What is free will?

[Life]

The lotto is a horrible example for you. If you did do everything you said then you would get the same result. Tell me how a colliding ball will defy physics and interact with with each other in a different way. Tell me how two balls collide and get different results if everything around it is the same. If the process leading to isn't the same you have a horrible replication. 

[Yeah Way]

The lotto is a horrible example for you. If you did do everything you said then you would get the same result. Tell me how a colliding ball will defy physics and interact with with each other in a different way. Tell me how two balls collide and get different results if everything around it is the same. If the process leading to isn't the same you have a horrible replication.

Obviously, this guy has no understanding of secondary school physics.

[Okami]

The lotto is a horrible example for you. If you did do everything you said then you would get the same result. Tell me how a colliding ball will defy physics and interact with with each other in a different way. Tell me how two balls collide and get different results if everything around it is the same. If the process leading to isn't the same you have a horrible replication. 

 

Because there can be the same chances for more then one result if you only control the beginning of something, the more factors they are the bigger the chances are of something going differently along the way that's why just letting a single rock fall on the ground is a bad example because there are not that many factors and chances of something going differently are very low.

 

 

 

Obviously, this guy has no understanding of secondary school physics.

 

And obviously you have no understanding of discussions as the only thing you do is rudely giving a invalid critics as in order to give a valid critic you need to explain your reasons for having an opinion that you do.

[Yeah Way]

And obviously you have no understanding of discussions as the only thing you do is rudely giving a invalid critics as in order to give a valid critic you need to explain your reasons for having an opinion that you do.

Up until now, the others have been doing that for me. If I bothered, I'd merely be repeating exactly what they're telling you; so I'm honestly content with just passing remarks on you, who have pretty much wasted the time of all involved and taken up space on what was otherwise an interesting topic. 

[madvanced]

A good analogy on this was made by a philosophy teacher I had. An ant worker when it tries to defend its colony it does so deprived of free will because it is embedded in their instincts and they can't go against them, so their act can never be considered heroic, they didn't choose to do that they had to do that without any relation to thought. Humans however can go against such things, for example let's say that your home is being invaded you can choose to either try to defend it or run away, that's where the difference lies, Humans can choose to do one thing or the other, the ant worker in this case can't. This is a somewhat brief way of how I think of free will.

[Yeah Way]

I agree that the sum of our parts makes up who we are, like the tiny hamsters running wheels inside our heads.

 

It's just that the definition of free will here is stretching to what it applies to,  and I'm not sure if you're aware of it.

 

Let me run a rewind a bit to freshen memories.

 

On a conscious level, you believe you are here discussing with me using your conscious effort. But as I have explained, the left brain works in retrospect. It is the conscious part of you that narrates the story in your mind. It tries to make sense of things even if it has to make up facts to do so (refer to the chicken shed response). Outside of split brain experiments, this is proven to happen during investigations when the same testimony changes details each time it was repeated to fit the narrative in the testifier's head without them even realizing it. 

 

Your body has made every decision before you're even aware of it because your consciousness is the slowest reacting part in your brain. It's once these actions become visually apparent in front of the left brain that you begin processing it on a conscious level. Yet it is the conscious part of your brain that convinces you it's the one in control of all your decisions. Each part works on such a different level, with such distinct job functions, it's fascinating that we even consider them one and the same brain.

 

If we are not aware of our choices, but we still classify that as free will, then this is no longer the classical definition of free will that we know it as. 

Is it right to say we aren't aware of our choices? It implies that "we" are not the part of the brain that makes these decisions, after all. I suppose if one takes that position, we have no free will: we are being "controlled" by that faster part of the brain. 

 

Would it be reasonable to say that "we make up our minds before we are aware of it?" Somehow, it does & doesn't fit...

[Life]

Because there can be the same chances for more then one result if you only control the beginning of something, the more factors they are the bigger the chances are of something going differently along the way that's why just letting a single rock fall on the ground is a bad example because there are not that many factors and chances of something going differently are very low.

...

