ADVERTISEMENT

Think of a city

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 4, 2001
37,267
23,799
113
Think of a city, any city. Once you come to your decision, read on.

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

Did you think of Cairo? I hope not as that would make the rest pretty useless. If you did not think of Cairo, why not? If you are like me (Philadelphia), Cairo never came into my head. I could not rationally reject Cairo as I never considered Cairo. I thought of about 4 cities, was about to say London when something came into my mind that London was too obvious and Philadelphia quickly entered. No debate, no careful weighing of pros and cons, Philadelphia because it was less obvious than London.

Here is a YouTube video of Sam Harris discussing free will. He uses the above question in the video to suggest we do not have free will. Free will assumes we have all the information before us and make careful consideration based on that information. Rather, something deep in our subconscious controls our thoughts and our higher faculties respond just to them. My subconscious never allowed my conscious to consider Cairo, therefore I had no free will to choose Cairo.

He also mentions a test they run in the lab. With the subject attached to brain monitors, they tell the subject they will get to choose between pressing a button on the left and a button on the right. There is a giant clock between the two. All they have to do is decide and not the exact time their mind made that decision. What they discover in the lab is the area of the brain fires at least several tenths of a second, if not several seconds, before the person believes they made their decision. A few tenths might be a timing error, but several seconds? If your brain has decided seconds before your conscious has decided what does that mean? Is it free will, or is your conscious just mirroring the subconscious but believes it has control?

Elsewhere on this page is a debate on sexual preference. I hesitate to add this as I don’t want to focus solely on that aspect. But it does tie in. I never remember a time in my youth, or now, that I looked at a guy and thought “wow, fill in your favorite innuendo here”. I never remember my subconscious passing that thought up to my conscious. I do know there have been plenty of times I’ve looked at women and had that reaction. I don’t recall ever taking a double-take on a man, I have often on women. IF this is a choice, should not I look at a handsome man just to have my conscious say “hey, we made a choice to be straight, look away”?

One of the items Sam Harris brings up is Charles Whitman. If you don’t recall, he climbed the tower in Texas and started shooting people. Whitman left a note asking for his brain to be looked at. He knew there was something wrong, he shouldn’t have the thoughts he had. But he had them. Sure enough, they found a tumor in an area that may cause violent tendencies. There is an open debate if the tumor caused Whitman to climb that tower. But the fact it was there and in an area one would expect it given the symptoms seems fairly coincidental.

Harris points out that Whitman is easy, there is a strange mass. But that all of our brains have items. Some synopsis may just be wired in my brain to fire a certain way, some paths may be easier in my brain than yours. And of course, easier in your brain than mine. I have no musical talent. I don’t recall ever rejecting music. I just remember that I’ve never been able to keep a beat (even today after thousands of times I have to watch people clapping to the IU fight song to clap along or I will get way off beat).

If that can happen with music, can that happen with food (obesity)? Can it happen with crime, work, bigotry, etc? Can some people just be wired that differently? If the subconscious never passes Cairo up to the conscious, how can the conscious accept or reject it? If the idea of not doing drugs never comes up from the subconscious, can the conscious seriously consider that as an alternative?

It is often mentioned how lucky some on welfare have it. The government pays them and they don’t have to work. They can sit at home, eat bon-bons and watch Jerry Springer on my nickel. My question is, if that is such a wonderful life, why don’t we choose it? My subconscious never passes that to my conscious as a serious choice. I am guessing those that are more conservative who make that observation also don’t seriously consider this option. But why not? If it is such a great life, wouldn’t we be idiots to not consider the option? The answer may be that we aren’t wired that way.

Harris points out that we can’t even control our next thoughts. How often does an idea just pop into your head? Have you ever been in a meeting and had a thought about some external event (basketball, politics, what to eat for dinner) just pop into your mind? Did you consciously choose at that moment to think about clam chowder? Or did some more base instinct bring it up? If it is the latter, is that a sign of free will or something more controlling your thoughts than your conscious self?

Now the video is long, and even I haven’t finished it. A friend described it to me in much detail. I’m not sure I completely by the thought that we have no free will, but it does cause me to question how much free will we have. If there is perfect free will, would I not have a recollection of wanting to look at both Stephanie and Steve and deciding Stephanie was the way to go? Would I not be capable of completely reevaluating everything about my life and making changes quite often based on this conscious evaluation? I don’t recall ever deciding that living in Section 8 on welfare was something I did not want to do, why not?

