Mind over Matter

[Brian-M]

2. I believe that a higher percentage of atheists than the general public are more rational and capable of processing more complex logic. Given this fact, why do you think most atheists still believe in Free Will, even after showing them the logic?

4. BTW, Majority of neuroscientists also believe in Free Will. Isn't it amazing? What it is so? CC (Cognitive Consonance)/CD (Cognitive Dissonance) can completely short circuit neural network rational circuitry?

It's simple. You're arguing against supernatural and incompatibilist conceptions of free will, but many of these people believe in a naturalistic compatibilist conception of free will. They are two distinctly different concepts.

In other words, there are several distinctly different concepts of free will, and many people hold a concept of free will that you have provided no argument against.

It's like you're arguing that your neighbor shouldn't keep felines as pets by giving examples of lions and tigers injuring and killing people. Such arguments hold no weight if your neighbor's feline pets are just domestic cats.

If someone believes in a deterministic non-supernatural form of free will, what's the problem? Do you have any argument against it? So far, you've provided none at all.

I guess I just don't get why some have an obsession with pointless philosophy.

This happens when people post philosophy threads in the science forum.

I hadn't even noticed this was in the science forum. Now I'm wondering why the moderators haven't moved it yet.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes. I deny that.
I repeat, in the absence of HUP the universe is predetermined.

And you are still wrong.

Complete nonsense.
[Sun's convection doesn't reach the Earth.

Duh, but it effects the output of the sun and where the flares and CMEs are likely to occur, so duh, it effects the weather on earth.
Set the way back machine, look the weather is different, not predetermined.

You should have said, Sun's radiation will reach to Earth.

Which will not be effected by the convection on the sun as much as solar weather events.

Once the heat reaches the Earth's atmosphere then yes, it is convection.

Ergo the weather will likely be different each time you reset the way back machine. Not predetermined.

But even radiation, why would it be any different from the first time the universe was rolled in the first place.

Do you know what flares, CMEs and the like are, how about the solar cycle?

Nothing will change since the big-bang, no matter how many time you roll the universe.]

Everything is prone to change.
Even without quantum indeterminacy.

In the absence of Quantum Mechanic's Uncertainty the weather is 100% deterministic.

prove it.

Whether we can predict the weather or not is a different story.

You said predetermined, right?
Which would mean the same events at the same time, right?

Ut1 = exact state of the universe at time t1
Ut2 = exact state of the universe at time t2
t2 > t1
In the absence of HUP, using Ut1 and the laws of nature Ut2 is deterministic
Therefore, there is no free will.

hey sport, get a grip, I never said there was free will.

Anything, including philosophy that defies reason, logic, and science is a fairy tale for kids and half-baked baby atheists.

I see your logic fails so you resort to name calling of unspecified individuals.

Man on a mission or not, show me the flaw in the logic.
I showed you flaw in your reasoning, logic, and science.
Where is the over-generalization? Show me.

I never said free will existed.

Ego or not, what you should be concerned with is the logic of the argument, the reason behind it, and the science.

I think you know not so much about science.

 

[timf1234]

And you are still wrong.

Duh, but it effects the output of the sun and where the flares and CMEs are likely to occur, so duh, it effects the weather on earth.
Set the way back machine, look the weather is different, not predetermined.

Which will not be effected by the convection on the sun as much as solar weather events.

Ergo the weather will likely be different each time you reset the way back machine. Not predetermined.

Do you know what flares, CMEs and the like are, how about the solar cycle?

Everything is prone to change.
Even without quantum indeterminacy.

prove it.

Have you heard “Only fool tries same thing over and over again expecting a different result” ?
Why would solar flare will be any different than the first time when you roll the universe back from Ut2 to Ut1 and then roll it forward again?

You said predetermined, right?
Which would mean the same events at the same time, right?

No, I meant, there is no alternative path for the universe to follow from Ut1 to Ut2. There is only one path, one result, on outcome, no choice, because there are strict laws of nature in place. There is no hanky-panky in laws of nature. The outcome is a forced outcome, without any alternative path whatsoever. Therefore, every moment of the universe is predetermined. This includes not only solar flare but also what is happening inside and on the surface of the Sun, and inside every single atom of the universe.

