Free Will

RGacky3 said:

In theory (excluding quantum uncertainty which effects rocks and water as much as brain matter), all human decisions are predictable if you know all the conditions.

The brain doesn't have an "ability" to think and more than the rock has an "ability" to make waves, those thoughts you mention are just neural electronic impulses that are caused by other physical phenomenon, that inlcudes "raionionalizing" and "picking possibilities," all of those are thoughts that are actually just collections of neural impulses that are 100% deterministic.

The Brain doesn't "choose" any more than a computer "chooses," since that is what the brian is, an organic computer.

The animal doesn't HAVE a brain, it IS a brain, unless you want to posit some immaterial soul, otherwise what IS the animal? But whatever that brian does is 100% physically caused, the "animal" (whatever that is) is enslaved to physical law and causation.

You're mistaken in saying that what we do is caused by our brain as opposed to being dictated by events without and control, because our brain is dictated by events outside of its control, infact you can't talk about the brain having "control" any more than saying the computer has control, or a calculater, or a rock.

Your mistake is in saying that we can choose multiple choices, because whatever the brain does, in the end, is caused, physically, the "choice" is an illusion, the "control" is an illusion.

When a computer has an aparent choice between various options, it might appear that way, but in reality what it does is causally determined, and the brain, is just an organic computer.

Click to expand...

Perhaps someday we can predict human thought but that isnt reality right now. But theoretically it could be possible unless there is a physical process in our brains that we yet do not understand.


I made it clear that the concept free will is a illusion. I did not move the concept of free will to the words "I" "choose" "choice" "control" like you are implying. Either way I did not use those words in the manner that you seem to think I did..

What I said was that the brain has multiple causation choices that the brain can choose from. That doesnt mean that the choices/decisions were magically devoid of causation. And I never implied nor said that those choices/decisions were void of causation. But the brain is definitely (so far at least) very different than a computer. No not magically different just different in the aspect that the brain isnt at all working like a computer, which is take away the brain and a computer does nothing on its own. Yes a program can run itself but it took a human to start the process. Take the human brain out of the equation and a computer would not exist much less know what to do. Try it walk away from your computer and wait for it to do something that a human did not program it to do. Even autonomous programs were programmed to do something.

No of course you will say that a human inputting commands is no different than causation inputting commands for a human brain. Then you will say that the computers program has choices in performing a task which is true in certain programs. And I admit a similarity of circumstances. But the main difference is of biological function vs mechanical function. A calculator must follow a finite mathematical equation in all of its functions the same with a computer. Even what they call abstract computing is bound by the laws of physics, of course so is our brain and the thoughts that our brains produce. Because of the way the brain wires itself through the learning process our brain are all wired differently. And since our brains also encounter different experiences, the unique wiring and experiences create a unique identity. That unique identity uses personal thoughts to guides its perception of the world. Its that perception that causes me to make different decisions that you might in any given situation. Again its still causation in a unbroken chain of events.
And perhaps theoretically in the future a technological device could do everything that a biological brain can do, but for now it cannot.

So the best that you could rationally claim is that someday it might be possible that a computer can behave the same way as a biological brain. But there is no certainty in that assumption. A human brain is indeed a marvelous thing but it is not magical and must abide by the laws of physics which is what I asserted. The "choice" isnt a illusion it is a perception of reality and its constraints. "I" choose to do something but that choice was never magical and outside of the laws of physics, it was just me be a part of causation, not being causation. That is to say that I didnt cause anything that wasnt caused by a previous event. The choices were all there I didnt invent any of them I just guided my body to one of the determined routes that I had no part in creating. I was aware that I made a choice but did not create the choice or technically the outcome. Though I can answer a question yes or no and the outcome of my answer can unleash the next set of caused events which would not have been unleashed had I not been there. You entire lifes causation may lead you up to a situation that will take your life away but a different choice at a crucial point could have meant you will not die that day. Choices are real and that is why moral responsibility is still intact. Either way causation is causing something to happen no matter what choice you make and there still wasnt any free will involved. But it was caused not dictated since we have brains to think about causes and effects before hand. The brain bases a prediction of actions by previous experiences and adjust its reaction accordingly or not. The outcome could have gone a different way depending on the chemical reactions happening in the brain. Those chemical reactions are physical a chain link is causation.

grip said:

Wrong, even the bible says God is in all, thru all, above all- Ephesians 4:6.
"God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him"- John 1:3.

God's energy would have to exist within nature in order to control and sustain it.

Click to expand...

Ephesians 4:6, that would take a HUGE leap to take literally, over all, and in all and through all? This is obviously a metaphor, like "I see his father in him,"
John 1:3 I don't see how that defends your pantheism.

I don't see why God would have to exist within nature in order to control and sustain it at all ... That doesn't logically follow.

Free will by it's very wording means uninfluenced. No, it's not exactly like randomness but similar enough for my analogy. If you can only see the details you'll never grasp the theme of this subject. Though 'will' like a particle is moved by agency it isn't forced into a direction, hence 'free' or 'random'.

