Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[Repox]

It's amazing what the subconscious mind is capable of.

If you want some really creative creation stories, you should join the Church of Scientology. All based on what people feel is memories of actual events. All of them as certain as you are about the reality of what they experienced.

Obviously, you've experience these events for yourself. How could you possible question things you've experienced for yourself? There is no greater certainty is there? Especially if there is no way to otherwise validate that experience.

I don't know, perhaps God just likes planting different random visions in folks head as a joke.

I

It's up to individuals to provide proof of their claims, whether scientists or not. Science is just a tool for people to provide validation for their claims.

I can claim anything, God, faeries a purple unicorn created the universe. There's really nothing stopping folks from making claims. However without evidence/proof which can be scientifically validated, nobody has to take these claims seriously.

Since someone can't prove otherwise, you can claim Space Ghost created the universe.

View attachment 18538

Whether anyone should take these claims seriously is a different matter.

If you are educated, regardless of your religious affiliation, you know with certainty there is no scientific proof for the beginning of the universe. Science will never be able to explain the unexplainable--how something came from nothing. It appears God is not very popular among the intellectual elite. There really is a supernatural world, one without physical laws, popular government, exciting adventures, or other thrilling things to do. I suspect most intellectuals feel superior to a "superior being." Actually, I know they do, I have been a part of that establishment. Oh, oh, I am provoking controversy. It is interesting, God created everything, then, when humans learn God's requirements for heaven, they step back. God wants me to be obedient? What kind of heaven it that!?

 

[Nakosis]

Oh, oh, I am provoking controversy. It is interesting, God created everything, then, when humans learn God's requirements for heaven, they step back. God wants me to be obedient? What kind of heaven it that!?

The only controversy is from those folks who make different claims about God's requirements.

 

[Repox]

As do I which is why I cannot accept the existence of the Abrahamic god when there is no credible evidence and dismiss all other gods which also have the same amount of credible evidence for their existence, none. When you hear about the greek gods do they sound made up to you? When you hear about Hindu gods and beliefs does it sound made up to you? When you hear about the supernatural beliefs of Native Americans does it sound made up to you? When you hear the claims of scientology does it sound made up to you? When you hear about the beliefs of Wiccans does it sound made up to you? When you hear about the gods and beliefs of Shintoism does it sound made up to you? When you hear about the gods and beliefs of the ancient Egyptians does it sound made up to you? When you hear about the spiritual beliefs of various African tribes does it sound made up to you?

How was it that you managed the immense task of finding evidence to invalidate EVERY other supernatural belief system in the world but one? Answer: you didn't. You bought into your current supernatural belief system and dismissed ALL others out of hand. How is that logical, let alone intellectually honest?

I really don't like being accused of being intellectually dishonest. If I were I would lie and say I haven't had any revelations. You go through life as a believer, but you don't know any more than what teachers teach and what you learn from books. Then, you have a dream, you are in heaven with God and His angels. Then, you have other dreams about heaven, then dreams about the Bible. You tell clerics about those dreams. They check their religious doctrine and tell you it isn't so. You are even told Satan told you those things. Finally, you learn to keep your mouth shut. Most everyone lives in a box and they can't get out, it is the way of the world. I think I'll stop posting, I have better things to do. I have learned something however. What I've learned is God's basic requirement of obedience is contrary to what most people want. It also answers the question about salvation. There is more to it than saying I believe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you are educated, regardless of your religious affiliation, you know with certainty there is no scientific proof for the beginning of the universe. Science will never be able to explain the unexplainable--how something came from nothing. It appears God is not very popular among the intellectual elite.

Did you notice that when you approve of the idea, its holder is educated, but when you disapprove, they become the intellectually elite?

I suspect most intellectuals feel superior to a "superior being."

Actually, intellectuals in the presence of a superior being in some sense understand that that makes themselves inferior in the same sense.

 

[Repox]

Did you notice that when you approve of the idea, its holder is educated, but when you disapprove, they become the intellectually elite?



Actually, intellectuals in the presence of a superior being in some sense understand that that makes themselves inferior in the same sense.

