I don't have anything else to say. — Truth Seeker

Try to construct a tight logical arguments for your claims. Remember no beliefs, no opinions and no emotional statements. Just facts and the inferences and reasonings based on the facts. Will take it from there.

I have no idea what that means! — Truth Seeker

Meditate on it. It may flash in your mind.

Perhaps Humans and Artificial Intelligence? I actually don't know if animals or other lifeforms can be taken to court. Artificial Intelligence might be able to understand and defend itself in court.

Is that assigned culpability or actual culpability?

Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain the choices made by organisms. This is a fact. This is why banana trees don't type posts on forums and humans don't photosynthesise.

Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain the choices made by organisms. — Truth Seeker

You could do with reading Hume. Hume's cause and effect theory will set you back to the right track on this. Genes, environment, nutrients and experiences are Genes, environment, nutrients and experiences. They are not causes themselves. Your psychology is saying they are the causes for the choices made by organisms. In other words, causes exist in your mind, not out there in the world.

This is a fact. — Truth Seeker

It is not a fact. It is a dogma and misunderstanding.

This is why banana trees don't type posts on forums and humans don't photosynthesise. — Truth Seeker

They are not rational philosophical comments. It is like saying "Ants don't play guitars." and "Humans don't fly like the birds."

I would love to know more about your experience of meditation. I meditate daily. I have not experienced what you described. How did you come to experience it? — Truth Seeker

I think Yoga would be faster for this, because you frequently find yourself in positions you don't want to be in, and yet push yourself to be in anyways. Also I'm not sure the issue here is which meditation to use.

Incidentally, in your model, what does "push yourself" mean? What's pushing what, it's all chemical reactions right? Is it just a confused phrase?

We don't have enough knowledge to predict people's behaviour with 100% accuracy but that does not mean that the behaviours are not deterministic. — Truth Seeker

Correct. It also seems to me that until we predict people's behavior with 100% accuracy, we can't be sure it's 100% deterministic. Maybe it's only 99% deterministic and a part of it is inherently random (like in quantum mechanics).

I have seen the evidence for the following groups of variables: genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I have not seen any evidence for the existence of other groups of variables. If you can show me the evidence for other groups of variables, please do. — Truth Seeker

We live in an embodied state. For any decision, there will be factors for making it, and factors against making it. For instance, for my decision to reply:

For:
I don't like not replying to people
I like mentally stimulating things
....

Against:
I need to pack up and go soon
I just woke up
....

Let's say that there IS an "X factor" if you will in one of these. That there is a "I freely choose to support this option" or "I pushed myself to choose this" on one of them (That is what I believe btw). How might I show that to you?

If I end up making the decision, it is easy to say "Aha, you did it because you don't like not replying to people and you like mentally stimulating things". If I end up not making the decision, it is easy to say "Aha, you didn't do it because you needed to pack up soon and you just woke up"

See the issue I'm facing here? If you believe things are deterministic, it will be easy to point to the factors for or against any decision, and then to decide from there that they are the only factors, when there could have been another "free" factor.

As for why I think such a factor exists? Again, direct experience.

Thank you for the reading recommendation. "Ants don't play guitars." is a fact. "Humans don't fly like the birds." is also a fact. Just as what I said in my post are facts.

"Push yourself" means to do something that takes effort e.g. I am suffering from depression, CPTSD and chronic pain. So, it takes a lot of effort for me to read posts and reply to posts. It's not all chemical reactions. Please see: https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain-basics/brain/brain-physiology/action-potentials-and-synapses and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-mind-emerges-from-the-brains-complex-networks/

Quantum indeterminacy does not lead to macroscopic indeterminacy due to quantum decoherence. At the macroscopic level, things don't happen randomly. They happen deterministically.

I have tried yoga. I am not very good at it.

As I said before, earthquakes are 100% determined but it is hard to predict with 100% accuracy because of the complexity of the interacting variables that cause earthquakes. The same goes for weather. Our computers are not sophisticated enough to simulate reality with 100% accuracy but they are much better now than they were 50 years ago.

I don't see any evidence for any X factor in decision-making. Can you show me any evidence for the X factor that I could see using a brain scanner?

