My position was "You can't use a belief that science has a Laplacean, strongly deterministic view of the world as a support for determinism." — Terrapin Station

Yes, and you obviously can because determinism (in the free-will sense) is about how the brain functions, unless you are a dualist, and science is of the opinion that the brain is a classical system and therefore follows a fully deterministic model. So relevant to the topic at hand one absolutely can use a belief that science has a strongly determinist view to support determinism (with regards to free-will) because with regards to all the mechanisms that might be involved in will, science does indeed have that view.

So here's this post's first reading comprehension problem:

"a belief that science has a Laplacean, strongly deterministic view of the world"

Isn't saying something about limiting supposed ontological claims (don't miss or misread "supposed") only to comments about how the brain functions.

Isn't saying something about limiting supposed ontological claims (don't miss or misread "supposed") only to comments about how the brain functions. — Terrapin Station

You said

"The idea is rather than the "there is no free will" crowd always wants to appeal to it being a standard view or implication of the sciences that there is no free will. That's wrong, though."

So either you're wrong to say they can't use sensu stricto deterministic science as support for their argument (they can, the brain is a classical object), or you're wrong in saying that the no free will crowd always want to appeal to the fact that science is strongly deterministic sensu lato. They don't. I don't know of a single no-free-will supporter here, for example, that would deny the non-deterministic nature of quantum physics.

So one, you're reading "always" like an Aspie. When people write "always" in sentences like that, they're not literally saying that in 100% of cases, with no exceptions, such and such is the case.

I can understand that that's a reading comprehension problem linked to a bigger issue, but it's still a reading comprehension problem.

you're reading "always" like an Aspie. When people write "always" in sentences like that, they're not literally saying that in 100% of cases, with no exceptions, such and such is the case. — Terrapin Station

I'm not talking about a few exceptions. I can't recall a single anti-free-will argument where there's anything like an explicit proposition that all of science (including outside of brains) is deterministic. Why would there be? I can't think why people talking about brains would start making propositions related to the actions of Brownian reactions or neutrinos.

My position was "You can't use a belief that science has a Laplacean, strongly deterministic view of the world as a support for determinism." — Terrapin Station

Nope, that's a lie or a convenient lack of self-awareness. Your position - the one I responded to originally - was....

Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic. The standard view in the sciences, by the way, is that the world is not strongly deterministic, where that's been the standard view for over 150 years now, but somehow the message isn't getting through. — Terrapin Station

And note how the above makes a claim about science's standard view's ontological position on determinism, and yet you say below.....

The sciences do not make an ontological commitment to "what's really the case ontologically behind stochastic processes." — Terrapin Station

and, of course, you would need to show how random processes lead to free will obtaining, despite your claim that you were only...oh, jeez, I repeat myself in anticipation of your evasion techniques.

blah, blah, posturing. — Coben
Good argument. — Terrapin Station

Oh, are you an Aspie? Do you need extra contextual evidence and labeling to show you the intentions of a comment like the one of mine you quoted? God, this is going to take so much explaining and I am so tired. Aspies tire me. Well, see, that was me pointing out your behavior. It was not me making an argument, just as your posturing was not an argument, but me not being an Aspie, I realized this and, well, got annoyed and correctly labeled it. I label your non-argument for what it is and then you have the gall to point our this labeling is not an argument.

But nice quip, well, almost.

My experience is that you can't concede anything, and while your avoidance techniques reveal an incredibly clever mind, I'm afraid I have lost interest in trying to get you to notice your contradictions or to respond to my posts genuously and in the opposite of disingenuously. So, I'll just snipe occasionally. Enjoy your rationalizations.

Apologies to Aspies, I just thought it would also be good for the gander to have his neurological patterns whined about, since he has, of late, taken a really snotty ad hom turn. In the sense of to the man.

May I butt into this argument to ask all the incompatibilists who are apparently here, who accept that the fundamental microscopic scale of reality is not deterministic even if big classical systems like brains are: does an electron, being non-deterministic in its behavior, therefore have free will? If not (and probably not), how would it help human free will for our brains to be non-deterministic, if they were (which they're not)?

And note how the above makes a claim about science's standard view's ontological position on determinism, and yet you say below..... — Coben

The instrumental approach is explicitly not thoroughly deterministic. If you were to look up a definition of "stochastic processes," you'd find content such as "A stochastic or random process can be defined as a collection of random variables that is indexed by some mathematical set, meaning that each random variable of the stochastic process is uniquely associated with an element in the set."

