Some here say the universe messes with my brain chemistry

Author: 949havoc ,

Posts

Total: 58
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
...and that is why I don't eat corn flakes.

Really?

And this is because this is the best explanation for my refusal of corn flakes?

Could it be that I simply determined that milk makes them excessively soggy? Some like that; I do not.

Oh, the fact that I do not is also the universe messing with my brain chemistry? Why mine and not yours?

Well, it's obvious, isn't it? I've pissed off the universe. Little old me. As if I was any threat to it. Over corn flakes.

Uh-huh. Sure. That and a dime...
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @949havoc
Is this some treatise about the myth of freewill? You don't decide to dislike cornflakes so any "choice" to give them a pass on your part is hardly a free choice.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @secularmerlin
TS Eliot was once asked by a journalist immediately after the first night of a play production Eliot had written: "What does it mean?".
Eliot replied, "It means what it says."

That you interpret poorly is entirely on you and I have no inclination to correct.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,031
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @secularmerlin
TS Eliot was once asked by a journalist immediately after the first night of a play production Eliot had written: "What does it mean?".
Eliot replied, "It means what it says."

That you interpret poorly is entirely on you and I have no inclination to correct.
Apparently, the problem isn't in the message but the audience. Oh, and Havoc thinks his cornflake post is on the level with works of TS Elliot. ;-)


secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @949havoc
That you interpret poorly is entirely on you and I have no inclination to correct
Death of the author it is. With no info the contrary I can interpret it any way that seems okish to me.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @SkepticalOne
Apparently, the problem isn't in the message but the audience. Oh, and Havoc thinks his cornflake post is on the level with works of TS Elliot. ;-)
Well isn't he a wicked thing then!?!
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 5,496
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @949havoc
I also do not eat cornflakes.

As they do not occur to me.

And brain chemistry is everything

Inextricably a part the universe.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Not eating corn flakes is breakfast the same way not believing in god(s) is a religion. 
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @SkepticalOne
Oh, and Havoc thinks his cornflake post is on the level with works of TS Elliot. ;-)
Another reading comprehension issue. Look, you asked, 

Is this some treatise about the myth of freewill? 
In other words you're asking about the meaning of my post #1. My reply does not equate my refusal to eat corn flakes with TS Eliot. It's not a specifically literary issue; it's philosophy, isn't it? I'm saying my reply to you is the same as Eliot to the journalist: Don't ask stupid questions. Of course its about the superiority of free will, because free will doesn't get wrapped around the axle about corn flakes, as apparently the universe does, at least by most definitions of determinism that I've seen. But, if you want to let the universe mess with your head, by all means, let it.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,160
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @949havoc
I can change the decisions you make. 




Frontal lobotomies - used to be a fairly common practice, and completely changes the decisions people make. If removing a physical piece of your brain changes your choices, it seems certain that physical piece of brain is part of what helps make choices right?

Some choices are not really choices. Today, now, you may never consider calling an Ex, or running down the street naked, etc. Things you would never do.

If I crank you up with LSD, Meth, alcohol, SSRIs, and those decisions can be changed. I can zap part your brain with electromagnets, and it changes the moral decision making centres of your brain. We make bad decisions when tired. High level of cortisol and adrenaline, we make different decisions. Too much serotonine, not enough dopamine, too much testosterone - different chemical balance, different decisions.

You could have a brain injury, or mental illness that we recognize may prevent you from making decisions properly, many corrected with chemicals. I can have a physical addiction which can cause me to make decisions that I wouldn’t otherwise make.

It seems a remarkably uncontroversial to state that our ability to make choices is dependent on the physical and chemical conditions of our brain. No?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,498
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @949havoc
In front of you is a bowl of cornflakes, with excessive milk added to it, it's already 'soggy'.

In front of you, just beside it is a bowl of a cereal you dislike less with just the right amount of milk.

I would like you, of your own free will, to stare at, smell and continually notice the cereal you dislike less while using your free will to eat the corn flakes.

