• 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Hanover
    The nonsense lies in the Determinist religion that denies the creative human mind.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    I'm afraid we'all have to agree to disagree that what you have offered here is a suitably detailed explanation of how such a mental process could occur. — Mike Adams

    The explanation Is that is the mind. It is irreducible and fundamental to life. No faith involved. It is everyone's experience of choosing and creating.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    And, just so you know, my current line of arguments are in no way 'faith' based, but rather grounded in science and logic — Mike Adams

    Unfortunately there is no such thing, no more than the proofs of God offered by religions. Determinism is a philosophical concept not a scientific one, a concept with zero evidence of any sort. Your leap from influenced to determined is quite literally a leap of faith, the argument being "it's scientific" without any foundation to back up such a claim - or would you care to use quantum theory as your starting point?
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    Please could you then offer an alternative explanation for how a current action can be driven by past influences without leading to an infinite regression — Mike Adams

    The mind that chooses and creates. There is no faith involved. It is what everyone experiences as life. It is the denial of such, for whatever reason a person may have, and then replacing it with something else (God, Laws of Nature, etc.) that brings upon the great leap of faith.

    Experience life.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    some way going to be 'determined' by the past — Mike Adams

    "Some way"??! The deterministic trick of transforming "influenced" into "determined" with zero evidence of such other than the determinists' own faith in such an idea.

    If any atheist ever wants to fully understand the nature of religious faith, such a person need only to look no further than their own faith in determinism. The leap from influenced to determined is breathtaking.

    Why do determinists and those of faith make such a leap? My guess is that fundamental to all faith is the hope that something greater than themselves is determining everything for them and priests/science will somehow guide them to the greater truth. It is obviously a big part of the human psyche and probably useful in some way for those of faith.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Hanover
    Correct. There is nothing in common because the Whole is inseparable. Matter is decaying while life moves in the opposite direction of self-organization and creativity. Of course, everything remains as a fabric in the universe
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Hanover
    The total nature of life has changed into dead. The Whole has changed. It is inseparable in its holistic nature. A dead body no longer needs feeding.
  • The Wicked Heart of Physicalism
    ↪Dominic Osborn
    Much if what you wrote is similar to what Bergson wrote at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century and later picked up somewhat by Whitehead.

    What is missing from your analysis is the huge economic motivations behind physicalism, which demotes human life to the level of a machine that can be divided up and tinkered with and where the death of hundreds of thousands and millions by such actions are considered acceptable losses because after all they are only machines without ba soul.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Hanover
    Can you tell the difference between something that is living and something that which is not? If so, count yourself as being a keen observer, because there are lots of people who seen to be unable to distinguish between a computer and a human.

    In case I wasn't clear, there is literally zero, zilch, negative infinity similarities between that which is living and that which isn't. One needs water, air, and food and the other doesn't. Anyone here water their computer and breast feed it when it was purchased?
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Mike Adams
    You are asking how does quanta turn into an electron?

    My best guess is that mind creates a vibrational field that it senses. The greater the vibrational frequency, the more "substantial" the field "feels". This is the qualia question. Memory, ideas, emotions, color, sound, will, are least substantial. They create more substantial which we see as more physical.

    We understand this conversation from energy to matter, but the exact process I understand as increasing vibrational substantiality.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Mike Adams
    Now let me see. How about quanta? Or maybe mind makes quanta? Take your pick. It's all the same.

    And if you want to get nasty, I'll just stop answering your repetitive questions. Mind is fundamental. Got it?
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Hanover
    Yes, one is self-organizing and creating, and the other is dead apart from a small decaying factor. They are moving in different directions.

    For those who are having trouble recognizing the differences, a brief experiment of placing a rock next to a plant might be quite elucidating. A gardener easily distinguishes between the two.
  • Is linear time just a mental illusion?
    Time is definitely not an illusion (whatever that term may mean). It is quite real and it is the internal experience of memory pressing from where it is into what it is coming. Time is literally the process of living and experiencing. But it is not scientific time. Scientific time is carved out of some spatial movement with the practical purpose of trying to establish simultaneity of events. But this time is not the experience of real time which is continuous (cannot be divided) and heterogenous (will seem to move slower it faster depending upon experiences).

    If one wishes to experience real time (duration) just close your eyes and feel time being created by the mind. It may feel very, very slow.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Mike Adams
    Yep, mind it's fundamental. Once that is understood, life makes sense again.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Mike Adams
    The mind is exactly what everyone experiences as themselves. Close your eyes and ruminate on who you are? You are this this memory and creative force that had the ability to create energy from food and breath and with this energy generate will with the purpose of creating (and learning). Mind is you. It is fundamental. My own idea is that quanta is mind in action. The fluctuating waves of intelligence.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    If X has two potential courses of action open to them at T, X must have some kind of reason for favoring one course over the other or his decision to do one or the other would be random — Mike Adams

    Everyone should just read and ruminate over their own posts.