I fear the truth is that we have some control over our thoughts, but that it isn’t nearly the amount of control we would like to believe. Evolutionary, the conscious mind is fairly new and is laid on top of the more base operating system. Our conscious mind wants to believe it is the alpha in the system, but it seems the conscious mind can only respond to what that base system allows it to. If the base system never allows the conscious mind to consider Cairo, how much free will does the conscious mind have to choose Cairo?
 
I was going to say "Cairo" - but then I felt bad about not wanting to say "Hoboken", so I settled for Oskaloosa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Noodle
Excellent topic, Marv.
There is a lot to say about this. The concept of free will vs. predestination is a fascinating topic. Being raised Lutheran; I certainly got my fill of Martin Luther's views about this which were quite strong. We occasionally had lengthily family discussions about this. For Luther, man had no free will and all was controlled by the grace of God. (Start reading at "Luther's Manum Opus" here.) Your discussion tracks Luther to a significant extent, except your remarks are obviously secular. I'm looking forward to watching the video later about how Harris discusses the point.
As I've said before, I have long been interested by the human brain and what the difference is between the brain and the mind. Much of this depends on how our pleasure/pain response operates in each individual. I don't think the strength of that force is given enough credit in all that we do. I certainly don't want to start yet another homosexuality thread, but that certainly provides a useful metric to look at the free will/no free will issues if we can manage to keep the snarks and emotions at bay.
Things like muscle memory and habits which are deeply imbedded in all of us also influence free will. I'm not sure if the movie Wired to Win bears on the issue of free will, but it certainly bears on the issues closely related there to.
 
Think of a city, any city. Once you come to your decision, read on.

Did you think of Cairo? I hope not as that would make the rest pretty useless. If you did not think of Cairo, why not? If you are like me (Philadelphia), Cairo never came into my head. I could not rationally reject Cairo as I never considered Cairo. I thought of about 4 cities, was about to say London when something came into my mind that London was too obvious and Philadelphia quickly entered. No debate, no careful weighing of pros and cons, Philadelphia because it was less obvious than London.

Ah, but you did debate your choice to some extent, as you decided that London was "too obvious" but Philly was somehow "less obvious." And your brain apparently picked 4 cities from the thousands stored in your head. If the exercise of free will required the conscious consideration of every possible answer (i.e., every city stored in our brains), we would all be babbling mushes of goo incapable of ever making a decision. And why should a question like "think of a city" ever require us to consciously consider each and every possible answer, and only rejecting each but one on some rational basis? There is no rational basis for thinking of Cairo and selecting or rejecting Cairo. Am exercising free will when I scratch my nose if it itches? Do the circumstances always require the conscious exercise of free will for every single decision we make?

And what in the world would make you conclude that London was "too obvious"? The question as not "what city is ______ thinking of?" So what would make one potential answer obvious when the question gave no parameters for the answer, let alone information allowing one to conclude that a particular answer would be "too obvious."
 
A better question might be

How many city names leapt from your subconscious to your consciousness before settling on one? Not sure what this would prove other than the ability to make snap decisions. 2 for me.
 
Noodle, if you watch the video you will note that our rationale for making choices are often wrong. So I changed from London to Philly, my conscious tried to rationalize why IT made the decision. The rationalization it came up with was that London was too obvious of an answer. Mr Harris would suggest my subconscious knew the answer was going to be Philly and my conscious just came up with an excuse as to why London lost out after it had thought London was a great answer.

