Do people have free will?

Discussions relating to conciousness, spirituality, and the great dilemma between materialism and dualism

Re: Do people have free will?

Postby Brandon Norgaard on Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:17 pm

MikeM wrote:Hi Brandon, I figured I'd give my take on free will, because I think it's the most fundamental concept in philosophy. Before you make your mind up on this question, I don't think you can really begin to consider other questions since they're all built on the assumption of free will.

Hi Mike, thanks for the post. I don't think I agree that free will is the most fundamental concept in philosophy. While I do think it is fundamental to ethics, I think you can consider questions of logic and knowledge formation without getting into free will.

MikeM wrote:I guess I'll start by saying that I still haven't decided what I believe on this subject, myself. It's hard to wrap my mind around, but I'll go into what both sides of the argument in my head go like for free will (the pro-free will and anti-free will sides). I'm not religious or spiritual, so I should clarify that I begin from the assumption that humans don't have 'souls' or anything like that (I'm open to the idea, but so far I've yet to hear an argument that was very convincing to me). I'll start with my reasons for thinking free will doesn't exist, then why I think free will might exist, and end with why I still can't decide.

I don't think the concept of a soul is necessarily a religious one. In fact, I think if one believes in free will, specifically libertarian free will, then the easiest conceivable way that this could be possible is if there is some enduring essence of one's self and this is what has this free will - this soul is what is ultimately choosing to act. This fits the definition of "soul" quite well, I'll say. If you want to find a different term that doesn't have the religious connotations, we could instead use "agent".

MikeM wrote:Everything I've seen suggests that humans, like all animals, are nothing more than biological computers.

Certainly we are, but there might be more to us than this.

MikeM wrote:Consider the example of a kid in a candy store who is considering stealing a candy bar...

But if you could rewind time a thousand times to the instant that kid makes his decision, would he ever make a different decision? I don't think he would. He is ALWAYS going to decide to steal the candy bar or ALWAYS going to decide not to steal the candy bar, and the only way to change that is to change the variables in the situation (his brain chemistry, the environment around him i.e. security guards, his upbringing). When it comes down to it, those are all things that are outside of his control.

I don't think this is correct. I don't think human behavior is very easily predictable. It may well be that there is a range of possibilities, with some more likely than others. The physical state of affairs at time T might not determine the outcome at time T + X 100% of the time.

MikeM wrote:I've heard the argument that new research in the field of quantum mechanics proves that at the quantum level, true randomness does exist (via the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle), but at any sort of macro level everything falls right back into the classical model of physics, so I find that argument for free will not very convincing, considering the complexity of the human brain and body.

If randomness does exist at the micro level, then it must be possible for this to have macro effects. As I said above, there could be a range of possibilities, with some outcomes more likely than others. The range of possibilities at the macro level that are caused by indeterminate micro events may well be quite limited, but there must be such a range if any indeterminate micro events are happening at all. It just doesn't logically follow to say that there is indeterminacy at the micro level but that at the macro level everything is 100% deterministic. It might be quite close to this to the point where we would have a difficult time detecting any variance from what would be determined by the laws of nature, but the variance would still be there. Looking at human nature, I'll say there is plenty of room for variance, even taking into account everything from personality to the effect of drugs to one's experiences, etc. I'll say the aforementioned factors collectively determine one's behavior in most, but not all, situations.

In response to your reasons in favor of free will, I do agree to an extent but my reason for believing in free will is from realizing the experience of making free choices in the moment that are the uncaused cause of my actions. When I make a free choice, it is only from a range of possibilities, so it isn't completely indeterminate. I can't just choose to do anything. And I can only choose to attempt to do something. Whether I am successful in carrying out my choice is another matter. I have the conviction of making a free choice in matters that have moral significance. I suppose if I'm choosing between coke or pepsi that the choice I end up making is probably just determined by my hardware and software. But if I recognize that I have a range of possible choices for how to act that will likely have consequences for others, then this is where my software and hardware alone can't complete the operation without input from the agent in me.
User avatar
Brandon Norgaard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Re: Do people have free will?

Postby Brandon Norgaard on Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:17 pm

Now I'm finally getting around to responding to your arguments regarding free will. Of course, you and I and others had a discussion on this topic a few days ago in person, but I nonetheless think it is important to respond to each point you made in your recent post in the “Is there a God” thread
Peregrine wrote:In this forum and others, you've mentioned a few reasons for believing that dualism is still sound. These include the apparent existence of free will, concepts like the number 3, and mental images/sensations (what you're calling "eidetic knowledge"?). Let's focus on free will for now, and use both introspection and third-person analysis to explore the soundness of this idea.