The number of factors makes no difference if you know them. The wind is a factor, air pressure is a factor. These factors are all calculable. All factors are things with values on them. There is no factor inside a lotto that you can't calculate if you knew everything else. If the wind is moving 5m/s then there is that force acting upon the lotto machine. If there was no wind then wow. You have a lower chance of deviation. Yes you have a lower chance to deviate from the expected result but if you also have wind calculated and integrated into a formula, you can still find the ending outcome. Just because something seems random doesn't mean it is.

[crunchytaco]

Is it right to say we aren't aware of our choices? It implies that "we" are not the part of the brain that makes these decisions, after all. I suppose if one takes that position, we have no free will: we are being "controlled" by that faster part of the brain. 

 

Would it be reasonable to say that "we make up our minds before we are aware of it?" Somehow, it does & doesn't fit...

 

I guess a literal interpretation would be, like most of our organs we don't decide the rhythm of our heart's beat, but it's still apart of us. 

 

Who we identify as the "I" would need to be reexamined to make sense for mankind's future conversations down the line, and so the definition of free-will would also need some updating; or a new word would replace the one day archaic term. 

 

The subconscious (right) part of the brain is a highly complex, functioning system that punches inputs and the conscious mind doesn't truly understand it. That's because the right brain doesn't speak so to say. It can be influenced by the left brain and it can also be influenced by all external factors around it. It can even function independently for itself when the corpus callosum is severed.

[Katatsumuri]

I guess a literal interpretation would be, like most of our organs we don't decide the rhythm of our heart's beat, but it's still apart of us. 

 

Who we identify as the "I" would need to be reexamined to make sense for mankind's future conversations down the line, and so the definition of free-will would also need some updating; or a new word would replace the one day archaic term. 

 

The subconscious (right) part of the brain is a highly complex, functioning system that punches inputs and the conscious mind doesn't truly understand it. That's because the right brain doesn't speak so to say. It can be influenced by the left brain and it can also be influenced by all external factors around it. It can even function independently for itself when the corpus callosum is severed.

 

Excuse me for not having researched this, but isn't it so that in the presence of a severed corpus callosum, the brain halves will still be linked by the central nerve-system, although not as directly as "normal"?

[crunchytaco]

Excuse me for not having researched this, but isn't it so that in the presence of a severed corpus callosum, the brain halves will still be linked by the central nerve-system, although not as directly as "normal"?

 

That's correct. The corpus callosum is the communication link between the left and the right brain. The right brain still retains motor functions of the body when the corpus callosum is severed. 

 

Here's an interesting story I read about once. In people who have had surgery on their corpus callosum, the body often acts like it has two minds. One man was sitting with a reporter when one of his legs pointed in an opposite direction and tried running off.

 

When asked if he felt like someone else was controlling his leg, he replied, no. He still felt like he was in control.

[madvanced]

That's correct. The corpus callosum is the communication link between the left and the right brain. The right brain still retains motor functions of the body when the corpus callosum is severed. 

 

Here's an interesting story I read about once. In people who have had surgery on their corpus callosum, the body often acts like it has two minds. One man was sitting with a reporter when one of his legs pointed in an opposite direction and tried running off.

 

When asked if he felt like someone else was controlling his leg, he replied, no. He still felt like he was in control.

There was also a guy that had had one arm that he didn't control so that arm would often try to unbutton his shirts etc.

 

Excuse me for not having researched this, but isn't it so that in the presence of a severed corpus callosum, the brain halves will still be linked by the central nerve-system, although not as directly as "normal"?

They can't communicate directly. They become something akin to two different brains, it isn't exactly like that but it's how I can explain it.

[Katatsumuri]

That's correct. The corpus callosum is the communication link between the left and the right brain. The right brain still retains motor functions of the body when the corpus callosum is severed. 

 

Here's an interesting story I read about once. In people who have had surgery on their corpus callosum, the body often acts like it has two minds. One man was sitting with a reporter when one of his legs pointed in an opposite direction and tried running off.

 

When asked if he felt like someone else was controlling his leg, he replied, no. He still felt like he was in control.

 

 

There was also a guy that had had one arm that he didn't control so that arm would often try to unbutton his shirts etc.

