Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[blü 2]

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.

So you're saying it's not deterministic because it has a random element? Or because it has a magical element?

I see no middle ground.

 

[Curious George]

So you're saying it's not deterministic because it has a random element? Or because it has a magical element?

I see no middle ground.

And I understand that. I have often had conversations with people who can see no other possibility beyond goddidit, so this isn't unfamiliar territory for me.

First, realize that I am not posing anything outside of physical laws.

Second, realize that because you cannot see an alternative does not mean no alternative exists.

Third, the terms are where the third option is. Determinism means predictability. Random is unpredictable without method or conscious thought. This leaves a third option. Specifically, unpredictable and employs method or conscious thought.

Unless you have proof that this third method violates some physical law then we cannot call it magic or supernatural.

Science relies on our ability to control. If we cannot control anything and we assume determinism we are simply saying everything is because that is all it could be. It is no different than assuming some god has some plan and we are all playing out time according to that design. It changes all scientific finding to it happened because in that instance it was predetermined to happen. When things do not happen they were simply not meant to happen. This is nothing short of telling a mother that her child was killed because it was supposed to be.

It is truly disconnected from how we live and how we act. It is truly disconnected from science. Is it a possibility? Sure, why not; mathematically it can work, or so I am told. But it is just a hypothesis, not even a theory. It is not testable, not able to be disproven, and not actually believed without internal inconsistency.

So why would anyone believe it? Well I think some might find it comforting to think that they could have done nothing else. That everything is unravelling according to some predetermined plan.

Consciousness on the otherhand is a scientific theory. It can be studied and understood.

So, here we are. We have a theory and a hypothesis. One fits with our everyday experience and observations of the world, one does not. One science can understand; one science cannot understand. One gives way to science; the other precludes science.

Why would anyone believe determinism? Why would anyone chase it? Sure question consciousness, and certainly you can ponder to what extent our will influences our lives. But this is not like the god question. This is more akin to the knowledge question.

On one side you have people asserting something that is validated by our every moment, on the other you have people trying to deny our every moment.

It is frustrating because determinism cannot be proven or disproven. No matter how much we learn, someone is always going to be able to say: "It is so because it was meant to be so; nevermind that it is contrary to what we know, that is all an illusion." They said this until quantum physics came. And still some continue to say it. Some others just say "well, okay, some random things happen, too."

No magic here my friend. I am not appealing to a soul or a deity or anything beyond what we observe in everyday ordinary life. Possibilities exist and we make choices that influence outcomes. Those choices are not predictable and are made through consciousness.

The determinist (or determinist/r) however, makes an extraordinary claim. Choice is an illusion. Influence is an illusion. Control, one of the primary motivators, is an illusion.

Yes, there is pushback. Such an extaordinary claim will require very extensive evidence. And there is none.

 

[blü 2]

First, realize that I am not posing anything outside of physical laws.

Then what aspect of physical laws are you referring to, having ruled out cause&effect and if I recall aright, randomness (but if you didn't exclude randomness, I'd need you to explain clearly how it helps ─ it seems no more dignified than cause&effect).

Second, realize that because you cannot see an alternative does not mean no alternative exists.

If you can't identify what it is, if you're offering no plausible hypothesis, and you're attributing a function to it independence of determinism/r, then all that's left is magic, surely?

Especially since we have not one authenticated example of it in reality that would require physics to account for such a thing in the first place.

Third, the terms are where the third option is. Determinism means predictability. Random is unpredictable without method or conscious thought. This leaves a third option. Specifically, unpredictable and employs method or conscious thought.

Now you're suggesting that conscious thought is somehow self-sufficient, somehow independent of determinism/r? Yet no one in brain science is suggesting that or reporting results that might raise some mystery of that kind. There's not even a gap to hide this god, this magician, in.

Unless you have proof that this third method violates some physical law then we cannot call it magic or supernatural.

You're yet to give this 'third method' any clear form, let alone a falsifiable one. And I don't have the burden of falsification, you have the burden of clearly stating your hypothesis (which you haven't done so far) and establishing its correctness, or at the very least its credibility.

