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

[Nakosis]

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

create a virtual thing without electricity.

I'm not arguing that the mechanics which allows a virtual creation work outside the laws of nature. Only the creation itself need not behave according to them.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

That's ok, this virtual reality doesn't really exist either. However people act as if it does as some people act as if the supernatural does exist.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Right and?

I've already read similar explanations. What point are you trying to make?

 

[shawn001]

That's ok, this virtual reality doesn't really exist either. However people act as if it does as some people act as if the supernatural does exist.

Virtual reality exists because of electricity and computations.

 

[shawn001]

Right and?

I've already read similar explanations. What point are you trying to make?

The point with that was just how the brain works, an action potential is generated to create a thought.

Again everything in this universe is bound by the fundemental laws of the universe or they don't exist.

Our brains and thoughts, even our imaginations.

 

[shawn001]

Nakosis

"A simple computer program can make a choice/decision. It cannot alter it's programing."

This biological one can.

It builds NEW neurological networks as it learns.

Robot with a rat brain

This robot steers clear of obstacles thanks to a pile of rat brain cells.



[youtube]1-0eZytv6Qk[/youtube]
Robot with a rat brain - YouTube

 

[Nakosis]

Nakosis

"A simple computer program can make a choice/decision. It cannot alter it's programing."

This biological one can.

It builds NEW neurological networks as it learns.

Robot with a rat brain

This robot steers clear of obstacles thanks to a pile of rat brain cells.



[youtube]1-0eZytv6Qk[/youtube]
Robot with a rat brain - YouTube

That's creepy... :franken:

 

[Nakosis]

The point with that was just how the brain works, an action potential is generated to create a thought.

Again everything in this universe is bound by the fundemental laws of the universe or they don't exist.

Our brains and thoughts, even our imaginations.

Ok, fine.

My point is that we can imagine the existence of something that does not work according to natural law.

What we imagine can cause a real stimulus which causes a real affect in the real brain.

 

[shawn001]

Ok, fine.

My point is that we can imagine the existence of something that does not work according to natural law.

What we imagine can cause a real stimulus which causes a real affect in the real brain.

yes we can but imagination works by physical laws. Your not breaking any fundemental physics laws. Nor is that imagination supernatural process.

"What we imagine can cause a real stimulus which causes a real affect in the real brain"


What we imagine starts with the brain first and neurons firing via chemical and electrical synapes or you can't imagine anything. Is there a feedback loop, yes. Do our thoughts effect our bodies, yes.

Can the brain grow new cells and new neural pathways, yes.

Is the brain governern by the physical laws of the universe, absolutelty, because its chemical and electrical and everything in the universe obeys the fundemental laws of nature. Or they become supernatural. Humans are not supernatural of course.

Do we totally understand the universe or brain, no. But we do understand quite a bit and learn more everyday.



""What we imagine can cause a real stimulus which causes a real affect in the real brain"


Close your eyes and relax and imagine by focusing as best you can that you are sucking on a really sour lemon drop.

tell me what happens.

 

[Nakosis]

yes we can but imagination works by physical laws. Your not breaking any fundemental physics laws. Nor is that imagination supernatural process.

Ok, so lets go back to the post I responded to.

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.

So something I imagine like "God". Since I imagined God, God doesn't have to obey the physical laws of the universe. If I believe God is real. Then this God I imagine, which per my imagination, doesn't obey the physical laws of the universe. Can affect/determine my decisions/actions.

So something(imagined) that doesn't obey physical laws. Is a factor at least in determining my decisions.

What we imagine starts with the brain first and neurons firing via chemical and electrical synapes or you can't imagine anything. Is there a feedback loop, yes. Do our thoughts effect our bodies, yes.

Can the brain grow new cells and new neural pathways, yes.

Is the brain governern by the physical laws of the universe, absolutelty, because its chemical and electrical and everything in the universe obeys the fundemental laws of nature. Or they become supernatural. Humans are not supernatural of course.

