But if all the circumstances are deterministic, including our values, then why claim that we have free will at all? — Samuel Lacrampe

Point to your definition of free will that is inconsistent with it. Is it still "I" doing the deciding? Yes. That I am a reasonable person who a) can determine the best outcome and b) will choose the best outcome does not mean I am not choosing, even if the best outcome is obvious and well-defined.

The soul is the seat of your perfect consciousness as the creator..in the present moment forever and ever..in eternity God Bless!

The next topic of concern is a witness to the chief rites..of the world soul..which literally IS the Creator..being smaller than a circle the size of a foot in diameter..

So the soul itself..is a log into the soul of the world..which exists perfectly always as a pure and potent creator..

The Adam Kadmon is the soul itself..and is located in Chochmah.. as the eternal will power being Holy of Gods and Goddesses on Earth..Including Gaia..

A lot of the stuff you're saying has no meaning to me. The way my mind works, words are just words, so telling me what something is called just gets filtered out into a "there is a category x". Outside of that I have some basic questions about what you're saying.

The soul is the seat of your perfect consciousness — BrendanCount

Is this a definition of the soul? I'm good for consciousness, so I'm fine with a soul being a seat of consciousness, but I'm not quite sure in what sense my consciousness is perfect.

in the present moment forever and ever..in eternity — BrendanCount

...it seems there's the possibility of gaps in my consciousness; specifically under anesthesia (I'm okay with saying I'm conscious while sleeping just in a different "way", I just cannot define consciousness in this specific circumstance). I'm very literal, so I would count those as cessations... is that... fair to you?

The next topic of concern is a witness to the chief rites..of the world soul..which literally IS the Creator..being smaller than a circle the size of a foot in diameter — BrendanCount

Not sure what you mean by chief rites, but it sounds like you're describing the soul as having spatial location (in contrast with Sam's description)... is that correct?

The Adam Kadmon is the soul itself..and is located in Chochmah — BrendanCount

Before this has meaning to me, you would have to explain what the Adam Kadmon is and what Chochmah is.

as the eternal will power being Holy of Gods and Goddesses on Earth..Including Gaia.. — BrendanCount

FYI, just as a commentary... I'm not a big believer in the gods, but I'm good just interpreting this as meaning that the will is sacred in a less literal sense.

Go back to that CoE thing. You said according to PoSR energy cannot increase. Energy, it turns out, does indeed increase. — InPitzotl

As previously stated, energy in a simple closed system with nothing else cannot increase. But a change to the system can serve to explain the change in the results without violation of the PoSR.

Why? — InPitzotl

A Little Bang has insufficient causal power on its own to explain a Big Bang. This would be creating something out of nothing.

So here's the big question... why can't all three be physical? — InPitzotl

You have not answered my question about how you define the term "physical"; so I'll stick to my definition: "matter, energy and things associated with these, like forces, geometry, etc". Taken individually, like an individual atom, matter and energy behave in a way that is either deterministic or random. You can rearrange matter and energy to produce a human body, but cannot rearrange either matter, energy, or their behavior to produce free will.

It can't be used for the latter. I can't say that because I can only think of four colors, therefore there are only four colors due to the LEM. — InPitzotl

How does your example of colors rely on the LEM? You can however categorize all things into red things and non-red things, and this is exhaustive.

FYI, a hypothesis and a theory are different kinds of things. — InPitzotl

Theories are built from hypothesis testing. From this link: "The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, [...] if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory."

...so there's your answer... science isn't distinct from philosophy... it's intermingled with it. — InPitzotl

No sir. In the pre-modern times, philosophy meant "search for truth" and included all fields of study to that end. In the modern times, fields of study have been separated into "science" which means "search for truths that are empirically verifiable", and "philosophy" which means "search for truths that are not empirically (ie only rationally) verifiable". Physics fits in science, metaphysics fits in philosophy.

it would appear people are splittable into pieces (link: youtube, Ramachandran) (at least two). — InPitzotl

Split personality does not entail split soul. If one side of the brain holds a memory that the other side does not, then this could be sufficient to explain a change in behaviour.

"Free Will: The will has the ability to choose between multiple effects."

