Can free will be explained scientifically?
The brain consists of different brain regions and neurons that send and receive electrical impulses.
Doesn't the brain work automatically and perform every action like a mathematical calculation?
I could only explain the concept of free will if something external was controlling the impulses in the brain.
A person's decisions simply happen, no matter what they are. From a purely scientific perspective, this is the case.
In my opinion, claiming that people have free will only serves to make them responsible for things.
For example, this person voluntarily decided to rob a bank and must therefore face the consequences.
It's not about the consequences, but what does "voluntary" mean? That little men in the brain pressed buttons that led to the decision?
The concept of free will can be nothing more than an attempt to convince people that they are responsible for their actions. In my view, all of this has its origins in religion.
Either I'm misunderstanding something or I'm right, and I'm trying to clarify that with this question, with well-founded answers. Not philosophy, but facts.
If the brain controls itself, as is scientifically believed, then someone has invented the concept of free will.
(3 votes)
Loading...
Science has not yet been able to fully explain consciousness. The Free Will comes from consciousness. How should electrons who move in a nerve-conductor path develop as consciousness. It doesn’t make any sense. Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of the nervous tissue of the brain.
The brain is too small to store all memories. For example, functions are lost in strokes. For example, engine technology, so you have to learn how to run. It doesn’t look like you forgot your memory like that. Only the interface between consciousness and body is missing. It can be understood as a switching mechanism for controlling the organs. These nerves grow and you can run again. The control is moved into another area of the brain.
Quantum physics shows that the universe is not deterministic. The Bell experiment.
Penrose and Hammeroff investigate microtubuli. The structure allows storage of states so that the whole could work like a quantum computer. Quantum processes can thus have macroscopic effects, so that organic bodies can be controlled thereby. One could therefore speak to each cell a consciousness. This would explain autonomous behavior of bacteria, plants and even mucus.
If it were really just coincidence, our movements and biological processes would be completely arbitrary. They don’t. They follow a certain order. That means we have an influence on the quantum that leads to macroscopic effects.
Is the consciousness now an epiphenomenon of the quantum, how should it work? Or is our consciousness able to control the body via quantum -> tubuli -> brain.
There are gaps in knowledge for both thought models to be able to say this clearly.
Science can explain everything, even theories, if you ignore the (theory) even science is right.
Alber Einstein said:
“If I light my pipe, who has decided that I do exactly this now?”
It’s not just our brain that wants something, the Solar Plexus also has a lot to “Melden”, I say that there are the commands that we confuse with free will, we give the “command”.
In addition, the reptile brain takes over control in emergency situations.
The free will is nothing more than a content of consciousness that we have saved as a content of long-term memory. We ourselves decide in the internal monologization (think and imagine) how we use this term and justify the importance it attaches to. Not the brain or one of his parts takes us off this work.
No, the brain doesn’t work like that and nothing stranger controls the impulses in the brain. Rather, we are the ones who control the impulses in the brain, because we need to retrieve information from the long-term memory or send it there, etc., even if it never really becomes aware of how that goes in detail, we achieve the effect that we need to achieve optimal results.
Absolutely wrong and not scientifically considered. The brain does not control itself, but is controlled by the consciousness. What else do we have consciousness?! Consciousness doesn’t call anything out of memory, but the information it needs. As I said, it is not about how this is happening in detail, but that something that can be useful to us during the inner monologue and beyond in practice.
The leap from the animal kingdom would never have been happy to us if man had not become the creator of his own, through his, above all, linguistically specific individual consciousness as well as his collective consciousness, from which every person takes part with the learning of the mother tongue and modified according to his needs and interests.
Basically, you’re throwing things together here.
We are responsible for our actions, free will or will. Society can only function if one assumes responsibility for action. Whether this can be scientifically justified or not, this is only a step forward. A person who decides in a concrete situation to commit a crime or not (as long as it is not in the affect), has made a decision for which he is also held responsible.
Note
Is an interesting definition for free will. If it is controlled by something strange, it would be the opposite of Free!
The philosopher Schopenhauer becomes the statement “We are free to do what we want, but not to want what we want.” In other words, we are already able to make decisions based on what we want, but what we want is predetermined. I think it’s pretty striking.
Moreover, modern brain research cannot underline the assertion that everything in the brain is deterministic. Very complex processes run in the brain and no linear algorithm, with if/else blocks. The same stimuli can lead to very different results. There are also processes on quantum oeuvres, perhaps there is the Free Will to look for?
Can you prove that processes run at quantum level? If this were the case, a person’s actions would be random and arbitrary.
No, but there are interesting researches. Z.b. of the renowned quantum pyhsic Roger Penrose.
This does not necessarily follow from it. She Einstein “God doesn’t dice”
Do you have better approaches?
It’s just speculation…
Microtubuli provide structures that allow storage states. So we would have a structure where quantum computing would be possible. This would have quantum macroscopic effects on cells, and thus on the organism.
In addition, it is premature to say that quantum acts purely arbitrarily. Otherwise, matter would always fall apart.
I mean. That in the brain processes proceed at quantum level is a fact. The question is just how they play a role in the decision-making process, and what that means.
I didn’t say that. These are also border areas of research where there is still much unknown. On the other hand, there are also no evidence that this is not the case.
Did Roger Penrose have evidence for it? If not, then you cannot say that processes take place at quantum level.
It’s just a question of defining freedom.
Freedom as a detachment from any influencing factors does not exist. -> Free will does not exist.
Freedom exists as a maximum variety of decision and development paths. -> Free will exists.
The latter is achieved by a complexity which we cannot spiritually grasp in any way. Although everything is determinated, the decision and development paths are so diverse and individual that each individual has its own path. All that this person decides and makes is unique and determined by this individuality.
“I could only explain the concept of free will when something strange controls the impulses in the brain.” – that’s a contradiction in itself.
I don’t know what you mean scientifically if you mean scientifically, then:
No, you can’t explain the free will scientifically.
The fact that man is completely scientifically explainable is a prerequisite, a paradigm, and thus we are in the field of philosophy, one sometimes has the impression that natural scientists are not aware of the conditions of their theories, preconditions which, of course, cannot be derived from scientific theories, otherwise they would not be preconditions. See the Qualia problem:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
However, since I am not a materialist, I still assume a free will. I assume that man is not a machine, not an input-output machine, even if this would still be so complex and practically unpredictable.
Of course, the concept of free will can also be abused by making people responsible for their actions in an unjustifiable manner and taking into account the circumstances too little
What?
scientifically speaking, what you see as a soul exists as an ordered mass in your head, what you see as yourself as your environment and everything, is also only in your head as an ordered brain mass. So we have a free will, but he’s not what we think he is.
At present, one cannot say one or the other. The currently only honest answer is “we don’t know”.
Hi. Two answers, short, but complex.
First of all, if you say “no philosophy, but facts”, then this is a bit hilarious, because the mother of all sciences is the philosophy – it sets out what is considered a fact and what is not, so to speak, the “rule” of sciences.
Psychologically, the free will is discussed differently, which basically separates itself with the “health question”: How to keep it with the unconscious. Once there is unconscious, there is no free will in all. But isn’t that bad, because psychology doesn’t ask for guilt – it’s more like law or theology. By the way, “the brain” is not an autonomous entity in psychology – we do not worship things:D Rather, there are neuropsychological currents here and there, but this is not really solid enough, so people with a defective language center can be multilingual on the road… so we are not determined by our brain, which is degenerated very dignified:)
There is no free will like this: This is just an illusion.
https://youtu.be/T8xqZp5a_Where
The video does not follow the revocation of free will