The "too obvious" can be explained. There was a book, can't remember the title, that discussed how people choose posters as a reward for filling out a survey. In fact, the survey was just a front, the true study was the poster choice. The researchers would contact people back several months later to "follow up on the survey". One question was about the poster, which is what they wanted. It turns out that the people who freely chose their poster were more unhappy with it and less likely to have it displayed then the people who were just handed a poster at random. In the experiment, they discovered that people out in the open would choose the cheesy motivational posters. If they chose the poster in secret, they might choose the cats or the woman washing a car. And at random, well, who knew. The explanation the researchers came up with was that the motivational posters were chosen because people liked what choosing them said about them. If others see me take a motivational poster, I might believe they would associate me with a certain image. I may not like the image of choosing the bikini clad woman washing a Ferrari even if I choose that poster. So people chose the motivational, and had all sorts of reasons why they chose it. The reason was never "because I wanted to people to see me select this poster and associate me as someone who loves 'success' posters". So when I say I chose Philly because London was too obvious, the truth is probably somewhere in my subconscious I like what saying Philly says about me more than London. Frankly, if I had to guess, I'd suggest naming a foreign city sounded more pretentious to some part of my brain (having never left North America personally).

As to the rest, the point is you can only base decisions based on what comes into your mind to consider. If your brain never submits an answer to a problem that "we need more/less government to solve this situation", then is it really free when you espouse the view you might have? I can suggest that very seldom (if ever) do I consider how a policy might impact the billionaire class. At least not in a conscious, careful deliberation. If I never consider that question, are my decisions truly free or am I just parroting political opinions my subconscious tells me to have? I think I used to recall the concept the most powerful person in the kingdom wasn't the king but the person who determined who the king saw and what the king knew. If my subconscious is willfully hiding some ideas, facts, opinions from my conscious, is my conscious really making free will decisions?
 
CO, I will be interested in your take. I don't think he proves it, not by a long shot. Like you, I have interest in how the mind works. We know there are different levels of the mind, and I think what he's hit upon is our subconscious gatekeeper. I don't buy entirely that my conscious self cannot overrule the gatekeeper, but I do believe 1) it can be very difficult and 2) the gatekeeper can hide information leading us not to see any reason to overrule it. Whitman was able to realize something was wrong, many people even with as big of a problem as he had never reach that point. It is all they know, there is a part of their brain telling them to do some evil. Because Whitman's was a tumor, he may have had the knowledge that something had changed.

Harris suggests that if we put a serial killer's DNA and life history into Harris' body, Harris would become a serial killer. All we are is some mixture of DNA and life experience. Now, this loses all the people who are religious in that there is no soul to counter that. But I think there is something to Harris' belief. If my parents raised me dramatically differently I do believe I would be dramatically different today. I don't think I made a conscious decision to be certain ways, I think DNA/neuron paths/life experience made me this way. I then rationalize it to make myself feel more in control.
 

Which Cairo? Wouldn't it depend on how that was pronounced? I mean, the Cairo in Illinois is pronounced like "Care-o". The one in Georgia is "Kay-ro".

Surely you weren't talking about the one in Egypt . . . that's pronounced "Ki-ro". Who would have ever guessed that from its spelling?

I'm sorry, what did you say?
 
Sope, your question does bring something to mind that I have long wanted to rant on. How many times in our lives have the official pronunciation of Kabul changed? But I'm skeptical the city has physically changed its name. Does it really matter if our TV newsreader says Cobble, KA-buhl, or ka-BUHL? What was wrong with Cobble if we all heard it and knew exactly what it referred to? It is like the news stories of experts arguing ISIS was the wrong name because it wouldn't translate that way. Honestly, who cares (other than some linguist)? We all knew what was meant when ISIS was mentioned, why not stay with it?

The one and true Mr Spock once said a difference that makes no difference is no difference. He was right. We called the country the USSR though clearly their Olympic uniforms used CCCP. No one made us go through a re-education program to call them CCCP. But now, not only do we have to learn that someone, somewhere disagrees with an English acronym of a terror group, we have to change how phone numbers work for some reason (it used to be (###) ###-#### then everywhere switched to ###.###.#### then ###-###-####. How much are we spending to redo all these things that make no bloody difference? Same for spaces after a period, it really does not matter one iota if there are one or two. I understand changing brachiosaurus if there is no evidence they ever existed (though even that seems in doubt now as some believe they did exist). But why does Kabul change pronunciation seemingly yearly and why should we care?
 
