Free will and determinism

[stevevw]

Parnia explains that this means the traditional NDE, where the subject thinks they are dying or have died and experiences stereotypical events such as life events recalled and assessed, meeting deceased relatives who tell them to return, a tunnel with a light at the end, and so on. He describes these as involving "lucid-vast-hyperconsciousness, separation, recognition of death, moral/ethical re-evaluation of life (all intentions/actions), and return".

He does not define or explain what 'lucid-vast-hyperconsciousness' means - though it is reminiscent of the lucid sense of universe-encompassing consciousness that can be experienced with psychedelic drugs, but with a death or near-death motif.

Its different to experiences with psychedelic drugs. For one the person is awake and is rather distorting real life experiences whereas the NDE is person is unconscious or dead.

Parnia does explain 'lucid-vast-hyperconsciousness'. Its a stronger and more real consciousness that experiencers say is more real than everyday conscious experiences and a place they feel more at home with than real life.

That is part of the evidence that the experiencers truely believe that their experience was the most real thing they had ever experienced to the point that it profoundly changes them and is remembered in vibid detail for years if not the rest of their life. As opposed to a dream or imagination which is fragmented, hazy and easy to forget deatils.

Parnia says these are different from other kinds of recalled experiences (the others involved memories or perceptions of being conscious during cardiac arrest (CA), or non-death-related dream-like experiences).

IOW, when some people are dying of CA, they have vivid dream-like experiences of dying or being dead.

Except the NDE are different from dream like states and Parnia points this out several times. Theres destinct differences in dream like recall and NDE in clarity, richness and recall of specific details which are often consistent.

Brain function typically continues for around 3 minutes after circulation stops; the EEG may become undetectable well before that.

Actually 10 to 20 seconds after the heart stops oxygen stops to the brain and it flatlines. There may be some activity in the brain stem for a couple of minutes but that cannot account for the rich consciousness that occurs in the conscious regions of the outer brain.

The conclusion suggested that "The emergence of normal EEG may reflect... a biomarker of consciousness, lucidity and Recalled Experience of Death...". IOW, a normal EEG may indicate consciousness, lucidity and RED.

Yes but the point is the conscious activity was happening in a compromised and flatlined brain which should not be possible.

Parnia notes elsewhere that "... resuscitation causes ischemia–reperfusion injury (IRI) – a cascade of excitotoxicity/mitochondrial dysfunction/oxidative stress, inflammation and apoptosis – with brain hemodynamic/vascular, no-reflow, cerebrovascular, microthrombotic, intracranial pressure derangements." IOW, severe physiological brain trauma.

Yes and he also states that NDE are different to delusions and distortions caused by excitotoxicity/mitochondrial dysfunction/oxidative stress, inflammation and apoptosis.

Toxicity, oxidative stress and other compromises to the brain result in fragmented, detached and confused states. Whereas NDE are the complete opposite, clear, vivid and organised and a positive experience as opposed to scary and reactionary.

Parnia also says, "Neuroscientifically, body/brain dysfunction causes inhibition/disinhibition of inherent pathways". This is similar to the effect of psychedelics which also inhibit/disinhibit inherent pathways, resulting in crosstalk between normally isolated areas of the brain.

As mentioned NDE is different, has a different fingerprint to dreamlike and delusional states from toxicity and hallucinogens. Parnia and others propose that consciousness may be fully released from its inhibitors that allow us to function in real life thus allowing hyperconsciousness.

Thats why for example that NDE sight transcends ordinary sense sight and NDE'ers can have supervision, see 360 degrees, at a distance, see through physical substrates and the blind having supervision.

In all cases, recall of the experience necessarily occurred after recovery from this reperfusion trauma, so it is plausible that some of the experiences recalled may not be (only) a product of CA-induced hypoxia, but (also) of the reperfusion trauma.

Parnia and others clearly state that the dreamlike and delusional states caused by toxicity, lack of oxygen ect are different to NDE. They even tested the brain waves associated and found that the brain waves of NDE are like real lived events in the higher order and consciuous areas of the brain. While dreamlike and delusional memories and experiences are fragmented, scary and easily forgotten.

