Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[blü 2]

Excepting the fact that it offers reason to assume a process that is not proven to be deterministic as non deterministic.

Deterministic with the possibility of random interruptions, to be precise. All comfortably within physics.

No comfort there for the school of magic.

We have no evidence that supports such a conclusion.

That's an overstatement. The facts I recited all support the conclusion. However, they don't demonstrate its correctness, which is why it's an hypothesis, and I've never suggested otherwise.

What I've said instead is that it's consistent with certain evidence, not contradicted by other evidence and is not disqualified by reasonable folk for relying on supernatural elements.

We only have evidence that supports a probabilistic nature of how our brains are informed.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Regardless, we have evidence that our brains are solid biochemistry, and evidence that biochemical descriptions of reality are deterministic /r.

You are the one claiming something outside the observed.

What do you say I'm claiming outside the observed? If you're referring to my priority-of-energy hypothesis, then like all hypotheses it's a tentative claim.

We agree that there is no cause and effect nature of reality.

Stop trying to generalize it. please. My statement is that it's possible the sequences of cause&effect in reality might be interrupted by random events, occurring within physics. If you agree with that then that's what we agree on.

But nothing about reality dictates that it has a cause and effect nature.

The only exceptions to cause&effect known to physics is randomness.

You keep using that term "independence." I am not sure anything (even randomness) is independent from physical operations.

That's a fair point. It may be that Einstein was right and the universe is purely deterministic. But at present, randomness is part of the paradigm, hence potentially capable of directly influencing the process of human thought..

If we were to have unpredictability with method or consciousness then that would in fact be freewill.

'Methodical randomness' is an oxymoron.

And randomness doesn't seem to me to be a quality appropriate to any definition of freewill.

 

[blü 2]

I reject determinism based on social science research and evidence of everyday life, all of which you have ignored. I posted it!

Determinism is not about statistics and probabilities. It's about sequences of strict cause&effect, possibly interrupted by random events from QM. Only in quantum theory do we encounter probabilistic descriptions, and these simply set expected boundaries on the occurrence of particular kinds of random events.

Since none of that has any bearing at any point on 'social science', 'social science' is totally irrelevant to your chosen topic. That's reason I've ignored it, and a very good reason it is too.

 

[Curious George]

Deterministic with the possibility of random interruptions, to be precise. All comfortably within physics.

Or random with a probabilustic lean towards determinitive. Point being, there is no reason to suggest that there is a cause and effect nature to reality.

No comfort there for the school of magic.

That is good I am not invoking magic.

That's an overstatement. The facts I recited all support the conclusion. However, they don't demonstrate its correctness, which is why it's an hypothesis, and I've never suggested otherwise.

That is not an overstatement. None of the facts you recited showed more than correlation. If all you have is correlation, then that is evidence toward probability, not complete predictability.

What I've said instead is that it's consistent with certain evidence, not contradicted by other evidence and is not disqualified by reasonable folk for relying on supernatural elements.

yet niether is free will. Nor does free will require anything supernatural.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Regardless, we have evidence that our brains are solid biochemistry, and evidence that biochemical descriptions of reality are deterministic /r.

We do not have evidence that our brains are solid biochemistry. Please tell me the molecular structure of a memory? Please tell me how many carbon atoms are in an experience. You have neurotrasmitters that are probabilistically linked to feelings. You have neuronal firing which correlates to thought. I am not sure if you are aware but the science is still not decided. What is worse freewill is necessary for science to have any meaning.

What do you say I'm claiming outside the observed? If you're referring to my priority-of-energy hypothesis, then like all hypotheses it's a tentative claim.

That all events are predetermined except for a few random variables here and there.

Stop trying to generalize it. please. My statement is that it's possible the sequences of cause&effect in reality might be interrupted by random events, occurring within physics. If you agree with that then that's what we agree on.

Cause and effect is a concept on which we rely. To say that reality is cause and effect punctuated by randomness is not descriptive of our reality.

The only exceptions to cause&effect known to physics is randomness.

Physics doesn't often address consciousness, but it is not dismissed by physics either. Consequently, I think you are mistaken. Perhaps searching through scholarly articles regarding consciousness will show you otherwise.

That's a fair point. It may be that Einstein was right and the universe is purely deterministic.

Wasn't the point.

But at present, randomness is part of the paradigm, hence potentially capable of directly influencing the process of human thought..
'Methodical randomness' is an oxymoron.

I didn't say randomness, I said unpredictability.

