Some here say the universe messes with my brain chemistry

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 58
#31
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Ramshutu
non-causality is not a thing 
More that there is no evidence of anything that is not caused. It is reasonable therefore to withhold belief in indeterminism but that is different from being able to make a positive claim to the contrary. 
Topic's author
#32
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Even if you could show something to be truly random (and so far you haven't) it would not help the case for freewill. 
Breathing.
Eating.
Pregnancy.
Dying.


#33
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Breathing.
Eating.
Pregnancy.
Dying.
I think if you examine these events they are actually all caused. In particular on each death certificate is a place for cause of death.
#34
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@949havoc
Yes, I can choose to eat corn flakes in milk, even though I don't like it. So where is determinism in that?
Can you make yourself like it?

Can you alter the tendency you have to eat it in spite of that?
#35
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
Whenever you chose between two things; you will always and invariably chose the “most preferable option” of the two.

And that is why any mind accessing creatures will always destroy themselves, sooner rather that later.

It is called greed and will always keep humans from creating a unified planet where all are operating with a ' all-for-one and one-for-all mentality '.

Any mind accessing creatures will only choose their higher standard of living, --no matter what--- and that leads to a non-unification of doing the smartest thing for survival of the whole mind accessing species.  So they have to kiss their asses good bye.

Better luck next time on some other planet where their seed takes hold to evolve.

Watch this video and you will come to the same conclusion as the lady and maybe even my specific,  end-date-for humanity 2232 { approx. }.

Topic's author
#36
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@ebuc
Whenever you chose between two things; you will always and invariably chose the “most preferable option” of the two.
Do they, now? And how does that then explain the choice some people make to sacrifice their own lives, in the face of self-preservation, to save another? Do you ignore that such people exist? The examples are numerous; just on 9/11, for example. That one event has caught the attention of most of the planet's inhabitants, and most of them are well aware of the personal sacrifices many people engaged. And not just first responders on the ground. Have a care to remember "Let's roll," on flight 93.

So, "always and invariably?" Uh....

not quite.
Not so good when numbers really, really count, are you?
Topic's author
#37
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
because it’s not a thing
oh. on your say so. Sorry to disagree.

No, I'm not, because you will reply that science says no. Well, well, we've visited the holy grail before, haven't we, and found that its holiness has a few holes.
Topic's author
#38
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
@Ramshutu
Determinism insists that we do not have free will, that our decision process when assessing options is driven by the universe and its affects via universal standard elements, explained by quantum physics: particles, waves, fields, and forces, acting on on our brain chemistry.


according to this source, "…like with fingerprints, no two people have the same brain anatomy, a study has shown. This uniqueness is the result of a combination of genetic factors and individual life experiences."

determinism must insist, therefore, that an unconscious, even non-living universe is capable of a remarkable function: the universal standard elements [particles, waves, fields, and forces] have the capacity to:
  1. Distinguish the brain chemistry of every individual
  2. Act upon that assessment to influence unique brain chemistry to cause a thought or action.
  3. Convince us that it, the universe, controls our choices and not our personal free will.

Determinism might explain how we individually make choices, but the notion of a universal cause depends upon each individual having the same brain chemistry. But this is faulty reasoning since our personal brain chemistry is unique for each individual. We truly are not the same.

However, note that not only is our brain chemistry individually unique, so, too, are our experiences. Clearly even people who experience something simultaneously in a group take something different from that which is ubiquitously experienced. Our own brain function makes our perceived experience somewhat unique; rarely are experiences shared completely by each individual. This is one reason why in testimony in a court of law, each testimony by several witnesses to an event testify of separate nuances. Some may sound as if witnesses viewed and experienced different events.

The standard universal elements do not have the capacity to suggest such variation, because that insists that these elements can manipulate variable thoughts in several individuals, patterned to match those individuals. That is too much to ask of elements which express no capacity related to intelligent thought and action, even if, on their own, by scientific observation, these elements’ actions are in any way predictable. Otherwise, one must suspect that we all act and react in identical fashion. This is clearly not the case.