 

[Curious George]

Then what aspect of physical laws are you referring to, having ruled out cause&effect and if I recall aright, randomness (but if you didn't exclude randomness, I'd need you to explain clearly how it helps ─ it seems no more dignified than cause&effect).

Cause and effect is not a scientific law. It, like free will, is an assumption that makes science possible. Nor is randomness a physical law.

If you can't identify what it is, if you're offering no plausible hypothesis, and you're attributing a function to it independence of determinism/r, then all that's left is magic, surely?

I have identified it. And again, magic is not in the cards.

Especially since we have not one authenticated example of it in reality that would require physics to account for such a thing in the first place.

We don't have examples of choice in reality?

Now you're suggesting that conscious thought is somehow self-sufficient, somehow independent of determinism/r?

Why don't you explain what you mean by self sufficient.

Yet no one in brain science is suggesting that or reporting results that might raise some mystery of that kind. There's not even a gap to hide this god, this magician, in.

Not appealing to a god or to a magician.

You're yet to give this 'third method' any clear form, let alone a falsifiable one. And I don't have the burden of falsification, you have the burden of clearly stating your hypothesis (which you haven't done so far) and establishing its correctness, or at the very least its credibility.

How so. The form is choice or will. I am saying that it is the result of focused consciousness.

Ready for the test. Remeber an event, lift your arm, write a post...

All of these things if we focus on achieving we will achieve, barring any environmental barriers. These are things that when we want to attempt them, we can. Now it is you that is claiming that this want is caused soley by external forces and and brain chemistry of which we have no control. Then because of these wants and other external forces we act in a predetermined manner.

I am saying that because of external forces, brain chemistry, and conscious interaction with these external forces we want something. Further I am saying that action requires external forces, brain chemistry, and conscious interaction with these forces.

You want to breakdown consciousness and say it is just further determined chemical reactions and possibly randomness.

I am saying that consciousness is a property that is either emergent in systems or adheres matter/energy. Either way it cannot be broken down to a sum of its parts.

Again, what I am describing: choice. Is a common everyday experience. What you are suggesting choice is an illusion: is an extaordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence. There is none.

 

[blü 2]

Cause and effect is not a scientific law. It, like free will, is an assumption that makes science possible.

Energy is the currency in which every change in the universe is transacted. Cause means the movement of energy from a place of higher energy to a place of lower energy; and effect means the change that results. This is how and why chemical and biochemical interactions occur, brains think, engineering is done, solar bodies orbit, stars burn.

However, certain quantum phenomena can't be so described, because they occur in ways unpredictable not just in fact but according to our present theories in principle. While they entail the movement of energy, no causative connection with the origin of that movement can be described. Examples are the formation and instantaneous mutual annihiliation of particle-antiparticle pairs in the vacuum, giving rise to the Casimir effect; and the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay. Consequently such phenomena must be described in probabilistic terms.

Cause&effect/r is the basis of everything that happens in reality. If you know of an exception, don't just tell me, tell the Nobel Prize committee.

Nor is randomness a physical law.

Randomness occurs in accordance with the principles, the laws, if you like, of QM, and its parameters are well described.

I have identified it. And again, magic is not in the cards.

No, you've given no meaningful description of any physical operation of any kind that might generate brain function independently of cause&effect/r.

We don't have examples of choice in reality?

Do you call the action of magnetic poles in determining how magnets attract and repel, a choice?

And as for consciousness and choice, I've already drawn your attention to your own link to the article on the discovery that brains make choices up to ten second before the conscious brain is aware of them.

Why don't you explain what you mean by self sufficient.

I said, "Now you're suggesting that conscious thought is somehow self-sufficient, somehow independent of determinism/r?" See if you can work it out without me.

The form is choice or will. I am saying that it is the result of focused consciousness.

I've asked you this already: How does consciousness, focused or not, occur independently of cause&effect/r?

Talk me through an example. Point out where the cause&effect/r brain is involved, and when it's not, and how that disjunction comes about and exactly what happens while it's not, and how this cause&effect/r-free workspace makes contact with the brain again when it'd done.

I say that you're not telling me because you can't; and that you can't because it doesn't exist outside imagination. Certainly as I said, there's not a single authenticated instance of it in science.

Show me I'm wrong. But not by repeating what you've already said.

 

[Repox]

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.