You know that inevitable feeling of dissatisfaction? That's the part that isn't free will. That's the part even those that advocate for it can't deny.

What you are saying is you can choose to eat it despite disliking it, which is the deeper debate at hand (whether or not that's actually a choice) but your actual dislike for corn flakes is absolutely involuntary, if you don't realise that then I hope imagining my example highlights that to you.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @Ramshutu
Sure, all of those external effects can affect brain chemistry and function. I'm even willing to admit that a poor diet, even without the surgery,  psychedelics, etc., can affect brain function, but all of that is a deviation from "normal" brain function by an accepted behavior of the "normal" person.

One of the problems with determinism is that the function/behavior of the universe is still as assessed by an observer, and we already know the dangers of that consequence: observation, itself, causes variation, either by affecting the behavior of that observed, or by interpretive variation in what is observed. Either way, it introduces a degree of randomness that messes with the accuracy of predictability. And that is supposed to yield either rational or irrational choices by an individual? No. To me, that randomness of potential variation, even by the properties of the universe that are, but only by degree, predictable; particles, waves, fields, and forces, make the notion of their activity being the source of our human choices a bit too random, given the clarity by which people can reason by themselves and with others.

Bottom line, determinism cannot answer why there is both causality, and non-causality in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @RationalMadman
I would like you, of your own free will,
One can ignore the rest, because you're already attempting to mess with my free will. Doesn't matter what the action is; you are attempting to be its instigator, and assume I will comply. I don't.

Yes, I can choose to eat corn flakes in milk, even though I don't like it. So where is determinism in that? The prediction might be that I will defy my dislike as probable. But, that's the reason why predictability, itself, stops at 95% accuracy; it cannot account for the random choice to eat the flakes, but must, anyway, or the entire "science" of probability goes out the window, i.e., ceases to be 'science.'
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,031
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @949havoc
Another reading comprehension issue. Look, you asked, 

Is this some treatise about the myth of freewill? 
Yea, yea, reading comprehension issues - thats me. Btw, my name is SkepticalOne...it was secularmerlin who asked this question, friend.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @949havoc @SkepticalOne
Freewill is logically incoherent. 

All actions/events are either caused (determinism)

Or uncaused (indistinguishable from random)

Determinism is incompatible with free will. Randomness is incompatible with freewill. 

No clever mix of determinism and indeterminism solves for freewill. 
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,031
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @secularmerlin
No clever mix of determinism and indeterminism solves for freewill. 
Agreed. 
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
2
5
--> @secularmerlin
What you say is true. See: Quantum theory and determinism by Lev Vaidman
 It provides a deterministic and local theory for our physical Universe explaining the illusion of randomness and nonlocality in the world we experience.

Abstract
Historically, appearance of the quantum theory led to a prevailing view that Nature is indeterministic. The arguments for the indeterminism and proposals for indeterministic and deterministic approaches are reviewed. These include collapse theories, Bohmian Mechanics and the many-worlds interpretation. It is argued that ontic interpretations of the quantum wave function provide simpler and clearer physical explanation and that the many-worlds interpretation is the most attractive since it provides a deterministic and local theory for our physical Universe explaining the illusion of randomness and nonlocality in the world we experience.

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,160
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @949havoc
Sure, all of those external effects can affect brain chemistry and function. I'm even willing to admit that a poor diet, even without the surgery,  psychedelics, etc., can affect brain function, but all of that is a deviation from "normal" brain function by an accepted behavior of the "normal" person.

You’re Cheshire Catting again - you’re sounding as if you made an argument - but that’s not an argument for anything. It’s completely unclear what you’re objection even is.

Free will requires there to be some part of your decision making process that can alter physical objects (neurones, atoms, etc) in order to make a decision - without itself being dependent on physical laws: is the part of you that makes the choice a deterministic set of physical things you cannot control - neurones, chemicals, etc - or some non-physical agency which can make decisions and influence your neurones with its behaviour itself not being wholly predictable by the laws of physics?

