Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[Curious George]

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<.

Here is the article:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggvMAI&usg=AFQjCNGTtPiF9OxnASwZ4xoY3wKk43TK_w

Now, let us first notice that this does not actually show cause and effect. It shows a strong correlation. But is it concusive?

Consider other research, here is an overview:

Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia

The point is, this is not a decided notion. We do not have evidence to conclude that free will does not exist. We do have strong evidence that illustrates determinism is not correct (consider quantim physics) further, in order to conclude even logically that determinism is true, you must beg the question.

So, it can not be proven logically. It is not supported scientifically, and we all experience the reality/illusion of choice.

There is literally no reason to believe in determinism. There is no reason not to accept some degree of free will. Should we doubt and continue to question free will? Sure. But it is ridiculous when people misrepresent that science shows no free will. Really, science shows no determinism.


Cheers

 

[blü 2]

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.

So at last you offer a definition of 'freewill' and you choose the only one of the three I offered you that has nothing to do with determinism.

Sheesh! Do you have any comprehension of what you're saying?

It is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen.

By the functions of the brain.

By the brain's deterministic processes. As I said at some length in #240 and #242, and to which you have made no reasoned reply at any stage.

And you have no alternative explanation, no curiosity about brain research, no interest in facts, just this yearning for a blurry, warm, inexplicable and uncomprehending alternative.

You have chosen to prove determinism of the brain. The problem with your subject is there is no way you can prove it.

For the third time I tell you the case for determinism:

1. The brain is biochemical right through.

2. The scientific descriptions of chemistry and biochemistry are deterministic.

3. Thus all present scientific explanations and descriptions of the brain are deterministic.

I've given you this demonstration three times or more, and ─ I say again ─ you have not once offered a reasoned rebuttal of it. Not once. Nothing.

Yet your statement (that I can't demonstrate that in scientific terms the brain is deterministic) is false, either dishonest or self-deluding.

Now make a reasoned rebuttal of the case I've presented, or never repeat your false claim.

I never said we are separate from the brain

.

You did, and I quoted you back to yourself in an earlier post. But never mind. You've now repented, or at least you say you have.

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

So you didn't read that article I linked telling you how we can watch from outside as brains make choices? You know nothing about brain science and you protect the freedom of knowing nothing? (And yet you told me I should go and learn about scientific method. Dear oh dear!)

They are not robots.

They ─ and we ─ are very complex biomechanisms. You know what it's like to be a very complex biomechanism because you are one. If you don't think you're a robot, then you have your own answer. Science just gets on examining, describing and explaining reality.

 

[blü 2]

Thanks for the article on the delay between decision-making and consciousness of the decision. It's much more useful than the science news precis I linked earlier.

Now, let us first notice that this does not actually show cause and effect. It shows a strong correlation. But is it concusive?

Persuasive.

One major problem that I see is that the idea of freewill being independent of cause&effect is undefinable within science. The idea of unknown causes, or interference from quantum randomness, are describable hypotheses. Absence of both is not.

So first, using that 'independence' definition, is there any evidence that such phenomena have occurred? I'm not aware of any.

If they have not, then really, there's no case to answer, is there?

If they have, then has any testable hypothesis been proposed in respect of them? Not only do I not know of any, but (given that supernatural explanations are ruled out) I have no idea where to start looking.

Besides, biochemistry is simply a form of chemistry, and in chemistry, as far as I know, no one claims 'free will' is manifested. What special property can be claimed for chemistry giving rise to this independence?

we all experience the reality/illusion of choice.

And that of itself isn't stressful. The evolved system works.

There is literally no reason to believe in determinism.

The absence of authenticated instances doesn't count? The absence of the need for an hypothesis, and the absence of any such hypothesis anyway, don't count? The existing causal (and QM random) operating assumptions of physics and chemistry don't count?

I beg to differ.

There is no reason not to accept some degree of free will.

But I see no rational basis for thinking ─ for even suspecting ─ anything in biochemistry supports 'independence' freewill.

(But a worthy discussion point. Thanks.)