Back to the thread, it is about determinism and academia. It may really be true that intellectuals, or those dominant few in higher education, hold to determinism as a basic belief system. The implications of that phenomena is up for discussion, not my "deviant beliefs."

 

[JustWondering]

I really don't like being accused of being intellectually dishonest. If I were I would lie and say I haven't had any revelations. You go through life as a believer, but you don't know any more than what teachers teach and what you learn from books. Then, you have a dream, you are in heaven with God and His angels. Then, you have other dreams about heaven, then dreams about the Bible. You tell clerics about those dreams. They check their religious doctrine and tell you it isn't so. You are even told Satan told you those things. Finally, you learn to keep your mouth shut. Most everyone lives in a box and they can't get out, it is the way of the world. I think I'll stop posting, I have better things to do. I have learned something however. What I've learned is God's basic requirement of obedience is contrary to what most people want. It also answers the question about salvation. There is more to it than saying I believe.

People of other religions past and present also had/have "revelations" and dreams reinforcing their beliefs. If "revelations" and dreams constitute credible evidence that would mean ALL religions are true. However, since many of them make contradictory claims, how can that be true? Someone who is intellectually honest would admit that "revelations" and dreams are not credible evidence for anything.

 

[Skwim]

Back to the thread, it is about determinism and academia. It may really be true that intellectuals, or those dominant few in higher education, hold to determinism as a basic belief system. The implications of that phenomena is up for discussion, not my "deviant beliefs."

IOW

"What are the implications of the possible fact that intellectuals, or those dominant few in higher education, hold to determinism as a basic belief system?​

I'd say next to none. In such matters most people believe as they need to believe, and because those needs are so strong anything that contradicts them is more likely than not to be ignored. The only place I see any implication taking hold is among those who actively seek to honestly understand the free will/determinism issue and gather confidence in their recognition of determinism from those they respect: intellectuals and those in higher education.

.

 

[osgart]

academia nuts. so what if circumstances determine your outward life. the inner subjective world is based on understanding, and having the best understandings,and a just heart will determine your level of freedom of will.

why should I shut myself off because of an over thought academic is convinced of it.

PhD doesn't make one God, or truth. they have their own language, and none of it is easily understandable.they have their narrow perspective, and they expect conformists.

that's giving up on individuality what Sam Harris advocates. data isn't infallible anyway.

who is the prototypical sample. it just so happens that many people live habitual lives, and become subservient, and mundane. that doesn't speak to the ones who aren't typical, such as the founders of america, or einstein.
free will is an individual's ability to decide who they are, what they will become, and what they will do.

there are many freedoms of will that academics don't even regard. you would have to recognize the freedom of being a spiritual soul to claim internal free will. even if the soul is material brain, it still exists.

 

[blü 2]

Back to the thread, it is about determinism and academia. It may really be true that intellectuals, or those dominant few in higher education, hold to determinism as a basic belief system. The implications of that phenomena is up for discussion, not my "deviant beliefs."

Forgive me if I take the conversation back to where it's already been, BUT ─

If a brain doesn't make a decision as the result of a woven complex of chains of cause&effect (perhaps with a dash of quantum randomness)

then how does a brain make a decision?

Describe the process to me.

 

[Skwim]

Forgive me if I take the conversation back to where it's already been, BUT ─

If a brain doesn't make a decision as the result of a woven complex of chains of cause&effect (perhaps with a dash of quantum randomness)

then how does a brain make a decision?

Describe the process to me.

.​

 

[Repox]

People of other religions past and present also had/have "revelations" and dreams reinforcing their beliefs. If "revelations" and dreams constitute credible evidence that would mean ALL religions are true. However, since many of them make contradictory claims, how can that be true? Someone who is intellectually honest would admit that "revelations" and dreams are not credible evidence for anything.

If you are a raw empiricist, or requiring scientific evidence, there is no hope for anyone who has had revelations. However, if you demand empirical evidence, why bother with a religious forum?

 

[Repox]

Forgive me if I take the conversation back to where it's already been, BUT ─

If a brain doesn't make a decision as the result of a woven complex of chains of cause&effect (perhaps with a dash of quantum randomness)

then how does a brain make a decision?

Describe the process to me.

