Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MonteChristo0321 OP t1_jchvgze wrote

Reply to comment by topBunk87 in I just published an article in The Journal of Mind and Behavior arguing that free will is real. Here is the PhilPapers link with free PDF. Tell me what you think. by MonteChristo0321

I'm not assuming; I know for certain that some special property emerges when you consider the brain as a whole. Conscious experience exists. It can't be coherently doubted.
But nothing you see when examining a dopamine receptor would tell you that.
So it follows that the properties of the little parts of the brain are not anything like the properties of the whole person.
Free will involves conscious decisions. That means it's a whole person level phenomenon. It's not just useful to think of it at this level. It's the only coherent way to think about it. Anything else would be like failing to find the conscious experience in a dopamine receptor.

1

topBunk87 t1_jcic2lx wrote

> "Conscious experience exists."

The appearance of it certainly does. What remains an open question is the nature of consciousness and what, if any, casual power it has. Many theories feel that consciousness doesn't drive anything but it a by-product of neural activity (ex. illusionism, identity theory, etc).

You absolutely are making a (big) assumption if you want to treat consciousness as the driver behind decisions rather than the brain. (And need to address some serious questions such as how can an emergent property push around neurons such that "decisions" turn into physical actions.)

​

> "the properties of the little parts of the brain are not anything like the properties of the whole person."

I don't understand how this addresses my point. I'll try to be direct - when we change the "little parts" you change the behaviour of the whole person. So the "little parts" are crucial to the discussion and cannot be hand-waved away.

​

> "Free will involves conscious decisions."

I disagree and I explained why. Conscious decisions (which I called deliberations) are not "free" if the elements are constrained. I don't think you addressed that.

​

> "Anything else would be like failing to find the conscious experience"

Conscious experiences arises from the sum of the "little parts" of the brain and when you change the "little parts" you change the conscious experience. So you can't just ignore the "little parts" and say they are irrelevant when they give rise to and shape the conscious experience.

1

qwertywtf t1_jchwlg8 wrote

Conscious experience ≠ Free will
Making decisions ≠ Free will

0

MonteChristo0321 OP t1_jchx4og wrote

You're not disagreeing with anything I've said.
Conscious experience ≠ free will, but free will is a conscious experience.
Making decisions ≠ free will, but free will involves making decisions.

1

qwertywtf t1_jcj39ax wrote

Free will would be a conscious experience, yes.
Free will would involve making decisions, yes.
However, the fact that we have a conscious experience and make decisions is absolutely not evidence of free will.

1