Click to expand...

Not at all, it IS influenced, it is influenced by the one with the will, without that you have randomness and that isn't free will at all, you need agency, randomness has no agency.

If you're actions and thoughts were random, you'd have as much control over them as you would if they were determined, i.e. none.

What you need to make an account of is agency.

God is infinite energy, everywhere and yet nowhere. We can't perceive the infinite so it doesn't appear to us, except in the limited form of the universe. Before that it either existed as a singularity, indefinitely or there was nothing at all but the infinite potential of energy. An infinite potential of energy would probably defy all logic and appear as an impossible force, yet there it is. A spirit or holy ghost of pure conscious essence existing within matter but also unaffected by matter, though having an effect.

Click to expand...

infinities are logically graspable, even if not be our intuition, by math. But lets take your last sentance since that is really the only philosophically meaninful one, that would imply pantheism.

I didn't completely remove physics, I simply redirected the conversation back to it's constituents of biology, rather than the esoteric philosophies about a supreme being.

I've seen your argument and I don't agree with it no matter how proud you are of it. It falls flat on it's face making assumptions as facts. I see that all the time on this forum where many members will make statements of opinion or unsubstantiated potty logic and call it facts.

Click to expand...

Ok, so take my argument and show me not only what points are wrong BUT how also you can make an account of agency. (divine mystery doesn't count).

FreedomFromAll said:

Perhaps someday we can predict human thought but that isnt reality right now. But theoretically it could be possible unless there is a physical process in our brains that we yet do not understand.

Click to expand...

Whether or not we can predict it practically is irrelevant, all we need to know is if we can theoretically.

I made it clear that the concept free will is a illusion. I did not move the concept of free will to the words "I" "choose" "choice" "control" like you are implying. Either way I did not use those words in the manner that you seem to think I did..

What I said was that the brain has multiple causation choices that the brain can choose from. That doesnt mean that the choices/decisions were magically devoid of causation. And I never implied nor said that those choices/decisions were void of causation. But the brain is definitely (so far at least) very different than a computer. No not magically different just different in the aspect that the brain isnt at all working like a computer, which is take away the brain and a computer does nothing on its own. Yes a program can run itself but it took a human to start the process. Take the human brain out of the equation and a computer would not exist much less know what to do. Try it walk away from your computer and wait for it to do something that a human did not program it to do. Even autonomous programs were programmed to do something.

Click to expand...

Aparently langauge is getting in the way of me getting what you're saying.

My comparison of the brain and a computer has nothing to do with where they come from, it had to do with how they operate.

No of course you will say that a human inputting commands is no different than causation inputting commands for a human brain. Then you will say that the computers program has choices in performing a task which is true in certain programs. And I admit a similarity of circumstances. But the main difference is of biological function vs mechanical function. A calculator must follow a finite mathematical equation in all of its functions the same with a computer. Even what they call abstract computing is bound by the laws of physics, of course so is our brain and the thoughts that our brains produce. Because of the way the brain wires itself through the learning process our brain are all wired differently. And since our brains also encounter different experiences, the unique wiring and experiences create a unique identity. That unique identity uses personal thoughts to guides its perception of the world. Its that perception that causes me to make different decisions that you might in any given situation. Again its still causation in a unbroken chain of events.
And perhaps theoretically in the future a technological device could do everything that a biological brain can do, but for now it cannot.

Click to expand...

I think I agree with everything you're saying here.

So the best that you could rationally claim is that someday it might be possible that a computer can behave the same way as a biological brain. But there is no certainty in that assumption. A human brain is indeed a marvelous thing but it is not magical and must abide by the laws of physics which is what I asserted. The "choice" isnt a illusion it is a perception of reality and its constraints. "I" choose to do something but that choice was never magical and outside of the laws of physics, it was just me be a part of causation, not being causation. That is to say that I didnt cause anything that wasnt caused by a previous event. The choices were all there I didnt invent any of them I just guided my body to one of the determined routes that I had no part in creating. I was aware that I made a choice but did not create the choice or technically the outcome. Though I can answer a question yes or no and the outcome of my answer can unleash the next set of caused events which would not have been unleashed had I not been there. You entire lifes causation may lead you up to a situation that will take your life away but a different choice at a crucial point could have meant you will not die that day. Choices are real and that is why moral responsibility is still intact. Either way causation is causing something to happen no matter what choice you make and there still wasnt any free will involved. But it was caused not dictated since we have brains to think about causes and effects before hand. The brain bases a prediction of actions by previous experiences and adjust its reaction accordingly or not. The outcome could have gone a different way depending on the chemical reactions happening in the brain. Those chemical reactions are physical a chain link is causation.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said here EXCEPT for the bold sentances.

I would just say the same thing in the earlier thread, but I need to make sure I understand EXACTLY what you mean. Can you explain that more clearly? How can a choices be real if it was causally determined, and how can something that is 100% accounted for by causality not "dictated" by nature?