#39
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Before we discuss determinism versus indeterminism I think it behooves us to finish our discussion of freewill because even without determinism in a random universe that doesn't follow cause and effect freewill is logically incoherent. Random events are not subject to choice.
Topic's author
#40
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
  1. Distinguish the brain chemistry of every individual
  2. Act upon that assessment to influence unique brain chemistry to cause a thought or action.
  3. Convince us that it, the universe, controls our choices and not our personal free will.
Item #3, my friend. I know not from whence you get "non-determinism."
#41
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
Determinism insists that we do not have free will, that our decision process when assessing options is driven by the universe and its affects via universal standard elements, explained by quantum physics: particles, waves, fields, and forces, acting on on our brain chemistry.


according to this source, "…like with fingerprints, no two people have the same brain anatomy, a study has shown. This uniqueness is the result of a combination of genetic factors and individual life experiences."

determinism must insist, therefore, that an unconscious, even non-living universe is capable of a remarkable function: the universal standard elements [particles, waves, fields, and forces] have the capacity to:
  1. Distinguish the brain chemistry of every individual
  2. Act upon that assessment to influence unique brain chemistry to cause a thought or action.
  3. Convince us that it, the universe, controls our choices and not our personal free will.
Why on earth would you think that? That’s just a stupid reductio ad absurdum.

How about “deterministic laws of physics can produce life; from which intelligence evolves, from which complex self aware organisms evolve, but whose brains still follow determinist rules that make choices”. That doesn’t seem unreasonable, right?

Determinism might explain how we individually make choices, but the notion of a universal cause depends upon each individual having the same brain chemistry. But this is faulty reasoning since our personal brain chemistry is unique for each individual. We truly are not the same.
Why on earth would you think deterministic laws of physics involved when a human brain develops. in subtly different conditions with different initial states would produce identical brains?

That’s a ridiculous straw man.

However, note that not only is our brain chemistry individually unique, so, too, are our experiences. Clearly even people who experience something simultaneously in a group take something different from that which is ubiquitously experienced. Our own brain function makes our perceived experience somewhat unique; rarely are experiences shared completely by each individual. This is one reason why in testimony in a court of law, each testimony by several witnesses to an event testify of separate nuances. Some may sound as if witnesses viewed and experienced different events.
You mean we learn, and we have memories. Through physical interactions that are mediated by deterministic physics?


The standard universal elements do not have the capacity to suggest such variation, because that insists that these elements can manipulate variable thoughts in several individuals, patterned to match those individuals.
What does that even mean? Are you just pulling this out of your ass?

Physics and deterministic interaction in your brain cells, a neurone fires, it’s neighbours fires another, all via deterministic laws of physics - that’s thought. Fees back along a pathway, follows deterministic electrochemical rules to reinforce the connections in the pathway to learn.



That is too much to ask of elements which express no capacity related to intelligent thought and action, even if, on their own, by scientific observation, these elements’ actions are in any way predictable. Otherwise, one must suspect that we all act and react in identical fashion.
Why is it too much to ask? This is just one big argument from incredulity.

This is clearly not the case.
Argument by assertion.



#42
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
  1. Distinguish the brain chemistry of every individual
  2. Act upon that assessment to influence unique brain chemistry to cause a thought or action.
  3. Convince us that it, the universe, controls our choices and not our personal free will.
Item #3, my friend. I know not from whence you get "non-determinism."
Control is a loaded word that sort of predisposes a conscious actor and I don't care to let you smuggle it in. Your actions are determined by your preferences (not your choice) the potential consequences of your actions (not your choice) and the limits of your physical capabilities (not your choice). The universe does not need to change in any fundamental way. The universe we observe is not compatible with freewill. 

Assuming indeterminism (random events) if an action is truly random then it cannot be effected by your choices (to be effected by is to be a part of cause and effect/determinism).

No clever mix of these two extremes generates the magical conditions of freewill.

That you have a will does not make that will free and the universe at large doesn't appear to have any will whatsoever. Just obderate movements of raw physics.
#43
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@949havoc
Do they, now?

Yes, for the most part.   One or two examples by you does not change a larger set of truths.  Sorry that you want to remain clueless to the larger and more significant to humanity, set of  truths. 

..." And that is why any mind accessing creatures will always destroy themselves, sooner rather that later.

...It is called greed and will always keep humans from creating a unified planet where all are operating with a ' all-for-one and one-for-all mentality '.