When I consider my own consciousness, it may appear at first that I have some freedom in what I think, feel, and decide. Clearly, I'm able to imagine various possibilities and weigh them according to their utility for my situation. But when I probe deeper, I realize that I did not consciously summon these possibilities; they simply rose to the level of my awareness. And when I select one above the others, was it really a matter of free choice? I find myself choosing the option that appears to be the most advantageous for my situation. Even if I refuse to choose the "obvious" choice to try to prove determinism wrong, was that impulse to resist determinism truly a matter of free choice?!

I would say that in my conscious experience, I have moments of making free choices from among a set of possible actions. When I am in these moments, I recognize the consequences each possible action has on myself and on other beings who I figure have a kind of conscious experience similar to my own. When I make a choice, this then results in me at least attempting to carry out this action. It is much more common, however, for me to simply act on habit or instinct, in which I do not deliberate over different possible actions and I do not think about the consequences that my actions might have on my future well being or the well being of others. In these situations, I do not act with free will.

Peregrine wrote:Here's a variation of an introspective experiment suggested by the neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris: Think of two cities in the world - note down the first two you think of. Be mindful of how these possibilities occur to you; did you choose freely which ones arose in your mind? Now, select one of these cities. Be mindful of your decision-making process; what considerations did you weigh when choosing? Did you freely choose to consider these considerations, or did they simply present themselves to you?

….

In conclusion: the "conscious" process of choosing between two cities can be completely broken down into unconscious impulses. And if we don't have freedom to choose in this simple case, what makes us think we have free choice in anything else?

This is certainly interesting, but the mental act of picking cities purely for the purpose of a thought experiment does not seem to have any consequences for my well being or for the well being of others. I cannot say that I made my decision from habit or instinct, but this act of choice for me did not come with the experience of making a free choice. I have many times, and as an integral part of my daily life, the clear and unambiguous sense of making a free choice. Simply having ideas pop into my head does not involve such an experience.

Peregrine wrote:Finally, let's briefly consider a third-person/logical analysis of the issue of free will. If every decision involves the intervention of an immaterial will, then an analysis of the electrical and chemical activities in the brain and body should show evidence of sudden influxes of energy and changes in motion that cannot be accounted for by previous physical events. In other words, the chain of causation would not look continuous, but would be broken up and diverted by the nonphysical intervention of the will (i.e., scientists would witness constant "miracles" each time someone exercises his/her will.) From what I've studied about the cognitive sciences, these breaks and shifts in the causal chain have not been observed - though admittedly, the technology is still lacking for an in-depth analysis of brain events. Rather, the evidence points to a continuous flow of electrochemical events that can be explained in terms of previous ones.

There are additional problems with free will (such as how the immaterial will interacts with matter, the conservation of matter/energy in this process, the structure of immaterial consciousness, how this idea fits with the evolution of consciousness in humankind/other animals and in each individual life, etc.), but I'll wait to raise these objections lest this post turn into a tome!

Yes, if any decision involves the intervention of an immaterial will, then this does invite a host of difficult questions, but we can find a way for our findings from introspection to be compatible with science. Of course, we still don't know much about how the brain works at the molecular level, and there does not need to be very significant sudden impulses in energy for this to be possible. All that is needed is for some atoms, and by extension some molecules, to have their position and velocity to be changed only slightly at a very small microscopic level. We already figure this kind of thing happens because of quantum mechanics.

How does the immaterial stuff interact with matter? I suppose there are laws of nature that are as yet unknown through which this is possible.

What about the evolution of humans and our relation to animals? Does this apply to animals as well? I would say that this is probably the result of laws of nature that depend on the existence of a being that has the necessary functional and representational qualities to facilitate this. Perhaps some animals have these qualities as well as humans, but I doubt it. I have reasons for this, which I have explained in blog postings and also in the discussion thread What kinds of beings have phenomenal consciousness?.

Well I look forward to reading your response to this or any other topic here and I also look forward to discussing these issues with you in person. Thanks again for your posts.
User avatar
Brandon Norgaard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Re: Do people have free will?