Thank you for the reading recommendation. "Ants don't play guitars." is a fact. "Humans don't fly like the birds." is also a fact. Just as what I said in my post are facts. — Truth Seeker

You are most welcome :) Sure they are also facts you could say that. But they are silly loopy facts that are irrelevant and unfit for the philosophical discussions. You could hear them in the kindergartens I am guessing. :D

You could go on saying "Dogs don't smoke cigars.", "Snakes don't write poems." ... etc etc. It can be amusing, but not very meaningful or helpful for you becoming wiser.

Are you joking? They are not silly or loopy or irrelevant. They are as factual as the Earth orbits the Sun.

They are irrelevant and silly for the argument. Because they don't prove that all the events and actions are determined.

I disagree. Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain the choices made by organisms. This is a fact. This is why banana trees don't type posts on forums and humans don't photosynthesise. These are evidence-based statements. The only way you are going to convince me that you have free will is by forever refraining from doing the 27 things and by doing the 7 tasks I asked you to do.

No nope, I am not trying to convince you. You can believe whatever you want or like. I just pointed out your beliefs are wrong, and explained why they are. If you opt to keep believing the wrong beliefs, then no one can change it. I have already told you that I have tried to change the dualists' wrong beliefs on Cogito, but failed to do so. So, why should I try to change your belief?
It is your freewill to believe whatever you decided to believe even if it is a deep hallucination of hard determinism, or decide to free yourself from the dogma, and change your mind accepting the truth.

I wish you were trying to convince me. I am all-loving. I would love to be all-knowing and all-powerful also. I long to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. I long to make all living things forever happy. I can't do these things due to my lack of omniscience and omnipotence. Only all-knowing and all-powerful beings are morally culpable. I don't know if such beings even exist.

I am sure you can. First of all, try reading Hume and Kant, focusing on Cause and Effect theory. Then you can decide on what you feel and convince as correct. It is totally up to your free thinking what you decide as truth.

It's not possible to think freely. Can you think up everything there is to know about dark matter and dark energy? No, you can't. Can you think of a trillion thoughts per second? No, you can't. Our thoughts are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are all prisoners of causality - doomed to suffer and die. I am all-loving but I am not all-knowing and all-powerful. I am so sad. I wish I never existed.

Hume and Kant were dualists. They are both wrong. You are also wrong about having free will. I am a materialist monist hard determinist because I am convinced by evidence.

I don't see any evidence for any X factor in decision-making. Can you show me any evidence for the X factor that I could see using a brain scanner? — Truth Seeker

No I cannot, because our technology isn't good enough to see it! But I'm sure it's there!

That's what your argument sounds like to me. "I am sure these are all the factors. They are the ones I see, therefore they're all the factors."

Without better techonology, the jury is out for both sides.

Quantum indeterminacy does not lead to macroscopic indeterminacy due to quantum decoherence. At the macroscopic level, things don't happen randomly. They happen deterministically. — Truth Seeker

Quantum decoherence is what happens when a quantum system interacts with the environment, and so loses its ability to be in a superposition as far as I understand. Normally, this would eliminate indeterminancy, you're right, but it's very easy to bypass this. Here is how you would do it:

The Stern-Gerlach Experiment is an experiment where you investigate the spin of a particle if it's up or down. When measured, the particle will have either an up or down spin with even probability (quantum indeterminancy), but until then, it's in superposition.

What I propose is: Do the same experiemnt, but attach the detector with a gun pointed at a cat. If the spin is measured as up, it shoots the cat. If it is down, it doesn't shoot the cat. Clearly the attachments won't change the outcome of the experiment, yes? Any more than the scientists who read the outcomes, wrote them on a piece of paper, then published them did.

So it is clearly possible that a quantum event can have major macroscopic consequences with the right setup. What makes you so sure that our brain does not have similar setups?

At the macroscopic level, things don't happen randomly. They happen deterministically. — Truth Seeker

There is also another issue with this: That determinism is a self-defeating hypothesis.

If I see a cloud that spells "2+2=5", ought I believe that 2+2=5? Clearly not right? Because the cloud didn't think rationally, so I have no reason to believe it. It was strewn about in that shape by determined processes.

Now replace the rock placement with electron placement in your brain. That electron placement causes you to type "2+2=4". Why should I believe that? It's no different from the cloud.