I mean in theory a computer could do the exact same function as a brain, and in theory the kind of causation, the fundemental causation between bits in a computer, or neurons in a brain is no different that a rock hitting water making ripples.

So could you expand on that?

RGacky3 said:

Whether or not we can predict it practically is irrelevant, all we need to know is if we can theoretically.

Click to expand...

Theoretically yes.

Aparently langauge is getting in the way of me getting what you're saying.

My comparison of the brain and a computer has nothing to do with where they come from, it had to do with how they operate.

Click to expand...

I agree in theory.

I think I agree with everything you're saying here.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said here EXCEPT for the bold sentances.

I would just say the same thing in the earlier thread, but I need to make sure I understand EXACTLY what you mean. Can you explain that more clearly? How can a choices be real if it was causally determined, and how can something that is 100% accounted for by causality not "dictated" by nature?

I mean in theory a computer could do the exact same function as a brain, and in theory the kind of causation, the fundemental causation between bits in a computer, or neurons in a brain is no different that a rock hitting water making ripples.

So could you expand on that?

Click to expand...

I agree that everything is dictated by nature otherwise there wouldnt be the laws of nature. Obviously you misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

A rock hitting a body of water under the exact same conditions (I do mean exact as in all of the above weight, size, amount of water shape of container of water etc) will result in the exact same outcome every time (we'll ignore the quantum level lol). Its all a matter math and the result wont ever be different under the same conditions. The rock will not change speed or direction, gain or lose weight etc. None of that would change unless another action changes the the physics involved (such as another rock falling and bumping into our first rock).

If the rock is being released into the body of water by a human we are not guaranteed that the conditions will remain exactly the same. A human can change the conditions of causation by choosing to change the direction of the rock. Or the human could decide to throw the rock with more force than that of gravity. Perhaps even try to skip the rock across the water. The original condition though is still met the rock was released and started traveling away from its original starting point. Let just say for sake of argument that the rock was on a higher location than the water and was going to fall in the water by most likely the lack of friction and the effects of gravity. The human that shows up to pick the rock up did not magically appear they were there because of causation. The brain of that human is completely within the laws of nature. The thought processes that went on that allowed the human to decide to pick up the rock wasnt really any different than any other event technically. Causation is causation. But the human brain is involved in a detailed complicated set of causation's. Not at all outside of the laws of physics of course but unique in the aspect that a human can compute things on its own and determine alternate outcomes. A rock on the other hand cannot do anything outside of totally being forced by other actions. The rock will never get up from its location and move itself to another location on its own locomotion. Gravity may move the rock but the rock has nothing like muscles or any other method to move itself from point A to point B.

Again causation is causation no matter if the object can think or not. And by no means am I claiming that there is any difference between causation in a computer and a human brain. There isnt any magical property in the human brain that allows it to work outside of reality. If you look at causation as chain links that are either stronger or weaker then what I am saying is that the brain can insert a link of its choosing (from a set of links that it has available to it through the laws of nature) the choice of links is finite to be sure. A rock was one single link while the brain is many links. There isnt anything magic in the decision processes of the brain its all just causation at work.

Remove the human from the equation and the rock just falls to the water, add the human to the equation and the rock can take several paths to the water with varying degree of results.

FreedomFromAll said:

Theoretically yes.




I agree in theory.









I agree that everything is dictated by nature otherwise there wouldnt be the laws of nature. Obviously you misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

A rock hitting a body of water under the exact same conditions (I do mean exact as in all of the above weight, size, amount of water shape of container of water etc) will result in the exact same outcome every time (we'll ignore the quantum level lol). Its all a matter math and the result wont ever be different under the same conditions. The rock will not change speed or direction, gain or lose weight etc. None of that would change unless another action changes the the physics involved (such as another rock falling and bumping into our first rock).

If the rock is being released into the body of water by a human we are not guaranteed that the conditions will remain exactly the same. A human can change the conditions of causation by choosing to change the direction of the rock. Or the human could decide to throw the rock with more force than that of gravity. Perhaps even try to skip the rock across the water. The original condition though is still met the rock was released and started traveling away from its original starting point. Let just say for sake of argument that the rock was on a higher location than the water and was going to fall in the water by most likely the lack of friction and the effects of gravity. The human that shows up to pick the rock up did not magically appear they were there because of causation. The brain of that human is completely within the laws of nature. The thought processes that went on that allowed the human to decide to pick up the rock wasnt really any different than any other event technically. Causation is causation. But the human brain is involved in a detailed complicated set of causation's. Not at all outside of the laws of physics of course but unique in the aspect that a human can compute things on its own and determine alternate outcomes. A rock on the other hand cannot do anything outside of totally being forced by other actions. The rock will never get up from its location and move itself to another location on its own locomotion. Gravity may move the rock but the rock has nothing like muscles or any other method to move itself from point A to point B.

