Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

[Fred H.]

MM: Now, let's hear your version of how free will is part of the human decision-making process and just how that works to free us from our emotions, our neurons, our neurotransmitters and our hormones

I’ve explained LeDoux’s downward causation over and over again, noting that while perhaps we humans may not necessarily have a tremendous amount of freewill—and that emotion plays a huge role in our conscious cognitive thought and behavior, far more than probably most people begin to comprehend—we certainly have some, and that that’s what separates us morally responsible creatures from the other creatures that don’t/can’t believe in freewill or moral responsibility. Reread my posts and LeDoux’s book. Reread Pinker. Reread Damasio.

But where, Margaret, have I ever said that we are “free” from “our neurons, our neurotransmitters and our hormones?” Nowhere—and that is yet another example of your lack of rigor and honesty.

OTOH, perhaps you’re merely making the archetypal category mistake (discussed further at Wiki)—e.g., say I show you a university by showing you the various campuses, buildings, libraries, etc., but then you say: "That's all interesting Fred, but where is the university?—show us if you can." You see Margaret, you’d erroneously be equating the existence of the university with that of buildings and campuses, while in fact the being of the university exists above such a categorical level, as an encompassing whole or essence of such things. Or would you insist that the university is an illusion, a ghost in the machine?

BTW, did you ever find where it is that I supposedly said that, “exposing atheists as immoral is my reason for being here?” . . . no, I didn’t think so . . . see that Margaret, more dishonesty. Bad girl.

[Margaret McGhee]

LeDoux simply says that downward causation is the process whereby a thought can cause an action. My theory acknowledges that - as long as the thought provides the emotional strength to compete with any other opposing emotional signals that may be present. He later says that downward causation can be hard work - because the intellect is a new part of the brain. I made a similar assertion when I said that the neo-cortex is the most recently evolved region of the brain and can't produce as strong emotions as our instincts and older regions. We therfore, often do things which we know to be illogical - like buy lottery tickets or pray for a sick child rather than take them to a doctor.

LeDoux is starting from synapses and inducing higher level processes. I am starting from an evolutionary view of decision-making in animals and deducing back down to the decision process - based on my reading of his and others at the lower level. That's why his downward causation does not contradict my hypothesis.

When people say read this and read that - and can't make a cause and effect statement on their own it usually means they don't know what they are talking about. In your case you will interpret every thing you read in a way that will somehow affirm your notion of free will. That's your mission. You are apparently incapable of, as well as uninterested in, any other topic here.

I have no further interest in following you off into free-will land, no matter what the discussion is about - so this is my last post on this. But, I will soon describe more fully why the emotions of strong identity beliefs causes obsessions like this. You're back on ignore.

Margaret

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

perhaps you’re merely making the archetypal category mistake—e.g., say I show you a university by showing you the various campuses, buildings, libraries, etc., but then you say: "That's all interesting Fred, but where is the university?—show us if you can." You see Margaret, you’d erroneously be equating the existence of the university with that of buildings and campuses, while in fact the being of the university exists above such a categorical level, as an encompassing whole or essence of such things.

I really liked your example of the university, it is a great analogy. It's too bad that you just copied it from Wikipedia without giving them credit. Of course, that does make you sound smarter than you are and I guess you feel that the end justifies the means.

I didn't so much like your:

Originally Posted by Fred H.

some of the crap that TomJ has posted here

I doubt that it came from Wikipedia nor is it something that Jesus would have ever said so I'll have to believe you came up with that one by yourself.

Regardless, I am interested in your views:

Originally Posted by Fred H.

we certainly have some [free will]

Where does this free will come from? If the mind is indeed separate from the body/brain ('ghost in the machine'), where is it? And why is it so greatly affected by the condition and chemicals in the brain? Your hypothesis should at least be able to answer those simple questions.

[Fred H.]

MM: I have no further interest in following you off into free-will land, no matter what the discussion is about - so this is my last post on this. But, I will soon describe more fully why the emotions of strong identity beliefs causes obsessions like this.

I can hardly wait . . . to follow you into “emotions of strong identity beliefs” land—will you be describing how it is that “emotions,” like say love or empathy or fear, actually exist and/or emerge from nothing more than a specific neural subsystem’s bundle of neurons, neurotransmitters and hormones?

Sure, I suppose you may be able to show us the specific neurons and biochemicals of the subsystem from which you’ll claim love emanates, but then I’ll say: "That's all interesting Margaret, but where is the love?—show us if you can."

At which point, alas, you will have to conclude that emotions too are illusions, ghosts in the machines . . . and ultimately even the “machines” are illusions, ghosts . . . which reminds me of Max Planck’s maxim:

“There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

[Fred H.]

TomJ “Where does this free will come from?”

Where does fear come from? Where does your pettiness come from?—neurons and chemicals? (Sorry you were distressed that I didn’t nod to Wiki regarding categories & universities . . . but let’s face it, we rarely ever come up with anything that’s truly original, and even when we think that we do, we’re just discovering what’s already there, or what someone else has already discovered.)

Do you believe in emergence? Is it something real, is it a construct, is it both? What and where exactly is it? Where do neurons and chemicals come from?—Matter? Where does matter come from? What is matter?—particles, quarks, waves, energy? But if, as you say, mass murderers are not morally responsible, then of course none of this matters, and you’d not be responsible for your pettiness.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

Where does fear come from? Where does your pettiness come from?—neurons and chemicals?

Yes, what pettiness I have comes from my neurons and chemicals. And you just proved my point: neither neurons nor chemicals are free, so neither is 'free-will' free.

[Fred H.]

TomJ: Yes, what pettiness I have comes from my neurons and chemicals.

So we agree except for different reasons and except that you refuse to acknowledge any personal/moral choice or responsibility. All-righty then.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

So we agree except...

I'm sorry, but this gift-horse has crooked teeth : we can not be ultimately morally responsible if our will is not free, but controlled by our neurons and chemicals in the same way as is fear.

If you accept that 'free will' comes from some 'spooky action at a distance' then you ought to admit it. There is no meaningful "personal/moral choice or responsibility" without some source for it that's truly free.

[Fred H.]

TomJ: . . . we can not be ultimately morally responsible if our will is not free, but controlled by our neurons and chemicals in the same way as is fear.

But “we” can “control” fear, usually, at least to some degree—e.g., we can choose to take Xanax, or we can choose to control certain kinds of fear through behavioral therapy. You can choose to control your fear of heights by not looking down. Perhaps eventually we’ll be able to choose to have some kind of surgery on the amygdale to “control” fear, or PTSD.

But I do wonder if you yourself will ever be able to control your propensity for making such thoughtless assertion like you’ve just done here again? Perhaps you could just choose to not post? Or choose to actually consider the implications of whatever you’re asserting b/f you post? Nah, probably not.

[Margaret McGhee]

While I deplore admonitions to read one's favorite author in order to better understand the correctness of one's argument - as lazy, intellectually, and also cowardly - I'd highly recommend Chapter 10, from Pinker's Blank Slate (The Fear of Determinism) as one of the best thought-out discussions of Free-Will and determinism I have read - for those who are so intensely interested in such things.

Margaret