-->
@949havoc
thought is not a physical property
Can you have a thought without a brain?
Blue moon, and the failure of determinism
Posts
Total:
196
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m calling your claim stupid : which it is.
With the citations I've offered supporting my idea, against which you throw laws of physics, which, again, used to say the Earth was the center of the universe, so they can be and have been wrong, free will is a valid argument.
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.
And your determinism says we will always think and act consistently. That's absurd, and I've offered evidence against that, too. Yet, you still flaunt laws of physics.
Assuming that’s all the brain is,
Speaking of shyte, you know what assumptions make. Premature efactulation. Your assumption is patently false. No one, no where, no when, has demonstrated the physical presence of thought, only the results of thought: action. Again. Show me thought as a physical property. The challenge stands. That you want to ignore it is on you.
-->
@FLRW
can you have a thought without a brain?
Probably not, but never lacking it, I can't say. If not me, someone else with a brain. Good ideas will always occur to some free-thinking person.
Regardless, given the non-sequitur nature of the question, that's exactly what it is.
Why dredge up conditions that will not occur since I have a brain?
-->
@949havoc
With the citations I've offered supporting my idea, against which you throw laws of physics, which, again, used to say the Earth was the center of the universe, so they can be and have been wrong, free will is a valid argument.
Your argument confuses the idea of “brain chemistry” and “chemistry”; my argument to which you have strawmaned twice, and are now trying a third time - is that chemistry applies the same to your brain and my brain. That is true.
My point here was to simply illustrate how laughable your claim that everyone’s brain would be the same if our brains adheres to determinism.
Can you try and actually argue the point; rather than try and continue to throw out these absurd misrepresentations
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.And your determinism says we will always think and act consistently. That's absurd, and I've offered evidence against that, too. Yet, you still flaunt laws of physics.
No it doesn’t. Not at all. This is a completely and ridiculous straw man that I keep calling you out on, and you keep repeating.
No. This premise is stupid. If our brains obey physical laws - they can very much all be different because we live in a complex environment in which everyone is subject to different conditions leading to variation.
Repeating it 1000 times doesn’t make it any more true, or any less stupid.
Assuming that’s all the brain is,Speaking of shyte, you know what assumptions make. Premature efactulation. Your assumption is patently false. No one, no where, no when, has demonstrated the physical presence of thought, only the results of thought: action. Again. Show me thought as a physical property. The challenge stands. That you want to ignore it is on you.
I covered this at the end of my last post.
Your argument confuses the idea of “brain chemistry” and “chemistry”
The strawman is that you draw distinction. It's all chemistry, of which brain chemistry is a sub-set due to specific elements involved.
As my source cited [ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180710104631.htm ], chemistry is essential to understand anatomy, they are inseparable sciences, and each organ of the body has chemical function. And that source stipulated that such anatomy and chemistry are unique to individuals, so, of course, the same physics aplied by the action of universal elements will not yield the same behavior in all persons, as the source also said. Therefore, your argument is the strawman.
https://sciencing.com/regulation-co2-body-5007.html explains why chemistry, even being the same elements, will exhibit different resulting phenomena based on our actions, such as what we, by our choice, stuff in our pie hole. The body can only work with the ingredients it is given, and we choose poorly, such as a constant diet of fast food, the proteins our cells build will suffer from inadequate ingredients, and determinism is not the source of that choosing, because, as shown by my source, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/30/484053435/personality-can-change-over-a-lifetime-and-usually-for-the-better those choices can change over time, and that's not the universe coercion talking.
Syllogism:
P1 Laws of physics are immutable
P2 The universe messes with your brain chemistry
C Determinism controls your thoughts ands actions, and not free will.
Just P1 is wrong, by the way.
Have at the rest
-->
@949havoc
Either your "choices" are DETERMINISTIC or they are not choices they are just random things you are doing for NO REASON.
Which is it? Do you have a reason for the way you behave (a cause) or do you just do things for no reason (not actually making decisions at all)
Just figure out which it is and I'll let you know why it isn't freewill.
-->
@949havoc
The strawman is that you draw distinction. It's all chemistry, of which brain chemistry is a sub-set due to specific elements involved.
No it isn’t. What on earth are you talking about.
There is a massive and fundamental difference between “chemistry” - the combined sum of rules that molecules and atoms follow - known and unknown - that describe the interaction between chemicals and atoms; and “brain chemistry” - which is the the sum of all the chemical messaging that takes place in the brain, which is dependent on the brains chemical content and environment and may differ subtly between individuals.