As I've explained, it's an instrumental approach, one that doesn't make philosophical, ontological commitments. But what is the instrumental approach in question? It's explicitly that not everything is treated deterministically (a random process isn't deterministic). Hence science isn't strongly deterministic and hasn't been for over 150 years, so one can't appeal to the sciences being strongly deterministic.

Of course, you want to say that it's instrumentally non-deterministic while science "really buys" a thoroughgoing strong determinism, but there's no support for that.

Oh, are you an Aspie? — Coben

No, but you clearly are, which is why you think I'm forwarding contradictions, and it's why I have to explain any of this so laboriously to you, to try to "Aspie-proof" it to your satisfaction, because you can't grok it without that . . . although it usually seems like a futile pursuit. Not being an Aspie, it's difficult for me to anticipate all of the problems that are going to emerge from their "literal" readings, especially because the notion of "literal" is ambiguous due to the fact that meaning is relative and subjective.

Well, see, that was me pointing out your behavior. It was not me making an argument, — Coben

How could you not tell that I was responding sarcastically? Oh, right. Because you're clearly an Aspie just like Isaac.

My experience is that you can't concede anything, — Coben

Conceding requires something cogent and insightful to make a concession to. Not offended, bickering, reading comprehension problems stemming from not liking someone.

Of course, that you even want others to concede things is part of the problem in my view. It would be nice if we could be interested in others views as their views, where we ask questions because we want to better understand their views, as their views, and/or as an aid to them developing their views as their views, because in general we're interested in other people as unique individuals.

he has, of late, taken a really snotty ad hom turn. — Coben

I think it's important to realize that the idea that academic pursuits can be strongly separated from personality facts, personal issues, personal dispositions, personal biases, etc. is bullshit.

I'm afraid I have lost interest in trying to get you to notice your contradictions — Coben

If this implies that you're going to stop being such a yippy-dog like pest, then praise the Lord. (Note that I'm not literally praising the Lord, so don't take that as contradicting my atheism.)

not everything is treated deterministically (a random process isn't deterministic). Hence science isn't strongly deterministic and hasn't been for over 150 years, so one can't appeal to the sciences being strongly deterministic. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. No one in the no-free-will crowd has said anything like a claim that it is. Everyone acknowledges that some models in science use stochastic equations, everyone acknowledges that quantum mechanics is not convincingly deterministic.

Your claim, as @Coben, has literally spelled out to you, was that "Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic", and, as I have pointed out to you that "The idea is rather than the "there is no free will" crowd always wants to appeal to it being a standard view or implication of the sciences that there is no free will. That's wrong, though.".

These are direct quotes. Both specifically reference using the deterministic (or non-deterministic) nature of science to support/deny free-will. Not just as an isolated summary of the state of science, as a deliberate support for theories about free will.

Will is something that happens in the brain. The brain is a classical object, therefore the non-deterministic parts of science are irrelevant to it. The no-free-will crowd know this perfectly well, which is why they don't mention the non-deterministic parts of science. It's only you who are making the error of thinking they're relevant.

Yes, and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. No one in the no-free-will crowd has said anything like a claim that it is. Everyone acknowledges that some models in science use stochastic equations, everyone acknowledges that quantum mechanics is not convincingly deterministic. — Isaac

Good to know you've followed my interaction with all manner of different people for the past 40 years.

These are direct quotes. Both specifically reference using the deterministic (or non-deterministic) nature of science to support/deny free-will. — Isaac

No. Reading comprehension error. " "Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic" is my philosophical view. It's not claiming to be based on some scientific view. I never said that, and never suggested it. My views are definitively NOT views that kowtow to anything like conventional views in the sciences. I rather strongly disagree with many conventional views in the sciences.

Good to know you've followed my interaction with all manner of different people for the past 40 years. — Terrapin Station

Can't believe you're still trying to fudge this. You said...

In online forums like this — Terrapin Station

So it's not a claim about anything within your personal interactions. It's a claim about this forum. Where on this forum are the arguments from "everyone [in the no-free-will crowd]" which make anything like a claim that all of science is deterministic, not just specifically those aspects related to free will?

"Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic" is my philosophical view. It's not claiming to be based on some scientific view. — Terrapin Station

Yeah right, that's why you've been banging on about how the scientific consensus view is definitely not deterministic, because you don't care what the scientific consensus is.

In online forums like this — Terrapin Station

Right, and aside from you being an Aspie in your interpretation of that, it still doesn't explain this additional reading comprehension problem (see? that's all it is with you, a long string of reading comprehension problems in post after post), because "like this" doesn't literally say ONLY ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD AND ONLY IN THIS THREAD.

Even if you're being literal about it being online, rather than that being an example, I've not only been chatting and messaging back and forth with people on the Internet since 1994, but going all the way back to about 1980 ("about"--it might have been 1979 or whatever), I was interacting with people "online" via bulletin board systems (BBS).

Even if I were saying "only on this board" for some dumb reason (why would the extent of my conversing with others about this be this board?), are you implying that you've studied every interaction I've had with others on this board?

If I can't write a phrase such as "like this" to literally denote "this is the sort of message board I'm talking about" and have it be understood by someone who is supposed to be able to understand things literally, then what could I possibly write that you wouldn't misread? And then you wonder why I don't want to get into long philosophical discussions with you?

So it's not a claim about anything within your personal interactions. — Isaac

Oh, I'm glad you know that better than I do. Next time I wonder what exactly I'm claiming I'll check with you.

Yeah right, that's why you've been banging on about how the scientific consensus view is definitely not deterministic, — Isaac

The reason I brought that up is because it's what the "no free will crowd" always relies on (that's not literally saying 100% of the time, etc.). The reason we keep going over it is because you can't read and you want to bicker.

"like this" doesn't literally say ONLY ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD AND ONLY IN THIS THREAD. — Terrapin Station

No, but it does mean that the behaviour is at least present here (that's a reasonable interpretation of what 'like' means in that context). I've read absolutely no such claim, ever. It's not a quibble about your use of "everyone", nor "always", I doubt you will find a single example here (I also doubt you've really had sufficient actual examples elsewhere, it's such a bizarre thing to claim, but that's not what I'm talking about right now).

Oh, I'm glad you know that better than I do. Next time I wonder what exactly I'm claiming I'll check with you. — Terrapin Station

I'm not suggesting I actually know your intentions better than you do, I'm suggesting you're making it up to wriggle out of your error. You're the one who started including the personality of interlocutors. I don't think you're being honest.

The reason I brought that up is because it's what the "no free will crowd" always relies on (that's not literally saying 100% of the time, etc.). The reason we keep going over it is because you can't read and you want to bicker. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and I don't think they do "always" rely on it, even with the most generous interpretation of "always". So if that's just me wanting to "bicker" you're basically suggesting simply disagreeing with you constitutes 'bickering'.

"Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic" is my philosophical view. It's not claiming to be based on some scientific view. — Terrapin Station

Oh, good you're argument is based not on scientific consensus, which you mention just after you assert this, but it's based on it being a fact. Or because if the world is not strongly deterministic, it has to be free will-istic. Despite neither deterministic processes nor stochastic processes justify free will.

You just happened to mention stochastic processes and science after you stated your 'view' now.

The reason I brought that up is because it's what the "no free will crowd" always relies on (that's not literally saying 100% of the time, etc.). — Terrapin Station

Me, I'm agnostic when it comes to free will, but over the years I have encountered the no free will crowd over and over and over saying that there are no non-deterministic processses that support free will. It's not like close the 100%, it's regular, certainly more than half the time, and this is because the free will crowd regularly brings up qm. And yes, I've seen stochastic processes mentioned before, though much more rarely. However it suffers the same problems that qm does. Often the determinists will talk about scale issues, but they are wrong about this, I think, because qm effects can change the movements of large organisms like birds. But the real problem is, yes, randomness.

But it is likely true that....

Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic" is my philosophical view.

IOW that the first part of the sentence is your view.

So most of your earlier posts WERE NOT ARGUMENTS at all in relation to your own position. You were just adding on your take about how scientists think and how this is different from how determinists think scientists think and none of it supported your view. So we can all run off and look at determinists arguments and not notice that you have none for your position, which you earlier denied even having, which is a view about what you consider a fact.