 

[Repox]

Here is the article:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggvMAI&usg=AFQjCNGTtPiF9OxnASwZ4xoY3wKk43TK_w

Now, let us first notice that this does not actually show cause and effect. It shows a strong correlation. But is it concusive?

Consider other research, here is an overview:

Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia

The point is, this is not a decided notion. We do not have evidence to conclude that free will does not exist. We do have strong evidence that illustrates determinism is not correct (consider quantim physics) further, in order to conclude even logically that determinism is true, you must beg the question.

So, it can not be proven logically. It is not supported scientifically, and we all experience the reality/illusion of choice.

There is literally no reason to believe in determinism. There is no reason not to accept some degree of free will. Should we doubt and continue to question free will? Sure. But it is ridiculous when people misrepresent that science shows no free will. Really, science shows no determinism.


Cheers

I read the studies and digested some interesting information. It appears as if the subconscious mind has more influence on thoughts and decision making than expected. Also, it appears to be mixed up whereby subconscious influences may be confused with freewill choices, so science is not certain how much influence there is from the subconscious mind. I think that is a fair summary. Evidently, there is a lot to understand. The influence of the subconscious mind on decision making has probably been overlooked.

I admit to having my religious perspective influence my ideas about freewill. It is not clear, but perhaps one can assume freewill choices are more common under circumstances where one has more information and time to deliberate, it may happen during an intensive thinking session. One never really knows how much the subconscious mind dictates decision making. Maybe the subconscious mind assists in making choices one thinks are free will. It is not clear.

Thanks for the articles.

 

[blü 2]

The influence of the subconscious mind on decision making has probably been overlooked.

On the exact contrary, the influence of the subconscious mind on decision-making has been studied since at least Freud's time. But only since the 1990s have really sharp tools become available.

One never really knows how much the subconscious mind dictates decision making.

If you say 100% you'll never be far wrong.

Maybe the subconscious mind assists in making choices one thinks are free will.

Of course it does. All but 100%, as I said.

For example, you typed your previous post. Where were the words you typed in the quarter-second before you typed them? Certainly not in your conscious mind. This is the basis of Auden's dictum, 'How do I know what I think till I hear what I say?'

 

[Repox]

I believe there is an important issue with regard to interpreting science studies about the subconscious with everyday social behavior. I find wide variances in social outcomes in almost all areas of social activity. In social science research It is a rarity when significant statistical relationships are higher than .05, indicating more random than predictable behavior. We find higher statistical relationships in the bio-physical sciences where physical properties are more certain with respect to physical properties. Unless humans have high levels of commitment to group norms, there is a lack of predictable behavior. There is just too much variance in human behavioral to assume predictability (determinism). Degree of predictable behavior depends on the situation, circumstance, and individual commitment to group norms.

 

[blü 2]

I believe there is an important issue with regard to interpreting science studies about the subconscious with everyday social behavior.

Now back to explaining an alternative to determinism.

 

[Curious George]

Thanks for the article on the delay between decision-making and consciousness of the decision. It's much more useful than the science news precis I linked earlier.
Persuasive.

One major problem that I see is that the idea of freewill being independent of cause&effect is undefinable within science. The idea of unknown causes, or interference from quantum randomness, are describable hypotheses. Absence of both is not.

So first, using that 'independence' definition, is there any evidence that such phenomena have occurred? I'm not aware of any.

If they have not, then really, there's no case to answer, is there?

If they have, then has any testable hypothesis been proposed in respect of them? Not only do I not know of any, but (given that supernatural explanations are ruled out) I have no idea where to start looking.

Besides, biochemistry is simply a form of chemistry, and in chemistry, as far as I know, no one claims 'free will' is manifested. What special property can be claimed for chemistry giving rise to this independence?
And that of itself isn't stressful. The evolved system works.
The absence of authenticated instances doesn't count? The absence of the need for an hypothesis, and the absence of any such hypothesis anyway, don't count? The existing causal (and QM random) operating assumptions of physics and chemistry don't count?

I beg to differ.
But I see no rational basis for thinking ─ for even suspecting ─ anything in biochemistry supports 'independence' freewill.

(But a worthy discussion point. Thanks.)