Seriously; brain chemistry can be different - but this doesn’t mean the chemistry that governs them itself is different.
I don’t know whether you’re just being deliberately obtuse at this point; but you’ve managed to try and drive this point off the rails by making 7 different arguments, not addressing any issue, and following it up with exactly the same fallacious nonsense I was trying to address in the first place.
As my source cited [ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180710104631.htm ], chemistry is essential to understand anatomy, they are inseparable sciences, and each organ of the body has chemical function. And that source stipulated that such anatomy and chemistry are unique to individuals, so, of course, the same physics aplied by the action of universal elements will not yield the same behavior in all persons, as the source also said. Therefore, your argument is the strawman.https://sciencing.com/regulation-co2-body-5007.html explains why chemistry, even being the same elements, will exhibit different resulting phenomena based on our actions, such as what we, by our choice, stuff in our pie hole. The body can only work with the ingredients it is given, and we choose poorly, such as a constant diet of fast food, the proteins our cells build will suffer from inadequate ingredients, and determinism is not the source of that choosing, because, as shown by my source, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/30/484053435/personality-can-change-over-a-lifetime-and-usually-for-the-better those choices can change over time, and that's not the universe coercion talking.
You’re just restating the same strawman, and the same ridiculously stupid claim you were before - I think you’re simply unable to understand the issue with your argument.
If our brains are physical things (they are), and follow the same physical rules (they do) - then our brains would still all be different from one another; because those laws are all applied to hugely complex systems in a variety of different environment.
-->
@secularmerlin
Which is it? Do you have a reason for the way you behave (a cause) or do you just do things for no reason (not actually making decisions at all)
I obviously succeeded in messing with your head when I said there is both cause and non-cause in the universe. But, I also argued that free will is, in fact, a choice to engage, and not everyone does it. Some are, indeed, satisfied to let the current take them where it will. That is allowing the universe to not just guide, but impose your path. So be it. Others do choose to direct their own destiny. Like I argued at first, there are three kinds of people: make things happen [choice to engage free will], watch what happens [may or may not engage free will, and swing both ways], and wonder what happened [never engage free will; they go with the current, never knowing whence it takes them. The latter are not goal oriented. The middle, once told what options there are, may engage one, or none, or try them all. The first group are entirely goal-oriented, choosing, first, the goals they set, and then execute the plans. The universe will get out of the way of such people, allowing no power to overwhelm their goal orientation, and the accomplishment of it.
-->
@Ramshutu
No it isn’t. What on earth are you talking about.
Your preferred question, and least effective rebuttal. I write in English by native tongue. I can also write in three other fluent languages, and in Egyptian hieroglyphs, but not on this site. They are all words that can be researched at will in the dictionary, and, if you use the OED, you will even encounter exemplary use over the history of the word. So, declaring you don't understand is entirely on you. You refuse to understand, and that is a different issue than your question poses.
that describe the interaction between chemicals and atoms;
Interaction? Chemicals are atoms, of a variety of compositions, thus expressing themselves as various compounds: thus, the science of chemistry. It is our thought processes in the brain that interact with the chemistry, and its variability based on environment, and somewhat on our past behavior.
how laughable your claim that everyone’s brain would be the same if our brains adheres to determinism.
But that is not what I said. Don't put your words in my mouth. I said that the universe is incapable of distinguishing our person-to-person's brain chemistry in order to allegedly "know" how to influence our person-to-person variances in thought and action such that we do not all behave in similar manner, because chemsitry is also the basis of that alleged physics law of the universe, which is not immutable.
-->
@949havoc
I obviously succeeded in messing with your head when I said there is both cause and non-cause in the universe
No it actually doesn't matter. No clever mixed determinism (not free) and random (not will) adds up to free will.
-->
@949havoc
Interaction? Chemicals are atoms, of a variety of compositions, thus expressing themselves as various compounds: thus, the science of chemistry. It is our thought processes in the brain that interact with the chemistry, and its variability based on environment, and somewhat on our past behavior.
What you’re doing here: I call picking peanuts out of poop. You’re ignoring the scope and context of the argument - picking out a line, and making an objection and presenting it as if it’s valid or related to what’s being discussed.