My examples prove, and you concede, that the part of you that makes decisions - is dependent on physical states of your brain. If chemistry can alter your ability to chose - how can you claim that your ability to chose is not based on the internal electrochemistry without special pleading?

“Normal” is not an objective state; it’s a description of a spectrum of behaviours that occur when your decisions broadly conform to social expectations - it’s not an objective description of how the brain can operate.

When cranked up in ketamine, or sober and well rested, your brain is working based upon the laws of physics - the drugged state alters the chemical behaviour of neurones in a way that leads to different decisions.

A decision based on a ketamine infused bender is just as free as ones you make at work on Wednesday morning - they’re just differently weighted, and made under different chemical conditions.

“One of the problems with determinism is that the function/behavior of the universe is still as assessed by an observer, and we already know the dangers of that consequence: observation, itself, causes variation, either by affecting the behavior of that observed, or by interpretive variation in what is observed. Either way, it introduces a degree of randomness that messes with the accuracy of predictability. And that is supposed to yield either rational or irrational choices by an individual? No. To me, that randomness of potential variation, even by the properties of the universe that are, but only by degree, predictable; particles, waves, fields, and forces, make the notion of their activity being the source of our human choices a bit too random, given the clarity by which people can reason by themselves and with others.”

This makes no sense on any level that I can discern. I have no clue whatsoever what you’re actually talking about, and nothing you’ve said bears any relation to any aspect of determinism that I have ever heard. I can’t even begin to translate what you intended to mean.


I’ll boil it down simply for you. So you can tell me what part you object to.

Interactions between atoms, particles, forces, etc follow clear and predictable rules; we can statistically predict the outcome of such interactions. If the outcome of all individual particle interactions is governed by predictable physical laws - then the outcome of any composite interaction of physical objects, no matter how complex, is a product solely of initial state and physical laws that govern them too.

Our brains making a decision, is a just a hugely complex interaction of physical objects: so the outcome - the decision - is a product only of initial state and physical laws. There is no gap for our will to assert itself in.

Consider a choice between A and B: we think, we weigh, we consider, and ultimately decide A. This feels like a free choice.

However, our brain obeys the laws of physics. The particles interact predictably, neurones fire in a predictable way: the state of the brain and the laws of physics mean that your decision - whatever it ends up being - is inevitable, you chose A thinking it was a free choice: but it was never physically possible for you to have ever chosen B.

I can put it another way: I write algorithms/AI that control the movements of interacting objects - think controlling traffic lights to optimize traffic flow. 

In this program, the central decision maker looks at the state of the system, whether destination paths are blocked, what impact it would have whilst waiting, what the delay would be, what alternative paths are available, how fast the car can travel - 1000 different things, then decides based on all of that to let the car go, or make it wait.

The decisions it makes are controlled by what it’s programming produces - that would not change even if the decision making software became more complex, or even self aware. Nothing I can do will give it free will, no matter how smart, or how conscious it ends up being because it’s decisions are the product of deterministic laws: How CPU instructions work, which is governed by physics.

The same can be said for humans instead of a CPU and instructions, we have an interconnected complex web of neurones that follow deterministic rules. We are an electrochemical analogue program

This is what determinism is and why it is indistinguishable from free will - you can never know whether the choice you don’t make was ever possible or not - because you never make it.


You mention observers: presumably this is a reference to quantum theory; but in QT observed just means “interaction of the thing with a photon”, in reality, there’s no issue with your atoms interacting with other atoms that interact with you.

Bottom line, determinism cannot answer why there is both causality, and non-causality in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options.

What in the name of Henry Coopers sweaty ballsack is Non-causality? lol. 

In terms of physics - everything is caused; some aspects of the quantum world occur randomly in the presence of a cause - radioactive decay for example, or the position of an electron - these cannot be predicted specifically, but can be predicted stochastically - half life/orbits. I’m assuming that’s what you mean.

