Free will is incompatible with determanism and indetermanism

RGacky3 said:

I don't see any argument here .... What's your point?

Click to expand...

My point is there are various ways to create debates. This one is solely philosophical since it stands on assumptions themselves. It is not that I mind this sort of a debate. But this is my form of responding to your position. It is a long shot to say the least that what you state it is so.

RGacky3 said:

Here is the problem your simply totally sidstepping the physcal nature of the problem.

Of coarse you cannot have mathematical certainty, since it would be impossible to calculate all the physical causes that lead up to the effect right up to the effect, but if there was a way to calculate all of those things then it would be able to calculate human actions, just like it is possible to calculate movement of physical objects in space.

The fact is when an apple falls from a tree, no free will is involved, its just the laws of physics acting on matter, ultimately the brain is just a lump of matter organized into a machine, on which the laws of physics acts.

I'm not talking about any "religious" freewill, and "religious" freewill isn't different than any other type of free will, this has nothing to do with your disdain for religion, its just free will as it is commonly believed to be.

The brain isn't fully understood and neither is decision making, but if science is the realm to figure it out, then that wipes out free will from the getgo, since science looks for physical causes and physical effects.

I understand we all FEEL like we have free will and FEEL like we choose things, and FEEL like people make decisions, but if we look at the problem its impossible, given that humans are nothing more than lumps of matter, just like any other matter.

BTW, its not just religion that cannot be proven, infact its most of human knowlege, you believe TONS of things you cannot prove to certainty, what matters is if you have reason to believe something, and if it is rational, proof is a very difficult word and is a very very rediculous pre-requisite for belief or knowlege.

Click to expand...

Hmm you seemed to have not like what I wrote so you replaced it with your own ideas and somehow believe that I must now take your projected position on myself and pretend that it was mine all along. I am not ignoring anything thank you very much. Spare me the regurgitated assertions about how I cannot personally prove everything that science has to offer. We already went over that plenty in this thread.

And bwhahaha about what you think of proof. You need proof to show that something is demonstrably true.


Now back to what I was actually saying and not your strawman arguments.

There are different concepts of what constitutes freewill. The theological concept of freewill asserts that humans have the ability to make decisions in a vacuum separated from the physical universe. This is because of the belief in a soul, that a soul is not constrained by physics. From the beginning of this thread I was never using this theological concept of freewill. In the world of science freewill does not exist anymore than a soul exists or any other supernatural make believe crap. As I said my MISTAKE was that I was talking about something while putting the wrong title on it. What I should have been saying was that humans (and most living organisms that can think no matter the capacity) have personal decision. Decision in this case is the ability to take the information on hand and make a decision about it. The human mind particularly as the ability to reason. There is no dispute in science that humans can think and act with minimal emotional attachment. Our thoughts may be caused by the physical world around us but we still are the arbitrator. It is demonstrable that we are not merely reacting to stimuli, after all that is what sets our species apart from the lower levels of intelligence.

My point of view is that it is not important to presume any freewill exists, because the concept of freewill is bogus. Freewill is like a word that a kid made up to explain something that they had no idea what it was. Freewill is a hypothesis that ended up being the wrong way to describe reality. Demonstrably humans are not behaving like mindless robots. Instead humans are complex organisms behaving in very complex ways. We think we rationalize, we weigh decisions before making them we are not always reactionary.


Again my point is that the word freewill makes no sense. Or least no more sense than any other word invented by pseudoscience.

But it is a nice philosophical unproven perspective over life that one decided to share with us. That is why I could not get much into it. As a scientist I cannot critique that there is no data for the statement rests on assumptions. Besides this is a philosophical discussion. Gaky does not has to play by the rules of scientific debates or political debates in here.

Also what would the point of shutting him up due to lack of evidence be? Aren't we communicating here? Trying to share stuff.