Excellent topic, Marv.
There is a lot to say about this. The concept of free will vs. predestination is a fascinating topic. Being raised Lutheran; I certainly got my fill of Martin Luther's views about this which were quite strong. We occasionally had lengthily family discussions about this. For Luther, man had no free will and all was controlled by the grace of God. (Start reading at "Luther's Manum Opus" here.) Your discussion tracks Luther to a significant extent, except your remarks are obviously secular. I'm looking forward to watching the video later about how Harris discusses the point.
As I've said before, I have long been interested by the human brain and what the difference is between the brain and the mind. Much of this depends on how our pleasure/pain response operates in each individual. I don't think the strength of that force is given enough credit in all that we do. I certainly don't want to start yet another homosexuality thread, but that certainly provides a useful metric to look at the free will/no free will issues if we can manage to keep the snarks and emotions at bay.
Things like muscle memory and habits which are deeply imbedded in all of us also influence free will. I'm not sure if the movie Wired to Win bears on the issue of free will, but it certainly bears on the issues closely related there to.


CO, have you ever practiced any form of meditation?

In my experience, meditation is a practice (or discipline if you prefer) of getting our mind (as in our experience of, and attempts to control, conscious thought) to let go of tight control over our experience of brain functions so that it can be more integrated with the rest of the brain in the form of an enhanced and simultaneous awareness of both our thoughts and our surroundings. This state of mind feels sort of similar to an athlete being in "the zone", which is where muscle memory is well-integrated with the conscious mind, and as a result athletic performance is enhanced . . . the old "everything seemed to slow down" state of mind. Mystics also refer to this state of mind, or at least similar states of mind, as an experience of the divine.

I recently took MrsSope to a meditation class, taught in a local church's Sunday school class . . . she was amazed at the brain "rest" achieved in that meditative experience.
 
Lima is even more perplexing. The city in Peru is pronounced lee-ma, while the city in Ohio is pronounced ly-mah. But, the Marine company (3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment) from Columbus, OH (only 50 miles from Lima, OH) is pronounced like the city in Peru (Lima Company). On top of that,
Lima, Illinois is pronounced lay-ma and Lima Ohio's sister city is Harima, Japan.
 
Sope, your question does bring something to mind that I have long wanted to rant on. How many times in our lives have the official pronunciation of Kabul changed? But I'm skeptical the city has physically changed its name. Does it really matter if our TV newsreader says Cobble, KA-buhl, or ka-BUHL? What was wrong with Cobble if we all heard it and knew exactly what it referred to? It is like the news stories of experts arguing ISIS was the wrong name because it wouldn't translate that way. Honestly, who cares (other than some linguist)? We all knew what was meant when ISIS was mentioned, why not stay with it?

The one and true Mr Spock once said a difference that makes no difference is no difference. He was right. We called the country the USSR though clearly their Olympic uniforms used CCCP. No one made us go through a re-education program to call them CCCP. But now, not only do we have to learn that someone, somewhere disagrees with an English acronym of a terror group, we have to change how phone numbers work for some reason (it used to be (###) ###-#### then everywhere switched to ###.###.#### then ###-###-####. How much are we spending to redo all these things that make no bloody difference? Same for spaces after a period, it really does not matter one iota if there are one or two. I understand changing brachiosaurus if there is no evidence they ever existed (though even that seems in doubt now as some believe they did exist). But why does Kabul change pronunciation seemingly yearly and why should we care?


Well, "CCCP" was the Cyrillian alphabet's representation of the Russian language's version of "USSR", wasn't it?

As long as we're on rants, mine is regarding the US population's inexplicable abandoning of the objective pronoun "him". I hear phrases like "between he and I" on TV and the radio in an effort to sound more properer, and even my mother who taught me usages of subjective and objective case has been co-opted in this effort.

BTW, I have no idea what the correct pronunciation of Kabul is.

I'm sorry, what were we talking about?
 
And this all brings to mind that great old joke "How do you pronounce the capital of Kentucky, lew-is-ville or lew-ee-ville?" Of course the answer is Frankfurt!

wait, I screwed that up.

"How do you pronounce the capital of Kentucky, lew-ee-ville or lou-uh-ville?"
 
Lima is even more perplexing. The city in Peru is pronounced lee-ma, while the city in Ohio is pronounced ly-mah. But, the Marine company (3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment) from Columbus, OH (only 50 miles from Lima, OH) is pronounced like the city in Peru (Lima Company). On top of that,
Lima, Illinois is pronounced lay-ma and Lima Ohio's sister city is Harima, Japan.

