Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[blü 2]

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.

Undefinable? You floor me! You don't even know what you want to talk about when you start a thread about 'freewill'?

Here are three possible definitions:

1. The ability to choose according to one's own understanding and instincts, free of external pressure or compulsion.

2. The ability to choose independently of the determinism of one's own brain functions, in a manner which I've never seen explained.

3. The ability to choose independently of what an omniscient god has foreseen to be one's choice; that is, the ability to surprise an omniscient god. The notion lacks a workable definition of a god, and how a purported example could be authenticated in practice is opaque.

No one can explain how each individual chooses.

They choose as the result of complex chains of cause&effect in the brain ─ within neurons, across synapses, and across aggregations of these.

Otherwise, it would not be freewill.

There you go again, not knowing what you intend to denote by the word 'freewill'!

It is like saying every movement of my body is deterministic.

Yes, of course.

I suggest you read up on the "scientific method."

But you have no understanding of scientific method. You don't proceed from accurate data gathered about the brain, you don't set out your argument as testable, hence falsifiable, hypotheses, you certainly don't go near peer-review, but keep your book away from discriminating eyes, and I have the very strong impression that you're not looking to find out what's true in reality, but to insist on your a priori conclusion ─ namely that determinism is false and something else, you have no idea what, is true.

What you fail to consider is the individual who possesses that brain makes choices, which in turn causes brain functions to operate.

No, this is exactly what I've been talking about all along, exactly what I was driving at when I asked you for an alternative to determinism in how a brain chooses.

Now you've just said that 'the individual who possesses that brain makes choices, which in turn causes brain functions to operate.'

You've made a distinction between 'the individual' and his or her brain. What is the 'individual'? Where in the body is the individual found? How do you know? What is your evidence?

AND ─ where I came in ─ how does the 'individual' make choices, if not by chains of cause&effect.

AND why does the brain need to function while the 'individual' chooses? Are you aware of the brain experiments several years ago, which show that the non-conscious brain makes decisions ─ the moment of decision being detectable on real-time scans ─ and sometimes sets the body in train to effect them, up to seven, or even more, seconds, before the conscious brain knows a decision has been made? If not, you can read a report of it >here<.

 

[Repox]

Undefinable? You floor me! You don't even know what you want to talk about when you start a thread about 'freewill'?

Here are three possible definitions:

1. The ability to choose according to one's own understanding and instincts, free of external pressure or compulsion.

2. The ability to choose independently of the determinism of one's own brain functions, in a manner which I've never seen explained.

3. The ability to choose independently of what an omniscient god has foreseen to be one's choice; that is, the ability to surprise an omniscient god. The notion lacks a workable definition of a god, and how a purported example could be authenticated in practice is opaque.
They choose as the result of complex chains of cause&effect in the brain ─ within neurons, across synapses, and across aggregations of these.
There you go again, not knowing what you intend to denote by the word 'freewill'!
Yes, of course.
But you have no understanding of scientific method. You don't proceed from accurate data gathered about the brain, you don't set out your argument as testable, hence falsifiable, hypotheses, you certainly don't go near peer-review, but keep your book away from discriminating eyes, and I have the very strong impression that you're not looking to find out what's true in reality, but to insist on your a priori conclusion ─ namely that determinism is false and something else, you have no idea what, is true.
No, this is exactly what I've been talking about all along, exactly what I was driving at when I asked you for an alternative to determinism in how a brain chooses.

Now you've just said that 'the individual who possesses that brain makes choices, which in turn causes brain functions to operate.'

You've made a distinction between 'the individual' and his or her brain. What is the 'individual'? Where in the body is the individual found? How do you know? What is your evidence?

AND ─ where I came in ─ how does the 'individual' make choices, if not by chains of cause&effect.

AND why does the brain need to function while the 'individual' chooses? Are you aware of the brain experiments several years ago, which show that the non-conscious brain makes decisions ─ the moment of decision being detectable on real-time scans ─ and sometimes sets the body in train to effect them, up to seven, or even more, seconds, before the conscious brain knows a decision has been made? If not, you can read a report of it >here<.

As for freewill and the brain. When we are sleeping the non-conscious brain is on a glide path for making choices, but when we are awake our conscious mind becomes the conduit for freewill choices. Freewill is evident when a person resists temptation to do an illegal act or not. People control their minds through freewill choices. A student decides to do homework or go to a party, it is a freewill choice. It happens continually when we are awake, there is no robotic self taking control. There is no evidence for the brain being a determinist tool in our everyday thoughts or social actions. What causes most people to behavior in more or less predictable ways are social recognition processes. When we do something deemed competent or perhaps socially acceptable we gain social recognition from significant or referent group others. If you want to devise a more or less deterministic model for human behavior it would be based on those social recognition processes encountered in everyday life. The individual is in charge of freewill choices, not unfathomable brain circuitry.

