Political Crossfire Forums

[thundertaker]

Do we really make our own decisions, or do we merely really react to the electro-chemical reactions in our brains based on neurological patterns in our brains forged by experiance and genetic disposititon?

[mojo]

thundertaker wrote: Do we really make our own decisions, or do we merely really react to the electro-chemical reactions in our brains based on neurological patterns in our brains forged by experiance and genetic disposititon?

I am a believer in the human soul so I would have to say that our decisions are forged through that median. Our wrong decisions are created from the lack of using the human soul and turning to the material world for answers.

[_Locke_]

well, I decide to hate u, thats free will, but now I decide to like u as a forum friend, thats free will

[jawsome]

we have control over all the important choices, such as what actions to take in response to our logic and morals, but we do not have control over particular things, most of them unimportant, such as our preferences in food, needing to use the bathroom, having the need to breathe, etc.

[The Grandmaster]

thundertaker wrote: Do we really make our own decisions, or do we merely really react to the electro-chemical reactions in our brains based on neurological patterns in our brains forged by experiance and genetic disposititon?

Are you asking whether we actually have control over all our actions, or if Determinism is real, in that no matter what happens, it couldn't have happened any other way, and all that happens is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences?

[fourtysixandtwo]

jawsome wrote: we have control over all the important choices, such as what actions to take in response to our logic and morals, but we do not have control over particular things, most of them unimportant, such as our preferences in food, needing to use the bathroom, having the need to breathe, etc.

Don't we? :wink:

[mardron7]

You are your brain regardless of what neurological patterns and genetic disposition it contains.

A better question is "Do the sum of all neural activities = the capacity for choice. Or do they, at the very least, have the capacity to change and evolve over time?"

I'll employ a little circular reasoning since philosophers hate that: "Any descision you make involves you making it regardless of Determinism or Free Will."

I'd like to think that asking questions and learning is a process that indicates we have Free Will. You can always refuse to learn or die thus terminating any programming your brain may contain. Unless your brain is trying to kill you... which is always a distinct possibility.

[thundertaker]

Let me elaborate on why I asked the question. Take people with torrettes. They have nervous tics which often cause them to say the most offensive thing they can think of because they know it's the last thing they want to say, even though they don't want to. Their neurological patterns force their behaviour, except that they are aware that what they are doing isn't free choice, but couldn't normal behaviour be the same thing, only with a feeling that we are making the decision, rather than the electro-chemical reaction in our brains? If the red mist descends on someone and they beat the crap out of someone else, it felt at the time that they wanted to do that, but were they really excercising their free will, or where they the puppet of their own emotions?

[The Good Doctor]

On the one hand, our brain is 100% chemical. It is made up of atoms, which operate just as atoms always have, in Brownian motion. Atoms don't do anything random, any more than balls on a pool table ever do anything that violates trigonometry.


On the other hand, here I am experiencing all of this. I have a sense of life. I certainly don't FEEL like a lump of atoms. Actually, do I? Do all lumps of atoms feel like this? Why some and not others?

[The Good Doctor]

thundertaker wrote: Let me elaborate on why I asked the question. Take people with torrettes. They have nervous tics which often cause them to say the most offensive thing they can think of because they know it's the last thing they want to say, even though they don't want to. Their neurological patterns force their behaviour, except that they are aware that what they are doing isn't free choice, but couldn't normal behaviour be the same thing, only with a feeling that we are making the decision, rather than the electro-chemical reaction in our brains? If the red mist descends on someone and they beat the crap out of someone else, it felt at the time that they wanted to do that, but were they really excercising their free will, or where they the puppet of their own emotions?

Tourette's syndrome could be looked upon as a limitation on the victim's brain, a limitation on the terms and conditions of their control. There are also other limitations to his brain which he shares with the rest of us. Aliens from another planet might take note of the human race's particular mental retardation that forces us to sleep a third of our lives away, or the fact that we still get angry like an animal.

Honestly, sometimes my mind doesn't feel like one unit making decisions. It feels more like a council of thoughts, ideas, emotions, and instincts that often play politics and occasionally get the upper hand over one another. Look up the philosopher Elizabeth Cavendish for more on this.

That said, a very important issue in free will discussion is the issue of goals. Particularly, if we really have total control of our minds and bodies, where do our goals come from? Can't all of our actions be traced back to animalistic thought processes and habits?

[Borommakot]

Theres really no way to tell by just sitting here thinking about it, I'm sure theres a test out there that some genius will invent that would be way over my head. I beleive that we make our own choices but if not I wouldn't realize it anyways.

[The Good Doctor]

Borommakot wrote: Theres really no way to tell by just sitting here thinking about it, I'm sure theres a test out there that some genius will invent that would be way over my head. I beleive that we make our own choices but if not I wouldn't realize it anyways.