You never offered a scientific argument for determinism. Where are those studies? I don't have a version of freewill. It just is, look around and see people making freewill choices. It is not in the laboratory, it is everyday human life.

I have offered several criticisms of determinism, but you refuse to read postings. Mostly, my case is based on human behavior. In particular, I presented the phenomena of low levels of statistic reliability for human behavior studies. I don't find your argument in scientific journals, and I have researched it. If you don't know, then all you have a lot of smoke. Oh, yes, there is the article about free will. Did you read it?

Here it is again.

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.”

 

[blü 2]

You never offered a scientific argument for determinism.

For at least the fourth time: biochemistry is explained deterministically/r. The brain is wholly biochemistry. Therefore the workings of the brain are deterministic/r.

Now give a reasoned response to that at last.

. Mostly, my case is based on human behavior. In particular, I presented the phenomena of low levels of statistic reliability for human behavior studies.

Yet having been asked repeatedly how the brain may make decisions independently of determinism/r, you never answer.

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

Yes, I'm familiar with that article. It too offers no alternative explanation of brain function.

 

[JustWondering]

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?

Once again avoiding to answer the relevant questions that actually pertain to what the discussion/debate is supposed to be about. You are obviously not interested in having a honest discussion/debate or do not understand the topic well enough to be able to have a discussion/debate about it. When or if you are ever ready to actually describe and defend your position let me know. Otherwise you are only wasting my time. Have a nice day.

 

[blü 2]

Nope still not magic.

Still no example.

Where's that example?

I know you want to label it as magic because you can dismiss "magic."

STILL no example.

Where's that example?

 

[Repox]

For at least the fourth time: biochemistry is explained deterministically/r. The brain is wholly biochemistry. Therefore the workings of the brain are deterministic/r.

Now give a reasoned response to that at last.

Yet having been asked repeatedly how the brain may make decisions independently of determinism/r, you never answer.
Yes, I'm familiar with that article. It too offers no alternative explanation of brain function.

Biochemistry explains the process, not persons decision making. A person makes a choice and the brain executes that particular choice. Otherwise, there would be no personality, no independence, just biological functions. You can keep repeating the same argument, but it doesn't work. Humans are not biological robots, they have personalities and goals. Evidence for my argument in human behavior not sterile laboratories.

 

[Repox]

Once again avoiding to answer the relevant questions that actually pertain to what the discussion/debate is supposed to be about. You are obviously not interested in having a honest discussion/debate or do not understand the topic well enough to be able to have a discussion/debate about it. When or if you are ever ready to actually describe and defend your position let me know. Otherwise you are only wasting my time. Have a nice day.

What the heck is the relevant question? We are talking about free will. I support my position with facts of human behavior. There is no scientific evidence for brain determinism. How many times must I repeat it?

 

[blü 2]

Biochemistry explains the process, not persons decision making. A person makes a choice and the brain executes that particular choice.

I've asked you this before but you've never answered. I'd appreciate a nice clear no-fudge answer this time:

1. What, and where, is this 'person' who is distinct from the brain?

2. Describe the process, free of cause&effect/r, by which this 'person' makes the decision.

3. Talk me through an example of this process.

4. Describe the process by which the 'person' communicates this decision back to the cause&effect brain.

 

[Profound Realization]

I've asked you this before but you've never answered. I'd appreciate a nice clear no-fudge answer this time:

1. What, and where, is this 'person' who is distinct from the brain?

2. Describe the process, free of cause&effect/r, by which this 'person' makes the decision.

3. Talk me through an example of this process.

4. Describe the process by which the 'person' communicates this decision back to the cause&effect brain.

Neurological capability has been shown to exist in the gut, and the heart... not just "the brain."

It is highly evident that "you" and the "person" you are debating with both have the brain, yet are very different on your beliefs. Enlighten me on how you can both have the same exact brain, same exact biochemical makeup, yet such differing beliefs.
Enlighten me, on how, if the brain is wholly biochemistic... which chemicals cause magical beliefs and which chemicals cause non-magical beliefs.

Should I call you, "Blu 2" or "the brain?"

 

[Profound Realization]

You never offered a scientific argument for determinism. Where are those studies? I don't have a version of freewill. It just is, look around and see people making freewill choices. It is not in the laboratory, it is everyday human life.