And randomness doesn't seem to me to be a quality appropriate to any definition of freewill.

Didn't say random. I said unpredictable.

 

[blü 2]

Or random with a probabilustic lean towards determinitive. Point being, there is no reason to suggest that there is a cause and effect nature to reality.

More correctly a great deal of physics is cause&effect. even at the quantum level, and the rest is probabilistic (we think, within parameters), all at the quantum level.

That is good I am not invoking magic.

Then how are you going to describe the manner in which 'independence' freewill makes decisions? Not by biochemistry, since that's deterministic/r.

That is not an overstatement. None of the facts you recited showed more than correlation.

That's close enough for the purpose in hand.

Nor does free will require anything supernatural.

I'm still waiting for your description of how it works; and that's not because I haven't asked till now.

We do not have evidence that our brains are solid biochemistry. Please tell me the molecular structure of a memory?

To save me the trouble of looking up where memory research is up to ─ and it's quite advanced ─ why don't you at last tell me your alternative as to how memory works?

Please tell me how many carbon atoms are in an experience.

You wouldn't bother asking that question of your computer. Why bother asking it of your brain?

You have neurotrasmitters that are probabilistically linked to feelings.

Not as I understand it. We have neurotransmitters that respond to factors we can't always anticipate; there's no suggestion that determinism isn't at play, only the limits to our research tools at very fine levels.

 

[Curious George]

More correctly a great deal of physics is cause&effect. even at the quantum level, and the rest is probabilistic (we think, within parameters), all at the quantum level.
Then how are you going to describe the manner in which 'independence' freewill makes decisions? Not by biochemistry, since that's deterministic/r.

Except it is not...you say things are determinitlstic but that is just you saying it. I know it would be great for you to think they are deterministic, but they aren't.

That's close enough for the purpose in hand.

Except its not.

I'm still waiting for your description of how it works; and that's not because I haven't asked till now.

Mind recieves data, probabilities arise, mind influences outcome toward one probability or another.

To save me the trouble of looking up where memory research is up to ─ and it's quite advanced ─ why don't you at last tell me your alternative as to how memory works?

What do you mean my alternative? You keep thinking it is me with the alternative. I am pretty sure it is you.

You wouldn't bother asking that question of your computer. Why bother asking it of your brain?

because computers do not derive meaning from experience, we do. Our derivation of meaning affects our memory, our recall, our future actions and our future thought.

Not as I understand it. We have neurotransmitters that respond to factors we can't always anticipate; there's no suggestion that determinism isn't at play, only the limits to our research tools at very fine levels.

That is an assumption, an unecessary one at that.

 

[blü 2]

Except it is not...you say things are determinitlstic but that is just you saying it.

I say things are deterministic/r.

Mind recieves data, probabilities arise, mind influences outcome toward one probability or another.

More exactly, sensory input brings data to brain. Brain neurons, little biochemical cause&effect devices, process data; determine a decision is required; make decision; send neural commands to effect that decision; and may at some stage refer what has been done to the conscious brain.

What do you mean my alternative?

I mean that I say the brain makes decisions by complex neuron chains of cause&effect.

You say the brain has an *** out of which it magically pulls its decisions, no cause&effect involved. Talk me through that magical process in detail. Where is this cause&effect-free zone located? In the brain? In the bathroom? In the lumeniferous ether? Beyond the orbit of Neptune, perhaps?

And what, exactly, in this freewill view, is doing the work? How does it consult memory? And I take it it's immune to the hormones inducing the emotions in the brain, like adrenalin, oxytocin, testosterone, vasopressin, since they work by cause&effect? How does the deciding mechanism reestablish contact with the brain so as to generate the neural commands to carry the decision out?

I look forward to your illumination at last.

 

[Curious George]

I say things are deterministic/r.
More exactly, sensory input brings data to brain. Brain neurons, little biochemical cause&effect devices, process data; determine a decision is required; make decision; send neural commands to effect that decision; and may at some stage refer what has been done to the conscious brain.
I mean that I say the brain makes decisions by complex neuron chains of cause&effect.

You say the brain has an *** out of which it magically pulls its decisions, no cause&effect involved. Talk me through that magical process in detail. Where is this cause&effect-free zone located? In the brain? In the bathroom? In the lumeniferous ether? Beyond the orbit of Neptune, perhaps?