I think you know not so much about science.

It is about time that you take your above statement back.

 

[timf1234]

It's simple. You're arguing against supernatural and incompatibilist conceptions of free will, but many of these people believe in a naturalistic compatibilist conception of free will. They are two distinctly different concepts.

In other words, there are several distinctly different concepts of free will, and many people hold a concept of free will that you have provided no argument against.

Some people might say the Sun is our god. Sun exist therefore, god exist.
Some might say the universe itself is god. Universe exist therefore, god exist.
Some might screw around, twist words, invent terms, sub-terms, and new term after another new term, like incompatibilist, semi-incompatabilist, compatibilist, dualist, half-dualist, ChuChu, ***** and What have you, in a failed attempt to distort the concept behind the term “Free Will” in order to satisfy their childish need for cognitive consonance at their deeply seated desire and wishes in the sub conscious level. That is half-baked baby atheist’s mind.

It's like you're arguing that your neighbor shouldn't keep felines as pets by giving examples of lions and tigers injuring and killing people. Such arguments hold no weight if your neighbor's feline pets are just domestic cats.
If someone believes in a deterministic non-supernatural form of free will, what's the problem? Do you have any argument against it? So far, you've provided none at all.

Here is the problem.
You really can’t see that the word “Free” in the term very term “Free Will” is the death sentence for “Free Will”

I hadn't even noticed this was in the science forum. Now I'm wondering why the moderators haven't moved it yet.

Everything under the Sun can be and will be analyzed by reason, logic, and science. That is the intellectual ruthlessness of science’s relentless pursuit to sort out truth from lies, fact from fiction.
Philosophy that defies reason, logic, and science is nothing but fairy tale for kids.
Subject of love, human emotion, what happens inside human brain when they thing they are talking to god, or solar flare, atom, economics, weather, human rights all can be, should be, will be, and are being analyzed by reason, logic and science. Forget about old day’s sharp distinction between philosophy and science. My reason, logic, and science will attack across the board anything that is incoherent, inconsistent and false.
Do you want to believe in Santa Clause?
That was a rhetorical question. You do not need to answer that.

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Ririon]

Do you want to believe in Santa Clause?
That was a rhetorical question. You do not need to answer that.

No, I believe philosophy threads should be started in the philosophy subforum. I assume there are no rules against using scientific arguments over there, but I wouldn't know, because I avoid it to avoid threads like these.

 

[Brian-M]

Some people might say the Sun is our god. Sun exist therefore, god exist.
Some might say the universe itself is god. Universe exist therefore, god exist.

The difference in these examples is that almost nobody uses the word "God" to mean sun or universe (sun worshipers and deists excepted). These are not widely accepted meanings of the word. The words "sun" and "universe" already exist to describe the sun and the universe, so redefining other words to describe these concepts is absurd.

But these atheists and neurosurgeons you criticize for believing in free will, do you really believe they use the phrase "free will" to refer to a non-deterministic supernatural quality of the human mind?

It would be foolish to do so.

A great many people use the term "free will" without intending any supernatural or non-deterministic connotations. This is a widely accepted meaning of the phrase. What other word or phrase could be used in place of "free will" for the naturalistic deterministic concept of free will? I can't think of any suitable substitute.

If other people make it clear exactly what they mean by a term or phrase, and you continue to argue on the assumption that they are using your definition of the word, despite the intended meaning being repeatedly explained, this is intellectually dishonest on your part.

Some might screw around, twist words, invent terms, sub-terms, and new term after another new term, like incompatibilist, semi-incompatabilist, compatibilist, dualist, half-dualist, ChuChu, Fuuuck-U and What have you, in a failed attempt to distort the concept behind the term “Free Will” in order to satisfy their childish need for cognitive consonance at their deeply seated desire and wishes in the sub conscious level. That is half-baked baby atheist’s mind.

I didn't invent the terms "compatabilist" or "incompatabilist". These are long-standing terms that are already in use. (I even included Wikipedia links for your convenience.) Yet in your tirade against about the intellectually dishonesty of meaning-distorting and made-up terms, you conclude by throwing in your meaning-distorting made-up term "baby atheist".