As a person I believe in one's ability to make free decisions and yet that is against Gacky's philosophical proposition that: A (neurons) = B (physical manifestation), B = C (all physical manifestations abide the action/reaction chain of events), then A = C, hence people cannot make free decisions. Interesting proposition Gaky, but until it is scientifically proven that the middle star of the Orion belt in thousands of physical chain events lead me to write this to you right now, I cannot accept it.

Besides it is not practical. Can't blame the stars if you commit crimes you know.

Still thanks for the enlightening philosophical position. Philosophy is science of sciences.

DDD said:

My point is there are various ways to create debates. This one is solely philosophical since it stands on assumptions themselves. It is not that I mind this sort of a debate. But this is my form of responding to your position. It is a long shot to say the least that what you state it is so.

Click to expand...

Of coarse it is, because its so counter intuitive, but we have what they call a defeater for that intuition.

FreedomFromAll said:

Hmm you seemed to have not like what I wrote so you replaced it with your own ideas and somehow believe that I must now take your projected position on myself and pretend that it was mine all along. I am not ignoring anything thank you very much. Spare me the regurgitated assertions about how I cannot personally prove everything that science has to offer. We already went over that plenty in this thread.

Click to expand...

We have already, yet you still talk about proof as it's an epistemalogical necessity.

And bwhahaha about what you think of proof. You need proof to show that something is demonstrably true.

Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by proof ... you cannot PROVE that there is a past you cannot PROVE to mathematical certainty most of science ...

FreedomFromAll said:

There are different concepts of what constitutes freewill. The theological concept of freewill asserts that humans have the ability to make decisions in a vacuum separated from the physical universe. This is because of the belief in a soul, that a soul is not constrained by physics. From the beginning of this thread I was never using this theological concept of freewill. In the world of science freewill does not exist anymore than a soul exists or any other supernatural make believe crap. As I said my MISTAKE was that I was talking about something while putting the wrong title on it. What I should have been saying was that humans (and most living organisms that can think no matter the capacity) have personal decision. Decision in this case is the ability to take the information on hand and make a decision about it. The human mind particularly as the ability to reason. There is no dispute in science that humans can think and act with minimal emotional attachment. Our thoughts may be caused by the physical world around us but we still are the arbitrator. It is demonstrable that we are not merely reacting to stimuli, after all that is what sets our species apart from the lower levels of intelligence.

My point of view is that it is not important to presume any freewill exists, because the concept of freewill is bogus. Freewill is like a word that a kid made up to explain something that they had no idea what it was. Freewill is a hypothesis that ended up being the wrong way to describe reality. Demonstrably humans are not behaving like mindless robots. Instead humans are complex organisms behaving in very complex ways. We think we rationalize, we weigh decisions before making them we are not always reactionary.


Again my point is that the word freewill makes no sense. Or least no more sense than any other word invented by pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

Its not a theological concept, that concept is held by plenty of non theists.

Decision meaning the ability to take information and make a decision about it, you still havn't really dealt with problem, only used different words. Whether we make one decision or the other is dependant on our brain, which is dependant on physical causes, also the human mind in this discussion isn't a thing, all you have to work with is the brain, our thoughts are caused by the physical world, all of them, INCLUDING decisions.

You havn't shown how that is possible, just because we are complex doesn't mean we can have something of a totally different nature than simpler things, a complex computer is much more complicated than an electric pencil sharpener doesn't mean that it has any more personhood or any more decision making ability or anything else.

The ability to make a decision cannot exist since that decision, whatever it is, has a physical cause, that exists without agency, its 100% physically determined.

RGacky3 said:

We have already, yet you still talk about proof as it's an epistemalogical necessity.



Depends what you mean by proof ... you cannot PROVE that there is a past you cannot PROVE to mathematical certainty most of science ...



Its not a theological concept, that concept is held by plenty of non theists.

Decision meaning the ability to take information and make a decision about it, you still havn't really dealt with problem, only used different words. Whether we make one decision or the other is dependant on our brain, which is dependant on physical causes, also the human mind in this discussion isn't a thing, all you have to work with is the brain, our thoughts are caused by the physical world, all of them, INCLUDING decisions.