 

They can't communicate directly. They become something akin to two different brains, it isn't exactly like that but it's how I can explain it.

 

Ah, I see. So it would be something akin to having a clock where two linked cogs would be made a bit skewed? It would work, although not perfectly, and not in unison.

 

So basically if the corpus callosum was severed, then you would have two "you" trying to act in unison, but failing at some points?

[madvanced]

Ah, I see. So it would be something akin to having a clock where two linked cogs would be made a bit skewed? It would work, although not perfectly, and not in unison.

 

So basically if the corpus callosum was severed, then you would have two "you" trying to act in unison, but failing at some points?

Yes, I think you can classify it like that. Because the two hemispheres don't really know what the other is doing.

[Katatsumuri]

Yes, I think you can classify it like that. Because the two hemispheres don't really know what the other is doing.

 

But if the brain-halves are made to work in unison, and thus both of them forming "us", wouldn't that further support that the individual parts and functions of the brain are what we are? After all, Normally the brain halves are supposed to be linked directly, and therefore if they are not, the subconsciousness will do an action, but without the consciousness being able to "justify" it...

 

Hmm... I see what you're getting at. The "we" that justify the choice cannot do that, because it hasn't even gotten prior notice from the "we" that makes the choice. Together, the brain halves represent "us" as a whole, but apart, they are merely fulfilling their function without communicating with each other. (I am repeating myself a lot here, I know)

 

So in essence, does a person without linked brain-halves have a free will? If we work on the assumption that a person with linked brain-halves have free will, then the person without it will not. But if that person is mentally the same as "normal people", then how is it possible for that person not to have free will, despite outwardly being the same?

 

A possible way would be that in both possibilities, the person has free will. Even if the halves are not linked, the parts that make the choice is still functional. We will not know why we made that choice, but the choice will still have been made by a part that is classified as "us".

 

And on a final note, if anatomical hemisperectomy (the complete removal of half of the brain) is conducted, and half the brain is removed, it has been proven that in the majority of cases the other half of the brain will adapt to it in one way or another (Although despite that, patients loose the use of one arm and eye). So even if one half of the brain is removed, the person would most likely be able to make the same choices as a "normal" person. This suggests that one brain-half would be sufficient to make choices, but it is more efficient and better to have two. 

[madvanced]

So in essence, does a person without linked brain-halves have a free will? If we work on the assumption that a person with linked brain-halves have free will, then the person without it will not. But if that person is mentally the same as "normal people", then how is it possible for that person not to have free will, despite outwardly being the same?

You could go with a Yes and No to that one. The parts of the body that you can control are moved by free will, the other are moved by the subconscious and instinct derived from previously acquired knowledge and experience, that's why in the example I gave the hand/arm that the guy didn't control could do things such as unbutton shirts, undo ties, etc. because it's acquired knowledge and experience.

[Katatsumuri]

You could go with a Yes and No to that one. The parts of the body that you can control are moved by free will, the other are moved by the subconscious and instinct derived from previously acquired knowledge and experience, that's why in the example I gave the hand/arm that the guy didn't control could do things such as unbutton shirts, undo ties, etc. because it's acquired knowledge and experience.

 

But isn't the subconscious also "you"? The point that I have been stressing is that splitting the conscious and subconscious into separate entities is fully logical, but also a bit strange. Both entities are merely parts that make up "you".  In that case, the subconscious is the part that makes the decision, and since it is a large part of who we are, then even if we cannot understand it, we must still surmise that the subconscious is still "you". And as Crunchy put it in a different post, the subconsciousness is what performs the action, while the consciousness merely justify that action.

 

And while it is reasonable to assume that the subconscious is "instinct derived from previously acquired knowledge and experience", it still permits us to handle situations that we have no prior experience doing. Or what about when you are struggling trying to solve, say, a math problem? Do you think with your consciousness or the subconsciousness?

[crunchytaco]

But if the brain-halves are made to work in unison, and thus both of them forming "us", wouldn't that further support that the individual parts and functions of the brain are what we are? After all, Normally the brain halves are supposed to be linked directly, and therefore if they are not, the subconsciousness will do an action, but without the consciousness being able to "justify" it...

