There is nothing necessarily supernatural about phenomenal illusions. They happen all the time - just ask the amputee who still 'feels' the missing leg. — Mike Adams

That is not an illusion. The amputee is still feeling the missing leg. It can be explained by viewing the body differently, but no reason to get into that. The feeling is quite real.

As for your utter disavowing of any type of determinism I would ask you this: if my conscious choices are in no way guided by my established psychology, how are they my choices. — Mike Adams

It is exactly, precisely what is happening. There are influences coming from all over the place (not just psychological) and then the mind makes a choice as to which direction to exert some willful energy. The choice manifests as an act of will in a direction.

Try it out as an experiment. You feel hungry. Think about it. Consider the foods you have available, all of them, and then reach and choose one. This experiment usually works well and there is no need to call upon some supernatural forces that are needed to guide me. It is all done by me.

No, determinism had no foundation as does the idea that there is no choice. It is an explanation that is indistinguishable from Calvinism.

'Experiencing' choice does not necessarily entail true choice in the metaphysical sense. The human experience is rife with illusion — Mike Adams

Well then, you have to come up with a cute explanation on how this illusion is created. One can look to Hinduism for inspiration.

Lacking faith in the Hindu explanation, I'll just allow my everyday day experience to be real. Others have three choice to believe in supernatural illusions if they so desire

If there is no choice, then you have determinism which is undermined by quantum physics and everyday experience. Determinism, if nothing else, is soggy and muddy. Do they seriously still teach this in schools? They might as well be teaching Calvinism.

There is no evidence of any sort of hidden variables. This, determinism is strictly a matter of faith. It is like waiting for some evidence for God.

Determinism is based on Newtonian mechanics, which is now superseded by quantum physics. In quantum physics 'uncaused' events are common place. The question is whether any 'control' can ever be exerted over quantum events. If so this could provide the metaphysical wiggle room that free will requires. — Mike Adams

No wiggle room required. Quantum physics pretty much destroys determinism.

As for choice, we all experience it every day of our lives. Or choices are experienced as the will that we generate to move in a particular direction or to draw our attention in a particular direction.

So there is no choice.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

(Next stop: Choice is an illusion).

Determinists still believe one makes choices and — Chany

It's a choice is being made then determinism is destroyed. There is a real choice being made by the mind.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

I remember Searle brought this point up in one of his lectures. He said someone once asked him if proof of the non-existence of free will was shown to him would he accept it. To accept it presumes the existence of free will because otherwise he couldn't "accept" it, it would already be determined whether he did or not. — JupiterJess

Of course, this is the ultimate silliness of the determinist philosophy/religion. The Natural Laws that are determining everything is arguing with itself trying to convince itself that it is determined after having convinced itself, through some illusion, that it has created, that it has some free will.

Nothing, no religion not any other convoluted philosophy, is as silly as determinism, and on top of all this, there isn't a single shred of evidence to support it. Determinism is a weird kind of religion of some sort. People just want to feel like their lives are completed fated. Go figure.

Computers commonly use pseudorandom algorithms — Michael Ossipoff

That's not what I mean. I said build computers (solid state electronics) not program computers. If the world was random, the Internet would fall into chaos.

Look at your messages on the topic. Your belief in determinism is entirely based upon faith. There is not one shred of evidence anywhere to support such a philosophical view. It is exactly, precisely, a religion in all shape and form. It is dogma.

The issue is that existence is in constant flux. We attempt to freeze it in order to make practical use of it, for example it is a pencil until it is gone. So b the floor from a tree to a pencil casing is continuous but our minds freeze it for practical purposes.

As for non-existence, we cannot describe it since words are designed to freeze. But we can experience it during sleep or some unconscious state.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do you feel that Newton's Laws comprehensively determine and can predict everything in the Universe? Is it your position that Newton's Laws is equivalent to the Laws of Nature?

Then define the laws of nature that comprehensively determines everything.

The term laws of nature has no concrete meaning. It is simply some supernatural force that it's omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, and determines everything. In other words, the equivalent of God. The historical roots of the term, as far as I can tell, was actually religious in nature being used to describe the mortality of God. Determinists simply adopted the term and dropped God for appearances sale.