...Any mind accessing creatures will only choose their higher standard of living, --no matter what--- and that leads to a non-unification of doing the smartest thing for survival of the whole mind accessing species.  So they have to kiss their asses good bye.

...Better luck next time on some other planet where their seed takes hold to evolve. ".....

Watch this video and you will come to the same conclusion as the lady and maybe even my specific,  end-date-for humanity 2232 { approx. }.


Topic's author
#44
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Your actions are determined by your preferences (not your choice)
Preference: "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others.
'he chose a clock in preference to a watch'"

Care to explain why the definition disagrees with your opinion?

#45
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
If it’s not possible for you to chose something that isn’t a preferable option - is it still a choice?

You’re not choosing - you are calculating - which doesn’t require free will.

Topic's author
#46
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
choosing....calculating

You're merely playing semantics. And you have completely ignored my #38 argument, substantiated by citation, that brain anatomy, thus chemistry, varies by individual, and is unique to each individual. The universe, a non-living collection of matter and energy, cannot distinguish individual brain anatomy to determine course of action for each. Therefore, it is more sensible, in spite of "science," which is demonstrated to be variable, itself, that we each choose to either have choices made for us by others, or make those choices ourselves. Only the former let the stream carry them where it will.

The process of making personal choices by free will:
1. Do the process already, avoid delay
2. Remove ego and emotion; they delay and deter
3. Obtain expert opinion; you may not consider all options on your own
4. Collect valid datae; invalid data will only confuse and delay
5. Understand risk, cost, benefit
6. Choose 

As we will each approach these steps in individual fashion, being separate distinct individuals competing in a vast, unconscious, and ambivalent universe, some will miss steps, others will come to invalid conclusions, and still others will achieve choices by doing the complete process with justification on their side. There's a simple, and true axim: There are three kinds of people: make things happen, watch what happens, wonder what happened. We are one or the other by choice, even if we let that choice be made by others for us, and the universe says naught; it is of no consequence in the process of choice, which is why it is not in the proper choice process.

As mentioned, we may abdicate the choice to others, which I suppose could be argued to be a choice to let the universe decide, but that's a wonder-what-happened kind of person, and even some of the watch-what-happens people. A make-things-happen person does not give credence to surrender of choice, i.e., free will.
#47
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
And you have completely ignored my #38 argument, substantiated by citation
My reply is right there; but please don’t demand me to respond to your posts when you have systematically ignored everything I have said.

You are still ignoring everything I said in my last post; having simply dismissed it.

How can free will exist if you can never chose a least preferable option? You’re just weighing up all the different factors at the time, and making a decision. Computers can do that - as I pointed out a few posts ago and you ignored.

Choice is an illusion. 


#48
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
He had a preference for one over the other. This CAUSED him to "choose". It was not an "unfettered" choice whatever that is. It was a determination of which he preferred. A determination requires no actual choice. 

If he had preference then he was subject to cause and effect (determinism)

Definitions are in the end arbitrary though useless unless agreed upon a priori. This is why defining terms is an important part of any debate. 
Topic's author
#49
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
How can free will exist if you can never chose a least preferable option? 
Answer is demonstrated in my #36. "Never" is incorrect.

And you ignore that my #38 rebuts the notion of the universe affecting brain chemistry since every human has unique chemistry. How does a lifeless, indifferent universe calculate the variations and properly drive a human action, which is the reason choice is not an illusion.
#50
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
I answered your post straight after. It wasn’t ignored; I just pointed out how your premise was mostly asserted nonsense - which it is.

As is par for the course: you completely fail to understand the nuance of the argument presented.


We always chose what is the most preferable option to us at the time. Not what is someone analyzing the situation on the internet later: not what leads us to least harm, or even what the rational part of our brain considers preferable. We have conscious motivations, unconscious motivations, emotional motivations that all weigh in.

In some scenarios all those come together so that the the choice that is most preferable at that moment,  perhaps jacked up on adrenakine; having to make a snap decision so considering things quickly - is to sacrifice yourself. 

We can only chose that preferable option; because chose is an illusion: as SM said extremely well, and I will steal - we don’t chose, we make a determination.

Computers can do that.
Topic's author
#51
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
I just pointed out how your premise was mostly asserted nonsense - which it is.
Yeah, you just said so, with no data to present refuting that brain chemistry is individually unique, other than declaring it reductio ad absurdum. I can toss out accusations, too, but they have zero value. Come back with some academia behind you. Good luck. "In the private sector, they expect results." Best line in a movie, ever, and so very true.

