Isn't saying something about limiting supposed ontological claims (don't miss or misread "supposed") only to comments about how the brain functions. — Terrapin Station

You said

"The idea is rather than the "there is no free will" crowd always wants to appeal to it being a standard view or implication of the sciences that there is no free will. That's wrong, though."

So either you're wrong to say they can't use sensu stricto deterministic science as support for their argument (they can, the brain is a classical object), or you're wrong in saying that the no free will crowd always want to appeal to the fact that science is strongly deterministic sensu lato. They don't. I don't know of a single no-free-will supporter here, for example, that would deny the non-deterministic nature of quantum physics.

Because in itself the availability of washing machines is an improvement — jamalrob

That's the matter I'm taking issue with. I don't see how it makes any sense to say something is an improvement "in itself" where, by that, you mean "when ignoring certain other factors inextricably connected with it" .

The only thing that metric has done "in itself", is go up. To judge that to be an improvement involves a decision about how many explicitly linked factors you're going to take into account. There's no pure default number of additional factors that constitute "in itself".

My position was "You can't use a belief that science has a Laplacean, strongly deterministic view of the world as a support for determinism." — Terrapin Station

Yes, and you obviously can because determinism (in the free-will sense) is about how the brain functions, unless you are a dualist, and science is of the opinion that the brain is a classical system and therefore follows a fully deterministic model. So relevant to the topic at hand one absolutely can use a belief that science has a strongly determinist view to support determinism (with regards to free-will) because with regards to all the mechanisms that might be involved in will, science does indeed have that view.

You have done everything you can to deny that these improvements are improvements at all — jamalrob

Well that's as good an example of begging the question as you're going to get, you've actually described them as "improvements" when what is at issue is whether they are or not.

The things you've pointed to are numbers, numbers which have gone up or down. Metrics do not 'improve' they either go up or down. Whether their doing so constitutes an 'improvement' is a judgement, and any rational person would consider someone a fool for not taking all relevant factors into account when making a judgement.

So it makes no sense at all to say an increased supply of washing machines is an 'improvement' on its own. Why would you deliberately decide not to take account, in that judgement, of factors which you know full well are relevant to it (sustainability, pollution, quality of work, power relationships etc...)?

Stochastic processes have a random element. How does random translate into free will. — Coben

Not only that, but...

1. Stochastic processes are a modelling method, no-one is claiming that they actually are random, only that one of the variable in the model is random. So whilst you're totally right to say random does not equal free-will, it's not even true that the existence of stochastic models demonstrates anything ontologically.

2. Stochastic processes are defined as a separate set of equations to those describing classical and quantum physics. The passage I quoted showed that the scientific opinion on the brain is that it acts as a classical (non-stochastic) system. When the "non-free-will crowd" are talking about determinism in science they are obviously talking about the science relating to the brain, not just all science. So the opinion of science, as it relates to the matter in question, is that brain function is best modelled as classical objects - not quantum, not stochastic.

As you say, the rest is just posturing and guff.

Fine, if the best you've got by way of intelligent discussion is just to label every disagreement as a reading comprehension issue then there's no point continuing is there.

Because every response of yours is based on not being able to read or reason very well. — Terrapin Station

Yes, this whole sub-discussion started when I asked you to support that assertion, and why you proceed with it (despite the complete absence of any unbiased evidence) instead of taking the more humble, or charitable approach that your communication skills might be at least partly to blame.

Now we're back to the beginning again with you just making a wildly unfair and unjustified assertion about my intelligence without any evidence other than that I disputed the clarity of what you've said.

So, if your only evidence that someone lacks comprehension or reasoning skills is that they question the coherence or consistency of what you say, and if you refuse to articulate your ideas to anyone who falls into that category, then who exactly is left for you to talk to? Everyone who already agrees?

What are you reading the above way? — Terrapin Station

The matter which started this whole sub-discussion. And, in fact, most of our other discussions recently, which have all followed the same pattern I've already outlined...

