Are humans ever responsible? Free Will?

[notthecheatr]

Free will is so poorly defined that it's really not useful to argue about it. It's a popular concept, not a well-defined scientific one. Since the opposite of determinism is random chance, it isn't any more helpful to reject determinism when talking about the idea of "free will." Nor does rejecting materialism help any - so what if we're all controlled by a mystical "soul" being? That model still doesn't indicate what is meant by "free will" or how a "soul" can do what a materialistic being (according to the popular notion of "free will") cannot.

Quantum mechanics tells us that the universe is not at all deterministic but I don't think this is really relevant to a discussion of free will. What does the behavior of quantum particles have to do with how my brain works? There's no reason to believe they're even remotely connected (no quantum physics pun intended).

And whether or not any such thing as "free will" exists, our social model requires that people who hurt other people be kept separate from the rest of society - ergo jail, or in really extreme cases, the death sentence. The concept of "justice" is an emotional one, with no grounding in logic (but that doesn't make it wrong).

I choose not to hold people responsible for their actions (morally, but that doesn't mean I don't have an emotional desire for revenge just like everyone else does) but there is no logical justification for or against this position because morality is not grounded in logic. My contention is not with people who think that people should be held responsible for their actions, but with people who think that this is an objective position that is objectively correct and grounded in logic in reality.

[LanguageGames86]

Physics alone does not make decisions.

By saying "I am my brain" you are most importantly saying that you are the complex arrangement of neurons in your brain. Each neuron behaves generally the same way which is determined by their chemical properties. It's the structure and arrangement of these cells that allow you to make decisions that are unique to you. Physics is not some external puppeteer, it's the fuel by which your unique system of neurons runs on. It does not make the decisions. It does not control the decisions.

The gas in a car does not steer it. It allows the car to move, just like physics allows neurons to move, but it's not in control of the actions and decisions of that car or of your brain.

You still are not adequately addressing the dilemma.

Our neurons do no "run on" physics like cars "run on" gas. This is a weak analogy. Physical laws are the reasons why matter behaves like it does.

In a way, physical laws are like some "external puppeteer." Physical laws control everything.

You are retreating from the actual dilemma at hand. Our bodies are physical material, and our bodies should therefore obey the laws of physics.

Neurons do actually have a fuel. It's called the food you eat. If you stop eating; your neurons will fail to work and eventually you will starve to death.

Everything in the universe behaves according to physical laws. By just defining yourself as your brain, you are not negating the fact that your brain operates according to the same physical laws like any other physical system. Or maybe ... it doesn't ... maybe ... something emerges from this special physical system. Whatever emerges doesn't have to be non-physical -- i.e. substance dualism.

[LanguageGames86]

I don't believe we know enough about the brain or consciousness to positively assert materialistic determinism.

It seems like the brain is just material. All of our modern scientific theories necessitate materialistic determinism, and materialistic indeterminism.

But I'm on the same boat as you. I think there is some kind of emergent property of the physical system we call a brain. Our understanding of its behavior will rely on future physics that we cannot grasp right now.

[LanguageGames86]

Quantum mechanics tells us that the universe is not at all deterministic but I don't think this is really relevant to a discussion of free will. What does the behavior of quantum particles have to do with how my brain works? There's no reason to believe they're even remotely connected (no quantum physics pun intended).

QM does not tell us that the universe is indeterministic. This is an interpretation of the mathematical formalism. There is a deterministic model of QM called the Bohm/DeBroglie Interpretation, and it is equally as valid as all of the other interpretations of QM that exist. Additionally, the Many-Worlds interpretation is also deterministic. Don't forget that both the Quantum Logic and Consistent Histories interpretations are agnostic to the question of determinism.

You say that the behavior of quantum particles have nothing to do with how the brain works: Why you assume this baffles me...

Quantum Mechanics is a universal theory of physics. The chances of it being related to the brain are pretty high. Do we understand how? Not at all. The future of physics will probably have the answers.

Electromagnetism can be understood through Quantum Theoretical processes. Understanding the brain has a lot to with electromagnetism.

[pbxilixdq]

Everything in the universe behaves according to physical laws. By just defining yourself as your brain, you are not negating the fact that your brain operates according to the same physical laws like any other physical system. Or maybe ... it doesn't ... maybe ... something emerges from this special physical system. Whatever emerges doesn't have to be non-physical -- i.e. substance dualism.

I don't really disagree, yet I still contend that I have free will.

Decisions are made by the movements of material objects called neurons. The movements of neurons are fueled by energy, mostly chemical, but the way in which a neuron behaves with these energies is determined by its material properties and material shape.

Gravitational energy causes a leaf to fall but it is the material properties and shape of a leaf that determines HOW it falls (downward spirals).

Neurons also use energy, mostly chemical, in order to operate. But that does not mean energy alone can make a decision or even decide what that decision would be. That's where the material objects come in. Especially the ARRANGEMENT of these material objects. If you change the arrangement of the neurons in my brain then I would make different decisions. If you change the shape of the neurons in my brain then I would make different decisions. If you change the properties of the matter that compose my neurons then I would make different decisions.

My brain is the coming together of energy and materials in a very complex and special way. I define myself as the coming together of energy and materials in a very complex way. The food I eat becomes me. The energy from the food I eat is MY energy.