Postby Peregrine on Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:42 pm

Brandon Norgaard wrote:I would say that in my conscious experience, I have moments of making free choices from among a set of possible actions. When I am in these moments, I recognize the consequences each possible action has on myself and on other beings who I figure have a kind of conscious experience similar to my own. When I make a choice, this then results in me at least attempting to carry out this action. It is much more common, however, for me to simply act on habit or instinct, in which I do not deliberate over different possible actions and I do not think about the consequences that my actions might have on my future well being or the well being of others. In these situations, I do not act with free will.


If "free will" is defined as the capacity of a system (or "agent," or "self") to predict consequences, analyze them using certain criteria (such as the well-being of the system, or a particular moral code), and perform an action based on that analysis, then I wholeheartedly acknowledge such a capacity among human brains. I also recognize the distinction (though it's not always cut-and-dried) between actions that result from this process of deliberation and actions that do not (what you have called habitual or instinctual acts). Of course, this is fully compatible with the fact that such systems are completely determined by billions of years of biological evolution, thousands/millions? of years of cultural evolution, and however many years of idiosyncratic evolution (or changes the system has undergone in its interaction with its environment).

Brandon Norgaard wrote:This is certainly interesting, but the mental act of picking cities purely for the purpose of a thought experiment does not seem to have any consequences for my well being or for the well being of others. I cannot say that I made my decision from habit or instinct, but this act of choice for me did not come with the experience of making a free choice. I have many times, and as an integral part of my daily life, the clear and unambiguous sense of making a free choice. Simply having ideas pop into my head does not involve such an experience.


The thought experiment, framed broadly, actually allows for a greater "freedom of choice" than one that would impose a particular moral criterion. You had the option to choose whatever criteria you wanted for selecting your cities; for instance, you could have chosen ones that you think are the safest, or you could have chosen ones with the coolest-sounding names. Indeed, it would not be difficult to frame the question in moral terms: "What city do you think you should live in one day?" This decision has tremendous consequences for yourself and those in your sphere of influence. But the deliberating process, when broken down, is ultimately just as determined, impulsive, and unconscious as any other. Still, the possible consequences just "pop" into your head. Still, the criteria for choosing among such consequences just "pop" into your head. Both the consequences and the criteria are determined by your genetics, culture, and situation. Even the amount of time you spend deliberating is determined by these factors.

By the way, I doubt that any decisions aren't moral, for they all carry consequences for oneself and/or others (to varying degrees, of course). Even choosing between white and beige socks could be considered moral, if only because you're using your time to make such a nit-picky decision (and not take action on something of greater importance to your well-being, for instance).

Brandon Norgaard wrote:Yes, if any decision involves the intervention of an immaterial will, then this does invite a host of difficult questions, but we can find a way for our findings from introspection to be compatible with science. Of course, we still don't know much about how the brain works at the molecular level, and there does not need to be very significant sudden impulses in energy for this to be possible. All that is needed is for some atoms, and by extension some molecules, to have their position and velocity to be changed only slightly at a very small microscopic level. We already figure this kind of thing happens because of quantum mechanics.


The claim that the impulses hypothetically produced by immaterial wills wouldn't require significant amounts of energy is debatable. Given how frequent our decision-making is, and how many decisions involve multiple changes/movements throughout the body, I would suspect the energy required is significant indeed. Of course, I'd need to study more neuroscience and anatomy to speculate much deeper about this.

Locating a non-physical will's influxes of energy in the infinitesimal fluctuations at the quantum level is problematic, since quantum mechanics describes the operations of the physical world, which follow sometimes-puzzling but reliably consistent "laws" or behaviors (the predictions of quantum mechanics are some of the most accurate in science). From what I've gathered, quantum theory does not need to postulate any non-physical source to explain such fluctuations.

I'll address the problem of soul-body interaction and the difficulties that evolution poses for immaterial "essences" in my next post. Hope you all had an enlightening talk about the media!
User avatar
Peregrine
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:17 pm

Re: Do people have free will?

Postby Peregrine on Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:22 pm

Hi Brandon, here is Part Two of my reply (Part One is above).

Brandon Norgaard wrote:How does the immaterial stuff interact with matter? I suppose there are laws of nature that are as yet unknown through which this is possible.