Determinism removes our brain's credibility, which is what got us to determinism. It is self-defeating, similar to the statement "we shouldn't trust our thoughts". If we shouldn't trust our thoughts, we should trust the thought that we shouldn't trust our thoughts. Similarly, if we cannot trust physical processes to produce rational conclusions, we cannot trust our conclusions as long as we believe they are formed from purely physical processes.

Did you read the two articles I gave you links for?

It's possible that our brain scanners are not yet good enough to see everything. Time will tell. Unfortunately, I don't have a time machine which I could use to travel a million years into the future and see how much better brain scanners have gotten.

I would rather the gun in your experiment was pointing at a wall instead of a cat.

I am not convinced that determinism removes our brain's credibility.

Did you read the two articles I gave you links for? — Truth Seeker

I admit, I only skimmed them, then realized I don't really know enough so I just took you at your word that it's not all chemical. Don't see how that's relavent though, my argument relies on it all being physical processes. Chemical, electrical, the nuances of how synapses work wouldn't affect this. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would rather the gun in your experiment was pointing at a wall instead of a cat. — Truth Seeker

Overdramatization is fun. However, it's not about the fate of the cat, it's about demonstrating that quantum processes can very much have an impact on a macro scale. And as you said yourself:

It's possible that our brain scanners are not yet good enough to see everything. — Truth Seeker

So there is no telling that it isn't already the case. In fact -and I didn't mention it earlier because I am not an expert on the field- I've read some theories stating that microtubules in the brain can actually maintain some quantum coherence despite the hot and chaotic environment, and therefore can actually have effects on a macro scale. I don't have the expertise to tell between science and pop-science, which is why I generally don't like reading short articles about these topics, but if you're interested, you could do your own research about it.

I am not convinced that determinism removes our brain's credibility. — Truth Seeker

Fair enough, but I hope I made a good case for it, so until you tell me why you don't think so, I don't see much point in continuing this.

To summarize, I've argued that:
1- There is little physical evidence the world is actually deterministic (the cat sure thinks so!)
2- Determinism is logically self-defeating in the first place

Thank you for skimming the articles.

Your argument for how determinism removes our brain's credibility did not make any sense to me. I don't know if that's because I am depressed or because I am stupid or because the argument is a sophistry.

Are you talking about this? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

The macroscopic world is deterministic despite quantum indeterminacy. You can test this by doing the following experiment. Take a coin and toss it. It will land on its head or tail - it will never be superpositioned or indeterminate.

What do they mean when they say free will? — Truth Seeker

The ability to have done otherwise.

How do you know that is the correct meaning? — Truth Seeker

I know that yours is incorrect.

How do you know that someone could have done something else at the time and place of the doing instead of what was done?

How do you know that mine is incorrect?

According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freewill the word "free will" has two meanings:

1
: voluntary choice or decision
I do this of my own free will
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

I agree that people can make voluntary choices e.g. donating to charity. However, just because the choice to donate is voluntary it does not mean that it is free from prior causes or divine predestination.

If secular determinism is true, then the choice to donate money to charity was inevitable.

If divine predestination is true, then the choice to donate money was also inevitable.

How do we work out whether secular determinism is true? We could examine the evidence for causation. We could test how genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences affect decision making in organisms.

How do we work out whether divine predestination is true? We could trust what the Bible or the Quran or another religious book says or we could look for evidence for or against divine predestination.

Your argument for how determinism removes our brain's credibility did not make any sense to me. — Truth Seeker

I'll try to rephrase it then. Note, that this isn't an argument that determinism is NOT the case, but rather that we are not justified in believing it.

The argument rests on the fact that physical processes aren't rational. For example: if a cloud is shaped to spell "2+2=4", that's not the cloud thinking and coming to a conclusion then communicating it. It is just dumb luck.

Now, in a deterministic world, even our thoughts, statements and written word are determined, yes? Doesn't that mean they are also produced by similar "dumb luck"? Then why should we believe them?

The atoms bumping around in your brain that produced your thought or speech or reply are exactly as believable as a cloud happening to spell out your reply. Why should I believe either? They're just dumb atoms bumping around.

So if the dumb atoms make you type "determinism is the case" I have no reason to believe it any more than I would believe it if a saw a cloud that spelt it, and if they make you type "determinism is not the case" I similarly have no reason to believe it.

