Free will and determinism

[Fervent]

Proteins in the rods and cones absorb the photon and create a membrane potential. So the photons bouncing off your cat cause an electrical charge in the photoreceptor cells. And the process is off and running. There, your post wasn't a complete waste of time. You now know how information gets from your cat to the visual cortex. But hey, this is tangential.

None of that explains how the concept of "cat" is transfered from your use of the word "cat" to my brain. You've described a physical process of how sight happens but not what physical characteristic allows symbols to trigger specific electrical signals. There is an obvious missing element in your description of physical processes.

Which you have admitted is tangential to answering the question. So let's get back to it.

And the only reason we're talking about it is because you've chosen to ignore my primary objection, which has gone through at least 4 iterations of discussion and remains unanswered.

What is it outside of the process that we already know that somehow, somewhere, changes physical matter. Apparently we can't detect what it is, but I want to know where we look for the effects it causes.

The obvious missing element in the description of physical processes. Meaning.

 

[Bradskii]

The obvious missing element in the description of physical processes. Meaning.

How long has it taken for you to answer? Three days, I think. And that was all it was? Anyway, we have something at last.

So...I don't know where the 'meaning' lives, but it's not part of the process itself. So what does it change? I want to see the physical effects on matter in the known process that wasn't caused by anything else. Which I guess means that you'll need to do some homework on neurobiology. You'll need to understand the process before you can tell me how it changes. So no hand waving please. We need details. And we're talking chemistry and biology.

 

[Fervent]

How long has it taken for you to answer? Three days, I think. And that was all it was? Anyway, we have something at last.

So...I don't know where the 'meaning' lives, but it's not part of the process itself. So what does it change? I want to see the physical effects on matter in the known process that wasn't caused by anything else. Which I guess means that you'll need to do some homework on neurobiology. You'll need to understand the process before you can tell me how it changes. So no hand waving please. We need details. And we're talking chemistry and biology.

And we've arrived exactly where I've said we stand, which is that rather than dealing with the obvious efficacy of semantic content(meaning) on the physical processes, you simply try to make it disappear. It's irrelevant to the process, the meaning of what we are saying to each other. Yet somehow, that very meaning is supposed to lead us to the conclusion that free will is an illusion. But it's not part of the process, so any conclusion we draw from our sense of meaning is automatically irrelevant at best. So the conclusion that free will is an illusion is built on a paradigm where content of our arguments is not part of the process of reaching the conclusion...it's all an illusion.

 

[Bradskii]

And we've arrived exactly where I've said we stand...

And now we need to use your answer to determine what changes it makes. This is, after all, why we wanted the question answered. Because you said 'something' causes changes. Now you've given us what you think that 'something' is. So what changes does it make? How does it do this? What are the effects? Where do we look for them? When does this happen?

You can't just say 'Meaning!' and run off. Explain it, please.

 

[Fervent]

And now we need to use your answer to determine what changes it makes. This is, after all, why we wanted to question answered. Because you said 'something' causes changes. Now you've given us what you think that 'something' is. So what changes does it make? How does it do this? What are the effects? Where do we look for them? When does this happen?

You can't just say 'Meaning!' and run off. Explain it, please.

As soon as you can explain why we should trust a chain of reasoning to which meaning is irrelevant.

 

[Bradskii]

As soon as you can explain why we should trust a chain of reasoning to which meaning is irrelevant.

It's your chain of reasoning. Not mine. Not that it makes any difference. A 'chain of reason' will occur if free will exists or not. But that's not the problem. You've made a claim. It was your answer that has determined the culprit. Now you need to tell me what this 'meaning', which is outside the process as we know it, changes. What should we be looking for? Where should we be looking?

 

[Merrill]

It isn't.

You are puling a Sam Harris

aka, pretending to make an affirmative claim while simply refuting other claims --a kind of via negative argument method

so let's back up:

1. Is the universe determinist?
2. Is the universe, or our conception of it, strict materialist?
3. Is there no free-will?

 

[Bradskii]

You are puling a Sam Harris

aka, pretending to make an affirmative claim while simply refuting other claims --a kind of via negative argument method

I have made a definitive claim. No other claims have been made, except to say 'Oh, but we do have it!' I've had nothing to refute.

so let's back up:

1. Is the universe determinist?
2. Is the universe, or our conception of it, strict materialist?
3. Is there no free-will?

Maybe you should read the OP. You'd see that the answers are yes, yes and yes. And something tells me that you'll again make the same illogical point about how we can imagine something outside of the universe if it's determinate. Or if we have no free will. It's like someone has told you that if there is no free will then you can't think. That's such an odd idea...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have made a definitive claim. No other claims have been made, except to say 'Oh, but we do have it!' I've had nothing to refute.

Maybe you should read the OP. You'd see that the answers are yes, yes and yes. And something tells me that you'll again make the same illogical point about how we can imagine something outside of the universe if it's determinate. Or if we have no free will. It's like someone has told you that if there is no free will then you can't think. That's such an odd idea...

... it's this sort of thread which serves as a perfect example of why I lean toward the study of physics and not metaphysics.

The effort. The banter. The futility.

 

[Merrill]

I have made a definitive claim. No other claims have been made, except to say 'Oh, but we do have it!' I've had nothing to refute.

Maybe you should read the OP. You'd see that the answers are yes, yes and yes. And something tells me that you'll again make the same illogical point about how we can imagine something outside of the universe if it's determinate. Or if we have no free will. It's like someone has told you that if there is no free will then you can't think. That's such an odd idea...

