Thread: Does free will exist?

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

The brain itself would not be aware. It is the spirit that is aware, not the brain. It is like the computer that does nothing without the operator on the keyboard.

The brain may be just a sophisticated computer. Without an operator, it is still unable to do anything on its own.

That is about what I figured you would say. Lets mix it up a little then.
There are cases as I believe you have shown of people living with large portions of their brain reduced to a much smaller size. This shows that a person can remain a person even with loss of brain mass. Also a computer can serve a normal user as a proxy memory holder. Or with the internet an uneducated person can google and at a moments notice learn anything that they desire. Meaning that technology is becoming a proxy method of our brain. Say we took a machine and hooked it up to a person that is living and quit healthy with a good brain and mind, and extended that persons brain power. Say that said technology progressed to the point of complete brain-machine interface. And say that the machine portion was better equipped for the purpose of our body and we eliminated most of the brain to accommodate the machine within the skull. perhaps even to the point that the brain truly only takes care of bodily functions.

What are your thoughts on that situation? Can the brain be slowly removed and replaced by a machine one cell at a time until there is no organic material and maintain to be the same person? If you believe that at some point the person would die at what point would that be? or on the other hand if surgeons replace portions of the brain with lab grown brain and those pieces completely integrated with the original brain tissue. Which it has been shown that the brain can regenerate cells and rewire portions of the brain when needed. Conceivably the new tissue would work the same as the old tissue. If we slowly replace all of the old tissue with new tissue letting the brain slowly adapt to the changes would that person remain who they were and aware of it?

Originally Posted by grip

Good = The deed, act or lack of action that best serves self, family, friends and the whole of society in the most positive and productive manner.

Do we do the above by choice or does it occur randomly? That's a measure for "free will" on the macro level.

Since there are many examples that could be shown that demonstrate one employees choice on a daily basis I think that the answer is obvious.

Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll

That is about what I figured you would say. Lets mix it up a little then.
There are cases as I believe you have shown of people living with large portions of their brain reduced to a much smaller size. This shows that a person can remain a person even with loss of brain mass. Also a computer can serve a normal user as a proxy memory holder. Or with the internet an uneducated person can google and at a moments notice learn anything that they desire. Meaning that technology is becoming a proxy method of our brain. Say we took a machine and hooked it up to a person that is living and quit healthy with a good brain and mind, and extended that persons brain power. Say that said technology progressed to the point of complete brain-machine interface. And say that the machine portion was better equipped for the purpose of our body and we eliminated most of the brain to accommodate the machine within the skull. perhaps even to the point that the brain truly only takes care of bodily functions.

What are your thoughts on that situation? Can the brain be slowly removed and replaced by a machine one cell at a time until there is no organic material and maintain to be the same person? If you believe that at some point the person would die at what point would that be? or on the other hand if surgeons replace portions of the brain with lab grown brain and those pieces completely integrated with the original brain tissue. Which it has been shown that the brain can regenerate cells and rewire portions of the brain when needed. Conceivably the new tissue would work the same as the old tissue. If we slowly replace all of the old tissue with new tissue letting the brain slowly adapt to the changes would that person remain who they were and aware of it?

Now, there's an interesting concept, perhaps one that could be come reality one day. I can't see the brain being replaced by a computer analogy, but being connected to a futuristic internet and having instant access to any and all information would most certainly change a person's lifestyle in a profound way. All of humanity would be connected, much like computers are connected now.

If we did gradually replace the brain tissue with new tissue, it would be a lot like replacing the chips in a computer. The operator still would be the same operator, but the computer would have different capabilities.

I used to have an Apple //c. The capabilities of that machine were quite different from the one currently in my lap. For one thing, it was not connected to other computers in any way, and this one is. Computing power has increased exponentially, as you know. The operator, however, is still the same operator.

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

Now, there's an interesting concept, perhaps one that could be come reality one day. I can't see the brain being replaced by a computer analogy, but being connected to a futuristic internet and having instant access to any and all information would most certainly change a person's lifestyle in a profound way. All of humanity would be connected, much like computers are connected now.

If we did gradually replace the brain tissue with new tissue, it would be a lot like replacing the chips in a computer. The operator still would be the same operator, but the computer would have different capabilities.

I used to have an Apple //c. The capabilities of that machine were quite different from the one currently in my lap. For one thing, it was not connected to other computers in any way, and this one is. Computing power has increased exponentially, as you know. The operator, however, is still the same operator.

Roger Penrose postulates that the brain supports the mind by use of shared quantum mechanical state. This is impossible to replicate artificially. The closest that one may be able to come is to create a Nanobiotechnology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia interface that can detect, capture, transmit and reanimate thoughts. There is no more time for that. So, the only real possibility is to find faith in God.

Originally Posted by MoSurveyor

the brain rationalizes the outcome after the fact and concocts the impression that a single self was in charge all along.

I love this one, I read about this under wiki on the same topic. It's like something out of a comedy skit, I can see John Cleese playing the deluded ego-brain who has no doubt he was in charge.