And what, exactly, in this freewill view, is doing the work? How does it consult memory? And I take it it's immune to the hormones inducing the emotions in the brain, like adrenalin, oxytocin, testosterone, vasopressin, since they work by cause&effect? How does the deciding mechanism reestablish contact with the brain so as to generate the neural commands to carry the decision out?

I look forward to your illumination at last.

No, the brain working as a sytem can simply affect itself. That is all. No magic. You say the neurons fire and make decisions; I say the neurons start firing and a possible outcomes emerge. One outcome is selected through a combination of environmental factors(so yes hormones and neurotransmitters play a role) and as a consequence of conscious thought. This outcome is not predictable. If the outcome is not predictable then it is not deterministic. If it occurs with conscious thought it is not random. There is your free will.

Now, let us go over what we accept.

1) We accept consciousness exists.

2) We accept neurons exist.

3) We accept hormones exist.

4) We accept neurotransmitters exist.

And now let us go over our evidence

1) We have evidence that conscious thought affects outcomes. For example, trying to remember and focusing on what to remember gives better recall than not. So, it seems we have evidence that conscious thought does affect our brain chemistry.

2) We also have evidence that human behavior is probabilistic.

3) We appear to have some influence.

Ok so we have my theory that lines up with all we accept, and also lines up with all our evidence. Then we have yours which lines up with what we know, but not that for which we have evidence.

It is the cause of the gaps argument. No matter how much we know you will say, yes but if we knew more we would see the cause. You want to say that there was a cause for everything. If someone focuses on something you want to say that they could not have otherwise focused. You want to say that the meaning to which we attribute an experience, a piece of art, a symbol, etc, could not be any other meaning.

It is wishful thinking, and, moreover, it is untestable. I know it may be comforting to think that all that ever will happen was written down by a really smart guy before time began and now it is just unfolding, but that is magical thinking. Let science better understand consciousness, let science better understand the factors that contribute to our deciscion making process. Hopefully one day we can completely describe the process and if any areas are restricted to uncertainty or are undefined then hopefully we can describe that. Nothing we can ever do with science will tell us that there was not a man before time who dictated all events that would ever occur. So, if you want to continue the magical thinking of determinism, you are welcome to do so. I however am going to believe in what we scientifically understand and can understand.

Cheers

 

[Repox]

Determinism is not about statistics and probabilities. It's about sequences of strict cause&effect, possibly interrupted by random events from QM. Only in quantum theory do we encounter probabilistic descriptions, and these simply set expected boundaries on the occurrence of particular kinds of random events.

Since none of that has any bearing at any point on 'social science', 'social science' is totally irrelevant to your chosen topic. That's reason I've ignored it, and a very good reason it is too.

You will have authority on this subject when you have proven your claims about the brain and determinism. In the meantime, it is all speculation. What is needed are scientific studies, preferable with referee journals. Otherwise, it is the wild, wild west where everyone fires away without knowing what they're aiming at, ha. ha. You say social science is irrelevant. Evidently, you lack understanding. We are discussing human behavior. We find social science to be the area where human behavior is studied. Social science has a better understanding of everyday behavior than physical or biological sciences. I don't know what a person is doing or wants to do by studying anatomy. As an example, an athlete may be tired. The body tells the person to stop, I am tired, but the person's drives the body forward to achieve a goal.

Statistics is used in all kinds of research. Without significant levels of reliability, we cannot prove an hypothesis. Read up on research methodology. I question your idea about causal effects. So what if there are sequences of causal relationships, it is the way matter and energy function. The more important question is what caused those relationships and what is the trajectory of events. In the case of free will, we have the person causing his or her mind to think certain thoughts and the body to function "as intended." Humans are not anatomical robots, they think, decide and act.

 

[JustWondering]

I find this a lot on the internet, people who can't read. They just get emotional and fire away. If you had read my postings you would know the answers. Others on this thread also have a difficult time reading postings. "It makes you want to weep." I got that from a WWII film (Battle of Britain). To begin, you stated, "you deny human consciousness arises from the biochemical reactions of the brain." I never said that. I have acknowledged consciousness is connected to the brain. You would have to be really stupid to say otherwise. I have challenged anyone to present evidence for brain determinism. I get nothing but, well, prove free will! Then, I have repeatedly said, just as there is no proof for brain determinism, there is no proof for free will. Then, I have presented numerous examples of free will. And what do I get, no reply, or don't want to admit there may be free will. I think that sums it up. READ POSTINGS.

