free will and freedom of thought is a god given right .we were born that way and its been taken away by governments dictators and psycological experiments
free will is passive and deterministic is domonate therefor determinstics is imposed on free will then it willl be over rule, unless the indivual determines it's own outcome, without emotional or logical belief, but outside interferance then it becomes deterministic.
I find it interesting that in the discussion between MCTMD1 and WhiteHairedEdler, MCTMD1 apparently likes to have his cake and eat it too. He argues against free will but then turns around and says, "suddenly the magic became logic". When WhiteHairedElder points that the brain is too interconnected, getting feedback and giving feedback from the different sections, and language is too saturated with preconceived notions and emotion in order for the human to disconnect from these factors (GoTo 2)
(2) and use pure (unaffected by anything) logic, MCTMD1 insist such isn't so. He insinuates that so called "logic" operates within the realm of magic, completely disconnected from the individuals previous mental development and current mental state. When WhiteHairedElder points out such phenomenon as Nazi Germany, MCTMD1 said, "Thinking that you are logical doesn't make it so....we have been evolutionarily programmed to be selectively irrational at times." LOL Then "logic" is a religious belief.
Ask a Christian why Christians held the Inquisition and tortured so many people to death, and you will get the reply, "Well, you see, those Christians (that held the Inquisition) were not True Christians." Ask MCTMD1 why a particular person or people committed similar atrocious acts, and you will likely get the reply, "Well, you see, that person (or those people) had the magic power of logic but freely choose to be selectively illogical." Whew! Please count me out of this quagmire of bull crap.
Yes, neurons are made of electrons, among other subatomic particles. But the uncertainty is only relevant when trying to nail down the position and momentum of an electron. The indeterminacy cancels out and chemistry becomes causal, that's how come there are static rules that the chemicals obey. The gross communication of neurons is a coordination of circuitry that will soon be copied, it has already started. See Jeff Hawkins' Hierarchical Temporal Memory.
Random events, presuming they do happen, would become part of the causal network but would not be freely chosen in any sense of the term. When events happen at a scale below our ability to see the causal factors involved, it does not mean no causal factors were involved. Free will is the god of the volcano invented by our ignorant ancestors. Both free will and moral responsibility are unscientific religious terms. Moral responsibility is irrelevant to behavior modification and protecting society
I am quite confident that moral resposibility is irrelevant in a deterministic universe. That is precisely why it bothers me.
Saying that consideration of free will is unscientific is bold and stubborn. Your 'view' of what science is does not define 'reality'. This is one of my axioms. Science studies what 'reality' is and breaks it down into simple models which can be understood by us simpletons. Greater minds have struggled with this debate and have been unable to make a decisive conclusion.
Great minds of the past didn't have information now available from microneurobiology, from neurology, from neuroimaging, and from studies in child psychological/mental development. The brain that is responsible for a choice shall be held accountable for the choice and free will and so called moral responsibility are irrelevant to the issue. The thirsty gazelle that chooses to get a drink of water from the lion infested watering hole is responsible for the choice--not me nor you--just the gazelle
Stochastic models don't explain anything. Stochastic models merely say the phenomenon is too complex and chaotic to be able to be determined (ascertained) with any degree of preciseness. Besides, no reputable scientist says the human brain is free from causality. Even a supposed random event would become part of the causal network. And please tell me who besides you claim scientists have given up on understanding brain processes and now resort "stochastic models" as admission of their ignorance.
Why don't you look it up yourself? My argument on free will is from a philosophical and physical point of view. I'm not interested in getting into a neurological debate.
Neurons, boutons, axons, dendrites, and synapses are physical. Oh, and your argument is flawed because neither quantum randomness nor causality permit free will. Causality would make free will impossible and so would quantum theory. Random events happening below the atomic scale couldn't be consciously chosen to result in a particular outcome. And so if there was a quantum effect on a choice, the choice might not be causally determined, but it certainly wasn't free from quantum effects either.
I've heard the same argument over and over and over and always it is an argument of incredulity. Never one shread of logic involved. It is always on not being able to see how the quality of randomness can account qualities required by free will. Proof! Not just words of incredulity.
Free will is religious dogma as taught in the Judeo-Christian Bible. No one can disprove the Garden of Eden and the talking snake story. But no one can disprove invisible and immaterial pink unicorns with purple spots either. However, if I made the claim such existed, the burden of proof would be on me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Free will is an unnecessary entity as far as understanding brain functions. You are making an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you!
Our ancient ancestors imagined invisible entities under the ground as being responsible for phenomena we call volcanoes. Science can't disprove such entities, but they are unnecessary for explaining the volcano. Likewise, our ignorant ancestors imagined an invisible entity within the human body that was unaffected by the structure and state of the body, and this entity was imagined as responsible the the phenomenon of choice. This "entity" is also unnecessary for explaining human choice behavior
You could define free will as the type of fingernail polish that is now referred to as red. Then by definition, many females would have free will and practically no male would. However, I paint my Chihuahua's fingernails sometimes, meaning during those times she would have free will. Free will could be defined as those brain components necessary for choice behavior. Naturally nonhuman animals have similar components, but by definition, the free will oxymoron could be made to apply only to humans
You seem like a very reasonable person, sir. I appreciate it. I think we are on the same page mostly, see above. Am I to understand that you do not believe that we have moral responsibility in a God-less and deterministic universe? I know it matters how we define things, but I believe if correctly defined, morality is objective and matters quite a bit in fact, if one wishes to live as a human. What say you?