 

 

Hey, I avoided answering this post on the third page because I felt like you have already answered your own question. You, yourself have said you aren't sure if you subscribed to the classic definition of free will. There isn't a unifying definition for free will here, so without a set standard for "free will" I felt it was a bit pointless to delve further

 

Have a look at some of these hypothetical questions for example, that arise due to the bolded part of your question:

 

What is normal? Are standards of free will different for people with brain abnormalities and if so what does that say about their responsibilities? Why are people with Schizophrenia excused in court for murder, but psychopaths are condemned to death row even though both have disordered brains?

 

As you can see where I'm going with this. Instead of answers, it becomes quite a clusterfuck of questions after questions . I don't mind discussing psychology, but it would start on a different thread.

 

And on a final note, if anatomical hemisperectomy (the complete removal of half of the brain) is conducted, and half the brain is removed, it has been proven that in the majority of cases the other half of the brain will adapt to it in one way or another (Although despite that, patients loose the use of one arm and eye). So even if one half of the brain is removed, the person would most likely be able to make the same choices as a "normal" person. This suggests that one brain-half would be sufficient to make choices, but it is more efficient and better to have two. 

 

This is true in children and not so much with adults because children have more "neuroplasticity", or spare neurons for the undamaged part of the brain to grow into. The majority of surgeries are performed on children. Older patients who had hemisperectomy lost functions of tasks specific to each brain that was removed, and had difficulty recovering them if at all. It really depends on the age.

 

 

You could go with a Yes and No to that one. The parts of the body that you can control are moved by free will, the other are moved by the subconscious and instinct derived from previously acquired knowledge and experience, that's why in the example I gave the hand/arm that the guy didn't control could do things such as unbutton shirts, undo ties, etc. because it's acquired knowledge and experience.

 

Both sides are more "reactive" than we think. This was shown in the experiment when the right side was covered, and the left side answered questions automatically without even aware that it was filling in false memories for itself. We fill in gaps with our daily conversations back and forth all day using what's called reconstructive memory and it happens without any conscious effort. The memories stored in our left brain are not indestructible like we once believed. It's constantly being re-written on retrospect.

[madvanced]

But isn't the subconscious also "you"? The point that I have been stressing is that splitting the conscious and subconscious into separate entities is fully logical, but also a bit strange. Both entities are merely parts that make up "you".  In that case, the subconscious is the part that makes the decision, and since it is a large part of who we are, then even if we cannot understand it, we must still surmise that the subconscious is still "you". And as Crunchy put it in a different post, the subconsciousness is what performs the action, while the consciousness merely justify that action.

 

And while it is reasonable to assume that the subconscious is "instinct derived from previously acquired knowledge and experience", it still permits us to handle situations that we have no prior experience doing. Or what about when you are struggling trying to solve, say, a math problem? Do you think with your consciousness or the subconsciousness?

 

The subconscious is mostly instincts and emotions, so when you are trying to solve a problem it's all work of your conscious mind. The conscious and subconscious can also be used for example in Freud's classification of personality the ego, super-ego and Id. Id is entirely subconscious and is made up of our unknown urges, instincts and actions based on pleasure, the Super Ego is mostly subconscious and is made up of our moral and ethical concepts, the Ego is what makes most of our conscious mind and englobes all rational thought and balances what we should use from Id(unrestrained instinct) and Super Ego(complete restrain derived from moral concepts).

 

Hey, I avoided answering this post on the third page because I felt like you have already answered your own question. There isn't a unifying definition for free will here, so without a set standard for "free will" I felt it was a bit pointless to delve further. 

 

Have a look at some of these hypothetical questions for example, that arise due to the bolded part of your question:

 

What is normal? Are standards of free will different for people with brain abnormalities and if so what does that say about their responsibilities? Why are people with Schizophrenia excused in court for murder, but psychopaths are condemned to death row even though both have disordered brains?

 

As you can see where I'm going with this. Instead of answers, it becomes quite a clusterfuck of questions after questions . I don't mind discussing psychology, but it would start on a different thread.

