If you believe in free will, respond to these two objections

[Nakosis]

You posted the above, but it still doesn't to me at least answer your "I do not believe that our decisions are completely determined by the physical laws of the universe."

If something in this universe doesn't obey the "physical laws of the universe" then they are supernatural.

The brain works because of chemical electrical singals which arew govern by the laws of the universe.

The reality that the brain imagines is not necessarily governed by the laws of nature. What the brain imagines to be true or possible can affect the actions taken by the individual. So while the results of our actions obey the physical laws. The cause of those actions need not have obeyed physical laws.

 

[shawn001]

The reality that the brain imagines is not necessarily governed by the laws of nature. What the brain imagines to be true or possible can affect the actions taken by the individual. So while the results of our actions obey the physical laws. The cause of those actions need not have obeyed physical laws.

"The reality that the brain imagines is not necessarily governed by the laws of nature."

How so?

"What the brain imagines to be true or possible can affect the actions taken by the individual.

What the brain imagines is a chemical and electrical process based in neurobiology. This isn't occuring outside the brain.

"actions taken by the individual." are occuring before the electrical and biochemical reactions?

"The cause of those actions need not have obeyed physical laws"

name an action that doesn't obey the physical laws?

 

[shawn001]

There also is a difference between an action and a desicion. The action comes after the desicion to perform the action.

 

[Nakosis]

"The reality that the brain imagines is not necessarily governed by the laws of nature."

How so?

Can you imagine yourself flying?

What the brain imagines is a chemical and electrical process based in neurobiology. This isn't occuring outside the brain.

Ok. I didn't expect it did.

name an action that doesn't obey the physical laws?

Floating up through the ceiling. Can you imagine yourself doing that?

Some people can't. Their mind restricts the virtual reality it creates to only work according to physical laws. I imagine creativity is difficult for these people.

 

[Nakosis]

There also is a difference between an action and a desicion. The action comes after the desicion to perform the action.

A decision requires action to affect actuality. So the decision part is virtual. Well and physical too. However I don't think the brain is aware of the actual physical mechanics.

 

[shawn001]

Can you imagine yourself flying?



Ok. I didn't expect it did.



Floating up through the ceiling. Can you imagine yourself doing that?

Some people can't. Their mind restricts the virtual reality it creates to only work according to physical laws. I imagine creativity is difficult for these people.

I posted a bunch and lost the post.

But first

"Can you imagine yourself flying? "

No one can imagine flying at all without electrical current to the brain which is governed by the laws of nature.

"
Floating up through the ceiling. Can you imagine yourself doing that?"

I can tell you a lot about this as I work with some research clinical hypnotherapists.


"Some people can't. Their mind restricts the virtual reality it creates to only work according to physical laws. I imagine creativity is difficult for these people"


Their "brain" restricts the virtual reality it creates

so some peoples imagination is greater then others?

People don't all have the same brain makeups for one.
Neuroscience Sheds New Light on Creativity

"Close your eyes and visualize the sun setting over a beach.
How detailed was your image? Did you envision a bland orb sinking below calm waters, or did you call up an image filled with activity -- palm trees swaying gently, waves lapping at your feet, perhaps a loved one holding your hand?


Now imagine you're standing on the surface of Pluto. What would a sunset look like from there? Notice how hard you had to work to imagine this scene.

Did you picture a featureless ball of ice with the sun a speck of light barely brighter than a star along the horizon? Did you envision frozen lakes of exotic chemicals or icy fjords glimmering in the starlight?

What you conjured illuminates how our brains work


"Creativity and imagination begin with perception. Neuroscientists have come to realize that how you perceive something isn't simply a product of what your eyes and ears transmit to your brain. It's a product of your brain itself."

Perception and imagination are linked because the brain uses the same neural circuits for both functions."

Neuroscience Sheds New Light on Creativity - Rewiring the Creative Mind | Fast Company


"according to physical laws"

Everything works according to the physical laws of nature or it wouldn't be here in the first place.


"The supernatural is that which is not subject to the laws of nature, or more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

that says everything about what we can measure and our models, and nothing about humans.

Because you neglected to include the most important part of the quote: "...In other words, upper-level organisms can modify the physical and chemical laws governing their molecular constituents."

You stated:

the global effect means those local changes have already taken place, seeing how it's made up of them. that was my point.