People tend to bicker when you insult the people you disagree with - in the form of bemoaning their lack of your knowledge - and you think your position holds because there are problems with their position, in your view. You could both be wrong, for example, and it's hardly a sin to think you are defending your position, not merely sharing your views.

I could see saying that given that stochastic models work for very complicated systems there may be room left for free will. This would mean that the current scientific idea that there is a random element is incorrect, at least when stochastic models work well with what we might call agents. IOW scientists would be wrong in saying it is random then, because it actually has to do with free will. This means that the scientists' have been viewing the model incorrectly at the ontological level. Or they wouldn't use the word 'random'. They could create a much better placeholder term.

There's also a problem because the phrase 'stochastically determined' is a phrase used in science.

But hey, if you think free will is like Brownian motion, I think you are bending the concept of 'free will' to places most scientists, laypeople and, yes, forum members would need your definition up front for whatever unique take you have on the idea.

Of course really all this had nothing to do with your view. I think Isaac and I can acknowledge your view is your view. And also that you prefer people to be able to say whatever they want in society. And that, of course, you are not really arguing for anything, just saying why you don't want to change your view. And that's fine. I thought for a while you were supporting your views. This led to bickering.

But we haven't even gotten up into hate speech. And obviously according to you bickering cannot be immoral, so you might want to stop reacting to it in the way people do react when they think something is immoral. People might confuse you with having moral judgments about bickering. Of course you don't have those moral judgments, but word to the wise, you might come across that way.

There are easy ways to avoid bickering. At least with online people.

No, but it does mean that the behaviour is at least present here — Isaac

No, it doesn't. I'm not saying that it's not present here, but you can't glean that it necessarily is from what I wrote. "Online forums like this" simply refers to this being an example of the sorts of forums I'm talking about.

but over the years I have encountered the no free will crowd over and over and over saying that there are no non-deterministic processses that support free will. — Coben

They'll express that they're dubious about quantum mechanics supporting it if someone brings up that the consensus view in the sciences isn't that the world is strongly deterministic.

Certainly some people bring up qm because that's been suggested by some a a possible mechanism for free will (Roger Penrose being the most famous example probably), but usually people bring up qm as an example of it being incorrect to say that the sciences posit that the world is strongly deterministic.

And no, I didn't read the rest of your post. I mean, come on. You just said you weren't going to bother me any longer and then you post something that looks like it's approaching 1000 words where we're just nitpicking about nonsense. Being unable to stop oneself from posting long crap seems to be another Aspie trait, by the way.

"Online forums like this" simply refers to this being an example of the sorts of forums I'm talking about. — Terrapin Station

Bollocks. The context was all about the mention of free will, here on this thread, in this forum, and then you say "forums like this...".

If the no-free-will crowd here do 'always' state that the whole of science is deterministic, then you should have no trouble finding a large number of quotes to that effect from the recent free-will threads.

If, however, the no-free-will crowd do not 'always' do that here, then the other places you claim to have heard this approach are obviously not "like this one" in at least one crucial aspect absolutely intrinsic to your statement, in that they don't do the one thing your whole sentence is about.

So in addition to your reading comprehension problems, you think you know what someone has in mind better than they do.

It's easier for me to just re-post at this point.

More distraction because you can't answer the actual point.

I brought you up on the point you were blatantly trying to make (that science is non- deterministic therefore can't be used to support non-free-will). You changed the subject to my apparent reading skills. I brought you up on the fact that you've no way of judging whether it's my reading skills or your writing skills at fault. So you change the subject again to comprehension testing.

Same thing happened on the hate speech thread when I brought you up on the hypocrisy of claiming to know what people are capable of tolerating whilst simultaneously claiming psychological theories were overblown. You changed the subject then too.

Now I've brought you up on your disingenuous argumentative tactics we'll get another sudden change of topic. Anything you can't answer, just change the topic. — Isaac

We can now add to that the fact that @Coben has brought you up on the fact that indeterminacy only yields randomness, and the fact that your claim about what the no-free-will crowd 'always do' is completely without support.

None of which you've answered, all of which you've just changed the subject or brushed of with unsubstantiated ad homs.

I'll just keep tab here of the list of issues you've ignored in case you ever get over yourself and want to have an intelligent discussion some time.

It's easier for me to just re-post at this point. — Isaac

How about trying to not come across like an annoying asshole? Maybe that would work.