Reason allows to determine which outcome is best, but free will allows to choose between our voice of reason and other voices like the appetite. And we observe that we in fact don't always choose the voice of reason. E.g. sometimes my reason tells me not to drink too much because I will pay for it tomorrow, and yet I can and have decided in the past to continue drinking; which resulted in a painful yet unsurprising hangover.

Reason allows to determine which outcome is best, but free will allows to choose between our voice of reason and other voices like the appetite. — Samuel Lacrampe

I think, in a choice, this is a false dichotomy. All means and ends can (but not necessarily will) form part of the choice. The fact that there are competing motives is part of a more difficult choice. If I steal, I will eat, but if I don't, I will be thought good.

E.g. sometimes my reason tells me not to drink too much because I will pay for it tomorrow, and yet I can and have decided in the past to continue drinking; which resulted in a painful yet unsurprising hangover. — Samuel Lacrampe

Ha! You lush! There's two factors here, both pertinent but I think only one of which you meant to touch on.

First is the disparity between language and mechanics. You might choose to get drunk, but I imagine that, more often, like me your decision to open the next bottle of wine has been largely impacted by the preceding bottle(s) of wine, i.e. you have compromised your reason. The choice is not made once but repeatedly. This is true of a lot of choices. My choosing to work is a daily occurrence.

The second is that I find philosophers wont to overestimate the role of reason in just about everything. Because reason is what they do, they see it as having a primacy it does not. Now we are talking about an endeavour that involves reasoning but it doesn't follow that every input has to be reasoned. You could choose between quite unreasonable options: shall I buy something for the sex dungeon or shall I tattoo my face?

As above, reasonable and unreasonable, selfless and selfish, good and bad options can be weighed up and selected. Which I choose will depend on my circumstances. If I am stressed, I am much more likely to choose selfish over selfless, for instance. The factors of the situation resolve the factors of the outcomes, and I am that resolver.

There are times when they do not, when we cannot resolve our options down to one, and then the result itself may be irrational, such as anger ir inaction.

Premise P1: Everything that is physical is determined, as per the laws of physics.
— Samuel Lacrampe

Well, that's wrong, for starters. — Banno

That seems irrational. Are you a post modernist? Post modernism is not rational and flies in the face of science and scientific thought.

There are multiple interpretations of Quantum Physics. Modern Quantum Physics test results to not with out a doubt prove post-modernism.

Are you a post modernist? — tilda-psychist

Mind your manners. No need for name-calling.

Folk tend to assume causation as a hard-and-fast rule, which it isn't. First it is unclear what causation is; next, it is clear that it is neither needed nor useful in QM. Third, complexity theory shows that cause is incalculable on a macro scale.

Hence, P1 is wrong.

Are you a post modernist?
— tilda-psychist

Mind your manners. No need for name-calling.

Folk tend to assume causation as a hard-and-fast rule, which it isn't. First it is unclear what causation is; next, it is clear that it is neither needed nor useful in QM. Third, complexity theory shows that cause is incalculable on a macro scale.

Hence, P1 is wrong. — Banno

You assumption is that because Scientists can't predict all the behaviors of particles means that they aren't based on cause and effect. That is an enormous leap of faith on your end.

I'm not sure i'm going to convince you of anything. It is very strange to find agnostics and atheists who also reject the concept of absolute truth.

When scientists measure the speed of a particle that can also effect it the direction of its travel, but this does not mean it is still not fully effected by cause and effect. I think it is safe to say that the rejection of scientific determinism or determinism is the reject of reasoning and rational thought. I think it this age we live in we get comfortable with creature comforts and don't doubt ourselves.

You assumption is that because Scientists can't predict all the behaviors of particles means that they aren't based on cause and effect. — tilda-psychist

Quite the opposite. Scientists can do the predictions despite there not being a cause. The electron in a double split will go right or left with a 50% probability, but there is no cause for it to go one way rather than the other.

It is very strange to find agnostics and atheists who also reject the concept of absolute truth. — tilda-psychist

Ah, so are you yet another who needs causation in order to bolster a religious conviction?