In this case. The argument I’m trying to rebuttal is that while chemistry that is the same for everyone - it can produce widely different brain chemistry.
In your plethora of arbitrary, nonsensical replies that seem to cycle through a variety of silly objections that ignore the central point, whilst completely ignoring salient points you don’t like; you appear you have accidentally made the claim, that you were objecting to several posts before.
If you recall; I pointed out that you require something to violate physical laws in order for free will to exist; which you denied, and mocked in post 42 - then rapidly ignored; only to now go back and make the same claim.
As you now appear claiming physical a laws are indeed being violated; I will point out that this is an assertion (which you seem to have ignored) , contradicted by the facts that thought is a manifestation of physical things (which you dropped), and a violation of Occam’s razor.
how laughable your claim that everyone’s brain would be the same if our brains adheres to determinism.But that is not what I said. Don't put your words in my mouth. I said that the universe is incapable of distinguishing our person-to-person's brain chemistry in order to allegedly "know" how to influence our person-to-person variances in thought and action such that we do not all behave in similar manner, because chemsitry is also the basis of that alleged physics law of the universe, which is not immutable.
this is actually almost verbatim what you said:
“So, why does the universe not influence each entity in the same way such that our actions produced are identical to one another?”
You’re response appears to simply restate the EXACT same assertion that you're claiming your not making.
You’ve been saying throughout that determinism and common physical law should produce brains that give identical actions.
That claim is central to your entire point - and a load of utter manure - a point I have been justifying repeatedly in my replies; only for you to simply evade, ignore, change the subject, or otherwise utterly fail to explain throughout.
Indeed the last 20 or so posts, have been me trying, and failing, to get you to answer the really simple question “why would physical laws not produce different decisions, different brain chemistry in different individuals subject to subtly different conditions?”
It’s the central point of your argument: and thus far you’ve done all you can to not justify it.
-->
@secularmerlin
@Ramshutu
No clever mixed determinism (not free) and random (not will)
Funny how you and your mate, Ram, interpret my arguments in your own words, completely missing my argument in the process. I have never argued for mixed determinism, nor random determinism.
I argue that there is no determinism, but that events in the universe have cause and no cause, but neither due to what you think, because, as I have also argued, the universe has no beginning as you might interpret it with a big bang, because the universe both expands, and then contracts in cycles. As a result, the "cause" of one cycle is merely the conclusion of the previous cycle, directed by a god whose dominion is the new cycle, and who allows humans who are born, live, die, and resurrect within that cycle their free agency. However, within any given cycle, random events still occur.
Neither of you say boo about any of that other than ridiculing the notion, which is far more simplistic than any explanation I've heard from either of you for determinism.
-->
@949havoc
I argue that there is no determinism
This is patently absurd. That physical matter behaves deterministically is easily observable play billiards to see it in action. Whether any nondetermined thing happens or not determinism is all around us.
Also, and I hate to beat a dead horse but, it doesn't even matter. Let's say the universe expands and contracts. Let's say some god(s) preside over this cycle (you have presented no evidence that this is the case but for the sake of argument) this cycle and the god(s) still all EITHER behave deterministically OR their behavior is indistinguishable from random which leaves no room for freewill.
It doesn't matter if there are any god(s). It doesn't matter if there was a big bang. It doesn't matter if some events are random. Freewill is logically incoherent. No supernatural event or mix of caused and uncaused could or would change that.
Either caused (and so not free) or uncaused (and so not from a will). Every imaginable event must fit into one of these two camps and there is no room for freewill in either camp.
-->
@secularmerlin
That physical matter behaves deterministically is easily observable play billiards to see it in action.
Then why, pray tell, did we arrive at the billiard table of declaration that the universe was geocentric, a belief of laws of physics, applied to billiards, by the way, in antiquity, whereas, Galileo demonstrated it was not in the 17th century, but was placed under house arrest for his theory, and we held the theory of geocentrism until mid 19th century? Hmmm? Determinism failure, as I have previously argued without successful rebuttal.
-->
@949havoc
Then why, pray tell, did we arrive at the billiard table of declaration that the universe was geocentric, a belief of laws of physics, applied to billiards, by the way, in antiquity, whereas, Galileo demonstrated it was not in the 17th century, but was placed under house arrest for his theory, and we held the theory of geocentrism until mid 19th century? Hmmm? Determinism failure, as I have previously argued without successful rebuttal.