It is therefore not surprising that everything being fated is a common thread between Calvinism (and other religious beliefs) and determinism.

Choice is made by the mind. The electrical impulses are the result of the choice. An analogy would be the transmission if a TV show from a studio precedes the reception in the TV set, the TV set being analogous to the brain. It is erroneous to state the the TV set (the brain) is the source and all TV shows are contained in the TV set , a silly notion but that is precisely the unsubstantiated status the science had assigned to the brain. Why? Science is goal seeking. It wants everything stuffed in the brain so that it can claim control over it, especially in the fields of neurology and medicine.

Quantum physics says that nothing can be contained anywhere. There are no boundaries.

They are measuring some electrical patterns in the brain and calling it the choice. There is no basis to call it such. This is what I mean by goal seeking science.

Deep level? Here is what Bohm writes of his equations in his book Science, Order and Creativity (1987):

"Although the interpretation is termed causal (his italics), this should not be taken as implying a form of complete determinism. Indeed it will be shown that this interpretation opens the door for the creative operation of underlying, and yet subtler, levels of reality."

Bohm and Bergson were on the same track including the concept that in some way the universe was holographic. Bohm's book is entirely about how quantum theory supports the notion of creative intelligence. Of course, all of this is ignored by those who wish to turn Bohm's equations into some deterministic theory, while it clearly cannot be. His equation uses a probabilistic function. It has to.

Bohm's requesting, the quantum potential, is and has to be probabilistic, thus allowing for creativity and choice, which also supports every day experience of every human being. The life we experience, filled with choices, is not an illusion concocted by some Laws of Nature nor the gods of Hinduism.

P.70 of the Oxford Handbook of Free Will completely supports my position on Bohm, and on determinism and quantum physics, particularly in light of the work by Conway and Kochen. However, scientists such as Hooft desperately keep seeking for ways to resuscitate determinism, even to the point of outlandish super-determinism. Why? Why are scientists so goal directed? This is an important question to ask since it provides insight into the science industry.

It is not deterministic in any sense. In the world we live in, it is probabilistic. Of course, scientists can invent a meta-world of some sort, which no one had access to and in some way we are smeared across an infinite number of worlds in such a meta-world in order to preserve determinism but it only demonstrates to what extent scientists will go in order to maintain determinism. Einstein tried his darndest. And scientists are not a bit embarrassed.

As for we as SEP IRA concerned, it looks like they just redefine determinism which is something that philosophers and scientists do when they become goal oriented.

BTW, I took the time to read the SEP version of Bergson and I would characterize it as goofy.

Here is another quote, and I can pull out thousands like it:

"Quantum mechanics is indeterministic, "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-free-will/

The real question is why do scientists, particularly those involved with neurology so dead set on making us into robots? It is really the question that should be explored.

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.

I believe it is likely that all animals are making choices. There are about as many laws for animal behavior as there are for human behavior which is zero. The concept of Laws of Nature are just bandied about hoping that no one will notice that the concept is equivalent to God.

say by the same laws — Samuel Lacrampe

Here lies the rub. There are no such laws. What we have are a hodgepodge of equations and theories about certain aspects of matter, none of which come anywhere close to explaining human behavior.

Dice are probabilistic and random. Random doesn’t mean that all outcomes are equally probable. — Michael Ossipoff

You can't build computers based upon a random roll like a die. You can build one based upon Schrodinger's equations. There is a big difference.

As far as randomness in determinism, it's quite your invention. Just one random event pretty much destroys all of determinism, but keep trying. A review of Calvinism, which is in total agreement with your philosophy is one avenue for further explanation. Just, whenever they use the word God, you should use the Laws of Nature.

There are "deterministic" interpretations of quantum mechanics. — prothero

Which interpretation would this be? I know of no such interpretation, since inherently the Schrodinger equation (which is Quantum physics) is probabilistic. There is no getting away from this.

Science travels a different path nowadays. The one lined with money. I have as much faith in their pronouncements as I have in Merck's or Big Tobacco. I'm going a different route (and it is all about faith).