You assumption is that because Scientists can't predict all the behaviors of particles means that they aren't based on cause and effect.
— tilda-psychist

Quite the opposite. Scientists can do the predictions despite there not being a cause. The electron in a double split will go right or left with a 50% probability, but there is no cause for it to go one way rather than the other.

It is very strange to find agnostics and atheists who also reject the concept of absolute truth.
— tilda-psychist

Ah, so are you yet another who needs causation in order to bolster a religious conviction? — Banno

i guess.

energy in a simple closed system with nothing else cannot increase — Samuel Lacrampe

That's quite hedged... "closed" seems to imply not getting energy from somewhere else, and "simple" can mean anything. Regardless, there's not necessarily a "place" where dark energy is "coming from", and a principle with a generic out ("simple") isn't a fundamental principle. What you're really doing is pattern matching to save your definition, not applying a principle. To demonstrate, let's just table this...

...instead, we'll look at entropy. Entropy actually increases in time. But that means that effects can indeed be greater than the cause, even in a closed system. In fact, that's just how entropy works. You have a closed system with some amount of entropy, and through causal evolution of states, it yields an effect with greater entropy. I'm sure you're not surprised or even shocked by this, but by the definition of PoSR currently on the table this does indeed violate it. So you have a problem.

To resolve this you need a better definition. If entropy increasing doesn't violate PoSR, then some effects can indeed be greater than causes in some sense of the word "greater". But if all we're doing is finding some things that cannot increase and saying "See? PoSR is true!", and other things that can increase and saying "Well yeah, but that doesn't really count", then PoSR is just a slot machine theory (SMT). "There are two senses of greater... where effects cannot be greater than causes, the PoSR predicts that effects cannot be greater than causes. In senses where effects can be greater than causes, we say that's allowed because x." Do you see the problem?

PoSR has to be able to conceptually fail else it's vacuous.

A Little Bang has insufficient causal power on its own to explain a Big Bang. This would be creating something out of nothing. — Samuel Lacrampe

You have to first explain why Little Bangs being Little implies they're being Lesser in the right way before you can apply PoSR here. Because entropy increases, either there is a Lesser in the wrong way, or PoSR is evidentially untrue. If the only way we can tell which is which is to see which ways are consistent with the PoSR, then PoSR is vacuously true like Slot Machine Theory. This is why you need a functional definition of greater.

How does your example of colors rely on the LEM? — Samuel Lacrampe

It doesn't... that's the point.

You can however categorize all things into red things and non-red things, and this is exhaustive. — Samuel Lacrampe

Red, yellow, green, blue... done. That's all the colors I can imagine. If a color isn't yellow, green, or blue, then by LEM and a bit of deduction, it must be red. I can apply that same argument to yellow; to green; and to blue. Therefore, I'm using LEM to show that my color list is complete. Right? I say, wrong. There could be a fifth color, call it orange. If there is, that's not a matter of LEM being violated; it's a matter of my being wrong about the list being complete. The problem is that my imagination failed me.

So here's what you're saying. Determinism, randomness, original cause... done. That's all the mechanics you can imagine. If something isn't deterministic or random, it must have free will; if it's not free will and not random, it must be deterministic, and so on. So by LEM, the list is complete. Right? I say, wrong. If there can be these three mechanics, there can be a fourth. The problem of showing this list is complete is not a problem of applying the LEM. It's a problem of proving there's no fourth mechanic. Make sense now?

Randomness is hard to define in itself. One might think it's just randomness and determinism that's exhaustive; in fact, people have actually made that argument against LFW. But I'm granting original causation is a third category. But the whole problem is, can there be more, some that you maybe just haven't imagined? LEM is the wrong tool here; that there are more colors than I imagine doesn't violate LEM, and that there are exactly that many doesn't follow from LEM. You cannot argue this is a complete list by applying LEM.

Theories are built from hypothesis testing. From this link: "The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, [...] if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory." — Samuel Lacrampe

First off, there's subtlety here... see the plato.stanford.edu page. Second, that does not address my comment. See e.g. here:

Both are statements about the physical universe. Hypotheses are more specific and theories are more general. Theories tend to have many hypotheses incorporated into them. ... The difference between hypothesis and theory is not one of “certainty”. Hypotheses do not “grow up” to be theories. — Paul Lucas PhD, quora

It's worth jumping over and reading through Lucas's quora answer... he gives specific examples.