Again causation is causation no matter if the object can think or not. And by no means am I claiming that there is any difference between causation in a computer and a human brain. There isnt any magical property in the human brain that allows it to work outside of reality. If you look at causation as chain links that are either stronger or weaker then what I am saying is that the brain can insert a link of its choosing (from a set of links that it has available to it through the laws of nature) the choice of links is finite to be sure. A rock was one single link while the brain is many links. There isnt anything magic in the decision processes of the brain its all just causation at work.

Remove the human from the equation and the rock just falls to the water, add the human to the equation and the rock can take several paths to the water with varying degree of results.

Click to expand...

You can measure the result of the rock hitting the water given you know all of the conditions.

I would submit that if you also know all the material conditions behind a decision, you'd know with mathematical certainty the decision, so the only difference between the rock hitting the water and a human making a decision is the complexity and the amount of data you'd have to collect to predict.

Add the human the rock will only take ONE path, although it's impossible to know without all the data available, but if you had access to it, you'd know the path.

Also the brain cannot insert a link perse, any more than when the rock is falling the rock is "inserting a link" or the water "is inserting a link," the brain doesn't choose anything, since every thing we percieve as a "choice" is simply an effect of a cause.

It seams what you're doing here is desperately trying to hold onto agency, while accepting the scientism view that everything is just matter in motion, it's impossible, you cannot have any agency.

the ONLY difference between the rock hitting the water and the human decision is the complexity of the chain of events.

I think the most preposterous form of insanity is believeing we communicate with a god. How damn stupid can anyone be? I believe we have been created and for a purpose but I don't know what that purpose is. What would the difference be in the universe if there were no intelligent life forms. If we were created by a god then why? This earth will end some day when the sun goes in to its final stage. So what difference did we make? Did we fullfill some goal on a planet that no longer exists? Were all created things for the benefit of man? Don't we really just prey for relief of some kind? Don't we all wish war, starvation, disease would vanish? So when wishing does not get it done we create prayer and that has not been very successful, has it?

RGacky3 said:

You can measure the result of the rock hitting the water given you know all of the conditions.

I would submit that if you also know all the material conditions behind a decision, you'd know with mathematical certainty the decision, so the only difference between the rock hitting the water and a human making a decision is the complexity and the amount of data you'd have to collect to predict.

Add the human the rock will only take ONE path, although it's impossible to know without all the data available, but if you had access to it, you'd know the path.

Also the brain cannot insert a link perse, any more than when the rock is falling the rock is "inserting a link" or the water "is inserting a link," the brain doesn't choose anything, since every thing we percieve as a "choice" is simply an effect of a cause.

It seams what you're doing here is desperately trying to hold onto agency, while accepting the scientism view that everything is just matter in motion, it's impossible, you cannot have any agency.

the ONLY difference between the rock hitting the water and the human decision is the complexity of the chain of events.

Click to expand...

I tried to explain it but you did not accept or understand the explanation so:

Rock with no human involved = 1 possible result

Rock with human involved = more than 1 possible result

Or if that didnt work for you: The root cause of a event is reliant on what is physically involved with the event. What you are assuming to be a '(mystical) agent' in my description is nothing more than a physical element in a chain of events. The human brain like it or not can effect the physical locality around it. In the chain of events a object striking another object causes a change in the object being hit that would not happened had the object not been hit by another object. The object that struck the other object is a real physical thing that exists and must be part of a chain of events. I am saying that the human brain is part of that chain of events not outside of it. had the human and its brain not been involved in a event then things would have been different. Notice that I am describing a complex causal chain of events and nothing more. I didnt put any high meaning to the existence of the human but only described that the human was involved in the events.

I did not argue agency or any of that other crap that you inserted. The "decision" that I spoke of was just a causation factor of the brains interference as a condition with the external world that exists in tandem with the human but not separately. Again I dont see where the human construct called "free will" is applicable to reality. "Free will" is just a misconception that was invented to describe something that people did not understand at all. And since "free will" is a non sequitur the conditions that the concept required do not apply. So moral responsibility remains intact but on its own terms instead of as a result of the concept of "free will". I propose that moral responsibility is a effect of causation in the chain of events attributed to evolution both physical and social, but wholly as a element that requires a mind for it to exist at all, be it in thoughts or instinctual.

rhinefire said:

I think the most preposterous form of insanity is believeing we communicate with a god. How damn stupid can anyone be? I believe we have been created and for a purpose but I don't know what that purpose is. What would the difference be in the universe if there were no intelligent life forms. If we were created by a god then why? This earth will end some day when the sun goes in to its final stage. So what difference did we make? Did we fullfill some goal on a planet that no longer exists? Were all created things for the benefit of man? Don't we really just prey for relief of some kind? Don't we all wish war, starvation, disease would vanish? So when wishing does not get it done we create prayer and that has not been very successful, has it?

Click to expand...

Why must there be a purpose? Why cant things just be? Is it because you wish that there was a purpose to fulfill a personal need? Isnt believing in creation a wish as well?