And yet there is no rational basis to assume what has been will be. I.e. we have no rational basis to assume cause and effect at all exist. Yet we are forced to do so, and we do so. The same is true of free will.

We rely on our assumptions, one of which is free will. Without free will, all of our science means nothing. People who deny free will are putting themselves in a spot. The scientists couldn't have chosen otherwise, they couldn't interpret the data otherwise, they couldn't have got alternate results. There are no independent variables. This is the box in which you put yourself: to undo the very foundation which you seek to use to base your claim.

Philosophically determinism is defunct. Scientifically it is defunct. Determinism is no more truthful than solipsism.

You believe the tests are persuasive...but persuasive of what? There is nothing to indicate determinism. All there is at the end of the day is that some people show brain activity prior to when they remember making a decision. If one hundred people willed there arm to move with no environmental obstacles to moving there arm it would happen. That is 100% correlation. These studies don't even show that. Moreover there are studies that indicate that the brain activity is just the brain getting ready to make a choice. There are so many alternatives and yet people are so quick to assume determinism. Is it because it is more neat and orderly? Everyday even the most hardcore determinists wake up and assume they have a degree of control. That is they act and believe contrary to their supposed beliefs. This raises the question: do they actually believe in determinism at all? My theory: nope.

The only explanation I can think is that they choose to muse over determinism because they are not certain. That is fine. But realize that is all that it is: musing. No one actually believes in determinism. They may believe determinism is possible. But that is a little different. It is like people who say they believe that we are in a dreamworld and when we die we will enter the waking world. No matter how many times they repeat their mantra they still put food in their belly when they hunger, water down their throat when they thirst, they still avoid pain, seek pleasure and grieve when their loved ones pass away. When a person espouses a belief that every action of theirs contradicts should we believe them?

 

[Curious George]

Now back to explaining an alternative to determinism.

Determinsim allows only for cause and effect. Cause and effect leads to an infinite regression. Cause and effect must be assumed to evidence cause and effect. Two major logical problems with cause and effect. Randomness exists. This disproves determinism. Is there yet another mechanism by which affects reality? Sure. Randomness removes method. Thought and consciousness employ method. If such is the case unpredictable results initiated by thought and consciousness is a third mechanism.

 

[blü 2]

And yet there is no rational basis to assume what has been will be. I.e. we have no rational basis to assume cause and effect at all exist.

Hmm. The whole of science works by empiricism and induction. These can readily assume (and I agree that's the word) that what appears to have been the case for billions of years will be the case into the future, at least until we have reason to think it won't. I'd say that experience could properly be called a 'rational basis'.

Yet we are forced to do so, and we do so.

It would be at least as fair to say we're persuaded to think so, no? We keep doing it and it keeps working, so we keep doing it.

The same is true of free will.

I take it we're still talking about freewill as the ability to make choices independently of the biochemical chains of cause&effect (and any QM randomness that might affect such a process) that make our other brain functions go ─ the 'independence' definition.

On what basis would we attribute such an ability to our brains? We have not one authenticated example, although as the article on choicemaking which you linked says, we have the ability to scan brains live and in action. We have no reason to doubt that those making choices there thought they were exercising their own will in arriving at those choices, and no reason to think they weren't, yet the observers saw nothing outside of biology.

Besides. what's so special about the biochemistry of brains that we ought to attribute magic to it alone, anyway? Outside of theology / the supernatural / magic, that is?

We rely on our assumptions, one of which is free will.

This entails definition 1 that I mentioned to Repox: the ability to make decisions according to our own thinking and instincts, free of external compulsions. It's the mainstay notion for society and law, but it doesn't mention or examine determinism.

Though when, for example, SCOTUS held that the brain of an adolescent is physically different to a mature brain, and that this distinction might mitigate against the death penalty in some cases, the law is not wholly dismissing aspects of determinism.

Without free will, all of our science means nothing. People who deny free will are putting themselves in a spot. The scientists couldn't have chosen otherwise, they couldn't interpret the data otherwise, they couldn't have got alternate results.