You havn't shown how that is possible, just because we are complex doesn't mean we can have something of a totally different nature than simpler things, a complex computer is much more complicated than an electric pencil sharpener doesn't mean that it has any more personhood or any more decision making ability or anything else.

The ability to make a decision cannot exist since that decision, whatever it is, has a physical cause, that exists without agency, its 100% physically determined.

Click to expand...

You are not understanding what I mean by the idea of freewill is meaningless. Now if I believe that freewill is meaningless (which I do) why would I try to defend it? Take notice that I have changed my mind, I am not still claiming that freewill exists. I am claiming that it is a non issue that has no scientific value. A misunderstanding of the world around us I would say.

The brain can only make a decision based on the information available to it. What people perceive as the concept of freewill is actually just the decision process of the brain. Despite what a philosopher may assert we still all make decisions daily. It hardly matters what physical causation led to that decision since the decision was still made within our brains. We are still responsible for those decisions no matter where they originated they still were a decision made because of our brain activity.

No brain, no decisions. No brain and the physical world of causation has one less thing in the chain of events. Chains have links, do they not? If you remove a chain link then causation changes profoundly. Therefor the human mind is a reactive link in the chain of causation. So our thoughts can have an effect on reality. Which really has been my point all along though I was going up the wrong trail.

FreedomFromAll said:

You are not understanding what I mean by the idea of freewill is meaningless. Now if I believe that freewill is meaningless (which I do) why would I try to defend it? Take notice that I have changed my mind, I am not still claiming that freewill exists. I am claiming that it is a non issue that has no scientific value. A misunderstanding of the world around us I would say.

The brain can only make a decision based on the information available to it. What people perceive as the concept of freewill is actually just the decision process of the brain. Despite what a philosopher may assert we still all make decisions daily. It hardly matters what physical causation led to that decision since the decision was still made within our brains. We are still responsible for those decisions no matter where they originated they still were a decision made because of our brain activity.

No brain, no decisions. No brain and the physical world of causation has one less thing in the chain of events. Chains have links, do they not? If you remove a chain link then causation changes profoundly. Therefor the human mind is a reactive link in the chain of causation. So our thoughts can have an effect on reality. Which really has been my point all along though I was going up the wrong trail.

Click to expand...

Ok ... Thanks for calrifying that you changed your mind, I was trying to figure out how your old position and your new one jived. The freewill question is more a philisophical one than a scientific one, of coarse you always have to appeal to scientific data, but in the end its really a philisophical one.

The second paragraph begs the question, saying "the brain makes a decision" implies some sort of freedom of the brain to make a decision, it does not make a decision, anymore than a machine does, any more than a robot does, now you are right that physical causation lead to that decision, and that process mainly happened in the brain, but saying the brain "made" a decision, implies some sort of agency, a computer doesn't make a decision, neither does the brain, strictly speaking.

Its not no brain no decisions, no decisions PERIOD, we just have the illusion of decisions, what we have is matter in motion, and a extremely complicated carbon based computer.

If you remove the link it chances causation, of coarse, I agree, so in a sense one could say, if Person 'A' killed person 'B' even if there was no free will involved, just chains of events, if person 'A' (or brain A), didn't exist or existed in another state person 'B' would still be alive, in that sense person 'A' is in a way culpible, in the same way a step is culpible for you stubbing your toe.

THe last 3 sentances you go a little beyond, starting to talk about mind and thoughts, "mind" philisophically, goes beyond brain states, the most you can say about mind is its some kind of non causal shadow of brain states, an illusion, the same goes with thoughts, thoughts have no causal power, the causal power is brain states and stimuli causing other brain states, I don't see how thoughts can come into play.

RGacky3 said:

Ok ... Thanks for calrifying that you changed your mind, I was trying to figure out how your old position and your new one jived. The freewill question is more a philisophical one than a scientific one, of coarse you always have to appeal to scientific data, but in the end its really a philisophical one.

