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

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.

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.

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.

And, just so you know, my current line of arguments are in no way 'faith' based, but rather grounded in science and logic. I'm happy to be proved otherwise by a sufficiently detailed scientific explanation of how my own psychology could originate undetermined action which is guided by past experiences in such a way that does not lead to an infinite regress.

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.

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?

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.

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

Of course. Thank you for the nonsense response.

The nonsense lies in the Determinist religion that denies the creative human mind.

And yet another non-sequitur.

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. — Rich

Calling something fundamental and irreducible is quite a leap of faith, Rich. More likely, the mind (our central processing unit) is just not well enough understood yet. As technology continues to advance, the complexities of the brain will be unwoven, probably to the point where we will be able to 'see' a decision being made.

Calling something fundamental and irreducible is quite a leap of faith, — CasKev

If you can find something that is lower than the mind that doesn't require a leap of faith then go for it. It is there in everyone's lives, it is learning, it is creating, and it is evolving and it is not only fundamental to existence, it is existence.

More likely, the mind (our central processing unit) is just not well enough understood yet. As technology continues to advance, the complexities of the brain will be unwoven, probably to the point where we will be able to 'see' a decision being made. — CasKev

Now we are entering into faith and religion. Using words like technology, CPU, etc. doesn't make it scientific, though it might make you feel like it does. As with all an anthropomorphic gods, all you have done is created one more - The Computer Brain, that determinists worship. It's a religious story.

If you can find something that is lower than the mind that doesn't require a leap of faith then go for it. It is there in everyone's lives, it is learning, it is creating, and it is evolving and it is not only fundamental to existence, it is existence....

...Now we are entering into faith and religion. Using words like technology, CPU, etc. doesn't make it scientific, though it might make you feel like it does. As with all an anthropomorphic gods, all you have done is created one more - The Computer Brain, that determinists worship. It's a religious story. — Rich

There are mountains of evidence suggesting that if you damage the brain, you alter the mind. We know that thought somehow emerges from networks of connected neurons, so you might say "a neuron is 'lower' than the brain".

But you've been constantly projecting the "it's religious" angle here in this thread... You're free to believe in magical free will and all that, but you should be aware that possessing belief in something you have no (good) evidence for is exactly the kind of faith you accuse determinists of having.

There are mountains of evidence suggesting that if you damage the brain, you alter the mind. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, there is a mountain of evidence that if you damage a TV circuit, it will alter the picture not the TV studio where shows are actually produced. The religion of course lies in the unshakable faith that all of this is fated. It's actually rather amusing and ironic how Determinism is merely a religious off-shoot of Calvinism. Determinists adopted the faith in fate without the God. In God's stead, naturally, there is Natural Laws.

It's actually rather amusing and ironic how Determinism is merely a religious off-shoot of Calvinism. Determinists adopted the faith in fate without the God. In God's stead, naturally, there is Natural Laws. — Rich

Actually my, tentative acceptance of determinism is an off-shoot of science. It's kind of like the assumption that gravity is all pervasive; an assumption made easy by a massive pile of evidence, the cumulative argument, that indicates it is the case. But instead of addressing that pile, you keep bringing up Calvinism as if I care that it could be some vague progenitor of ideas that bear some similarity to my own, while not actually recognizing or addressing my position (sitting on top of the pile).

Yes, there is a mountain of evidence that if you damage a TV circuit, it will alter the picture not the TV studio where shows are actually produced. — Rich

What does this mean? You think your consciousness or free-will is beamed into you over some remote broadcasting network? Is this what you thought Einstein meant when he said "spooky action at a distance"?

The religion of course lies in the unshakable faith that all of this is fated — Rich

Well I can pretty much demonstrate that most of it is fated. All the successful predictions enabled by various scientific theories gives powerfully strong indication that there is consistency in a causal mechanism that governs most or all matter and energy. Even when it comes to the human consciousness there are demonstrable causal connections between brain health and how the consciousness it produces might behave. Losing neurons or neural connections (see Alzheimer's disease) prevents you from accessing the data (memories) stored in those neurons. Damage to certain lobes can radically alter the "good or bad" aspect of human consciousness (i.E: a tumor or brain injury to specific areas of the brain can make people do things that they before they considered to be immoral). A brain injury can do more than just alter picture quality, it can change the programming (the content) entirely.

What meaningful remote transmission is your brain receiving that is more important than your instinctive moral compass and the memories which define your life and knowledge about yourself and the world? (These are things we can be reasonably sure are contained within neural networks and the hard biological wiring of the brain because of the actual evidence (case studies in brain disease and brain trauma)).

Actually my, tentative acceptance of determinism is an off-shoot of science. — VagabondSpectre

No, it is still offshoot of Calvinism that was concocted to push a particular economic interests knowing full well the psychology of their target market (audience). Of course, true believers never really question their faith in what they want to believe.

To understand faith one has to go no further than the atheists who embrace Determinism. It is exactly, precisely the same.

The rest of your story reads like a TV repair manual but has just about as much evidence for determinism as Genesis. But you believe in it unquestionably. That is the nature of faith.

How do you know the origin of how i came to pragmatically or tentatively accept that determinism is the case?

Proposing an economically motivated conspiracy of mass delusion is quite an interesting theory... Who facilitated the spread of this propaganda? Is it global?

The difference between "faith" and an evidence based argument is exactly the evidence. Faith based belief requires no evidence...

Say you wanted to criticize the position that the force of gravity is a consistent aspect of causation which creates predictable and reliable results... How would you do it? Would you crack a joke about apples falling on my head, drag me down to the level of "faith", and go on about Calvinism some more?

It's not like I'm asking for you to produce a flying pig (that would suffice though), all I want is for you to challenge the evidence directly. Was Newton just confused about the apple because the earth is flat and it is constantly accelerating upward (simulating gravity via momentum)? Yea that must be it...

You talk about brains, and neurons, and gravity, and circuitry sounds very scientific and creates a lot of gravitas, but at the end has nothing to do with determinism.

As to why people gravitate to ideas of faith, it is hope, something to grasp on to. For atheists it is the Laws of Nature that has fated their lives. It is a religion in so many words.

You talk about brains, and neurons, and gravity, and circuitry sounds very scientific and creates a lot of gravitas, but at the end has nothing to do with determinism. — Rich

Causality (what the laws of physics seek to describe) has to do with determinism because it "determines" how matter and energy behaves.

Experiments must be above all repeatable in order to show that the results of the experiment are adequately guaranteed ("determined") by the theory which explains/predicts them.

I'm a bit fuzzy on the true meaning of determinism-mas though. Could you enlighten me?

Causality (what the laws of physics seek to describe) has to do with determinism because it "determines" how matter and energy behaves. — VagabondSpectre

The only scientific equation that we have that speaks to causality is quantum theory. It is probabilistic. Nothing is repeatable. Some much, much less so than others. Every event is different and measurements are always approximate and that is only for those events that can actually be measured.

If you need enlightenment, go read Daniel Dennet. He is about as close to a prophet as you are going to find for the determinism religion. Now, I know what it means to talk to people of faith, so this is going to get us no where, so let's call it an end. Otherwise it gets silly.

The only scientific equation that we have that speaks to causality is quantum theory. It is probabilistic. Nothing is repeatable. Some much, much less so than others. Every event is different and measurements are always approximate and that is only for those events that can actually be measured.

If you need enlightenment, go read Daniel Dennet. He is about as close to a prophet as you are going to find for the determinism religion. Now, I know what it means to talk to people of faith, so this is going to get us no where, so let's call it an end. Otherwise it gets silly. — Rich

There is consistency in Newtonian scales and experiments are eminently repeatable. That said, experiments on the quantum scale are also repeatable (this is how we know what we know about it).

One curious experiment goes as follows: we "prepare" the spin of a group of electrons into a certain configuration (via powerful magnets) and then we begin checking the "spin" (the orientation of the EM field of the electron that was configured by the magnets) of individual electrons one by one. Some we find up, some we might find down (we can only check one direction at a time, and the "probability" of an electron matching that direction depends on how far removed that direction is from it's prepared state) but as we continue to test more and more of these electrons we see that the percentage of them which are "up" corresponds better and better to how close the direction we check is to the direction we prepared initially.

If we prepare the state of an electron along a particular axis (called up) and then we check the "up" direction, there will be a 100% chance that the electron is in the up position.

That's a repeatable experiment that actually gives us insight into why things on Newtonian scales are consistent; because the "probabilistic" nature of quantum events causes them to behave in patterned and partially predictable ways. In other-words, cumulatively, quantum events adhere to a distribution pattern which renders overall consistency.

If quantum experiments were not repeatable, we wouldn't have any reliable knowledge or data concerning them...

If quantum experiments were not repeatable, we wouldn't have any reliable knowledge or data concerning them... — VagabondSpectre

They are repeatable only to the extent that there always had to be an aspect of the experiment that is unknown. Heisenberg Principal. Hence the information is good enough for all practical purposes but necessarily unknown as far as completeness is concerned.

Determinists are always mixing up precision with good enough FAPP. It is the difference between the two that makes Determinism obsolete and Determinism good enough for the faithful.

Really, you want to make Quantum deterministic? Well the only way is to explore the Infinite Worlds of Everett's Mega-World Many Worlds. First you have to devise a experiment that crosses into the Infinite Worlds. I would say Occam's Razor would implore the Calvinist version of fate and Heaven. Far easier with the same results.

They are repeatable only to the extent that there always had to be an aspect of the experiment that is unknown. Heisenberg Principal. Hence the information is good enough for all practical purposes but necessarily unknown as far as completeness is concerned. — Rich

When we measure an electron, we cause it's "wave-property" to collapse. This experiment isn't affected by the Heisenberg principle because what it measures is precisely the likelihood that we will observe an electron with a spin along a particular axis when we collapse it's wave function from a previously "prepared state". This experiment is one of the reasons we know that the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle isn't just a matter of problematic instruments taking impactful measurements, but an inherently probabilistic aspect of quantum wave-particles.

Determinists are always mixing up precision with good enough FAPP. It is the difference between the two that makes Determinism obsolete and Determinism good enough for the faithful. — Rich

Collapsing wave functions and determinism are not mutually exclusive...

Really, you want to make Quantum deterministic? Well the only way is to explore the Infinite Worlds of Everett's Mega-World Many Worlds. First you have to devise a experiment that crosses into the Infinite Worlds. I would say Occam's Razor would implore the Calvinist version of fate and Heaven. Far easier with the same results. — Rich

I have no interest in dictating what "Quantum" should be. Instead of prattling on about faith and Calvinism you should take the time to actually read my posts and thoroughly explain your position. My tentative and evidence oriented acceptance of determinism doesn't amount to a fundamental belief about the way things are, it's a pragmatic assumption about, at the very least, the way almost everything is. As far as scientists are concerned, overwhelming and inescapable consistency in the causal forces remains despite discovering quantum indeterminacy. The only relevant implications of my acceptance of determinism (which for me is precisely the relinquishing of the free will delusion, which is really what this thread is about) are the implications that it has on moral blame, guilt, and subsequently understanding, forgiveness and rehabilitation as opposed to hatred and revenge.

We both still live with the illusion of free will, and must pragmatically behave as such (mostly), but only one of us lives with the delusion of free will. I don't hold it against you though, I blame causation. All I ask is that when you judge others, try not to envision some kind of inherently evil soul or malevolent will as being the source of their behavior, and instead extend to them as many excuses as you do to yourself when justifying your own failures.

precisely the likelihood — VagabondSpectre

An interesting turn of phrase.

Collapsing wave functions and determinism are not mutually exclusive... — VagabondSpectre

No but probabilistic wave functions and determined are. I can't believe the twisting and turning that you are willing to go through to get to your goal. Just forget the justification. You want your life to be fated? You believe in it deeply? Then just go for it. Nothing wrong with faith unless you make it wrong.

the way almost everything is — VagabondSpectre

Except that everything is fundamentally dependent on quantum interactions. A minor point I'm sure that can be quickly shunted aside if you move through the sentence quick enough.

inescapable consistency in the causal forces remains despite discovering quantum indeterminacy. — VagabondSpectre

Zero precision. All measurements necessarily are approximate and incomplete. You really are in a hurry to get to your goal.

We both still live with the illusion of free will, — VagabondSpectre

No, I have choices. You prefer to believe in a God that has fated you. You have tons of company. Lots of good religious books and literature on the subject. All fated religions have the same problem of maintaining supremacy of their God while acknowledge the everyday experience of Choice. In your case, you simply make it an illusion. Not novel but sufficient for your intended purpose. I hope you are not disappointed when you find Calvinists agree with your whole system they are just more comfortable with the word God than you are. Natural Laws does sound a whole lot more scientific.

No but probabilistic wave functions and determined are. I can't believe the twisting and turning that you are willing to go through to get to your goal. Just forget the justification. You want your life to be fated? You believe in it deeply? Then just go for it. Nothing wrong with faith unless you make it wrong. — Rich

The more electrons we check in the experiment I described, the closer and closer the results correspond to our predictions based on past experience.

Determinism is still not disproven by our inability to predict how the wave property of a given electron will break, but this clearly isn't what you're so passionate about. You desire to nest free will inside of this wave property, but you still have not explained how quantum fluctuations (or whatever you have in mind) actually impacts your free will. You maintain that free will exists in the mind because quantum mechanics negates determinism, but you cannot explain how, and won't say anything about why "quantum fluctuating will" (or whatever) is any more in your control (your free will) than classical Newtonian mechanics.

Zero precision. All measurements necessarily are approximate and incomplete. You really are in a hurry to get to your goal. — Rich

Zero precision huh?

The more electrons we check in the experiment I described, the closer and closer the results correspond to our predictions based on past experience. — VagabondSpectre

No. They correspond to the probabilistic wave equations. There is zero determinism anywhere, yet you struggle to find some. Why struggle? Just allow for your faith. Believe me it's OK.