The alternative, one I find credible, is that brains have evolved for survival and breeding, and that in this process the ability to discern what is real is valuable to survival (with some exceptions that will occur to you so as to promote breeding). Thus it's wholly possible that we in fact see, assess and react to react to reality in a very flexible, useful way. The same brain has evolved to reason, for example ─ that's not a bad trick. And staring into my crystal ball, I have no reason to doubt that in due course our researches into the processes of learning, reasoning and self-awareness will allow us, if we wish, to imbue future versions of the computer with such qualities.

Philosophically determinism is defunct. Scientifically it is defunct.

Not until we have an alternative, it ain't ─ not until we have a successful hypothesis as to how a brain could make decisions independently of cause&effect.

And apart from magic, there isn't one. Determinism is the only coherent explanation on the table, and it accords fully with the principles of chemistry and biochemistry. Meanwhile 'independence' free will is a lovely pipe dream with no legs under it, a distant puff of pretty cloud high high in the air.

 

[blü 2]

Determinsim allows only for cause and effect. Cause and effect leads to an infinite regression.

Two answers to that.

One: if spacetime is a quality, a characteristic, of energy, then spacetime exists because energy does and not vice versa. Therefore no infinite regression is involved. That hypothesis is as good as many another.

Two: in QM we encounter randomness in nature. The existence of natural randomness (independently of point one) removes the need to postulate an infinite regression.

 

[Curious George]

Two answers to that.

One: if spacetime is a quality, a characteristic, of energy, then spacetime exists because energy does and not vice versa. Therefore no infinite regression is involved. That hypothesis is as good as many another.

Two: in QM we encounter randomness in nature. The existence of natural randomness (independently of point one) removes the need to postulate an infinite regression.

Two: randomness destroys determinism...
One: special pleading...if you require cause and effect then you need cause for these effects.

 

[Curious George]

Hmm. The whole of science works by empiricism and induction. These can readily assume (and I agree that's the word) that what appears to have been the case for billions of years will be the case into the future, at least until we have reason to think it won't. I'd say that experience could properly be called a 'rational basis'.

Yes, a rational basis if we presuppose cause and effect. If we beg the question we can establish a rational basis.

 

[Curious George]

I take it we're still talking about freewill as the ability to make choices independently of the biochemical chains of cause&effect (and any QM randomness that might affect such a process) that make our other brain functions go ─ the 'independence' definition.

I don't like the word independently in that definition. Quite simply the ability to make decisions that are not completely predetermined by forces out of our control would do just fine. Or simply the notion that humans have any degree of control is fine...that is what free will is. A notion that we have ANY degree of control. To argue against freewill is tantamount to saying humans have no degree of control.

 

[Curious George]

On what basis would we attribute such an ability to our brains? We have not one authenticated example, although as the article on choicemaking which you linked says, we have the ability to scan brains live and in action. We have no reason to doubt that those making choices there thought they were exercising their own will in arriving at those choices, and no reason to think they weren't, yet the observers saw nothing outside of biology.

On the basis that we act, and we seem tp choose to act. The same basis that we use for notions of cause and effect. It happens and it seems to continue to happen.

I needn't appeal to anything outside biology. That observers did not see it did not mean it was not there.

We control things. We set up experiments with this control, we analyze, we think, we move... all of this based on the supposition that we have control. The determinist simply falls back on the cause of the gaps. What causes consciousness: what causes action, idk but it has a cause, what causes consciousness, idk but it has a cause. It is just this assumption that everythimg has a prior cause. Except when it doesn't (i.e. some first cause). Yet no proof for any cause. Is it possible that we are playing out some algorithm...sure. but if so, all science is for naught. Our scientific method relies on our control. All our scientific understanding assumes we have a degree of control.

So literally all of science assumes we have some degree of free will. As with cause and effect: it seems to work so we keep assuming it.

Cheers

 

[Curious George]

This entails definition 1 that I mentioned to Repox: the ability to make decisions according to our own thinking and instincts, free of external compulsions. It's the mainstay notion for society and law, but it doesn't mention or examine determinism.

Though when, for example, SCOTUS held that the brain of an adolescent is physically different to a mature brain, and that this distinction might mitigate against the death penalty in some cases, the law is not wholly dismissing aspects of determinism.