Do we totally understand the universe or brain, no. But we do understand quite a bit and learn more everyday.

Close your eyes and relax and imagine by focusing as best you can that you are sucking on a really sour lemon drop.

tell me what happens.

I don't think there is any disagreement between us on the rest of this.

And, btw I did learns somethings during the course of our conversation which I thank you for. But nothing that would make it necessary to alternate my original point.

 

[shawn001]

Ok, so lets go back to the post I responded to.



So something I imagine like "God". Since I imagined God, God doesn't have to obey the physical laws of the universe. If I believe God is real. Then this God I imagine, which per my imagination, doesn't obey the physical laws of the universe. Can affect/determine my decisions/actions.

So something(imagined) that doesn't obey physical laws. Is a factor at least in determining my decisions.



I don't think there is any disagreement between us on the rest of this.

And, btw I did learns somethings during the course of our conversation which I thank you for. But nothing that would make it necessary to alternate my original point.

did you try the lemon drop and what happened?


So something I imagine like "God". Since I imagined God, God doesn't have to obey the physical laws of the universe. If I believe God is real. Then this God I imagine, which per my imagination, doesn't obey the physical laws of the universe. Can affect/determine my decisions/actions.

So something(imagined) that doesn't obey physical laws. Is a factor at least in determining my decisions. "


Whats the difference between something that is "real" and "perceived' ?

Your imagination is a physical process by the brain that obeys the laws of Nature no matter what you imagine, real or imagined like god or anything supernatural.

god or no god, for your brain to even imagine a god exists at all obeys the physical laws of nature. Because you believe in something supernatural that effrects your desicions, does not make those desicions your brain is making supernatural.

Your "perceiving" god to be real based on beliefs. That is Perception a physical process, not a supernatural one.

So something I imagine like "pick unicorn". Since I imagined "Pink Unicorn", "Pink Unicorn" doesn't have to obey the physical laws of the universe. If I believe Pink Unicorn is real. Then this Pink Unicorn I imagine, which per my imagination, doesn't obey the physical laws of the universe. Can affect/determine my decisions/actions.

Again, whats the difference between something that is "real" and something that is "perceived' ?

Real or perceived is very important is stress studies and the fight or flight responce. Because this system is hardwired to the brain. It goes off through out the day without being conciously aware of it.

What is the "fight or flight response?"

This fundamental physiologic response forms the foundation of modern day stress medicine. The "fight or flight response" is our body's primitive, automatic, inborn response that prepares the body to "fight" or "flee" from perceived attack, harm or threat to our survival.

The Fight or Flight Response

So the body will react biologically to a perceived attack, just as it would a real one.

The Science Of Anxiety

"Due to a shortcut in our brain's information-processing system, we can respond to threats before we become aware of the them."



How about these people? With a spilt Corpus Callosum.

Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist

Neurologist VS Ramachandran explains the case of split-brain patients with one hemisphere without a belief in a god, and the other with a belief in a god.

[youtube]PFJPtVRlI64[/youtube]
Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist - YouTube


Found: The Particular Brain Fold That Helps People Distinguish Between Imagination and Reality

"This work has implications for some mental disorders like schizophrenia, in which the line between reality and imagination is unclear to the patient."

Found: The Particular Brain Fold That Helps People Distinguish Between Imagination and Reality | Popular Science
​

 

[shawn001]

a couple other things to ponder


Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1

Neurologist Ramachandran talking about temporal lobe epilepsy and god

[youtube]qIiIsDIkDtg[/youtube]
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1 - YouTube


Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 2

[youtube]5z4B5BYbjf8[/youtube]
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 2 - YouTube

Are Spiritual Encounters All In Your Head?

Are Spiritual Encounters All In Your Head? : NPR


"Koren Helmet" or God Helmet

The God Helmet - How it works.

 

[Nakosis]

"Koren Helmet" or God Helmet

The God Helmet - How it works.

So a helmet that allows one to communicate with God.

