Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[blü 2]

To put theology aside you must prove

Please go back and clarify one by one each of the points I raised in #339.

It's time you addressed the substance of the matter instead of repeating yourself.

 

[Repox]

Please go back and clarify one by one each of the points I raised in #339.

It's time you addressed the substance of the matter instead of repeating yourself.

This has become a senseless discussion. I will reply when you present just one scientific study or authentication of your brain determinism idea.

Hey, I guess that means I will never reply again. It has been nice discussing, I think.

 

[blü 2]

This has become a senseless discussion. I will reply when you present just one scientific study or authentication of your brain determinism idea.

So you can't answer the only questions that matter.

No surprise there.

Have a nice day.

 

[Repox]

So you can't answer the only questions that matter.

No surprise there.

Have a nice day.

This has become a senseless discussion. I will reply when you present just one scientific study or authentication of your brain determinism idea.

 

[blü 2]

This has become a senseless discussion. I will reply when you present just one scientific study or authentication of your brain determinism idea.

What pointless posturing!

You can't answer even the most basic questions about your own position.

You continually confuse Freewill Definition 1 (no external compulsion) with Definition 2 (decisions made independently of cause&effect/r).

You've had my argument for determinism right from the start: You are your brain, Your brain is biochemistry. Biochemistry is described deterministically/r.

And you've never once offered a reasoned response to it.

Now you spuriously demand a study showing that the sun rises in the east, and only then, you say, will you respond. If I gave you such a thing, you'd no more know how to answer the simple questions here than you do now.

You can't even answer the basic questions in my post above.

Since your own chosen topic is so far beyond you, the only thing I can do is wish you good luck.

 

[Repox]

The most important question for determinists is explaining the beginning of the universe. As a free will advocate and believer in God I find the determinist explanation to be lacking. if there is no God, how did it happen. I have researched determinist explanations. Scientists claim it began with collisions of virtual particles. Then, when we ask where virtual particles come from, they have no answer. Well, if they can't answer the most important question about the beginning of everything, why do they insist on being right? The key variable for this discussion is time. From the beginning of the universe the arrow of time began. We know time continues into the future, but how did it begin?

 

[Skwim]

The most important question for determinists is explaining the beginning of the universe. As a free will advocate and believer in God I find the determinist explanation to be lacking. if there is no God, how did it happen.

Oh there's a god alright, and he created the universe. He had no choice in the matter---one of those determinist kinds of things.

.

 

[osgart]

you have to establish that biochemistry is relevant to the matter. the will and it's mind is an entirely different universe. even if people are predictable or weak willed doesn't mean that free will isn't an existent option. it's a correlation that doesn't need to be.

 

[blü 2]

you have to establish that biochemistry is relevant to the matter. the will and it's mind is an entirely different universe. even if people are predictable or weak willed doesn't mean that free will isn't an existent option. it's a correlation that doesn't need to be.

Then perhaps you can answer the question for me that everyone who doesn't like determinism keeps avoiding.

Describe to me how the brain (or if you're a dualist, the 'mind') makes decisions independently of cause&effect.

I say that my sense of self is generated by my brain, along with my brain functions like memory, reason, imagination, morality, desire and choosing. I can give you fairly precise descriptions of the parts of the brain involved in these functions, and throw in the uninterrupted ─ at least to this point ─ progress in brain research.

How do you say a brain (or if you prefer, 'mind', though please tell me just what you mean by that first) makes a decision independently of cause&effect? Talk me through an example of the process and say what does what at each step.

 

[blü 2]

The most important question for determinists is explaining the beginning of the universe.

It's an interesting question and science is working on it. I assume you're up to date on the BB theory and the accumulated evidence supporting it?

If the BB theory is essentially correct, and it certainly appears to be, then at some point in the past, all the energy in the universe was contained within an exquisitely small space of unfathomable temperature, whence it erupted to form particles, and atoms, and matter, and the forces, and every other aspect of reality.