Now, by some epistemic luck, it COULD be the case that the atoms bumped around and produced a true statement, just like the cloud that spelled "2+2=4", but we have no reason to think so, since any thought we have will also be a result of dumb bumping atoms. It could even be the case that our atoms are so positioned that they almost ALWAYS produce true statements! But again, no reason to think so.

I say "dumb bumping atoms" as shorthand. I know it's not that simple. Replace it with "dumb physical processes" if it makes things clearer.

Are you talking about this? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm — Truth Seeker

That wasn't the specific one I read. It was years ago. But please go ahead and do your own research, I am no expert.

The macroscopic world is deterministic despite quantum indeterminacy. You can test this by doing the following experiment. Take a coin and toss it. It will land on its head or tail - it will never be superpositioned or indeterminate. — Truth Seeker

Ah, but I don't want to prove that large bodies can be in a superposition. All I set out to prove was that quantum events can have consequences on the macroscopic scale (it can determine the fate of a cat under the right setup for example). And if that is the case, then determinism must necessarily not be the case, since quantum events have some randomness.

How do you know that someone could have done something else at the time and place of the doing instead of what was done? — Truth Seeker

I don't, that is what the whole debate around the topic.

However, just because the choice to donate is voluntary it does not mean that it is free from prior causes or divine predestination. — Truth Seeker

Thanks for granting that your definition has nothing to do with free will.

That is just saying determinism is true, and freewill is false. — Corvus

I think you might be trolling at this point. You asked for a logically sound argument. THere it is. You're now objecting to empirical matters. I cannot get on with someone who moves goalposts as far as you do, so either you begin to reply in good faith, or Im not continuing beyond this post. You are getting this wrong, point blank period.

logical argument, which clearly is not. — Corvus

This is exactly what the above is - a logical argument. It is logically sound. Whether the premises hold was not asked. I am unsure whether they do. Good arguments either way - but your hilariously misplaced self-assuredness makes it impossible to have a discussion in good faith. Truth Seeker seems to be having exactly the same experience.

Write down exactly back to front determinism replaced with freewill, you get the same conclusion for freewill is true and determinism is an illusion. — Corvus

Yes. Which is a logical argument. Ha... ha? That's what you asked for. I'm getting the feeling you area bit lost and pretending you have a grasp on this.

Sorry mate, go and think harder, and you need to brining in something which makes sense for your argument. — Corvus

This is you being uneasy, I think. Te snark seems to take the place of veritable objection.
Sorry mate, you are wrong and can't even understand that you are. There's no help, if that's the case.
See. I can do that too,. But i don't, because it's unhelpful and irrelevant.

You must write down all the determinant properties for X, if X is determined. And prove those properties are necessarily true. If you do that, I will show you why they are false. — Corvus

I am pretty happy to dismiss you as trolling at this point. If i were able to do the former, you are precluded from doing the latter. That's logic.
I gave you the logically sound argument. You did not ask for the empirical considerations which would prove it true. Those, I did not claim I had. The actual point htere, which you seem to be wandering around without addressing, is "Do you accept that all events have prior causes?" If so, that syllogism holds and defeats your position.

We can get somewhere if goalposts aren't moved, and accounts aren't prematurely closed.

"Do you accept that all events have prior causes?" If so, that syllogism holds and defeats your position. — AmadeusD

It appears that you haven't read any Hume at all. It is not matter of all events have prior causes or not. But the matter is that causes exist in your mind, not in the external world. Hence all causes are psychological judgement. In other words you have been talking about something which is your mental state, rather than objective existence or facts.

I can see why you were upset, and being defensive calling trolling and changing goal posts etc. The logical argument you presented is not logical at all. It just is reasserting your belief on determinism.

I am glad that you declared the end of discussion. I have nothing more to add apart from the points I made in the last posts. All the very best.

I understand your point now. Thank you for taking the time to explain it more clearly. I agree with you now. We don't fully understand how the brain works. We know a lot more now than we did before but we still don't have complete knowledge of how the brain works. Perhaps I should just be an agnostic about everything?

You are most welcome. However, if my actions are inevitable, either due to secular determinism or due to divine predestination, do I or anyone else deserve any thanks or blame for anything?

It appears that you haven't read any Hume at all. — Corvus

Suffice to say you are not an honest interlocutor. Take it easy.