Well, I mean I don't know if science has any views per se. People doing science have views, often very different views it seems to me. — Manuel

Unfortunately, in the field of medical sciences, science has adopted a mechanistic view of life, not admitting to the mind. This view is being somewhat dismembered by the revelation that the gut had an "enteric brain".

But our best science at the moment seems to imply that our universe is probabilistic and not determined.

Dennett believes in free will as well. I'm not seeing the problem with truth here. — Manuel

I am not speaking of science and its inconsistent views about the universe, e.g. Einstein's block time vs..probabilistic quantum waves. I am more interested in the meaningless of determinism as applied to life.

Dennett believes in determinism and some sort of fabricated ability to choose, which can be classified under the heading, "having a cake and eat it". However, since, he believes in determinism, then I appreciate his opening his mouth and making determined sounds.

Science can make accurate predictions about the world, unlike a shaman. — emancipate

Science is doing nothing. It is all determined, including your observations that it is more accurate. No one is doing anything except reporting in a determined universe, and they are only reporting what was determined they should report.

The underlying source of consciousness seems to me to be mysterious, or awesome, whether we call it God or refer to it in any other terminology. I am just surprised that some people don't see this as a mystery, or mysterious at all. — Jack Cummins

Of course, people delve into this question, and in doing so have developed a deeper understanding of who we are, what is our place, and where lies the meaning. It is just that this forum ideas are relatively static, and conformist in nature, and by just remaining here, one develops into an extended carbon copy. If you want to develop further, then you cannot be limited by the static assumptions and knowledge within which this forum is cemented in.

If you wish to extend in new directions, just PM me, and I'll give you references. Your mode of of travel and direction has to shift.

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes". [Proust]

2k
I have been reading, 'The Holographic Universe,' by Michael Talbot (1991). In this, the author describes a holographic model arising within the new physics. — Jack Cummins

For an extremely full and deep inquiry sand treatment of a holographic model of consciousness, I would highly recommend Stephen Robbins's Youtube channel:

https://www.academia.edu/44469526/The_Psychological_Interpretation_of_Life

You will not find a more thorough discussion anywhere, including a critique of Bohm and other theories of consciousness.

Yes,. all forms of the physical and non-physicals are a continuous whole, a lá quantum systems. The conception of the universe as discontinuities of the discrete has been totally discredited, yet it's still being taught as fact in outdated science and philosophy classes. Just image the universe as a hologram, being brought to Light by filtered perception. Consciousness illuminates with light.

The conscious mind was always been there and created everything. There is no linear time. Just time that we psychologically experience as change within ourselves.

All determinism can say in both cases is that they were determined to say this due to some prior cause. And to say that the cause was some enlightening rational argument is not understanding determinism. So the very arguments to support determinism are undermined by the very idea of determinism since it is an idea that is arational by nature. — Richard B

Correct. Determinism is a religion, not a philosophy.

yes, I agree we all make are own choices. But I think some people are heavily influenced by others and don’t necessarily have complete freedom of will due to their environment. — Charlotte Thomas-Rowe

The degree to which we are influenced by external or internal factors, varies and constantly changes, but ultimately we make choices. If we have any choice in anything, then that's it. Nothing is determined. There is a choice being made, for some event. It just takes one choice, to shatter any kind of deterministic view of life. If they is no choice, then just sit back and let the Bug Bang take care of everything, and certainly give credit to the Big Bang for the biggest miracle of all, the creation and determination of everything - sort of like the "scientific" version of God.

Everyone views life differently due to whatever circumstances they are in or have experienced and nobody has the same experiences. — Charlotte Thomas-Rowe

Everyone knows that they are choosing. Everyone's life is based upon choosing. It's only after they are "educated", that some begin pretending that they believe otherwise. A (dangerous) game that is being played. Analogizing human life to chemicals. Humans, are interesting.

You don't have to completely understand the human mind, to know that you are making choices, and everything you believe in your life is based upon the choices being made. You don't think that guys like Dennett take full credit for "their accomplishments"? I've never heard of a determinist giving full credit to the Big Bang.

Everyone makes choices. Free Will, as well as Determinism, are philosophers' fables, that they like to talk and write about to no end. In no way, do they describe the human experience.

how would you define free will? — Charlotte Thomas-Rowe

Will is the ability to move in a given direction. I have a choice in what direction I will move, and I can assure you, whatever path chosen, there will be nothing but impediments. I can choose to run into the wall, or use experience to try to go around it, or over it. One only needs to observe life (as opposed to reading textbooks), to understand the nature of the human mind, and what it means to act like a living human.

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. — Charlotte Thomas-Rowe

Unimpeded? Of course not.

But we do have a choices in intended course of action. I can choose to run head long into a wall, but my action is impeded. Free choice foes, always define choice in the most ridiculous manner.