The second paragraph begs the question, saying "the brain makes a decision" implies some sort of freedom of the brain to make a decision, it does not make a decision, anymore than a machine does, any more than a robot does, now you are right that physical causation lead to that decision, and that process mainly happened in the brain, but saying the brain "made" a decision, implies some sort of agency, a computer doesn't make a decision, neither does the brain, strictly speaking.

Its not no brain no decisions, no decisions PERIOD, we just have the illusion of decisions, what we have is matter in motion, and a extremely complicated carbon based computer.

If you remove the link it chances causation, of coarse, I agree, so in a sense one could say, if Person 'A' killed person 'B' even if there was no free will involved, just chains of events, if person 'A' (or brain A), didn't exist or existed in another state person 'B' would still be alive, in that sense person 'A' is in a way culpible, in the same way a step is culpible for you stubbing your toe.

THe last 3 sentances you go a little beyond, starting to talk about mind and thoughts, "mind" philisophically, goes beyond brain states, the most you can say about mind is its some kind of non causal shadow of brain states, an illusion, the same goes with thoughts, thoughts have no causal power, the causal power is brain states and stimuli causing other brain states, I don't see how thoughts can come into play.

Click to expand...

Do you have anything that backs your argument? I ask because according to your own claim your robotic brain is just reacting to stimuli. What is the stimuli that caused you to make that claim? Your own thought or perhaps the combination of other peoples thoughts with yours?

You seem very confidant of your claim that there is no such thing as decision making just an illusion of decision making. Ok great we have matter in motion and there was no freewill involved. (Did you miss the part where I moved the conversation away from the concept of freewill?) Forget about the hypothesis of freewill altogether. Wipe the slate clean. Move beyond trying to argue against freewill and explain what it is that you are proposing in its place. Obviously though you need to have an hypothesis of why we feel that we are free agents that can act free unlike like programmed algorithms. What is your take on why reality appear to be different than it actually is? Tell me why you are passionate about devaluing the concept of freewill? I mean your brain must be reacting to a chain of events right?

It could be said that your beliefs then are the result of only causation. No matter what my brain does in trying to convince you that there are different concepts your brain like a robot will refuse my claims my evidence and my rational. In fact your claims make rational debate impossible and irrelevant along with all philosophy.

Perhaps you should research the difference between reactionary thought patterns and rational thought? There is a great deal of evidence that the human brain is not entirely reactionary but can form thoughts and solutions about the things around us that do not exist in our vision or hearing. Your claim though chains us to irrational reactionary existence as if we were just low organisms without the use of highly complex brains..

Explain your claim or is it just your opinion that we are reactionary robots?

FreedomFromAll said:

Do you have anything that backs your argument? I ask because according to your own claim your robotic brain is just reacting to stimuli. What is the stimuli that caused you to make that claim? Your own thought or perhaps the combination of other peoples thoughts with yours?

Click to expand...

To back up my claim, all I'm assuming is that the brain acts exactly like anything else in else in the universe and follows the laws of nature.

The Stimuli that caused me to make that claim? I have no idea, the brain is extremely complex.

You seem very confidant of your claim that there is no such thing as decision making just an illusion of decision making. Ok great we have matter in motion and there was no freewill involved. (Did you miss the part where I moved the conversation away from the concept of freewill?) Forget about the hypothesis of freewill altogether. Wipe the slate clean. Move beyond trying to argue against freewill and explain what it is that you are proposing in its place. Obviously though you need to have an hypothesis of why we feel that we are free agents that can act free unlike like programmed algorithms. What is your take on why reality appear to be different than it actually is? Tell me why you are passionate about devaluing the concept of freewill? I mean your brain must be reacting to a chain of events right?

Click to expand...

I don't have a hypothesis on why we feel that we are free agents. Daniel Dennet does, but I havn't really thought it through.