Why on earth do you think determinism needs to answer that? It’s perfectly fine. QT gels with determinism in that it doesn’t matter whether some events involved in the physical process of decision making are stochastic and some are purely deterministic: in one case you are not really making the choice, but the choice you end up making is governed by a stochastic spectrum. In the other you are not really making the choice, and the choice you end up making is the sole possible outcome.

You’re just manufacturing a problem with pseudoscientific gobbledegook that doesn’t really exist, then using the manufactured problem to discount determinism.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
2
5
--> @Ramshutu

Extremely well stated


949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @secularmerlin
All actions/events are either caused (determinism)

Or uncaused (indistinguishable from random)
As I said to Ramshutu:

Bottom line, determinism cannot answer why there is both causality, and non-causality in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options.
Ramshutu made no argument against the final clause, i.e., "...non-causality in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options." I am merely saying what science calls "non-causality" is the random factor in the universe, available to some species having higher intelligence, like man, and, as I've demonstrated, even a dog, but others, as well, is free will, which can either be predicted, but only based upon consistency past action, or unpredictable, such as making a choice that appears completely at random. Neither of you can give a name to that randomness other than calling it random.ut that descrtiption is not always applicable, and the variation is free will.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,160
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @949havoc
Ramshutu made no argument against the final clause, i.e., "...non-causality in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options." I am merely saying what science calls "non-causality" is the random factor in the universe, available to some species having higher intelligence, like man, and, as I've demonstrated, even a dog, but others, as well, is free will, which can either be predicted, but only based upon consistency past action, or unpredictable, such as making a choice that appears completely at random. Neither of you can give a name to that randomness other than calling it random.ut that descrtiption is not always applicable, and the variation is free will.
“Non-causality” isn’t a thing. In science or anything else. 

949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @Ramshutu
It’s completely unclear what you’re objection even is.
Of course it's unclear. To you. And Secular, who cannot think outside the box of determinism. At least Secular admits a presence of non-causality which you completely ignore. You speak to "physical objects, atoms, neurons, etc." If you mean by that, the quantum particles, waves, fields, and forces, on which laws such as gravity appear to have no control, right there is your problem with determinism, because that theory suggests that determinism isn't the all-encompassing driver of the universe, or of man. Free will exists as that variance you cannot identify0, yet will fight to the teeth that it does not exist. That's on you.

You object to my description of observation, the essential tool of science, and that observation can, itself, alter that which is observed, or present different interpretations of what is observed. That is fact whether you agree with it, or not. It is the fac tor that can, without taking urgent care to control how things are observed. The fact that the level of accuracy of observation changes, scientist to scientist, or anybody else for that matter, ought to tell you that if determinism were at play, we'd all act better than we do since the control, by determinism's necessity, would be consistent.

You argue that outside influences - drugs, for example - can alter our response to the world and the universe. Yes, they can, I agree. But that does not alter the fact that it can also inhibit our free will to not have thoughts or actions that would disagree with our decisions made when not so impaired by external influences. You act as if the idea of taking ketamine is not mine to refuse. I choose to keep such substances from my body, and always have. of course, you could force my actions, but not my decisions. Yes, you can overwhelm my free will, but that's you, forcing the action, not me. If you do it at the poi t of a gun, without any physical contact with me, you've merely presented a condition under which I must decide whether to bow to your forced action, or, at the risk of my life, maintain my own will, freely made in spite of consequences. If determinism were truly the force at work here, I should choose to alter my course, let my survival nature kick in, and do as you insist. obviously, people are in situations wherein they dismiss personal survival for the sake of others. Determinism would insist that does not occur, but it does, and the evidence of it is immediately apparent.