The ability for a network, as described above, to modify the laws governing its local components means that these local changes are the result of the global effect, and did not (as you stated) already occur.

Repeatedly, I have quoted shows which address either the theory that certain systems can't be reduced to the laws acting on their parts, the theory that the mind is also a system which can't be reduced like this and is nondeterministic. Had you read what I wrote carefully, you would have realized that I distinguish between what we can't predict because of our limited knowledge (epistemological non-determinism), and systems whose behavior can't under any circumstances be predicted. If the brain is such a sytem, as the sources I have quoted suggest, then this absolutely says something about humans. Specifically, there behavior and though is not completely and uniquely determined by physical laws.

 

[shawn001]

A decision requires action to affect actuality. So the decision part is virtual. Well and physical too. However I don't think the brain is aware of the actual physical mechanics.

Have you heard the term for neurons in the brain and "action potentials."

 

[PolyHedral]

"...In other words, upper-level organisms can modify the physical and chemical laws governing their molecular constituents."

That is impossible.

 

[Thief]

I get the impression that Genesis is a mystery to everyone. Doesn't stop people from making up explanations for it though.



Yes an individual makes a choice. The physical mechanics of the process is electrochemical.

So...we might agree....
Freewill is within us....and chemistry simply responds to it?

There are limitations to what we are able to willfully perform....
but the limits are not our doing...God made the boundaries....

For example....fish and steak on the table....choose....can't eat all of it.
Self denial of hunger....and you walk away.
Hunger cannot be denied at length, as death will take over.

 

[Falvlun]

We don't even have the capacity to gauge things to that level. We likely don't see a 48 to 52 spit any better than a 2 to 98 split. That is one thing I feel helps us to have free will because, to use technical terms, we are retarded. A computer wouldn't have a choice especially if it is programmed to pick the highest percentage.

No, I agree. I don't claim that we know the strength in which we are predisposed to choose a certain course. Only that we are predisposed-- I don't think even the most ardent freewiller can logically argue that point. The point was that even though we may be predisposed, and strongly at that, we are able to choose the less likely course (and partly because we can see when we are being manipulated, unlike things without self-awareness).

 

[Falvlun]

That is all that is require for compatibilism as well. So what need is there for the concept of Libertarian Freewill?

I suspect most who argue for LFW don't fully understand the concept of compatibilism.

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills" ~Schopenhauer. This is basically the mantra of compatibilism.

If we cannot will (ie, choose) what we want, then we do not have free-will. We do not have the opportunity to choose between two different sets of actions-- the choice has already been determined, and not by us. I really fail to see how compatibilism saves free-will at all, and it certainly doesn't allow for a choice.

 

[Falvlun]

They're deterministic because we can't find anything (non-quantum) in the universe that isn't.

Ah, so just like all swans were white... until we discovered that they weren't.

Unfortunately, I can't find any, since I don't really know what I'm searching for. It also wasn't a very long time, so you probably wouldn't notice. IIRC, what the experiment did was stick people in an MRI, have them make a trivial decision, and the researchers found that their brains lit up consistently with their choice a few fractions of a second before they realized they'd chosen.

Very interesting, but to be honest, I don't think it harms the theory much. After all, certainly some decisions don't require much thought, and may in fact be wholly deterministic-- no sense wasting energy on easy things. And other, more complicated decisions, we may in fact decide before we know we decided, and yet the decision still be caused by our own deliberation and awareness of such.

It can't be made a coherent concept without quantum behaviour.

Our understanding of quantum behavior is still very much in its infancy. And I suspect that our understanding of how the mind works is also still very much in it's childhood. I'm hesitant to make the assumptions required to accept a deterministic viewpoint, regarding the human mind. The reflection we can create in the computing world very much interested me, but even that is much less than what the human mind is capable of.

 

[Nakosis]

Have you heard the term for neurons in the brain and "action potentials."

Only in the sense that they kind of make us digital. Which makes it easy to draw parallels with the way computers work.

 

[Nakosis]

I posted a bunch and lost the post.

But first

No one can imagine flying at all without electrical current to the brain which is governed by the laws of nature.

Sure, a computer program can't run without the hardware.

I can tell you a lot about this as I work with some research clinical hypnotherapists.

so some peoples imagination is greater then others?