FreedomFromAll said:

I tried to explain it but you did not accept or understand the explanation so:

Rock with no human involved = 1 possible result

Rock with human involved = more than 1 possible result

Click to expand...

But that isn't true, there is only one possible outcome for both given the same conditions the difference really is only this.

Rock with no human involved = we can get all the data and thus predict the outcome.

ROck with human involved = too much daa for us to collect (at this point) in order to predict the outcome).

Since in BOTH cases every event is 100% causally determined by the material conditions and the laws of physics, the ONLY difference is our complexity, and just because the latter we cannot predict due to lack of data, doesn't mean that there are different possible outcomes.

Or if that didnt work for you: The root cause of a event is reliant on what is physically involved with the event. What you are assuming to be a '(mystical) agent' in my description is nothing more than a physical element in a chain of events. The human brain like it or not can effect the physical locality around it. In the chain of events a object striking another object causes a change in the object being hit that would not happened had the object not been hit by another object. The object that struck the other object is a real physical thing that exists and must be part of a chain of events. I am saying that the human brain is part of that chain of events not outside of it. had the human and its brain not been involved in a event then things would have been different. Notice that I am describing a complex causal chain of events and nothing more. I didnt put any high meaning to the existence of the human but only described that the human was involved in the events.

I did not argue agency or any of that other crap that you inserted. The "decision" that I spoke of was just a causation factor of the brains interference as a condition with the external world that exists in tandem with the human but not separately. Again I dont see where the human construct called "free will" is applicable to reality. "Free will" is just a misconception that was invented to describe something that people did not understand at all. And since "free will" is a non sequitur the conditions that the concept required do not apply. So moral responsibility remains intact but on its own terms instead of as a result of the concept of "free will". I propose that moral responsibility is a effect of causation in the chain of events attributed to evolution both physical and social, but wholly as a element that requires a mind for it to exist at all, be it in thoughts or instinctual.

Click to expand...

Had the human and its brain not been involved the event would be different, but give then brain, the event is determined, without the rock the event would be different as well ... the brain is only an extra object in the chain, nothing more nothing less.

I did argue agency without using the word when you argued that when a brain is involved (unlike ANY OTHER OBJECT) more then one possible outcomes are possible, which necessitates agency ...

"A human can change the conditions of causation by choosing to change the direction of the rock. Or the human could decide to throw the rock with more force than that of gravity. Perhaps even try to skip the rock across the water. The original condition though is still met the rock was released and started traveling away from its original starting point."

This necessitates agency, because he is "deciding," given a 100% physical discription of the brain, he isn't "deciding" anymore than a rock decides to make a ripple. Data goes in the brain, synapses happen the outcome results NECESSARILY, the outcome is 100% determined, there is no choice, there is no decision.

So in reality moral responsibility does NOT exist, it's just a perception.

We agree on the basics, its just the implications, the fact of the matter which we agree on implies NO decisions, NO choices, nothing, just matter in motion.

RGacky3 said:

But that isn't true, there is only one possible outcome for both given the same conditions the difference really is only this.

Rock with no human involved = we can get all the data and thus predict the outcome.

ROck with human involved = too much daa for us to collect (at this point) in order to predict the outcome).

Since in BOTH cases every event is 100% causally determined by the material conditions and the laws of physics, the ONLY difference is our complexity, and just because the latter we cannot predict due to lack of data, doesn't mean that there are different possible outcomes.

Click to expand...

Well I did not claim that more than one outcome will happen. I did claim though that the human brain can cause something different to happen that would not have happened if the human was not present.

But there is a assumption that you keep making that you need to explain beyond just the assumption that you've been making. And that is how can you be so sure that a persons action could be predicted through science? You seem to be making a big leap of faith in order to explain something complex that admittedly you must not be able to understand or if you could you would be famous. So on what basis do you make the claim that human thoughts can be predicted with absolute accuracy? I know that you are just assuming that it must follow that "every event is 100% causally determined by the material conditions and the laws of physics" but can human thought actually be predicted with accuracy? Please show me any research that can be considered as pointing towards your claim.

Im not denying that perhaps it theoretically that it seems that there should be a way to work out somehow the thought process, but at this point thats a mighty big if.

Had the human and its brain not been involved the event would be different, but give then brain, the event is determined, without the rock the event would be different as well ... the brain is only an extra object in the chain, nothing more nothing less.

I did argue agency without using the word when you argued that when a brain is involved (unlike ANY OTHER OBJECT) more then one possible outcomes are possible, which necessitates agency ...

"A human can change the conditions of causation by choosing to change the direction of the rock. Or the human could decide to throw the rock with more force than that of gravity. Perhaps even try to skip the rock across the water. The original condition though is still met the rock was released and started traveling away from its original starting point."

This necessitates agency, because he is "deciding," given a 100% physical discription of the brain, he isn't "deciding" anymore than a rock decides to make a ripple. Data goes in the brain, synapses happen the outcome results NECESSARILY, the outcome is 100% determined, there is no choice, there is no decision.