You argue that all physical objects bow to physical laws. Fine. Is the mind a physical object? Not by any observation that has produced evidence to that conclusion. Yet, the mind exists for each individual, and even other animals. And, there are observations, whether you accept them, or not, such as Jesus walking on water, he, a physical being, violatng gravity, one of those laws. But is he breaking a law of physics, or merely acting under a greater law where gravity has limitations, such as it has with particles, waves, fields, and forces.

You argue that particles, waves, fields, and forces act predictably, yet, we encounter conditions such as described above, and earlier, where these elements of universe do not obey the law of gravity, and likely other laws, as well. Your determinism does not explain these variables.

What in the name of Henry Coopers sweaty ballsack is Non-causality?
As noted previously, and above, non-causality is the factor determinism. does not consider, yet exists.

It seems my argument of free will has fewer limitations, and inconsistencies, than determinism.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @Ramshutu
“Non-causality” isn’t a thing. In science or anything else. 
The best example for non-causality I can think of in this instance is the non-causality that the universe was geocentric, which science determined thousands of years ago, and maintained until the 1860s. There simply was no cause for such "science," yet science declared it so, merely by observation; another concept you're having difficulty accepting having limitations. Science is not the holy grail. Accept it. It flounders in the darkness just like the rest of us.
But, science says, we don't have to worry about it too much longer because, by the Climate Change clock, we're all toast in 9 years. Get you butter ready. I have, as it happens, 2 years' worth in storage, but it ain't going to do anything for me in 9 years but flavor my food. Having that food is my choice. The universe would have me consume only, and not prepare for anything.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,160
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @949havoc
Of course it's unclear. To you. And Secular, who cannot think outside the box of determinism. At least Secular admits a presence of non-causality which you completely ignore. 

1 - non-causality is not a thing. Please stop pretending it’s a thing.

2 - Your objection was unclear because you didn’t make an argument, you didn’t state what was wrong, or how, nor did you clearly specify the issue that rendered my example consistent with free will; 

Recall we were talking about changes in brain chemistry impacting decision making - your objection was that in the examples the brain wasn’t normal. That’s not actually an objection for the reasons I listed (and that you appear to have ignored)




I started replying to the rest of your post, which to be honest, was an incoherent, irrational, poorly reasoned screed that offered little logic, and simply asserted a bunch of stuff as true; with the bulk of it already rebutted at length in my last post which you mostly ignored. I’m going to summarize your argument, because the amount of nonsense in there makes a response to each part clearly is going to make everyone’s eyes bleed.


Observers:

An observation in quantum theory is the interaction between the thing you’re “observing” and a photon - that’s how observation work. You argue as if it’s some special thing that alters the world - in reality it’s just pointing out that finding information about something at a quantum level, requires it to interact with something else, which can change the something. It doesn’t involve consciousness or a mind.

You’re building this up into this weird psuedoscientific nonsense. That’s all it is; and why it makes no scientific sense

Predictability:

Particles, fields, interactions between them behave repeatably and predictably. There are stochastic elements - individual radioactive decay is random - but adds up non randomly (half life) - radiation is still predictable. Chemistry works predictably, neurones work predictably, at a very basic level, if we know the initial state, we can predict the outcome of almost everything; and the limited scenarios where we can’t is not because things do not behave predictably or repeatedly but that we don’t have a broader model to describe it.

That’s undeniable: QT, gravity, standard model, chemistry and electromagnetism allow us to predict the world to high degrees of accuracy because the world works predictably.

Newton cannot fully describe mercuries orbit - GR cannot be incorporated into electron calculations - but mercuries orbit and electrons are still predictable. In large part you appear to conflate lack of model to explain something with something being non-deterministic (which is just a big fat lie).

You’re argument then hinges on assertions that the world does not really work repeatably (which is a big fat lie), and does act in a way that appears controlled  by our laws of physics (also a big fat lie). You should really tell someone about this - because this will come as a big shock to literally anyone who has science training exceeding that taught in 10th grade.


The only example you gave of the world not behaving predictively were observations such as “Jesus walking on water”.