My evidence for freewill is everyday history of human activity, it is not predictable, which would be a proof for determinism. Otherwise, what evidence is relevant? It must be based on what people do not what they say. Behavior can be quantified, words may or may not correlate with human actions. So, if you want evidence study human behavior, it certainly is not robotic. Robotic behavior would be associated with deterministic brain functions. According to social science research, humans do not behave as if they were robots. Humans behavior according to freewill choices.

If I am incorrect, there should be scientific studies to refute my assertions. If there are such studies, post them.

In the study you referenced here is a critical comment by the author.

"But results aren't enough to convince Frith that free will is an illusion. 'We already know our decisions can be unconsciously primed,' he says. The brain activity could be part of this priming, as opposed to the decision process, he adds."

I think the key is what we do when we are confronted with situations or circumstances. There appears to be no evidence for robotic like responses in everyday situations. Evidence indicates freewill choices.

If you like, here is a quantitative measure for freewill. Take aggregates of people with similar personality profiles and place them in similar situations. If we find significant statistical correlations for their behaviors, or similar behavior outcomes, we have deterministic evidence. In the real world, you find a wide variety of freewill choices.

 

[blü 2]

When we are sleeping the non-conscious brain is on a glide path for making choices, but when we are awake our conscious mind becomes the conduit for freewill choices.

The conscious brain? No it doesn't. Didn't you read the article I linked, which sets out research that shows the conscious brain is the last to know what the brain's chosen?

Freewill is evident when a person resists temptation to do an illegal act or not.

That's freewill, definition 1. It takes no account of determinism.

People control their minds through freewill choices.

You ducked my questions on this. Here they are again ─

What is the 'individual' as distinct from the brain?

Where in the body does it exist?

How do you know? What evidence supports your claim?

And the Big One: How does the 'individual' make choices, other than as the result of chains of cause&effect?

By magic?

Nice clear answers, please.

 

[Repox]

The conscious brain? No it doesn't. Didn't you read the article I linked, which sets out research that shows the conscious brain is the last to know what the brain's chosen?
That's freewill, definition 1. It takes no account of determinism.
You ducked my questions on this. Here they are again ─

What is the 'individual' as distinct from the brain?

Where in the body does it exist?

How do you know? What evidence supports your claim?

And the Big One: How does the 'individual' make choices, other than as the result of chains of cause&effect?

By magic?

Nice clear answers, please.

Because freewill is human condition, not a physical attribute, there is no specific definition. It is like trying to define an attitude, it is based on individual predispositions.

The conscious brain? No it doesn't. Didn't you read the article I linked, which sets out research that shows the conscious brain is the last to know what the brain's chosen?
That's freewill, definition 1. It takes no account of determinism.
You ducked my questions on this. Here they are again ─

What is the 'individual' as distinct from the brain?

Where in the body does it exist?

How do you know? What evidence supports your claim?

And the Big One: How does the 'individual' make choices, other than as the result of chains of cause&effect?

By magic?

Nice clear answers, please.

It is elementary Watson, ha ha. The word individual is used to reference a particular person. Each person has particular traits which made him or her an individual. It is in the dictionary. A brain is part of an individual's physical body. Each individual makes choices depending on preferences or disposition. Individuals initiate brain functions resulting in preferred ideas as opposed to dysfunctional ideas. As an example, a person has learned how to calculate a mathematical equation. The brain carries out the calculation correctly as a consequence of the person exercising brain activity for the solution. It is a freewill choice, not a robotic commandment from the brain. Again, there is no evidence for humans behaving like robots. Each individual makes choices based on desires, goals, and everyday necessities. Once the individual makes a choice the brain executes thoughts and body movements related to it. The brain is a tool used to think and solve problems and to carryout numerous tasks. The brain doesn't operate independent of the individual's will to do this or that, or to think about various things. Some people are more disciplined than others, they have greater control over brain activity, they can divert brain activity away from harmful or disturbing ideas. I had a friend who was a military officer. He is a good example of mind control. After a hectic or particularly challenging day, he would go to bed and almost immediately go to sleep. You could see his face tense with fierce determination to control brain functions so disturbing thoughts wouldn't interfere with his sleep. It is called discipline, some have it more than others. It is a good example of how freewill works. Some individuals have more control of brain activity than others.

