Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

If God does not exist in the universe (or outside it), where does this input come from exactly?

If all my reasoning is contingent upon the natural universe, how would I come up with an "unnatural explanation"?

"If you don't have much input then you might think someone caused it." --OK, but if there is no God in this universe or outside of it, how would I ascribe the lightning bolt to God?

Do you see the issue here?

No. I don't. And I'm not sure of the relevancy of this little sidebar discussion. But if you don't know how some things occur but you know that every effect must have some cause then someone or something unknown must have caused it. That we anthropomorphise things is a given. So it invariably becomes a someone. And invariably male. Maybe there's lots of them. Maybe just the one. All operating within the physical world but living somehow outside it.

Here's an interesting discussion on the matter: How and why did religion evolve?

 

[Bradskii]

You've given an incorrect summary...

Yet again, just quote part of that summary and I'll quote you showing that it's valid.

We've gone far past decisions...

No, it's still a thread about free will. And decisions made with or without it.

We know what the correlates are, but we don't know how it happens.

Yes we do. We know exactly how it happens. You say that something interacts within the process that changes it. Tell me where we look. What physical parts of the process are changed? Where and when does this happen?

And look, I know that you don't know. And I know that you know that I know. But if you keep insisting it's there, I'll keep on asking you to show me. That's the way this is going to work.

 

[Merrill]

No. I don't. And I'm not sure of the relevancy of this little sidebar discussion. But if you don't know how some things occur but you know that every effect must have some cause then someone or something unknown must have caused it. That we anthropomorphise things is a given. So it invariably becomes a someone. And invariably male. Maybe there's lots of them. Maybe just the one. All operating within the physical world but living somehow outside it.

Here's an interesting discussion on the matter: How and why did religion evolve?

OK, so let's go back to your original claim and argument, because you are now moving goal posts, equivocating, and mixing things up.

1. We live in a determinist universe
2. We have no free will
3. Nothing is in the mind that did not come from the manifest, material universe

So how do we "anthropomorphize" anything? When did I see mountains that looked like people walking around? Ghosts? Miracles? God's presence?

if my will is not free --which is another way of saying I don't even have a will, how do I come up with ideas that are nowhere to be found in this material reality?

let me make this simple: in your system, if God does not exist, He does not exist in the mind either, and cannot exist --it is impossible

This is not a "side discussion", it is fundamental

 

[Bradskii]

OK, so let's go back to your original claim and argument, because you are now moving goal posts, equivocating, and mixing things up.

1. We live in a determinist universe
2. We have no free will
3. Nothing is in the mind that did not come from the manifest, material universe

So how do we "anthropomorphize" anything? When did I see mountains that looked like people walking around? Ghosts? Miracles? God's presence?

if my will is not free --which is another way of saying I don't even have a will, how do I come up with ideas that are nowhere to be found in this material reality?

let me make this simple: in your system, if God does not exist, He does not exist in the mind either, and cannot exist --it is impossible

This is not a "side discussion", it is fundamental

Not having free will doesn't mean that you don't think. I'm not sure where this idea came from. Free will as we are discussing it simply refers to the decisions that we make. If you get a lot of input then you'll be able to infer possibilities. Determine cause and effect. Use your imagination. Offer up options. You're still a conscious agent.

If you are aware of something that has no apparent cause then with free will or without it you have a problem. How did it happen? You can still ponder this even without free will. A lack of free will doesn't mean that you stop thinking. It means that what you decide to do will be determined by our good friends antecedent causes.

Let's face it, if you give enough input into Chat GBT and ask it for options, then it'll give them to you. It arranges the input, it'll weight the different options and will give you the output. You do the same. Neither of you has free will, but that won't stop either of you from doing it.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not interested in your metaphysical commitments.

Neither am I, simply the epistemic implications of yours.

This series of arguments you are now making about theure of reason remind me of attempting to argue the existence of god with a presuppositional apologist. I shall not do it.

I've been making the same argument the entire time, which is that physicalist/materialist/naturalist/whatever-choose-to-call-it ontologies end up undermining reasoning entirely since it renders our rational justifications irrelevant to our conclusions.

You could write a long response explaining how this is different than solipsism, but I shan't read it.

That just an argument from incredulity.

No, it's a statement that "emergent" adds nothing of value to the statement, it simply carries no explanatory weight any more than calling it "mysterious" does. The only reason that you insist on it is because it makes you feel like you have an explanation, but it's a non-explanation.

 

[Fervent]

Yet again, just quote part of that summary and I'll quote you showing that it's valid.

The whole thing misses the point of my position, so if I were to quote it it would simply be a quote of your entire statement.

No, it's still a thread about free will. And decisions made with or without it.