The problem with the assumption of so called "moral responsibility" is that it comes from the notion that everyone has an inborn sense of what is "bad" and what is "good." But as a WhiteHairedElder, I've come to realize that a person's sense of "good" and "bad" develop as a result of personal experiences. Feral children have the morals of an animal, which basically are the morals that one is truly born with. Visit FatGermanBastard's channel. Also watch?v=f5ZjG5YyrS0 and watch?v=QjvyZJDbJHs
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action. (Albert Einstein)
The human is a herd/pack/social animal. We have instincts that compel us to abide by the morals of the group to which we belong; and sometimes our herd instincts conflict with personal morals. Nazi death camps sometimes conflicted with personal morals of German people.
Not too bad, imo. We are certainly programmed with emotional/instinctual/lower brain functions, but we humans are unique in that it is our rationality that allows for and necessitates morality. We can learn how to choose correctly and apply what we have learned to overcome adversity. Sound judgement and action and therefore sound morality can be obtained when or is only as good as it corresponds to reality. What is practical is moral.
This regards only the individual since mind is individual in nature and only a mind can decide. We are, by the nature of existence, responsible for our own decisions. This is the morality of which I write, that dictated the nature of our world and not according to some god or some group. It's the individual that matters.
My intuition makes me feel you give rationality more power over humans than what exists in reality. Teaching a child to understand and use language as we all know and use it is impossible without associating signs/symbols/vocalizations to imagery and emotion. And the emotion inherent to language infects our attitudes and opinions in ways that we are usually wholly ignorant of. The difference of opinion that you are having with dartplayer170 probably wouldnt exists if rationality ruled emotion
In fact, you'll note that when a person--be it a Christian, Muslim, or anyone else--feels strongly (which is another way of saying, highly emotional) about an issue then he (or she) will exaust the limits of his (or her) rationale in an effort to justify the feeling. Some individuals will fight to the death to protect their emotionally based beliefs. What was discussing herasy like during the period of the Inquisition. What is discussing North Korea or pedophelia like in the US in this age?
Yes, when people give up reason and the pursuit of knowledge, it is their emotion that is demonstrated. All religion. This irrationality is the source of so much evil in the world. I do believe there is, without a doubt, an evolutionary force selecting for irrationality, but we no longer need to bow to the church or swear to the Fuhrer, in order to survive. Thes selection forces are diminishing. We are stronger without them nowadays, especially if we are lucky enough to be somewhat free.
The average human does not function by learning complex logic and deductive discourse. The mechanisms and lessons that prevent a man from pooping in his pants are equivalent to the mechanisms and lessons that prevent a "house-trained" dog from pooping on the floor. The mechanisms and lessons that result in a man having a preference for steak over vegetarianism are not based on logic and deductive reasoning. Emotions can be productive or counterproductive. That is, emotions can be logical or nay.
Humans form emotional attachments to things (including ideas) that seem beneficial. And once an emotional attachment is formed, it is not easily undermined by contrary facts. Religion is an example.
Logic is not science though it has been called, "the Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning." However, logic cannot make scientific discoveries but can help make sense of complex issues.
Logical fallacies are effective in argument because the public is ignorant of the rules and strategy of logic
Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. You cannot do science without logic. I do not know of these "logical fallacies" you write. Looks like an oxymoron.
"...'logical fallacies'... Looks like an oxymoron."
Logical fallacies are a category of particular types of fallacies. It is broken down to subcategories consisting of formal fallacies, informal fallacies, inductive fallacies, and relevant fallacies. And Wikipedia breaks these subcategories down to a total of 75 fallacies.
Nevertheless, by gosh, I never thought about it but you're right: The term "logical fallacy" by itself could be considered an oxymoron.
Yeah right, try to live one day, while appealing to emotion instead of reason. You don't cross the street without looking because you know what might happen. What you feel is irrelevant. Emotions are never logical. You may have a logical understanding of your emotions, but they are automatic responses to new perceptual or conceptual evidence.
Yeah right, try to live one day, while appealing to emotion instead of reason. You don't cross the street without looking because you know what might happen. What you feel is irrelevant. Emotions are never logical. You may have a logical understanding of your emotions, but they are automatic responses to new perceptual or conceptual evidence.
What does "appealing" to emotion instead of reason have to do with crossing the street? A city-dwelling dog learns to look both ways before crossing the street. Are you saying the dog either "appeals" to emotion or he "appeals" to reason in order to cross?
Since language is loaded with emotional bias, and since language is necessary for "logic," how can you LOGICALLY say that emotions are never logical. Sounds like the "logic" you claim overrides emotion, is another argument for free will.
