Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[JustWondering]

Yet if you didn't make a basket is it because you did not throw the ball?

But I did make a basket.

 

[JustWondering]

Yet if you didn't make a basket is it because you did not throw the ball?

Need to go for now, I'll continue this later.

 

[Curious George]

But I did make a basket.

That was not the question.

 

[Repox]

If we do not function according to the rules of the universe than you are suggesting we make decisions using magic, that is completely untethered to the universe we live in. It is like saying computers don't function according to the way their microprocessors work and the software they are loaded with. The human brain is just an extremely complex organic computer. The ONLY evidence for how humans function is what has been physically observed, examined, and experimented upon. We are physical beings. The brain is a physical organ.

You need to explain how you think humans make decisions. If our decisions are not the result of the neurological, biochemical reactions of a physical brain to stimuli from our environment, where are our decisions coming from? Magically and spontaneously appearing out of nowhere?

It is not complicated to understand. People know they have choices. Why do people sit around thinking about things and what to do next? It is because they have choices, they are not predetermined. Again, there is no empirical evidence for determinism in human decision making or choices. You can say anything about the human brain, but in order to propose the brain predetermining our choices you must provide EVIDENCE. Present one scientific study, just one, which conclusively proposes human behavior is determined.

It is also a theological issue for humans. It appears, based on biblical records that God has taken a certain regard for humans. Why would God require humans to obey His commandments if freewill didn't exist? There again we have serious issues about God. Where is the explanation for the universe coming from nothing? In case people forgotten the argument, here it is again. Based on science, there is a time line for the universe, and there is no scientific explanation for the beginning of the time line. In short, there is no scientific explanation for how the universe came from nothing. Therefore, the only logical explanation is God created the universe. On earth as well as heaven, God requires obedience to His will. Obviously, there are many out there who object to such a requirement. Nevertheless, God requires obedience. If we are not obedient to God, then who or what are we obedient to? I know, independence is a virtue, we are not dependent on God. Whatever our idea for being, we're stuck with consequences.

 

[osgart]

So how people think and feel emotions is just some kind of magical mumbo jumbo to you? Have fun with that.

i take what i say seriously. its reality.

 

[Repox]

I never said everyone is alike. Twins share genetics, but I do not believe their DNA is exactly the same and they both have different experiences which over time can result in different personalities.

You need to explain what you think freewill is and where it comes from. There is zero evidence to suggest that we function counter to the rules of the universe we are a part of. The universe we are a part of has rules one of which is that events are caused by previous events. Actual facts and evidence for how the universe works points directly at a predetermined universe. All you have to support your worldview is your emotional distaste at the thought that your thoughts and decisions are predetermined by past events/factors, that your freewill is an illusion.

Prove my freewill is an illusion. I don't need to explain what freewill is because it is already defined. Most everyone know what it means because people exercise freewill every day when they think or make decisions. It is like explaining what words are, they just are because we use them. Freewill just is because we exercise it.

 

[JustWondering]

That was not the question.

I think I know what you are implying but something happens or it doesn't, once it happens that's it, it happened. Once an event happens you can't go back and change it because time only moves in one direction.

 

[JustWondering]

It is not complicated to understand. People know they have choices. Why do people sit around thinking about things and what to do next? It is because they have choices, they are not predetermined. Again, there is no empirical evidence for determinism in human decision making or choices. You can say anything about the human brain, but in order to propose the brain predetermining our choices you must provide EVIDENCE. Present one scientific study, just one, which conclusively proposes human behavior is determined.

It is also a theological issue for humans. It appears, based on biblical records that God has taken a certain regard for humans. Why would God require humans to obey His commandments if freewill didn't exist? There again we have serious issues about God. Where is the explanation for the universe coming from nothing? In case people forgotten the argument, here it is again. Based on science, there is a time line for the universe, and there is no scientific explanation for the beginning of the time line. In short, there is no scientific explanation for how the universe came from nothing. Therefore, the only logical explanation is God created the universe. On earth as well as heaven, God requires obedience to His will. Obviously, there are many out there who object to such a requirement. Nevertheless, God requires obedience. If we are not obedient to God, then who or what are we obedient to? I know, independence is a virtue, we are not dependent on God. Whatever our idea for being, we're stuck with consequences.

