But if all the circumstances are deterministic, including our values, then why claim that we have free will at all? — Samuel Lacrampe
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.The soul is the seat of your perfect consciousness — 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?in the present moment forever and ever..in eternity — 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 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
Before this has meaning to me, you would have to explain what the Adam Kadmon is and what Chochmah is.The Adam Kadmon is the soul itself..and is located in Chochmah — 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.as the eternal will power being Holy of Gods and Goddesses on Earth..Including Gaia.. — BrendanCount
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.Go back to that CoE thing. You said according to PoSR energy cannot increase. Energy, it turns out, does indeed increase. — InPitzotl
A Little Bang has insufficient causal power on its own to explain a Big Bang. This would be creating something out of nothing.Why? — 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.So here's the big question... why can't all three be physical? — 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.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
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."FYI, a hypothesis and a theory are different kinds of things. — 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....so there's your answer... science isn't distinct from philosophy... it's intermingled with it. — 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.it would appear people are splittable into pieces (link: youtube, Ramachandran) (at least two). — InPitzotl
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
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
Premise P1: Everything that is physical is determined, as per the laws of physics.
— Samuel Lacrampe
Well, that's wrong, for starters. — Banno
Are you a post modernist? — tilda-psychist
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. — tilda-psychist
It is very strange to find agnostics and atheists who also reject the concept of absolute truth. — tilda-psychist
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
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...energy in a simple closed system with nothing else cannot increase — 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.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
It doesn't... that's the point.How does your example of colors rely on the LEM? — 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.You can however categorize all things into red things and non-red things, and this is exhaustive. — 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: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
It's worth jumping over and reading through Lucas's quora answer... he gives specific examples.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
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.Split personality does not entail split soul. — Samuel Lacrampe
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.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.
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.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
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.Therefore, I'm using LEM to show that my color list is complete. — InPitzotl
If theories are supported by hypotheses, and hypotheses are supported by testing, then theories are supported by testing.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
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.Alien hand syndrome (AHS) is not split personality. — 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 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
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.The LEM is used to come up with the list in the first place. — 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.If theories are supported by hypotheses, and hypotheses are supported by testing, then theories are supported by testing. — Samuel Lacrampe
...if it were distinct "I"'s after the split, would that be critically damaging, or just interesting?To relate it to the "split-brain video", it is possibly the same "I" — Samuel Lacrampe
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
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'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.There are people who argue against LFW on the basis that there can only be determined and random things — 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).The "more general" things are still theories before they are tested (and accepted). String Theory's a prime example. — InPitzotl
At first glance, critically damaging. And interesting....if it were distinct "I"'s after the split, would that be critically damaging, or just interesting? — InPitzotl
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?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? — Samuel Lacrampe
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
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
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.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
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
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
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.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
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).Why would a rational person who made the rational decision in that scenario the first time not make it the second? — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.