People don't all have the same brain makeups for one.
Neuroscience Sheds New Light on Creativity

"Close your eyes and visualize the sun setting over a beach.
How detailed was your image? Did you envision a bland orb sinking below calm waters, or did you call up an image filled with activity -- palm trees swaying gently, waves lapping at your feet, perhaps a loved one holding your hand?


Now imagine you're standing on the surface of Pluto. What would a sunset look like from there? Notice how hard you had to work to imagine this scene.

Did you picture a featureless ball of ice with the sun a speck of light barely brighter than a star along the horizon? Did you envision frozen lakes of exotic chemicals or icy fjords glimmering in the starlight?

What you conjured illuminates how our brains work


"Creativity and imagination begin with perception. Neuroscientists have come to realize that how you perceive something isn't simply a product of what your eyes and ears transmit to your brain. It's a product of your brain itself."

Perception and imagination are linked because the brain uses the same neural circuits for both functions."

Neuroscience Sheds New Light on Creativity - Rewiring the Creative Mind | Fast Company


"according to physical laws"

Everything works according to the physical laws of nature or it wouldn't be here in the first place.

I wasn't referring to actual things but virtual things. A virtual thing doesn't need to work according to the laws of nature since it has no actual existence.

"The supernatural is that which is not subject to the laws of nature, or more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature"

Ok, if you want to call the virtual reality the brain creates supernatural I guess that is ok.

 

[Nakosis]

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills" ~Schopenhauer. This is basically the mantra of compatibilism.

So you think you are able to alter your "programming" without something that causes you to alter it?
What leads you to believe this?

If we cannot will (ie, choose) what we want, then we do not have free-will. We do not have the opportunity to choose between two different sets of actions-- the choice has already been determined, and not by us. I really fail to see how compatibilism saves free-will at all, and it certainly doesn't allow for a choice.

A simple computer program can make a choice/decision. It cannot alter it's programing. A computer program can choose between true and false. However given the same input it will always result in the same choice. The program made the choice given the input being what is was, it could not have made a different choice.

More complex programs can change their program. However that change was still determined by the original programming. The new altered program still has a determine output which leads to one possible decision. Which may further alter the program. However the outcome was always determine by the earlier iterations of the program.

You think you need to have been able to actually have done other then what you did for a choice to be involved but this is not true.

There's a thought experiment which shows this.

Say you were deciding whether or not to turn on the TV. Now there was another individual who could tell the moment you had made a decision who had a gun( or whatever) and if they saw that you had decided to turn on the TV they would kill you. And you have no knowledge of this individual who would kill you if you had decided on the wrong course of action?

Lets say you decided to not turn on the TV. Did you make that decision or is the fact that you could have never actually turned the TV on mean you didn't make a choice? Does it mean that you didn't "freely" make that choice?

So it is not necessary for you to have actually been able to do other then you did to make a freewill choice.

 

[Willamena]

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills" ~Schopenhauer. This is basically the mantra of compatibilism.

If we cannot will (ie, choose) what we want, then we do not have free-will.

But that doesn't work, for the simple reason (as in Schopenhauer's example) that will doesn't work on itself. It's like "think thought," it can exist only grammatically. Not being able to "will will" doesn't deny free will, any more than not being able to "think thought" denies thought.

We do not have the opportunity to choose between two different sets of actions-- the choice has already been determined, and not by us. I really fail to see how compatibilism saves free-will at all, and it certainly doesn't allow for a choice.

We do have the opportunity to choose between two different sets of actions, because we don't time travel , and those two roads we can choose from always lie in front of us.

 

[shawn001]

Only in the sense that they kind of make us digital. Which makes it easy to draw parallels with the way computers work.

Action potentials

"In physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a consistent trajectory. "


Neurological Control

The Action Potential

http://www.brainexplorer.org/neurological_control/Neurological_Action_
potential.shtml

 

[shawn001]

Sure, a computer program can't run without the hardware.

The brain or a computer can't run without electricity. Therefore the brain does obey the fundemental physcial laws of the universe.






I wasn't referring to actual things but virtual things. A virtual thing doesn't need to work according to the laws of nature since it has no actual existence.

Were talking about the brain which is an actual thing.



Ok, if you want to call the virtual reality the brain creates supernatural I guess that is ok.

No its not okay, you can call it imagination which is created by thought, all thought are cheimcal and electrical signals.

There is nothing supernatural we know exists.

 

[shawn001]

"A virtual thing doesn't need to work according to the laws of nature"

create a virtual thing without electricity.