It's so sad that the blinding irony is probably lost upon you.

There is no attempt to distort the meaning of "Free Will" on my part. The supernatural non-deterministic concept of free will is functionally identical to the naturalistic deterministic concept of free will. The underlying fundamentals are intrinsically different, but the outcome is effectively the same.

Here is the problem.
You really can’t see that the word “Free” in the term very term “Free Will” is the death sentence for “Free Will”

For Puck's sake, don't you have any fresh arguments? We've been through this already...

"Cause and Effect" (CAE) and "Free Will" are oxymoronic like ideas. "Free" in the "Free Will" is the death sentence of "Free Will". Free of what?

Free of undue external influence. Cause and effect is an internal factor, and as such is not barrier to the existence of free will.

If you want to go by CAE only then nothing, nothing in the universe is free. Not even an iota. CAE based universe is 100% predetermined by its previous state (initial condition) and the laws of nature.

Nothing is free? There are no free electrons? Nothing is in free-fall? Prisoners are never allowed to go free? There are no free samples?

"Free" can mean many different things depending on the context in which it is being used. The "free" in "free will" is perfectly consistent with Cause and effect in context of my definition of "free will".

If you want to claim that the "free" in "free will" is inconsistent with cause and effect, you must support that assertion by providing, at the very least, a definition of "free will" consistent with your argument.

I'm getting sick of you throwing out baseless assertions without providing any valid rational argument to support them. You never satisfactorily addressed my responses last time you used this argument, and I strongly doubt you will do so now.

 

[Dancing David]

If you are serious about what you wrote above then I am pleasantly surprised.

Yeah, we know, you just assumed, without any evidence that we all support free will because you have some True Atheist wears a Free Will Kilt preconception.
I never said I believe in Free Will either.

Let me ask you few consequential questions.
1. What percentage of atheists believe in some kind of Free Will?

I don't know and don't care.

2. I believe that a higher percentage of atheists than the general public are more rational and capable of processing more complex logic. Given this fact, why do you think most atheists still believe in Free Will, even after showing them the logic?

people hold many beliefs, most of them irrational.

3. If you do not believe we have Free Will then how do you tackle the societal issues in the absence of Free Will? Issues like Crime and Punishment, morality, right and wrong, personal responsibility etc.

It doesn't matter, due to the fact that we don't know, do we have free will, do we have an approximation of free will, do we not have free will. It doesn't matter.

4. BTW, Majority of neuroscientists also believe in Free Will. Isn't it amazing? What it is so? CC (Cognitive Consonance)/CD (Cognitive Dissonance) can completely short circuit neural network rational circuitry?

So the majority of scientists in the US also believe in God, whoopee. We are here to discuss things critically.

 

[Dancing David]

Have you heard “Only fool tries same thing over and over again expecting a different result” ?
Why would solar flare will be any different than the first time when you roll the universe back from Ut2 to Ut1 and then roll it forward again?

So you do not believe that convection in the sun is probabilistic?
Okay.
You do not believe that weather patterns are probabilistic?
Okay.

there would be a great deal of variation in small details, medium size structures, gross structures on up to some very large structures.

So if atom A is not where is was in different run throughs, how is that predetermined?

No, I meant, there is no alternative path for the universe to follow from Ut1 to Ut2. There is only one path, one result, on outcome, no choice, because there are strict laws of nature in place.

You do know that there are no 'laws of nature' right?
that there are approximate models of the behavior of the universe?
And that some of those behaviors seem to be probabilistic?
Right?

There is no hanky-panky in laws of nature.

God does appear to play dice with the universe.

The outcome is a forced outcome, without any alternative path whatsoever.

Are you sure, so probable motion in a liquid, means a particle will settle in a different spot in most run throughs, yes or no?

Therefore, every moment of the universe is predetermined.

Nope, causal and predetermined might be used differently.

Are you saying that if we run the way back machine and toss a coin one hundred times, the coin tosses will be the same for each run through?
Or that the rough distribution of heads and tails will be comparable?
there is a difference.

This includes not only solar flare but also what is happening inside and on the surface of the Sun, and inside every single atom of the universe.