So then why don't you address my criticism that your position undermines itself by divorcing our conclusions from our reasoning faculties?

Yes we do. We know exactly how it happens. You say that something interacts within the process that changes it. Tell me where we look. What physical parts of the process are changed? Where and when does this happen?

"Symbols" somehow become electrical signals...except that's exactly what I'm pointing out, you've given a description of the electrical signals that take place but you've demonstrated no causal link between the abstract symbolic content and physical influence on you. Your brain responds to the symbolic, which is not physical.

And look, I know that you don't know. And I know that you know that I know. But if you keep insisting it's there, I'll keep on asking you to show me. That's the way this is going to work.

Where's the physical link between us? Symbols aren't physical.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've been making the same argument the entire time, which is that physicalist/materialist/naturalist/whatever-choose-to-call-it ontologies end up undermining reasoning entirely since it renders our rational justifications irrelevant to our conclusions.

I've seen a lot of silly things here in my time, but this takes the cake. Cheers!

 

[Bradskii]

The whole thing misses the point of my position, so if I were to quote it it would simply be a quote of your entire statement.

Just take it one point at at a time.

Where's the physical link between us? Symbols aren't physical.

Whut?

They're there on the screen. They're actual physical representations. In this case, pixels. A lit portion of the screen. And the light from that, in the form of protons, enters my eye...well, you should know the rest. There is an exremely well known process between you hitting keys on your laptop and me receiving the info in my visual cortex. And that my frontal cortex (primarily) will react to those signals in a manner which we also understand. Neurons, potentials, dendrites, sodium/potassium uptake - it's basic neurology.

So where in this system is one of those physical processes changed by...whatever it is you think that changes it.

 

[Fervent]

I've seen a lot of silly things here in my time, but this takes the cake. Cheers!

Perhaps you can explain how particles rigidly following mindless physical laws provides a reason to trust the reasoning process that leads to conclusions that inevitably follow from such laws if the mind is identical to the physical matter of the brain?

 

[Hans Blaster]

W

Perhaps you can explain how particles rigidly following mindless physical laws provides a reason to trust the reasoning process that leads to conclusions that inevitably follow from such laws if the mind is identical to the physical matter of the brain?

Why would I bother? You claim that such a world "renders our rational justifications irrelevant to our conclusions."

 

[Fervent]

Just take it one point at at a time.

As soon as you demonstrate an understanding of what I have been arguing the whole time.

Whut?

They're there on the screen. They're actual physical representations. In this case, pixels. A lit portion of the screen. And the light from that, in the form of protons, enters my eye...well, you should know the rest. There is an exremely well known process between you hitting keys on your laptop and me receiving the info in my visual cortex. And that my frontal cortex (primarily) will react to those signals in a manner which we also understand. Neurons, potentials, dendrites, sodium/potassium uptake - it's basic neurology.

Representations are not physical objects. We interact with photons, yet you're able to connect with the semantic content of the words and that leads to the physical structures of your brain lighting up. There's nothing about the arrangement of the photons that can explain it, or the wavelengths, or the mechanical properties of what we are seeing. It is purely abstract, symbols. You write that off in some way, but you have provided no explanation.

So where in this system is one of those physical processes changed by...whatever it is you think that changes it.

abstract, symbolic, semantic content. Not physical properties of the light that you are interacting, but properties that purely belong to mental characteristics. You call euphemize it by saying "inputs" and "symbols" but the unavoidable fact is it is the semantic content that is leading the physical activity of the brain.

 

[Fervent]

W

Why would I bother? You claim that such a world "renders our rational justifications irrelevant to our conclusions."

Yes, because in such a world it is not the conscious experience that determines our conclusions but underlying determinitive physical processes obeying mindless laws. Which, since I believe we can rationally justify things, renders materialist ontologies suspect to me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, because in such a world it is not the conscious experience that determines our conclusions but underlying determinitive physical processes obeying mindless laws. Which, since I believe we can rationally justify things, renders materialist ontologies suspect to me.

This is what happens when you put ideology above objective reality. Sigh.

 

[Fervent]

This is what happens when you put ideology above objective reality. Sigh.

Non-responsive.

 

[Bradskii]

As soon as you demonstrate an understanding of what I have been arguing the whole time.

I gave a summary. Take any one point where I got it wrong and I'll quote you to show that I got it right.

abstract, symbolic, semantic content. Not physical properties of the light that you are interacting, but properties that purely belong to mental characteristics. You call euphemize it by saying "inputs" and "symbols" but the unavoidable fact is it is the semantic content that is leading the physical activity of the brain.

If you type car or you type cat then the process is the same as to how I understand what you mean. It's still a physical process. The information I receive and what I decide to do with it is part of a process that I've described a number of times. All you are doing is saying that the process is different if the input is different. It's not. Even abstract concepts are input. Sight, sound, whatever. The process is the same. You say that there's something outside of the process itself which changes matter.