As to Dawkins claim that we can know we ourselves are conscious, but we can't know if others are, is absurd. Goes back to how we define knowledge, it's skepticsm taken to the absurd, and illogical, extreme IMO.

Really nothing has changed much in the perception that oneself is "I" which is made up of different elements (i.e. emotions, logic, etc). knowing exactly how the brain works will not change how the brain works. A single individual will decide what they do no matter what philosophers and religious people think. One can conceptualize all you want but in the end reality always wins. The reality is that everything that makes us unique individuals is kept in the brain. The only question that remains is how that happens exactly. Its funny how arguments come up that assert that an individual that is influence by their surroundings is some how not making their own decisions as if someone else is in their skull pushing buttons. Conscious brain or subconscious brain? Guess what both are still is the same brain they are just different functions. It turns out that there is no such thing as left brain or right brained people. Both hemispheres of the brain function as an interconnected unit.

All this talk of no freedom of choice , souls, and thinking universes is just the same as any other pipe dream. If you want to assert that humans have no freedom to choose what they do you have already failed since I refused to believe you. If one wants to claim a soul exists provided at least one single shred of proof. If you want to claim that the universe thinks... well thats just completely silly.

The paragraph above was written of my own free will no one coerced me into writing it. See because if there is no such thing as freedom of choice then someone or something else must be making all of our decisions for us. And it is silly to assert that the someone else resides inside our own brains, as if we were multiple entities. We all have complex brain that are not one dimensional simplistic like an one celled organism. Obviously the human brain is a multidimensional mind that can think entirely outside of the box.

Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll

If you want to assert that humans have no freedom to choose what they do you have already failed since I refused to believe you.

Yeah, because society has taught you to respond that way! LOL!

You want proof of a soul but can't provide proof of consciousness or free will. I just love your logic.

Originally Posted by Mach

I love this one, I read about this under wiki on the same topic. It's like something out of a comedy skit, I can see John Cleese playing the deluded ego-brain who has no doubt he was in charge.

As to Dawkins claim that we can know we ourselves are conscious, but we can't know if others are, is absurd. Goes back to how we define knowledge, it's skepticsm taken to the absurd, and illogical, extreme IMO.

Debate it with the PhD's that said it. I'm sure you know more about the subject than they.

Yes.

It goes like this...

Originally Posted by MoSurveyor

Yeah, because society has taught you to respond that way! LOL!

You want proof of a soul but can't provide proof of consciousness or free will. I just love your logic.

Thank you, I am rather found of my own logic as well.

Proof is in the pudding as the saying goes. First do not expect someone (like myself) to provide you with exactly what you want as proof. Your perception of what and where an consciousness should be is not the end all assertive reality. Those Phd people that you are talking about do have their own opinions that differ from yours.

Debate it with the PhD's that said it. I'm sure you know more about the subject than they.

There are plenty of idiots with PhD's, its kind of hit and miss.

Brain imaging provides window into consciousness | e! Science News

read that title in that link. brain imaging provides a view into consciousness. Makes one wonder how one does that with our proving that consciousness exists doesnt it? The point of this article is that science is establishing a way to detect if brain injured patients are conscious. And no they are not trying to merely see if they are awake. If there is no normal communication possible, fMRI can reveal cognitive capacities on several levels." An fMRI is exclusively looking at the brain and nothing else for cognitive capacities.

The potential implications of these kinds of consciousness studies are significant, says co-author Dr. Joseph Fins, the E. William Davis, Jr., M.D. Professor of Medical Ethics, chief of the Division of Medical Ethics, and professor of medicine, professor of public health, and professor of medicine in psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College. "Beyond facilitating communication with these patients, these studies should communicate to society at large this population is worthy of our collective attention.

"A vast majority of severely brain injured patients around the country are receiving substandard care because they are improperly diagnosed, not given adequate rehabilitation, and often end up in nursing homes. We all want this to change," adds Dr. Fins, who is also director of medical ethics and chairman of the ethics committee at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

fMRI Reveals Consciousness's Complexity

The Weill Cornell study is a continuation of research into how fMRI can establish a line of communication with brain-injured patients in order to understand if they can benefit from rehabilitation, and to gauge their level of pain and other clinical parameters that would improve care and quality of life.

Research collaborators in Cambridge, England, and Liege, Belgium, published earlier demonstrations in 2006 and 2010 that severely brain-injured patients could respond to commands or questions. The present studies extend the earlier findings and represent an important confirmation of such measurements by independent scientists.

Science can does prove the existence of something without showing a photograph of it. You seem to want me to show you a physical thing called consciousness or free will.

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

A machine is still a machine. It does not feel. It does not make choices. It is good at processing data, that is all. A human being is far more than any machine, whether or not you can make one that can fool someone into thinking he is having a conversation.

How do you know a human is not a machine like a lower animal is? Just because you think so? You have to back your claim up with either incontrovertible proof, none of which exist for any supernatural existence in the universe, or present logical arguments that are reasonable and support your claim.

How do you know a machine does not "feel". What are feelings, anyway, other than bio-waste of brain functions? Just claiming that a human is "farm more than any machine" without explaining why, is just an unsubstantiated claim, exactly like religion is, which is always false by definition.