I think that once one begins looking at the mind as some neural systems, all is lost. It would be like looking at a TV set to try to understand the nature of program development.

Quantum randomness wouldn't achieve free-will. — Michael Ossipoff

There is no quantum randomness. It is probabilistic. If it was random, then the Schrodinger equation would be worthless.

I have no idea what is free will. Humans have a choice in the direction of action they would like to try to take.

I won't try to understand the rest: random determinism?? Anyway, do what you have to do to convince yourself that your life is fated. If you need more arguments in your favor, I would recommend Calvinism.

should show there is a separation between attention, memory, habit and the kind of perceptual awareness that we ordinarily associate with "consciousness". — prothero

Staring at the problem, it appears there is no separation but rather a fluid movement between different qualities of attention. Habit, being a type of memory, functions without a no or nominal attention, depending upon the habit. The body memory simply does it unless intervened by a act of will. As activities present themselves to a mind, there may be greater or less awareness brought to a potential action which makes us more or less conscious of it, peripheral vision be being an example.

Problems arise when attempting to categories or separation, for some practical reason, onto a continuously flowing and changing process. It is the act of the mind to create an object, a conscious that creates a problem, but observing it there is no problem. It is just always changing in character.

What is most interesting is this state where the mind is seeking unconsciously apparently without any direct attention or awareness. The mind is pretty amazing.

and the planning was itself determined — Samuel Lacrampe

By what? And what is it that makes us feel like we are planning and choosing?

This is not speculation. You have not even yet established the meaning, ontology or validity of any claim for the existence of "soul". — charleton

I have, you just want to continue denying it. Heck, I'm not here to convince you to drop your religious faith. Live as you wish. If you want to be a computer, go to it. Fine with me.

I would not consider Dancing (Latin and Ballroom),or Tai Chi, as art, though there may be artistry in the performance.
I do sculpture — charleton

If course this is a matter of definition, but for me art is a manner of self-expression and dancing and Tai Chi would be every bit as artistic as any of the other arts.

Supposing that all actions are deterministic, what is the purpose of cognition, and consciously planning your actions?

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

Determinism has all kinds of flavors as deterministic philosophers and scientists try to figure out how to leave some meaning in their lives (they do use the pronoun I when referring to themselves as doing something, not the Laws of Nature). But I guess a strict determinist would say that whole experience of life is just one giant illusion concocted by the Laws of Nature and Natural Selection.

Thus it follows, it is quite natural for us to feel we are planning even though it really isn't so. The determinists, seeing right through the whole illusion are here to set us straight. As for me, I am still believing that we observe, plan and make choices as we navigate our lives. You might say, I haven't been enlightened yet.

In response to the first premise, I don't think I can imagine that I have no body or spatial location. — Caoimhe

Observe yourself during the sleep/dream process. Are you aware of your physical body? If not (I am not) them this is how you might imagine it. Daydreaming would be another example.

Motivation is the impulse (will) from the mind towards some action. Depending upon the action there may more or less will. For example the mind is more likely to create a significant impulse in order to breathe, maybe not so significant to make the bed.

There is a huge difference between what science is capable of stating and what individual or group of scientist actually state, on particularly in the field of biology and medicine where the bio-medical industry is way out of bounds.

Nowadays, with every inch of our world so polluted by money b and the desire by science to get some of that windfall of money (being printed incessantly by the central banks), I take with a grain of salt and new calamity or exciting new discovery that makes its way into the popular psyche (time travel anyone?).

I am not alone in questioning the many ways scientists have figured out how to arrive at desired results. The whole world has been turned into one giant scam. Too bad. My belief in that people will do anything for easy money remains unshakeable.

http://www.everythingselectric.com/gravitational-waves/

Waking up from sleep is less than walking up into birth. With walking from sleep there is memory of this life (physical memory) as well as past (learned skills). Still, "It's a new day". The mind has been refreshed and there is the possibilities of something new.

Birth retains past skills but has erased physical memories (in most cases) cleaning the slate and creating the possibilities for an entirely new game. Both cycles have similarities but differences.

To clarify, the actual act of going into a sleep state and coming out of a sleep state just happens. They are not willful acts.