-->
@FLRW
a post hoc reconstruction of events that occurs after the brain has already set the act in motion.
Well stated.
Blue moon, and the failure of determinism
Posts
Total:
196
-->
@949havoc
I know because it happens outside of physical experience
Even a god a ghost a fairy or an angel (EITHER) acts as the result of previous influence (OR) acts randomly
Physical or not.
Supernatural or natural.
It makes no difference.
Actions are (EITHER) influenced (OR) not-influenced
-->
@949havoc
1. Knowledge gained without experience. It happens, and you have not accounted for that variable.
Please explain.
-->
@949havoc
You have offered all but the most pertinent activity; the decision process, alone, once the review of all factors considered is complete, and which certainly has physical, measurable attributes, but the measure of those attributes does not include an exact measure of the processes' resulting action, else one would not be able to display a repeated experience-stimulation with a varied pattern of resulting action, which humans demonstrate all the time. And, the fact is, by those measurement techniques, the data collected, alone, does not indicate with any accuracy what decisive action will be rendered. The physical, organic process you outline simple does not include an outline of the decision made; that must wait for observation of the individual's action. We can measure that thinking/decision processes are in play, but not the decision, itself.
No, it was actually all included in my description.
Neurones are physical things, they obey physical and electrochemical rules, and individual neurones act predictably. The brain as a whole is highly simply complex interaction of predictable element. Electrons. Atoms. Chemicals. Fields. All interacting according to rules.
For free will to exist - one electron. One molecule. One electric pulse, must not follow the natural rules of the universe, and must instead be affected by something that doesn’t itself follow any of the natural rules of the universe.
Until you can show that actually happens (which we both know you can’t), free will is as factually supported as Santa Claus.
-->
@3RU7AL
Even a god a ghost a fairy or an angel (EITHER) acts as the result of previous influence (OR) acts randomlyPhysical or not.Supernatural or natural.It makes no difference.Actions are (EITHER) influenced (OR) not-influenced
Well stated
For free will to exist - one electron. One molecule. One electric pulse, must not follow the natural rules of the universe, and must instead be affected by something that doesn’t itself follow any of the natural rules of the universe.
IF we could discover and understand the rules by which this mysterious process functions would it not then be part of the natural world? AND as 3ru7al pointed out it hardly matters because even this notnatural thing is either caused or random or some mix of the two. In none of these cases does the road lead to the mythical magical freewill.
-->
@949havoc
I find most syllogisms offered on tis site to be not. So, why bother.
Just because everyone else's syllogisms fail, doesn't mean that your's has to as well. Syllogisms are the easiest way to make a clear case without beating around the bush.
I've been away in back, high country in the Rockies for a week
The Rocky Mountains?
-->
@3RU7AL
Actions are (EITHER) influenced (OR) not-influenced
Yes, by free agency of choice - each of us independenttly.
-->
@Ramshutu
free will is as factually supported as Santa Claus.
-->
@949havoc
free will is as factually supported as Santa Claus.
You do realize that I went to the trouble of explaining in detail the fundamental issue with your position, and free will.
I only ask. As it appears that you have ignored everything I said.
Just in case it was an honest error on your part, here it is again. I look forward to your reasoned response to which part of what I said is invalid:
No, it was actually all included in my description.
Neurones are physical things, they obey physical and electrochemical rules, and individual neurones act predictably. The brain as a whole is highly simply complex interaction of predictable element. Electrons. Atoms. Chemicals. Fields. All interacting according to rules.
For free will to exist - one electron. One molecule. One electric pulse, must not follow the natural rules of the universe, and must instead be affected by something that doesn’t itself follow any of the natural rules of the universe.
-->
@Bones
he easiest way to make a clear case without beating around the bush.
Logic should push through, not beat around the bush. The latter is how most people in my observation attempt syllogisms.
The Rocky Mountains?
Yes, that stretch from Canada through New Mexico. So where was Havoc? Somewhere at ~8,000 feet.
-->
@Ramshutu
Neurones are physical things, they obey physical and electrochemical rules, and individual neurones act predictably. The brain as a whole is highly simply complex interaction of predictable element. Electrons. Atoms. Chemicals. Fields. All interacting according to rules.
Yes, I agree, the operation of these elements is the result of their interaction, but that totally ignores the one factor you fail to mention. Me. You. Everyone. The entirety of at least the entirety of Homo sapiens. But taht says nothing for what consists of each individual entity, and each of us are unique. So, why does the universe not influence each entity in the same way such that our actions produced are identical to one another? Or do you apply intelligence and persuasion to read each of our variables by each of your Electons, Atoms, Chemicals, Fields?
For free will to exist - one electron. One molecule. One electric pulse, must not follow the natural rules of the universe, and must instead be affected by something that doesn’t itself follow any of the natural rules of the universe.
From whence comes that "logic?" Sorry, hot air to fill your wish balloon. keep blowing.
By what natural rule change have I caused violation because today, I wear a green shirt. Yesterday, it was red. Am I signaling my prep for Christmas? Or is it random, but free choice? And how do you EACFs know the difference?