    X's mind decides for some reason. It is the mind that is deciding for its own reasons. Who the heck do determinists think is reasoning and choosing? Some angels??
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    If we could exactly model how information is stored and accessed in the human brain, we should be able to accurately predict what random number a person would select at any given moment, based on the brain's configuration immediately preceding the question. — CasKev

    There is zero evidence that such a model can be created it that such a model would yield the results you are suggesting. Where is there any evidence that the mind acts in a manner that can be modeled?

    There is a huge difference between a computer and the mind that created it. In fact there are quite literally zero similarities.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪CasKev
    You continue to create equivalence between something that may influenceand with something that determines. There are innumerable influences on every decision and it is constantly changing. There is zero evidence that those influences determine a specific action. To make such a declaration is tantamount to turning some belief into some faith in a set of Natural Laws (or God) that is making the decision outside of one's control.

    Ultimately, with consideration of all of the influences, the mind had to make the choice out of specific attention to the matter or out of habit. Just ruminate over how you formed your post. You decided on the words to use.
  • Has the Enlightenment/modernity resolved anything?
    I think that if we are honest we will acknowledge that we really do not know much. However, that is just my subjective opinion. No assertion there — WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Each of us know as much as we have experienced. As a population, we probably know more than we did a few hundred years ago (knowledge is gained and lost). But nothing has been resolved and never will be because there is no such thing in a universe that is in a continuous flux of evolution.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    But try to think of an idea you've had that was completely brand new, and not based on a combination of knowledge and experience of past events... — CasKev

    I do it all the time. That is what I got paid for when I was a consultant. Past experiences (memory) ≠ Creativity and Influence ≠ Determine.

    An example of creative: the idea that there are natural laws determining everything. That is a completely creative thought (a few hundred years old) that was derivative of an omnipotent God, but the creative idea was to simply replace natural laws for the word God. This is how the creative mind works. The goal of course was to give atheists something that they could believe in, and they do. It really is a matter of faith.

    Einstein did believe quite fervently in natural laws which is why he said "God does not play dice"., If you catch my drift?
  • Framing the 'Free Will question' in a less reducible form.
    Not yet having read ‘Bergson’, could you indicate for me what he considers should properly be the purpose, from the perspective of philosophy, of an enquiry regarding the possibility of free will given that, from what you say of his position — Robert Lockhart

    Bergson was solely interested in understanding the fundamental nature of life and how such an understanding may affect the way one lives a life. He basically embraces creativity over a fated materialistic/deterministic view of life. His most famous book that earned him a Nobel prize was Creative Evolution.
  • On being overwhelmed
    ↪Bryan
    My recommendation is to experience life and not try to learn about it from studying other people's lives. Some way to do this is to find sports, arts, hobbies, martial arts (of various types), etc. that will give you more insights into life, and from this you can build your own philosophy. You can read about life in literature and philosophy books and gain interesting insights, but without your own experiences, it is practically meaningless.

    As for truth, forget about it. As far as I can see, it is a marketing gimmick to attract people to paying money for it. No different than religions that offer the same.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Andrew M
    Yes, I agree. Thanks.
  • Conscious Artificial Intelligence Using The Inter Mind Model
    ↪SteveKlinko
    Actually not. The propose it's very simple: to create computer algorithms that can scan and find quickly. In no way does it mimic.
  • Here is what I do not get about determinism and free will
    Okay Rich - so you agree the mind/brain is comprised of the same physical substance as everything else and part of the same structure. So I come back to the original question: how does it create original motion amongst matter already in motion? And if it can, what exactly is directing that motion?[/quote

    The mind is exactly what everyone experiences. It is real and it is what is creatingthe impetus to move in a direction by use of will. Will had to be considered fundamental. One can say there is a universal mind (analogous to an ocean) which has within it many minds (the waves in the ocean).     — Mike Adams
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    Nonetheless a photon has a specific position and momentum and follows one specific trajectory as governed by the pilot wave. — Andrew M

    Bohm does not use the concept of a pilot wave. This concept is ancient as far as Bohm's interpretation is concerned. It is the quantum potential that is real and the electron can be considered a perturbation in this potential. There is no specific position and momentum because the potential is subject to "new information", such as an observation.

    It is necessary to discard the concept of "things" (as determinists continue to insist on) and treat quantum as a process that is in continuous flux. How does a process become a thing? That is exactly the role of the mind as it seeks to create a canvas to create on.
  • Why we Need Freedom of Speech
    I think it is going a little overboard to credit freedom of speech to liberalism. Let's just say the rising merchant class didn't want to be under the thumbs of the aristocracy. The same people had little interest in giving freedom of speech to slaves.