No, the law, we, everyone, is dismissing of determinism. That we acknowledge our control is limited does not entail that we accept determinism. Determinism is to say that our control is non existent.

 

[Curious George]

Not until we have an alternative, it ain't ─ not until we have a successful hypothesis as to how a brain could make decisions independently of cause&effect.

And apart from magic, there isn't one. Determinism is the only coherent explanation on the table, and it accords fully with the principles of chemistry and biochemistry. Meanwhile 'independence' free will is a lovely pipe dream with no legs under it, a distant puff of pretty cloud high high in the air.

Again, it is not completely independent, different factors obviously jave some influence. All you need is multiple possibilities. The brain thinks, options are available, the person chooses. You do not need a cause for everything. Such would require infinite regression.

 

[blü 2]

Two: randomness destroys determinism...

And I haven't failed to mention it in that context.

However, randomness is wholly within physics, and contradicts rather than implies freewill, so it's of no use to your argument.

One: special pleading...if you require cause and effect then you need cause for these effects.

Or quantum randomness.

But if spacetime is a property of energy then all that needs to exist is energy, and time, space and the zip fastener follow from that.

Yes, a rational basis if we presuppose cause and effect. If we beg the question we can establish a rational basis.

You seriously doubt the existence of cause&effect? You say it has to be assumed?

Ah (as my French sister-in-law once put it) you are being humoristic!

On the basis that we act, and we seem tp choose to act.

Seems, madam? Nay, it is. I know not seems (Hamlet to Gertrude). We act because of chains of cause&effect run through our neurons, result in nerve signals, activate body movement or speech &c. No mystery, no alternative way we choose or we act.

I needn't appeal to anything outside biology. That observers did not see it did not mean it was not there.

WHAT, exactly might have been there? On what basis do you claim it?

The determinist simply falls back on the cause of the gaps. What causes consciousness: what causes action, idk but it has a cause, what causes consciousness, idk but it has a cause.

Now you're resorting to cheap shots in areas you should have checked. Here's W! on Global Workspace Theory, the leading hypothesis regarding consciousness when last I looked into such things.

It is just this assumption that everythimg has a prior cause.

Except randomness.

Except when it doesn't (i.e. some first cause).

My energy-is-prior hypothesis would deal with first causes.

No, the law, we, everyone, is dismissing of determinism. That we acknowledge our control is limited does not entail that we accept determinism. Determinism is to say that our control is non existent.

And that will sound credible when you describe the manner in which this control is effected without chains of cause&effect, and if relevant, randomness.

Again, it is not completely independent, different factors obviously jave some influence.

Just describe a 'different factor' and talk me through its having influence, and what you've said might make sense. Meanwhile it's just wishing, no?

 

[Repox]

In order to establish determinism as an explanation for human behavior we need evidence. Due to the lack of scientific methodology for proving human brain activity for either free will or determinism, one must study social data. I have presented numerous examples of people making free will choices. There is more social behavioral evidence for free will then there is for determinism. Then, we have social science studies of human behavior. It is interesting, in social science research of human behavior we don't have high levels of statistical significance (.05). However, in the biological and physical sciences we have higher levels of significance in research studies. The obvious conclusion is people are less predictable than are physical and chemical properties in the natural sciences. In short, statistical results in social behavioral studies supports the idea of less predictability for human behavior, which supports the idea of free will.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

You have been asked MULTIPLE times to describe how your version of freewill works since you deny human consciousness arises from the biochemical reactions of the brain, a physical organ subject to all the laws of physics that all other matter and energy adhere to. The truth of the matter is that you prefer your supernatural belief system over reality. Determinism is a direct threat to your dogma that insists that people's decisions are not influenced by ANY outside factors, so your genocidal god can claim innocence of any wrong doing. A strange thing for a deity who shamelessly embraces a might makes right mentality to worry about. Another truth is that you avoid answering certain questions because you don't have answers for those questions, yet, instead of honestly saying "I don't know" you attempt to tap dance around the subject like we can't see your full of it. All the avoidance and mental gymnastics do is destroy your credibility. If it's obvious you're not interested in having an honest discussion/debate no one's going to take you seriously.