I have offered several criticisms of determinism, but you refuse to read postings. Mostly, my case is based on human behavior. In particular, I presented the phenomena of low levels of statistic reliability for human behavior studies. I don't find your argument in scientific journals, and I have researched it. If you don't know, then all you have a lot of smoke. Oh, yes, there is the article about free will. Did you read it?

Here it is again.

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.”

It's quite evident...

Those that believe in strict determinism are determined by others, slaves to external control of other humans. In essence, lack of self control and not free willed. They can't be aware yet as to any concept of "free." In this case, free will. Because they or their brain are not free willed, they are controlled and influenced by external others and their external brains in correlation to theirs.

Those that are free willed, well... being set free from external influence, control... it is a beautiful thing not to be determined by others.

So, Blu 2 is correct in a way when he posts stuff of other external brains determining his brains way of belief. His brain is already determined, therefore, it is wise to cease reasoning with a determined brain.... rather than a free brain.

No consensus,unclear would lean more towards free willed. His brain is already determined.

 

[blü 2]

Neurological capability has been shown to exist in the gut, and the heart... not just "the brain."

Just so. But the conversation is suitably simplified if we focus on the Big One.

Enlighten me on how you can both have the same exact brain, same exact biochemical makeup, yet such differing beliefs.

But of course our respective brains are the result of our respective genes and respective experience, and while both are brains, in no sense are they 'the exact same brain'.

Enlighten me, on how, if the brain is wholly biochemistic... which chemicals cause magical beliefs and which chemicals cause non-magical beliefs.

The biochemicals that constitute each neuron, that constitute and function in each synapse, that are the hormones inducing emotions, and so on.

Should I call you, "Blu 2" or "the brain?"

My brain is the generator and location of my sense of self, and both involve all my body. That's rather a mouthful, so blü 2, or just blü, is fine,

 

[Repox]

I've asked you this before but you've never answered. I'd appreciate a nice clear no-fudge answer this time:

1. What, and where, is this 'person' who is distinct from the brain?

2. Describe the process, free of cause&effect/r, by which this 'person' makes the decision.

3. Talk me through an example of this process.

4. Describe the process by which the 'person' communicates this decision back to the cause&effect brain.

I have never said a person is distinct from the brain. We, or each and every person, thinks with their brain, they are one. When I decide to walk across the street my brain instructs my feet to move. My brain is not independent of my body and its muscles or otherwise functional anatomy. If my eyes see a car heading on a collision course with my body, it instructs my feet to move out of harms way. If I wanted to commit suicide I may let the car hit me. There are many more examples of how the brain functions with the body, it is not independent of related body functions. Why you propose such preposterous ideas about an independently determined brain is a mystery. It defies common sense and the reality of human anatomy. Evidence of everyday life is proof of humans making free will choices.

 

[Repox]

It is interesting to note how many deterministic, atheistic, fatalistic, communistic, socialistic, and other strange manifestations of the higher breed are in the professorial ranks of "Academia." There are a small number of free will, religious zealots in religious colleges, but they are certainly not praised or admired by the majority of professors. Therefore, among college professors, it is desirable to be determinist in believe. For those of us in the free will minority, we have some theological support. Where would humans be without free will. To start, we have to explain how it all came about from the very first deterministic beginning. Did virtual particles buzz around until an atom was formed, and then another atom, etc? Oh, where did the fist virtual particle come from? Where did the space from which virtual particles buzzed around come from? Why can't determinist answer these questions?

 

[blü 2]

I have never said a person is distinct from the brain.

Really? So when you said,

A person makes a choice and the brain executes that particular choice

you meant,

"A brain makes a choice and executes that particular choice"

yes?

If not, what exactly did you mean?

We, or each and every person, thinks with their brain, they are one. When I decide to walk across the street my brain instructs my feet to move.

Meaning, When my brain, which is also the source of my sense of self, decides to walk across the street it initiates the required body movements, yes?

My brain is not independent of my body and its muscles or otherwise functional anatomy.

Correct.

If my eyes see a car heading on a collision course with my body, it instructs my feet to move out of harms way. If I wanted to commit suicide I may let the car hit me.