I'm not getting into an argument that your science can beat up my science. That's reductio ad puerile.
#52
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
Yeah, you just said so, with no data to present refuting that brain chemistry is individually unique, other than declaring it reductio ad absurdum. I can toss out accusations, too, but they have zero value. Come back with some academia behind you. Good luck. "In the private sector, they expect results." Best line in a movie, ever, and so very true.
Why do I need to refute that brain chemistry is individually unique? On what possible basis so you think determinism, and the laws of physics operating over all different individuals with the different genetics and didn’t states wouldn’t create unique brain chemistry?

You’re just making up wild semi-related claims and then asserting that determinism can’t explain them - making no attempt to link the claim with some aspect of determinism.

Also, bear in mind you seem to be ignoring the main argument:

We always chose what is the most preferable option to us at the time. Not what is someone analyzing the situation on the internet later: not what leads us to least harm, or even what the rational part of our brain considers preferable. We have conscious motivations, unconscious motivations, emotional motivations that all weigh in.

In some scenarios all those come together so that the the choice that is most preferable at that moment,  perhaps jacked up on adrenakine; having to make a snap decision so considering things quickly - is to sacrifice yourself.

We can only chose that preferable option; because chose is an illusion: as SM said extremely well, and I will steal - we don’t chose, we make a determination.

Computers can do that.




#53
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@secularmerlin
He had a preference for one over the other. This CAUSED him to "choose". It was not an "unfettered" choice whatever that is. It was a determination of which he preferred. A determination requires no actual choice. 

If he had preference then he was subject to cause and effect (determinism)

Definitions are in the end arbitrary though useless unless agreed upon a priori. This is why defining terms is an important part of any debate. 
This is extremely well stated. Kudos
#54
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Definitions are in the end arbitrary though useless unless agreed upon a priori.

False narrative is becoming the new set of truths for humanity, ergo, end-date-for-humanity is 2232 { approx. }.

So definitions may become irrelevant, to who convinces who ---overall in society--- of what the truth is.
#55
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
2232
Well I'll be dead by then; but that is still a sad thought; but I'll never find out if you are right. 
#56
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I'll be dead by then; but that is still a sad thought; but I'll never find out if you are right.

Sad = negative,  however, some of us like to be realistic.

What is a realistic view of humanities future existence on Earth? Is there some special pass card from God/Universe that allows humanity to exceed however many billions of people within some period of time on Earth?

“The dark ages still reign over all humanity, and the depth and persistence of this domination are only now becoming clear. This Dark Ages prison has no steel bars, chains, or locks. Instead, it is locked by misorientation and built of misinformation.”

Carl Sagan, in published book ---The Dragons of Eden?--   also speaks of humanity in or entering a ' dark age ', ergo  has similar dire consideration for humanities future. 

#57
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
I agree that we are finite but end of days claims are historically common place. I don't think anyone knows when it is coming. 
#58
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree that we are finite but end of days claims are historically common place. I don't think anyone knows when it is coming. 
We are each finite individually.  Humanity most likely  finite ending time on Earth.  The realistic assessment, is that it will be sooner --2232 { aprox. }---- rather than later 7 million years from now.   My prognostication approach used some cosmic values, that, which resultant was equal to the human population on on Earth, around 2015. 

So I can understand why some would say, that 2015, should be the end-date, and  here we are at 2021.  So my 210 years was and add-on based older, native american indian wisdom. 

Sure nobody knows yet some of us like to be realistic. Ex enough humanit thought that M.A.Destruction was pretty dumb to continue, and alot of those stupid things ended ex 24 hr bombers in the sky with hydrogen bombs.  How close to the end were we then?  Close enough that there was large public outcry.

What is a realistic view of humanities future existence on Earth?  Does anyone really see positives that would change my prognostication?

Is there some special pass card from God/Universe that allows humanity to exceed however many billions of people ---500 billion--  within some period of time on Earth?

No is the correct answser.  Maybe there is some prognostication formulae that shows humanity going forward with some amount of people some amount of years.  If you have not watched this video, I think it is a good conclusion about mind accessing creatures, like humans.