Split personality does not entail split soul. — Samuel Lacrampe

Alien hand syndrome (AHS) is not split personality. Incidentally, I don't think this really shows your religion is flawed (nor intend to do so)... if a soul can be split into two separate souls, that would just be... a fact. We could simply say that there's this interesting tidbit of doctrine you're just mistaken about. You can choose to hang your hat on it if you like, but that's up to you. What I find interesting though, is that this (corpus callosotomy induced AHS) evidentially appears to be a genuine thing.

If one side of the brain holds a memory that the other side does not, then this could be sufficient to explain a change in behaviour.

Yeah, but that sounds like duct tape and bubble gum. The less your souls have to do with subjective experiences and phenomena like making apparent free will choices as it relates to situations like AHS, the more it sounds like it's more about preserving a belief than being correct.

Of course, factors like the circumstance, our appetite, and our reason, all influence the will towards a decision; but they cannot compel the will to the decision if the will is truly free. Worst case, they can compel the body to one path, like forcing someone at gunpoint to do something, but in this case, it would be literally against their will.

instead, we'll look at entropy. Entropy actually increases in time. But that means that effects can indeed be greater than the cause, even in a closed system. — InPitzotl

Indeed, entropy increases. But as previously mentioned, things can change into different things if both supervene on a same basic thing. E.g. squares can change into circles in a closed system, thereby resulting in more circles in the effect; but both squares and circles supervene on the arrangement of matter. Similarly for entropy, which can be roughly defined as (1) unavailable energy, or (2) disordered matter. For (1), energy was already present, and turned from available to unavailable, and both supervene on general energy; in (2), matter was already present and turned from ordered to disordered, and both supervene on arrangement of matter.

Therefore, I'm using LEM to show that my color list is complete. — InPitzotl

The LEM is used to come up with the list in the first place. As per the LEM, all things can be categorized either in category A or not-A; and that list is exhaustive. But we could also continue as so: All things within category not-A can be further categorized in category B or not-B; etc. This is how I came up here with an exhaustive list for determined, random, and free will, based on their definitions.

Theories tend to have many hypotheses incorporated into them.[...] The supported hypothesis is now one of the (thousands of) hypotheses supporting natural selection and evolution. — Paul Lucas PhD, quora

If theories are supported by hypotheses, and hypotheses are supported by testing, then theories are supported by testing.

Alien hand syndrome (AHS) is not split personality. — InPitzotl

I don't see how AHS entails split soul. AHS just shows that some of our bodily acts are not voluntary; but this is obviously true: e.g. acts from our digestive system and heart are never voluntary.

The less your souls have to do with subjective experiences and phenomena like making apparent free will choices as it relates to situations like AHS, the more it sounds like it's more about preserving a belief than being correct. — InPitzotl

In the religious view, the soul is the "I" where resides the subjective experiences of the senses or "first-person point of view", consciousness, thinking, feelings, etc. To relate it to the "split-brain video", it is possibly the same "I" that experiences both the theistic and atheistic views, and the "I" simply forgets one event when the other side of the brain is activated, sort of like how a drunk was conscious the night before but forgets the events the next morning.

The LEM is used to come up with the list in the first place. — Samuel Lacrampe

No, your imagine did. There are people who argue against LFW on the basis that there can only be determined and random things... if it's determined it's "forced", if it's random it can't be will (or so it goes). But they get this list because they enumerate: not determined = random, not random = determined.

(a)They get two things, in their enumerated list. They applied LEM.
(b) You have three things, in yours. You applied LEM.
(c) Supposed there's a fourth thing; maybe it's just "p-zombies". Does that violate LEM? Nope.

So, you're arguing that LEM makes this list. But some people apply LEM and get two mechanics. You apply it, and you get three. If there were a fourth, LEM still holds. So apparently LEM is consistent with discarding your souls, with accepting your souls, and with accepting yet another possibility (p-zombies in this case). So how can you argue that LEM tells you there are three things when LEM works perfectly fine with 2 or 4 things? You're not using LEM to make this list... you're using your imagination. You're just enumerating, and stopping when you can't think of anything else.