This does not follow. Hyper-vivid experiences occur in other situations where the brain is compromised, including the influence of psychedelics, and there is evidence of a flood of brain activity that occurs both during extreme hypoxia and during reperfusion injury.

And like I keep saying this is different to NDE. Just use logic. Something that poisons or deprives the body and brain is not going to be well integrated and clear as produced by NDE.

The structuring of fragmented experience is typically post-hoc, by narrative generation plausibly threading 'events' together.

I am not sure what you mean. The post-hoc recolections of NDE'ers is not fragmented but clear as day. Thats the difference to the confused, fragments memories of those affected by toxins, a compromised brain without NDE.

In fact as opposed to delusions and dreams which are never clearly remembers and easily forgotten or realised as being delusions NDE'ers will clearly remember in vivid detail their experiences for the rest of their life and never deminishing. While believing that it was not a dream but more real that everyday life.

It's also possible that such a disinhibited rush of brain activity could include salient memories (of important events, friends & relatives, etc).

Yes and in these cases its usually as we would expect if the physical brain caused consciousness. We see recall of a variety of events and people that are important in the present day. Often those alive who mean the most. Whereas NDE'ers mainly meet deceased loved ones even those they have never met which are later verified.

Further, our sense of the passage of time is tied to the number of salient experiential events rather than a regular internal clock, so a vivid flood of memories might well be interpreted as occurring over an extended time.

Many of NDE happen in an instant, transportation to a distant place in an instant. A life review in an instant. Such rich and wide knowledge in what amounts to an instant of time in the real world.

I don't claim any certainty that these suggestions apply to the reports of Parnia's subjects, but that they are possible and/or plausible.

Do you honestly think that any study into the realness of NDE would not look at the objections that claim NDE is just the result of dreams, imaginations and delusions from other causes.

Without access to the original published papers, I can't comment - I read the van Lommel paper abstract, and the only interesting finding was that "Depth of the experience was affected by sex, surviving CPR outside hospital, and fear before cardiac arrest. Significantly more patients who had an NDE, especially a deep experience, died within 30 days of CPR" which could suggest that the more severe the episode the deeper the NDE. He was also puzzled by how few NDEs there were when all had suffered hypoxia, as if he expected everyone who suffered hypoxia to have an NDE(!)

But the whole point is to factor out those with hypoxia compared to those who had a genuine NDE. Why would he expect more to have NDE associated with hypoxia when they have said that hypoxia effects are different to NDE. Seems a strange thing to say.

With regards to reports of NDEs of real events (that could not have been experienced by the patient through normal means) the reason for Parnia's AWARE I & AWARE II studies was the morass of unverifiable hearsay stories, but no definitive account that had held up under close investigation. That's why he put images in the CA rooms, out of direct sight (which were not reported in any experience).

I agree the AWARE study was to try and sort out the genuine NDE from other causes that may have some similarities. Being such a controversial and easily misrepresented issue there needs to be some scrutiny and verification. Its a bit like the alien and UFP issue.

But as far as I understand the reserach is still ongoing but there is a growing body of supporting evidence. Like the brain activity tests which show NDE activity is happening in the higher though and conscious regians with brain waves similiar to real lived events rather than dreams or delusions.

Parnia has worked with NDERF. They have many verified testimonies of NDE. These are not dreams or hallucinations from a compromised system.

Archives

www.nderf.org

But if you have any recent verifiable reports of such 'impossible' NDE experiences, post a link or reference. I spent considerable time looking a few years back, and found only unsubstantiated claims (some proactive journalist researchers debunked some of the 'best' examples around at the time).

Ok I have included a link above to NDERF which has both personal testimoney and research studies.

Personal testimonies are another piece of evidence. A different type to objective evidence though aspects of experiences can be verified. But the quality, believability, consistency, detail and effects give insight into the qualitative aspect of NDE and consciousness that objective analysis cannot give.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't mention consciousness. I was talking about NDE's. Please take discussions of that elsewhere.

Consciousness is a given. The topic is free will and determinism. However you tackle the hard problem of consciousness it has no bearing on the deterministic nature of existence and its impact on whether we have free will or not.