That's because in Ohio they know their beans. For a while during his 2nd and 3rd year on earth our oldest thought limas were a form of candy and ate them at the merest of offerings. Hasn't touched them since then.
 
That's because in Ohio they know their beans. For a while during his 2nd and 3rd year on earth our oldest thought limas were a form of candy and ate them at the merest of offerings. Hasn't touched them since then.
I was thinking of Crawfordsville which IS, as it happens, English for Cairo and whence came the author of Ben Hur - General Lew Wallace, so I guess that's it, eh?
 
CO, have you ever practiced any form of meditation?

In my experience, meditation is a practice (or discipline if you prefer) of getting our mind (as in our experience of, and attempts to control, conscious thought) to let go of tight control over our experience of brain functions so that it can be more integrated with the rest of the brain in the form of an enhanced and simultaneous awareness of both our thoughts and our surroundings. This state of mind feels sort of similar to an athlete being in "the zone", which is where muscle memory is well-integrated with the conscious mind, and as a result athletic performance is enhanced . . . the old "everything seemed to slow down" state of mind. Mystics also refer to this state of mind, or at least similar states of mind, as an experience of the divine.

I recently took MrsSope to a meditation class, taught in a local church's Sunday school class . . . she was amazed at the brain "rest" achieved in that meditative experience.

Never done meditation

But I have experienced the exercise zone back in the day when I used to spend hours on long bike rides. This usually happened when my cadence, rate of breathing, and heart rate remained more or less constant for long periods of time. I don't know if my physical performance was enhanced, but I do remember the mind clensing that happened. Seemed as though I solved a lot of issues that way. Sometimes I can get that feeling on long walks too. I've never tried to accomplish the same thing by quietly sitting in one place.
 
Sope, do you practice meditation? I have a book on it, I've considered it, but my natural skepticism has kept me from actually spending time on it.
 
Never done meditation

But I have experienced the exercise zone back in the day when I used to spend hours on long bike rides. This usually happened when my cadence, rate of breathing, and heart rate remained more or less constant for long periods of time. I don't know if my physical performance was enhanced, but I do remember the mind clensing that happened. Seemed as though I solved a lot of issues that way. Sometimes I can get that feeling on long walks too. I've never tried to accomplish the same thing by quietly sitting in one place.

The class that MrsSope and I attended had some interesting stuff regarding breathing. First, like many mediation techniques, we focused on our breathing as a means to have our mind "let go". Afterwards the class leader focused on how many times biblical scripture associates breath and the giving of/having life, and the lack of breath as associated with death. I suspect that your experience of cadence, breathing and heart rate was similar to meditation . . . .
 
Sope, do you practice meditation? I have a book on it, I've considered it, but my natural skepticism has kept me from actually spending time on it.

I learned Transcendental Meditation nearly 40 years ago at the suggestion of a colleague, then abandoned it as a young man when I kept falling asleep during the morning sessions. Recently I've picked up practicing what I remember of it . . . and MrsSope says that it clearly has an effect on me, in a positive way. I feel more relaxed, and more detached from most events.

I'm not sure that what I'm doing now would be considered true Transcendental Meditation; I've not had a check-in since I first started it. But what I'm doing does help me focus better at work, and it is a good excuse for being a human being for a while, instead of a human doing. When I get into a nice, deep meditative state, it's very pleasant. The term "mindful awareness" is an appropriate one. So I'm going to keep it up, and perhaps associate more with others who practice it because group meditation can help reinforce the practice too.

One thing I recall from the Transcendental Meditation training is that apparently it's pretty well documented that meditation helps the brain experience more alpha waves, which apparently are beneficial in a lot of ways. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100319210631.htm

I've actually encouraged MrsSope to check out meditation, because her job as an 8th grade math teacher is intense 10 months of the year, and the daily break that meditation provides can be almost like a stress reset button.
 
I was thinking of Crawfordsville which IS, as it happens, English for Cairo and whence came the author of Ben Hur - General Lew Wallace, so I guess that's it, eh?
I once slept on a couch next to General Wallace's cast iron stove. It was summer so it was not fired up.
 
This is a fascinating topic.