So in reality moral responsibility does NOT exist, it's just a perception.

We agree on the basics, its just the implications, the fact of the matter which we agree on implies NO decisions, NO choices, nothing, just matter in motion.

Click to expand...

You keep missing my point and inserting your own idea of my point as if its my own.

There are different concepts of agency. One being that human agency is another way of saying free will. Now when I speak of human agency, free will isnt at all what I am talking about. In human agency the only aspect that I am promoting is decision making abilities. In no way do I need the human mind to use anything magic. This indeed means that all decisions and their outcomes are just another link in the chain of caused events. If nothing outside the human mind existed then the mind would have nothing to decide about except the inner thoughts which are the physical workings of the brain.

That is where a perceptional deficiency comes into play on our behalf. We do not as of yet actually entirely know how the human brain works in every minute detail. With this lack of knowledge we cannot say for sure that the mind is a linear predictable mechanism. Since you like comparing our brains to computers lets do that. RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service

True randomness is an actual proven fact. Whats to say that the human brain is incapable of producing true randomness at some point? After all didnt you assert that the action of a computer are really no different than the actions of a brain?

But anyways you asserted that that all is 100% determined, but then again what exactly do you mean by that? True randomness is a proven fact so right there we find a problem with a 100% determined state of causation. Q: Do physicists really believe in true randomness? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

I think that you need to do some more studying on this subject. i say this because there isnt a absolute belief in nuerobiology that we can ever predict thoughts in every case in every situation. And it seems that your entire argument is centered around the assumption that the workings of the human brain MUST be predictable. SO what happens to your argue if the thoughts of a human are not always predictable what then?

https://simonsfoundation.org/features/simons-science-series/the-mathematics-of-mind-and-brain/

Knowledge=power said:

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

All religious inclined arguments for free will have been dealt with and proven baseless by Epicouros, a famous pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, in 300 BCE or so.

The "scientific" argument you mentioned is not scientific at all. It's vague and makes too many assumptions that are not proven, therefore can't be considered true, like your mention of the term "subconscious".

The main issue with your question of "free will" is that both terms, "free" and "will", are subjective terms and have no definition based on natural laws, only human and therefore subjective.

Trying to evaluate any argument for or against free will in a scientific context is a lost cause. First, you have to define "free" and "will". Then we'll talk.

Paralogic said:

All religious inclined arguments for free will have been dealt with and proven baseless by Epicouros, a famous pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, in 300 BCE or so.

The "scientific" argument you mentioned is not scientific at all. It's vague and makes too many assumptions that are not proven, therefore can't be considered true, like your mention of the term "subconscious".

The main issue with your question of "free will" is that both terms, "free" and "will", are subjective terms and have no definition based on natural laws, only human and therefore subjective.

Trying to evaluate any argument for or against free will in a scientific context is a lost cause. First, you have to define "free" and "will". Then we'll talk.

Click to expand...

The two words 'free' and 'will' go together to create the concept of actions which are products purely of human inspiration and a conscious mind, not some deity, or an autonomous subconscious.

You do not have to define each of the words to understand the concept.

The 'scientific' argument I explained is a theory based on observations, expiriments, and research. Two books I will reference for the information are: 'Thinking: Fast and Slow' - Daniel Kahneman, and 'Free Will - Sam Harris

Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli-American psychologist and winner of the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. He is notable for his work on the psychology of judgment and decision-making, behavioral economics and hedonic psychology.

Sam Harris is an author and has a PhD in neuroscience.

Last I checked, doing research, expiriments, and developing theories, is most certainly science.

Knowledge=power said:

The two words 'free' and 'will' go together to create the concept of actions which are products purely of human inspiration and a conscious mind, not some deity, or an autonomous subconscious.

Click to expand...

Then, by your definition, free will exists because there are no gods or any other supernatural entities.

Last I checked, doing research, expiriments, and developing theories, is most certainly science.

Click to expand...

It can be unless the claimant uses vague and undefined terms that solely depend on subjective contexts that are susceptible to interpretation. Scientific facts are not susceptible to subjective interpretation.

No scientific definitions exist for the terms "free" and "will" yet.

Paralogic said:

Then, by your definition, free will exists because there are no gods or any other supernatural entities.

Click to expand...

Correct. The first 'argument' if you will, was the religious argument, which I do not support, because it is fundamentally flawed. I listed it simply to see if anyone could provide a solid argument for it.

Paralogic said:

It can be unless the claimant uses vague and undefined terms that solely depend on subjective contexts that are susceptible to interpretation. Scientific facts are not susceptible to subjective interpretation.

No scientific definitions exist for the terms "free" and "will" yet.

Click to expand...

It has not been fully understood by science, but it is being heavily investigated. I listed two very credible sources which provide a great deal of information regarding the progress in understanding the concept scientifically. They are very good reads.

Knowledge=power said:

They are very good reads.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt they are.