Oh, I need to add. I will continue to present evidence for free will, it is real. I don't want to start a "believer verses atheist" war, just want to get the facts. Oh, I will continue to stress the importance of free will for God's creatures.

Have a good day.

Nice try but again you are tap dancing and not answering the questions asked. How is your version of consciousness "connected" to the brain if it does not originate from the brain? Where is this magical, immaterial consciousness? How does it work? For all the crying and moaning to atheists to present you with complete, ironclad evidence tied in a pretty bow before you even consider our argument you have presented not one rational and credible theory, argument, or scrap of evidence to support your position in return. Your arguments thus far have consisted of saying "nuh-uh" when presented with actual arguments for determinism. Until YOU can present a valid argument for consciousness having some immaterial origin outside the brain, your version of "freewill" can be dismissed out of hand. The only way your position can be supported is by showing that the universe is not bound by unbreakable laws of physics, that includes cause and effect. You have yet to provide a rational argument to support your position or refute mine. Avoid answering the questions one more time (the questions in bold at the beginning of this post) and I will conclude you are unwilling/unable to have a honest discussion/debate or are incapable of understanding the topic.

 

[blü 2]

No, the brain working as a sytem can simply affect itself. That is all. No magic.

Give me an example of this that is shown not to be generated by cause&effect.

You say the neurons fire and make decisions; I say the neurons start firing and a possible outcomes emerge.

They're all generated by cause&effect/r.

One outcome is selected through a combination of environmental factors(so yes hormones and neurotransmitters play a role)

Either that selection is done by cause&effect/r, or wholly randomly, or by magic. Which? If by magic, tell me how magic works to make the selection.

and as a consequence of conscious thought.

Conscious thought is a product of cause&effect/r. If you disagree, talk me through an example of conscious thought being generated independently of cause&effect/r.

This outcome is not predictable.If the outcome is not predictable then it is not deterministic.

ie it's random. There's nothing else it can be.

If it occurs with conscious thought it is not random. There is your free will.

Neither caused nor random. So by magic, you say. Sorry, I don't hold with magic as an explanation unless you can explain how magic makes conscious thought.

1) We accept consciousness exists.
2) We accept neurons exist.
3) We accept hormones exist.
4) We accept neurotransmitters exist.

So far so good.

1) We have evidence that conscious thought affects outcomes.

First of all, what do you mean by conscious? Do you mean simply awake and aware? Do you mean self-conscious contemplation of eg a problem? What are we talking about.
If the latter, by the way, that experiment for which you posted a link showed that the conscious mind may be unaware of what the non-conscious mind has decided for up to ten seconds after the decision has been made, on the face of it a fact not congenial to your train of thought.

For example, trying to remember and focusing on what to remember gives better recall than not.

Does it? When I've forgotten something, often the best thing I can do is get on with something else, so that in due course my non-conscious processes will find the memory and it'll be there when I need it. Sleeping on a problem is an analogous technique.

So, it seems we have evidence that conscious thought does affect our brain chemistry.

I don't think that's correct. Memory recall is a process available to conscious thought, but not controlled by it.

2) We also have evidence that human behavior is probabilistic.

Not in terms of our present debate, we don't. Instead, because we don't have the tools to gather or manipulate the perfect data necessary to predict such complex biological interplay, we must necessarily use stats and probabilities instead.

And you still haven't told me how an 'independence' free choice is made. I keep asking and asking, and you don't tell me.

You haven't even told me where this independence from cause&effect exists.

But you've said certain brain functions are somehow not cause&effect and somehow not random, so all they can be is magic.

So talk me through an example of this magic in action, and what it's actually doing that results in an 'independence' choice.

Or are you going to reply without replying and am I going to have to ask you yet again?

 

[blü 2]

You will have authority on this subject when you have proven your claims about the brain and determinism. In the meantime, it is all speculation. What is needed are scientific studies [&c &c]

What JustWondering said.

 

[Curious George]

Give me an example of this that is shown not to be generated by cause&effect.
They're all generated by cause&effect/r.

Mere speculation contrary to common sense

Either that selection is done by cause&effect/r, or wholly randomly, or by magic. Which?

None. It is done by will

If by magic, tell me how magic works to make the selection.

nope, not magic, I have already said as much.

Conscious thought is a product of cause&effect/r.

speculation again.

If you disagree, talk me through an example of conscious thought being generated independently of cause&effect/r.

I'm not sure, science doesn't have an answer either. But science acknowledges consciousness. Perhaps we should wait until we better understand it, instead of making wild assertions like you have been doing.

ie it's random. There's nothing else it can be.