The problem of soul-body interaction has been hashed out through centuries of philosophical discussions, and is one of the major reasons why dualism has been rejected by many philosophers and scientists. Here are several reasons why it is problematic:

According to your view, the immaterial will of a person (henceforth referred to as a "soul") causes physical changes in the person's brain (and other parts of the body?). For example, you've said that the soul can change the trajectory of an atom or molecule. Such a change in trajectory depends on an input of energy. Energy, like mass, is a feature of the physical world - and the two (mass and energy) can be converted into each other, as expressed in Einstein's famous equation, e=mc^2. So somehow, this physical energy (absorbed by the swerving atom or molecule) must have come from the soul. But how could it, given that the soul is nonphysical? The same problem plagues the idea of a nonphysical God creating a physical universe (thus bringing us full-circle to the "Is there a God?" forum). How can the physical universe be created ex deus - "out of God" - if there's nothing physical within God to begin with?

Some other problems/questions:

*Is the soul restricted by spacetime? If not, why can't you change atomic movements anywhere and anytime in the universe, and not just within your own body and lifetime? (Or maybe you believe we do have such paranormal powers?) If so, why should a nonphysical entity be bounded by the spacetime of the physical universe? Also: how large do you think the soul's "range of interaction" is? The body? The brain? A portion of the brain?

*Is the structure of the soul simple or complex? Is it a single substance, or a union of multiple substances? If simple or singular, how can it perform such various and complex tasks, like taking in the body's information, analyzing consequences of actions, and sending directives? How can the soul be so precise in moving individual atoms to orchestrate specific brain/body operations? Clearly, it performs such infinitesimal maneuvers without our awareness, so wouldn't there be an unconscious aspect to it, too, thus making it more than one substance? How can souls be distinguished from one another, if they're all made of a singular "soul-stuff"? Or is each soul a different substance, making your position not so much "dual"-ism as "billions"-ism? If you grant that the soul's structure is complex, you also go beyond mere dualism, for you're now positing multiple nonphysical substances that combine to form the soul. And what are the laws that determine how these fundamental parts combine/interact? Wouldn't such laws then determine the workings of the soul (leading us right back into determinism)?

*Does the soul change? You've sometimes referred to the soul as the "essence" of a person. This evokes a Platonic conception of an unchanging, timeless "form." Such conceptions as "forms" and "essences" are seriously problematized by the findings of evolutionary biology, which demonstrate that the components of the brain (and the operations these components carry out, such as reflecting, predicting, perceiving, and thinking critically) evolved gradually from simpler physical structures that were non-conscious and ultimately inorganic. Did the soul-stuff, too, gradually "drip" into the essences of our ancestors, curiously in precise unison with the evolving physical structures of their brains? This would indicate that the "soul-stuff" is not singular and could be reduced to non-conscious "drops." The same question could be raised about the evolving consciousness/will of a single human being, from infancy to adulthood. And if the soul doesn't change, what accounts for the common experience of "becoming a different/new person" or forging a new personality, or the relatively rare phenomenon of a brain injury or disorder leading to the adoption of an entirely different identity?

I could go on, but my sleepy body has determined that I cease for now ;)

Best regards,
Peregrine
User avatar
Peregrine
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:17 pm

Re: Do people have free will?

Postby Brandon Norgaard on Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:34 pm

Peregrine wrote:The thought experiment, framed broadly, actually allows for a greater "freedom of choice" than one that would impose a particular moral criterion. You had the option to choose whatever criteria you wanted for selecting your cities; for instance, you could have chosen ones that you think are the safest, or you could have chosen ones with the coolest-sounding names.

Free will as I experience it is not dependent on how wide or narrow the range of options is. I might in some cases be choosing from merely two options, but the fact that this is a genuine choice where my choice is the ultimate cause of why I ended up doing that, rather than the other option, is what makes this choice free.

Peregrine wrote:Indeed, it would not be difficult to frame the question in moral terms: "What city do you think you should live in one day?" This decision has tremendous consequences for yourself and those in your sphere of influence. But the deliberating process, when broken down, is ultimately just as determined, impulsive, and unconscious as any other. Still, the possible consequences just "pop" into your head. Still, the criteria for choosing among such consequences just "pop" into your head. Both the consequences and the criteria are determined by your genetics, culture, and situation. Even the amount of time you spend deliberating is determined by these factors.

If I were to honestly consider the moral consequences of my potential options then I would be acting with free will, but in this case, when I performed this thought experiment, I did not think about what the consequences of my choice my be because I knew it was just a thought experiment.