But for the people that have realized that humans are irrelevant to the universe, then anything that even slightly depends on the human existence or a human subjective interpretation of a claim, it has to be dismissed as irrelevant.

Paralogic said:

I don't doubt the are.

But for the people that have realized that humans are irrelevant to the universe, then anything that even slightly depends on the human existence or a human subjective interpretation of a claim, it has to be dismissed as irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I am not claiming anything to be dependent on human existence. I am not even saying I believe the theories behind free will. I simply put them into this thread to start conversation and read other people's perspectives. The topic of free will being conscious decisions vs. autonomously inspired by our subconscious mind is not a claim of anything. Understanding why we act has nothing to do with whether we are relevant or irrelevant in the universe.

Knowledge=power said:

The topic of free will being conscious decisions vs. autonomously inspired by our subconscious mind is not a claim of anything. Understanding why we act has nothing to do with whether we are relevant or irrelevant in the universe.

Click to expand...

OK, then.

Define "conscious".
Define "subconscious".
and the usual...
Define "free".
Define "will".
...
not to mention to define "why", as in your question "... why we act...".

Paralogic said:

OK, then.

Define "conscious".
Define "subconscious".
and the usual...
Define "free".
Define "will".
...
not to mention to define "why", as in your question "... why we act...".

Click to expand...

Do you sell Webster's Dictionaries?

Paralogic said:

OK, then.

Define "conscious".
Define "subconscious".
and the usual...
Define "free".
Define "will".
...
not to mention to define "why", as in your question "... why we act...".

Click to expand...

The nihilism is strong with this one.

FreedomFromAll said:

Well I did not claim that more than one outcome will happen. I did claim though that the human brain can cause something different to happen that would not have happened if the human was not present.

But there is a assumption that you keep making that you need to explain beyond just the assumption that you've been making. And that is how can you be so sure that a persons action could be predicted through science? You seem to be making a big leap of faith in order to explain something complex that admittedly you must not be able to understand or if you could you would be famous. So on what basis do you make the claim that human thoughts can be predicted with absolute accuracy? I know that you are just assuming that it must follow that "every event is 100% causally determined by the material conditions and the laws of physics" but can human thought actually be predicted with accuracy? Please show me any research that can be considered as pointing towards your claim.

Im not denying that perhaps it theoretically that it seems that there should be a way to work out somehow the thought process, but at this point thats a mighty big if.

Click to expand...

Well if the world is deterministic it is definately theoretically possible ...

The Human brain can cause seomthign different to happen yes ... But then again so can a rock ... so there is nothing intrinsically special about the human brain in that regard.

The claim that a human's actions can be predicted through science THEORETICALLY is pretty simple, if the world is deterministic, then given all the facts one would know all the events, since every event comes necessarily from the causes and conditions. It's simple logic.

Conditions A,B and C lead to event "E." If a scientist had access to to condition's "A," "B" and "C" and knew the laws of nature he could accurately predict event E. Since human thought is a product of hte brain, given all the conditions that cause it, if one could know all those conditions one would necessarily be able to calculate the thought.

Obviously now science can't do that, and maybe they'll never actually be able to do it, due to the massiave amount of data you'd have to process, the fact that all the laws of nature are not known yet and that we couldn't calculate ALL the conditions. but theoretically it's possible.

You keep missing my point and inserting your own idea of my point as if its my own.

There are different concepts of agency. One being that human agency is another way of saying free will. Now when I speak of human agency, free will isnt at all what I am talking about. In human agency the only aspect that I am promoting is decision making abilities. In no way do I need the human mind to use anything magic. This indeed means that all decisions and their outcomes are just another link in the chain of caused events. If nothing outside the human mind existed then the mind would have nothing to decide about except the inner thoughts which are the physical workings of the brain.

That is where a perceptional deficiency comes into play on our behalf. We do not as of yet actually entirely know how the human brain works in every minute detail. With this lack of knowledge we cannot say for sure that the mind is a linear predictable mechanism. Since you like comparing our brains to computers lets do that. RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service

True randomness is an actual proven fact. Whats to say that the human brain is incapable of producing true randomness at some point? After all didnt you assert that the action of a computer are really no different than the actions of a brain?

But anyways you asserted that that all is 100% determined, but then again what exactly do you mean by that? True randomness is a proven fact so right there we find a problem with a 100% determined state of causation. Q: Do physicists really believe in true randomness? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

I think that you need to do some more studying on this subject. i say this because there isnt a absolute belief in nuerobiology that we can ever predict thoughts in every case in every situation. And it seems that your entire argument is centered around the assumption that the workings of the human brain MUST be predictable. SO what happens to your argue if the thoughts of a human are not always predictable what then?

https://simonsfoundation.org/features/simons-science-series/the-mathematics-of-mind-and-brain/

Click to expand...

Ok, but the problem here comes with talk of "abilities" decision making "abilities," the brain only does what every other piece of matter does, react and cause, that's it. havn't "abilities" is something other pieces of matter don't have, rocks don't have "abilities" neither do stars, so saying brains do is akin to magic.

