Seems far so far, but what then is the role of consciousness? Couldn't all of this be done without conciousness? Or would it be impossible? — Daniel Sjöstedt

I actually have a general metaphysical theory in which consciousness has a natural place:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1455/an-outline-of-reality/p1

Is your view that there is something immaterial about consciousness?

Or that there is at least something about it that does not follow the classical laws of mechanics? — Daniel Sjöstedt

I'm not an anthropic mechanist (in relation to humans) if that's what following the classical laws of mechanics means.
The main reason is that I find it difficult to believe we can speak and communicate about phenomenology/consciousness with them being a) epiphenomenal. b) mechanistic illusions that vanish when explained from a third person point of view.

And it depends on what material means. Are we assuming everything reduces to electron/quark interactions?

Are we assuming everything reduces to electron/quark interactions? — JupiterJess

Yes.

Why would it be impossible to speak about consciousness if it were an epiphenomena?

Why would it be impossible to speak about consciousness if it were an epiphenomena? — Daniel Sjöstedt

Simply detecting your consciousness would be an effect of detecting consciousness making it not an epiphenomena.
You have to presume Zombies are real and someone can sit and talk about consciousness all day without having any inner experience for it to work.

Yes. — Daniel Sjöstedt

Okay the reason I asked is that some might consider them immaterial or simply an instrumentalist fiction. Many consider material the stuff we can see and touch.

.

I don't know what is Free Will. I do know that as humans, we makes choices as to the direction of some action, by virtue of will. Choices are not free. They are constrained, and outcomes are always unknown. We are trying to navigate. — Rich

Free will is synonymous to freedom of intentions. These intentions are usually categorized as good and bad intentions. We may not always have freedom of choices if the choices are restricted, nor know the outcome ahead of time, but we can intend for a good or bad outcome.

Sorry for any confusion; English is not my first language.

The laws I am talking about are the laws that determine the motion of bodies in the universe. — Daniel Sjöstedt

In regards to Newton's Law:

1) They are only applicable to large bodies of non-living matter.

2) They are approximate in nature.

3) They have been replaced/superceded by quantum theory though Newton's Laws are still used for approximate, practical applications. Quantum theory is probabilistic.

Therefore, Newton's Laws are inadequate as a basis for deterministic universe.

Good point. I think we need to differentiate between two kinds of praises/blames:

(1) Praises/blames to the face of the person, as a means of conditioning them to another end, as you said.
(2) Praises/blames not necessarily to the face of the person, and because their act was judged to be praiseworthy/blameworthy. Judging an act as being praiseworthy/blameworthy only makes sense if there was a conscious choice made by the person. If I unintentionally saved a person's life, say by accidentally bumping into them, then I shouldn't be praised for it.

I was referring to the second meaning in my argument.

Are we assuming everything reduces to electron/quark interactions?
— JupiterJess

Yes. — Daniel Sjöstedt

The issue is that quantum theory speaks of an interaction between an observer and observed with being about define what they are or what are the boundaries between the two. Even with Bohm's causal/real interpretation there is a quantum potential (probabilistic in nature) that cannot be classically defined. It v is impossible to think of a universe in mechanistic terms within quantum theory.

In any case, I have no idea what the Laws of Nature might be. It is far more mysterious than consciousness, mind, or quantum potential.

Free will is synonymous to freedom of intentions. These intentions are usually categorized as good and bad intentions. We may not always have freedom of choices if the choices are restricted, nor know the outcome ahead of time, but we can intend for a good or bad outcome. — Samuel Lacrampe

One does not have to have complete freedom in order to have a non-deterministic universe. There are constraints, but there is the creative impulse which allows us to attempt to move in a given direction with uncertain (probabilistic) results.

This would be analogous to a sailor that is navigating with many constraints but had the ability to choose left or right with unpredictable, but probabilistic results. Living a life is similar to sailing.

In any case, I have no idea what the Laws of Nature might be. It is far more mysterious than consciousness, mind, or quantum potential. — Rich

Laws of nature are simply certain regularities in nature. Nature contains various stuff, and just as there are differences in nature, there are also regularities (commonalities, symmetries or repeated features). For example, the law of gravity is the regularity with which massive bodies attract each other in a specific way. These regularities may be difficult or impossible to visualize but they can be expressed mathematically.

Laws of nature are simply certain regularities in nature. Nature contains various stuff, and just as there are differences in nature, there are also regularities (commonalities, symmetries or repeated features). For example, the law of gravity is the regularity with which massive bodies attract each other in a specific way. These regularities may be difficult or impossible to visualize but they can be expressed mathematically. — litewave

There are definitely regularities (habits) in nature but this is far, far, far from an absolutely deterministic universe. All calculations are approximate. Just one, single, probabilistic event of any sort to destroy determinism. Unless quantum can be shown to be completely deterministic, then determinism dies.

But even with this, determinists need to define precisely what exactly they are talking about when they refer to the Laws of Nature. As I mentioned, historically the roots of the concept are in the belief of a God who created such a set of Laws that govern everything. It appears to me that the Laws of Nature, without a concrete definition, is indistinguishable from God.

If I unintentionally saved a person's life, say by accidentally bumping into them, then I shouldn't be praised for it. — Samuel Lacrampe

Absence of free will does not equal absence of intentions, so again, I have to disagree.

You say choices are not free, but the opposite is false too.
That is, "choices are unfree" is not true either.

Choices are constrained. I am not free to go through a solid brick wall. But I can choose to try to go around it, over it, or under it. Results are unpredictable. There is nothing in the realm of science that prevents me from exercising my ability to choose direction.