I call you out on something you've said which does not make sense, is incoherent, or contradicts other things you've said.

Instead of explaining why it's not a contradiction/incoherent, or heaven forbid, actually admitting that you might just be a tiny bit wrong about something, you just say that my reading comprehension (SAT-level) is at fault.

But none of the matters we're discussing contain propositions which are sufficiently non-contextual, or simple enough to be tested in that manner. They consist almost entirely of propositions which are complex enough to be judged by the subjective, 'no-single-right-answer', type of assessment made at higher levels of study.

So any misunderstanding is very unlikely, especially considering someone sufficiently versed in English to form arguments, to be to do with reading comprehension. Hence my supposition that this is just you trying to steer the discussion away from the flaws in your argument.

I believe that some judgements at the base of modern speculative physics are incorrect. — Metaphysician Undercover

But other people believe that they are correct. What are you going to do, shout at each other until one gives up?

You talk about ensuring things are in line with our experience, yet you maintain this bizarre notion that what is 'correct' can be ascertained by thought alone in complete contradiction to our overwhelming failure to do so.

People still disagree now about exactly the same matters they disagreed about thousands of years ago. If a thousand years of discussion hasn't yielded a sufficiently convincing answer, where does that leave your 'belief' when measured by your own standards of correspondence with experience?

The passage that starts with "(1) SAT is a standardized test . . . " followed me quoting a single, eleven-word sentence of yours. — Terrapin Station

Right, thank you. So the issue I was getting at was not that your talk of reading comprehension was the same as your talk of degree-level students being judgeable as 'morons'. It's about the fact that you reference paragraphs which cover degree-level topics as being understandable with SAT-level comprehension skills.

The topics we're discussing, the types of proposition used in them and the necessary context are all at the level where there is "lots of different subjective, biased factors involved" - like a degree. Yet you're claiming any misunderstandings are down to a failure of SAT-level skills, that the propositions used are of such a simple and non-contextual nature that only basic reading comprehension is required.

If you can show me a SAT paper where the test consists of correctly interpreting the meaning of a proposition about the relationship between free-will and indeterminacy in science, I'd be very surprised.

So I'm not literally saying above that I'm using a foundationalist approach. You need to be able to not read everything in an overly "literal" and simplified way. It wouldn't be a question if you were able to do that. — Terrapin Station

So, again, thanks for the personality advice, but just saying "it's obvious what I mean if you can read properly" is not really engaging in conversation is it? It is, for whatever reason, not obvious to me, so unless you have some bizarre objection to explaining yourself, why won't you just answer the question positively rather than negatively. Instead of a long list of things you don't mean, why not just provide a fuller explanation of what you do mean.

I say 'bizarre' because surely the only reason to comment here is to communicate your ideas to other people. You seem quite happy to spend thousands of words disparaging my personality, but strangely reluctant to simply explain what you mean when questioned.

I quoted the comment in question right above the content of mine we're talking about. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I'm just asking which quote, you've quoted several. None of them seem to me to imply anything like the conflation you're suggesting. Simply saying "I've quoted it" doesn't help.

I address what's an issue as it occurs, and sometimes what's an issue is (due to) someone's personality. — Terrapin Station

Fine, you think I'm an asshole who should have less 'attitude'. That's that issue covered. Now will you answer the question, or do we have more therapy to get through first?

Via conflating my comments about academic achievement and its implications for intelligence (which you're reading overly "literally") with a comment (that you also read overly "literally") about the SAT. — Terrapin Station

"Where?" was the question, not "how?". Tell me what comment gave you this impression and I can explain what I actually meant by it.

