6 Answers

  1. Physicists can't answer this question, because will/self-awareness is an open question of purely neuroscience and physiology in general.

    Neurobiology, of course, is related to physics, but to consider the question of the manifestation of the activity of the central nervous system with the help of the latter is the same as if the synthesis of chemical compounds were considered (only) with the help of mathematics, as such.

    It is also not worth much to hit philosophy, because if the frontal lobes of the brain are damaged/removed (=lobotomies), all philosophical teachings about” will, freedom of choice ” become powerless before the banal physiology of the complex of neural connections.

  2. If you look at the world through the prism of theories, then of course there is no will and freedom of choice there. This terminology is not included in the theory. But this is a schematic view of the world. If we look at the real world and at the real processes in it, then we undoubtedly find in it the presence of will and freedom of choice.

  3. a cluster of elementary particles makes it possible for an observer to exist. That is, there is a “hang” before selecting. sometimes it is said that this is uncertainty, or lack of choice.

    Well, in fact, it's just in perception without any response, and within the framework of this feeling of Freedom of action, the possibility of Freedom of choice arises.

    many things that happen automatically we are not aware of.

    atata where we direct our consciousness and the possibility of choice appears.

  4. If we consider the world from the point of view of only physics, only science, and most importantly determinism, then there is no freedom of will and choice there. Everything in life is predetermined… each of our actions is preceded by an infinite number of events and phenomena in the universe, starting with the Big Bang (if we adhere to this theory) and ending with the end of time…

    And since a person is not able to “calculate” the impact of all these previous events and phenomena, it seems to him that he is making some decisions. You will not name a single action (if it concerns a person or other living being) or a phenomenon in nature that would arise or occur “just like that”, no matter what, as if by magic. Something always precedes everything.

  5. Here you need to understand the peculiarity of physics, etc. – free will, as a concept, is outside the competence of natural sciences. Therefore, if you ask them for an explanation, the answer will always look like “let's imagine that there is no free will in the usual sense and model the behavior of objects under this assumption.” This does not mean that “science denies free will”, science does not deny or affirm free will, since this concept is generally outside the limits of natural science. Simply, if you asked science about free will, then it will get out as it can, and it can only do so. Actually, this is what many physicists do – they know very well how science works, and therefore they ask all the questions to it, so it's more convenient. Well, they get the appropriate results. If you ask my opinion, the value of these models is quite low, because the original constraints are too exotic.

  6. In various ways, for example, Roger Penrose believes that this is the result of the effects of quantum gravity in the microtubules of brain cells.

    Your question is directly concerned with the question of consciousness, or even intentionality in a broad sense – how something can be “about something”, “for something” and “for the purpose of something”, how observers, representations, functions, signs and information exist.

    In the 19th and 20th centuries, reductionism prevailed in science and philosophy – in general, the point of view that the lowest descriptive level of a phenomenon (for example, the level of elementary particles) is sufficient for its complete and exhaustive description. The standard tactic of reductionist scientists for asking questions about intentionality, consciousness, and other things that reductionism didn't explain was to say that science doesn't do that. Many scientists and philosophers believe that reductionism does not satisfy many disciplines – in particular, biology, not to mention the social sciences. Reductionism is usually contrasted with emergentism – a group of theories that agree that “the whole is greater than the sum of all its parts” – that is, at high descriptive levels of a phenomenon, properties appear that cannot be predicted at low descriptive levels. Since about the 1980s, there have been various attempts to solve the problem of combining physics and “intentionality” within the framework of an emergentist approach – from physicists, for example, Heinz von Foerster did this.

    For a more detailed introduction to the topic, I can recommend the books “Incomplete nature” by Terrence Deacon, “Mind in life” by Evan Thompson, as well as the course by Richard Winfield archive.org ” there's a list of reading materials.

    If we talk about theories of consciousness, then they are here thequestion.ru listed by Anton Kuznetsov.

Leave a Reply