But how do you address Laplace's notion - that if you knew the facts about every atom you could predict the future of the universe. — Daniel Sjöstedt

Well, that was torpedoed by the discovery of the 'uncertainty principle'. There are laws, but the discovery of the 'quantum leap' was, I think, fatal to determinism as it had previously been understood. Laws are maybe more comparable to what is called 'strange attractors' in chaos theory - patterns that emerge out of the chaos.

But what I'm rejecting is old-school, bottom-up, materialist determinism. I think that has actually been undermined by science itself, but it has left a footprint in popular culture in the aftermath of the so-called 'death of God'.

I accept the analogy, and will add that the sailor has the freedom to set the goal to whichever direction he likes, even if the path that lies ahead has many constraints.

Agreed. And sometimes the sailor heads for a giant wave and just overturns. Lessons learned - if the sailor survives.

Life is about learning.

What then is free will, if not freedom of intentions? A good will is one that intends on doing the good. We may not always be able to do good deeds, but we always have the freedom to intend to do good. A saint that is in captivity is no less a saint just because he is unable to do saintly things; rather he is a saint as long as his intentions are aimed at doing saintly things if he could.

Does the "planning" determine your action, or is the "planning" already determined? If the conscious planning is already determined, is it then merely a way of understanding your actions and communicating them to others? — Daniel Sjöstedt

I have thought about this before as well. The phenomenology of planning is that there are multiple options, choices, that are possible.

So the question seems to be, what exactly is a possibility in a deterministic system? If there is only one single path that a system can proceed in, do possibilities actually exist?

I can't help but think of Nietzschean psychology - "I" am not the originator of my thoughts, my thoughts come on their own terms. That which influences my actions is precisely that which is the most powerful. The most powerful thoughts are those which come to my attention and direct my action. It is not that I "choose" to do some action but rather a thought commands me to do something and I obey it - willing is the combination of command and obey.

can't help but think of Nietzschean psychology - "I" am not the originator of my thoughts, my thoughts come on their own terms. That which influences my actions is precisely that which is the most powerful. The most powerful thoughts are those which come to my attention and direct my action. It is not that I "choose" to do some action but rather a thought commands me to do something and I obey it - willing is the combination of command and obey. — darthbarracuda

The problem is there is not one shred of evidence to support such a view other than faith. Such a belief is exactly equivalent to Calvinism and other fated religions.

Determinism on the whole is destroyed by quantum physics. Given this, and given that humans are subject to quanta just like all matter, then determinism can't hold for humans.

So what is left is some localized force in the human mind that is singularly controlling all choices and creating an illusion that there is a choice being made. More than this, this force is creating this illusion while at the same time revealing the true nature of the illusion to some humans - the chosen ones, the Determinists.

This convoluted explanation of how the human mind makes choices wreaks with religious flavor and dogma. It stands in opposition to the simple explanation that humans simply make choices. So why do scientists and philosophers continue to propagate such a ideology? What is the economic benefit of making humans computerized robots that can be tinkered with? As with any religion there is always an economic benefit for propagating a supernatural force that only a certain few have access and knowledge to - the priests.

Why is the human brain being made into a computer is the critical question?

The problem is there is not one shred of evidence to support such a view other than faith. Such a belief is exactly equivalent to Calvinism and other fated religions. — Rich

No, this is wrong. Are you seriously telling me Nietzsche advocated his metaphysical scheme based on faith?!

Determinism on the whole is destroyed by quantum physics. — Rich

No, this is also wrong. Quantum mechanics is difficult to predict but that does not make it necessarily indeterminate.

This convoluted explanation of how the human mind makes choices wreaks with religious flavor and dogma. — Rich

The same could be said about libertarian free will, which is overwhelmingly argued for by religious believers.

Why is the human brain being made into a computer is the critical question? — Rich

It's not. Computational theory of mind is more of a folk-psychological notion these days. Nobody really takes the idea seriously, that the human brain is basically a computer. That, and the representational theory of mind, have been blown out of the water by phenomenology and contemporary cognitive science.

No, this is wrong. Are you seriously telling me Nietzsche advocated his metaphysical scheme based on faith?! — darthbarracuda

Precisely what happened. At the time there was these belief, this faith, that at some point humans will understand all of the Natural Laws (God's Laws) and with such knowledge be in control of everything. It was (is) just a new religion under the guise if science.

Just because someone substitutes a new phase for God (Natural Laws, Natural Selection) does't make it different - just more appetizing got atheists. The essence of the belief, faith,. remains the same. In today's world such faith remains for Determinists that in some way, in some time, in the future these Laws will be revealed.

No, this is also wrong. Quantum mechanics is difficult to predict but that does not make it necessarily indeterminate. — darthbarracuda

And here lies the Faith. Quantum theory is not only fully probabilistic it also states that it can not be anything but. However, faith in the discovery of some hidden variables remains. However, at this point, determinism is dead.

The same could be said about libertarian free will, which is overwhelmingly argued for by religious believers. — darthbarracuda

Those who believe in an omnipotent force it nature whether it be God or Natural Laws will always have a tough time reconciling Real Choice with their faith. That is not my problem. Real Choice is something I experience everyday and I do not need to appeal to any type of religion to affirm my everyday experiences.

That, and the representational theory of mind, have been blown out of the water by phenomenology and contemporary cognitive science. — darthbarracuda

Such ideas are heavily funded and propagated. The computer brain, only accessible by ....