Now, if you don’t understand why pulling a story from the Bible, pretending it is absolutely true, and then asserting the example as if it’s some reproducible scientific observation is just a mind wrenchingly idiotic argument to make, then you’re going to have a very tough time ahead.

The Mind.

You claim, for some reason, that no measurement of the mind show it’s physical. What a big fat Pinocchio whopper lie. I mean what the actual fuck, seriously.

Every single last experiment ever made on the mind, in any way shape or form show it’s a physical thing. I demonstrated that your mind is impacted by the physical parts of your brain, by chemistry, by breaking the neurones, by the physical. Every possible experiment is consistent with the mind being physical.

Choice

So you keep doing this over and over again - completely failing to understand the nature of choice in determinism. I’ve corrected you so many times on this, that continuing to make this error just either be due to dishonesty or stupidity.

I even corrected you again in my last post - in detail with the entirety of the second portion  - where I explain in detail the exact nature of choice in a deterministic framework.

However you have ignored that and continue to pretend that if there was a lack of free will - you wouldn’t make choices. This is not just the most horrific straw-man I’ve seen in a while - it’s so bad it qualifies as Big. Fat. lie.


Let me reiterate for the 48271th time under the naive and overly optimistic hope you stop making this grotesque straw man. Though I have my doubts, because in the dozen or so posts where I have corrected you; you have completely failed to acknowledge the correction. 

So here goes:

What did you have for breakfast. What were your choices?

Mine was toast with butter, I could have had jam and peanut butter, or maybe cereal - eggs. I was feeling a little lazy and in a bit of a rush.

If free will is true - I chose toast with butter because I have some form of non physical agency.

If determinism is true - I chose toast with butter because my brain is essentially like a deterministic computer program which given the inputs at the time - could only yield that result.



In a deterministic framework we act identically to how we act here and now: exactly the same. The difference is the reasons behind the actions.


Or let me continue with that the hopeless optimism and hope you’re still listening, and give you another example.


Imagine I gave you a choice between toast for breakfast, and a pile of shit sprinkled with radioactive Iodine 141.

You chose the toast. Is that because of free will? Or because you would never chose the Iodine poop.

Feels like a choice, but it’s not really a choice.

How about just poop. Would that be a choice?

What if I keep giving you an option you like better than the others. When does it start being a choice?

Pancakes or waffles?

Perfect - choosing between pancakes and waffles is a matter of free will. Right? It’s a free choice.

You like them both, they’re equally unhealthy; you look at them both and think “you know, I feel more like pancakes today” and chose the pancakes. Everything else about them is exactly the same.

Seems like free will, right? 

No. It wasn’t a choice. It never is. Choice is an illusion.

When confronted with possibilities - your brain weighs up the variables, and which of the two options is preferable at that time - and you always, always, always chose that one. “Preferable” encompasses a great many complex factors and things, it’s not always logical; fear, self loathing may figure in (ie: you do something that harms yourself in some way because of self loathing preference for things that harm yourself). Preferable may not factor in all possible aspects, and could differ from hour to hour:

But you will never chose the thing that is less preferable. It doesn’t matter whether it’s toast and poop, or pancakes and waffles. Any two options that you’re faced with has one that you would consider more preferable and that will be the one you choose. The emotional weighing of variables, is what determines your decisions.

You may have difficulty making a decision if two things are close in preference or have hugely competing interests; but you end up making a decision by resolving which is most preferable out of competing interests.

Free will doesn’t factor into it. Anywhere - because you will never, ever, ever chose the lesser preferable option. If a choice is between two things - and it’s impossible to chose one of the - it’s not really a choice at all.
































You speak to "physical objects, atoms, neurons, etc." If you mean by that, the quantum particles, waves, fields, and forces, on which laws such as gravity appear to have no control,right there is your problem with determinism, because that theory suggests that determinism isn't the all-encompassing driver of the universe, or of man. Free will exists as that variance you cannot identify0, yet will fight to the teeth that it does not exist. That's on you.

