impact upon our survival - like the belief that we are mindless bodies for example - are pretty much irrelevant unless they lead us to sacrifice others to satisfy our desires.

 

[Sair]

The fact that correspondence is not a physical phenomenon disproves physicalism.

The fact that correspondence is impossible without physical phenomena weakens your dismissal of physicalism.

Moreover perception implies the interpretation of what is perceived which is beyond the scope of electrical impulses.

Interpretation only implies the ability to relate external phenomena to effects upon the perceiver - this is a learned mental behaviour, and there is good evidence that learning involves the formation of physical neuronal pathways in the brain.

Amoeba don’t need brains to survive!

That’s because amoeba are not required to interact with specific communities of large-brained cohorts.

Those things which some imagine to be the case, which don’t necessarily impact upon our survival - like the belief that we are mindless bodies for example - are pretty much irrelevant unless they lead us to sacrifice others to satisfy our desires.

Who said anything about us being mindless bodies? That is your interpretation, because you refuse to believe that minds are physical phenomena.

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that correspondence is not a physical phenomenon disproves physicalism.

False! Correspondence (which is intangible) exists when we know the truth about ourselves.

Moreover perception implies the interpretation of what is perceived which is beyond the scope of electrical impulses.

Interpretation only implies the ability to relate external phenomena to effects upon the perceiver - this is a learned mental behaviour, and there is good evidence that learning involves the formation of physical neuronal pathways in the brain.

Interpretation also implies the ability to relate **internal **phenomena to effects upon the perceiver. Don’t you know what thoughts cause you to be miserable? Is your interior life of no significance?

Amoeba don’t need brains to survive!

That’s because amoeba are not required to interact with specific communities of large-brained cohorts.

The issue is **survival **not the type of survival. Amoeba have outlasted all the cohorts which were unnecessary in the first place. Simplicity is the safest bet - and intelligence is the most dangerous threat!

Those things which some imagine to be the case, which don’t necessarily impact upon our survival - like the belief that we are mindless bodies for example - are pretty much irrelevant unless they lead us to sacrifice others to satisfy our desires.

Who said anything about us being mindless bodies? That is your interpretation, because you refuse to believe that minds are physical phenomena.

You have already explained away the mind as the functioning of the brain which can be easily observed on an EEG machine: anything else is superfluous in your scheme of things.