Peregrine wrote:By the way, I doubt that any decisions aren't moral, for they all carry consequences for oneself and/or others (to varying degrees, of course). Even choosing between white and beige socks could be considered moral, if only because you're using your time to make such a nit-picky decision (and not take action on something of greater importance to your well-being, for instance).

Yeah, for anything I routinely do in my daily life, I could slow down and think about what the distant consequences of my actions might be, and from this I might make a free choice to deviate slightly from my more mundane auto-pilot path. I just usually don't think very far down the line when I'm choosing which socks to wear. It is probably the case that my free will capacity is triggered by the brain computing that there are potential consequences that need to be considered. The choice that is made is not solely a product of the mechanism of the brain, but this situation where a free will choice becomes possible is probably caused by a mechanism in the brain that triggers a higher level thought and interfacing with the nonphysical in order to determine what to do. This just doesn't typically happen when I pick out socks and I have no problem saying that the reason for this is purely physical.

Peregrine wrote:The claim that the impulses hypothetically produced by immaterial wills wouldn't require significant amounts of energy is debatable. Given how frequent our decision-making is, and how many decisions involve multiple changes/movements throughout the body, I would suspect the energy required is significant indeed. Of course, I'd need to study more neuroscience and anatomy to speculate much deeper about this.

I need to study a lot more cognitive science and physics. I don't think that any facts I've become aware of have falsified my theory, but then I am really not very knowledgeable in these areas unfortunately.

Peregrine wrote:Locating a non-physical will's influxes of energy in the infinitesimal fluctuations at the quantum level is problematic, since quantum mechanics describes the operations of the physical world, which follow sometimes-puzzling but reliably consistent "laws" or behaviors (the predictions of quantum mechanics are some of the most accurate in science). From what I've gathered, quantum theory does not need to postulate any non-physical source to explain such fluctuations.

I still believe that quantum theory needs to take into account intersubjective evidence, including the introspective evidence that we come to about our own free will. Now, you may deny that you have this experience of free will, but this is where morality comes into the equation here. If one engages in moral advocacy and they claim that certain things that others can do are better than other possible future actions, then such people are implicitly accepting that people have free will. I have a more detailed version of this argument that I can share with you later.

I guess I won't be seeing you guys this coming weekend because I will be attending my sister's wedding. Hopefully someone can summarize the proceedings to me at some point. Talk to you later.
User avatar
Brandon Norgaard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Re: Do people have free will?

Postby Brandon Norgaard on Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:39 pm

You bring up some excellent questions in your most recent post that I haven't considered much up to now. I will have to think about these questions for some time. I'm pretty sure I won't get around to replying this week because I'm pretty booked until this weekend, you know with the wedding and all. Take care 8-)
User avatar
Brandon Norgaard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Re: Do people have free will?

Postby Peregrine on Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:35 pm

Sounds great, Brandon - I hope the wedding goes spectacularly! We'll let you know what solution we come up with for the problem of evil ;)
User avatar
Peregrine
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:17 pm

Re: Do people have free will?

Postby Brandon Norgaard on Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:46 pm

Peregrine wrote:According to your view, the immaterial will of a person (henceforth referred to as a "soul") causes physical changes in the person's brain (and other parts of the body?). For example, you've said that the soul can change the trajectory of an atom or molecule. Such a change in trajectory depends on an input of energy. Energy, like mass, is a feature of the physical world - and the two (mass and energy) can be converted into each other, as expressed in Einstein's famous equation, e=mc^2. So somehow, this physical energy (absorbed by the swerving atom or molecule) must have come from the soul. But how could it, given that the soul is nonphysical?

I don't think this question of how the physical and the nonphysical interact is much of a problem. Here is an analogy: we are not sure how many distinct kinds of things constitute material substance. At one time the most popular theory was that each atom was an indivisible distinct kind of substance. Later it was thought that protons, neutron, and electrons were three distinct types of things. Now we figure they are constituted of quarks and leptons, and these might or might not themselves be comprised of a single unitary substance (energy strings in N dimensional spacetime?) But we can conceive of there being at least two fundamental types of material substance, can we not? And yet these would have to interact with each other, as dictated by natural laws, right? Why not have more types of things that simply do not have a spacial location and which therefore we cannot detect as being a part of the material world and that, if they exist, would have to therefore be “nonphysical”. We can conceive of this, and we can also conceive of natural laws governing how these interact with each other. We can at least conceive of a type of thing that does not exist in space and yet has free will to act in a way that affects certain material things that are in space. I don't see how any more explanation than this is necessary or possible.

