Mind over Matter

[Beth]

That seemingly conscious decision is, in fact, determined.

There is no free will.

We have no way of knowing that. For anyone who believes that, it is either an article of faith, or a consequence of another article of faith: the belief that consciousness does not exist.

 

[timf1234]

By the way, while this debate over determinancy is interesting, is it really relevant to the question of whether or not we have free will?

I mean, even if we can establish that some processes in our brains truly were probabilistic and not determined, how would that make free will more plausible? After all, all actions of a human would still be determined by physical processes. Random processes, sure, but that would still only mean our actions are decided by chance, not that they are decided by us.

Correct.

 

[timf1234]

Um, Tim1234, it seems that you really don't understand the QM stuff, at this point it is up in the air if a theory will appear that resolves causality in QM, and that includes all of QM.

If that happens then HIP will also be causal in some ways, whether you appreciate it or not HIP is part of a theory, it is an approximate model for trying to explain the behavior of reality.

Now there is a very high likelihood that QM will stay in determinant for a number of reasons, but as you likely know (hard to say really), QM is a theory as is HIP.


BTW: The burden of proof is on you regards Brownian motion. The current theories are that it is stochastic and probabilistic.
You are the one making the claim that it is a matter of precision, so the burden of proof is on you.

I am rather shocked but what you don't seem to know. The mathematical expression of Brownian motion in fact is almost as extensive as HIP.

show me a statement anywhere in Brownian Motion or about Weather forecast that the uncertainty is inherent at its very foundation of it. In contrast HUP/QM will tell you in a very blunt language, that QM uncertainty is not due to our lack of knowledge of some hidden force nor due to lack of sufficient precision of our measuring equipment but this uncertainty is inherent in in the very basic fabric of nature.

Probabilistic approach to solve problem involving Brownian Motion (BM) and weather forecast (or even chaos theory) is in fact engineering practical workaround. That is not the case of QM uncertainty. It is quite possible that QM uncertainty shows up as uncertainty in BM in relatively macroscopic world.

Burden of proof doesn't go to me because BM never says the uncertainty of BM is inherent in nature. QM explicitly says so. QM is more foundational, more fundamental has far reaching more implication than that of BM. BM is of higher level science than QM.

People like you might attribute same kind of trust about the seeming randomness of spontaneous genetic mutation or even regular genetic mutation. Why would gene mutate for no reason? Is there a ghost in the machine? Is there a ghost in BM or in gene?
Genetic mutation either spontaneous or not is either based on CAE (cause and effect) or its randomness comes out of QM it very low level. spontaneous genetic mutation is just higher level indirect observation of low level QM phenomena.

 

[Dancing David]

show me a statement anywhere in Brownian Motion or about Weather forecast that the uncertainty is inherent at its very foundation of it.

I shall not get out the dictionary but stochastic is at it.

In contrast HUP/QM will tell you in a very blunt language, that QM uncertainty is not due to our lack of knowledge of some hidden force nor due to lack of sufficient precision of our measuring equipment but this uncertainty is inherent in in the very basic fabric of nature.

So you don't know much about QM, okay dokay.

Probabilistic approach to solve problem involving Brownian Motion (BM) and weather forecast (or even chaos theory) is in fact engineering practical workaround.

That is your assertion, yes.

That is not the case of QM uncertainty.

Okay, so you have proven the basis of QM, interesting, are you publishing this?

It is quite possible that QM uncertainty shows up as uncertainty in BM in relatively macroscopic world.

Burden of proof doesn't go to me because BM never says the uncertainty of BM is inherent in nature. QM explicitly says so. QM is more foundational, more fundamental has far reaching more implication than that of BM. BM is of higher level science than QM.

Shows again your strange defintion of science.

People like you might attribute same kind of trust about the seeming randomness of spontaneous genetic mutation or even regular genetic mutation. Why would gene mutate for no reason? Is there a ghost in the machine? Is there a ghost in BM or in gene?

More false dichotomy, overgeneralization and strawmen.

Genetic mutation either spontaneous or not is either based on CAE (cause and effect) or its randomness comes out of QM it very low level. spontaneous genetic mutation is just higher level indirect observation of low level QM phenomena.

Well your assertions do seem to be sale priced today, don't they?

Maybe you do not understand that QM, including HIP is a theory, not reality.

 

[timf1234]

I'm in favour of Brian-M's compatabilist version of free will. True, it is vague and fuzzy, and if we accept the universe as deterministic at macro scales, it is necessarily an arbitrarily defined sub-category of causal sequences. But although vague, it is considered socially useful. It is generally used to make the distinction between physical and moral responsibility - in the examples, previously posted, of forced or unwitting actions where the actor was physically responsible for the action, but would not normally be held morally responsible for it, we can say that they did not act entirely (or at all) of their own free will.