What we require is empirical evidence for determinism as the explanation for human thought processes. If you know of such a theory with empirical evidence post it. It seems to me that it would exist if we are really determined. It is in the interest of intellectuals to find proof for strongly held ideas.

 

[Skwim]

What we require is empirical evidence for determinism as the explanation for human thought processes. If you know of such a theory with empirical evidence post it. It seems to me that it would exist if we are really determined. It is in the interest of intellectuals to find proof for strongly held ideas.

Hey! How about answering blü 2's question? You do realize, don't you, that "Changing the Subject" is considered a fallacious argument. Or is it that you simply don't care?

.

 

[Repox]

Hey! How about answering blü 2's question? You do realize, don't you, that "Changing the Subject" is considered a fallacious argument. Or is it that you simply don't care?

.

I didn't change the subject. I asked for proof for empirical human determinism. Where is it? Because humans exercise freewill the brain is wired for such processes. Then, there is no way one can prove freewill insofar as it based on human will, not mechanistic attributes.

 

[blü 2]

What we require is empirical evidence for determinism as the explanation for human thought processes. If you know of such a theory with empirical evidence post it. It seems to me that it would exist if we are really determined. It is in the interest of intellectuals to find proof for strongly held ideas.

So you have no idea what the alternative might be?

You can't offer any coherent alternative to cause&effect?

Then are you talking about anything, or just wishfully dreaming?

To answer your question, the whole of chemistry, the whole of biochemistry, is described by science in terms of cause&effect. The brain is wall-to-wall biochemistry.

The mapping of brain functions onto brain regions has been going on since the 18th century, and since the 1990s has been armed with a succession of more and more powerful tools of investigation. The individual neuron is well described, as is its ability to make and unmake connections with its neighbors. The ratio of specific neurotransmitters in the synapse is described, and is routinely used in eg the designing of drugs for mental illness. The manner in which neurons are specifically organized to bring about each brain function, and the manner in which the functions interact between themselves, is a work in progress.

I'm not aware that quantum effects have been shown to be used by any part of the brain (though I recall a claim that the eye of a particular bird did so), or that quantum randomness might interfere with cause&effect at any point. However, it may be a possibility, in which case the brain would operate by cause&effect and an apparently very small amount of randomness.

But, that aside, the science news services that I follow have never once suggested that research has pointed to brain phenomena which demand a non-causal explanation.

That's why determinism is so widely accepted ─ no one with expertise in the field sees a need for an alternative, and no alternative is on the table anyway.

So clear the point up: can you describe a credible alternative to cause&effect in how humans make a choice?

Yes? No? Haven't a clue?

 

[Repox]

So you have no idea what the alternative might be?

You can't offer any coherent alternative to cause&effect?

Then are you talking about anything, or just wishfully dreaming?

To answer your question, the whole of chemistry, the whole of biochemistry, is described by science in terms of cause&effect. The brain is wall-to-wall biochemistry.

The mapping of brain functions onto brain regions has been going on since the 18th century, and since the 1990s has been armed with a succession of more and more powerful tools of investigation. The individual neuron is well described, as is its ability to make and unmake connections with its neighbors. The ratio of specific neurotransmitters in the synapse is described, and is routinely used in eg the designing of drugs for mental illness. The manner in which neurons are specifically organized to bring about each brain function, and the manner in which the functions interact between themselves, is a work in progress.

I'm not aware that quantum effects have been shown to be used by any part of the brain (though I recall a claim that the eye of a particular bird did so), or that quantum randomness might interfere with cause&effect at any point. However, it may be a possibility, in which case the brain would operate by cause&effect and an apparently very small amount of randomness.

But, that aside, the science news services that I follow have never once suggested that research has pointed to brain phenomena which demand a non-causal explanation.

That's why determinism is so widely accepted ─ no one with expertise in the field sees a need for an alternative, and no alternative is on the table anyway.

So clear the point up: can you describe a credible alternative to cause&effect in how humans make a choice?

Yes? No? Haven't a clue?