If theories are supported by hypotheses, and hypotheses are supported by testing, then theories are supported by testing. — Samuel Lacrampe

It's a bit more subtle than that. The "more general" things are still theories before they are tested (and accepted). String Theory's a prime example.

To relate it to the "split-brain video", it is possibly the same "I" — Samuel Lacrampe

...if it were distinct "I"'s after the split, would that be critically damaging, or just interesting?

The part of us that possesses free will is not physical.
• This non-physical part is what is typically referred to as the Soul. — Samuel Lacrampe

Not necessarily, you should also assume P1 as being true. Maybe everything is determined goes for every structure before reaching the biological state.

Of course, factors like the circumstance, our appetite, and our reason, all influence the will towards a decision; but they cannot compel the will to the decision if the will is truly free — Samuel Lacrampe

It is you that does the compelling on the basis of them. This is why abstraction, i.e. ignoring what the will does and how it works, is unhelpful. 'Truly free' in this context can only mean 'act against one's own intentions' or 'act randomly' or such, which are far more deleterious to the concept of free will than 'can only decide once'.

There are people who argue against LFW on the basis that there can only be determined and random things — InPitzotl

It's a matter of definitions. If randomness was defined as "not determined" or "Cause A does not always give Effect B", then there would only be 2 categories. But this definition is incorrect, because it is possible for a Cause A to not always give Effect B, and yet not have randomness. On the other hand, the definiton "Cause A does not always give Effect B, and there is no agency" seems correct. In that case, what remains is the category "Cause A does not always give Effect B, and there is an agency", and this definition fits for Free Will. I could be wrong if the definition of either of the three terms, Determinism, Randomness, Free Will, is incorrect.

The "more general" things are still theories before they are tested (and accepted). String Theory's a prime example. — InPitzotl

Sure, we can come up with a theory first, and proceed to hypothesis testing to validate the theory second; so long as some hypothesis testing is applicable to the theory. My guess is that hypothesis testing applies to String Theory, even if not at the present time. And of course, no theory should be accepted before testing and validation (unless a theory has to be provisionally accepted for some practical reason).

...if it were distinct "I"'s after the split, would that be critically damaging, or just interesting? — InPitzotl

At first glance, critically damaging. And interesting.

Hello.

Maybe everything is determined goes for every structure before reaching the biological state. — Eugen

Are you saying that things are determined prior to the biological state, and then not necessarily determined after that? But then if not for an additional non-physical thing like the soul, how can things go from being determined to non-determined?

What I am getting out of your claim is that the will has the possibility of choosing; but also does not because it will always choose the same decision for a given set of information it receives. If on the other hand, for a given set of information, the will can choose between two decisions, then it can choose between two decisions.

Are you saying that things are determined prior to the biological state, and then not necessarily determined after that? But then if not for an additional non-physical thing like the soul, how can things go from being determined to non-determined? — Samuel Lacrampe

Hello,
For instance: we can assume there is consciousness at the subatomic level, but it cannot manifest itself unless it is integrated in a more complex and proper system, like DNA. So as long as there is no proper combination of atoms to create that ''independent'' circuit, atoms just obey the laws. But when DNA is created, than those atoms obey both the physical laws and the purpose-driven consciousness/life/soul inside them.
Of course, this may be wrong, but nonetheless is a possibility. It's a panpsychist-like view, which states that actually matter and the reality itself is more than materialists think it is. This view is getting more and more popular among thinkers nowadays.

What I am getting out of your claim is that the will has the possibility of choosing; but also does not because it will always choose the same decision for a given set of information it receives. — Samuel Lacrampe

This is of course not a practical concern. Circumstances don't truly repeat themselves. I might find myself in the same situation, but in a different emotional state, in a different mental state, or having learned from experience of last time, or having access to a different subset of my options if the decision is urgent.

For me and my situation to be absolutely identical would be equivalent to reversing time back to the start of the situation and replaying. I think almost all of us would expect the situation to play out in exactly the same way and, because of that, almost all of us are determinists deep down.

If on the other hand, for a given set of information, the will can choose between two decisions, then it can choose between two decisions. — Samuel Lacrampe

:up: And it usually can choose between many.