So you don't believe in Brownian motion?
Or you are saying the Brownian motion is causal?

It is about time that you take your above statement back.

When you respond to my statements as though you understand science, I will retract them, at this point it appears that you do not understand how the universe appears to have probabilistic elements to it.

 

[timf1234]

So you do not believe that convection in the sun is probabilistic?
Okay.
You do not believe that weather patterns are probabilistic?
Okay.

there would be a great deal of variation in small details, medium size structures, gross structures on up to some very large structures.

So if atom A is not where is was in different run throughs, how is that predetermined?

You do know that there are no 'laws of nature' right?
that there are approximate models of the behavior of the universe?
And that some of those behaviors seem to be probabilistic?
Right?

God does appear to play dice with the universe.

Are you sure, so probable motion in a liquid, means a particle will settle in a different spot in most run throughs, yes or no?

Nope, causal and predetermined might be used differently.

Are you saying that if we run the way back machine and toss a coin one hundred times, the coin tosses will be the same for each run through?
Or that the rough distribution of heads and tails will be comparable?
there is a difference.

So you don't believe in Brownian motion?
Or you are saying the Brownian motion is causal?


When you respond to my statements as though you understand science, I will retract them, at this point it appears that you do not understand how the universe appears to have probabilistic elements to it.

In the absence of HUP, in a rule based universe, every Ut2 (outcome) depends upon the Ut1 (initial condition) and the rules (laws of nature). No crutch of probability is needed to compute. However, because we do not know all the rules AND that we do not have infinitely precise measuring equipment to measure Ut1, therefore, the only alternative to predict UT2 is using probability, as it is done in Brownian motion or weather forecast etc. Probabilistic engineering is a workaround.

But HUP is a completely different story. HUP is not due to our lack of knowledge of all laws of nature nor due to imperfection of our measuring equipment but this property, unpredictability, is inherent in nature.

There is no hanky-panky in the laws of nature.

God does appear to play dice with the universe.

Thank you for saying the famous quote of Albert Einstein. That made my point. Einstein did not use that phrase for Brownian motion or for the weather forecast. He used that for Quantum Mechanics.

 

[timf1234]

The difference in these examples is that almost nobody uses the word "God" to mean sun or universe (sun worshipers and deists excepted). These are not widely accepted meanings of the word. The words "sun" and "universe" already exist to describe the sun and the universe, so redefining other words to describe these concepts is absurd.

But these atheists and neurosurgeons you criticize for believing in free will, do you really believe they use the phrase "free will" to refer to a non-deterministic supernatural quality of the human mind?

It would be foolish to do so.

They will neither use the term “supernatural” nor “non-deterministic” to describe free will. They will rather leave it subconscious level-purposefully vague. They will just insist that we have free will. Modern day’s liberal theist with god scientific background will play the same game with the term “God”.
Why can’t you just say there is no “free will”.
If you can’t say that then you must say that computer has free will. Electron has free will.
Can you say that?
Because you are far more hesitant to label free will with robots or electron than human being led me to conclude that somewhere between electron and human being there exist some kind of supernatural subliminal hold up in your mind.
If you say robots and even electrons also have free will then I will have no problem to accept your redefinition of freewill at its face value.

I know you did not invent the term compatiblist nor did you invent the term “Either” that fills the space between stars and planets.
But you are using the illogical term in your advantage.
I know you did not invent the term "Dualist" but this mean, dark is bright, good is bad, bad is good, 1 is 0, o is 1. Let me see how you build the chain of logic with that kind of ambiguity.
Your redefinition is like pseudo-scientific PC, "why can't we all get along"?

"Cause and Effect" (CAE) and "Free Will" are oxymoronic like ideas. "Free" in the "Free Will" is the death sentence of "Free Will". Free of what?

Free of undue external influence. Cause and effect is an internal factor, and as such is not barrier to the existence of free will.

“Undue external influence”
What a cop out?