It cannot be random if conscious thought is involved.

Neither caused nor random. So by magic, you say.

Nope, not magic again.

Sorry, I don't hold with magic as an explanation unless you can explain how magic makes conscious thought.

that is good I don't hold with magic either. Will on the otherhand, that makes sense.

So far so good.

Well that is something

First of all, what do you mean by conscious? Do you mean simply awake and aware? Do you mean self-conscious contemplation of eg a problem? What are we talking about.

About the property of consciousness

If the latter, by the way, that experiment for which you posted a link showed that the conscious mind may be unaware of what the non-conscious mind has decided for up to ten seconds after the decision has been made, on the face of it a fact not congenial to your train of thought.

Absolutely. Then again, it may not. Their are plenty of problems with these studies including amongst others temporal recall, reaction time, and deciphering brain activity.

Does it? When I've forgotten something, often the best thing I can do is get on with something else, so that in due course my non-conscious processes will find the memory and it'll be there when I need it. Sleeping on a problem is an analogous technique.

yes, if I study a page and use mnemonics Ibam more likely to remember the page than if I just stare blankly at it without focus.

I don't think that's correct. Memory recall is a process available to conscious thought, but not controlled by it.

saying that we have no degree of influence over it is an extreme position. Try to remember an event or experience. You can. Yet somehow you would have us believe that there is no control over that. Pretty disconnected with our observations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Not in terms of our present debate, we don't. Instead, because we don't have the tools to gather or manipulate the perfect data necessary to predict such complex biological interplay, we must necessarily use stats and probabilities instead.

Umm, so our evidence is probabilistic? Or are you just acknowledging that your hypothesis is untestable? You know, I don't hold with untestable hypotheses.

And you still haven't told me how an 'independence' free choice is made. I keep asking and asking, and you don't tell me.

Sure I have. Will. By focusing consciousness.

You haven't even told me where this independence from cause&effect exists.

In that it is unpredictable.

But you've said certain brain functions are somehow not cause&effect and somehow not random, so all they can be is magic.

False. They can be will. A function of consciousness.

So talk me through an example of this magic in action, and what it's actually doing that results in an 'independence' choice.

Or are you going to reply without replying and am I going to have to ask you yet again?

I'm sorry i walked you through. You insisting it is either cause and effect or random does not make it so.

You keep insisting I am suggesting magic, yet you are the one who is trying to assert something for which there is no evidence and works contrary to logic.

 

[blü 2]

blü: Give me an example of this that is shown not to be generated by cause&effect. They're all generated by cause&effect/r.

Mere speculation contrary to common sense

So where's that example? Blah about common sense doesn't cut it.

I don't hold with magic either. Will on the otherhand, that makes sense.

In the way you're using it, will is the same thing as magic ─ a process that does what you want by wishing, without using the brain, which is cause&effect/r, or the hormones, which are cause&effect/r, or randomness, or anything else you can suggest with the slightest specificity. The match with magic is perfect.

 

[Repox]

Nice try but again you are tap dancing and not answering the questions asked. How is your version of consciousness "connected" to the brain if it does not originate from the brain? Where is this magical, immaterial consciousness? How does it work? For all the crying and moaning to atheists to present you with complete, ironclad evidence tied in a pretty bow before you even consider our argument you have presented not one rational and credible theory, argument, or scrap of evidence to support your position in return. Your arguments thus far have consisted of saying "nuh-uh" when presented with actual arguments for determinism. Until YOU can present a valid argument for consciousness having some immaterial origin outside the brain, your version of "freewill" can be dismissed out of hand. The only way your position can be supported is by showing that the universe is not bound by unbreakable laws of physics, that includes cause and effect. You have yet to provide a rational argument to support your position or refute mine. Avoid answering the questions one more time (the questions in bold at the beginning of this post) and I will conclude you are unwilling/unable to have a honest discussion/debate or are incapable of understanding the topic.

The same can be said for determinism dictating human behavior. I don't see you going after them for no evidence. Oh, I post what I please, just as determinist do. On this forum there is not much in the way of empirical evidence for anything. You should look for another forum.

What is really puzzling is why determinist refuse to deal with human behavior. It boggles the mind to think about all the evidence for free will in the "real world." Do you know how may anatomical robots there are?

 

[blü 2]

The same can be said for determinism dictating human behavior. I don't see you going after them for no evidence.