We are talking about science, the truth not morality or right or wrong.
I don't even consider it as philosophical subject but a scientific one. If we are trying to know the truth then ALL topic is scientific (based on reason, logic, mathematics, and empirical data.). These includes understanding of love, hate, perception, soul (if any), god, life, art, entertainment, music, social issues or anything under the sun. However, if you are not interested in the truth then just call your witch doctor.

Conversely, you act of your own free will when the action you take is broadly the result of internal processing without undue external influence. Which raises questions - what is external influence and what is internal? How much is 'undue'? Who decides?

You left Red holes above to muddy the water.

Internal and external stimuli and the state of your brain (depend your past history, upbringing etc.) determines the outcome. There exist just "Flow of Happenings" (FH) in the universe. FH includes everything what goes on inside your and my brain, in the Sun or in societal evolution.

There is no such thin as "undue" in this context of scientific investigation.

As for who decides, there seems to be a cultural consensus as to how such things are decided, although there may be a difference between the common consensus and legal and/or religious demarcations.

Of course there is cultural, societal, crime and punishment consequences for things happens as act or even for thoughts in the head that doesn't materialized in action immediately.

Concept of God was our first "odd man out".
The second one, which is much more difficult to kick out, is the concept of "Free Will"
Just like God, Free Will is an illusion. After several days of debate when still people can't see No Free Will then it becomes delusion.
Delude yourself to have Free will and feel good.
You can also delude yourself to believe All merciful, just, personal god exist, and feel good about it.

Unfortunately, our objective is not necessarily to feel good at the expense of truth but to find out the truth.

 

[timf1234]

I shall not get out the dictionary but stochastic is at it.

So you don't know much about QM, okay dokay.

That is your assertion, yes.

Okay, so you have proven the basis of QM, interesting, are you publishing this?

Shows again your strange defintion of science.

More false dichotomy, overgeneralization and strawmen.



Well your assertions do seem to be sale priced today, don't they?

Maybe you do not understand that QM, including HIP is a theory, not reality.

Maybe you do not understand that QM, including HIP is a theory, not reality.

Then tell me which part of my statement is incorrect.
What special understanding you have about the HUP that I don't?


Applying your BM logic the outcome of flipping a coin is undeterministic because you can apply probability theory to predict the outcome.

At this point let me remind you that our main argument is about Free Will/No Free Will, and in that connection if thought/consciousness effect matter or not.
In that argument then come the QM uncertainty.

 

[Complexity]

We have no way of knowing that. For anyone who believes that, it is either an article of faith, or a consequence of another article of faith: the belief that consciousness does not exist.

Nonsense, as usual.

 

[Dancing David]

Then tell me which part of my statement is incorrect.
What special understanding you have about the HUP that I don't?

I did not make the broad mis statements that you did about HIP, you clearly are a philosopher.

Your statements about "That is not the case of QM uncertainty." clearly shows that you misubderstand science and the nature of QM.

Applying your BM logic the outcome of flipping a coin is undeterministic because you can apply probability theory to predict the outcome.

A red herring and a strawman. As usual.

I have stated clearly that predetermination is a mistake.

At this point let me remind you that our main argument is about Free Will/No Free Will, and in that connection if thought/consciousness effect matter or not.
In that argument then come the QM uncertainty.

As stated before the idea of free will is not one that can be answered well.

You still know little to nothing of biophysics and neurology. Guess what neurons behave with that thing you can't stand , probability.

So they are causal but not predetermined. As best can be understood at this point.

 

[timf1234]

You still know little to nothing of biophysics and neurology. Guess what neurons behave with that thing you can't stand , probability.

So does the outcome of flipping a coin - is probabilistic.

 

[timf1234]

We have no way of knowing that. For anyone who believes that, it is either an article of faith, or a consequence of another article of faith: the belief that consciousness does not exist.

Nonsense, as usual.

Of course, you are correct but you need to explain it to Beth, how and why by giving your arguments. Just saying "nonsense, as usual" is no argument.

 

[Complexity]

Of course, you are correct but you need to explain it to Beth, how and why by giving your arguments. Just saying "nonsense, as usual" is no argument.

Beth and I have a long history. There is no point in my saying more than that to her.

Also, your style of discussing this subject has put me off of investing much time or energy in writing a lengthy and thoughtful post for this thread.

So, if you don't mind, I'll spend my words where I think best.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Unfortunately, our objective is not necessarily to feel good at the expense of truth but to find out the truth.

So you now get to decide what the common objective of mankind is? Do we have the choice to disagree?

 

[Dancing David]

In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap and much more difficult to find." — Terry Pratchett (Sourcery).

I would argue, that there is no truth, only approximations. Validity is a seperate concept. There is no 'truth'.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I 100% agree with your answer.
Both parties agrees that matter effect other matter.
Therefore, the question was from the point of view of those who thinks thought, awareness, and consciousness are non-material thing - something abstract emerging property that have will of its own, independent of Cause & Effect or HUP (Heisherberg Uncertainty Principle).

