The chemical reactions in the brain are not solely in control of the decisions one can make. The unbalance of a certain neurotransmitter substance might sway a decision one way or the other, for example, you will give up the idea of going to the beach if the weather is `so and so' and your disposition is `low', that is, there's something not right about your serotonin or dopamine levels at that precise moment. Also you may not want to go to the beach if you have a phobia of water or if you got mugged at the beach last time you went, so past experiences will also have to be taken in account. Yet again, if you possess a working intellect and have strong will power you can effectively `force' yourself to bypass that chemical induced mood or the unpleasant memories or past experiences, and go to the beach no matter what. That, I believe, is free will, the ability to dissect the thoughts you experience when taking a decision, their source and purpose, objectively rationalize them and impose your will over whatever feelings or thoughts may arise from your past, the conscious or subconscious mind. If you truly know yourself and how your mind works and if you're in good brain health then you can, with some degree of certainty, assume that if you take a decision it is "you" who takes it, and you can start talking about having free will
On another note, humans who constantly practice insight meditation more or less control the neurostructures and chemicals in their brain, especially the mood regulators.

I still don't believe that any of this constitutes free will.

Modifying our brain chemistry through meditation or drugs changes nothing but the way we perceive the moment.

This is all just navigating the little raft of our own awareness down the river of causality, for lack of a better way to put it.

Please explain your view on free will then.

If an action is caused by objective and rational thought that puts itself under the spotlight to see if its good enough a cause for the action to take place, isn't that action the effect of a cause known as free will ?

Yet those still technically are "chemical occurrences" in a sense. The matter, and flesh within an organism is at the very least primarily composed of different chemicals, and in that way the actions, reactions, responses, and occurrences within this particular organism would indeed only possible to be manipulated by the chemicals, substances, and different forms of matter interacting with it. The recollection of any past experience is gets stored in a cell as a memory in a certain area of the brain-then should something happen or occur to that organism either the conscious, or unconscious 'mind' would likely communicate the happenings of a certain specific relevant recollection, so the organisms feelings of pursuing a certain action could be altered for the better using the knowledge, understanding, and experience of that organism, something the human brain is more capable of containing, and processing than that of any other organism-thus 'intelligence', and 'choice'.
I do believe that, should the specific reference of "free will" we are discussing here is that which states each organism is it's own individual being, within itself, and therefore the chemical manipulations are fully its own, and in that way it has "free will", then I suppose I would agree. If not I will have to ask, in your opinion -Where, or what exactly is this free will derived from? What is it exactly? Does it have a physical presence, or is it something of a spiritual connection to our actions? Could evidence be offered, or is it only an idea/theory of how the human mind works? Could only a human be capable of this, and if so, why?
Sorry if I ask a lot of questions at once -I am curious though.

According to the RaMBaM (Medieval Jewish Text) Freewill is linked to the Bodily Soul. Which is completely a bodily aspect. So, Freewill is within these chemicals according to Jewish thought.

(It's also based on neurotransmitters which are not chemical but electric)

The concept is as follows,

The brain in all it's aspects creates a sentient consciousness. Just like a computer is made up of transistors but it can create virtual worlds.

This consciousness exists in order to interpret and judge its surroundings and chose the path of survival for the organism.
Originally this consciousness was meant to calculate based on the instinctual influence.
But in Humans the instinctual influence, exists, but does not hold absolute control over the organism's decisions.
The reason why we do have free will is because we are not bound within the realm of instinct. Our decisions can chose to go against instinct and the reason may not always be for survival.

Please read the link I gave you earlier, I would be interested in your comments.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...ning-evil.html

To be honest with you, Binyamin, I'm not entirely sure I can explain it . . .

If you'll go back to post #60 on this thread, I referred to myself as an Existentialist Determinist. It's contradictory and nonsensical, I know, but right now it's all I can offer you as an explanation.

It's something I've been puzzling through in my own head for years. And, believe it or not, though we may forever disagree on this topic, your thoughts on the subject are both fascinating and helpful and I respect your ideas.

Suffice to say, my own observations and experiences have led me to have the ideas that I have regarding free will, or its lack thereof, as I am sure your life experiences and observations have led you to your ideas.

I wish I could offer you something more useful.

Chemical.

You are right however about the electrochemical nature of the triggering mechanism needed to release certain neurotransmitter substances.

10 points if you guess which one is in the picture :a-ok:

Dopamine

What do points do?

Not dopamine. What does your 1 meter long stuffed fish you keep as a trophy do ? Sits there looking pretty, just like 10 points.


edit: should get back on topic :poke-eye:

Noradrenaline?

Very close to dopamine...

Points are good.. but, what were your answers to my questions, Ariciunervos?