Dear oh dear, there you go again, saying untrue things!

You have NEVER ONCE made a reasoned reply to the evidence I put to you not less than three times.

So please stop pretending you have.

 

[Repox]

Dear oh dear, there you go again, saying untrue things!

You have NEVER ONCE made a reasoned reply to the evidence I put to you not less than three times.

So please stop pretending you have.

What evidence? It is all opinion. It is the same old argument for brain cells, etc in a causal chain. So what, you just describe the anatomy of the brain. To date, no one including yourself has presented "real" empirical evidence for brain determinism. What you have described is what happens as a consequence of an individual making a choice to think this or that, and then to do such and such. So what! If brain determinism really existed, we would find human behavior following, but we don't. You have no evidence! Keep looking, maybe there is a scientific study out there. Based on what people do, free will is the explanation. Humans are not anatomical robots.

 

[blü 2]

What evidence? It is all opinion. It is the same old argument for brain cells, etc in a causal chain. So what, you just describe the anatomy of the brain. To date, no one including yourself has presented "real" empirical evidence for brain determinism.

See?

You pretend you've answered the evidence against you ─ in brief, that the brain is biochemistry and biochemistry is described and explained in deterministic/r terms.

Yet not once have you offered a reasoned response ─ just airy dismissive waves of your arm.

And you pretend too that you don't have to present a coherent description of how freewill works. In fact the only way it works is by magic.

Still, that's the essential you and nothing's to be done about it. Have a nice day.

 

[Repox]

See?

You pretend you've answered the evidence against you ─ in brief, that the brain is biochemistry and biochemistry is described and explained in deterministic/r terms.

Yet not once have you offered a reasoned response ─ just airy dismissive waves of your arm.

And you pretend too that you don't have to present a coherent description of how freewill works. In fact the only way it works is by magic.

Still, that's the essential you and nothing's to be done about it. Have a nice day.

Evidently, you have not read my posting. I have posted numerous examples of free will. Here is some evidence of the problem for proving determinism.

In an article entitled, Neuroscience of free will, about the brain and free will, studies are inconclusive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Researcher have concluded, “The field remains highly controversial. There is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn. The precise role of consciousness in decision making therefore remains unclear.”

Do some additional research. Apparently, you have not conducted a research study on your hypothesis.Scientific studies are required. I will continue to believe in free will inasmuch as there is so much evidence. Just look around at people, what do you see? You see free will choices. Your argument has no scientific evidence. You keep accusing me of not proving free will, even though I have provided numerous examples. I know, it is best to ignore it. As you can surmise from studies, scientists have no conclusive evidence. It is like slitting hairs. Research shows subconscious mind effects free will, but it doesn't negate free will.

Any further discussion requires references to scientific or scholarly studies and research. Otherwise, it is like the old wild, wild, West, blasting away without a target. If you have evidence for brain determinism, prove it! Opinions don't count.

 

[blü 2]

Evidently, you have not read my posting. I have posted numerous examples of free will.

They're all beside the point.

You've never offered a reasoned criticism of the case for determinism.

You've never explained how your version of freewill actually makes decisions, how it differs in any way whatsoever from magic.

 

[Curious George]

blü: Give me an example of this that is shown not to be generated by cause&effect. They're all generated by cause&effect/r.

So where's that example? Blah about common sense doesn't cut it.
In the way you're using it, will is the same thing as magic ─ a process that does what you want by wishing, without using the brain, which is cause&effect/r, or the hormones, which are cause&effect/r, or randomness, or anything else you can suggest with the slightest specificity. The match with magic is perfect.

Nope still not magic. Why can it not partially rely on deterministic or random processes? All that I am suggesting is that thought affects the equation. Thought is not entirely dererministic. It has not been shown to be so, it is counter intuitive, and assuming conscious influence is consistent with all of the evidence that we have, doesn't undermine all scientific knowledge (like determinism does), isn't internally inconsistent with our actions, etc.

I know you want to label it as magic because you can dismiss "magic." I am not talking about "magic" i am talking about consciousness, an accepted scientific phenomena; i am talking about thought, a necessary component of reason; and I am talking about probability, necessary in all mathematical feasible conceptions of our reality. Determinism-the thought that it could be no other way- is the magical thinking. If you would like to better understand what degree of influence will does have, that is a very good scientific question that is testable. Determinism however is no different than any other untestable hypothesis, in gact it is worse because it logically undermines all our scientific knowledge.