It logically follows that if consciousness is associated with free will then it makes a massive difference as to whether consciousness is restricted to the physical brain and its deterministic processes or is beyond brain.

So NDE is one piece of evidence for consciousness beyond brain thus lending support for free will beyond physical brain and its deterministic processes.

You could say just like the Hard Problem disqualified the physical deterministic processes for explaining subjective consciousness Free Will is also a Hard Problem which disqualifies the physical deterministic processes as its a conscious subjective experience of qualia rather than contained in any neurons, electrical signals or other physical processes.

 

[Bradskii]

So NDE is one piece of evidence for consciousness beyond brain thus lending support for free will beyond physical brain and its deterministic processes.

Take it elsewhere, please. You've been given a link to a thread on the matter. I don't want to go to the trouble of reporting off topic posts.

 

[stevevw]

Take it elsewhere, please. You've been given a link to a thread on the matter. I don't want to go to the trouble of reporting off topic posts.

Thats fine so long as we can mention consciousness beyond brain being something that may be associated with free will. That may make a difference to our agency as conscious beings and puts free will beyond the deterministic processes.

Or should we stop talking about consciousness beyond brain as well.

 

[Bradskii]

Thats fine so long as we can mention consciousness beyond brain being something that may be associated with free will. That may make a difference to our agency as conscious beings and puts free will beyond the deterministic processes.

Or should we stop talking about consciousness beyond brain as well.

I think you need to go back to the OP. Its opening sentence was: 'All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences.'

Quite frankly, the conscious mind that makes those decisions can be the result of physical processes or, as you say, 'beyond brain'. Either case can hold. Want to go with the latter? OK, for the purpose of the discussion we'll go with that. Now you have to address determinism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There's a boat load in this linked thread which went on and on about NDEs: General anesthesia and consciousness

@stevevw, if you have any comments on NDEs then please add them to that thread. I won't be joining you there as I said all I needed to say previously. This thread is about free will. Please keep it to that subject. I do not want you taking it off topic.

Thanks for that - I'll have a browse if I get time.

Apologies too, for drifting off-topic (which tends to happen without a coherent definition of free-will!).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Its different to experiences with psychedelic drugs. For one the person is awake and is rather distorting real life experiences whereas the NDE is person is unconscious or dead.

Yes, that's why I said 'reminiscent' instead of 'the same as'. Oh, and a dead person cannot report an NDE.

Parnia does explain 'lucid-vast-hyperconsciousness'. Its a stronger and more real consciousness that experiencers say is more real than everyday conscious experiences and a place they feel more at home with than real life.

That is part of the evidence that the experiencers truely believe that their experience was the most real thing they had ever experienced to the point that it profoundly changes them and is remembered in vibid detail for years if not the rest of their life. As opposed to a dream or imagination which is fragmented, hazy and easy to forget deatils.

What the subjects (patients) feel & believe depends on what's going on in their brains - that's why I mentioned psychotropic drugs - what many people experience matches that description - an experience of life-changing salience - which is partly why those drugs are so effective in 'resetting' undesirable behaviour patterns.

Except the NDE are different from dream like states and Parnia points this out several times. Theres destinct differences in dream like recall and NDE in clarity, richness and recall of specific details which are often consistent.

It's just a difference in content - more like drug-induced experiences.

Actually 10 to 20 seconds after the heart stops oxygen stops to the brain and it flatlines. There may be some activity in the brain stem for a couple of minutes but that cannot account for the rich consciousness that occurs in the conscious regions of the outer brain.

EEG is not a particularly sensitive measure. A flatline EEG (i.e. no clear signal above the noise level) only indicates that cortical activity, if present, is below the noise threshold.

Yes but the point is the conscious activity was happening in a compromised and flatlined brain which should not be possible.

These RED NDE experiences were recalled after recovery, with a normal EEG. There is nothing to indicate when the reported experiences actually occurred or whether the recalled length corresponded to real-time.

Yes and he also states that NDE are different to delusions and distortions caused by excitotoxicity/mitochondrial dysfunction/oxidative stress, inflammation and apoptosis.