I am genuinely not sure what your point is here. If the earth were the center of the universe (even though we eventually realized that it isn't) that would still either be caused (and so not free) or uncaused (and so not from a will).
I feel like we are talking past each other so let me try again. It doesn't matter what hypothetical situation you come up with. It doesn't matter if we are talking about humans or gods or ghosts or aliens. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the natural or the supernatural. It doesn't matter if there was a beginning or if there exists an infinite regress. Every conceivable person, thing and force including your behavior is either caused (not free) or uncaused (not subject to will).
-->
@949havoc
Then why, pray tell, did we arrive at the billiard table of declaration that the universe was geocentric, a belief of laws of physics, applied to billiards, by the way, in antiquity, whereas, Galileo demonstrated it was not in the 17th century, but was placed under house arrest for his theory, and we held the theory of geocentrism until mid 19th century? Hmmm? Determinism failure, as I have previously argued without successful rebuttal.
You’re mixing up so many different things here.
Geocentric and heliocentric models are both deterministic; one better describes the motions of the planets than the other.
Its not even clear what your point is. Are you suggesting that in a deterministic universe with deterministic rules - humans can never be wrong, or cannot come up with better models as understanding improves?
It seems you just throw out geocentrism any time someone mentions science; but without any clear argument or justification of how it’s even relevant.
-->
@949havoc
Funny how you and your mate, Ram, interpret my arguments in your own words, completely missing my argument in the process. I have never argued for mixed determinism, nor random determinism.I argue that there is no determinism, but that events in the universe have cause and no cause, but neither due to what you think, because, as I have also argued, the universe has no beginning as you might interpret it with a big bang, because the universe both expands, and then contracts in cycles. As a result, the "cause" of one cycle is merely the conclusion of the previous cycle, directed by a god whose dominion is the new cycle, and who allows humans who are born, live, die, and resurrect within that cycle their free agency. However, within any given cycle, random events still occur.Neither of you say boo about any of that other than ridiculing the notion, which is far more simplistic than any explanation I've heard from either of you for determinism.
If you recall, I’m not talking about the universe right now. I’ve been talking about:
1.) The claim that deterministic laws will produce brains that make all the same decisions is ridiculous.
2.) Free will requires violation of natural laws of physics - whatever they may be.
However: you’re doing an excellent impression of a wet bar of soap; and repeatedly evading, dodging and subject changing out from actually addressing any of the issues raised.
-->
@secularmerlin
I am genuinely not sure what your point is here.
Gee, what a surprise.
-->
@949havoc
It doesn't matter what hypothetical situation you come up with. It doesn't matter if we are talking about humans or gods or ghosts or aliens. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the natural or the supernatural. It doesn't matter if there was a beginning or if there exists an infinite regress. Every conceivable person, thing and force including your behavior is either caused (not free) or uncaused (not subject to will).
-->
@949havoc
I am genuinely not sure what your point is here.Gee, what a surprise.
Of course it’s no surprise; you don’t seem fully able to elaborate or justify your points: and given that you consistently ignore or deflect from points raised, you have difficulty defending them too.
The specific issue was not that I didn’t understand what you said it was, as I pointed out, what you said was a complete non-sequitur when compared to the point you were trying to refute.
You’re explicitly linking failure of humans to have accurate models - with some sort of failure of determinism - but that makes no sense when you consider what those models are and so.
-->
@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.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.
You went from “given the same conditional circumstance repeated” to “I'm saying that even in repeated identical external conditions”
Do you understand what you’re doing? It shows you haven’t properly thought your argument through.
You went from a generalisation to just external factors. Be honest.
-->
@Reece101
Do you understand what you’re doing?
Why don't we look at my entire statements, not just your truncated version of them:
#53:
It is also that, given the same conditional circumstance repeated, we can and do decide to act differently.
#59
I'm saying that even in repeated identical external conditions, we can think and act by variation,
Do those two statements disagree? No, they do not. Not unless you truncate what I said. That's what you're doing. Do not edit, then say I'm saying two different things. Is that fair? Or accurate? No. Try again.
-->
@949havoc
Again, you went from a generalisation to specifically external conditions. Because you know your argument is false if you also consider internal conditions being exactly the same in your hypothetical. Do you know why? Because you agree we are internally conditioned. That’s the difference between those two statements (#53 and #59). Freewill is all about the internal.
I have no problem with #59 at all by itself.
