The Brain and Mind discussion

None of us enjoys the thought that what we do depends on processes we do not know; we prefer to attribute our choices to volition, will, or self-control,...Perhaps it would be more honest to say, 'My decision was determined by internal forces I do not understand '

This one's from "Free Will" by Sam Harris: Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not our own making. Thoughts and actions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have!

Aditya wrote: "This one's from "Free Will" by Sam Harris: Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not our own making. Thoughts and actions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over whi..."

I haven't really followed this discussion much but just happened upon these comments. I read the book The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force
and he spoke of what if we didn't have free will? This would have disastrous legal consequences for one...we could go to court and say "my brain made me do it, I don't know how", etc. That just doesn't make sense. And how would we survive as a society not having a will of our own to make choices in our own interactions with others?

I'm sorry if my comment is off the topic, like I said, I haven't followed much. I just wanted to mention the point of Dr. Schwartz regarding free will.

This is just an excerpt from my review of the above mentioned book:

"The chapter on The Quantum Brain was difficult for me to grasp in that it was almost completely quantum physics. I was not particularly proficient at classic physics to say the least. Briefly, he explains that if we utilize only classic physics, or materialism, to define the brain/mind, it comes up short. It basically negates the existence of mind or will altogether. One problem with this, is if we don't actually have a will, then we can't take responsibility for our actions because they are only resulting from the neurological processes of the brain. We can see that this would have grave judicial implications. There is no right and wrong. i.e. I can steal my neighbor's car because my brain made me do it. Again, in the words of Dr. Schwartz "I began lamenting the terrible social consequences of materialism...the moral condition of America...could be laid at the feet of nearly three centuries of materialist ascendance. The reigning belief that the thoughts we think and the choices we make reflect the deterministic workings of neurons and, ultimately subatomic particles seemed to me to have subverted mankind's sense of morality. The view that people are mere machines and that the mind is just another (not particularly special) manifestation of a clockwork physical universe had infiltrated all our thinking whether or not someone knew a synapse from an axon."pg 257-258"

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Heather you jump to conclusions that are not necessarily warranted as a result of not having free will. I don't believe I have free will but I'm not inclined to steal my neighbor's car because they're unpleasant consequences if I do. Whether or not I can be held responsible for my behavior is irrelevant because by my behavior I pose a threat to society and society needs to deal with me. I feel that we are more secure knowing that our behavior is not unrestricted by free will.

William wrote: "Heather you jump to conclusions that are not necessarily warranted as a result of not having free will. I don't believe I have free will but I'm not inclined to steal my neighbor's car because they..."

I think YOU misunderstand that I was quoting what I read in a book written by a world famous neuroscientist (who I believe is a bit brighter than you). HE is the one speaking of the judicial consequences of free will. I could care less what you think whether you have free will or not, nor could I care what you say about my review. I believe I DO have free will, and I accept the responsibility for writing this post. Thank you.

I apologize if you feel I didn't respect your review. I didn't read the book so I had no business responding to your thoughts. I seriously doubt the neuroscientist is brighter than I am.

William wrote: "I apologize if you feel I didn't respect your review. I didn't read the book so I had no business responding to your thoughts. I seriously doubt the neuroscientist is brighter than I am."

Thank you for your apology.

in terms of the legal consequences of believing that there is no free will, it is important that you must accept the fact that you are the agent of that behavior and therefore accountable for the consequences.

Scott wrote: "in terms of the legal consequences of believing that there is no free will, it is important that you must accept the fact that you are the agent of that behavior and therefore accountable for the c..."

If I am understanding you correctly, Scott, by saying "you are the agent of that behavior", would you insinuate the 'agent' making a choice? That would require a will to think of a choice. The brain doesn't just randomly choose to do something. It has to be programmed to perform a task and that programming comes from a will to complete the action.

Is this what you are saying? I'm just trying to clarify.

Agency in the sense that something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause 

just as wind blows leaves. it is the agent that causes the leaf movement

the brain does choose but before you are aware of ir

Is this worth the read? It seems like the premise of this book is, "My brain made me do it." which just seems like a silly premise to write a whole book about.

When you consider the push back and immediate denial that free will is an illusion it is best to be armed with facts, observations and arguments. This book and others provide them. BTW would a Dr taps your knee and it jerks you can say the stretch reflex made me do it. You did not chose to jerk your leg. Albeit a simplistic example it does direct your attention to what other neuron based mechanisms are not under conscious control

This is what one scientist, Robert Sapolsky, has to say about free will in his book “BEHAVE the biology of humans at our best and worst.
“Here’s how I’ve always pictured mitigated free will. There’s the brain—neurons, synapses, neurotransmitters, receptors, brain specific transcriptions factors, epigenetic effects, gene transpositions during neurogenesis. Aspects of brain function can be influenced by someone”s prenatal environment, genes, and hormones, whether their parents were authoritative or their culture egalitarian, whether they witnessed violence in childhood, when they had breakfast. ….
Then separate from that, in a concrete bunker tucked away in the brain, sits a little man (or woman, or agendered individual) a humuncullus at a control panel. (This represents what must exist if we have discretionary behavior free from our biology—parenthesis mine) The humuncllus is made of a mixture of nanochips, old vacuum tubes, crinkly ancient parchment, stalactites of your mother’s admonishing voice, streaks of brimstone, rivets made out of gumption. In other words, not squishy biological brain yuck.
And the humunculus sits there controlling behavior.”
What he is trying to say is that we don't have anything other then squishy biological brain yuck and there is no humuncullus.

This is what one scientist, Robert Sapolsky, has to say about free will in his book “BEHAVE the biology of humans at our best and worst.
“Here’s how I’ve always pictured mitigated free will. There’s the brain—neurons, synapses, neurotransmitters, receptors, brain specific transcriptions factors, epigenetic effects, gene transpositions during neurogenesis. Aspects of brain function can be influenced by someone”s prenatal environment, genes, and hormones, whether their parents were authoritative or their culture egalitarian, whether they witnessed violence in childhood, when they had breakfast. ….
Then separate from that, in a concrete bunker tucked away in the brain, sits a little man (or woman, or agendered individual) a humuncullus at a control panel. (This represents what must exist if we have discretionary behavior free from our biology—parenthesis mine) The humuncllus is made of a mixture of nanochips, old vacuum tubes, crinkly ancient parchment, stalactites of your mother’s admonishing voice, streaks of brimstone, rivets made out of gumption. In other words, not squishy biological brain yuck.
And the humunculus sits there controlling behavior.”
What he is trying to say is that we don't have anything other then squishy biological brain yuck and there is no humuncullus.

Jared wrote: "Is this worth the read? It seems like the premise of this book is, "My brain made me do it." which just seems like a silly premise to write a whole book about."

Hi Jared. I highly recommend the book. I just now saw your question. The premise that "my brain made me do it" is in only one chapter called "the quantum brain". Speaking of free will is not the whole intent of his writing. He is postulating his opinion (based on facts that he has discovered) in this one chapter regarding free will. But in light of that, the book IS about differentiating the mind and the brain. Hence the title "The Mind and the Brain: neuroplasticity and the power of mental force".

Thanks Heather! That divide is interesting to me, I'll check it out then.

Jared wrote: "Thanks Heather! That divide is interesting to me, I'll check it out then."

No problem, Jared :)

Apropos Williams comments.: it is even more complicated because of genetic mosaicism each neuron is genetically unique. Adding another layer of tremendous complexity in understanding the mechanisms leading to awareness of brain activity