Tell me where this occurs and when.

 

[Fervent]

I gave a summary. Take any one point where I got it wrong and I'll quote you to show that I got it right.

Every point.

If you type car or you type cat then the process is the same as to how I understand what you mean. It's still a physical process. The information I receive and what I decide to do with it is part of a process that I've described a number of times. All you are doing is saying that the process is different if the input is different. It's not. Even abstract concepts are input. Sight, sound, whatever. The process is the same. You say that there's something outside of the process itself which changes matter.

You declare it to be a physical process, but it's not. It's meaning, purpose, and logical content. It's abstract interactions. It involves physical processes, but nothing about our interaction involves me imposing on you in a physical manner.

Tell me where this occurs and when.

I have, multiple times over. Simply insisting that there is an identity does nothing to demonstrate such an identity exists, and the only reason you believe that an identity exists is because you've assumed materialism. Which demands the conclusion that free will doesn't exist, which ultimately leads to the entire reasoning process being irrelevant noise to the conclusions we reach.

 

[Bradskii]

Every point.

Me: 'Something definitely happens but we know nothing about it, despite having 'a body of evidence' regarding it.

You: '...never proposed a solution to that problem.'

And you still haven't, I keep asking but you've given nothing. So 'we know nothing about it'.

You declare it to be a physical process, but it's not. It's meaning, purpose, and logical content. It's abstract interactions. It involves physical processes, but nothing about our interaction involves me imposing on you in a physical manner.

Then tell me how and where it interacts and changes physical matter in a way that isn't already understood as being part of the physical process.

I have, multiple times over.

You most definitely haven't. All you have said is that there are changes. In what? Chemical composition? Electrical potentials? In the synaptic transfer? In the myelin sheath?

Again, I know you have no idea. You made up something that suits your position and have no way of following it through. You don't seem to know enough about the existing process to even know what needs to change to make any difference. If you do know, then tell me what part of the process is changed.

 

[Fervent]

Me: 'Something definitely happens but we know nothing about it, despite having 'a body of evidence' regarding it.

You: '...never proposed a solution to that problem.'

And you still haven't, I keep asking but you've given nothing. So 'we know nothing about it'.

Direct phenomenal experience+Nueroplasticity show the problem exists, but there's no need to propose a solution simply to identify the problem.

Then tell me how and where it interacts and changes physical matter in a way that isn't already understood as being part of the physical process.

Symbol->brain activity....where's the physical link?

You most definitely haven't. All you have said is that there are changes. In what? Chemical composition? Electrical potentials? In the synaptic transfer? In the myelin sheath?

You've provided the description yourself, admitting that symbols are involved in the causal chain. Are symbols physical?

Again, I know you have no idea. You made up something that suits your position and have no way of following it through. You don't seem to know enough about the existing process to even know what needs to change to make any difference. If you do know, then tell me what part of the process is changed.

Nope, I've pointed you to the field that studies the impact that semantic content and intentional thought patterns has on the brain. So again, are symbols physical objects?

 

[Bradskii]

Direct phenomenal experience+Nueroplasticity show the problem exists, but there's no need to propose a solution simply to identify the problem.

So you know nothing about it. Not only do you not know anything about it, you say - as I've pointed out a number of times, you think there is nothing even to propose. That point in the summary says exactly what you think.

Symbol->brain activity....where's the physical link?

You're exhibiting a distinct lack of knowledge as to how information is processed.

You've provided the description yourself, admitting that symbols are involved in the causal chain. Are symbols physical?

As input? Yes. Tell me a symbol that isn't received other than via a physical process. They are imported into the process via physical means. How do you get input without being aware of it? You can't. You become aware of it via..? Physical means. Sensory input is always physical. You can't receive it any other way.

Your job, should you wish to accept it, is to tell me what changes we might observe that is not caused by anything that we're not already aware of.

 

[o_mlly]

An "immaterial" "mind force" interacts with matter is nonsensical.

? That's exactly what I posted.

The senses cannot identify that which is beyond sense perception, ie., "nonsensical". Therefore, in order to explain the cause of that observed effect we must go to another method of knowing. Those who are bounded by a rigid scientism mindset will forever be perplexed.

What "special force" for life?

You tell me. See below.

If you look hard enough to find something and do not find it, it is not there.

Science has been looking hard for a long time unsuccessfully at primordial chemical mixes from which they hope to discover some form of life sprang into existence. Does that mean that life does not exist, "is not there"? Hardly. The same logic obtains to the question of free will.

If I see something of interest, I might respond. That's how I got into this...

Uh ... sounds like free will in action.