Maybe try having less attitude if you don't want to come across as someone who is obviously an Aspie and who is apparently an asshole about it? (Although if you want to come across as that, you're doing a fine job,) — Terrapin Station

Maybe try answering the questions within the topic under discussion rather your opinion on my personality? You can either explain better what you mean by a 'core tenet' which does not come under the category of 'foundational principles' which you have previously denied, or we can continue this sidebar about evidence of comprehension among epistemic peers. Whether I'm an asshole is not really a suitable topic for this forum.

(1) SAT is a standardized test that's taken on one occasion; it's evaluated "blindly," and by machines. Obtaining a degree is a long process that isn't standardized, and there are lots of different subjective, biased factors involved. — Terrapin Station

Where have I said anything to the contrary?

Are you an Aspie? — Terrapin Station

Yes.

You have a tendency to read everything "as 'literal' as possible," with no evidenced ability to pick up on contextual clues for semantic nuance. — Terrapin Station

What 'contextual clues' indicate is a subjective matter, just because you think you have given sufficient context for your meaning to be clear is not in itself evidence that you have, you'd need some kind of external measure (external to you) to support an argument that it's my comprehension that's at fault and not your communication skills. You have no such evidence, so why not just be charitable and explain yourself better rather than complain about the skills of those who can't seem to make sense of what you're saying?

And what's my being an 'Aspie' got to do with it. Do you have a class of people who you prefer not to communicate with?

See my SAT score. — Terrapin Station

So now academic achievement is a measure of relevant intellectual skills.

The whole issue with string theory is that it can’t be tested. — Wayfarer

So? How does that have any bearing on the statement "Speculation is just that, meaning we don't know if it's right or wrong before we test it."?

I made no claims as to whether it was testable. I leave that kind of judgement to the experts, and there seems to be some debate there.

The point is that speculation is happening anyway. MUs point about it going the 'wrong' way is also based on speculation which can't be tested, so what's 'wrong' about it?

?? You just said you didn't take the SAT. You're not in the US apparently. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension skills.

why would a government need to assume responsibility for the welfare of the public if the public never eschewed that responsibility in the first place? — NOS4A2

A natural state of affairs is one where nothing is owned, and there are no rules. The moment people get together to impose rules on others they are fabricating a system. Once that's done you can't say some of it is undermining a natural duty as human beings, whilst leaving other bits, equally not part of any natural duty, in place.

What is 'natural' about the government providing police to protect someone's property from, for example, The Diggers? If the government are going to intervene in that way, defend the theft of property from common ownership, it's no less a duty for them to then compensate the people they have thus dispossessed.

there are fears that are intense and persistent but not rational, so we try to fix the fact that people have them rather than moderating the external stuff that triggered the fear. — Terrapin Station

How can any emotion be rational? It's not 'rational' to fear being chased by a tiger. It's rational to run away from it (presuming you want to preserve your life) but you could do so calmly without fear, or in a mad panic.

Whether a person is treated for their fears has nothing whatsoever to do with rationality. It's to do with whether those fears are significantly impacting on their daily life in a negative way when compared to the attitudes normal people manage. You're just trying the same old hypocrisy again. When it suits your argument you invoke what we know, and practice, about psychology, then when someone presents some psychological norms which contradict your dogma you say we don't really know anything about psychology and it's all guesswork.

People respond a certain way to verbal abuse. That is a fact. Your absurd claim that they could respond some other way has absolutely no basis in fact, no support from psychology and is frankly reckless.

For you to even communicate effectively, let alone be a member of any community, requires that you make some broadly accurate assessments of how other humans will react to your actions (verbal or otherwise), to do this you have to have a model of how human psychology works. You can either base that model on experience (and controlled experiment where more detail is required), or you can base it on some wacko idea you've just made up. You're welcome to try either, but good luck persuading anyone remotely rational to attempt the latter.

I think it's immoral to prohibit someone from doing anything they consensually want to do. That's one of the core tenets for me re my ethics. — Terrapin Station

For a start, I thought you'd made it clear you didn't have any core tenets and everything was judged on a case by case basis. Second, I don't see any reference here to 'preventing' someone from doing what they consensually want to do, so what exactly was the purpose for this particular pronouncements (apart from furthering your delusion that people are just waiting for you to tell them stuff you reckon about stuff)?