You didn't answer my question. If our decision making is done by the neurological/biological reactions of our brains (physical organ that operates according to it's relevant rules/laws) to stimuli from our environment (also subject to the laws that govern how everything in the universe behaves) in a universe where time only flows forward, how are our decisions (and every event occurring in the universe) not predetermined? You keep parroting that our choices and how we act cannot be predetermined but have yet to explain why? How does your magical version of "freewill" work?

As for theological issues of "freewill", please provide your EVIDENCE for why I should take your mystical supernatural beliefs seriously.

 

[JustWondering]

i take what i say seriously. its reality.

Eventually, unless civilization collapses and we have to start over or we go extinct, science will replicate the functions of the human brain and after that improve on it. The brain is a PHYSICAL ORGAN subject to the same rules that dictate how all matter and energy behaves in the universe. If you want to embrace a dark age mentality and base your worldviews and beliefs on superstition and live in ignorance, have fun with that.

 

[Repox]

You didn't answer my question. If our decision making is done by the neurological/biological reactions of our brains (physical organ that operates according to it's relevant rules/laws) to stimuli from our environment (also subject to the laws that govern how everything in the universe behaves) in a universe where time only flows forward, how are our decisions (and every event occurring in the universe) not predetermined? You keep parroting that our choices and how we act cannot be predetermined but have yet to explain why? How does your magical version of "freewill" work?

As for theological issues of "freewill", please provide your EVIDENCE for why I should take your mystical supernatural beliefs seriously.

The basic fact is your theory about determination of human behavior is just that! There is no evidence for theory. In addition, your listing of the many brain attributes proves nothing, it just says the brain is complicated. My claim is the human brain functions to allow for freewill. God won't require obedience from humans or condemn them for bad actions if he thought humans were not responsible for their actions. You can continue with your encyclopedic presentation of brain functions, but it proves nothing except the brain is complicated.

As for an explanation of how freewill works, ask God the creator.

 

[JustWondering]

Prove my freewill is an illusion. I don't need to explain what freewill is because it is already defined.

You need to explain how your version of "freewill" works if you want me to take you seriously.

Most everyone know what it means because people exercise freewill every day when they think or make decisions. It is like explaining what words are, they just are because we use them. Freewill just is because we exercise it.

Making decisions is a process that occurs in the brain, a physical process, subject to the same laws for how all matter and energy are supposed to behave. If our decision making was not dependent on completely physical factors the following would not be true.

1. Brain damage alters how the brain functions, changing a persons personality, memory, cognition, behavior, etc...
2. Medication alters the chemical reactions taking place in the brain, change a persons moods, personality, cognition, behavior, etc...
3. Advances in science and technology allow researchers to measure activity in the brain in real time allowing them to determine which parts of the brain are responsible for different things, emotion, memory, cognition, etc...

 

[JustWondering]

The basic fact is your theory about determination of human behavior is just that! There is no evidence for theory. In addition, your listing of the many brain attributes proves nothing, it just says the brain is complicated. My claim is the human brain functions to allow for freewill. God won't require obedience from humans or condemn them for bad actions if he thought humans were not responsible for their actions. You can continue with your encyclopedic presentation of brain functions, but it proves nothing except the brain is complicated.

As for an explanation of how freewill works, ask God the creator.

No, YOU are claiming that decision making is a process that is untethered to a cause and effect universe. So I'm asking you to explain how that is supposed to work. So far I have actual facts and evidence to support my position and you have nothing but your emotional distaste for the idea that your "freewill" is an illusion. Your god does not exist. It is the fabrication of ancient superstitious men. Your imaginary god did not create anything and cannot answer my questions. So your up. How does decision making work if it is not the process of a physical brain in a cause and effect universe?

 

[Repox]

No, YOU are claiming that decision making is a process that is untethered to a cause and effect universe. So I'm asking you to explain how that is supposed to work. So far I have actual facts and evidence to support my position and you have nothing but your emotional distaste for the idea that your "freewill" is an illusion. Your god does not exist. It is the fabrication of ancient superstitious men. Your imaginary god did not create anything and cannot answer my questions. So your up. How does decision making work if it is not the process of a physical brain in a cause and effect universe?

