There is a new book, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will, whose author, , said, “For that sort of free will to exist, it would have to function on a biological level completely independently of the history of that organism. You would be able to identify the neurons that caused a particular behavior, and it wouldn’t matter what any other neuron in the brain was doing, what the environment was, what the person’s hormone levels were, what culture they were brought up in. Show me that those neurons would do the exact same thing with all these other things changed, and you’ve proven free will to me.”
“But how do 30 billion of them collectively make this a human cortex instead of a primate cortex? How do you scale up from understanding little component parts and getting some sense of the big, emergent thing? Say we figured that out. Have X happen 4,000 times per second in Y part of the brain, countered — as an opposing, inhibitory thing — 2,123 times a second when the hormone levels are doing such-and-such. How does this big thing called a “behavior” or a “personality” or a “thought” or a “mistake” pop out at the macro level? We’re beginning to understand how you get from one level to the other, but it’s unbelievably difficult.”
For that sort of free will to exist, it would have to function on a biological level completely independently of the history of that organism.
If someone placed a cake behind cutleries on the kitchen table, and another person came around without knowing it was there, then perceived and decided to taste it, how far from the brain into history must one go to decide why that decision came about?
You would be able to identify the neurons that caused a particular behavior, and it wouldn’t matter what any other neuron in the brain was doing, what the environment was, what the person’s hormone levels were, what culture they were brought up in.
Identifying or seeking neurons is a key reason that neuroscience has not made desirable progress in the last few decades w.r.t. mental disorders.
What is outstanding about neurons? What part of neurons can be said to contain the reason for behavior? How or why would neurons be responsible for behavior? Why give an option to a question that is not the answer?
Asking for what neuron to identify is like misdirecting and then expecting an arrival at the destination.
Show me that those neurons would do the exact same thing with all these other things changed, and you’ve proven free will to me.
The problem with counting everything can be similar to obfuscation, piling questions with no real benchmark. What is the end point of all behaviors and actions? It is not the neurons. Whatever someone does is like a relay race, everything could matter, but the last or anchor leg in the brain makes the most determination.
Everything else builds up for electrical and chemical impulses to decide, as the last leg, so if they don’t, then nothing is done, making the last leg almost have veto power and can be extrapolated for behavior and free will.
“But how do 30 billion of them collectively make this a human cortex instead of a primate cortex?
Why do humans know how to read? Senses are common across organisms, but reading, writing, and complex language are in the province of humans, so how? This question is not different from why can fish swim, or why can birds fly.
Why do certain land animals have high speed? Why do some use echolocation? These are huge biological questions that exceed isolating humans, to make a point about free will.
In the human brain, though there is dexterity for the fingers, they are not enabled to rotate 360 degrees, so why not? It is proposed that the brain, through impulses, has formations or organization for what is enabled. Some of these formations are heritable, but expandable by learning.
There are animals with big brains, sperm whales, elephants, some non-human primates, and others, yet, they are not as complex as humans, albeit similarities abound. There are formations with which electrical and chemical impulses take in the human brain that make it stand out.
Seating configuration in a stadium is different from those in a class, at the dining table, or in the park. They are all seats. They are purposeful but different. Even within a stadium, seats for managers and reserves are different from those of commentators, as well as those of certain ticket types and so forth.
The human brain is advanced thanks to not just the connections but the configuration of impulses in sets or loops, conceptually.
How do you scale up from understanding little component parts and getting some sense of the big, emergent thing?
Neuroscience says the brain has clusters of neurons across circuits. Many of these clusters are directly linked to certain functions. Losing certain parts of the brain may result in loss of some functions, or the inability to control some.
It is hypothesized that in a cluster of neurons, there are sets or loops of impulses. This means that impulses interact in sets. A number of electrical impulses strike a number of chemical impulses.
When they do, there is a formation, configuration, or arrangement that becomes an outcome of the interaction. This is how information is organized.
Chemical impulses are often rationed or filled, to result in formation. This rationing defines the uniqueness of experiences and differentiation from others.
For example, the formation for an emotion could be CDE, with each letter as a chemical impulse, rationed towards the measure or close. There could be higher contributions of one, than others.
Neuroscience has established that action potentials can trigger the release of neurotransmitters from synaptic vesicles to receptors, after which may then activate or inhibit the next neuron.
The neurotransmitters may be taken back by the presynaptic neuron, become diffused, or broken down by enzymes.
It is proposed that these interactions between action potentials and neurotransmitters happen in sets. It is in this set that the formation specifies the function. The language used in neuroscience is that triggers the release of neurotransmitters. In a set, it is closely linked to an interaction, to result in formation, than triggering.
This means that while neurons and synapses seem important, the wheel is the impulse — electrical and chemical, in a loop. Electrical impulses can carry on the formation, as distributed or shared, from the operational loop.
Say we figured that out. Have X happen 4,000 times per second in Y part of the brain, countered — as an opposing, inhibitory thing — 2,123 times a second when the hormone levels are doing such-and-such.
The brain is complex, but the last line of attack is the impulses, their architecture for functions.
How does this big thing called a “behavior” or a “personality” or a “thought” or a “mistake” pop out at the macro level?
There is no behavior, personality, thought, or mistake that does not involve electrical and chemical impulses. They are definers of everything the brain is said to do. It is hypothesized that all electrical and chemical impulses of nerve cells, with their features and interactions in sets, are the human mind.
In a set, electrical and chemical impulses have their features and how they interact. This is different from the one synaptic connection with details of one neurotransmitter. These features include pre-/prioritization, old/new sequences, distribution/shares, arrays, early-splits/go-before, rations/fills, and thick/thin shapes.
These features explain observations about the brain. For example, what is observed as predictive coding, is proposed to be a split of some electrical impulses in the same set from others. Brain science establishes that electrical impulses leap from node to node in myelinated axons, in what is called saltatory conduction.
It is proposed that in a set, some go ahead of others, to interact with chemical impulses resulting in a formation like prior. If it matches with the sensory input, then processing continues; if not, the incoming one is distributed to the right loop.
Where Is Free Will in the Brain?
It is proposed that within the formation of sets of chemical impulses that make determinations, concentration moves from side to side. This side-to-side diffusion results in the experience becoming one of the self.
Since chemical impulses are released across synapses, in a set, releases on some sides are higher than others and may vary from end to end. This change within that interval makes the experience .
In that formation for chemical impulses, conceptually, there are some with spaces, with constant diameters. These spaces allow access to operate the formation or stir it. It is proposed that the formations with the spaces define free will, intentionality, or control. Simply, whatever can be controlled, is a feature within the formation for that function.
It is hypothesized there that for the liver and kidney, the spaces are not there or in the right diameter, precluding the possibility of that control. It applies to situations where some can roll the tongue and others cannot and so forth.
Free will exists in the formation of loops of impulses that decide how experiences come about. In the same configuration that allows it possible to turn the neck sideways, is it also possible to know that it is the self ?
It does not matter the gene, history, or whatever else, at that point, the wheels of the action are impulses where free will is intentionality is found.