Mostly, I base my argument on human events rather than biological functions. I understand the complexity of the human brain and the many advances of science in medical research and everyday medical practices. Certainly, medicine is based on deterministic functions for body parts, but there remains no answer to the many variations of human behavior in almost all areas of human activity. Social scientists have attempted to produce studies showing determinist relationships. I suggest you read the literature, you will find a scarcity of studies. I have published a book which is in most university libraries in the Western world. My book is a study of college professors and their academic endeavors. I assumed a symbolic interactionist perspective and the results of study showed high correlations for hypotheses tested. I interpreted social behavior to be the consequence of free choices. It is interesting, a well known national scholar proposed my results to be predictable based on deterministic assumptions. I however interpreted my findings with respect to freewill choices. Which perspective is correct? In short, while proposing a freewill perspective I proved determinism. It is one of those anomalies of social science which can't be explained. I do find however in situations of everyday activity there is a lack of predictability. If human behavior where really deterministic it seems as if we would find a lot of predictability. Applying the normal curve in statistical studies, we find a high incidence of standard deviations supporting the idea of individual choices deviating from the norm. There is not enough statistical data in social science studies to support a deterministic model for human behavior.

 

[blü 2]

Certainly, medicine is based on deterministic functions for body parts, but there remains no answer to the many variations of human behavior in almost all areas of human activity.

You mean external behaviors, not how individual brains function, then? That's an entirely different arena altogether.

Social scientists have attempted to produce studies showing determinist relationships.

These would necessarily be statistical. Although such interactions are in principle capable of deterministic description, in practice this involves overwhelming numbers of intricacies way way beyond our present power to map. Exact biochemical descriptions of each brain involved, and that's just for a start.

I have published a book which is in most university libraries in the Western world.

Grateful for the name of the book and links to reviews of it.

My book is a study of college professors and their academic endeavors. I assumed a symbolic interactionist perspective and the results of study showed high correlations for hypotheses tested.

I don't understand that sentence.

I interpreted social behavior to be the consequence of free choices.

What definition of 'free' did you use?

a well known national scholar proposed my results to be predictable based on deterministic assumptions.

Really? What deterministic assumptions?

I however interpreted my findings with respect to freewill choices. Which perspective is correct?

See my previous two questions.

In short, while proposing a freewill perspective I proved determinism.

Again I don't understand the sentence.

It is one of those anomalies of social science which can't be explained.

The first question is whether 'social science' can correctly be called a
science at all. It's only recently, and patchily, come to the notion of hard data and (*shudder*) testable hypotheses. Still too fond of its armchairs, some say.

If human behavior where really deterministic it seems as if we would find a lot of predictability.

We do. We maintain buildings full of statisticians and stats gatherers for just that reason.


We seem to have made a great big jump away from your

"Back to the thread, it is about determinism and academia. It may really be true that intellectuals, or those dominant few in higher education, hold to determinism as a basic belief system. The implications of that phenomena is up for discussion"​

 

[Repox]

You mean external behaviors, not how individual brains function, then? That's an entirely different arena altogether.

These would necessarily be statistical. Although such interactions are in principle capable of deterministic description, in practice this involves overwhelming numbers of intricacies way way beyond our present power to map. Exact biochemical descriptions of each brain involved, and that's just for a start.
Grateful for the name of the book and links to reviews of it.
I don't understand that sentence.

What definition of 'free' did you use?
Really? What deterministic assumptions?

See my previous two questions.
Again I don't understand the sentence.
The first question is whether 'social science' can correctly be called a
science at all. It's only recently, and patchily, come to the notion of hard data and (*shudder*) testable hypotheses. Still too fond of its armchairs, some say.
We do. We maintain buildings full of statisticians and stats gatherers for just that reason.


We seem to have made a great big jump away from your

"Back to the thread, it is about determinism and academia. It may really be true that intellectuals, or those dominant few in higher education, hold to determinism as a basic belief system. The implications of that phenomena is up for discussion"​

Sorry I brought up my book. I don't like to be harassed on the internet. There are a lot of insulters out there. If you like I can send you the book reference on private communication. It really doesn't matter, I prove what I know by what I post. So far, you have not presented a scientific study with evidence for human determinism. On the internet , people can say anything. In the world of scholarly research, there are referee journals which provide credibility to theories.