I think free will is only meaningful in a dualist understanding of the mind. That is, if the conscious (subjective) mind truly is separate from the biological brain. If consciousness is an illusion, then free will must also be an illusion, since it would be nothing more than a sloppy biological version of the free will shown by any other complex machine.

I'm fairly strongly convinced that a dualist understanding of the mind is the correct one, for various reasons. Because of that, I tend to lean toward the idea that free will is real.

However, we do know that a lot of human behavior is influenced by genetics. And it's not just sexuality. Studies suggest that aesthetic preferences, politics and religion are among a long list of things that have at least some genetic basis. This suggests to me several possibilities:

1. The mind exists, but free will is illusory. Decisions are made by our brains, and our minds simply incorrectly "think" they are making conscious choices.
2. The mind exists, but does not have a completely free nature. That is, each mind is limited in some way by the physical brain that gives it existence, and thus genetics. Therefore, free will exists, but is limited by the immutable nature of each particular mind.
3. Decisions are made by the mind and brain in tandem. The brain adds the deterministic element, and the mind supplies free will. Decisions are made where these two forces intersect.

In any case, I can only make an argument for no free will at all, or imperfect (limited) free will. I cannot make an argument for complete, unfettered free will, and, as I think the OP attempts to demonstrate, such an unfettered free will flies in the face of everyday experience, anyway.
 
Define free will.

If our consciousness works in unusual ways is that different from being ourselves? Is there a difference between free will and reactive activity?

I understand that brain activity functions differently in different people. I don't understand how that reality can translate into the lack of free will. Let me stipulate that the science recognizing abnormal behavior related to specific abnormal biological conditions is pretty conclusive. How do we separate free will from normal brain activity?

Our brains are different. (Just ask my wife.) Is that indicative of lack of free will or normal biological functions.
 
Define free will.

If our consciousness works in unusual ways is that different from being ourselves? Is there a difference between free will and reactive activity?

I understand that brain activity functions differently in different people. I don't understand how that reality can translate into the lack of free will. Let me stipulate that the science recognizing abnormal behavior related to specific abnormal biological conditions is pretty conclusive. How do we separate free will from normal brain activity?

Our brains are different. (Just ask my wife.) Is that indicative of lack of free will or normal biological functions.
It's the ability to choose between multiple possible options. The key word is possible. It doesn't mean merely that other options are feasible. It means that it would have been possible for us, with absolutely no change whatsoever, to make another choice. In other words, if our brains process information, and come to a necessary decision based on how that information is processed in the deterministic system of our brain, it could still be classified as a choice in some sense, but it could not be classified as free will. It's only free if a truly identical brain (or mind, perhaps), given a truly identical set of circumstances, could actually have made a different decision.
 
Isn't free will better defined as the willingness to choose between disparate multiple possible options of which you are aware?
 
Hootch, I am not sure exactly how to define free will. In the sake of this discussion, I would suggest it is illustrated by this, I discussed free will with a boss who pointed me to that video. Once I saw that video I either made a free will decision to post it here, or it was pre-determined that once I saw that video I was going to post it here. My DNA/life experiences guaranteed that I would make this choice and I never actually "chose" to post it here.

The backstory is that we were discussing Asimov's Foundation series (of which I am a big believer that only the first 3 matter). The concept of psychohistory plays a major role, for any who have not read it. It is the idea that large groups of people behave in totally predictable ways. If one can study the group enough, they can predict exactly what that group will do. Much like gas particles, one cannot predict what a single gas particle will do when heated, but we know what a volume of gas will do.

That led to the section of his talk where researchers could see into a person't mind the moment they make a decision, and the conscious is not yet aware a decision has been made.If the conscious isn't making that decision, do we have free will? Or is there some future of mapping brain structures that may be able to accurately predict our responses to everything? No more job interviews, just submit your brain scan and your perspective employer will know if you are a good fit or not. "We can see by your brain scan that if a gunman enters the store you will totally freak out, so we will not be offering you the overnight cashier position".

Is there in our future some math formula that will predict everything we do? I've mentioned before my interest in the idea that our universe is a 3D holograph. Maybe all we are is a mathematical formula. Maybe everything we do, think, decide is just run through an equation solving for X.
 