I like points too. :letme-at-em:

I like points as well. I also like chases. As in where is the chase and how do I cut to it?

I'm curious to know the direction of the inquiry. Seems very random and off center.

Something tells me you're not going to answer, Ariciunervos. *disappointed*

The problem with trying to scientifically apply chemistry to consciousness is that you are trying to use some of the concepts of science to explain a realm where science is still unproven...if you want this to be of use, then go get your degree in biochemistry and start running tests.

Yes, you can mix a ratio of chemicals in a petri dish and be quite certain that they will always react in the same manner. But the human brain is still far from being understood by science. We can say that certain chemicals and hormones will lead to more of a chance that someone will report being "happy". But we can not define what this emotion means. We can not determine that mixing a certain ratio of chemicals in the brain, like in the petri dish, will give us any consistent result in the line of the petri dish result. You can simply observe how different people react to different drugs--almost any drug you ingest has certain psychological side effects that can occur. Most people don't experience them, but some do, and some in different ways. Yet the same chemical and amount of chemical has crossed the blood-brain barrier. Look at how people react differently to psychedelic drugs.

If you want some scientific "proof" of free will, I would mention physics prof. Richard Muller's thoughts on the matter. The weak nuclear force results in the regularly predictable decay of radioactive particles, whereby they release energy in the form of radiation, and return to the "stable" state. Science can tell you the rate of decay, but there is no way to tell which particle is going to decay at the time. So, you can have a lump of radioactive uranium, and you know the half-life, but one atom within that mass might cease to be radioactive in the next minute, while another might take hundreds of years. Some of the best physicists say that not only do we not know a mechanism to determine which particle will decay when, but that it is probably impossible to know. Do radioactive atoms have free will?

I believe in an aspect of free will, in that humans can reason to base their decisions on what is logical. They don't always do so, but they can, and this makes us different from animals. Of course you can argue that what is "logical" is really just a pathway of reasoning that allows us to justify an already determined emotional or chemical response. I don't believe this is the case, but I can't prove this, and you can't disprove it.

I would think of humans having free will in the sense of a mouse walking through a gigantic maze. You can put the cheese down to influence the mouse's actions, and the maze in itself will confine his own will to being only so powerful over his existence. But there is still free will that exists there, and many paths that can be taken due to free decision making, even if all of the available paths have been predetermined.

The Radioactive halflife is not so complicated.
When you pour a pitcher, which molecules will leave the vase first?
It's the same question. Doesnt really prove anything. Especially not free will.

And results to experiments are based on initial conditions. The "side effects" occur when the initial conditions are as such.

But I agree with your overall point. I compared it to transistors earlier. Chemicals are the hardware. What consciousness is, is the software.

---------
"All human beings, all persons who reach adulthood in the world today are programmed biocomputers. None of us can escape our own nature as programmable entities. Literally, each of us may be our programs, nothing more, nothing less.

Despite the great varieties of programs available, most of us have a limited set of programs. Some of these are built in. In the simpler forms of life the programs were mostly built in from genetic codes to fully formed adultly reproducing organisms. The patterns of function, of actionreaction were determined by necessities of survival, of adaptation to slow environmental changes and of passing on the code to descendants.

Eventually the cerebral cortex appeared as an expanding new highlevel computer controlling the structurally lower levels of the nervous system, the lower builtin programs. For the first time learning and its faster adaptation to a rapidly changing environment began to appear. Further, as this new cortex expanded over several millions of years, a critical size cortex was reached. At this level of structure, a new capability emerged: learning to learn."

-John C. Lilly. M.D.
-------------

I read his book, "Programming and Metaprogramming in The Human Biocomputer" 25 years ago or so, but I can't seem to find my copy now. I think you can download it from the following link, but I'm not sure as I'm on dial-up and it was taking an eternity:
John C. Lilly - Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer

... I dunno ... that almost sounds like saying, "Literally, each of us may be our chemistry, nothing more, nothing less." ... when my wife walks into a room and I'm playing with the kids, I'm happy to see her; when she walks into a room and I've been agonizing over a problem for the last eight hours, I do not want to be bothered ... there's a whole range of responses in between, and each initial response has an infinity of contingent branches flowing off into an unknowable future ... do those sound like limited programmed responses? ...

... to further your point with a question: will the chemicals always react in the exact same manner? ... that is, will the reaction always occur with the exact same spatial propagation at the exact same speed? ... my guess would be "no" ... so even disregarding differences in chemistry from person to person, the implication here is that no single person will react in exactly the same way twice to the same drug/stimulus simply based on the contingent process of chemical reactions ... sure, there may be gross qualitative similarities (just like there are gross qualitative similarities between runs of the petri dish experiment) - but there will never be exact quantitative duplication ... (who needs radioactive decay or quantum micro-tubules?! ) ...