Hold a gun on someone’s head and force him to behead someone. – it is “Undue External Force.
Kidnap a toddler, raise him under the extreme influence of Taliban and/or Osama Bin Laddin in Pakistan or Afghanistan for 2 or 3 decades. Then this, now hateful guy behead a Jew or non-Muslim Westerner. – Now suddenly it is a no longer “Undue External Force”
What a funny concept free will?
When someone hold a gun on someone’s head to make him do certain thing then it is “undue external force”.
But when the external force is slow in motion takes decades to accomplish the same external force then is no longer “undue force” in your opinion.
That is flaw in the chain of your logic.
Ah, I get it. May be the speed with which external forces act on objects gives rise to free will or no free will.

"Free" can mean many different things depending on the context in which it is being used.

Ah ha….. I get it - that depends upon what the definition of “is” is.
In Monika Lewinski case Bill Clinton was asked by congress, what is his definition of “sex’?
Bill responded, that depend upon what the definition of “is” is.

 

[Brian-M]

They will neither use the term “supernatural” nor “non-deterministic” to describe free will. They will rather leave it subconscious level-purposefully vague. They will just insist that we have free will. Modern day’s liberal theist with god scientific background will play the same game with the term “God”.

Do you know this from experience, or are you just assuming that they will "rather leave it subconscious level-purposefully vague" when asked to clarify, because that's exactly what you have done?

Next time someone who does not believe in god or the supernatural mentions free will, try asking them whether or not their concept of free will requires supernatural or non-deterministic elements.

Why can’t you just say there is no “free will”.
If you can’t say that then you must say that computer has free will. Electron has free will.
Can you say that?

I've already stated more than once that it's my opinion that it is possible for a computer to have free will under some circumstances. And I've also explained why an electron cannot be said to have free will.

I'm puzzled as to why you don't remember this. Are you suffering from some kind of cognitive impairment?

Because you are far more hesitant to label free will with robots or electron than human being led me to conclude that somewhere between electron and human being there exist some kind of supernatural subliminal hold up in your mind.

Nothing supernatural, simply a few added layers of complexity.

If you say robots and even electrons also have free will then I will have no problem to accept your redefinition of freewill at its face value.

I say that it's possible for a robotic/electronic mind to have free will, depending on the nature of its construction, but that electrons cannot have free will because they lack the capacity for conception and decision-making.

I know you did not invent the term compatiblist nor did you invent the term “Either” that fills the space between stars and planets.

I assume you mean "ether". But if you know I did not invent the term "compatabilist" for the sake of argument, why the diatribe against "made up" terms in response to my use of this term? If it's because this term was made up by someone else long before, then logically you'd have to reject most of the English language for the same reason.

But you are using the illogical term in your advantage.

Even if you believe my position to be illogical, this does not make the term used to describe it illogical. And yes, using the term correctly is in my advantage... the advantage of clear communication.

Perhaps you will chose to employ this advantage for yourself some time?

Your redefinition is like pseudo-scientific PC, "why can't we all get along"?

Pseudo scientific? How can a simple statement of an opinion on a philosophical point of view possibly be pseudo scientific? Pseudo-science is, by definition, an imitation of science, not philosophy.

As for my so-called "redefinition", let's go to a reputable source for an accurate definition for a moment, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...

“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about.

Where in that definition is a requirement for supernatural agency or non-determinism? There is no such requirement in this definition.

My personal concept of free will is being put forward as a further refinement on this broader, generally accepted concept.

But by precluding the possibility of other variations and refinements on this broader, generally accepted concept, you are putting forward your personal concept of free will as a redefinition of the term.

Clearly you're the one redefining terms here.

“Undue external influence”
What a cop out?

It's not a cop-out, its an important aspect of the concept. If your actions are being irresistibly controlled by an outside force (aka "undue external influence"), you cannot possibly be said to be acting under your own free will.

Hold a gun on someone’s head and force him to behead someone. – it is “Undue External Force.
Kidnap a toddler, raise him under the extreme influence of Taliban and/or Osama Bin Laddin in Pakistan or Afghanistan for 2 or 3 decades. Then this, now hateful guy behead a Jew or non-Muslim Westerner. – Now suddenly it is a no longer “Undue External Force”
What a funny concept free will?

What's this about "undue external force"? That's certainly not a concept that I put forward. I only put forward "undue external influence".