Some who call themselves "atheists" are just as fundy as religious ones. — creativesoul

Of course they are. Claiming that some garbage made up 2000 years ago is not the actual way the world is is not the same as claiming it is. If I claimed there's a flying spaghetti monster in orbit around Mars, you are not being "just as fundy" to say there probably isn't. The two positions are not equal in justification, so being fundamental about one is not the equivalent of being fundamental about the other.

They knew all that and still voted for him, and I don't think you care why. — jamalrob

It's not that complicated. What people want is a sustainable supply of all the stuff/lifestyle they've been used to. They can't have it because it was always a system which borrowed heavily from reserves (ecological, and social). Politicians are never going to get elected by saying people can't have what they want, so they lie. Different lies fit better with the stories different demographics tell themselves. But they don't lie completely, they give a gloss of 'wrestling with the problem' to placate those who recognise that something is amiss.

Trump tried just lying outright (American jobs, low immigration, booming economy...bullshit) whilst simultaneously calling out the other - more compromise-making - politicians as lairs (which they obviously are). It worked.

It worked this time because the population are getting more stupid and malleable. It'll probably work again. We have a cartoon character for a Prime Minister in this country, America has a reality TV star who can't even work an umbrella, Ukraine has a comedian... People are just electing the 'one they know off the telly'.

There little doubt that companies have at least some influence on culture. It's in the best economic interests of companies who which to sell products (which we really don't need) to exert that influence towards a creating a population who don't question much (who in their right mind going to buy some crap they already have a perfectly functioning version of, that will break in the first five minutes of use and then go back to the same company to buy another?).

It's in capitalism's best interests to have a stupid and malleable population, it's in democracy's best interest to have an educated and thoughtful population. The two don't mix well.

We all know what correspondence is, just that we all know what time is. — Janus


But we all know what true is, too; so why bother with correspondence? — Banno

Sums up the whole thread.

Speculative physicists are headed in the wrong direction. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can you possibly judge the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the direction of speculation? The idea doesn't even make sense. Speculation is just that, meaning we don't know if it's right or wrong before we test it.

The only measure we can use is likelihood, the potential of some course of speculation, based on previous experimental results. If you've got some data the rest of the physics world is lacking, I suggest you publish it immediately.

around here it seems like people care a lot more about how Someone Is Wrong On The Internet, and it's usually This Guy, and I'd kinda appreciate an overview of what all is going on in that respect if it's available. — Pfhorrest

The trouble is, students at your university were all epistemic peers and part of a community with a shared objective (understand the arguments well enough to be able to use them to pass a degree). Here the lack of either of those constraints, I think, leads to the problems you encounter.

We have a range of contributors from the wackos to the full blown professors (though I don't think - tellingly - that we have any actual philosophy professors), but there's no system of automatic recognition as there is in an institution. So one problem is the 'professor' types getting increasingly angry that they're not simply having their word taken as gospel (or at least with due reverence) as they are used to. On the other side of the coin, the random wackos get to play at being professors without having to actually do the work, they think this is easy (professors make it look easy) and get angry when it isn't and people present straightforward counters to arguments they had thought made them basically the next messiah.

Then there's objective. Understanding the arguments is a necessary stage in university. One can disagree as much as one likes, but not before first showing sufficient understanding to pass the exams. This need to understand creates, I think, at least the tiniest crumb of respect for the person expounding them, even where one disagrees profoundly. Here, there is no such objective. Most people here - objective-wise - seem to fall into three camps; the "I've got a brilliant new idea that no-one's ever thought of that will change philosophy" camp (hint - no you haven't), the slightly more measured supporters of the status quo, and the ones who have a huge store of information about philosophy (or occasionally some other topic) that they're just desperate someone will ask their sagacious advice about. Actually, none of these are very conducive to a discussion format because none of them have any interest or incentive to understand significantly opposing opinions. But again, the other side of that coin is that the arguments you'll be discussing at university are understandable in the first place, so you don't have to contend with something which is obviously garbage, you don't have to basically re-iterate the whole history of investigation in some subject matter, just to counter it.

What would make a good place to discuss things in the atmosphere you're after would probably require an impossible level of moderation (and would probably eliminate half the moderation team too). The best thing that happened to this place was when 'the lounge' was moved off the front page to some other place. The next step is to consign two thirds of the threads/posts there too.

It's not "as unambiguous as possible," because you're expected to have commonsense abilities of reading comprehension, so that you could read any average magazine article, newspaper article, etc. and understand both what it's saying and what's it's not saying. — Terrapin Station

Well if SATs are at that level then the answer to your question would be that I would have answered what the question was asking and not what it was not asking. Obviously. Otherwise I would not have got into university. What a stupid question.

How does any of this prove whether my apparent (I still maintain all this is just bullshit to cover the fact that you can't defend your ideas) failure to understand what you wrote is to do with my poor reading comprehension and not your poor writing skill.

More distraction because you can't answer the actual point.

I brought you up on the point you were blatantly trying to make (that science is non- deterministic therefore can't be used to support non-free-will). You changed the subject to my apparent reading skills. I brought you up on the fact that you've no way of judging whether it's my reading skills or your writing skills at fault. So you change the subject again to comprehension testing.

Same thing happened on the hate speech thread when I brought you up on the hypocrisy of claiming to know what people are capable of tolerating whilst simultaneously claiming psychological theories were overblown. You changed the subject then too.

Now I've brought you up on your disingenuous argumentative tactics we'll get another sudden change of topic. Anything you can't answer, just change the topic.

I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore, I thought at one time there might be some intelligent discussion after you'd got over your grump at me calling you out over on the hate speech thread, but it seems not.

So what did you do on your SATs for the reading comprehension section? — Terrapin Station

I didn't take Sat's but in the comprehension test we did have the answer would be that I provided an answer within the acceptable range to sentences deliberately designed by the examiner to be as unambiguous as possible.

What did you do during your degree? Check your essays against the one correct answer?

Because you consistently demonstrate that you didn't understand what was written. If the sentences are fine, then your reading comprehension is what's the problem. — Terrapin Station

If you actually read what I've written, it explains clearly that sentences are not unambiguously of one clear meaning, but that this is not a fault with the sentence, it is a feature of language. Therefore, simply the two facts (that I have misunderstood the meaning of the sentence and that the sentence has no flaws) are not sufficient on their own to justify your assertion that it must therefore be my reading comprehension that's at fault. You'll need to also explain how you think, contrary to all other language, that your sentences were of such god-like perfection that anyone capable of reading would instantly be appraised of exactly the intention you had when writing them.

At any rate, if you need clarification for anything how about asking for clarification rather than arguing? — Terrapin Station

For a start, I'm not about to check my understanding of every comment before replying, that would be both ridiculous and unnecessary. I wait until a misunderstanding becomes apparent. Secondly, I'm exploring this issue by way of a process of elimination as I remain convinced, as do a significant number of others who've engaged with you, that you simply take this childish "that's not what I said..." tack when someone calls you out on your egotism.

By continuous examples of you not being able to understand relatively simple sentences. — Terrapin Station

Ah, so we know you're the one in the right this time because you also think you were right all the other times. Classic argument.

If you want to try to explain supposed problems with the sentence construction instead, you're welcome to suggest that. — Terrapin Station

There's nothing wrong with the sentence. Sentences don't express one and only one thing. Words mean slightly different things to different people in different contexts. Expressions are even more laden with implicit meaning, contextual meaning, etc.