You, for instance, seem entirely ignorant of the fact that materialism was refuted by philosophers thousands of years ago. — Bartricks

Philosophers don't refute. They present ideas based upon observations.

Arguments don't refute or prove. They simply restate the premise.

'there's no materiality, as everything is made of tiny bananas, not tiny apples'. — Bartricks

There is no such thing as materiality, other than in philosophical discussions, which is perpetuated by ba very poor educational system that is too lazy to change its textbooks fire 100 years. Professors just keep repeating the same thing that have learned, whether or not it is archaic. Mind/body duality is an artificial issue created by a misunderstanding of the nature of life.

A couple of things:

The Gut-Brain bilateral communication Axis is accepted by science. The idea that the "brain" controls everything is antiquated, and I'm surprised people still believe that everything is happening in the brain. It's happening everywhere.

There is no such thing as materiality. Everything is quantum energy waves. Again, another myth that was destroyed 100 years still lives in the domain of philosophical discussion.

Knowledge shouldn't have labels. It is as we experience it. Words can never fully describe the experience. In many ways the Dao De Jing suggests this: That which we discuss as the Dao is not the Dao. It's not mysterious, just a warning about the incompleteness of language and numbers.

It is seamless as quantum comprises everything.

There is no boundary.

You were.

Minds are exactly as we experience them, as a continuity. It's exactly as we discover them. There is no boundary.

The Gaia is an interesting idea to explore since the human mind/body is a microcosmic view of the whole.

There are constraints as to what the human mind can do and has learned to do. However, birds can fly. All of life is evolving along different paths.

Inanimate objects have lost the ability to evolve, except in the smallest manner, e.g. radioactive decay.

Yes, fulfillment comes from exploring, creating, learning, and growing. If one is feeling empty or lost, then something is missing. It is difficult to find new things to explore and create, but always keep looking. Good memories of the past flow into the future and ultimately never die.

The other side must show how a feeling can move an arm — khaled

Exactly as one experiences it. No need to deny it simply because of a materialist mythology.

We all feel we are making chicos. Determinists feel that this feeling is just a mirage. That in reality, there is no choice. So, they must show:

1) How did bouncing molecules create such a feeling?

2) How did it become so pervasive?

Without, such accounting, humans should discard the determinist mythology and go with the feeling of choice. Why create a fable just to deny an obvious faculty of being human? To do so, would demonstrate how easily it is to get people to embrace myths as they did during ancient Greece. Have we really evolved or are we just doing the same thing?

Why do that for human beings? This seems rather selective and intentional on our part. — simeonz

I don't do it just for humans. I am suggesting all of life has intelligence, most of the time acting in a coordinated, habitual manner.


"As I said, I am still not sure why tossing dice has anything to do with personal agency."

I don't think it does. It is a misunderstanding of how life perpetuates itself. Life is intelligent, with direction. It is not random.

"hypothetical deterministic world are completely governed in their actions by natural law"

There is no natural law. However, there is intelligent, habitual practice. To understand life, one must observe life, not billiard balls.

Well, then you understand why I don't consider it the opposite of determinism. It still has predictive utility. And consequently it makes certain processes very reliable, whether they can be completely determined or not. So, I doubt that free will can rest on that. Or that we can claim that the prediction-based model of the world is just a fairy tale. — simeonz

What is proposed by the notion of choices, is that humans have exactly the same behavior as quantum particles. The way humans act is by making choices among a spectrum of possibilities, some being more probable than others, because humans act by habit with the additional possibility of a new creative , innovative, thought/action. Actions of humans can be somewhat predicted, e.g. the approximate time I wake up in the morning, but never precisely predicted. Habit is a very important notion at all levels of life.
Humans and quantum particles pretty much act in similar manner, which is no surprise since everything is quantum. Now, the question arises, what gives rise to spontaneous, non-habitual actions?

Interestingly, there is now new research in hospitals that offer intriguing evidence of conscious thought after a person has biological crossed the threshold of death.

https://nyulangone.org/news/new-studies-explore-end-life-cognitive-thought-improved-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation-methods

I realize that. There is also the extended mind hypothesis. But I still claim that resting free will on non-determinism via QM implies that the standard deviation to the brain process outcome caused through quantum interactions is significant. — simeonz

QM and the Gut-brain axis can be used as new insights. The actual impact of coordinated quantum events is something to explore.

If non-determinism at the scale of the brain function is negligible, this will be pertinent to those views that rest freedom on non-determinism. In the same way in which apparent Newtonian determinism is pertinent to a bridge engineer or a plane manufacturer. — simeonz

They is no reason to limit anything to there brain any longer. The Gut-brain axis bidirectional communication is accepted by biological science.