Irregardless if thought, awareness, and consciousness are non-material or material things, the fact that one person can be aware of another persons thoughts and act in response to that awareness shows that thought can affect matter.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

To believe that determinism is true you have to believe that every process in the universe is perfect throughout time and space and at all scales of magnitudes, that every physical interaction is perfect and that every physical constant that is estimated by physicists never varies in any decimal position.

To believe we have free will then all you have to believe is that there is at least one process that affects the matter within our brains that is not perfect.

Suppose your brain receives question Q.
It searches for an answer but none is found.
Your mind begins process P to create an answer to Q.
If the universe is not perfectly deterministic then process P can be a probabilistic process.
In this way probabilistic forces and cause and effect both contribute to free will choices.

 

[Mirrorglass]

To believe that determinism is true you have to believe that every process in the universe is perfect throughout time and space and at all scales of magnitudes, that every physical interaction is perfect and that every physical constant that is estimated by physicists never varies in any decimal position.

To believe we have free will then all you have to believe is that there is at least one process that affects the matter within our brains that is not perfect.

Suppose your brain receives question Q.
It searches for an answer but none is found.
Your mind begins process P to create an answer to Q.
If the universe is not perfectly deterministic then process P can be a probabilistic process.
In this way probabilistic forces and cause and effect both contribute to free will choices.

I'd like to ask one of the free-will-believing crowd as well. How are probabilistic forces more permitting of a free will than determinant ones? It's still natural forces working on the brain, not the mind itself.

 

[Beth]

I'd like to ask one of the free-will-believing crowd as well. How are probabilistic forces more permitting of a free will than determinant ones? It's still natural forces working on the brain, not the mind itself.

I tried to explain that in post 119. I can't really explain any further until I understand how you deliniate between the brain and the mind.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Oh, right. Sorry, I forgot to answer this.

I feel that it does. This is how I look at it. If I consciously decide to make a change in my life, I can do so. There are random elements that will contribute to my success or failure, but I can change the probability that I will 'choose' to do certain things. People do so all the time. They quit smoking. Or they lose weight. Or they give up drinking. Probability of sucess is low. Most people must make the attempt multiple times prior to succeeding. Even then, relapses occur. Weight goes back on over time. A fall off the wagon happens. There are random elements to when temptation strikes and one's defenses against it.

But, the convincing thing to me is that a person can make a conscious decision to change the way they will behave and their behavior changes as a result. That failures occur a majority of the time is not evidence of determinism, but evidence of the difficulty of consciously directing our own behavior. That we humans are able to succeed on occasion is miraculous. I consider it convincing evidence that we have free will and are not bound deterministically to our individual fates.

The problem here is that the debate here is about whether or not a free will exists at all, not whether or not it can change a human's destiny.

You start your explanation by the claim " If I consciously decide to make a change in my life, I can do so." and go on to use that as the basis for your argument. However, it's that very basis which is at question here. Certainly, you can decide to make a change in your life, and you may either succeed or fail in it. But the question is whether you making that decision was an act of free will, or something inevitable.

After all, we know that our decisions are created as a result of physical events inside our brains (or I do, anyway. You may disagree, of course). And since those events are subject to natural laws, it's not really us determining what decisions we make, but the laws of nature.

So while you certainly are free to make the decisions you do, be those decisions losing weight or running for president, it would appear you never had the choice of making any other decision.

I would assume you disagree with this view. However, the post above doesn't really address it.

As for deliniating between the brain and the mind, well, I suppose an apt comparison would be a body and a dance. One is something the other does. One is a physical object, one is an abstract concept representing a series of actions by that object. In a sense, you could say neither a mind nor a dance really exist, but are just labels that make it easier to discuss the phenomena involved.

Was that what you meant? Or were you asking about some non-physical idea, such as a soul?

 

[Complexity]

To believe that determinism is true you have to believe that every process in the universe is perfect throughout time and space and at all scales of magnitudes, that every physical interaction is perfect and that every physical constant that is estimated by physicists never varies in any decimal position.

To believe we have free will then all you have to believe is that there is at least one process that affects the matter within our brains that is not perfect.

Suppose your brain receives question Q.
It searches for an answer but none is found.
Your mind begins process P to create an answer to Q.
If the universe is not perfectly deterministic then process P can be a probabilistic process.
In this way probabilistic forces and cause and effect both contribute to free will choices.

This is very silly and in no way addresses the issue.

Determinism has nothing to do with perfect prediction. Stuff happens.

Your 'points' disappear.

There is no room for a non-physical mind to affect reality.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

This is very silly and in no way addresses the issue.

Determinism has nothing to do with perfect prediction. Stuff happens.

Your 'points' disappear.

There is no room for a non-physical mind to affect reality.

1) As a matter of fact, my issues of determinism and free will directly address your issues of determinism and free will.
2) As a matter of fact, nobody addressed perfect prediction.
3) As a matter of fact, your factual mistakes don't make my points disappear.
4) As a matter of fact, unless you are redefining "affect" and "reality", whether my mind is physical or not when I think about it my hand begins typing.