Toxicity, oxidative stress and other compromises to the brain result in fragmented, detached and confused states. Whereas NDE are the complete opposite, clear, vivid and organised and a positive experience as opposed to scary and reactionary.

If toxicity, oxidative stress and other compromises to the brain always result in fragmented, detached and confused states, then all the patients would have suffered fragmented, detached and confused states. This was not the case.

As mentioned NDE is different, has a different fingerprint to dreamlike and delusional states from toxicity and hallucinogens. Parnia and others propose that consciousness may be fully released from its inhibitors that allow us to function in real life thus allowing hyperconsciousness.

This is what occurs under psychotropic drugs - normally inhibited pathways are disinhibited and so conscious experience changes - 'the filters' are removed, so more of the brain's activity reaches conscious awareness, and normal processing can be distorted (magic mushrooms and LSD, for example, tend to distort perception in interesting ways). It's unsurprising that different kinds of experiences result from different kinds of disinhibition accompanied by differing physiological states.

Thats why for example that NDE sight transcends ordinary sense sight and NDE'ers can have supervision, see 360 degrees, at a distance, see through physical substrates and the blind having supervision.

Fantasy. If we didn't need eyes to see, we wouldn't have evolved them.

... Just use logic. Something that poisons or deprives the body and brain is not going to be well integrated and clear as produced by NDE.

That simply doesn't follow. For example, post-hoc recall of confusing and traumatic events can be clear, vivid, time-dilated - and demonstrably wrong.

Autobiographical episodic recall is a post-hoc reconstruction of fragments, not a contemporaneous video.

So, in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that".

 

[stevevw]

I think you need to go back to the OP. Its opening sentence was: 'All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences.'

Quite frankly, the conscious mind that makes those decisions can be the result of physical processes or, as you say, 'beyond brain'. Either case can hold. Want to go with the latter? OK, for the purpose of the discussion we'll go with that. Now you have to address determinism.

Ok good, that is fair. But I think in going with consciousness beyond brain we also address determinism. Thats the point that free will is also beyond the physical deterministic processes of the brain and don't do justice to experiences like free will and consciousness.

Without even getting into the specific explanations for deterministic processes that deny free will we already have a category problem for physical determinism. It is not the right kind of explanation to account for the experience of free will which is not physical.

Its no more the right kind of explanation that the neural correlates are the right kind of explanation of consciousness. So really there will ne no amount of deterministic explanations that can explain and do justice to our experience of free will.

I mean you can try but I don't think you can. If we can't get around the Hard Problem of consciousness I don't think we can get around the Hard Provlem of free will.

 

[Bradskii]

Its no more the right kind of explanation that the neural correlates are the right kind of explanation of consciousness. So really there will ne no amount of deterministic explanations that can explain and do justice to our experience of free will.

Then there must be a will that is not determined by anything...

 

[stevevw]

Yes, that's why I said 'reminiscent' instead of 'the same as'. Oh, and a dead person cannot report an NDE.

Ok yes similar but different and lol yes a dead person cannot report anything. I was mainly talking about those who have survived NDE.

What the subjects (patients) feel & believe depends on what's going on in their brains - that's why I mentioned psychotropic drugs - what many people experience matches that description - an experience of life-changing salience - which is partly why those drugs are so effective in 'resetting' undesirable behaviour patterns.

The experiences or rather effects of treatments with psychotropic drugs are completely different to NDE. That is why I am wondering why you keep bringing up these examples even though you say they are 'reminiscent' instead of 'the same as'.

There is a completely different mindset where psychotropic drugs come with fragmentation, disorientation, negative emotion, and the thinking is often hazy and easily forgotten. Whereas what makes NDE destinguishable is its consistency, clarity and stability despite the severe episode.

It's just a difference in content - more like drug-induced experiences.

You seem to be trying to make out that they are the same as NDE except caused artifically by drugs or toxicity. I assume in an attempt to give a physical cause to NDE. But I keep saying these are different, they are not the same though having some similar asdpects. But its the quality, the clarity and organisation that is lacking with drugs. Obviously because drugs compromise the system, the brain and thus thinking.

EEG is not a particularly sensitive measure. A flatline EEG (i.e. no clear signal above the noise level) only indicates that cortical activity, if present, is below the noise threshold.

