Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Joshua Robinson's avatar

I had to really let this one marinate and noodle on it for quite a while. I'm not very well read on the subject but I'll try my best to put together some coherent thoughts.

I don't think we can dismiss the self/soul/spirit/ghost/whatever as being nonexistent just because we can't measure it. The best analogy I can come up with is computer software. Software isn't really a tangible thing; it is technically observable as magnetically stored instructions and data, and you could measure the electrical impulses between and within chips while it's running, but none of that really depicts the experience of the running software.

There might be a few geniuses out there who could look at millions of instructions or watch electrons bounce around a scope and go, "Ah! That's a word processor!" It's a heck of a lot easier to just start the program and observe the experience created from all that low-level stuff. But you can't really touch or measure it.

I think that's what the "self" is: it's webs of signals that exist on top of our neurobiology, like an app that's always running, and when we power down (i.e., die) all its data is lost forever. There is no permanent storage. At least, not yet... but that's a moral quandary for another day! LOL

All that said, I think there is value in the philosophy you've presented here. Because in the vastness of existence, our selves are so infinitesimally small that there's no possibility we aren't influenced by billions of other factors. We can't even fully comprehend or control what's happening in our own bodies, let alone the world.

So yeah, physics and neuroscience and all that low-level stuff is probably what makes 99% of everything happen, with little to no input from our selves. But I believe that at some level, that self inside us does have a little agency. After all, we have to be able to interpret our experiences somehow (and endlessly philosophize about them, as humans do).

Maybe at the self level, we can influence our neurobiology a little. Reroute a signal here and there. Choose to shift a small behavior or two. Flip a couple bits, so to speak. And when our physical brains kick in to take care of the rest, maybe those little changes make a difference.

So maybe we don't really have "free will," but just "loose will" or "limited will." We shouldn't beat ourselves up for our inability to make things happen exactly how we want or hope to. But we also shouldn't stop trying.

Thanks for sharing this and really getting my brain going! 😁

Expand full comment
JL Tooker's avatar

I have to admit I need to read your thought-provoking "Freedom from 'Free Will'" more deeply, but I am immediately compelled to share my thoughts about related content.

I consider myself a spiritual soul. And I am definitely a scientist. Free will is one of my favorite philosophical rabbit holes to wander in. Science, is another rabbit hole as well - I live there often.

When someone suggests something doesn't exist because science cannot prove it, I always catch myself to think how we often forget what science can and cannot do. For instance, the scientific method tells us what science can and cannot 'find.' It cannot prove that something is --- it can only prove something that is not.

Science has not yet proved that spirit or consciousness exists, but that is not to say that it doesn't. The only way spirit or consciousness can be removed from the realms of probability is by proving they do not exist. And that also is not the case.

Science can suggest all they want that something does not exist, but until they prove so, then perhaps it does.

Anyway, I ramble, but I do love a good look at free will, science and all sorts of ponders. Thank you for letting me share this space with you.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts