The mental state of experiencing doubt is not something special that sets it apart from other mental states. — Truth Seeker

It is special. If we accept the mental phenomenon of doubt, we can conclude that options are real.

We experience many sensory perceptions, thoughts and emotions. They are all produced by our brain activities. — Truth Seeker

Yes, brain states are subject to change and are deterministic. The question is how doubt can arise from the brain, considering that it is a deterministic object.

The mental state of experiencing doubt is not something special that sets it apart from other mental states.
— Truth Seeker
It is special. If we accept the mental phenomenon of doubt, we can conclude that options are real.

We experience many sensory perceptions, thoughts and emotions. They are all produced by our brain activities.
— Truth Seeker
Yes, brain states are subject to change and are deterministic. The question is how doubt can arise from the brain, considering that it is a deterministic object. — MoK

No, doubting is not special. You clearly don't understand how the brain works. Please read "Being You: A New Science of Consciousness" by Anil Seth and "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M. Sapolsky. If you have any questions while reading these books, please ask here and I will do my best to answer them.

No, doubting is not special. — Truth Seeker

The doubt is special as I argued.

You clearly don't understand how the brain works. Please read "Being You: A New Science of Consciousness" by Anil Seth and "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M. Sapolsky. If you have any questions while reading these books, please ask here and I will do my best to answer them. — Truth Seeker

I have been working and reading on the philosophy of the mind for several years. Well, it seems to me that is an end to the discussion.

No, doubt is not special. Just because you claim it to be special does not make it so. Have you read the two books I recommended?

No, doubt is not special. Just because you claim it to be special does not make it so. Have you read the two books I recommended? — Truth Seeker

I know enough about the philosophy of the mind and I don't need to read another book on the topic.

You want to remain ignorant instead of learning something new. How fascinating! I am not blaming you or crediting you. If I or another organism had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, I or another organism would have the same thoughts as you because we would be identical to you. No one deserves any blame or credit for anything.

You want to remain ignorant instead of learning something new. How fascinating! I am not blaming you or crediting you. If I or another organism had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, I or another organism would have the same thoughts as you because we would be identical to you. — Truth Seeker

I am not ignorant of the topic. I have no time to read a book that denies the reality of free will. Philosophers of mind still struggle with the Hard Problem of consciousness. I am wondering how then could address free will when they are unsure what consciousness is!

You want to remain ignorant instead of learning something new. How fascinating! I am not blaming you or crediting you. If I or another organism had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, I or another organism would have the same thoughts as you because we would be identical to you.
— Truth Seeker
I am not ignorant of the topic. I have no time to read a book that denies the reality of free will. Philosophers of mind still struggle with the Hard Problem of consciousness. I am wondering how then could address free will when they are unsure what consciousness is! — MoK

I am not a philosopher. I am a scientist. We make voluntary choices but our choices are never free from determinants, constraints and consequences. The so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness is not actually all that hard. It's a philosophical construct, nothing more. You could claim that I am a Philosophical Zombie. It would be impossible for me to prove to you that I am a conscious being. Just because it is impossible to prove to others that I am conscious, it does not mean I am a Philosophical Zombie. Philosophical Zombie is yet another philosophical construct, nothing more.

I am not a philosopher. I am a scientist. We make voluntary choices but our choices are never free from determinants, constraints and consequences. The so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness is not actually all that hard. It's a philosophical construct, nothing more. You could claim that I am a Philosophical Zombie. It would be impossible for me to prove to you that I am a conscious being. Just because it is impossible to prove to others that I am conscious, it does not mean I am a Philosophical Zombie. Philosophical Zombie is yet another philosophical construct, nothing more. — Truth Seeker

Let's say that we disagree and put an end to this discussion. Thanks for your time.

As you wish. Thank you for your time and posts.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

There is no objective basis for anyone to say, "yes" - even if it is true that we could have.

Consider why it seems like we could have: it's entirely in retrospect. But we're reevaluating it from our now-current mindset - not the mindset at the time of the choice.

Mindset includes one's emotional state, physical state, state of knowledge, immediate surroundings, most recent experiences. and the sequence of thoughts that led to the choice. Given all that, could we really have chosen differently? Maybe, but it is impossible to know. Hindsight doesn't establish it. We can't recreate the mindset.

Technically, no, because the choice was made and we're not able to ever review it in this way.

Theoretically, I think yes. But this involves agreeing that something billions of years ago would have to have happened differently.

If hard determinism is true, then all choices are inevitable, which means that no one could have chosen differently. It's impossible to know with 100% certainty whether it is true or false.

A lot of religious people infer there is libertarian free will to account for being held accountable for their choices. So they aren't really inferring free will on an objective basis. Rather, it's entailed by faith.

I agree. Faith is not reliable. Religions are self-contradictory, mutually contradictory, and they contradict what we know using the scientific method.

Are we free agents or are our choices determined by variables such as genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? — Truth Seeker

I think both, but I'm not a compatibilist. To my horror, I'm probably going to sound a bit like @apokrisis. We are determined by things we give a shit about, and our giving-a-shits constrain our choices. But within those constraints we are free to arbitrarily choose between alternatives we don't give a shit about.

I have no doubt I could have made different choices on innumerable occasions. There has never been a time in my life when my actions have been so constrained that I could only do one thing. I act according to what I know of my desires, what I know of the world, my emotions, and my reasoning. All these muddle together in my poor, strained brain, and out pops a decision, for better or worse. By chance, I could have made other decisions such that I would be a multi millionaire now, married with children, homeless, imprisoned, or dead.

But, what of it? That things might have been different does not imply the strong notion of "free will" that I suspect is incoherent.

Consider why it seems like we could have: it's entirely in retrospect. — Relativist

Not for me. I feel many choices as I'm making them. I struggle with them, looking for a reason too give one option a leg up. Yesterday, I had two scoops of salted caramel ice cream, and one chocolate. (Plus toppings, and a brookie at the bottom.) It took some time to decide. I find the notion that I am an automoton, unable to do more than act out the resolution of all the bioelectric signals jumping around in my brain, and the specifics of (in this example) how I go about eating my dessert determined in the same way, to be preposterous.

There are many times that what seemed to be the case was wrong. But we know they are wrong because it was demonstrated in one way or another. The default position isn't that anything that seems to be the case is not, and we don't need its falsehood demonstrated.

That things might have been different does not imply the strong notion of "free will" that I suspect is incoherent.

But I come at this from the opposite direction, it is the constraints of the hard physical world which restrict my strong free will. Take that away and I would have near absolute freedom.

Not for me. I feel many choices as I'm making them. I struggle with them, looking for a reason too give one option a leg up. — Patterner

Fair point, the choice-making process also gives us reason to believe we could have chosen differently. The choice was ours, not something imposed upon us.

But still, there were pre-existing predilections - flavors you know you like. There was a series of sights, sounds, and smells; a series of thoughts. The choice was a direct consequence. Something would need to have been different for a different choice to have been made.

. I find the notion that I am an automoton, unable to do more than act out the resolution of all the bioelectric signals jumping around in my brain, and the specifics of (in this example) how I go about eating my dessert determined in the same way, to be preposterous. — Patterner

Why? Isn't it just because you know the choices were yours to make, that you went through the process and you are solely responsible for the choices?

Even though it seems like you could have chosen differently, it is impossible to know you could have.

Even though it seems like you could have chosen differently, it is impossible to know you could have. — Relativist

I agree that it is impossible to know with 100% certainty.

I think both, but I'm not a compatibilist. — bert1

That's interesting.

I agree that it is impossible to know with 100% certainty. — Truth Seeker

Yes, and this implies determinism can neither be proven, nor disproven, by appealing to free will.

Yes, indeed.

You're right, of course, that it's not provable either way. The thing is, there's no reason for me to feel anything about my decisions if they are all nothing more than the resolution of interacting/competing/conflicting bioelectric (autocorrect said "buttercream" the first time :rofl:) currents running around the brain. More complex than those damned art things where's you turn it upside down and watch it all settle at the bottom, but just as physical. Why do automotons feel things about something they have no control over? How can we even make a choice we regret if it was the natural resolution of the brain impulses? Why would evolution have selected for us caring about it if it's going to happen the only way it can?

if they are all nothing more than the resolution of interacting/competing/conflicting bioelectric (autocorrect said "buttercream" the first time :rofl:) currents running around the brain. — Patterner

Assume the mind is not equivalent to the brain. Could you have chosen differently? You still had a set of background beliefs, a set of conditioned responses, a particular emotional state and physical state, were subject to a particular set of stimuli in your immediate environment, and you had a particular series of thoughts that concluded with the specific ice cream order that you made. Given this full context, how could you have made a different choice? You'd have to introduce randomnness. Randomness entails a factor not under our control.

Randomness entails a factor not under our control. — Relativist

It's not just randomness that is a factor not under our control. We don't control the genes we inherit, our early environments, our early nutrients and our early experiences. As we grow older, we acquire some control over our environments, nutrients and experiences, but even then, we don't have 100% control.

Given this full context, how could you have made a different choice?

How? Because you're ignoring another major factor in Human Decision Making, namely randomness. That is, while commonly recalled (important) decisions are made totally or mostly on logical grounds, most minor to miniscule decisions aren't made after exhaustive consideration, since they're trivial or below. Which urinal do you choose at the airport? Could you have cjosen a different one under identical circumstances? I think: yes. The bigger question is: does it matter?

I didn't ignore randomness. I pointed out that (true) randomness is something outside our control. So it could account for a different outcome, but it's not a different outcome due to an act of will- it doesn't entail libertarian free will.

But is there actually true randomness involved? This would be impossible to establish. I mentioned the role of physical and emotional state, conditioned responses, and of subtle factors in the environment. These could constitute subconscious factors that determine the decision. It's impossible to know. .

It's not either/or. It's a percentage thing. Of course there's randomness involved, but in most important situations it's a tiny percentage of the process (thus why human behavior can be predicted better than chance, yet nowhere near 100& of the time). The lower one's perception of the importance of the decision to be made, the lower one's mental/logical input into the decision making process. Randomness takes up that slack. Think about it, how much effort do you put into decisions that you believe don't matter. Me? Not much.