There is also a theological issue to freewill. If humans were determined, there would be no sin or transgressions against God's Commandments. If there was no freewill, Satan would not be evil. You would have to conclude God created Satan to be rebellious, it wasn't his fault. Murders don't commit bad acts, they simple carry out deterministic functions. We should let all prisons out of jail because they are not guilty, they are wired to do bad things. How do you establish a moral order when there is no such thing as bad conduct?

 

[blü 2]

Because freewill is human condition, not a physical attribute, there is no specific definition.

Not a physical attribute? Then it's a product of your imagination ─ what else could it be?

The word individual is used to reference a particular person.

Not as you used it. You used to distinguish some undefined thing from the brain, which we know is the engine of thought, and biological right through. So rethink your answer.

A brain is part of an individual's physical body.

I seize this chance to agree with you. I may not get another one.

Each individual makes choices depending on preferences or disposition

So, you say, the 'individual' is not his or her body's brain, right?

So what is the 'individual'? This is the third time I've had to ask you.

And how do you know?

And how does it make choices?

Address the questions on the table. Stop all the repetitious blah and face up to the problems of your position.

If you can't do that, just say, "I can't do that." Personal honesty requires no less.

 

[Repox]

Not a physical attribute? Then it's a product of your imagination ─ what else could it be?
Not as you used it. You used to distinguish some undefined thing from the brain, which we know is the engine of thought, and biological right through. So rethink your answer.
I seize this chance to agree with you. I may not get another one.
So, you say, the 'individual' is not his or her body's brain, right?

So what is the 'individual'? This is the third time I've had to ask you.

And how do you know?

And how does it make choices?

Address the questions on the table. Stop all the repetitious blah and face up to the problems of your position.

If you can't do that, just say, "I can't do that." Personal honesty requires no less.

Why do you ask such a silly question? Individual is a synonym for person, so what is the problem? What other word could I use? I think part of the problem is there is no way to quantify freewill, al least not from the standpoint of a scientific explanation. An yet, we have a lot of evidence of human behavior. Therefore, it is relatively easy to present an argument for freewill because it is what people do and what they say about what they do. If you deny what people say and what they do, you are denying reality.

So far, you have no convincing argument for determinism as the explanation for human behavior. Your world is hypothetical, contrary to human experience, and without evidence. Just ask people, they will tell you they think about it before they decide. They don't react according to instincts. Although instincts effect human behavior, humans have evolved to become thinking creatures. Humans think about what they are doing and make freewill choices to do this or that. Much of what I know about human behavior comes from from my academic career and research studies. In short, I have an advantage. I am not receptive to lectures on topics for which I have a good understanding. I will be persuaded when I see the evidence. I have presented a number of examples of freewill, all of which you have ignored. Apparently, you have a closed mind on the topic.

 

[JustWondering]

If you are a raw empiricist, or requiring scientific evidence, there is no hope for anyone who has had revelations.

If the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians had "revelations" and "visions" convincing them of the existence of Zeus and Ra, what does that say about the credibility of "revelations" and "visions"? At this point you obviously have no interest in having an HONEST discussion/debate. Like any true believer you mindlessly dismiss any evidence or sound arguments that counter your supernatural beliefs out of hand.

However, if you demand empirical evidence, why bother with a religious forum?

Why does someone like you that thinks it is rational to believe ANYTHING without any evidence or sound arguments to back it up bother with religious forums?

 

[JustWondering]

Why do you ask such a silly question? Individual is a synonym for person, so what is the problem? What other word could I use? I think part of the problem is there is no way to quantify freewill, al least not from the standpoint of a scientific explanation. An yet, we have a lot of evidence of human behavior. Therefore, it is relatively easy to present an argument for freewill because it is what people do and what they say about what they do. If you deny what people say and what they do, you are denying reality.

So far, you have no convincing argument for determinism as the explanation for human behavior. Your world is hypothetical, contrary to human experience, and without evidence. Just ask people, they will tell you they think about it before they decide. They don't react according to instincts. Although instincts effect human behavior, humans have evolved to become thinking creatures. Humans think about what they are doing and make freewill choices to do this or that. Much of what I know about human behavior comes from from my academic career and research studies. In short, I have an advantage. I am not receptive to lectures on topics for which I have a good understanding. I will be persuaded when I see the evidence. I have presented a number of examples of freewill, all of which you have ignored. Apparently, you have a closed mind on the topic.

Yet you continue to provide no alternative explanation for how things work. Everything we observe to exist is physical in nature. We live in a demonstrable cause and effect universe. What do you have to support your position? So far I'll you've done is disagree without giving any real reasons or support for your position. This is a debate, simply saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh!" like a child when you disagree isn't going to cut it.