I personally believe in freewill, but for myown case its a 100% faith based belief, that I cannot defend, but this is a phylisophical discussion, meaning I have to use logical deduction and induction and reason and evidence.

I'm passionate in discussing this because we are on a discussion forum and its a place to discuss philisophical concepts, and hopefully do so rigorously and analytically.

It could be said that your beliefs then are the result of only causation. No matter what my brain does in trying to convince you that there are different concepts your brain like a robot will refuse my claims my evidence and my rational. In fact your claims make rational debate impossible and irrelevant along with all philosophy.

Perhaps you should research the difference between reactionary thought patterns and rational thought? There is a great deal of evidence that the human brain is not entirely reactionary but can form thoughts and solutions about the things around us that do not exist in our vision or hearing. Your claim though chains us to irrational reactionary existence as if we were just low organisms without the use of highly complex brains..

Explain your claim or is it just your opinion that we are reactionary robots?

Click to expand...

That argument you're giving (if I understand it correctly) is extremely similar to certain theistic philosophers (richard swinebourne, alvin plantiga), that a 100% materialistic view of humans, or a human brain that hasn't been somewhat guided in evolution toward a truth searching organ and reasoning organ, and NOT just survival, we couldn't rely on our mental capacity since our beliefs are just illusions and our beliefs are not necessarily guided toward truth.

My response would be a pragmatic one, we have to rely on our mental faculties because that's all we have, also I would argue that evolution would lead to truth seaking beliefs, since those are more likely to lead to survival, however a response to that would be that since beliefs are just illusions, you wouldn't need that, all you would need was the right mechanical actions of the brain to work to survive, and the beliefs are secondary, if you dodge a falling rock, through different stimuli giong into your eyes leading to a series that ends up with you doging it, but you're belief is that your moving away from a bubble and that bubbles can kill, that action works just as well for survival.

I'm not saying we are pure reactionary beings without rational thought, what I'm saying is that rational throught is complex computing the same way a computer could do, our brain takes in information and computes it to create different brain states, that is the process we call reasoning, but I'm claiming the "rational thought" is just the same as beliefs, i.e. in a purely materialistic world its just an illussion.

I hope I'm being clear, and not to muddy. If my answer isn't satisfactory, let me know exactly what I'm missing.

(btw, thanks for a good debate).

RGacky3 said:

To back up my claim, all I'm assuming is that the brain acts exactly like anything else in else in the universe and follows the laws of nature.

The Stimuli that caused me to make that claim? I have no idea, the brain is extremely complex.

Click to expand...

Then we agree that the brain is a physical object bound by the natural laws of the universe. And yes indeed the brain is a very complex organ.

I don't have a hypothesis on why we feel that we are free agents. Daniel Dennet does, but I havn't really thought it through.

I personally believe in freewill, but for myown case its a 100% faith based belief, that I cannot defend, but this is a phylisophical discussion, meaning I have to use logical deduction and induction and reason and evidence.

I'm passionate in discussing this because we are on a discussion forum and its a place to discuss philisophical concepts, and hopefully do so rigorously and analytically.

Click to expand...

Perhaps then you should think it through? There must be a reason why we feel like we can make our own decisions as if we have complex brains right?

That argument you're giving (if I understand it correctly) is extremely similar to certain theistic philosophers (richard swinebourne, alvin plantiga), that a 100% materialistic view of humans, or a human brain that hasn't been somewhat guided in evolution toward a truth searching organ and reasoning organ, and NOT just survival, we couldn't rely on our mental capacity since our beliefs are just illusions and our beliefs are not necessarily guided toward truth.

Click to expand...

Beliefs are subjective up until they are demonstrable truths. If I told you that I could predict the future with 100% accuracy, that belief of mine would be subjective unless I framed the how, where and why. Every explanation needs proper framework.

