I respect your opinion, but that’s crazy talk. Nobody knows the source of free will, or decision making, or choice, however you want to put it. How can it be “bound and located”? How do you know it “comes from and it therefore bound up with the central nervous system”? Idk mate, seems like an awful burden of proof if you ask me.
I don’t pretend to know the origin or source of free will, but I know it exists. I regularly choose things independent of my environment and influence of others. Everyone on here is incredibly detailed and intelligent, but I find that proving it to originate in the CNS and thus that it can be bound is impossible.
I’m curious for an elaboration of what you mean by “willpower can be readily bound and located”, Autolykos.
Perhaps our physiology (i.e. CNS) simply enables our free will to be observed. We can study the areas of the brain engaged in the decision making process - the organ which activates a physical reaction to a thought - but is this the location of free will, really? Or is it simply the ‘house’ which free will resides in for a portion of time?
The central nervous system sends signals to efferent nerves, which lead to muscles. Impulses from efferent nerves cause muscles to contract. Physiologically speaking, all action consists of muscular contractions.
I hope the above helps shed light on just how possible it is.
If “will” is defined as “the impetus to action”, and it can be demonstrated that action has a physiological basis, how does the impetus to action not also have a physiological basis? Where else could action come from? How else could it be impelled?
My point was that perhaps action does not have a physiological basis but rather can simply be observed at one point (in this case, in the brain matter) in its process from abstraction to completed action. It’s like a man jumping from rock to rock across a river: if I observe him at the fourth rock from the edge for the first time, does that mean he began on the fourth rock?
You’re saying that free will is first generated in the brain organ, but isn’t that an assumption? Maybe it’s a pointless thing to ask, because we end up in a vicious cycle, never sure if we’ve stumbled upon the ultimate cause of free will. The brain might simply be a middle man, is all I’m saying
I don’t think Autolykos is talking about the physiological basis for “free will” rather the physiological basis for what we might call the “will to act.”
I actually don’t think economic science requires “free-willed” actors in order to make sense. We know that people act and that through action they display preferences. Does this process really require the actor’s wills to have been completely unconstrained? I’m no economics expert but I don’t think so.
It may be fun for philosophical purposes to imagine a metaphysical origin for the “will to act” but I don’t think it’s necessary for analyzing and understanding market behavior.
Well, how are you defining “action”? Whether he can be said to have begun on the fourth rock or not is really a matter of semantics. But presumably, for a man to jump, he must contract some of his muscles (mainly the ones in his legs). What directly causes those muscular contractions?
The ultimate cause of free will is the same thing as the ultimate cause of everything else - whatever that turns out to be. But I wasn’t talking about the ultimate cause of free will.
I don’t think “free will” has any meaning without intersubjectivity (including that of one self between the present and the future). In pure physical terms, it’s hardly the case that anyone’s will is unconstrained. You don’t even need any knowledge of neuroscience to figure that out. Can any of us will himself to fly through the air by flapping his arms? Can any of us will himself to run off a cliff without falling down? Can any of us will himself to stroll through a brick wall?
Thank you for the straight forward, concise answer. It does bring to mind a number of questions: So the mind = the CNS? So the brain and spinal cord equal the mind? I have a brain and spinal cord, and so do you, so do we have the same mind? If it’s a different mind, how so? Do minute structures in the brain and spinal cord distinguish mind from mind? How about retarded people, are their spinal cords and/or brains somehow different, and if restructured, could they somehow lose their impairment? Would you even say they are impaired? Can intelligence also be defined as “the central nervous system”?
I would say that describing the symptoms doesn’t define the disease, or in other words, describing the effects doesn’t define the cause. Simply because B is a certain way doesn’t guarantee that you know how A is. Take a simple example: if I saw a woman with huge boobs walking down the road, could I say I know with certainty that her mother had huge boobs? I’d think not. You wouldn’t know unless you saw the mother. Tell me what specifically free will is and how it originates, and not merely its effects, and we will know what free will is. In other words, induction is not deduction.
If you choose action A now, at time T, why do you do so? Because you are person X. Why are you person X? Because of the decisions you made at time T-1, when you were person X-1. Why were you person X-1 then? Because of the decisions you made at time T-2, when you were person X-2. Follow the causal chain backwards, and you eventually reach the point: Why were you person X"no longer a baby" at time T"no longer a baby"? Because of ‘decisions’ made at time T"no longer a baby"-1, when you were person X"no longer a baby"-1. But, when you were person X"no longer a baby"-1, you were still a baby, baby being here defined as a human too young to make conscious choices. Hence, if you trace the causal chain back far enough, you’ll find that any action you take now as person X is ultimately the result of influences beyond your conscious control. You can choose how to act at any given moment, but whatever decision you make can invariably be traced backwards to show external influences as the ultimate cause. Hence, a strong state is vital to ensure that people get the most positive influences possible in the early stages of their development, rather than being left floating adrift in the good-parenting lottery, facing the very real possibility of having their whole life’s trajectory derailed due to having their early childhood flayed by the pathetic child-rearing attempts of incompetents!
I have to stop you right there. Let me rephrase this: “Person X chooses an action because he is person X.” Ever heard of argumentum ad hominem? You can plug quite a bit into that equation that I’m willing to bet you would disagree with. For instance: “Minorities are lazy because they are minorities.”
Hmm. . . .
The correct response to your original sentence would be as follows: “If you choose Action A now, at time T, why do you do so? Because you choose to.”