 

[Repox]

If the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians had "revelations" and "visions" convincing them of the existence of Zeus and Ra, what does that say about the credibility of "revelations" and "visions"? At this point you obviously have no interest in having an HONEST discussion/debate. Like any true believer you mindlessly dismiss any evidence or sound arguments that counter your supernatural beliefs out of hand.



Why does someone like you that thinks it is rational to believe ANYTHING without any evidence or sound arguments to back it up bother with religious forums?

Who is someone like me? It sounds like an offensive remark. I post what I please. I find much evidence for freewill, it is, as I have posted, people in the real world who are examples.

I will concede when someone presents and argument with evidence for determinism.

 

[Repox]

Yet you continue to provide no alternative explanation for how things work. Everything we observe to exist is physical in nature. We live in a demonstrable cause and effect universe. What do you have to support your position? So far I'll you've done is disagree without giving any real reasons or support for your position. This is a debate, simply saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh!" like a child when you disagree isn't going to cut it.

Learn to read what is posted. I have presented numerous examples of freewill with logical explanations. I am disappointed at the lack of intellectual understanding. If you have an argument for determinism, post it. Remember, evidence is required. I never said there is scientific evidence for freewill, just endless examples of its existence. Dispute those examples.

yes, you can make a good argument for nature based on physical laws, and those laws having deterministic character, but you can't make the same argument for humans. Evidence is clear, humans have freewill.

 

[JustWondering]

Learn to read what is posted. I have presented numerous examples of freewill with logical explanations.

If the examples you presented were actually logical I wouldn't be disagreeing with you.

 

[Repox]

If the examples you presented were actually logical I wouldn't be disagreeing with you.

If the examples you presented were actually logical I wouldn't be disagreeing with you.

Make your argument instead of making accusations. Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of logic.

 

[JustWondering]

Make your argument instead of making accusations.

You continue to purposely avoid answering questions I and others in this thread have asked you. If you want to have an honest discussion/debate go back and answer the questions you've been asked instead of ignoring them. Otherwise, further discussion with you is a waste of my time.

 

[Repox]

You continue to purposely avoid answering questions I and others in this thread have asked you. If you want to have an honest discussion/debate go back and answer the questions you've been asked instead of ignoring them. Otherwise, further discussion with you is a waste of my time.

Obviously, you can't read. I have presented logical arguments based on what people do. I refuse to change the rules of a logical debate because someone is losing the debate. In case you don't understand the meaning of logic, here is a definition. Interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable. Do you understand it? If you have problems, do some research.

 

[Repox]

Based on the results of our debate, I have won. Everyone must remember, I never said there is a scientific argument for freewill, just a lot of evidence for its existence. I have repeated asked for evidence for determinism. So far, no one has posted it. Therefore, because there is an abundance of evidence for freewill, and no evidence for determinism, the debate is over.

Freewill is a very important topic for God and His creation. It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine everything existing without God's creation. It is also difficult to imagine the course of events as we know it without a moral order. The implication of determinism for history is freewill is a myth, we are all victims of brain cells and surrounding circumstances of others causing chaos and mayhem because they are unable to make freewill choices. If there is no morality, God just pressed a button and did it without any consideration for his creatures making freewill choices. How about love? Why would God's creatures love Him if they had no opportunity to make choices. Would God appreciate robot worshippers?

We know about atheists interpretations of everything. It is appealing for those who ignore or don't believe in God. It is difficult however to understand how everything could exist without a creator. It always goes back to the beginning. It is interesting, I was reviewing String Theory. The implication for the beginning of the universe is there were two forces which more or less collided to form matter and energy. Some scientists propose two universes collided. Based on my understanding of God's duality, it is reasonable to conclude the two entities of God created the universe. Then, billions of years later, scientist propose, based on String Theory, two forces produced our universe. I am thinking about posting on the topic, but I admit to a lack of knowledge about String Theory. Maybe someone with a strong science background could post a thread based on God's duality and creation.

 

[blü 2]

Why do you ask such a silly question? Individual is a synonym for person, so what is the problem?

The problem is that you're talking incoherent nonsense and refusing to address questions that would clarify the situation.

You say that the brain is not the source of one's will and that the brain does not make one's decisions.

What then is the source of one's will? Specify it and say how it produces one's will.

What then makes one's decisions? Specify it and say how it makes decisions other than by chains of cause&effect.

Or if you don't know, say "I don't know".