    In any case, the way to encourage loss it's freedom is to give government more and more power to inhibit our freedoms. There is no such thing as a benevolent government. Obama certainly did a lot to v extend government into our lives. Democrats know best?
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    What is the difference between causal and deterministic here? — Andrew M

    Bohm realized there are initial causes (e.g. the mind) but the results were probabilistic not determined. On only had to look at the equations to understand this. As for where the photon end up is predicted by either the Schrodinger equation its Bohmian mechanics counterpart. Both are the equivalent.

    There is nothing in the video that contradicts any aspect of quantum theory, he was just making a pitch for his theory and based upon the comments some see it as faith (as I do) and others view it as speculation (that is unverifiable).

    I don't know why you keep referring to the Schrodinger equations as random when they are clearly probabilistic (if they were random, then the equation would be useless, one might as well throw dice). Why do you continue to insist that quantum theory = randomness? It's really strange.
  • Do you believe in the existence of the soul?
    So you're a dualist? — Mike Adams

    No, it is a continuum from the least substantial to the more substantial in the same way that quantum -> electron -> atom -> molecule creates a continuum. It is not surprising at all (to me at least) that quantum entanglement is now being experimentally observed at the molecule level. It is all the same.

    The problem with dualism it's that one has to show how to cross the chasm, so I rejected it a long time ago.
  • Here is what I do not get about determinism and free will
    And how (scientifically speaking) does the 'creative mind' - which is presumably a physical entity - generate atomic motion without any form of preceding causation? — Mike Adams

    It is as physical as quantum/photons and it is generates motion as a process in exactly, precisely in the same manner. As Bohm suggested, it is embedded in the fabric of the universe. Bergson suggests a similar model.

    Everything is exactly as we experience it. Creativity -> Will -> Directional Process
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    [
    According to such interpretations, the photon always turns up at the same detector (with certainty), but without a sufficient cause. So God not only plays dice but he always rolls a six. — Andrew M

    Every interpretation uses the Schrodinger equation or equivalent (Bohmian is equivalent).

    They all would necessarily predict the same results. Bohmian is causal but not deterministic but no different in results.

    Are you suggesting that there is an interpretation that doesn't use the same Schrodinger/Bohmian equations and is getting better predictions?

    I listened to the lecture. Other than pushing his open interpretation, which sounds great in a lecture because who doesn't love an infinite worlds model with all like the science fiction possibilities, there was nothing new.
  • We need a complete rupture and departure
    ↪Janus
    Unfortunately, most of America has been hollowed out. People are surviving on more and more debt and it is getting worse. First Trump. What's next?

    Chinese process: If you don't change direction you'll end up where you are headed.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Andrew M
    I watched the parts of the videos. There is nothing new in them. He is just proposing that photons should be considered real and that is what Bohm mechanics does. The equations remain the same, there is no determinism. One can speculate about infinite worlds growing infinitely with each passing quantum event or one can just work with Bohmian mechanics which is in this world and subject to experimental verification. It depends upon how one wishes to spend one's life.

    However, there were some interesting comments about how this whole theory of infinite worlds is entirely faith base - and it is and always will. It is fundamentally impossible to test just like God.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪Andrew M
    Thanks I'll check them out when I have called chance, but they is nothing Occam about infinite worlds meta-world. And even if one was taken by such a interpretation, our world remains probabilistic. There is no undoing Schrodinger's equation at this time and no evidence that it is in any jeopardy.
  • We need a complete rupture and departure
    ↪Janus
    I remember speaking to a young woman who told me that thanks to Obama she was able to move into the middle class. She had $155,000 in debt, a job that barely pays monthly living expenses, and a life of paying off her accumulated debt. In the old days they called this indentured servitude. Debt is not wealth. Wealth is freedom, debt is chains. And yes she can thank Obama.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪CasKev
    Learning new skills and learning in general makes life full and wondrous. If you are ever so inclined try out ruminating, it is the first step into philosophy, or you can try out dancing or drawing which is a step into the creative arts. But if you don't, you don't, there is always the next life. There is no rush.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪CasKev
    Understanding life has nothing to do with logic. Logic is a parlor game to occupy the creative mind, no different than any other game.

    What I am suggesting to you, and do what you choose, is to ruminate on "I am considering". But there is nothing wrong with games, it's just that I'm not into it right now.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪CasKev
    Ruminate.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    ↪CasKev
    Not really, but I love the way your mind denies itself and then glorifies itself for its victory. Kind of contortionist, but that is what creativity is all about.

    I tell you what. Give yourself about one lifetime to ruminate over 'I am considering" and then get back to this thread.
  • 'Quantum free will' vs determinism
    I am considering — CasKev
    Congratulations, you now recognize your mind at work.
Home » Rich