Your sentences are fine, I just need you to clarify what you mean by them, it's not an unreasonable request.

I already addressed this. If your reading comprehension didn't suck you'd know that. — Terrapin Station

Right. And we know it's my reading comprehension that's at fault and not the quality of your counter-argument how, exactly?

His passion was not what ultimately got him banned. It was the "fuck you... ban me" bit. — Baden

Yeah, I understand why. I didn't mean my comment to be read as any disapprobation of the judgment, just it's a shame, that's all.

There's half a dozen members I'd rather were banned for mundanity, but I suppose that's not a bannable offence.

I banned S, — jamalrob

Well, that's a real shame. I've had a few disagreements with S in my time here. Firstly he was no worse than someone like @StreetlightX in his abusive tone (and StreetlightX is a moderator), but most importantly, I'd take his abrasive angst (and StreetlightX's) over the the condescending ("you obviously don't understand, here's some quote from Plato... "), or the passive-aggressive ("I'm just going to ignore you from now on") that seem the standard response to disagreement here.

Philosophy is meant to be done with a bit of passion.

from a consequentialist perspective if everyone doesn't serve knowing that the military might not agree to their "terms" they would still be in the wrong because the outcome of doing that would be enormous harm due to the lack of military protection. — SightsOfCold

You're mixing your ethical methodology and so it's yielding paradoxical results. You start from a consequentialist position (some negative event resulting from your actions), but then frame it deontological (what if everyone acted thus).

From a purely consequentialist position, you do not need to worry about the consequences you describe resulting from your actions because that is extremely unlikely. You live in a sufficiently diverse society that there will always be enough people who think the military is fine that you won't run out.

From a deontological point of view, the rule is all that matters not the consequences. If you're seeking some objective (a functioning army in this case) then it's not a moral issue.

It's only when you conflate the two systems that the paradox arises.

Since atheists reject the very principle of unexplained belief, they also reject logic. Hence, atheists are not logical.

There is nothing more stupid than attacking a system merely because it ultimately rests on unexplained beliefs, given the fact that all systems are like that, including logic itself. — alcontali

Atheists (any I know about) don't reject the very principle of unexplained belief. Atheists don't believe in God. It's as simple as that. You don't believe in God (some of them) too I take it. No one is rejecting all beliefs, simply the ones which they do not find useful, compelling, coherent, or appealing in any way.

that can only be extrapolated to mean that a standard view of science is that there is no free will if you assume an incompatibilist concept of free will — Pfhorrest

Yes, I agree. The proposition I raised that quote in opposition towards was that those appealing to the sciences to support a lack of free will were wrong because of some scientific advance since the mid 1800s, as specified in the rest of that post. I took that advance to refer to quantum mechanics, apparently I was wrong to do so but have yet to be apprised of what advance was being referred to.

As to people claiming modern science support a lack of free will being wrong for reasons other than scientific advances since the mid 1800s, yes, I'm sure there are plenty of those, definitions of 'free will' being one of them.

It has nothing to do with reading comprehension. You said...

the "there is no free will" crowd always wants to appeal to it being a standard view or implication of the sciences that there is no free will. That's wrong, though. The "there is no free will" crowd should have looked at what was going on in the sciences after the mid-1800s — Terrapin Station

Those are your actual words, right? So Your claim is that it is wrong that the standard view or implication of the sciences is that there is no free will, and that this is wrong on account of some development in science that happened after the mid-1800s. That is literally what you claimed.

I posted a quote from an article describing the standard view of neuroscience as being that quantum indeterminacy has no effect on brain processes, which can be treated a classical objects. You said that had nothing to do with it. My quote certainly represented the view of 'the sciences' with regards to quantum indeterminacy and free-will, so the only other option to explain its supposed irrelevancy would be if you were not talking about the discoveries of quantum mechanics, but instead some other scientific advance from the mid 1800s which supports free-will.

So I look at the previous part of your post to get some context. Here you say...

Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic. The standard view in the sciences, by the way, is that the world is not strongly deterministic, where that's been the standard view for over 150 years now, but somehow the message isn't getting through. In online forums like this, everyone still seems to think that it's the early 1800s and they're supporting Laplace for president. (See "Laplace's demon" if you don't know what I'm talking about.) — Terrapin Station

Brilliant, so now I have the context I'm looking for. Determinism, and Laplacian determinism at that. The claim is made in this paragraph that it is now the standard view (that term 'standard view' is exactly the one used in the paragraph I'm trying to comment on) that the world is "not strongly deterministic". There's also reference to this being the case since the mid 1800s, the same "mid 1800s" as is mentioned in the paragraph I'm commenting on.

So now I have my context - the "standard view" referred to in the paragraph I'm concerned about must be the view that the world is not strongly deterministic, and "what was going on in the sciences after the mid-1800s" refers to undermining Laplace (you even helpfully suggest looking up Laplace's demon if we're unsure what you're talking about). So I do that.

Wikipedia has a helpful section under 'Laplace's demon' listing all the arguments against it (which is what we're looking for). Thermodynamic irreversibility, Quantum mechanical irreversibility, Chaos theory, Cantor diagonalization. The first is not the scientific consensus, it's one man's opinion and there are counter-arguments, so that can't be the argument we're looking for. The second is quantum mechanics and I've been told my quote about quantum mechanics not affecting the brain is not relevant, so that can't be it. The third and fourth are explicitly not about how things function, they're about how much we can predict them - free will is not about our ability to predict what actions will result from the state of the universe, it's about whether they are causal or not, so that's not it.

So Wikipedia is obviously insufficient to find which developments (other than quantum mechanics) are contrary to Laplace with regards to free-will.

So we try something more in depth. The SEP doesn't have an article on Laplace's demon, but it does has one on causal determinism which mentions Laplace's demon.

The first part is all about the confusion between determinism as a state of affairs and determinism as in 'predictability'. This is the only context in which Laplace's demon is mentioned. But since the debate about free-will is about a state of affairs, not our ability to predict that state, this must be irrelevant to what you're getting at. Plus, you mentioned that "standard view" of the sciences - so we can skip the sections on epistemology (that's not a view of the sciences). Next we come to "The Status of Determinism in Physical Theories". Great - herein we must surely find the "standard view" (that's not about quantum mechanics) to which you are referring, the one which the "there's no free will" crowd have neglected to take account of...

First we have "the trajectory of an object that is accelerated unboundedly" - no relation to brain processes there.

Then we have "multiple-particle collisions" - difficult to see that being related to brain processes either, but maybe.

Then, the issues with "infinite numbers of particles, infinite (or unbounded) mass densities, and other dubious infinitary phenomena" - hopefully we're not getting into that one.

An issue with a model "created by John Norton (2003)" - so not that (we're looking fo the view that's been standard for the last 150 years but isn't quantum mechanics).

Another is "a form of indeterminism first highlighted by Earman and Norton (1987)" - so not that.

Finally, "ordinary black holes" obviously don't have anything to do with brains, nor do white holes, although still "most white hole models have Cauchy surfaces and are thus arguably deterministic".

And there my research ended.

So I'm struggling to see how it is my reading comprehension which has field to yield the "standard view" of science which counters Laplace but which is neither quantum mechanics, nor about predictability and which yet affects the "classical objects" of the brain.

So perhaps you could now enlighten us as to what these views are?

Yeah, whatever. I'm quite happy to engage in a discussion, any time you feel like actually advancing anything beyond posturing, but I'm not going to play "guess what the fuck Terrapin is talking about". If my post doesn't address what you've said, then either explain what you've said better or ignore it. There's no discursive value to you just making personal judgements about how stupid everyone is who doesn't interpet your laconic pronouncements in exactly the way you meant them to be interpreted.