Put a gun to someone's head and order him to behead someone, and he can always refuse to follow that command. He has a choice. To refuse and die, or to acquiesce and kill. Its his decision, and being made entirely of his own free will.

Kidnap a toddler and raise him under the influence of religious extremists, then this is not an act of free will by the toddler, because the toddler has no choice in the matter. The kidnapping and extremist upbringing is an undue external influence that the toddler cannot prevent.

But if later on in life the toddler is asked to behead someone, this decision is an act of his own free will. Sure, the extremest upbringing may have caused him to develop a basic nature more likely to agree to behead infidels than it would otherwise have been, but in the end the choice is still his to make.

When someone hold a gun on someone’s head to make him do certain thing then it is “undue external force”.
But when the external force is slow in motion takes decades to accomplish the same external force then is no longer “undue force” in your opinion.
That is flaw in the chain of your logic.

The "flaws" you find in my logic appear to stem from your incapacity to understand my perspective, and exist entirely in your own imagination.

Ah ha….. I get it - that depends upon what the definition of “is” is.
In Monika Lewinski case Bill Clinton was asked by congress, what is his definition of “sex’?
Bill responded, that depend upon what the definition of “is” is.

I don't understand. Why are you babbling nonsense? Or have you just given up any pretense of having anything sensible to say?

I'm tired of responding to your idiocy. As you repeatedly ignore the points I make in response to your posts as if I never made them in the first place, I see no further point in responding to your posts any more.

And so I, of my own free will, choose not to do so from this point onward.

 

[Dancing David]

In the absence of HUP, in a rule based universe, every Ut2 (outcome) depends upon the Ut1 (initial condition) and the rules (laws of nature).

Without HIP, is a strange statement as always.

And probably a subject for another thread, as the quantum indeterminacy is too crucial to the universe as it appears at this time.

Considering that a universe without the indeterminacy is NOT what we have, why do you keep saying that?

No crutch of probability is needed to compute. However, because we do not know all the rules AND that we do not have infinitely precise measuring equipment to measure Ut1, therefore, the only alternative to predict UT2 is using probability, as it is done in Brownian motion or weather forecast etc. Probabilistic engineering is a workaround.

So you are saying what, that in an imaginary universe, things are predetermined?

Well, last I saw, HIP effects ALL of this universe.
So moot point.

But HUP is a completely different story. HUP is not due to our lack of knowledge of all laws of nature nor due to imperfection of our measuring equipment but this property, unpredictability, is inherent in nature.

I believe that I already stated that earlier. Way earlier. And it seems that perhaps you stated something different.

Thank you for saying the famous quote of Albert Einstein. That made my point. Einstein did not use that phrase for Brownian motion or for the weather forecast. He used that for Quantum Mechanics.

I know that, except I believe I added a word.

So if an imaginary condition applied, then the universe would be predetermined.

It is also true that without HIP stars would not shine, so your point is?

You do know that Einstein helped to make the probabilistic explanation of Brownian motion more complete? the defusion coefficient would seem to be part of probability.

 

[timf1234]

Without HIP, is a strange statement as always.

And probably a subject for another thread, as the quantum indeterminacy is too crucial to the universe as it appears at this time.

Considering that a universe without the indeterminacy is NOT what we have, why do you keep saying that?

So you are saying what, that in an imaginary universe, things are predetermined?

Well, last I saw, HIP effects ALL of this universe.
So moot point.

I believe that I already stated that earlier. Way earlier. And it seems that perhaps you stated something different.


I know that, except I believe I added a word.

So if an imaginary condition applied, then the universe would be predetermined.

It is also true that without HIP stars would not shine, so your point is?

You do know that Einstein helped to make the probabilistic explanation of Brownian motion more complete? the defusion coefficient would seem to be part of probability.

What you failed to understand earlier is the difference between the unpredictability (probabilistic methodology of computing) in
1) Brownian motion
2) Quantum effect

1) is due to lack of our full knowledge and imperfection of our measuring equipment.
2) is due to the unpredictability is inherent in nature - Not because of the limitation of our measuring equipment.

once you understand, admit and say it then we can move on.