Oh I don't deny that randomness is possible, which is why in my origional argument I talk about indetermanism, and why that doesn't help. Look at my origional argument, I argue that even given indeterminism you don't get any agency or ability or will or anything, randomness in a brain would also exist in a rock, since it's just matter.

Even if human thoughts are not 100% predictable, like there are random happenings such as in the quantom world, that doesn't change anything, there still is no "I" that has any "abilities," or is able to "choose" or "think" or anything like that.

It's an interesting article you posted, however it doesn't change my point, a brain has no more "ability" than a rock, or a computer.

RGacky3 said:

Well if the world is deterministic it is definately theoretically possible ...

The Human brain can cause seomthign different to happen yes ... But then again so can a rock ... so there is nothing intrinsically special about the human brain in that regard.

The claim that a human's actions can be predicted through science THEORETICALLY is pretty simple, if the world is deterministic, then given all the facts one would know all the events, since every event comes necessarily from the causes and conditions. It's simple logic.

Conditions A,B and C lead to event "E." If a scientist had access to to condition's "A," "B" and "C" and knew the laws of nature he could accurately predict event E. Since human thought is a product of hte brain, given all the conditions that cause it, if one could know all those conditions one would necessarily be able to calculate the thought.

Obviously now science can't do that, and maybe they'll never actually be able to do it, due to the massiave amount of data you'd have to process, the fact that all the laws of nature are not known yet and that we couldn't calculate ALL the conditions. but theoretically it's possible.

Click to expand...

You are describing hidden variable theory. What you propose isnt concrete, which means that you are being rather presumptive without basis the absoluteness that you assert. Its almost as if you were taking the assertion that all things can be predicted on faith alone.

I still haven't asserted that the actions of the brain are more important than that of any other object. My guess is that you are making the assumption that I am making a claim which I am not. I have only pointed out the brain as a link in a chain of events. My point is that the brains activity has a affect on its surroundings which is natural and identical to its surroundings the only difference being that the brain can think for its self while your rock could never think for itself. Therefor the brain is not equal to the rock when viewed solely as objects reacting to stimuli in the chain of events of causation.

Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.\

Hidden variable theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, but the problem here comes with talk of "abilities" decision making "abilities," the brain only does what every other piece of matter does, react and cause, that's it. havn't "abilities" is something other pieces of matter don't have, rocks don't have "abilities" neither do stars, so saying brains do is akin to magic.

Oh I don't deny that randomness is possible, which is why in my origional argument I talk about indetermanism, and why that doesn't help. Look at my origional argument, I argue that even given indeterminism you don't get any agency or ability or will or anything, randomness in a brain would also exist in a rock, since it's just matter.

Even if human thoughts are not 100% predictable, like there are random happenings such as in the quantom world, that doesn't change anything, there still is no "I" that has any "abilities," or is able to "choose" or "think" or anything like that.

It's an interesting article you posted, however it doesn't change my point, a brain has no more "ability" than a rock, or a computer.

Click to expand...

As I stated a rock cannot think nor can a computer at least not at the level of abstraction that human mind can. Thinking is a ability that is above a rocks abilities. I know that you are trying to relate abilities with magic but that is being dishonest and putting undue meaning to a word in order to further your claim. I wont accept such arguments based on assumptions alone.

You obviously are not addressing the pertinent information that I was talking about here. Which was that the quantum level of randomness isnt an assertion of random uncontrolled thoughts. The theories state that its in the sub levels of the thought process not the standard conciseness level that we know about personally. But I am not asserting that I stand behind such theories to claim free will or anything. I am offering the fact that there are competing theories that show that you do not get to talk in absolutes about the theories that you accept on consciousness and determinism and indeterminism.

You really do not have a claim of your own, at least not that I can see. So since we have been going on about free will for a while now perhaps its time for you to get a little more invested in the conversation?

My claim is that free will is a misunderstanding of how the brain works. I do not deny that causation is real and that the brain resides as a chain link is the events that happen before and after the brain is involved. I assert that humans can change the outcome of a event simply by existing in the locality of the event. Which takes no more magic than places barrier between a rock and a body of water. The big difference being that a human with its brain functions can think while the barrier cannot. I do not put special meaning to the thinking processes of the brain, the brain after all is indeed just a material object. Molecules are molecules but I do not deny that two molecules may do more than one molecule and so on when arrayed as a unit that does more than adhesion. This means that a brain is a complex part of an organism that is able to move about its surroundings. This ability to move around created a necessary need for the organism to think. Acts by humans effect their surrounding environment. Those acts are the result of the brains functions.

Notice that I do not dwell on agency or the ability to think beyond a humans locality. I do not dwell on such things because as of yet I can not fully explain them. I ould make claims but I wouldnt be able to back those claims and if aI could Well I would write a book and become famous lol So I am just sticking with the explainable.