My own view is that spacetime exists because energy does, not the other way round where energy is thought to exist within spacetime. Thus the universe exists because energy does. And if I'm right then there are no questions about beginnings, just properties of energy. That, as you can see, avoids all questions of infinite regressions, and so on.

As a free will advocate and believer in God I find the determinist explanation to be lacking. if there is no God, how did it happen.

If you think of energy instead of gods, you'll have many fewer problems. For instance, you'll be able to understand why the universe behaves exactly as if gods only exist in the imagination of individuals.

I have researched determinist explanations. Scientists claim it began with collisions of virtual particles.

Pardon? Please quote me a reputable scientist propounding this so I can see what you're actually claiming, since your sentence makes no sense to me.

Then, when we ask where virtual particles come from, they have no answer.

My hypothesis that energy is prior, solves all that.

Well, if they can't answer the most important question about the beginning of everything, why do they insist on being right?

They don't insist they're right. The don't claim that findings of science, based on empiricism and induction, can ever be absolute. But their conclusions are vastly better founded than those of simple believers because unlike them (a) they reason honestly and transparently from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment and open their conclusions to debate and (b) the question they're trying to answer is, what's true in reality? (not, what's true in imagination).

The key variable for this discussion is time. From the beginning of the universe the arrow of time began. We know time continues into the future, but how did it begin?

Time exists, in my hypothesis, as a property of energy, and thus its beginning isn't a problem.

Not much of which concerns the title of this thread.

 

[osgart]

the mind is the ability to conceptualize, and understand, and the ability to remember, reason, and recall; volition is the self evident part of it. volition if caused by the brain or not, profoundly effects the neuroplasticity of the brain. psychology, meditation and positive reinforcement are proven to have profound effects on the brain.

the fact that I can conceive of free will proves that it can be actualized in the self.

just because the brain correlates to cognitive capacities profoundly doesn't mean it's a one way street of cause and effect.

my grandfather smoked for 15 years and all of a sudden he quit one day, and lived the rest of his life without cigarettes. it was his free will, and understanding that allowed him to do that. if he was determined he wouldn't have had the capacity to quit smoking.

why should I read more into that and assume biochemistry is calling all the shots?

 

[blü 2]

the fact that I can conceive of free will proves that it can be actualized in the self.

When you say 'free will', do you mean ─

1. the ability to make decisions free of external compulsion, or

2. the ability to make decisions free of the cause&effect biochemical sequences that constitute your brain functions

?

 

[Mister Silver]

When you say 'free will', do you mean ─

1. the ability to make decisions free of external compulsion, or

2. the ability to make decisions free of the cause&effect biochemical sequences that constitute your brain functions

?

Number One.

Even as an atheist, I never understood other atheists' denial of choice or free will.

 

[George-ananda]

Even as an atheist, I never understood other atheists' denial of choice or free will.

Even though I am not an atheist I understand it. What are you beyond matter.energy following natural laws?

 

[Mister Silver]

What are you beyond matter.energy following natural laws?

Could you clarify the question?

 

[George-ananda]

Could you clarify the question?

I'll try. In the understanding of most atheists, consciousness is brain operation. The brain though is nothing but physical matter and energy following the laws of gravity, attraction, etc.. So, the brain can only operate the way nature dictates and has no what is commonly called free will.

 

[Mister Silver]

I'll try. In the understanding of most atheists, consciousness is brain operation. The brain though is nothing but physical matter and energy following the laws of gravity, attraction, etc.. So, the brain can only operate the way nature dictates and has no what is commonly called free will.

By nature, are you referring to the nature of the individual?

Even if that is the case, that does not mean free will is excluded.

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

That means I can always choose to do one thing or another, as opposed to having it predetermined that I will always and only choose to do one thing over another.

 

[Repox]

It's an interesting question and science is working on it. I assume you're up to date on the BB theory and the accumulated evidence supporting it?

If the BB theory is essentially correct, and it certainly appears to be, then at some point in the past, all the energy in the universe was contained within an exquisitely small space of unfathomable temperature, whence it erupted to form particles, and atoms, and matter, and the forces, and every other aspect of reality.