The next step...
Do we (our mind) control the HUP?
If the answer is no then we do not have free will.

 

[timf1234]

[quote="Brian-M]I say that it's possible for a robotic/electronic mind to have free will, depending on the nature of its construction, but that electrons cannot have free will because they lack the capacity for conception and decision-making.[/quote]

In what construction can a computer has free will?
Does a calculator have free will?

If electron doesn't make decision to repel anther electron or attract another electron or bend its path in a magnetic field then how a transistor make a decision to turn itself ON or OFF?

If a transistor doesn't make a decision to turn itself ON or OFF then how a logic AND gate make that decision?

If a logic AND gate doesn't make a decision then how a CPU does?

If CPU doesn't make decision then how a computer does?
Human brain is a fantastic computer.

Somewhere between an electron and supercomputer lies your hidden, unspoken, unreferenced, unverbalized, weak link of "supernatural"

 

[Dancing David]

What you failed to understand earlier is the difference between the unpredictability (probabilistic methodology of computing) in
1) Brownian motion
2) Quantum effect

1) is due to lack of our full knowledge and imperfection of our measuring equipment.
2) is due to the unpredictability is inherent in nature - Not because of the limitation of our measuring equipment.

once you understand, admit and say it then we can move on.

The next step...
Do we (our mind) control the HUP?
If the answer is no then we do not have free will.

Maybe you should explain how you resolved the question and demonstrate it?

You sort of left that part out.

The brownian motion is probablistics because it is, it appears to be that way. (It may not be.)

What evidence do you have that it is not?

QM is probabalistic because it it is it appears to be that way. (It may not be.)

What evidence do you have that it is not?

Sort of hard to 'move on' when all you have done is assert your conclusion.

 

[timf1234]

Maybe you should explain how you resolved the question and demonstrate it?

You sort of left that part out.

The Brownian motion is probabilistic because it is, it appears to be that way. (It may not be.)

What evidence do you have that it is not?

QM is probabilistic because it it is it appears to be that way. (It may not be.)

What evidence do you have that it is not?

Sort of hard to 'move on' when all you have done is assert your conclusion.

Every conclusion doesn't need empirical or laboratory test result for proof. Many conclusion can be "logically" derived, to be true.

Following is the logical proof for Brownian motion or Weather forecast to be deterministic.

Any system that is 100% rule based will have one discrete state at any given time and therefore, it will have single path to the future. Therefore, it is deterministic.
It is a different story that due to our lack of knowledge of all the rules, and imperfection of our measuring equipment we can't precisely predict the future, and we engineer a probabilistic approach.

Whereas, QM uncertainty is mathematically proven. Pick up any college freshman QM 101. Later, QM uncertainty also have been proven in the lab.

Above is the answer/proof for you.

 

[Dancing David]

Um except you are making an assumption about brownian motion and consequently weather.

A probablistic 'rule' is still a rule. So you have not really made an 'proof' that brownian motion is deterministic and that it will always result in a final state from initial conditions.

So where was the evidence for that assumption? Where did you demonstrate that the motion of particles in a fluid is not probabalistic?

Again there is difference between causal/deterministic in the physics sense and deterministics in philosophy.

Brownian motion is proven/demonstrated principle. It is stochastic, and still a 'rule'.

Albeit just like all 'laws of nature' an approximate model.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Oh boy, we haven't had a 'what is consciousness' thread in a few months.
I'll be back in 50 pages to check for anything new.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Can awareness, consciousness, thought effect matter?
1) matter inside your body
2) matter outside your body

or only matter can effect matter regarless of inside our outside your body.

If you think that awareness, consciousness, and thought are composed of the electrical activity of the neurons in the brain, then, yes, they effect matter.

Electrodes can be attached to the outside of the skull and an electroencephalogram can measure and record that activity.

 

[timf1234]

Can awareness, consciousness, thought effect matter?
1) matter inside your body
2) matter outside your body

or only matter can effect matter regardless of inside our outside your body.

If you think that awareness, consciousness, and thought are composed of the electrical activity of the neurons in the brain, then, yes, they effect matter.

Electrodes can be attached to the outside of the skull and an electroencephalogram can measure and record that activity.

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).