 

[CarlinKnew]

It is not that the state of my brain/mind ("me" as it were) does not determine my decision. Rather:
1)The totality of particles in the unvierse at time Tzero, including those in my brain, do not uniquely determine the state of my brain at time T1 by virtue of physical laws. That is, given the nonreducible nature of the "mind," my "decision" (represented by a particular arrangement of particles in my brain) is a pattern of neuronal structure which has emerged through self-organization which cannot be caused merely by the physical laws governing each individual unit. The emergent structure is not simply the product of its respective parts. The systems components exhibit self-organization by unified action over and above the behavior of each individual component. Thus, as physical laws act locally on the components, the emergent structure is not completely determined by physical laws.
2) That "emergent structure" is my mind, my choice, volition, etc. "Mind" is the self-organization of neurons and neural firing in ways that are not determined by the laws of physics.

If I understand you correctly, you say that the brain is capable of self organization. With this I agree, and it is compatible with determinism. However, you go on to say that some aspect of that self organization violates the laws of physics. What exactly is the violation? Are some neurons firing randomly?

 

[religion99]

Everyone knows that humans make decisions; that is a red herring in the debate on free will. The only real controversy here is Libertarian free will.

"Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise."

The objections are (quotes are from theopedia.com):

"\1) Causality —If causes are understood as conditions prior to an effect that guarantee an effect, and all events have causes, then it follows that all events were preceded by conditions that guaranteed those events. But this is the same as saying all events are determined. Since the choices of humans are events, it follows that the choices of humans are determined.

\2) Responsibility —Rather than salvage human responsibility, some maintain that libertarian freedom destroys it. If our choices have no causes, in what sense are they our choices? Is it any more agreeable to reason to hold humans responsible for choices they didn’t cause than to hold them responsible for choices that were caused and thus determined?"

Just as a reminder, this thread is about the above two objections. No one disputes the red herring of compatibilism; it is self evident:

"In compatibilism, free will is affected by human nature and man will never choose contrary to his nature and desires. Man will always do what he desires most at any particular moment - even when there are competing desires."

If you believe in free will, respond to the above two objections under the bolded headings.

If causes fully explain the events , then two exactly indetical causes will always produce exactly identical events. In that case, World will be much more predictable place . This is in contradiction to actual observations.

 

[religion99]

My favourite statement about the "free will vs determinism" debate:

The belief in "existence of an omniscient" and hence the determinism is the best excercise of your free will.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

However, you go on to say that some aspect of that self organization violates the laws of physics.

No, I'm not saying the violate the laws of physics, merely that they cannont be determined completely by the laws of physics. That is, because physics act on neurons at the local level, but the emergent structure cannot be reduced to local behavior, the structure is not determined by physics. Of course, this opens the question of "what does determine the structure" and "how, if the individual neurons obey completely the laws of physics, the emergent behavior cannot be determined by an entity like Laplace's demon?" I don't now, nor does any one else. I've read arguments for non-deterministic self-organization based on quantam mechanics, as well as refutations for such views. Then there are arguments based on a level of complexity we are incapable (at the moment) of understanding. There are plenty of papers and arguments concerning non-causal deterministic systems as well. Programmers have created neural networks capable of finding solutions or pattern recognition which reach levels of complexity such that the programmers can no longer determine how their own programs actually arrived at the solution.

 

[Nakosis]

If causes fully explain the events , then two exactly indetical causes will always produce exactly identical events. In that case, World will be much more predictable place . This is in contradiction to actual observations.

No event is exactly identical.

 

[not nom]

Programmers have created neural networks capable of finding solutions or pattern recognition which reach levels of complexity such that the programmers can no longer determine how their own programs actually arrived at the solution.

"programmer, this is step debugger. step debugger, this is programmer.

I'll leave you two alone now, it seems you have a lot to catch up on..."

 

[not nom]

No event is exactly identical.

so? that doesn't mean identical effects don't produce the same results -- just that that never happens.