My own view is that spacetime exists because energy does, not the other way round where energy is thought to exist within spacetime. Thus the universe exists because energy does. And if I'm right then there are no questions about beginnings, just properties of energy. That, as you can see, avoids all questions of infinite regressions, and so on.
If you think of energy instead of gods, you'll have many fewer problems. For instance, you'll be able to understand why the universe behaves exactly as if gods only exist in the imagination of individuals.
Pardon? Please quote me a reputable scientist propounding this so I can see what you're actually claiming, since your sentence makes no sense to me.
My hypothesis that energy is prior, solves all that.
They don't insist they're right. The don't claim that findings of science, based on empiricism and induction, can ever be absolute. But their conclusions are vastly better founded than those of simple believers because unlike them (a) they reason honestly and transparently from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment and open their conclusions to debate and (b) the question they're trying to answer is, what's true in reality? (not, what's true in imagination).

Time exists, in my hypothesis, as a property of energy, and thus its beginning isn't a problem.

Not much of which concerns the title of this thread.

No matter how you spin it there is a time line to the universe. Then, if you apply simply logic, there must be a beginning to that time line. It would help if you knew the original purpose for the universe. God created the universe as a prison for Satan, which explains the abundance of dark energy and dangerous exploding stars and colliding galaxies. Like Satan, the universe is a dark dangerous place.

Back to the beginning when the BB started everything. Science has no explanation for the phenomenon. Oh yes, there are theories of multiple universes colliding with each other. If so, what started the first universe? If matter and energy began in a whirlpool of virtual particles, where did that whirlpool come from?

As for gods, it is interesting to note how ugly and threatening are earthly pictures of gods, just like Satan's face when he revealed himself to ancient civilizations. Then, we have Jews and their holy books. Did they make it all up? Are all those ancient stories of a God visiting them false? Was Jesus an amazing liar who made up romantic and fanciful stories? Is it just a coincidence that the number twelve keeps reoccurring in Revelation or could it be that it is because there are twelve angels in heaven? Satan was number thirteen. And why is thirteen an unlucky number? There are so many questions for determinist or atheist to answer, but they are stumped. They are blinded with disbelief.

 

[Mister Silver]

No matter how you spin it there is a time line to the universe. Then, if you apply simply logic, there must be a beginning to that time line. It would help if you knew the original purpose for the universe. God created the universe as a prison for Satan, which explains the abundance of dark energy and the dangerous exploding stars and colliding galaxies. Like Satan, the universe is a dark dangerous place.

Back to the beginning when the BB started everything. Science has no explanation for the phenomenon. Oh yes, there are theories of multiple universes colliding with each other. If so, what started the first universe? If matter and energy began in a whirlpool of virtual particles, where did that whirlpool come from?

As for gods, it is interesting to note how ugly and threatening are earthly pictures of gods, just like Satan's face when he revealed himself to ancient civilizations. Then, we have Jews and their holy books. Did they make it all up? Are all those ancient stories of a God visiting them false? Was Jesus an amazing liar who made up romantic and fanciful stories? Is it just a coincidence that the number twelve keeps reoccurring in Revelation or could it be that it is because there are twelve angels in heaven. Satan was number thirteen. And why is thirteen an unlucky number? There are so many questions for determinist or atheist to answer, but they never will. They are blinded with disbelief.

Here we go again. And again, and again.

God is a pretty fictional idea, even though he's clearly an evil character, but resorting to him as an answer for lack of a reasonable one does not equate to intellectual knowledge. Rather, claiming "god is the only answer" defies logic. Not knowing something is a clearer sign of wisdom than clinging to a fairy tale.

 

[Repox]

Here we go again. And again, and again.

God is a pretty fictional idea, even though he's clearly an evil character, but resorting to him as an answer for lack of a reasonable one does not equate to intellectual knowledge. Rather, claiming "god is the only answer" defies logic. Not knowing something is a clearer sign of wisdom than clinging to a fairy tale.

Then, what is the explanation for the origin of the universe? It must be scientific, otherwise one is playing into the hands of those darn believers.