But we've just agreed that "I" who wants to commit suicide is the "I" produced by your brain functions, have we not?

There are many more examples of how the brain functions with the body, it is not independent of related body functions. Why you propose such preposterous ideas about an independently determined brain is a mystery.

What astonishing rubbish is this? An attempt at a red herring? Quote me where I've even once hinted that the brain functions independently of its support systems. Or else withdraw your silly remark.

It defies common sense and the reality of human anatomy.

Yes of course it does, but why you mention it is wholly obscure.

Evidence of everyday life is proof of humans making free will choices.

Meaning that the choices are not subject to external compulsions, Freewill definition 1.

NOT that the brain makes its choices independently of determinism/r, Freewill definition 2.

Golly, you genuinely have no understanding of your chosen subject, do you.

 

[blü 2]

It is interesting to note how many deterministic, atheistic, fatalistic, communistic, socialistic, and other strange manifestations of the higher breed are in the professorial ranks of "Academia." There are a small number of free will, religious zealots in religious colleges, but they are certainly not praised or admired by the majority of professors.

If they're as wholly incapable as you are of explaining how the brain can make choices independently of cause&effect/r, then why are you in the least surprised?

Therefore, among college professors, it is desirable to be determinist in believe.

Only in the sense that the evidence suggests nothing else. You are your brain. Your brain is biochemistry. Biochemistry is cause&effect/r. '

Magic not being a coherent hypothesis, no coherent alternative is on the table.

For those of us in the free will minority, we have some theological support.

Ask god to explain carefully how brains make decisions independently of cause&effect/r and to talk you through a couple of examples, and then give me a detailed report. This is exactly what I've been asking you for,

Where would humans be without free will.

You mean Freewjll definition 1, and as you can see, it appears to work pretty well.

To start, we have to explain how it all came about from the very first deterministic beginning.

Then why don't you set the example and explain how this god came into being, and how it makes decisions independently of cause&effect/r ─ which is to say, explain how magic works.

Stop this pretense that your position makes the slightest sense, outside of your dreams.

Why can't determinist answer these questions?

Given that science is always a work in progress, I think we're making a pretty good fist of it ─ actively looking at reality, pinning down problems, searching for answers.

Whereas you can't even give a satisfactory demonstration of the objective existence of your god ─ that is, you can't even show that it exists outside of the imagination of individuals.

Indeed, as far as I know, you're not even trying to. Why is there no field work in theology? Why is it all just armchairs and castles in the air?

 

[Repox]

If they're as wholly incapable as you are of explaining how the brain can make choices independently of cause&effect/r, then why are you in the least surprised?
Only in the sense that the evidence suggests nothing else. You are your brain. Your brain is biochemistry. Biochemistry is cause&effect/r. '

Magic not being a coherent hypothesis, no coherent alternative is on the table.

Ask god to explain carefully how brains make decisions independently of cause&effect/r and to talk you through a couple of examples, and then give me a detailed report. This is exactly what I've been asking you for,
You mean Freewjll definition 1, and as you can see, it appears to work pretty well.
Then why don't you set the example and explain how this god came into being, and how it makes decisions independently of cause&effect/r ─ which is to say, explain how magic works.

Stop this pretense that your position makes the slightest sense, outside of your dreams.
Given that science is always a work in progress, I think we're making a pretty good fist of it ─ actively looking at reality, pinning down problems, searching for answers.

Whereas you can't even give a satisfactory demonstration of the objective existence of your god ─ that is, you can't even show that it exists outside of the imagination of individuals.

Indeed, as far as I know, you're not even trying to. Why is there no field work in theology? Why is it all just armchairs and castles in the air?

To put theology aside you must prove your theory about brain determinism. It is ludicrous to even imagine a anatomical part of the body controlling everything. The body works in unison with our personality. Every one is different, which is evidence for free will.

Here is an interesting observation. If the brain is self contained, it would not be influenced by the external environment. If male person is confronted with beautiful female, it may or may not seek attention. If determined, the brain would continue on its predetermined path caught up with causal programming. If, however, the person has free will, he may make advances toward the pretty lady. In the real word, the man would probably make advances, or maybe not as free will indicates.