 

This is true in children and not so much with adults because children have more "neuroplasticity", or spare neurons for the undamaged part of the brain to grow into. Older patients who had hemisperectomy lost functions of tasks specific to each brain that was removed, and had difficulty recovering them if at all. It really depends on the age.

 

 

 

Both sides are more "reactive" than we think. This was shown in the experiment when the right side was covered, and the left side answered questions automatically without even aware that it was filling in false memories for itself. We fill in gaps with our daily conversations back and forth all day using what's called reconstructive memory and it happens without any conscious effort. The memories stored in our left brain are not indestructible like we once believed. It's constantly being re-written on retrospect.

 

I know, it's heavily based on our own perception rather than factual acts. Also when the episodic memory is being accommodated with our perception it often leads to a strengthening of those beliefs and perception. If I recall correctly it was called confirmation bias and it had something to do with Piaget.

[crunchytaco]

 

 

 

I know, it's heavily based on our own perception rather than factual acts. Also when the episodic memory is being accommodated with our perception it often leads to a strengthening of those beliefs and perception. If I recall correctly it was called confirmation bias and it had something to do with Piaget.

 

It's been awhile since I've learned about it in Criminal Justice. I didn't remember the guy's name. These discussions really help me remember,  and it also makes me research and learn new information .

[madvanced]

It's been awhile since I've learned about it in Criminal Justice. I didn't remember the guy's name. These discussions really help me remember,  and it also makes me research and learn new information .

The bits I know about this is actually from an high school class I had in Psychology.

[crunchytaco]

The bits I know about this is actually from an high school class I had in Psychology.

 

I can't remember for the life of me if I learned anything useful in high school. Mostly what we learned had to be approved by the school's religious committee, also known as the three stooges. They also ran a college next door that was about as expensive as Harvard University but without the accreditation. 

[Yeah Way]

So in essence, does a person without linked brain-halves have a free will? If we work on the assumption that a person with linked brain-halves have free will, then the person without it will not. But if that person is mentally the same as "normal people", then how is it possible for that person not to have free will, despite outwardly being the same? 

A split brain has twice as much free will as normal brains! ^^

[Katatsumuri]

Hey, I avoided answering this post on the third page because I felt like you have already answered your own question. You, yourself have said you aren't sure if you subscribed to the classic definition of free will. There isn't a unifying definition for free will here, so without a set standard for "free will" I felt it was a bit pointless to delve further

 

Have a look at some of these hypothetical questions for example, that arise due to the bolded part of your question:

 

What is normal? Are standards of free will different for people with brain abnormalities and if so what does that say about their responsibilities? Why are people with Schizophrenia excused in court for murder, but psychopaths are condemned to death row even though both have disordered brains?

 

As you can see where I'm going with this. Instead of answers, it becomes quite a clusterfuck of questions after questions . I don't mind discussing psychology, but it would start on a different thread.

 

True. Since we don't have a unifying standard, trying to talk about it now is quite difficult...

 

And I agree with you on the last part. We should have a thread for discussing psychology, especially with this "clusterfuck" of new questions that have sprung up from this discussion. If anyone were to make such a thread, I would happily be there to discuss those questions  .

 

 

A split brain has twice as much free will as normal brains! ^^

 

quite so.

[crunchytaco]

And I agree with you on the last part. We should have a thread for discussing psychology, especially with this "clusterfuck" of new questions that have sprung up from this discussion. If anyone were to make such a thread, I would happily be there to discuss those questions   .

I can start up the thread but I have to know what the theme is.

 

It all depends if you want to discuss pseudo-psychology like dream interpretations, and Roscharch Inkblots; or if you want to talk about actual psychology that is backed up by neurological science, and has practical use in the justice system .

[Katatsumuri]

I can start up the thread but I have to know what the theme is.

 

It all depends if you want to discuss pseudo-psychology like dream interpretations, and Roscharch Inkblots; or if you want to talk about actual psychology that is backed up by neurological science, and has practical use in the justice system .

 

Actual Psychology sounds like it would be the best subject.