Stop fleeing from the only part of any discussion on freewill that matters.

 

[Repox]

The problem is that you're talking incoherent nonsense and refusing to address questions that would clarify the situation.

You say that the brain is not the source of one's will and that the brain does not make one's decisions.

What then is the source of one's will? Specify it and say how it produces one's will.

What then makes one's decisions? Specify it and say how it makes decisions other than by chains of cause&effect.

Or if you don't know, say "I don't know".

Stop fleeing from the only part of any discussion on freewill that matters.

I never said the brain is not the source of one's will. What I have repeated said is we think to make choices. You propose the brain is an independent entity, it controls us without our consent, or without our thoughts to make choices. It infers that we are robots, whatever the brain decides we have no choice but to go along. Everyday experience defies that assumption. People think, consider, and make choices, they are not controlled to eliminate opportunities to direct, analyze, or consider options for making choices. Where is the evidence for humans being robots, or entities without the ability to consider options or plans?

Evidence for humans not being robots is everywhere, you just ignore it. I have posted situation after situation where people make choices, and where they are not robotic. You continue with your theory without a reality check. Explain real life situations with reference to your idea of brain determinism?

 

[Repox]

I never said the brain is not the source of one's will. What I have repeated said is we think to make choices. You propose the brain is an independent entity, it controls us without our consent, or without our thoughts to make choices. It infers that we are robots, whatever the brain decides we have no choice but to go along. Everyday experience defies that assumption. People think, consider, and make choices, they are not controlled to eliminate opportunities to direct, analyze, or consider options for making choices. Where is the evidence for humans being robots, or entities without the ability to consider options or plans?

Evidence for humans not being robots is everywhere, you just ignore it. I have posted situation after situation where people make choices, and where they are not robotic. You continue with your theory without a reality check. Explain real life situations with reference to your idea of brain determinism?

Just as you cannot propose the exact functions of the brain which produce determinism, I cannot produce exact functions which produce freewill. However, I have evidence for freewill, you have nothing but an unfounded theory.

 

[blü 2]

I never said the brain is not the source of one's will.

So you accept that the brain is an extremely complex biomechanism and is the source of one's will.

Right?

What I have repeated said is we think to make choices. You propose the brain is an independent entity, it controls us without our consent, or without our thoughts to make choices.

No, the brain is not independent of us, it IS us (as a very important part of our bodies). It controls nothing without our consent because it generates our consent, its consent IS our consent. And it generates all our thoughts and all our choices because all our thoughts and choices are brain functions.

It infers that we are robots

Biomechanisms, yes. Why do you think people try, unsuccessfully, to find alternatives?

whatever the brain decides we have no choice but to go along.

That sentence is identical in meaning to, Whatever we decide, we have no choice but to go along. Not a particularly useful thought.

And now yet again you bring us back to the question you refuse to answer: what is this 'we' you speak of as separate from the brain? Where is it? How does it function? How do you know?

And you make it plain that you scarcely understand your own position and have no answer to even these obvious questions.

Never wonder why I called your position incoherent.

 

[Repox]

So you accept that the brain is an extremely complex biomechanism and is the source of one's will.

Right?
No, the brain is not independent of us, it IS us (as a very important part of our bodies). It controls nothing without our consent because it generates our consent, its consent IS our consent. And it generates all our thoughts and all our choices because all our thoughts and choices are brain functions.
Biomechanisms, yes. Why do you think people try, unsuccessfully, to find alternatives?
That sentence is identical in meaning to, Whatever we decide, we have no choice but to go along. Not a particularly useful thought.

And now yet again you bring us back to the question you refuse to answer: what is this 'we' you speak of as separate from the brain? Where is it? How does it function? How do you know?

And you make it plain that you scarcely understand your own position and have no answer to even these obvious questions.

Never wonder why I called your position incoherent.

Here is a formal definition of freewill, one in which there a many examples. Freewill is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. It is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, persuasion, and deliberation, and prohibition. As you can observe, freewill is an integral part of everyone's life, even your life. You have chosen to prove determinism of the brain. The problem with your subject is there is no way you can prove it.

I object to your statement, "And now yet again you bring us back to the question you refuse to answer: what is this 'we' you speak of as separate from the brain? Where is it? How does it function? How do you know?"

Again, I never said we are separate from the brain. Our brain is where we study choices and make decisions after "choosing" what is the best alternative. It is easy to see how it functions, just look around you at the way people act. They are not robots, they consider possibilities and make decisions or act on their choices. Everyday life is the evidence.

You have a bad habit of taking my ideas out of context. It is not the way you make an argument, it is not honest.