Thats doesn't matter, its not enough to give higher order conscious thinking. Even a very weak undectable signal is not bringing enough oxygen to the brain. The brain is shutting down not thriving for consciousness.

These RED NDE experiences were recalled after recovery, with a normal EEG. There is nothing to indicate when the reported experiences actually occurred or whether the recalled length corresponded to real-time.

Some of the NDE reported verified events that could not have been made up later. The spikes in the conscious parts of the brain had to have produced some conscious experience while flat lined or out to it. The experciencer is sure of their own experiences at that time as opposed to the hazy and easy to forget imaginations and dreams in post op.

If toxicity, oxidative stress and other compromises to the brain always result in fragmented, detached and confused states, then all the patients would have suffered fragmented, detached and confused states. This was not the case.

Thats because not all patients were toxic or in oxidative stress. Like I said there is a difference in the richness and clarity of NDE to a compromised state.

This is what occurs under psychotropic drugs - normally inhibited pathways are disinhibited and so conscious experience changes - 'the filters' are removed, so more of the brain's activity reaches conscious awareness, and normal processing can be distorted (magic mushrooms and LSD, for example, tend to distort perception in interesting ways). It's unsurprising that different kinds of experiences result from different kinds of disinhibition accompanied by differing physiological states.

I know what Hallucinogens can do to your perception lol. But NDE is different. You could say that toxins and psychotropic drugs distort the frequency of consciousness. Whereas NDE enhance it to a hyper level. We know when we are drug effected. We don;t think we were in reality later. But people do with NDE. They think its more real than everyday life.

Fantasy. If we didn't need eyes to see, we wouldn't have evolved them.

I'm not talking about the physical eyes. As compared to a camera lens they are based on light spectrums within temporal space. But we know we can see stuff without our eyes. In fact you could say our minds are creating what we see like colors.

But we also have a sort of vision in our dreams. We see with meaning and not just our senses. In our minds eye. This is our second sight that goes beyond the physical senses. A common NDE is seeing through physical substrates. That would make sense if physical sight is a surface reflection rather than anything solid. Other creatures see differently so our physical sight is not exclusive.

That simply doesn't follow. For example, post-hoc recall of confusing and traumatic events can be clear, vivid, time-dilated - and demonstrably wrong.

Maybe at first but on reflection we usually realise its unreality. Its logical that a compromised and chaotic system is going to throw out compromised and chaotic output. But NDE'rs will remember all detail for decades like it happened yesterday. Like it was a real experience like everyday life. Theres a destinct quality difference.

Autobiographical episodic recall is a post-hoc reconstruction of fragments, not a contemporaneous video.

Just because its a post hoc recall doesn't deminish its reality no more than a witness testimony is not deminished after the event. In fact it acts as strong evidence in some cases as 1st hand eye witness testimony is a direct link to the event. So is the best form of evidence for understanding consciousness. Getting it from the horses mouth so to speak.

Science devalues this type of evidence because they deal in 3rd person measures. But that doesn't mean 1st person experiences are automatically unreliable. That is why studies like NDERF are good because they look at 1,000s of experiences and can derive overall evidence for consistency across age, culture and individuals rather than individuals in isolation.

So, in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that".

Fair enough Forest. Maybe free will is like a box of chocolates. You never know what your gonna get.

 

[stevevw]

Then there must be a will that is not determined by anything...

I think thats the idea. That humans can rise above the deterministic processes to where ' sense of Self' whatever that is rises to the challenge. It has a way of navigating through and placing us in a position where we can have a degree of control.

I was thinking the other day about this and a scenario came to me about how spiritual people like Monks or even those involved in protests against something can go on hunger strikes or just fast for spiritual reasons. The bible talks about food for the soul.

These people seem to rise above the physical deterministic processes and work against their instinct to eat. Every cell in their body is screaming out eat, sustigen but they overcome this and go without food for days, weeks and in some cases till death. It seems the human control is mightily strong spiritually.

