Replies

[Someone wrote:] “Again, I'm going to assert that the key test of free will is how an individual copes with the future.”

And then someone else said: “This is far too vague…. How is it key? The future is amorphous, ambiguous, undefined and immensely complex in its possibilities. What test does it give us?

Then the first observer observed: “This debate about free will has a fundamental flaw, and that is that it fails to recognize that things are as they are regardless of which side ‘wins’” [i.e., it seems a conclusion already has been firmly drawn on the matter of this question by this party to the debate].

Well, if that is so, Mr. First Observer, then human free will is “dead as a doornail,” right out of the starting gate. Unable by definition, on principle, to tell us anything about, or to affect the course of events -- that is, unable to affect or effect anything new in the world of human experience and endeavor. And we haven't even touched on the problem of "winning." How well does this mental construct really accord with what you personally know of Reality?

* * * * * *

I think open questions present themselves here that we won’t answer tonight, if in a lifetime.

So let’s just change the subject. You wrote:

It's called magnetic transparency. It's the way a really good piece of window glass filters out the visible spectrum.... I would like you to ponder for a moment what goes on in an MRI scan (technically an NMRI). You have a superconducting electromagnet powerful enough to make the protons in the molecules of you brain jiggle in resonance. Yet it has no discernable effect on people's ability to think, nor on the content of their thought. Why is that? Because the brain is 99.999 percent free of magnetic materials. There might be a few isolated pockets of magnetic material that may or may not be sensitive to the earth's magnetic field, but I assure you that if the brain were a radio receiver it would explode like a hamster in a microwave during an MRI scan.

So, let me thank you, js1138, for correcting the public record, and affording a new learning experience for non-scientific folk who maybe are playing “catch-up” WRT to the reigning scientific – and public – debate of these issues.

So here's a (probably dumb) question: If the brain "is 99.999 percent free of magnetic materials," then how can it be said to participate in a quantum universe that would seem to be dispositably described as a seething sea of electomagnetic possibility?

You give a good description of the "magnetic shield" defense -- here derived, I gather, from classical physics. I do have a few questions. You seemed to indicate that the ability to apperceive the idea of “future” was perhaps a mark of high-level consciousness. You seemed to suggest that a sure test (albeit still on trial) of human consciousness would be the ability to “anticipate” the future.

But what does this mean? Does “anticipate” mean “prove?” As in: Validate by means of the scientific method?

Another thing I wondered about: Do you think that consciousness is coextensive with thought --which, as you seem to define it, ultimately depends on words or other kinds of symbols? That is, that we humans are inexorably, ineluctably “language-dependent” for everything we know?

I find such questions interesting. Hope you do, too.

Lots of stuff here:

Every particle that has an electric charge -- electrons, protons -- can be affected by a magnetic field. The question is whether the components of the brain are affected to an extent that we need to concern ourselves with it. I'm sure you know about electromagnetic transparancy. If you have ever used a radio or television you know that some objects -- wood, for example -- do not block radio waves. You probably also know that antennae cannot be made from just any old material. The chemistry of an object makes it receptive or transparent to electomagnetic waves. I'm sure QM explains why this is, but that's over my head. You don't need to be a quantum mechanic to know that some things are transparent to magnetism. Among them are the components of the brain.

You seemed to suggest that a sure test (albeit still on trial) of human consciousness would be the ability to “anticipate” the future.

I don't have a sure test for anything. If I get one I'll start posting in blue. I did propose an operational definition of free will. It certainly isn't "sure" or complete, but it has some advantages. For one thing it is compatible with many concepts in experimental and psysiological psychology.

I don't recall proposing this as a test of consciousness. That is another, and to me, a more difficult issue. Anticipating consequences is an objectively observable phenomenon, something studied in psychology labs all over the world. It is usually discussed under the heading of learning theory. But what is learning, if it isn't adjusting behavior in anticipation of consequenses?

Do you think that consciousness is coextensive with thought --which, as you seem to define it, ultimately depends on words or other kinds of symbols?

I don't think consciousness requires language, but that is just an opinion. As for "thinking", I am reluctant to speculate about that. I may sound like a know-it-all at times, but I'm struggling with this, same as everyone.

Thank you so much for your post!

As always, I find myself agreeing with you. It is very difficult for those who sustain a metaphysically naturalist worldview to waive off strong determinism, which is the polar opposite of free will. IMHO, it is a poison pill to the argument for atheism.

Likewise, lowering the bar in the definition of free will to nominal anticipation has the effect of equalizing mankind to rodents in sentience. Of course, animal rights activists are all over this looking for lawyers to defend "animal rights."

Enter Stage Right - A Journal of Modern Conservatism 5/1/00 Roger Banks “Steven M. Wise's Rattling the cage: Towards legal rights for animals has arrived in stores at a time when the idea of animal rights is slithering its way almost imperceptibly from various fringe groups into a respectable faction. Contributing to the momentum of support is wide-spread confusion about what it would mean for animals to have legal rights. In particular, many who support the movement do not distinguish between the notion of "animal rights," on the one hand, and laws enacted to prevent abuse and cruelty on the other. Some who recognize this distinction have interposed only impassive resistance: having grasped the deep flaws in the case for animal rights, they find it hard to take seriously.”

Lew Rockwell.com 7/25/00 Tibor Machan “A recent Rivera Live television talk program hosted several animal rights advocates who were given considerable air time defending their position in both analytical and emotion terms... There was a law professor, for example, who raised some questions but gave no clear cut argument against the idea that animals have rights akin to human beings, the position widely shared about those who got nearly all the air time on the program.”

We are awash in an seemingly endless sea of wave phenomenon. Not only that, but in the physical sense that is what we are. Add to this the effect of virtual particles, super strings and extra dimensions. I don't see how anyone could doubt whether wave phenomenon has bearing on consciousness!