-->
@949havoc
#15 That's a load of baloney.
The basis of which is a wholly inaccurate and imaginary pseudo-hypothesis....A Religion.
So attempting to discredit 6th century "scientists" is a tad arrogant to say the least.
So Mr Clever, how would you precisely measure duration?
Perhaps you should start with the second.......Does it need to have a longer or shorter duration?
Go adjust the atomic clock.
-->
@949havoc
So, why does the universe not influence each entity in the same way such that our actions produced are identical to one another?
Drop two ping pong balls down a pachinko board. Did they go the same way? No? Funny that. Ping pong balls must have free will.
-->
@Ramshutu
@949havoc
For free will to exist - one electron. One molecule. One electric pulse, must not follow the natural rules of the universe, and must instead be affected by something that doesn’t itself follow any of the natural rules of the universe.From whence comes that "logic?" Sorry, hot air to fill your wish balloon. keep blowing.
I agree. This wouldn't solve for freewill
This "not natural" thing would still either be caused or random and so still logically incoherent with freewill.
-->
@949havoc
he easiest way to make a clear case without beating around the bush.Logic should push through, not beat around the bush.
Exactly. Syllogisms make it very difficult to vaguely beat at the bush.
The Rocky Mountains?Yes, that stretch from Canada through New Mexico. So where was Havoc? Somewhere at ~8,000 feet.
Don't you live there on a 10 acre piece of land or something?
Syllogisms make it very difficult to vaguely beat at the bush.
Here is a couple syllogisms
IF caused THEN not free
IF uncaused THEN not by will.
-->
@949havoc
Yes, I agree, the operation of these elements is the result of their interaction, but that totally ignores the one factor you fail to mention. Me. You. Everyone. The entirety of at least the entirety of Homo sapiens. But taht says nothing for what consists of each individual entity, and each of us are unique. So, why does the universe not influence each entity in the same way such that our actions produced are identical to one another? Or do you apply intelligence and persuasion to read each of our variables by each of your Electons, Atoms, Chemicals, Fields?
It does influence us all in exactly the same way. Chemistry is the same for all of us. Gravity is the same for all of us. The outcome is dependent on so many individual factors that differ for everyone - time, environment, etc, that the outcome is different.
I mean seriously: why would you think natural process would make everyone identical when it can’t even make every cloud the same, or every beach. Or the weather.
From whence comes that "logic?" Sorry, hot air to fill your wish balloon. keep blowing.By what natural rule change have I caused violation because today, I wear a green shirt. Yesterday, it was red. Am I signaling my prep for Christmas? Or is it random, but free choice? And how do you EACFs know the difference?
If every electron and every atom in your brain behaves invariably according to natural laws governing its behaviour. Then every that happens in your brain is happening the way it does because of this natural laws; all the outputs happen because of the product of those natural laws.
If the natural laws governing electrochemistry cause the electrons, atoms and signals in your brain to chose a green shirt: the only way of choosing a red shirt would be to violate those rules.
- Says that nature can't be determined and predicted because blue moons happen sometimes
- Goes on to describe how blue moons can be predicted centuries in advance with basic grade school math
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
- Says that nature can't be determined and predicted because blue moons happen sometimes- Goes on to describe how blue moons can be predicted centuries in advance with basic grade school math
Well to be fair the poster had no choice. It was determined they would do so by previously existing conditions.
-->
@Ramshutu
And so, you weave an elaborate, tangled web that
It does influence us all in exactly the same way. Chemistry is the same for all of us. Gravity is the same for all of us. The outcome is dependent on so many individual factors that differ for everyone - time, environment, etc, that the outcome is different.I mean seriously: why would you think natural process would make everyone identical when it can’t even make every cloud the same, or every beach. Or the weather.
But, you have an error in the statement:
Chemistry is the same for all of us.
And I already gave you my source refuting it [from my thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6909-some-here-say-the-universe-messes-with-my-brain-chemistry?page=2 #38]:
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:
- Distinguish the brain chemistry of every individual
- Act upon that assessment to influence unique brain chemistry to cause a thought or action.
- Convince us that it, the universe, controls our choices and not our personal free will.
So, no, our brain chemistry is not "the same for all of us." Sorry, but I want to see you evidence that it is, and then, we merely have academic disagreement. What a surprise. That never happens.
If every electron and every atom in your brain behaves invariably according to natural laws
As if you have never changed your mind to act differently, even in identical conditional situations.
Free will appears to me to be a much more simple Occam's razor than your contradictions of determinism.