There's always Buridan's ass.


Buridan said that if a perfectly rational ass -- one that had a brain that functioned 100% perfectly -- were to stand equidistant between two bales of hay, it would eventually starve to death. What he's saying is that our ability to make arbitrary decisions is proof that we are not 100% chemical and have some free will in us. If anyone else knows Buridan better, feel free to explain it better.

[thundertaker]

What about people who have mental illnesses, and whose actions are affected by a 'chemical inbalance' in the brain? For example, schizophrenia.....

[BastionOfSanity]

politicalmojo wrote: thundertaker wrote: Do we really make our own decisions, or do we merely really react to the electro-chemical reactions in our brains based on neurological patterns in our brains forged by experiance and genetic disposititon?

I am a believer in the human soul so I would have to say that our decisions are forged through that median. Our wrong decisions are created from the lack of using the human soul and turning to the material world for answers.

:clap:

[Borommakot]

The Good Doctor wrote: Borommakot wrote: Theres really no way to tell by just sitting here thinking about it, I'm sure theres a test out there that some genius will invent that would be way over my head. I beleive that we make our own choices but if not I wouldn't realize it anyways.

There's always Buridan's ass.


Buridan said that if a perfectly rational ass -- one that had a brain that functioned 100% perfectly -- were to stand equidistant between two bales of hay, it would eventually starve to death. What he's saying is that our ability to make arbitrary decisions is proof that we are not 100% chemical and have some free will in us. If anyone else knows Buridan better, feel free to explain it better.

It might also be the fact that a humans brain is just more developed than a donkey's. We can just say i write with my right hand so ill eat the right bale of hay. But that might be free will we're using.

[The Good Doctor]

politicalmojo wrote: thundertaker wrote: Do we really make our own decisions, or do we merely really react to the electro-chemical reactions in our brains based on neurological patterns in our brains forged by experiance and genetic disposititon?

I am a believer in the human soul so I would have to say that our decisions are forged through that median. Our wrong decisions are created from the lack of using the human soul and turning to the material world for answers.


Oo, pre-historical caveman logic. How very retro!

[The Good Doctor]

Borommakot wrote: The Good Doctor wrote: Borommakot wrote: Theres really no way to tell by just sitting here thinking about it, I'm sure theres a test out there that some genius will invent that would be way over my head. I beleive that we make our own choices but if not I wouldn't realize it anyways.

There's always Buridan's ass.


Buridan said that if a perfectly rational ass -- one that had a brain that functioned 100% perfectly -- were to stand equidistant between two bales of hay, it would eventually starve to death. What he's saying is that our ability to make arbitrary decisions is proof that we are not 100% chemical and have some free will in us. If anyone else knows Buridan better, feel free to explain it better.

It might also be the fact that a humans brain is just more developed than a donkey's. We can just say i write with my right hand so ill eat the right bale of hay. But that might be free will we're using.

I said "perfectly rational ass." Buridan isn't talking about a real donkey. He is saying that logic alone doesn't have the ability to make arbitrary decisions, even in situations where arbitrariness would save us.

Obviously a real donkey would just eat a bale of hay, as would a person. A perfectly rational donkey or computer, on the other hand, might get stuck.

[The Good Doctor]

thundertaker wrote: What about people who have mental illnesses, and whose actions are affected by a 'chemical inbalance' in the brain? For example, schizophrenia.....

What about them.

[Borommakot]

The Good Doctor wrote: Borommakot wrote: The Good Doctor wrote: Borommakot wrote: Theres really no way to tell by just sitting here thinking about it, I'm sure theres a test out there that some genius will invent that would be way over my head. I beleive that we make our own choices but if not I wouldn't realize it anyways.

There's always Buridan's ass.


Buridan said that if a perfectly rational ass -- one that had a brain that functioned 100% perfectly -- were to stand equidistant between two bales of hay, it would eventually starve to death. What he's saying is that our ability to make arbitrary decisions is proof that we are not 100% chemical and have some free will in us. If anyone else knows Buridan better, feel free to explain it better.

It might also be the fact that a humans brain is just more developed than a donkey's. We can just say i write with my right hand so ill eat the right bale of hay. But that might be free will we're using.

I said "perfectly rational ass." Buridan isn't talking about a real donkey. He is saying that logic alone doesn't have the ability to make arbitrary decisions, even in situations where arbitrariness would save us.

Obviously a real donkey would just eat a bale of hay, as would a person. A perfectly rational donkey or computer, on the other hand, might get stuck.

Yes i see that now. :!oops:

[Zoot]

Quote: Do we really make our own decisions, or do we merely really react to the electro-chemical reactions in our brains based on neurological patterns in our brains forged by experiance and genetic disposititon?

Does the sun really shine? Or do massive thermonuclear reactions in its core emit electromagnetic radiation visible on earth?