If I’m understanding this right; you’re saying that our physical laws have no control over physical objects and because of that, the universe isn’t deterministic, and thus determinism can’t work, and free will accounts for the difference.

That would be a good argument other than it’s made up nonsense.

Atoms, particles, waves, fields act predictably, and reproducibly.



You object to my description of observation, the essential tool of science, and that observation can, itself, alter that which is observed, or present different interpretations of what is observed. 

I object you your description of observation because it’s nonsense. You’re misusing a term of quantum theory: not realizing that an “observer” in a scientific sense means an interaction between a photon and thing thing in wuestijn

“That is fact whether you agree with it, or not. It is the fac tor that can, without taking urgent care to control how things are observed. The fact that the level of accuracy of observation changes, scientist to scientist, or anybody else for that matter, ought to tell you that if determinism were at play, we'd all act better than we do since the control, by determinism's necessity, would be consistent.”

What?


“You argue that outside influences - drugs, for example - can alter our response to the world and the universe. Yes, they can, I agree. But that does not alter the fact that it can also inhibit our free will to not have thoughts or actions that would disagree with our decisions made when not so impaired by external influences. You act as if the idea of taking ketamine is not mine to refuse. I choose to keep such substances from my body, and always have. of course, you could force my actions, but not my decisions. Yes, you can overwhelm my free will, but that's you, forcing the action, not me. If you do it at the poi t of a gun, without any physical contact with me, you've merely presented a condition under which I must decide whether to bow to your forced action, or, at the risk of my life, maintain my own will, freely made in spite of consequences.”


“If determinism were truly the force at work here, I should choose to alter my course, let my survival nature kick in, and do as you insist. obviously, people are in situations wherein they dismiss personal survival for the sake of others. Determinism would insist that does not occur, but it does, and the evidence of it is immediately apparent.”

What? Lol no. Have you listened to anything I’ve said?


“You argue that all physical objects bow to physical laws. Fine. Is the mind a physical object? Not by any observation that has produced evidence to that conclusion.”

What in blazes are you talking about. Every single last observation about the mind that has ever been made - including the ones I described indicate the mind is physical.

“Yet, the mind exists for each individual, and even other animals. And, there are observations, whether you accept them, or not, such as Jesus walking on water, he, a physical being, violatng gravity, one of those laws. But is he breaking a law of physics, or merely acting under a greater law where gravity has limitations, such as it has with particles, waves, fields, and forces.”


“You argue that particles, waves, fields, and forces act predictably, yet, we encounter conditions such as described above, and earlier, where these elements of universe do not obey the law of gravity, and likely other laws, as well. Your determinism does not explain these variables.”





What in the name of Henry Coopers sweaty ballsack is Non-causality?
As noted previously, and above, non-causality is the factor determinism. does not consider, yet exists.

It seems my argument of free will has fewer limitations, and inconsistencies, than determinism.

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,160
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @949havoc
The best example for non-causality I can think of in this instance is the non-causality that the universe was geocentric, which science determined thousands of years ago, and maintained until the 1860s. There simply was no cause for such "science," yet science declared it so, merely by observation
What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that non causality is science that people believe without cause?

Let’s ignore the flat out lie that it has no cause for it: people wanted to believe the earth was important, it matches observations of many heavens. Let’s also ignore that it was maintained until the 1860s; heliocentric basically took over in the 1600s after observations of moons of Jupiter and Saturn made geocentrism  impossible.

What you just explains is completely different from anything you’ve described earlier. I mean come on.





As noted previously, and above, [science that people believe without cause] is the factor determinism. does not consider, yet exists.

I am merely saying what science calls "[science that people believe without cause]" is the random factor in the universe, available to some species having higher intelligence

Bottom line, determinism cannot answer why there is both causality, and [science that people believe without cause] in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options.
Your explanations makes absolutely no sense in any context where you use this nonsense term “non causality”

Non causality is not a thing.