I didn't design the neuron. I didn't design how energy works. But I define myself as the combined efforts of these pre-designed/evolved/whatever functions/materials of the universe.

I'm a small part of the universe. In particular, I'm the part of the universe that occurs inside my skull. My identity is the material, motion, and arrangement of neurons inside my skull.

Is your argument that I don't have free will because I didn't design energy or neurons?

[Angry Citizen]

It seems like the brain is just material. All of our modern scientific theories necessitate materialistic determinism, and materialistic indeterminism.

But I'm on the same boat as you. I think there is some kind of emergent property of the physical system we call a brain. Our understanding of its behavior will rely on future physics that we cannot grasp right now.

Quite. The interplay between consciousness and quantum physics may hold answers, or it may simply be an innate property of all things at the quantum level.

[LanguageGames86]

Is your argument that I don't have free will because I didn't design energy or neurons?

Not at all. I believe I have free will too. But we can't pretend that the motion of particles are actually controlled by us, since we are made up of particles. If we understand modern scientific theories correctly, all matter should behave according to physical laws.

Are we made up of only matter?

[LanguageGames86]

Quite. The interplay between consciousness and quantum physics may hold answers, or it may simply be an innate property of all things at the quantum level.

I guess we can only hope for a better theory one day.

[Cephus]

Yes, none of which makes "There's no evidence of anything else" equal "of course we're just material beings."

"There's no evidence of anything else" still does not equal "of course we're just material beings."

I'm just being picky. If you really think lack of evidence for non-material things is evidence that OF COURSE non-material things don't exist then you are incorrect. Simple as that.

Of course we are, based on the evidence at hand. We can only evaluate evidence we actually have, all positions are contingent on current knowledge. As we learn more, our positions may change. However, just because we do not currently, nor will we ever, have absolute knowledge about everything, are we justified in just making crap up because we like it better.

So if you want to present evidence that man is not a material being, feel free. Until you can, however, I'm going where the evidence we actually have leads and that's toward pure materialism.

The ball rests in your court to prove otherwise.

[pbxilixdq]

Not at all. I believe I have free will too. But we can't pretend that the motion of particles are actually controlled by us, since we are made up of particles. If we understand modern scientific theories correctly, all matter should behave according to physical laws.

Are we made up of only matter?

I'm not saying they're controlled by us I'm saying they ARE us.

[pbxilixdq]

Of course we are, based on the evidence at hand.

Is your evidence limitless?

So if you want to present evidence that man is not a material being, feel free. Until you can, however, I'm going where the evidence we actually have leads and that's toward pure materialism.

The ball rests in your court to prove otherwise.

Look up physics in wikipedia.

"Physics (Ancient Greek: φύσις physis "nature") is a natural science that involves the study of matter[1] and its motion through spacetime, as well as all applicable concepts, including energy and force."

Why are you so bent on saying we're only material beings? Matter resides inside of us but so does energy and motion through spacetime. The matter inside of us is made up of the same types of matter across the entire universe. The energy inside of us are the same types of energy across the entire universe. Why are you ignoring half of this fact.

[notthecheatr]

QM does not tell us that the universe is indeterministic. This is an interpretation of the mathematical formalism. There is a deterministic model of QM called the Bohm/DeBroglie Interpretation, and it is equally as valid as all of the other interpretations of QM that exist. Additionally, the Many-Worlds interpretation is also deterministic. Don't forget that both the Quantum Logic and Consistent Histories interpretations are agnostic to the question of determinism.

Even if you're right (I'm not a physics expert and I don't pretend to be), at least it gives the option of the universe not being deterministic, which is something that we didn't have before.

You say that the behavior of quantum particles have nothing to do with how the brain works: Why you assume this baffles me...

Because at the level we (and our brains) operate at, things are still more or less deterministic. We have no reason to believe that the interactions of particles at the quantum level have anything to do with the chemical reactions that take place in the brain.

Quantum Mechanics is a universal theory of physics. The chances of it being related to the brain are pretty high. Do we understand how? Not at all. The future of physics will probably have the answers.

Maybe, maybe not.

Electromagnetism can be understood through Quantum Theoretical processes. Understanding the brain has a lot to with electromagnetism.

And a lot more to do with chemistry, which is generally studied at a level far above the quantum level. Chemists don't really have much use for modern physics; practically everything in chemistry assumes the old-fashioned Bohr model of the atom which is accurate enough for everything they ever need. Quantum interactions generally don't have much of an effect on chemistry.

If you're trying to argue that the brain's use of electromagnetism implies possible non-determinism, then you'll have to deal with the fact that computers also use electromagnetism and are for all intents and purposes deterministic. This argument is somewhat related to the claim that computers are absolutely incapable of thought equivalent to human thought, another argument that is unsubstantiated (and probably not correct).

In any case, unless neuroscientists discover something in the brain that is governed by quantum effects rather than plain old fashioned chemistry, I think it's fair to assume determinism when thinking about the brain. Even if not, what difference does it make? You're then dealing with probabilities instead of determinism, but a probability machine is no more what "free will" advocates want than a deterministic program. Computers, too, can simulate random probabilities by making use of the very fast timing of the processor.