 

[Neogaia777]

@stevevw

What is your definition of physical? Because to me, it can be any kind of particle, or culmination of particles, in this universes existence. Now there might be some part of us that maybe goes beyond that maybe, but I highly doubt it allows us to rise above, or get out of, or escape, all the deterministic processes that are happening with all the particles and energies/forces that we are all a part of right now. Someday maybe, but not right now. We are very, very much all slaves to all of those deterministic processes right now. And to disprove that, you'd basically have to show something that is not ever a slave to, or is not ever bound to that right now. An "uncaused cause" or result basically, or something 100% truly random, etc. And I don't think anything like that exists here right now, unless you can show us otherwise, etc.

@Bradskii argument that if you could repeat a choice/event with all the exact same conditions, including your knowledge, etc, and whether or not you'd always make the same exact choices again, is a pretty good one, and I think still stands, etc. And without not even one single thing ever being different, you'd almost for 100% sure always make the very exact same choice, or would always do the same exact same thing(s) again. Without anything ever being any different, you're pretty much sure to, which means there is really only one way things can ever go ever in this universe and other possibilities are only an illusion, and means it would always only ever be able to only go according to the way of it's prior causes (antecedent condtions) that were before it, that was the only thing that caused it to go or happen the way it did, that was before it, etc. That's what's really choosing, and is what's really in control really, and not us, etc.

Any particle also means any energy or forces.

All of those have already been chosen and all weaved together by the Grand Master I think, and right now, there is nothing more to us right now that can go beyond that, or escape that, etc, unless He chooses (or rather, has already chosen) that there will be something that He will keep or maintain about us that will get to go beyond that after this, or go beyond this, after that, etc.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw

What is your definition of physical? Because to me, it can be any kind of particle, or culmination of particles, in this universes existence. Now there might be some part of us that maybe goes beyond that maybe, but I highly doubt it allows us to rise above, or get out of, or escape, all the deterministic processes that are happening with all the particles and energies/forces that we are all a part of right now. Someday maybe, but not right now. We are very, very much all slaves to all of those deterministic processes right now. And to disprove that, you'd basically have to show something that is not ever a slave to, or is not ever bound to that right now. An "uncaused cause" or result basically, or something 100% truly random, etc. And I don't think anything like that exists here right now, unless you can show us otherwise, etc.

I don't think we know, just like we don't know about consciousness. We cannot account for it by physical deterministic causes. These explanations don't seem to fit what we see. Evolution cannot account for agency, how creatures can inject themselves into the equation and direct the course of evolution.

Sure evolution tries to link this back to genetics and natural selection by treating agnecy as like a by product or an extended phenotype but its inadequate for accounting for what we see. I think as time has gone by agency and the subjective observer have become central to explaining things. Rather than deminishing as a by product.

I regard the phsyical to be within the causal closure of the physical. That casn include anything that is reduced to the physical causes like matter and fields or epiphenomena such as bee hives or ecosystems. But notice that this is within a closed space of the physical. A limited measure. We know there is more to the world and reality than the physical. The transcedent phenomena we experience like spirituality, experiences of color, pain and beauty.

@Bradskii argument that if you could repeat a choice/event with all the exact same conditions, including your knowledge, etc, and whether or not you'd always make the same exact choices again, is a pretty good one, and I think still stands, etc. And without not even one single thing ever being different, you'd almost for 100% sure always make the very exact same choice, or would always do the same exact same thing(s) again. Without anything ever being any different, you're pretty much sure to, which means there is really only one way things can ever go ever in this universe and other possibilities are only an illusion, and means it would always only ever be able to only go according to the way of it's prior causes (antecedent condtions) that were before it, that was the only thing that caused it to go or happen the way it did, that was before it, etc. That's what's really choosing, and is what's really in control really, and not us, etc.

I think this is a false analogy and too simplistic. For one I don't think the scenario is realistic to begin with. Do you honestly believe that things would play out exactly the same way twice. That evolution would happen as it has a second time. I don't think so. So that in itself tells us that reality is not 100% deterministic at a fundemental level.

QM tells us the same. The indeterminnet nature of the wave/particle duality. The Many worlds interpretation where each collapse may be any number of possibilities. The Observer interpretations where conscious choice creates the reality.