What I was arguing initially is, that this doesn't make sense for the free will argument, because the neural processes are too macroscopic to be qualitatively determined by this non-determinism. — simeonz

The nature of consciousness and mind is an open question for philosophy as long as no attempt is made to quash it with pseudo-science such as determinism.

I agree. However, for better or worse the term Scientific Law is in general use. The overview in the Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of clarifying the situation, but it is easy to mix up "natural law" and "scientific law". — EricH

Clarity is required. There are the Schrodinger Equations, the Laws of Thermodynamics, General and Special Relatively, which can be applied for specific predictive purposes. This is different from creating a whole ontology based upon the utility value of these equations.

Yes, science makes no claims regarding MWI, but scientists (humans), when asked, believe it!! Why then can't people believe in heaven and gods, if scientists believe in an infinite number of Universes, some of which, no doubt, house super-gods. Scientists adopted their own mythical realm of fantasy when they adopted MWI to save Determinism.

Quantum uncertainty is not arbitrary non-determinism. It just changes deterministic induction with statistical induction, but it is not the same as lack of any predictive utility. — simeonz

Predictive utility is not to be confused with exact deterministic precision. The equations get the job done to the required approximate precision. I'm fact, Newtons' are still good enough for most purposes. The outcome and actual precision of each event is undiscoverable. It's just his enough. And from this Determinism built this story about everything that occurs in the Universe can be prodicted with exactitude, even the choices were make. Isn't this outlandish?!

There MWI interpretation. Try to grasp the exorbitance that Determinists have had to reach in order to justify determinism in an infinite number of universes. Yes, new universes are created for every quantum event. Yet, even stretching to the infinite universes, our Universe, the one we live in, remains probabilistic. Let the Gods live in their Universes (Heaven?) and we live in ours.

And indeterminism makes enormous claims. Like the idea that things can happen for no reason. — khaled

No such claim is made. Choices are made for many reasons, but there are choices. I can eat breakfast or skip it.

The development of the sciences suggest that the universe follows a set of natural laws — InPitzotl

There is no such thing as natural laws in science. There are very specific equations that attempt to predict approximate outcomes. The term natural laws are used by philosophers as a way of appearance of science. Shrodinger's equations are science. Determinism is a story.

However, inductive inference is retroactively confirmable. What I mean by that claim is that our expectation for regularity of the natural law in the distant past can be evaluated in terms of the recent past. — simeonz

Regularity (habitual actions) should be confused with determinism. Nothing has ever been shown to be precisely deterministic. They tried, and then came Quantum uncertainty.

Philosophers can and should muse using inductive reasoning. I do all the time. Troubles set in when people begin to claim that their musings has a scientific basis as in the case of Determinism.

I'm not telling anyone to believe me. I'm just saying that if you look at the history, Determinism was just a story concocted by some people with zero evidence to support it. Believe it if you want, but let's not pretend there is any science behind it. There is as much science behind Determinism as they is behind the Sun God riding across the sky. That people believe it, gives lots of insight into the nature of human beings. Mythology exists throughout history. People choose to believe what they want to believe. The Big Bang didn't decide who believes what. An absurdity that I guess some people really believe. I suppose they have proof of such a claim.

It seems very important to you to make sure people realize that everything here is just a story. — InPitzotl

Pretty much that is what it is. People musing about possibilities. It's the nature of human existence. Every civilization creates it's own mythology. Determinism is one of our great ones. Determinism applied to life is so absurd, one has to wonder have we regressed from Greek mythology.

Interpretations, is basically a story. Some are pretty wild. But none claim that the Universe we live in is anything but probabilitistic. Probabilitistic nature is fully baked into quantum physics which makes the universe fully baked probabilitistic in its nature. A point that is conveniently not addressed in modern education which still teaches the billiard ball view of nature. No doubt the primary reason, determinism is still taken seriously on Philosophy forums.

Quantum entanglement has been observed at the molecular level and over great distances. It is no longer a matter of the small. All matter operates as probabilitistic, yet the myth of determinism goes on.

It's not just the philosophers. :sad:

History of quantum physics is full of misleading thought-experiment expressions that historians decided to keep on in describing various aspects of QM which ends up confusing laymen - e.g. Einstein's Does moon not exist if we don't look at it? Spooky action at a distance, Schrodinger's cat dead and alive at the same time. Neumann-Wigner interpretation of observer induced reality, so on and so forth. — hume

Yes, the modern form of creating tales and stories for people to sit around and listen to. Darwin was totally wrong. Humans don't evolve. They just change in form.

No one denies this. Responsible scientists do not. The best answer to the question of abiogenesis is we don't yet know how it happened. But filling the hole with a fantasy because don't yet have an answer is not cool either. I recently spoke to some people who are certain life on earth was manufactured by aliens. — Tom Storm

Unfortunately, that was what was is being done when Evolutionary Theory is taught as fact in schools. Just filling in a huge hole, the size of the Grand Canyon.