My response would be a pragmatic one, we have to rely on our mental faculties because that's all we have, also I would argue that evolution would lead to truth seaking beliefs, since those are more likely to lead to survival, however a response to that would be that since beliefs are just illusions, you wouldn't need that, all you would need was the right mechanical actions of the brain to work to survive, and the beliefs are secondary, if you dodge a falling rock, through different stimuli giong into your eyes leading to a series that ends up with you doging it, but you're belief is that your moving away from a bubble and that bubbles can kill, that action works just as well for survival.

Click to expand...

People even today that being outside without a jacket in the cold may lead to catching a cold. While that isnt true at all it is still a good idea to not go outside without proper clothing during cold weather. Its possible to weaken the immune system while your body is fighting to stay warm. And you are right dodging something that could fatally kill you is wise whether you know exactly what it is or not.

In the same sense humans have observed the ability to make decisions. The problem of free will in my opinion is asking the right question and framing the correct observations. So really I think that mankind so far has only tried to make their theories work the way that they think they should. Its much like early astronomers using complicated mathematics to make the Earth the center of the solar system. Obviously there is something that we are missing.

I'm not saying we are pure reactionary beings without rational thought, what I'm saying is that rational throught is complex computing the same way a computer could do, our brain takes in information and computes it to create different brain states, that is the process we call reasoning, but I'm claiming the "rational thought" is just the same as beliefs, i.e. in a purely materialistic world its just an illussion.

I hope I'm being clear, and not to muddy. If my answer isn't satisfactory, let me know exactly what I'm missing.

Click to expand...

I sense some of that faith based speculation seeping through here. Im not holding that against you just making an observation. It though should be obvious to you that since faith is subjective that your version or anyones version of how things work in a faith based world can be wrong. As far as you know your god works within an entirely materialist universe. You could not even really deny that theory honestly, at least not without projecting things that you could not possibly know. I realize though that really I am the one in the hot seat required to explain things in a materialistic framework. Which is why I have changed my assertions on free will. The question that I am exploring right now is if not free will then what? Yes we have complex brains, but complexity does not explain away anything. (sounds familiar)

(btw, thanks for a good debate).

Click to expand...

Agreed.

FreedomFromAll said:

Perhaps then you should think it through? There must be a reason why we feel like we can make our own decisions as if we have complex brains right?

Click to expand...

Well, not necessarily, it FEELS like the sun rises and falls, it feels like the earth doesn't move, it feels like a lot of things that are not true

Beliefs are subjective up until they are demonstrable truths. If I told you that I could predict the future with 100% accuracy, that belief of mine would be subjective unless I framed the how, where and why. Every explanation needs proper framework.

Click to expand...

Except they are demonstrated true by the same faculties of the brain, so I think we are talking about 2 different things here, I was responding to you saying that (as I understood it), our mental faculties and beliefs are not reliable since they are just electrical impulses in a lump of carbon.

People even today that being outside without a jacket in the cold may lead to catching a cold. While that isnt true at all it is still a good idea to not go outside without proper clothing during cold weather. Its possible to weaken the immune system while your body is fighting to stay warm. And you are right dodging something that could fatally kill you is wise whether you know exactly what it is or not.

In the same sense humans have observed the ability to make decisions. The problem of free will in my opinion is asking the right question and framing the correct observations. So really I think that mankind so far has only tried to make their theories work the way that they think they should. Its much like early astronomers using complicated mathematics to make the Earth the center of the solar system. Obviously there is something that we are missing.

Click to expand...

I agreee with you here, but when we get down to the fundemental problem, of "decisions," is one that either we are totally wrong about, and agency and decision making does not exist and we are just very complicated carbon machines, or we are missing something fundemental in our self understanding, or understanding of ontology.

I sense some of that faith based speculation seeping through here. Im not holding that against you just making an observation. It though should be obvious to you that since faith is subjective that your version or anyones version of how things work in a faith based world can be wrong. As far as you know your god works within an entirely materialist universe. You could not even really deny that thheory honestly, at least not without projecting things that you could not possibly know. I realize though that really I am the one in the hot seat required to explain things in a materialistic framework. Which is why I have changed my assertions on free will. The question that I am exploring right now is if not free will then what? Yes we have complex brains, but complexity does not explain away anything. (sounds familiar) ly
Agreed.

