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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
“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.