is the frontal lobe of the brain , the essence of free-will ?

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

I had forgotten about lemmings, although I cannot be certain of their having any real choice in the matter.
How does one force someone to commit suicide without providing some sort of choice in the matter?

What makes you think you cannot force people to do things and also give them a choice? There are stories (and films) about people who were about to be exposed as thieves or worse, and chose suicide rather than exposure. This is a case of what is called, "choosing the lesser of two evils". Not all choices are without compulsion. True, we often say about people who choose what is by far the lesser of two evils that "he had no choice in the matter" but that should not be taken literally. What we mean when we say that kind of thing is that although the person did have a choice, one of the choices was so much worse that the other, that it would have been unreasonable of the person to have made any other choice than the one he made. So what we mean is not that the person literally had no other choice, but that he had no other reasonable choice.

The point is that while you can force someone to make a difficult choice you cannot force them to make a particular choice. Stubborn people make unreasonable choices all the time.
I still think the suicide example is a good demonstration of the existence of freewill. I am attempting to remove instinct from the equation, which I think is the only sound argument that can be made against freewill.
As far as the essence of freewill residing somewhere, if there is an essence of freewill and it resides somewhere, then it seems reasonable that it resides in choice and the ability to make a choice, unreasonable or not.

Well, that is not true. You can drug someone, for example, and you can also torture them until they will do anything. But, in any case, why does that make any difference? If a person makes an unreasonable choice he may still be under compulsion. The fact that he doesn't make a choice that a reasonable person would make does not mean he was not under compulsion. I still do not see why the suicide argument is a good one. The person can still be compelled to commit suicide (just as I described) and if you does, then he did not choose freely. I don't know about "resides", but it is certainly true that when a person chooses, and his choice is not compelled, then he is acting freely. That is what "acting freely" means. But then, that is what I have been saying.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

I had forgotten about lemmings, although I cannot be certain of their having any real choice in the matter.
How does one force someone to commit suicide without providing some sort of choice in the matter?

What makes you think you cannot force people to do things and also give them a choice? There are stories (and films) about people who were about to be exposed as thieves or worse, and chose suicide rather than exposure. This is a case of what is called, "choosing the lesser of two evils". Not all choices are without compulsion. True, we often say about people who choose what is by far the lesser of two evils that "he had no choice in the matter" but that should not be taken literally. What we mean when we say that kind of thing is that although the person did have a choice, one of the choices was so much worse that the other, that it would have been unreasonable of the person to have made any other choice than the one he made. So what we mean is not that the person literally had no other choice, but that he had no other reasonable choice.

The point is that while you can force someone to make a difficult choice you cannot force them to make a particular choice. Stubborn people make unreasonable choices all the time.
I still think the suicide example is a good demonstration of the existence of freewill. I am attempting to remove instinct from the equation, which I think is the only sound argument that can be made against freewill.
As far as the essence of freewill residing somewhere, if there is an essence of freewill and it resides somewhere, then it seems reasonable that it resides in choice and the ability to make a choice, unreasonable or not.

Well, that is not true. You can drug someone, for example, and you can also torture them until they will do anything. But, in any case, why does that make any difference? If a person makes an unreasonable choice he may still be under compulsion. The fact that he doesn't make a choice that a reasonable person would make does not mean he was not under compulsion. I still do not see why the suicide argument is a good one. The person can still be compelled to commit suicide (just as I described) and if you does, then he did not choose freely. I don't know about "resides", but it is certainly true that when a person chooses, and his choice is not compelled, then he is acting freely. That is what "acting freely" means. But then, that is what I have been saying.

I understand what you are saying, I am not so sure, though, that whether or not we are compelled to make a choice has anything to do with it.
The point I'm trying to make is that we still appear to have freewill even when we are compelled to make ugly decisions. Else we would always make the reasonable choice. We are compelled to make the reasonable choice but often do not.
As far as drugging someone goes, I'll have to think about that but right off it sounds a bit like hogtying in that it restricts ones ability to exercise freewill.

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

so is the frontal lobe of the brain the essence of free-will ?

thoughts

Interesting... Firstly, any question which starts out with the word 'so,' and on top of that uncapitalized, sets off any number of alarms in my head (as some will know)

Then, in the much larger picture, and from an overview (if you will), yes, the frontal lobes of any brain is the essence of free will . . . as, of course, will is a free thing (and this is in the absence of desire or intent). But I have enjoyed most of the posts here.

0 Replies

The frontal lobes are the frontal lobes, the essence of freewill is the essence of freewill.
The frontal lobes might be the source of the essence of freewill but they most definitely are not the essence of freewill.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

The frontal lobes are the frontal lobes, the essence of freewill is the essence of freewill.
The frontal lobes might be the source of the essence of freewill but they most definitely are not the essence of freewill.

Although, we must admit, the terminology 'source of' had not been used in the OP; that gives us a lot of room to interpret . . . hee, hee, hee.....

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

Actually the op asks one question when he/she may have meant another.
But we probly aren't building a piano, or are we?
As the question reads, the answer must be no.
I actually thought "someone" would point this out a lot earlier, but he failed me. Smile

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

I actually thought "someone" would point this out a lot earlier, but he failed me.

LOL !! Yep, I guess this "someone" must be lazying around...(at this here pond, maybe?)... As for myself--to the extent which it may be of any interest--I may have put a hook with sinker and bob, into the pond, but bare of any bait whatsoever...so I guess I just kind of came here to look as though I were doing what others may be doing...but really kind of spacing out instead? maybe? hee...hee...hee...

0 Replies

http://www.lukesurl.com/comics/2010-02-24-determinism.png

is the frontal lobe of the brain , the essence of free-will ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know