Its also a false analogy of an either and or. Either we are fully deterministic or we are not. When it could be we are both. In most situations we are pushed along as far as our physical connections to objective reality are concerned. But we are also transcedent beings with another aspect that can rise above the physical. That is our intuition and experience which we should not easily dismiss.

Any particle also means any energy or forces.

Yes I realise this. Its an interesting situation. Its really all about energy. What we think is the objective world is really energy, quivering and buzzing energy, whever that is.

What about say the power of thought, of emotion. They say the pen is mightier than the sword. What sort of energy are these phenomena made of. Money is just paper and metal but its abstraction is much more power and actually can change the physical world. It can destroy lives and build empries. What sort of energy field is the power of money as a human create phenomena.

All of those have already been chosen and all weaved together by the Grand Master I think, and right now, there is nothing more to us right now that can go beyond that, or escape that, etc, unless He chooses (or rather, has already chosen) that there will be something that He will keep or maintain about us that will get to go beyond that after this, or go beyond this, after that, etc.

God Bless.

Actually this is another angle of free will. We have a fallen flesh nature that is deterministic like animal instinct and the physical needs and functions in a fallen world. Paul says of his fallen nature "I do what I know I don't want to do" showing we are slaves to that nature.

But he also says we are set free from our fallen natures in Christ. Christ says the truth will set us free. Christ truth must be the ultimate freedom over our deterministic fallen natures.

This I think relates to our spiritual aspect. We are moral and spiritual beings as well as physical. So perhaps free will happens in a certain state as humans, in the spiritual realm and we can have degrees of freedom but the ultimate freedom is in Christ.

This relates to the basic principle and paradox that we have to surrender our will beyond ourselves to obtains freedom of will. To then be empowered from beyond oursleves to make choices and have control.

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't think we know, just like we don't know about consciousness. We cannot account for it by physical deterministic causes. These explanations don't seem to fit what we see. Evolution cannot account for agency, how creatures can inject themselves into the equation and direct the course of evolution.

Sure evolution tries to link this back to genetics and natural selection by treating agnecy as like a by product or an extended phenotype but its inadequate for accounting for what we see. I think as time has gone by agency and the subjective observer have become central to explaining things. Rather than deminishing as a by product.

I regard the phsyical to be within the causal closure of the physical. That casn include anything that is reduced to the physical causes like matter and fields or epiphenomena such as bee hives or ecosystems. But notice that this is within a closed space of the physical. A limited measure. We know there is more to the world and reality than the physical. The transcedent phenomena we experience like spirituality, experiences of color, pain and beauty.

I think this is a false analogy and too simplistic. For one I don't think the scenario is realistic to begin with. Do you honestly believe that things would play out exactly the same way twice. That evolution would happen as it has a second time. I don't think so. So that in itself tells us that reality is not 100% deterministic at a fundemental level.

QM tells us the same. The indeterminnet nature of the wave/particle duality. The Many worlds interpretation where each collapse may be any number of possibilities. The Observer interpretations where conscious choice creates the reality.

Its also a false analogy of an either and or. Either we are fully deterministic or we are not. When it could be we are both. In most situations we are pushed along as far as our physical connections to objective reality are concerned. But we are also transcedent beings with another aspect that can rise above the physical. That is our intuition and experience which we should not easily dismiss.

Yes I realise this. Its an interesting situation. Its really all about energy. What we think is the objective world is really energy, quivering and buzzing energy, whever that is.

What about say the power of thought, of emotion. They say the pen is mightier than the sword. What sort of energy are these phenomena made of. Money is just paper and metal but its abstraction is much more power and actually can change the physical world. It can destroy lives and build empries. What sort of energy field is the power of money as a human create phenomena.

Actually this is another angle of free will. We have a fallen flesh nature that is deterministic like animal instinct and the physical needs and functions in a fallen world. Paul says of his fallen nature "I do what I know I don't want to do" showing we are slaves to that nature.

But he also says we are set free from our fallen natures in Christ. Christ says the truth will set us free. Christ truth must be the ultimate freedom over our deterministic fallen natures.