-->
@Bones
Newport Beach
-->
@secularmerlin
@Ramshutu
I agree. This wouldn't solve for freewill
No, it would not solve for free will. The reason is that this assumes that everyone's brain chemistry is the same. It is not, and I have proven that, already, You two just don'r want to accept it. But, there is also much more to it than that brain chemistry is unique, individual to individual. It is also that, given the same conditional circumstance repeated, we can and do decide to act differently. "And while personality traits are relatively stable over time, they can and often do gradually change across the life span. What's more, those changes are usually for the better. Many studies, including some of my own, show that most adults become more agreeable, conscientious and emotionally resilient as they age. But these changes tend to unfold across years or decades, rather than days or weeks. Sudden, dramatic changes in personality are rare." https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/30/484053435/personality-can-change-over-a-lifetime-and-usually-for-the-better
-->
@949havoc
But, you have an error in the statement:
Chemistry is the same for all of us.
And I already gave you my source refuting it [from my thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6909-some-here-say-the-universe-messes-with-my-brain-chemistry?page=2 #38]:
So, no, our brain chemistry is not "the same for all of us." Sorry, but I want to see you evidence that it is, and then, we merely have academic disagreement. What a surprise. That never happens.
Please don’t make ridiculous, idiotic straw men. I didn’t say our brain chemistry is identical. I said that chemistry itself is the same for all of us. Which it is.
The problem I’m pointing out is this absurd, and frankly bone/headed insinuation that if the laws of physics are the only thing that operates on our brains, then they would all be identical carbon copies.
I cannot express how stupid your claim here is.
Simple deterministic laws produce different outcomes in large complex systems where the inputs and interactions are slightly different in all scenarios.
Your brain chemistry and mine are very slightly different - not because you have free will - but because identical physical laws operating in different environments, on subtly different genetics, subjected to different chemicals, heats, experience - produce different outcomes.
I mean seriously. What crackpot illogical nonsense do you have to believe to presume that the same physical laws could never produce differences in different environments?
As if you have never changed your mind to act differently, even in identical conditional situations. Free will appears to me to be a much more simple Occam's razor than your contradictions of determinism.
And you skip over the problem again.
I have definitely changed my mind. Did changing my mind make a single electron, or atom disobey physical laws?
If it did not - then my decision is governed not my free will, but those physical laws.
I have definitely changed my mind. Did changing my mind make a single electron, or atom disobey physical laws?
If it did not - then my decision is governed not my free will, but those physical laws.
Your position requires our brains to be able to violate the laws of physics, that is clearly a violation of Occam’s razor compared to assuming that our brain simply operates by physics.
-->
@949havoc
The reason is that this assumes that everyone's brain chemistry is the same
No it doesn’t. This is just a ridiculous straw man.
All it assumes - is that our brains are comprised of physical things that behave according to physical laws
-->
@949havoc
It is also that, given the same conditional circumstance repeated, we can and do decide to act differently.
Are you saying if we rewind time, people would act differently? I don’t know man, the past is pretty clear-cut deterministic in my opinion.
-->
@Ramshutu
Your brain chemistry and mine are very slightly different - not because you have free will - but because identical physical laws operating in different environments, on subtly different genetics, subjected to different chemicals, heats, experience - produce different outcomes.
I don't appreciate yupur incivility. Clean it up, Bud. am not stupid. And your response ignores my last citation that, even given same circumstances, we can think and react differently than in times passed. Free will, not detemrinism, or we would ALWAYS react the same way, and we clearly do not, even in identically repeated circumstances.
-->
@Ramshutu
Show me how thought is a physical entity. Just show me. The chemical & physics involvement accepted, still, thought is not a physical property.
-->
@Reece101
Rewind time? as IF that was done? No, that's not what 'm saying. I'm saying that even in repeated identical external conditions, we can think and act by variation, because we are not determined by the universe to so think and act. physics is not the law at work here, worlds without end.
-->
@949havoc
I don't appreciate yupur incivility. Clean it up, Bud. am not stupid. And your response ignores my last citation that, even given same circumstances, we can think and react differently than in times passed. Free will, not detemrinism, or we would ALWAYS react the same way, and we clearly do not, even in identically repeated circumstances.
Firstly, I am not calling you stupid, I’m calling your claim stupid : which it is.
You’re entire premise that different people in different environments at different times, must all develop identically if mediated by deterministic laws is a stupid premise. There is no other way to describe it; it is refuted by simply looking at clouds, or beaches.
You’re continuing to use that premise as you don’t have any other way of defending your claims. That’s not my fault.
Secondly: your citation is a straw man, as I pointed out - in fact your entire post was a colossal straw man: as you are confusing me stating that chemistry works the same in your brain with mine (which it does), with the concept all brains are identical.
I’m rejecting outright the premise you have used throughout and, incidentally, don’t appear to be able to justify.
Show me how thought is a physical entity. Just show me. The chemical & physics involvement accepted, still, thought is not a physical property.
That scraping sound is you trying to shift the burden of proof.
- We know physical things exist, neurones exist, chemicals exist, and our brain consists of them. Assuming that’s all the brain is, requires no additional assumptions, assuming that there is more requires additional assumptions and thus fails Occam’s razor.
- We're stating to be able to read people’s minds by scanning their physical brain: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/functional-magnetic-resonance-imaging-computer-analysis-read-thoughts-60-minutes-2019-11-24/
- You can chance the way you think, and how well you think by making physical changes to people’s brains