You have nothing, just a theory about brain functions. Present a theory with evidence, otherwise it is all idle talk. You are like a bragging poker play, you have nothing to show.

 

[Skwim]

No, YOU are claiming that decision making is a process that is untethered to a cause and effect universe. So I'm asking you to explain how that is supposed to work. So far I have actual facts and evidence to support my position and you have nothing but your emotional distaste for the idea that your "freewill" is an illusion. Your god does not exist. It is the fabrication of ancient superstitious men. Your imaginary god did not create anything and cannot answer my questions. So your up. How does decision making work if it is not the process of a physical brain in a cause and effect universe?

Don't hold your breath. I've asked this question many times and have never received a satisfactory answer. In fact, most replies are end runs around the subject, veering off into irrelevances so unconnected that even the poster doesn't know where he's going.

A word of advice: don't be drawn into fallacious arguments---unfortunately, their creator is often unaware he's using them. If you do pursue the subject, stay focused on your question and watch out for any reply that doesn't speak directly to it. Particularly irksome are those that try to switch the burden of proof.

.

 

[JustWondering]

You have nothing, just a theory about brain functions. Present a theory with evidence, otherwise it is all idle talk. You are like a bragging poker play, you have nothing to show.

How the universe works as proven by science is my evidence! Which you purposely ignore and refuse to address, which is very DISHONEST. You have yet to directly address any of my points or explain how your version of "freewill" works. Then you have the audacity to tell me I have nothing? Give me a break, you're wasting my time. Either provide something of substance or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Repox]

How the universe works as proven by science is my evidence! Which you purposely ignore and refuse to address, which is very DISHONEST. You have yet to directly address any of my points or explain how your version of "freewill" works. Then you have the audacity to tell me I have nothing? Give me a break, you're wasting my time. Either provide something of substance or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

You have no evidence, just blind faith in science. If there is a scientific proof for determinism for humans, present it, otherwise it is a waste of time. And we are not discussing how the universe works, the topic is freewill. You can refute the idea of freewill for humans if you present a theory with evidence for determinism. Where is it?

Changing the parameters for discussion gains you nothing. It looks dumb.

 

[Nakosis]

We all know the brilliance of academicians. They know things others don’t know because they have specialized knowledge. To learn about academic bias or assumptions, one must have insight into the academic enterprise. We all know it is about truth. In the halls of higher learning, most academicians believe we have no freewill. In academic studies, we learn there may be so many variables as to negate reasonable explanations. However, “educated people” assume everyone’s behavior is subject to deterministic circumstances.

Testing a hypothesis or research question, most academicians string variables like a well-tuned musical instrument, therefore proposing determinist relationships. Taking the same set of variables, some academicians may propose actors making freewill choices. How can we find the real answer? One Academician finds nothing but deterministic relationships, while another academician finds people making freewill choices. In the academic world, the most likely winners for proposing explanations are “determinists.” To make matters even more complicated, it is difficult to argue for positions other than determinism. How can one prove a freewill choice? One person thinks, “I made a choice.” Another person thinks, “I had no choice, circumstances made me do it.” Is that what happens when the murderer pulls the trigger? As for survival in the academic world, one may find their career in jeopardy for proposing freewill choices.

For the deterministic model, there are serious implications for theology. If God determined Satan to be rebellious, there is no sin or evil. Moreover, how can there be holy and obedient angels if they have no freewill choices? If human behavior is determined, good equals evil insofar as actions are concerned. Therefore, the murder is not guilty; circumstances made him or her do it.

So you need to define determinism.

"the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

Free will

"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

So the problem, as I understand it is the idea that your will, is caused by events external to you. Events you have no control over and if having no control over them and those events being the cause of your will, you therefore have no control over your will.

My disagreement with determinism is that at least some of my choices are not caused by external events. It doesn't mean they are not caused just that the cause of the choice was an internal one.

The mechanism by which we are able to make these internal choices is intelligence which is the ability to think abstractly. Because of this we can recreate a past or create future events. Neither have any necessary connection to actual events.

Because of this we actually can go back in time and make a different choice than the one we made. With whatever new information we currently possess we can create and alternate reality where our alternate choice cause an entirely different outcome.