Click to expand...

My argument there made no reference to God, with or without a god it holds, I'm I'm saying is that the universe is materialistic and we are materialistic, adding a God doesn't change that, but I suppose one could say that God (if he exists) made humans special with some sort of agency that cannot be explained physically within nature since it acts differently from nature, I can't defend that, because I don't see right off the bat how that could work.

The question of, if not free will, then what I'm not sure we can have an answer. The options It seams like are.

1. We are just carbon machines, and any feeling of decisions are illusory (then you still have to explain what is having the illusion)
2. We have the feeling of decisions but that is just incidental to the matter of fact, (for example I want to workout, and don't want to eat chocolate, because I want to get healthy, I do both, all are physically caused, one though I feel was a decision, the other I don't, for one reason or another, doesn't give you free will but gives something else, then you'd have to explain what is the I that feels).
3. Some sort of agency that does not follow natural physical law, be it an immaterial spirit or something about our brain that makes it not follow natural physical law. (causing all sorts of other problems, like how one can effect the other, how a spirit would choose between things, if it would be random, within its nature or what)
4. Decisions and thoughts DO exist and DO cause events, but are themselves caused by physical phenomenon and thus determined
5. The brain acts Quantumly, thus its indetermined, and somehow those feel like decisions.

If you have any more options let me know, it seams we agree on the basics here, at least that free will as we perceive it seams wrong given materialism.

RGacky3 said:

Well, not necessarily, it FEELS like the sun rises and falls, it feels like the earth doesn't move, it feels like a lot of things that are not true



Except they are demonstrated true by the same faculties of the brain, so I think we are talking about 2 different things here, I was responding to you saying that (as I understood it), our mental faculties and beliefs are not reliable since they are just electrical impulses in a lump of carbon.



I agreee with you here, but when we get down to the fundemental problem, of "decisions," is one that either we are totally wrong about, and agency and decision making does not exist and we are just very complicated carbon machines, or we are missing something fundemental in our self understanding, or understanding of ontology.



My argument there made no reference to God, with or without a god it holds, I'm I'm saying is that the universe is materialistic and we are materialistic, adding a God doesn't change that, but I suppose one could say that God (if he exists) made humans special with some sort of agency that cannot be explained physically within nature since it acts differently from nature, I can't defend that, because I don't see right off the bat how that could work.

The question of, if not free will, then what I'm not sure we can have an answer. The options It seams like are.

1. We are just carbon machines, and any feeling of decisions are illusory (then you still have to explain what is having the illusion)
2. We have the feeling of decisions but that is just incidental to the matter of fact, (for example I want to workout, and don't want to eat chocolate, because I want to get healthy, I do both, all are physically caused, one though I feel was a decision, the other I don't, for one reason or another, doesn't give you free will but gives something else, then you'd have to explain what is the I that feels).
3. Some sort of agency that does not follow natural physical law, be it an immaterial spirit or something about our brain that makes it not follow natural physical law. (causing all sorts of other problems, like how one can effect the other, how a spirit would choose between things, if it would be random, within its nature or what)
4. Decisions and thoughts DO exist and DO cause events, but are themselves caused by physical phenomenon and thus determined
5. The brain acts Quantumly, thus its indetermined, and somehow those feel like decisions.

If you have any more options let me know, it seams we agree on the basics here, at least that free will as we perceive it seams wrong given materialism.

Click to expand...

I have some ideas that I having some problems vocalizing. So I will save those for a bit until I can explain them properly as to save us a lot of grief lol.

Some of my last post was just me thinking out loud I wasnt really implying that you asserted anything particular. I do believe that is possible to explain decision making within materialism without alluding to magic. I have a vague idea but like I said I cannot as of yet write it down where one could understand it without getting the wrong impression.