Fortunately for us humans, Self-Determination is not the "opposite" of Determinism, but a "complement" (complete-ment). The output of a complex system is not the same as the input. The system re-arranges the incoming energy/information into novel forms and meanings. Most important of those novelties is a meaningful relationship to Self (observer). Meaning is not a natural "currency", it is a preter-natural evaluation. Nature is indifferent to me. But my personal meanings & beliefs are the "difference that makes a difference" (i.e. Information). :smile:But ‘determined’s opposite is an impossible currency. — PoeticUniverse
Hmmm! Meant by whom to do what? :chin:The inboard motor of neuronal analysis still does what it has to as what it was meant to do. — PoeticUniverse
Who's afraid of being dominated by Determinism? Not me! Stacks of stones may imprison my bones, but Determinism will never un-free me.Ah, in the whole you’re just afraid of being unfree,
But, hey, look, behold! There is still so much beauty!
A sublime law, indeed, else what beauty could there be?
The coin’s other side speaks—a toss up, weighted equally. — PoeticUniverse
Hmmm! Meant by whom to do what? — Gnomon
How could the A> human Will (the decider) not follow B> whose Will? The Accidental Impetus of Determinism? Or the downward directional causation of Energy/Enformy? Who or what was the Aboriginal Arbiter, or the Initial Impulsive Intender? Whatever that First Cause was, we infer that it had the Potential for Life & Mind & Willful behavior in its creatures. Could a cosmic explosion do all that with no deciding & directing Will of its own? Again, who is this Will you speak of? :chin: :wink:Not by "whom", but to do what they have to do as how they are. How would the will not follow the will? What other source would do the willing instead? — PoeticUniverse
Whatever that First Cause was, we infer that it had the Potential for Life & Mind & Willful behavior in its creatures. — Gnomon
You sound confident that our "unbounded" universe is a cosmic accident. But logically, there must be a nameless Initial Event or First Cause with the extra-mundane Potential to cause a world to appear, as-if-by-magic from who-knows-where. And if there was no Plan or "Planner", how could the complexity of our self-observing world emerge from a random confluence of atoms? Randomness is patternless.Yes, but not made from a Higher Will, for not even a composite can be First, much less the complexity of a Planner. There's no Big Guy named Will. — PoeticUniverse
Like a vacuum fluctation ...You sound confident that our "unbounded" universe is a cosmic accident. — Gnomon
... at the planck scale ...But logically, there must be a nameless Initial Event or First Cause with the extra-mundane Potential to cause a world to appear, as-if bymagic[quantum tunneling] from who-knows-where.
... a random fluctuation of the non-spatiotemporal (eternal) vacuum with a sufficiently minimal symmetry-breaking structure (re: Noether's theorem, etc) "inflates"And if there was no Plan or "Planner", how could the complexity of our self-observing world emerge from a random confluence ofatoms[virtual events]? Randomness is patternless.
Plan or "Planner" — Gnomon
Speaking of "woo" in the breach, your reply reminds me of Apostle Paul's definition of Faith : "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". You expressed your faith in several things unseeable, which you "hope" will some day prove true : "vacuum fluctuation" ; "planck scale" ; "non-spatiotemporal (eternal) vacuum", or "virtual events". I can't confirm or deny such "woo-woo", because I have no experience of "oscillations of emptiness" ; "mathematical measurements of the infinitely small" ; " changes that are not in space or time" ; or "unreal events". I assume that the scientists, who propose such literal non-sense, know what they are talking about. but I have to take it on faith, plus a grain of doubt. So, my confidence is limited by moderate skepticism.Still incomplete; but no woo-of-the-gaps needed, Gnomon. — 180 Proof
Spoken as a True Believer!↪Gnomon
Respectfully, sir, your lack of scientific literacy does not render my layman's comprehension "faith" or the well-established theoretical results of scientists mere "conjectures" open to your idle (paper) doubts. Scientists' speculative 'interpretations' of scientific theories are the very "possibilities for philosophical exploration" you speak of, Gnomon, which are extrapolated from 'problematic' theoretical results and are not just tu quoque more woo-of-the-gaps. — 180 Proof
I have no problem with Conservation of that-which-exists. But since animated Mass-Energy is eventually embalmed as cold dead Entropy, I can't accept it as eternally existing, in any constructive sense. That single "substance" of reality may be conserved as it flips back & forth between Cause & Effect --- subsequent to the original Instantiation. But when & where did it do its phase changing prior to the point-of-beginning of space-time?In science, there is one thing, mass-energy, and it is conserved, unable to be created or destroyed;. . . .The more responsible believers, some even theologians, note the begging of the question that leads toward an infinite regress . . . . The first wrong step in direction was to deny that the simplest can give rise to the more and more complex, — PoeticUniverse
the Whole of which our world is an active part is a Singularity : no parts — Gnomon