Is there in our future some math formula that will predict everything we do? I've mentioned before my interest in the idea that our universe is a 3D holograph. Maybe all we are is a mathematical formula. Maybe everything we do, think, decide is just run through an equation solving for X.

If that's the case, I would at least hope that it's a multi-variable equation.
 
Best Thread in a Long While

I used to think I was in control of my mind and brain. Now I am having doubts.

Don't know if I feel better or worse.
 
Hootch, I am not sure exactly how to define free will. In the sake of this discussion, I would suggest it is illustrated by this, I discussed free will with a boss who pointed me to that video. Once I saw that video I either made a free will decision to post it here, or it was pre-determined that once I saw that video I was going to post it here. My DNA/life experiences guaranteed that I would make this choice and I never actually "chose" to post it here.

The backstory is that we were discussing Asimov's Foundation series (of which I am a big believer that only the first 3 matter). The concept of psychohistory plays a major role, for any who have not read it. It is the idea that large groups of people behave in totally predictable ways. If one can study the group enough, they can predict exactly what that group will do. Much like gas particles, one cannot predict what a single gas particle will do when heated, but we know what a volume of gas will do.

That led to the section of his talk where researchers could see into a person't mind the moment they make a decision, and the conscious is not yet aware a decision has been made.If the conscious isn't making that decision, do we have free will? Or is there some future of mapping brain structures that may be able to accurately predict our responses to everything? No more job interviews, just submit your brain scan and your perspective employer will know if you are a good fit or not. "We can see by your brain scan that if a gunman enters the store you will totally freak out, so we will not be offering you the overnight cashier position".

Is there in our future some math formula that will predict everything we do? I've mentioned before my interest in the idea that our universe is a 3D holograph. Maybe all we are is a mathematical formula. Maybe everything we do, think, decide is just run through an equation solving for X.

I tend to agree with your answer. Free will is the ability to determine what you want to do or say or whatever. It does not mean that we can always do what we want or say what we want, etc. It does mean we have the ability to determine whether we want to take an action or not. The decision process may or may not be well informed.

There are a lot of times when I will do something on a whim. It drives my wife. It's going to be something minor like whether I ride or walk or swim for exercise in the morning. If I don't have an early meeting or one of the kids doesn't have somewhere to go. For lunch I may opt for whatever pops in my mind. If I am with others, their tastes have to be taken into consideration. (I do know one group that took suggestions from everyone and used a random number generator to determine the lunch destination.)

I think I got a little distracted by some of the discussion on brain abnormalities. There are biological defects that impact our ability to function as normal human beings. I'm sure most of us remember Robert Novak's hit and run a few year's ago. He did not remember a thing. A follow up exam determined that he had a tumor impacting his brain functions in an abnormal way. It seems to me that we have to set aside biological abnormalities when discussing free will.

I'm not sure we can completely control our thoughts. I think there are varying levels of disciplining the mind. Some people are masters at it can focus on a single issue almost entirely. Others are so open to new ideas, adventures, places, experiences that they let things evolve around them. There was a professor in the book Black Swan, that never ran to catch a train. He didn't know what would happen if he did miss the train and that interested to him. Those two opposite behaviors, in my mind, indicate that normal functioning humans have free will.

As to the mathematical formula that can predict what people will do. I suppose it is possible, but is more likely improbable. Our brains are impacted by our experiences throughout our lifetime. Two people can experience the same event and can be impacted in completely different manners. The programmer would have to have some access to the billions of experiences a person has had a well as how each of those experiences are recorded in their memory. Going back to my wife. We started dating in 1989 and were married in 1994. We have experienced a lot of things together. There are any number of things that one of us will remember quite well but the other has a sketchy memory or no memory of that event. I don't know how you capture the brain's absorption of an event.
 
Since there's no risk of this hijacking the thread, I recently finished China Miéville's The City and the City, which I'd highly recommend. The residents of Beszel and Ul Qoma had to think about their own city in that story, or they'd commit a potentially mortal crime. Miéville demonstrated an exceptional facility with his own mind to write the story.

I don't intend any of this as a commentary on the OP's theme, which I think is vastly underappreciated. As even the simplest puzzles illustrate, our minds are always constrained in ways we can't see. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. The challenge is every day to find and throw off another constraint.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT