Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[blü 2]

The primary argument for free will is theological. Briefly, if God created creatures to enjoy His love and to worship Him, and creatures have free will to accept or reject Him, then free will is essential.

Where did God say he did that? Or did someone just make it up?

After all, his billing says he's omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and perfect; so as I said before, he's known since before he created the universe exactly what everyone's going to do, think, say and experience for every billionth of a second throughout their lives. It's impossible to take an omniscient being by surprise, and there's no place there for freewill; it's just a theological variation of determinism.

Otherwise, God created creatures to be robots

Not in any way that worries us, obviously. We have the strong sense of owning our decisions, and we have no sense of mechanism, indeed no personal insight into the working of our nonconscious mind in general.

So all we have on the table are two versions of determinism, one biological and one magical. Since we know biology exists, it's the clear victor here.

 

[blü 2]

After all, how each individually perceives and defines things is already determined. No sense in reasoning or debating others. All would be true/right.

First up, my apologies ─ I completely overlooked your post until just now.

Next: the brain is an extremely versatile responding machine, and it can be great fun to own one. We have no means of obtaining and marshaling the stupendous amounts of data necessary to predict the conduct of a particular brain, so we have no sense of mechanism as we go about being human. It's simply not a problem.

Perhaps ourselves contain an abundance of exotic matter/exotic energy/primordial matter/energy, primordial virtual particles CERN's hadron collider can only imagine and wish it can have within.

Or, perhaps not? Still, it'll be a depressing day if we ever get to know and understand everything.

Touching base on psychology and "religion," many believe that all is "mind." For instance, for something to exist in someone's imagination, it has to exist in some form.

Sure. Concepts exist as complexes of biochemistry in the brain. (The content of the concept, perhaps like a drawing on a piece of paper, can represent something imaginary, of course.)

Perhaps not in physical or seen form, but rather in virtual particle quantum form... photons containing that information of said belief for example.

Great idea! Pity it needs so much more work.

Forgiveness should be automatic in our ways, for nobody is ever at fault.

We know that no-responsibility doesn't work for gregarious critters like us; and we know it because we've evolved to have a conscience. Tribes are heavily favored to beat individuals on a level field, so what's good for tribalism is good for individual survival; or rather, the survival of the individual's genes into the next generation.

The natural genetic moral code embedded into us wouldn't and could not even be able to think about punishing someone for an act they are not responsible for.

We see the law creeping towards such notions. SCOTUS has declared that having an adolescent and thus immature brain can mitigate responsibility, in the context of imposing punishment, frinstance.

Ever consider "soft determinism?"

Er, what's "soft determinism"? Determinism with the weekend off?

 

[Skwim]

The primary argument for free will is theological.

Actually it isn't. Many freewillers are agnostics and even atheists (I've debated them). However, I do recognize why YOU feel it's theological. Without the notion of freewill, sin and salvation are meaningless. And being meaningless Christianity falls apart, and you can't have that happening. So you put up your dukes to defend your religion, but unfortunately you have no counter punches, so you tap dance around the ring as if it's the same thing as winning the fight.

Sorry Repox, but this is one fight you lost before you even put your gloves on.

.

 

[Repox]

Actually it isn't. Many freewillers are agnostics and even atheists (I've debated them). However, I do recognize why YOU feel it's theological. Without the notion of freewill, sin and salvation are meaningless. And being meaningless Christianity falls apart, and you can't have that happening. So you put up your dukes to defend your religion, but unfortunately you have no counter punches, so you tap dance around the ring as if it's the same thing as winning the fight.

Sorry Repox, but this is one fight you lost before you even put your gloves on.

.

No, the evidence is clear, people are not determined. If you take a group of relatively similar people, you will find with time they behave in significantly different ways, depending on culture, values and norms. There is no equality among people, there are differences enough to conclude each person has free will, they make different choices.

 

[Skwim]

No, the evidence is clear, people are not determined. If you take a group of relatively similar people, you will find with time they behave in significantly different ways, depending on culture, values and norms. There is no equality among people, there are differences enough to conclude each person has free will, they make different choices.

Sorry, but simply restating your position is not an explanation for it.

Blü 2 asked you one simple question,

"Explain how your 'freewill' makes choices without using chains of cause & effect," ​

and your refusal/inability to answer it has said more about the non-existence of your freewill than anything else. Plus, your tap dancing has said volumes about your character, which ain't anything to be proud of.

.

 

[Repox]

Sorry, but simply restating your position is not an explanation for it.

Blü 2 asked you one simple question,

"Explain how your 'freewill' makes choices without using chains of cause & effect," ​

and your refusal/inability to answer it has said more about the non-existence of your freewill than anything else. Plus, your tap dancing has said volumes about your character, which ain't anything to be proud of.

.

Refute this statement with a scientific study for brain determinism or a logical statement with empirical facts for determinism as the explanation for human behavior. Don't bother, there is no proof for determinism. It is a theory without proof. The evidence is what people do every day, which clearly shows they use free will. To win the debate, you must present evidence, not opinions.

The evidence is clear, people are not determined. If you take a group of relatively similar people, you will find with time they behave in significantly different ways, depending on culture, values and norms. There is no equality among people, there are differences enough to conclude each person has free will, they make different choices.

 

[Profound Realization]

First up, my apologies ─ I completely overlooked your post until just now.

Next: the brain is an extremely versatile responding machine, and it can be great fun to own one. We have no means of obtaining and marshaling the stupendous amounts of data necessary to predict the conduct of a particular brain, so we have no sense of mechanism as we go about being human. It's simply not a problem.
Or, perhaps not? Still, it'll be a depressing day if we ever get to know and understand everything.
Sure. Concepts exist as complexes of biochemistry in the brain. (The content of the concept, perhaps like a drawing on a piece of paper, can represent something imaginary, of course.)
Great idea! Pity it needs so much more work.
We know that no-responsibility doesn't work for gregarious critters like us; and we know it because we've evolved to have a conscience. Tribes are heavily favored to beat individuals on a level field, so what's good for tribalism is good for individual survival; or rather, the survival of the individual's genes into the next generation.
We see the law creeping towards such notions. SCOTUS has declared that having an adolescent and thus immature brain can mitigate responsibility, in the context of imposing punishment, frinstance.
Er, what's "soft determinism"? Determinism with the weekend off?

You've indirectly stated yourself it's not plausible to make a determination of strict determinism, that's why I asked if you've ever considered the soft approach with the weekends off .

Everything is not predictable(a gene of strict determinism) and we don't have the means to predict as you've stated. Those means may never arise.

What is the "I" or "we" or "us" trying to survive? Chemicals, particles, and "virtual particles, genes will always survive and change form/non-form in their broken down and purest form.

Survival and justice are also 2 different concepts, yet Im certain we can find some parallels, albeit different concepts. Then there are also the "I's" and "we's" who have no thought or concern for survival or preservation in this world, unable to pro-create, or un-willing to... (also tribes in themselves) making it even stranger and more unique. The fact that both a no-responsibility in strict determinism and a justice system exist, are two very contradicting points. . . regardless of what "laws" a group of human beings impose. So logically, it is contradictory. There really is no "survival of the fittest" with strict determinism. According to academic law, everything always survives anyhow. Natural law(if strict determinism) vs human being law are highly different.

Also, "I" could be a hypothetical particle discovered 100 or 1000 years from now and be named the "Souliton" and become a truthful particle. Who knows. Not predictable to conclude it will ever be or not be discovered on a macroscopic scale, agreed upon, etc. If something is not discovered or never discovered, not agreed upon by the masses...does not and cannot exclude its existence.

There is observable evidence for deterministic will and free will and "problems" with both sides being all in on 1. I suppose the auto-genes that create a more closed-circuit system of the brain is more inept to make a conclusion that's not possible to already conclude. The more I discover myself, the more I realize I don't know and the more my auto-genes seem to open circuits that were once closed-circuited.

 

[Profound Realization]

Sorry, but simply restating your position is not an explanation for it.

Blü 2 asked you one simple question,

"Explain how your 'freewill' makes choices without using chains of cause & effect," ​

and your refusal/inability to answer it has said more about the non-existence of your freewill than anything else. Plus, your tap dancing has said volumes about your character, which ain't anything to be proud of.

.

"Cause" is always deduced to origin. If we aren't 100% certain beyond any doubts whatsoever, the origin.... it's not plausible to conclude anything. Sure it's fun to guess, believe, assume, follow all of our unique/different human being idols who give us their infallible, special-access knowledge(at least as we perceive), debate, reason with fellow unique human beings.... but it's illogical to conclude one way or another.

Before you begin trying to show specs in a fellow humans beings eyes who you have judged and labeled(already contradicting a strict-deterministic perception by doing so) remove the spec from your own eye and explain the unknown origins (causes) of all effects. Any tap dancing and non-ability to answer will have you pointing the finger back at yourself and indirectly calling yourself whatever character you perceived in who you responded to. The irony.

 

[Profound Realization]

Refute this statement with a scientific study for brain determinism or a logical statement with empirical facts for determinism as the explanation for human behavior. Don't bother, there is no proof for determinism. It is a theory without proof. The evidence is what people do every day, which clearly shows they use free will. To win the debate, you must present evidence, not opinions.

The evidence is clear, people are not determined. If you take a group of relatively similar people, you will find with time they behave in significantly different ways, depending on culture, values and norms. There is no equality among people, there are differences enough to conclude each person has free will, they make different choices.

I would tend to agree, although there is also evidence of determinism as well.

I agree because it's clear to see that just by reading this thread. You have a complete different worldview than who you are talking to in regards to the topic yet you are both composed of the same brain and it's same chemicals, along with "FREE-flowing particles" that are NOT predictable. Every human being is unique, perhaps "free" to an extent from the laws of the universe even, and the "cause/origin" is not established when deducing. The origin or "cause" of the effect of the particles/chemicals that have caused and effected you to perceive "freewill" have not been established. And if you're "illuded" or whom you're talking to is "illuded," the cause(origin) of those chemicals/particles of "illusion" that exist within that effected said entity have not been established.

 

[Repox]

I would like to take the discussion outside of whether or not I am or you are socialized to think everyone is determined or exercises free will. This discussion about God and free will has been going on every since the idea of accepting or rejecting the Old Testament Lord came into existences. We know of course about competing religions, but I would like to stay with the OT Lord because it is here where the issue of free will looms far above other religious issue as a determinant of human fate.

Assuming, God requires obedience, what does it say about the human condition? If it is true, and there is evidence for humans not obeying the OT Lord, then it seems as if we have an understanding about the fate of humankind. If it is true humans are an independent species, or they tend to not obey God's Commandments, then we know why salvation is questionable. It is certainly a valid point of view inasmuch as so much of theology is predicated on violating or obeying God's holy word. Taking it a step further, what if humans are truly disobedient. What are the consequences? If there is no free will it is a mute question, but if free will is crucial for determining the fate of humankind, then we have an good idea for understanding the Bible and God's relationship with humans.

 

[Skwim]

The evidence is clear, people are not determined. If you take a group of relatively similar people, you will find with time they behave in significantly different ways, depending on culture, values and norms. There is no equality among people, there are differences enough to conclude each person has free will, they make different choices.

And once again with the

and your failure to answer blü 2's question. Anyone surprised?

Thing is, your "evidence" is not clear at all. But let me ask you this; why does the fact that people are different denote the existence of free will?

In logicese your contention can be expressed as

People are different ∴ free will exists
​

(∴ means "therefore") However, this has as much validity and truth value as

I eat grapes ∴ it snows in winter​

Or

Cars run on gasoline ∴ most pianos have 88 keys
​

Problem is, Repox, ya gotta show the connection that answers the question, "WHY." Why does free will necessarily exist because people are different? So far all you've done is to show how people are different, which doesn't mean bupkis, and doesn't come close to showing why "freewill' makes choices without using chains of cause & effect."

 

[Profound Realization]

And once again with the

and your failure to answer blü 2's question. Anyone surprised?

Thing is, your "evidence" is not clear at all. But let me ask you this; why does the fact that people are different denote the existence of free will?

In logicese your contention can be expressed as

People are different ∴ free will exists
​

(∴ means "therefore") However, this has as much validity and truth value as

I eat grapes ∴ it snows in winter​

Or

Cars run on gasoline ∴ most pianos have 88 keys
​

Problem is, Repox, ya gotta show the connection that answers the question, "WHY." Why does free will necessarily exist because people are different? So far all you've done is to show how people are different, which doesn't mean bupkis, and doesn't come close to showing why "freewill' makes choices without using chains of cause & effect."

What is the origin(cause) of chemicals that has effected who you're replying to's necessarily belief or knowledge of free will?

Why does it concern you to make any kind of judgements whatsoever on anyone if it was already deterministic that who you're replying to believes or has knowledge of free will? What is your goal? Trying to change what's already determined?

 

[blü 2]

No, the evidence is clear, people are not determined.

Yet asked again and again to address the determinism of biochemistry you've run away. You've never presented such evidence, never spelt out a case for what you claim.

If you take a group of relatively similar people, you will find with time they behave in significantly different ways, depending on culture, values and norms.

Of course they do. They each have different brains, different sets of experience, knowledge, morality, tendencies. in short their own distinct chains of biochemical cause&effect/r.

None of your examples ruffles the case for determinism in the slightest.

You STILL appear not to comprehend the argument you need to address. Determinism does NOT make the world look different to its present appearance, or to people, or their decisions: on the contrary it's why they're like they are .

 

[Skwim]

"Cause" is always deduced to origin.

(not entirely certain what this means) If your remark signified anything I believe it would better be expressed as: effect is always "deduced to cause." However, taking your remark as it stands, Yes, causes do have origins; they are the effects of other causes, I once made a chart depicting the cause effect sequence of a particular effect. Note that while all the causes have an effect (naturally) not all effects go on to function as a cause.

If we aren't 100% certain beyond any doubts whatsoever, the origin.... it's not plausible to conclude anything.

So if you're not 100% sure why you lost your sock then it's not lost?

Before you begin trying to show specs in a fellow humans beings eyes who you have judged and labeled(already contradicting a strict-deterministic perception by doing so) remove the spec from your own eye and explain the unknown origins (causes) of all effects.

Interesting. Do you actually believe there are effects without causes? Just how would that work? Thing is, there is absolutely no reason to suspect an effect has no cause. OR that the rationality that an effect has a cause hangs on one's ability to show that cause.

FYI, and for those who may have forgotten

Will:

"the mental power used to control and direct your thoughts and actions,
Source: Cambridge Dictionaries Online

[The] Will does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.
Source: Wikipedia​

Free will:

The ability to have done differently
Source: many

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
Source: Wikipedia​

Determinism (the hard kind):

In philosophy, [the] theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica

The idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature
Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

​

What is the origin(cause) of chemicals that has effected who you're replying to's necessarily belief or knowledge of free will?

Sorry, care to rephrase?. . . . . . . . . . . never mind, I think I've divined what you're saying here, and the answer would be, I don't know.

​

Why does it concern you to make any kind of judgements whatsoever on anyone if it was already deterministic that who you're replying to believes or has knowledge of free will? What is your goal? Trying to change what's already determined?

I can't help it. Through the inexorable forces of determinism I'm compelled to do it.

.

​

 

[blü 2]

You've indirectly stated yourself it's not plausible to make a determination of strict determinism, that's why I asked if you've ever considered the soft approach with the weekends off

I'd like to, but I need my brain to keep working. Or at least, I think I do.

Everything is not predictable(a gene of strict determinism)

Correct, from our PoV. But when we work backwards we learn more and more about the how, and the chemistry of the how. We work out how neurons cooperate. We work out how the units of the ant heap function together as a gestalt. And as we understand, we understand in better and better defined sequences of cause&effect. Not (at least at this stage) in exact descriptions of the complex; but in small, and then larger groups; and in more and more precise generalizations.

What is the "I" or "we" or "us" trying to survive?

The biochemical brain, which produces the sense of self. I haven't brought myself right up to date for a while now, but when last I looked the 'global workspace' hypothesis of consciousness was the favored one, having already made a few satisfactory predictions, as a good hypothesis should.

Chemicals, particles, and "virtual particles, genes will always survive and change form/non-form in their broken down and purest form.

But we're a pattern. Death is the collapse of the pattern because the biochemicals making it possible have lost their necessary coherences.

Survival and justice are also 2 different concepts, yet Im certain we can find some parallels, albeit different concepts.

We know we're good at survival, because we're each one end product of an unbroken chain of life going back 3.5 billion years or more.

And we know we get some basic moral tendencies from our genes because every culture, we find, has these basics in common: child nurture and protection; a dislike of the one who harms; fairness and reciprocity; loyalty to the group; respect for authority; and a sense of self-worth or virtue through self-denial.

The fact that both a no-responsibility in strict determinism and a justice system exist, are two very contradicting points.

Not so. Otherwise the gestalt of the ants' nest is, in your terms, inexplicable.

According to academic law, everything always survives anyhow. Natural law (if strict determinism) vs human being law are highly different.

How could they be anything else? Every brain, every group culture, is different ─ in its history, its elements, its capacities and so on.

Also, "I" could be a hypothetical particle discovered 100 or 1000 years from now and be named the "Souliton" and become a truthful particle.

And were that to happen, truth would change. Truth is simply our best understanding for the time being. It was once true to say the earth was flat. because that was the best opinion of the day.

There is observable evidence for deterministic will and free will and "problems" with both sides being all in on 1.

What is the evidence of free will (free in the sense of being independent of complex chains of cause&effect)? I've been asking Repox for a step by step description of a brain making a decision independently of its biochemistry, but he can't do it. Can you?

 

[Profound Realization]

Yet asked again and again to address the determinism of biochemistry you've run away. You've never spelt out a case for what you claim.
Of course they do. They each have different brains, different sets of experience, knowledge, morality, tendencies. in short their own distinct chains of biochemical cause&effect/r.

None of your examples ruffles the case for determinism in the slightest.

You STILL appear not to comprehend the argument you need to address. Determinism does NOT make the world look different to its present appearance, or to people, or their decisions: on the contrary it's why they're like they are .

Excellent points. If we came from our external environment (the cosmos) which was the ultimate cause of our beings cumulative unique appearance, experience, knowledge, morals, beliefs, tendencies, etc..... those biochemicals would have a "cause" as well and be composed of certain characteristics/properties of appearance, experience, knowledge, morals, beliefs, tendencies. So the question would be, where did those come from? The cause/origin?

If they came from the "brain," it works in no way. Someone can't just say they came from the brain and biochemicals when the brain came from the cosmos. Well, I suppose they can but then it defies all logic and academic laws. All that also does it bypass roughly 13.798 billion years(if accurate) or whatever the gap would be between the unknown origin/cause of all of those to the first time a brain gave birth to the idea of "free will" and/or "determinism." It also would also mean the cause/origin came from the external environment.

 

[Profound Realization]

(not entirely certain what this means) If your remark signified anything I believe it would better be expressed as: effect is always "deduced to cause." However, taking your remark as it stands, Yes, causes do have origins; they are the effects of other causes, I once made a chart depicting the cause effect sequence of a particular effect. Note that while all the causes have an effect (naturally) not all effects go on to produce another cause.

So if you're not 100% sure why you lost your sock it's not lost?


Interesting. Do you actually believe there are effects without causes? Just how would that work? Thing is, there is absolutely no reason to suspect an effect has no cause. OR that the rationality that an effect has a cause hangs on one's ability to show that cause.

FYI, and for those who may have forgotten

Will:

"the mental power used to control and direct your thoughts and actions,
Source: Cambridge Dictionaries Online

[The] Will does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.
Source: Wikipedia​

Free will:

The ability to have done differently
Source: many

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
Source: Wikipedia​

Determinism (the hard kind):

In philosophy, [the] theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica

The idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature
Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.​

This is a large word salad of irrelevant things that address nothing stated. I understand what cause and effect are.

Explain to me the infallible laws of nature, or at least the laws a human being have given to nature. A finite human being with a brain that dies in a short time frame explaining infinite nature existing for infinity should be compelling. It would also be compelling for you to have examined the entire universe and know that the same laws apply everywhere in it.

 

[blü 2]

Excellent points.

Kind of you to say so.

If we came from our external environment (the cosmos) which was the ultimate cause of our beings cumulative unique appearance, experience, knowledge, morals, beliefs, tendencies, etc..... those biochemicals would have a "cause" as well and be composed of certain characteristics/properties of appearance, experience, knowledge, morals, beliefs, tendencies. So the question would be, where did those come from? The cause/origin?

The reason that life forms (and their neural systems and their behaviors) are like they are is examined, described and largely explained by the theory of evolution. One little self-replicating cell armed with luck and evolution and three and half billion years to play with can travel to astonishing places.

If they came from the "brain," it works in no way.

No, it comes from the subtle rearrangement of biochemicals through evolution.

 

[Repox]

And once again with the and your failure to answer blü 2's question. Anyone surprised?

Thing is, your "evidence" is not clear at all. But let me ask you this; why does the fact that people are different denote the existence of free will?

In logicese your contention can be expressed as

People are different ∴ free will exists
​

(∴ means "therefore") However, this has as much validity and truth value as

I eat grapes ∴ it snows in winter​

Or

Cars run on gasoline ∴ most pianos have 88 keys
​

Problem is, Repox, ya gotta show the connection that answers the question, "WHY." Why does free will necessarily exist because people are different? So far all you've done is to show how people are different, which doesn't mean bupkis, and doesn't come close to showing why "freewill' makes choices without using chains of cause & effect."

The main argument is about determinism. Almost everyone, at least the smart ones, realize free will is real. Blu is an odd one to propose an idea which contradicts common sense and evidence of everyday human existence. So, if you want to change peoples minds, prove it! Where is the evidence for brain determinism, or, if you will, anatomical behavior. Determinism is human behavior which defies human experience.

The reason I brought up the topic of variations in human behavior is to present evidence for the diversity of human thoughts and actions, otherwise known as free will choices. It would help if everyone stuck to logic instead of proposing false ideas. If the deterministic model were correct there would be evidence in the form of human behavior, such as mass exhibitions of predictability or anatomically structured human actions.

As for blu 2 insistence that I present a detailed brain scan explanation for free will, he can't present a valid model for determinism. Evidently, it can't be done. Therefore, I rely on everyday human experience, which can be observed and recorded. there is no recorded evidence for brain determinism. Based on logic, there is no argument for brain determinism.

 

[Skwim]

The main argument is about determinism. Almost everyone, at least the smart ones, realize free will is real.

Ever hear of a Bandwagon Argument? You just presented one.

Blu is an odd one to propose an idea which contradicts common sense and evidence of everyday human existence.

Thing is, common sense ain't all that reliable. Consider the flat earth, or believing the guy who says "Nah, I'll pull out in time." And this is why evidence, hopefully incontrovertible evidence will be presented. Or lacking evidence, a damn good argument.

So, if you want to change peoples minds, prove it!

Not that interested, In fact, not nearly as interested as in hearing your explanation for

"how your 'freewill' makes choices without using chains of cause & effect,"
​

Going to give it a shot or just continue to stonewall it?

The reason I brought up the topic of variations in human behavior is to present evidence for the diversity of human thoughts and actions,

Nah, it's because you have nothing else. You can't give us the "why," and everyone here knows it.

.