Peregrine wrote:The same problem plagues the idea of a nonphysical God creating a physical universe (thus bringing us full-circle to the "Is there a God?" forum). How can the physical universe be created ex deus - "out of God" - if there's nothing physical within God to begin with?

Well then we can try to contemplate how anything at all, any material substance, can come into existence. How can it be created in the first place? Through what means did anything we see get created? We can maybe speculate on prior physical phenomena, but what created those? I still think that the most reasonable conclusion is that this whole process started with an omnipotent higher power.

Peregrine wrote:*Is the soul restricted by spacetime? If not, why can't you change atomic movements anywhere and anytime in the universe, and not just within your own body and lifetime? (Or maybe you believe we do have such paranormal powers?) If so, why should a nonphysical entity be bounded by the spacetime of the physical universe? Also: how large do you think the soul's "range of interaction" is? The body? The brain? A portion of the brain?

While it is conceivable that a soul could have such powers beyond a specific body, I guess this doesn't happen because of the laws of nature. I suppose there are natural laws at play that keep things regular and constrain the soul's affects to within a single body.

Peregrine wrote:Is the structure of the soul simple or complex? Is it a single substance, or a union of multiple substances? If simple or singular, how can it perform such various and complex tasks, like taking in the body's information, analyzing consequences of actions, and sending directives? How can the soul be so precise in moving individual atoms to orchestrate specific brain/body operations? Clearly, it performs such infinitesimal maneuvers without our awareness, so wouldn't there be an unconscious aspect to it, too, thus making it more than one substance? How can souls be distinguished from one another, if they're all made of a singular "soul-stuff"? Or is each soul a different substance, making your position not so much "dual"-ism as "billions"-ism? If you grant that the soul's structure is complex, you also go beyond mere dualism, for you're now positing multiple nonphysical substances that combine to form the soul. And what are the laws that determine how these fundamental parts combine/interact? Wouldn't such laws then determine the workings of the soul (leading us right back into determinism)?

It doesn't appear that I can actually observe any soul. I am postulating the existence of the soul in order to make sense of things. It is simple or complex? It could probably be either, and I don't think I have a way of knowing.

Peregrine wrote:Does the soul change? You've sometimes referred to the soul as the "essence" of a person. This evokes a Platonic conception of an unchanging, timeless "form." Such conceptions as "forms" and "essences" are seriously problematized by the findings of evolutionary biology, which demonstrate that the components of the brain (and the operations these components carry out, such as reflecting, predicting, perceiving, and thinking critically) evolved gradually from simpler physical structures that were non-conscious and ultimately inorganic. Did the soul-stuff, too, gradually "drip" into the essences of our ancestors, curiously in precise unison with the evolving physical structures of their brains? This would indicate that the "soul-stuff" is not singular and could be reduced to non-conscious "drops." The same question could be raised about the evolving consciousness/will of a single human being, from infancy to adulthood. And if the soul doesn't change, what accounts for the common experience of "becoming a different/new person" or forging a new personality, or the relatively rare phenomenon of a brain injury or disorder leading to the adoption of an entirely different identity?

Possibly the soul could change, but I figure there is something about the soul that persists through time. I'm pretty sure this conception of one's personality is based on physical realities. It is the moral agency that remains from time T to time T + 1. We certainly change through time, but we remain moral agents, and this aspect of ourselves transcends our personal feelings and conception of ourselves and of the world around us.

As for how this came about, probably as soon as a body evolved to posses the functional and representational qualities to facilitate this interaction, then this triggered a natural law and created this interaction. There must, therefore, have been a first body with a soul, if you will.

Yes my answers only glossed over your questions, but this is the best I can do for now, given the limitations of this medium. I can do much better in person, if you are interested in reading my manuscript and providing comments. If you agree to take part, you would be paid for your time.
User avatar
Brandon Norgaard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Re: Do people have free will?

Postby Peregrine on Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:16 am

Hi Brandon, thanks for your reply to my "interrogation" about the soul. I have several responses to your post and some new questions to raise, but I'll save them for commentary on your manuscript. I'm looking forward to delving into it!
User avatar
Peregrine
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:17 pm

Previous

Return to The Nature of the Self

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Enlightened Worldview Forum

cron