From your OP

"All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences"

OK, so what prior influence led humans to conceptualize God?

and please don't answer "we saw something we couldn't figure out, and subscribed it to God"

because that means there was a concept of God in the mind prior to the event

on a more ontological level, what material conditions and influences could exist in the universe that would cause a human being to imagine or conceptualize something that doesn't exist in the universe? (if God doesn't exist)

here is an imperfect analogy: I create an AI system like ChatGPT. Let it run for a few weeks, and it suddenly tells me that there is another universe adjacent to ours--and describes it in ways unimaginable. I try to determine what "data" was used to come to that conclusion, and to formulate that description.

You and I both know that there won't be any "data" because nothing is in that AI that does not exist in reality. It can only work with what has be given to it.

So why is this an "odd idea"? How do beings in a materialist, determinist universe, where no free-will exists, come up with ideas and concepts that cannot be found in this universe?

 

[Fervent]

It's your chain of reasoning. Not mine. Not that it makes any difference. A 'chain of reason' will occur if free will exists or not. But that's not the problem. You've made a claim. It was your answer that has determined the culprit. Now you need to tell me what this 'meaning', which is outside the process as we know it, changes. What should we be looking for? Where should we be looking?

It's any chain of reasoning. You assert that meaning is not part of the process, so the meaning of the arguments you've presented is irrelevant to your conclusions. So your argument undermines itself, because if it is true there is no connection between your argument and the conclusion you've come to.

 

[Bradskii]

From your OP

"All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences"

OK, so what prior influence led humans to conceptualize God?

Didn't you notice that my statement was about making decisions, and your question was about the ability to conceptualise? Two things that are not the same. I can imagine a green cow with 6 legs even though we know there's no such creature in the universe. Because I know what cows are, I know what green looks like and adding a couple of legs is no problem. I don't need free will to use my imagination.

Who sent down the bolt of lightning? Someone that's kinda like us, who can do such things, is very powerful but who we can't see.

You're like some others in this thread. You're heading down a dead end. I'll let you go down there as well. It's no problem to me.

 

[Fervent]

... it's this sort of thread which serves as a perfect example of why I lean toward the study of physics and not metaphysics.

Yeah, it's pretty much why I've tried to maintain my argument as an epistemic argument despite others attempts to make it about metaphysics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, it's pretty much why I've tried to maintain my argument as an epistemic argument despite others attempts to make it about metaphysics.

Oh, I know. You've been doing a good job of it, too! But the "materialist mind" isn't going to let itself become distracted, and hence, all of this becomes a waste of time because there's too many "meta-qualifiables" that no one can establish firmly either way.

 

[Bradskii]

It's any chain of reasoning. You assert that meaning is not part of the process...

No, you did. I've been asking you for something that's outside the process that we know and understand that somehow still affects the process. That was your original claim and you've wandered so far off trying to avoid an answer that you've forgotten what it was.

Now we have an answer. Remember that you finally gave it? And you said that it couldn't be detected so I want you to tell me what are the effects. What does it change? Where does it change it? How does it do this? What's changed has got to be something chemical or biological - you said it was physical matter. So do some homework, study a little bit of neurology and let me know.

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah, it's pretty much why I've tried to maintain my argument as an epistemic argument despite others attempts to make it about metaphysics.

Your argument was material. Something changes some physical matter somehow. We'll wait for the details.

 

[Fervent]

No, you did. I've been asking you for something that's outside the process that we know and understand that somehow still affects the process. That was your original claim and you've wandered so far off trying to avoid an answer that you've forgotten what it was.

And your omission of meaning from the process renders your entire argument void. Either meaning is part of the process, in which case you've got something that physics alone can't explain involved, or there is no connection between the meaning of your argument and the conclusion you've come to.

Now we have an answer. Remember that you finally gave it? And you said that it couldn't be detected so I want you to tell me what are the effects. What does it change? Where does it change it? How does it do this? What's changed has got to be something chemical or biological - you said it was physical matter. So do some homework, study a little bit of neurology and let me know.

Yes, we've identified the missing element in your description. Do I have a metaphysical explanation for it? Nope, but the fact that it must be omitted from a materialist explanation renders materialist explanations suspect. Because it undermines any epistemic support for materialism, by rendering such things irrelevant to holding materialist beliefs.

My argument, as I have repeatedly stated, is not metaphysical. It is purely about the epistemic consequences of materialism, and the manner in which they undermine the materialist position. You're hung up on the metaphysics despite my explaining numerous times that I'm not going to propose a metaphysical alternative. Could I come up with a few possibilities? Sure. But the point is, you have to render your entire argument void by omitting meaning from the process to maintain that it is a purely physical process.

 

[Fervent]

Your argument was material. Something changes some physical matter somehow. We'll wait for the details.

The metaphysics are superficial to my argument, my argument is purely about justifying what we believe.

 

[Bradskii]

And your omission of meaning from the process...

I didn't omit it. You said there was something outside the process that affects it somehow. You told me (eventually, after 3 days) that it was 'meaning'. So the something outside the process that changes some physical matter inside the process is 'meaning'.

But you said that it couldn't be detected, so we have to examine the effects. So what does it change? Where does it change it? How does it do this?

 

[Bradskii]

The metaphysics are superficial to my argument, my argument is purely about justifying what we believe.

You said some matter was physically changed. That's not metaphysics. That's...physics.

Whenever you are ready.