Interesting theory. But I wonder if it merely pushes the problem one more step, instead of explaining it. A condition to accept a property as being physical is that it must be observable by physical instruments (I think). Physical instruments have not observed such a property in particles; and so even if particles had such a property, it still would not be correct to call it "physical". Note that when it comes to our own consciousness, although we can observe our own individually, it is not observed by physical instruments either.

What do you think?

For me and my situation to be absolutely identical would be equivalent to reversing time back to the start of the situation and replaying. I think almost all of us would expect the situation to play out in exactly the same way and, because of that, almost all of us are determinists deep down. — Kenosha Kid

I agree that if revisiting a past event as a spectator, we would expect the exact same outcome for that event every time; but note that this expectation is also compatible with free will as I define it: In the original event, the person freely chooses to act in a particular way, and upon revisiting that event, we see a replay of that same act being freely chosen.

Interesting theory. But I wonder if it merely pushes the problem one more step, instead of explaining it. A condition to accept a property as being physical is that it must be observable by physical instruments (I think). Physical instruments have not observed such a property in particles; and so even if particles had such a property, it still would not be correct to call it "physical". Note that when it comes to our own consciousness, although we can observe our own individually, it is not observed by physical instruments either.

What do you think? — Samuel Lacrampe

Many scientists and philosophers are struggling to show us there are rational scientific physical explanations for everything. Sometimes they provide tons of information, complicated statements, and high-flown phrases with a supposed deep meaning. You asked me what I think: either I am not capable to understand those super-complex explanations, or those super-complicated explanations are simply long complicated senseless phrases that are intended to make ordinary people like me that ''scientists know the truth, but it's complicated'' when in fact there is only the impotence of the materialistic view of the reality.

But again, that is just me and I take very seriously the possibility of me being incapable to understand some things. I am a simple guy and for me anything that is more than simple logic sounds bad.

I agree that if revisiting a past event as a spectator, we would expect the exact same outcome for that event every time; but note that this expectation is also compatible with free will as I define it: In the original event, the person freely chooses to act in a particular way, and upon revisiting that event, we see a replay of that same act being freely chosen. — Samuel Lacrampe

Right, but if the same scenario were played out a second time, what might change the outcome such that we can point to it and call it free will? Why would a rational person who made the rational decision in that scenario the first time not make it the second?

Some suggested examples:

• it did not work out well last time (learning from experience)
• the person has changed their mind about these things
• the person just doesn't feel inclined the same way this time (mood, exhaustion, etc.)
• the person has higher priorities second time around
• the person was in a rush last time but has longer to consider this time
• the person had longer to consider last time but is in a rush this time

All of these speak to free will, insofar as I have no higher authority than myself to regard (so long as I don't act illegally). But they also describe different initial conditions the second time around, and determinism does not give you the same outputs if you feed in different inputs.

It is precisely because it is me that decided on bases such as the above one way or another that it is free will, and it is precisely because the decision depends on these factors (via me) that it is deterministic, or at least cannot be dismissed as incompatible with determinism.

The issue ''could have done otherwise'' is deeply flawed in so many aspects. I may open a discussion regarding this.

You asked me what I think: either I am not capable to understand those super-complex explanations, or those super-complicated explanations are simply long complicated senseless phrases that are intended to make ordinary people like me that ''scientists know the truth, but it's complicated'' when in fact there is only the impotence of the materialistic view of the reality. — Eugen

I'm with you on that one. "Knowledge" is "justified true belief". I don't think someone truly knows what they are talking about if they cannot justify with simple explanations, even if these simple explanations are a summary of the real thing only.

Why would a rational person who made the rational decision in that scenario the first time not make it the second? — Kenosha Kid

The key is the word "rational". If a person chooses the path of reason 100% of the time, then you are correct that any change in decision, even freely chosen, must come from a change in the situation. But the real impact of free will comes before that; when it comes to choosing between the path of reason and the path of the appetite (when the two are conflicting).

. That is correct. The soul is not physical, but it can also be called "consciousness." There is no doubt that one's consciousness exists. "I think, therefore I am" proves thought, consciousness, or "soul" exists. The bigger question is what proof is there that the soul exists outside a physical body or material brain.