The gut closely connects with the central nervous system through dynamic bidirectional communication along the gut-brain axis. The connection between gut environment and brain may affect host mood and behaviors.
Over the years I've heard the (oversimplified, obvs) claim that "actually your gut biome controls you."
But, in layman's terms, what is it about the gut microbiome that can be said to affect (what we think of as) free will in a way more consequential than, e.g. a dry throat encouraging you to seek liquids or sore legs encouraging you to sit down and rest?
Maybe it affects my immediate preference for Mexican or Chinese, but it doesn't force resistance when (for example) I know my dining partners strongly prefer the opposite of my gut-vote, right? So how powerful is it?
It's just another part of the constellation of factors, some obvious and some obscure, that affect our thoughts and behavior.
I lean toward believing in free will because the idea of predestination doesn't sit well with me, but even I can see that most of our behavior is on autopilot.
Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:22 pm
That reality is inherently random at the quantum level is a strong argument against strict determinism.
I'm totally down for strict 'determinism' being questionable for this reason as well.
But I think this is where 'free-will' (or the abscence of free-will) just no longer coorilates with determinism. The randomness of the quantum world doesn't offer an avenue for free-will, it just speaks to a fundamental inability to ultimately predict everything with perfect accuracy.
Right? I mean if our "choice of ice-cream flavor" ultimately has a truly random dice roll involved, that is far from free-will.
The randomness of the quantum world is not seen at the atomic level, so perhaps it doesn't have as much 'power' over the fate at the atomic level?... The "double slit" experiment does not work with soccer balls.
Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 3:24 am
Free will is real or not, we'll still have to treat it like it is real, right?
So what is the point of thinking of if it is real or not?
Also, what would a proof one way or the other look like?
I imagine it would look unacceptable to a group of people, no matter what it looked like.
I think a truly working artificial consciousness would do the trick (a sentient android) , but even then:
1) the idea of trans-consciousness already plans for this with it's definition, from what I understand, and the people that don't like trans-consciousness would hold their arguments against it (if I understand that area correctly)
2) the problem that consciousness is only "experienced" and that we can't even prove that you and I experience the same consciousness - will always be the deal breaker, I imagine.
How would that be achievable in a world without free will? Consciousness becomes an illusion too, no?
We are just squishy computers piloting around a meat robot. I don’t see how consciousness can exist without free will.
(in many respects, I guess I think that consciousness creates free will)
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 3:24 am
Free will is real or not, we'll still have to treat it like it is real, right?
So what is the point of thinking of if it is real or not?
The human drive to categorize (which carries with it the prerequisite 'to understand') is motivating us. In other words, humans want to understand things. We want to know the truth, even if said truth is useless. Us continuing to argue the point is a good example of choosing not to exercise free will - we're following our instincts instead.