This I think relates to our spiritual aspect. We are moral and spiritual beings as well as physical. So perhaps free will happens in a certain state as humans, in the spiritual realm and we can have degrees of freedom but the ultimate freedom is in Christ.

This relates to the basic principle and paradox that we have to surrender our will beyond ourselves to obtains freedom of will. To then be empowered from beyond oursleves to make choices and have control.

Ok, well, here's a paradox for you then, do you think if anyone knows a choice you will make for 100% sure, that you can make a different choice?

 

[Bradskii]

I think thats the idea. That humans can rise above the deterministic processes to where ' sense of Self' whatever that is rises to the challenge. It has a way of navigating through and placing us in a position where we can have a degree of control.

Then you have to explain how it happens. Claiming that it does is no more than saying 'We have free will, it's obvious'. And again, you need an example where determinism isn't the cause.

I was thinking the other day about this and a scenario came to me about how spiritual people like Monks or even those involved in protests against something can go on hunger strikes or just fast for spiritual reasons.

They do that because they prefer to do it. It is their preference. That we always do that which we prefer to do comes as no surprise to anyone.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think we know...

Please don't say 'we'. I know how things happen (or at least, in my opinion, I know how things happen). I've spent enough time explaining it. So what you are saying is that you don't think that you know. Which is fair enough. You don't have an alternative.

But bear this in mind. I can't prove I'm right. But you can prove me wrong. By giving a single example of a decision that was not determined by anything at all. Or even a single event that had no cause (and we've excluded the BB for reasons already given a number of times).

 

[stevevw]

Ok, well, here's a paradox for you then, do you think if anyone knows a choice you will make for 100% sure, that you can make a different choice?

I am sure there is. Its a bit hard to say after the fact. But I am sure if I do something regularly on a Monday I can choose to not do it or do it on a different day. In fact it has happened. I mentioned someone going on a hunger strike. A hunger strike is not fun, it takes discipline and goes against what you want to do. So not going on a hunger strike seems an easy choice and could happen.

I am sure there are more like that. Deciding to start a diet or exercise. They require an effort, going against the grain of how you feel or what your body wants to do. I am sure we can find situations where two people experience the same thing but make different choices. Like twin studies where they both have similar genetics and conditioning but end up with different choices and outcomes.

 

[Neogaia777]

I am sure there is. Its a bit hard to say after the fact. But I am sure if I do something regularly on a Monday I can choose to not do it or do it on a different day. In fact it has happened. I mentioned someone going on a hunger strike. A hunger strike is not fun, it takes discipline and goes against what you want to do. So not going on a hunger strike seems an easy choice and could happen.

I am sure there are more like that. Deciding to start a diet or exercise. They require an effort, going against the grain of how you feel or what your body wants to do. I am sure we can find situations where two people experience the same thing but make different choices. Like twin studies where they both have similar genetics and conditioning but end up with different choices and outcomes.

Something has always caused you to want to choose or prefer one over the other, "always", etc. And it is those causes that are actually doing that choosing for you, no matter how much it might not seem like it almost all of the time always, etc.

Did you realize the paradox in my last question to you?

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

Then you have to explain how it happens. Claiming that it does is no more than saying 'We have free will, it's obvious'. And again, you need an example where determinism isn't the cause.

Why, we know we have consciousness but no one can explain how that happens, how a neuron can produce subjective experience. Yet we know its true, we have consciousness. Its just one of those subjective things we cannot fully explain.

This idera that we need an example where determinism is not the cause is a false representation. It may be that free will overcomes the deterministic causes. So there will still be deterministic causes but they can be overidden. Mind over matter, anything that goes against the grain of doing something where you did not want to do it but did.

They do that because they prefer to do it. It is their preference. That we always do that which we prefer to do comes as no surprise to anyone.

They prefer to suffer. I don't think so, give them credit. Stop reducing them to robots. What about those who give their life to save another. They choose to put themselves in danger and want to die or suffer. Thats just silly.

 

[Neogaia777]

I am sure we can find situations where two people experience the same thing but make different choices. Like twin studies where they both have similar genetics and conditioning but end up with different choices and outcomes.

Also, we are not talking about similar, but the exact same, etc. And I do mean "exact same", etc.

God Bless.