'Quantum uncertainty' is well-established knowledge of 'the fundamental limit of knowledge'. It's a brute fact (i.e. feature, not bug, of classical systems) and not "an explanation". The function of science is not to make you less "uncomfortable", Smith; that's religion's job (re: placebos, woo-of-the-gaps). — 180 Proof
Those who call FreeWill an illusion or delusion, were encouraged by the Libet experiment, showing that the brain is prepared to act before the mind is even aware of choosing to act. But even Libet didn't interpret that as evidence of no Choice. It's true that we typically become aware of what the body is doing, only after the act is underway. So our consciousness of the act is an afterthought. But there is also a momentary gap between the brain's "action potential" and the body's movement. (see "time delay" below)In my opinion, free will isn't a popular delusion, its a useful lie. It just renders the world so much more tangible, way easier to work with. — john27
It's true, that I'm merely an interested layman, not a practicing scientist. But, what you interpret as "lack of scientific literacy" may be simply my tendency to go beyond Reductive dogma to see the Holistic implications of Quantum and Information theories. For example, Einstein was not an empirical technician doing lab experiments. Instead, he was a theoretical philosopher, looking at the big picture, while others were pinning down the details. His radical notion of Relativity forced scientists to view the world from a new perspective. :nerd:your lack of scientific literacy — 180 Proof
Those who call FreeWill an illusion or delusion, were encouraged by the Libet experiment, showing that the brain is prepared to act before the mind is even aware of choosing to act. — Gnomon
FreeWill is neither a "lie", nor a delusion, it's what makes humans unique among animals : the ability to change the future, and even to alter the course of evolutionary destiny with what we call Culture ; the result of collective free choices. :smile: — Gnomon
You cherry-pick which theoretical results are scientific and which theoretical results are "woo" depending on whether or not they agree with your own ad hoc, quixotic speculations. If you "can't deny" the most precisely well tested theoretical results in the natural sciences to date – no one has or can – then, with all due respect, calling them "woo" (or (my) accepting them as "faith") proves your (willful) ignorance. The physical "facts" are not in dispute (e.g. QM), Gnomon, only ontological / epistemological "interpretations" of them are debatable (e.g. Copenhagen, local hidden variables, MWI, LQG, RQM, etc). Take issue with , I welcome it, but not the textbook stuff, man. My undergraduate engineering and physics studies and graduate work in cognitive science (psychology) barely make me scientifically literate enough to recognize where physical facts end and metaphysical speculations (i.e. interpretations of physical facts) begin – and to recognize those who conspicuously do not. :sparkle:You expressed yourfaith[confidence] in several things unseeable,which you "hope" will some day prove true: "vacuum fluctuation" ; "planck scale" ; "non-spatiotemporal (eternal) vacuum", or "virtual events". I can't confirm or denysuch "woo-woo"... — Gnomon
That's where the "free won't" comes in, giving us an opportunity to veto the action — Gnomon
There is no such thing as a ‘true vacuum’. — PoeticUniverse
the virtual fields could be pulled into real existence. Quantum bubbles pulled into reality. inflation would be solved. — Raymond
"Many people believe that evidence for a lack of free will was found when, in the 1980s, scientist Benjamin Libet conducted experiments that seemed to show that the brain “registers” the decision to make movements before a person consciously decides to move."Libet wha- — john27
You can Google Libet's experimental setup to see how he defined a "choice". But your personal definition may vary. Basically, humans try to change the future by choosing between optional paths into the time-that-has-not-yet-come. But the no-free-will theory says that what you perceive as a choice is actually predestined by your genes and your situation in the world. Libet merely added the notion that your subconscious Brain makes choices automatically, but your conscious Mind takes credit for that fateful selection. If so, your ability to choose between Good & Evil is a delusion. As in Calvinism, you were pre-destined for Heaven or Hell from the very beginning. And there's nothing you can do to change your Fate. :gasp:What's a choice? — john27
I am not a student of any particular branch of Science. So, I don't take issue with the textbooks. I leave that up to professional teachers and book editors. Science textbooks must be constantly updated, as the older doctrines are replaced by new understandings. The textbooks that you take as gospel truth, may already be obsolete, since scientific understanding is evolving at a rapid pace.Take issue with ↪180 Proof
, I welcome it, but not the textbook stuff, man. — 180 Proof
So, the conscious Mind has no role in human behavior? Materialists seem to believe that awareness of what we are doing is superfluous. Single cell organisms seem to go about their business without any self-awareness : merely action & reaction. Are you no more sentient than an amoeba?"us" is still the subconscious brain will analysis going on just like always. — PoeticUniverse
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.