Determinism shouldn’t even be a debate anymore. We should just get on with our lives.
-->
@Reece101
Determinism shouldn’t even be a debate anymore. We should just get on with our lives.
And yet here we are.
-->
@Reece101
you know your argument is false if you also consider internal conditions being exactly the same
Internal conditions being exactly the same? Where is my argument anywhere that they remain constant? Nowhere. In fact, reading further into my #53, which you have overlooked besides re-interpreting incorrectly, I find that I wrote:
"And while personality traits are relatively stable over time, they can and often do gradually change across the life span."
"Relatively stab le," is not saying ":exactly the same," is it? Nor is "[they] gradually change..." is it?
face it. your do exactly as I charged in my #83:
...you truncate what I said. That's what you're doing. Do not edit, then say I'm saying two different things. Is that fair? Or accurate? No. Try again.
again.
Not to mention, my friend, that while I have offered cited sources to support my argument, you have offered... your opinion. I am not convinced, particularly because I have scholarship behind mine.
-->
@secularmerlin
@Reece101
Determinism shouldn’t even be a debate anymore. We should just get on with our lives.
I think there’s really two discrete things we could talk about:
1.) Is choice an illusion.
2.) Is the universe deterministic or stochastic.
They’re kinda different things: as SM has been talking about, the two options are that all things in the universe appear to interact with stochastic laws, or deterministic laws: and it doesn’t matter which one it is, there is no room do us to chose anything - with the only difference being whether the same event repeated identically will produce the same answers.
In many respects - despite 949 saying otherwise, it’s impossible to tell - because we can’t reproduce anything identically; so the only meaningful question Is whether choice is an illusion.
949s issue is one of imagination and incredulity; his position requires violation of physical laws, and some non-physical agency to be able to poke electrons or matter without itself being guided by the laws of physics - obviously a huge assumption that he can’t justify, and all the evidence appears to point against; yet I’m sure he justifies this by virtue that to us, when we think about our own thoughts, it “feels” like we have true agency.
I’m sure that incredulity isn’t based on his lack of imagination to ask the question whether that agency is illusionary too.
I mean: when we think, or review our own minds or our own decisions - is our conscious self controlling the operations of our brain? Or is our brain doing it’s thing automatically; and what we are experiencing as our consciousness and decision is really just our perception of it.
Or to put it another way with an example I used before; imagine a highly advanced AI computer program was designed to make complex decisions, to constantly review and deliberate it’s own decision processes: it could be self aware, it could be creative, make decisions, or even describe the process it goes through: but everything it does is effectively down to its programming and program state - it has no true control.
That computer program may be able to describe what it experiences in a similar way to us: it may describe itself as having agency because that’s how it perceives its own program - free will for the AI would be an illusion in exactly the same way it is for us.
-->
@949havoc
Internal conditions being exactly the same? Where is my argument anywhere that they remain constant?
Well that will invalidate your experiment.
I will offer another argument which will find detractors among you; most of you, I imagine. It is entirely a Christian perspective, but not even one that all Christians will agree is valid, since my Christianity varies a bit from most of yours. My belief in Christ is that he was perfect in mortal humanity; unique among humans in that respect, and this, although the literal Son of God in the flesh - the only human among us with that distinction - and a mortal mother, like all other mothers of humanity. Given the physically divine aspect of Jesus, along with mortal, therefore flawed human traits, because God created nothing on this Earth or in heaven that is perfect, and that is painfully obvious, the perfection of Jesus, one might suppose, given the opinion of all who think our choices in life do not exist due to determinism, came from another source, and, there again, determinists will point to their philosophy and say, "See; it was not by his choice. The universe did that." But, if there is an aspect to Jesus that is not divine, i.e., his mother's contribution to his DNA, and, therefore, physical, chemical makeup, which is not perfect, then the determinist option did not explain his perfection by determinism, but, rather, that he, an obvious mortal being - he did die, after all, the one sure aspect of mortality - chose to be perfect in spite of mortal imperfections. This is why he could say to us, as he did in Matthew 5: 48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect," because he achieved it, himself, though mortal.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well that will invalidate your experiment.
You're confusing your argument with mine. Your determinist theory is the one that insists on consistency [otherwise, determinism is just random exhibitions of multiple consistencies across humanity; that humans cannot change their mind but as the universe directs it]. My argument is that which allows for changes of mind or consistency, and that is by individual choice.