In fact, since our memory is not that reliable anyway we can make choices based on events that never happened.

Normally though what we do is imagine what would happen if we made different choices. Create a virtual future for each of these choices and choose to act according to whichever imagined future we find preferable.

The cause of our choice is the result of these imagined futures and or past we create internally.

We can make choices based of futures and or pasts that only exist internally. They have no actual existence external to ourselves.

Without intelligence, this would actually be a deterministic universe. Determinism doesn't even account for intelligence as far as I can tell.

So morality becomes easy. You imagine the consequences your choices could bring. All the different possible futures and decide which action would be the correct one that would likely bring about the future you prefer and choose accordingly.

It's assumed that if you caused to happen a bad/immoral event, it's because you made a choice which cause one future to exist instead of a choice which would have caused another future to exist. One the result of which was a moral out come.

Right now you could go outside and shoot someone. You have enough intelligence to imagine the likely future such an action would bring about. Therefore you'd be held accountable for that choice. Whereas if you lack the intelligence to abstractly imagine the future your actions would likely bring about, you'd probably not be held legally responsible for you actions.

 

[Repox]

So you need to define determinism.

"the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

Free will

"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

So the problem, as I understand it is the idea that your will, is caused by events external to you. Events you have no control over and if having no control over them and those events being the cause of your will, you therefore have no control over your will.

My disagreement with determinism is that at least some of my choices are not caused by external events. It doesn't mean they are not caused just that the cause of the choice was an internal one.

The mechanism by which we are able to make these internal choices is intelligence which is the ability to think abstractly. Because of this we can recreate a past or create future events. Neither have any necessary connection to actual events.

Because of this we actually can go back in time and make a different choice than the one we made. With whatever new information we currently possess we can create and alternate reality where our alternate choice cause an entirely different outcome.

In fact, since our memory is not that reliable anyway we can make choices based on events that never happened.

Normally though what we do is imagine what would happen if we made different choices. Create a virtual future for each of these choices and choose to act according to whichever imagined future we find preferable.

The cause of our choice is the result of these imagined futures and or past we create internally.

We can make choices based of futures and or pasts that only exist internally. They have no actual existence external to ourselves.

Without intelligence, this would actually be a deterministic universe. Determinism doesn't even account for intelligence as far as I can tell.

So morality becomes easy. You imagine the consequences your choices could bring. All the different possible futures and decide which action would be the correct one that would likely bring about the future you prefer and choose accordingly.

It's assumed that if you caused to happen a bad/immoral event, it's because you made a choice which cause one future to exist instead of a choice which would have caused another future to exist. One the result of which was a moral out come.

Right now you could go outside and shoot someone. You have enough intelligence to imagine the likely future such an action would bring about. Therefore you'd be held accountable for that choice. Whereas if you lack the intelligence to abstractly imagine the future your actions would likely bring about, you'd probably not be held legally responsible for you actions.

My statement is about what Academia believes about determinism. Generally, most educated people understand the meaning of determinism. Having spent many years in the academic community, I am certain most professors believe in determinism as an explanation of human behavior, especially those in the scientific community.

 

[Curious George]

My statement is about what Academia believes about determinism. Generally, most educated people understand the meaning of determinism. Having spent many years in the academic community, I am certain most professors believe in determinism as an explanation of human behavior, especially those in the scientific community.

And i think this is speculation.

 

[JustWondering]

You have no evidence, just blind faith in science. If there is a scientific proof for determinism for humans, present it, otherwise it is a waste of time. And we are not discussing how the universe works, the topic is freewill. You can refute the idea of freewill for humans if you present a theory with evidence for determinism. Where is it?

Changing the parameters for discussion gains you nothing. It looks dumb.

I have already presented a theory that refutes freewill with evidence. Which you continue to ignore and refuse to address. You have not addressed any of the points I've brought up, you have not explained how your version of "freewill" works. All you have presented for your position is that you believe freewill is a magical ability that is untethered to the universe we are a part of because of your completely unproven, unverifiable religious beliefs. Since it is clear that you do not intend to have an intellectually honest debate about this, I am not going to bother discussing it further with you. Have a nice day.