Back to the topic, you have proposed interesting analysis of determinism. Perhaps, one can turn your propositions into a scientific study. Could hypotheses be tested to prove brain function as deterministic? My guess is it is not possible. Maybe that is why there is no such study. In the meantime, my claim of freewill for human decision making is not in error.

 

[blü 2]

you have not presented a scientific study with evidence for human determinism.

Please read my posts before you reply to them. As I said, the evidence for determinism is two-fold ─

that the brain is a complex of biochemical functions and the findings of biochemistry are stated as deterministic explanations, eg the combinations of relevant atoms and the energy interactions that bring them about, and

no credible meaningful alternative explanation of brain function is known, even to you.

I get the impression that you don't follow brain research in the science press, SciAm Mind or, free on the net, Science Daily, or the various others. If you don't, then you're willfully keeping yourself in the dark about your own chosen topic.

my claim of freewill for human decision making is not in error.

WHAT claim? That's the very reason I asked you to state your alternative hypothesis as to how a brain makes a decision without cause&effect.

You haven't offered a credible alternative claim. Nothing is there to refute.

You didn't even answer my simple questions, what definition of 'free' were you using, and what did you mean by 'deterministic assumptions'.

 

[Repox]

Please read my posts before you reply to them. As I said, the evidence for determinism is two-fold ─

that the brain is a complex of biochemical functions and the findings of biochemistry are stated as deterministic explanations, eg the combinations of relevant atoms and the energy interactions that bring them about, and

no credible meaningful alternative explanation of brain function is known, even to you.

I get the impression that you don't follow brain research in the science press, SciAm Mind or, free on the net, Science Daily, or the various others. If you don't, then you're willfully keeping yourself in the dark about your own chosen topic.
WHAT claim? That's the very reason I asked you to state your alternative hypothesis as to how a brain makes a decision without cause&effect.

You haven't offered a credible alternative claim. Nothing is there to refute.

You didn't even answer my simple questions, what definition of 'free' were you using, and what did you mean by 'deterministic assumptions'.

I never claimed to have a formula or theory for the brain, or for a theory of freewill. Freewill, by its very nature is undefinable. No one can explain how each individual chooses. Otherwise, it would not be freewill. Ask any one why they chose this or that. They have reasons, but it is not a science, it is based on individual predispositions.

You stated, "that the brain is a complex of biochemical functions and the findings of biochemistry are stated as deterministic explanations, eg the combinations of relevant atoms and the energy interactions that bring them about, and no credible meaningful alternative explanation of brain function is known, even to you."

So, what does that mean? It is not clear, but I think it means all explanations of the brain are deterministic. That is a false statement, it is without proof. It is like saying every movement of my body is deterministic. You can't prove it! I suggest you read up on the "scientific method." By proposing your idea of brain determinism in formal language with testable hypotheses you can proof determinism. For a formal study, you must present hypotheses, method for testing hypotheses, and findings which demonstrate hypotheses tested are correct.. For a formal presentation of your findings there must be significant relationships, which are found with reliable statistical routines. There is more to it, but these are basic guidelines for formal research. Do some research, you will find I am correct. There is no other way of doing it.

I perceive your position as follows. You have defined brain functions, and therefore you propose everything operates as expected. What you fail to consider is the individual who possesses that brain makes choices, which in turn causes brain functions to operate. In most situations, the brain doesn't function without willful actions by the individual. Those actions are freewill choices.

If you are correct and there is a formal study proving determinism of the brain, post it. Otherwise it is all speculation. On the internet, anyone can say almost anything. For a definite statement, one in which changes peoples thinking about a topic, a formal research study is required. I have done research on the topic and I find no formal study proving determinism of the brain.

Furthermore, you stated, "WHAT claim? That's the very reason I asked you to state your alternative hypothesis as to how a brain makes a decision without cause&effect." I have consistently said there is no causal explanation for freewill. It is not possible to propose a formal methodlogy because freewill means people are free to chose this or that. If human behavior were predictable it would be determinism. Brain functions follow from choices. A person makes a freewill choice and the brain functions to execute the choice. There Is no methodology for proving why the person made a choice. I hope you understand. If not, what don't you understand?