Man often claimed himself as being the most intelligent animal. But then I reckon he has an emotional bias. The whale may have a larger repertoire of information stored inside his brain, he may be able to navigate the oceans of the world unaided by technology, but we classify the whale as less "intelligent" than us. The notion possibly comes from the illusive assumption that the human is as smart as all the books in all the libraries in all the world. Fact: The human is the most emotional animal
A whale or any animal cannot even remotely rival a human's ability to have knowledge about the world and predict. It is in the size of our cortex. Our cortex allows more reasoning. It is the lower more primitive aspects of our nervous system that are responsible for our rough instinctual emotional guide. There is one path to knowledge and it is reason, the art of noncontradictory integration of perceptual/conceptual evidence.
The dog learns cause and effect, emotion can have nothing to do with the knowledge necessary for safe street crossing. Of course emotion can play a role in crossing the street, but it is not integral to its safe crossing. You can have any number of emotions about the crossing of the street, but only knowledge of when it is clear gets you safely across. Please give me a concrete example of a logical emotion. I am not arguing for freewill, just causality and rationality.
Again you seem to be ignoring the fact that language itself is the association of emotion and images to sounds/signs/symbols. When you use language, the emotion that was associated to the sound/sign/symbol and modified by further experience is still there. That is the reason atheists find emotional release in "God damnit," even though they know the term is illogical.
Imagine having a "logical" discussion about homosexuality a few years ago, when psychology had it listed as a mental disease.
When you point out the atrocities committed by followers of the Christian Religion to another follower of the religion generally you get the reply that the others were not True Christians. Now allow me to ask you whether Hitler thought he was being logical or not? Allow me to ask whether the great majority of Germany thought of themselves as being illogical? Suppose you had been born in Germany and grew up to be a youth during the Nazi era, would you have acted radically differently than others?
Thinking that you are logical doesn't make it so. Hitler was illogical, Christians too. And the droves of Hitler's youth. I probably would have been also if I was born in Germany, 1915. As I wrote before, in order to survive, we have been evolutionarily programmed to be selectively irrational at times. Also, it might be logical, to pretend to think Nazism is correct. Self preservation. Thanks to those that came before me, I am free enough to stand by my convictions.
Language is not the association of emotions and images! It is the logical coupling of sounds and objective concepts. Subjective feelings don't make language. Just because emotion, by definition accompanies thought, does not make it responsible for knowledge, only reason can do that. Your emotional apparatuses are attached physically to your cortex, that is why the old brain non-logic of emotionality is always there.
You sound like a simplistic introduction to the brain printed a hundred years ago. Feral children should be able to use logic by your reasoning. The brain cannot be divided as you state. The different sections are too integrated and dependent on one another. There is no absolute control center within the brain. There is not a more primitive aspect of the nervous system. There is only the nervous system as it exists and functions within each of us. What is primitive? Breathing? Sleeping? What?
Emotion is an intense mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes. To say that logic overrules emotion is equivalent to saying that logic can overrule the effect of drinking so that one can drive.
Emotion can also be described as a feeling--an internal mode of stimulation used by instinct. I wonder how logical you can be when your emotion is telling you that you have diarrhea and are about to shit in your pants?
Logic does not override emotion, but can prioritize appropriately. I can be angry about something and not lash out. I can be happy about something and not smile. Alcohol will affect the whole brain, and both it and diarrhea have little to nothing to do with what we are debating. Emotion doesnt tell you you have diarrhea, peripheral nerves relay the information to your primary sensory cortex, then to secondary association areasthought. You then have an emotional response to this knowledge.
You are obviously not a neurologist or a cognitive neuroscientist. I am writing about the basics of neurology because it is these very basic concepts you are ignoring. Emotion is a reaction to thought and can affect it. But it isn't thought. Pick up a neurology book, yes, breathing and sleeping (brain stem functions, see reticular activation center) are evolutionarily much older than reason (cortical functions). Basic neuroscience.
Feral children have human cortices, and if not deprived of stimulation during early childhood they will use reason and will develop simple language even without any help. To dispute this is to have very little knowledge of human cognitive development. We are the rational animal, by way of our genetics, not our family.
All animals have instinct and lower more simple central nervous systems, humans reason with our evolutionarily brand new large cortex. Sure the parts are integrated/connected, they must be so to function as an animal; this is how come our emotions affect us.
Reason (rationality) is our ONLY guide to knowledge. This happens in our big cortex. Concept formation and integration does not depend on any emotion. Emotions are our subcortical function's response to cortical information. If emotion ran our lives we would not live one day. You need reason to function at the most basic level (as a human). We cannot live on instinct, emotion and our old non-cortical brain as animals do. This is why we must be nurtured for a decade before we can be autonomous.
Complex concept formation is dependent on human language--no language, no complex concept. Human language is emotion and imagery associations to vocalizations and/or signs or symbols. A child cannot learn language without being shown the image of something while making a sound (or while showing a sign/symbol) in order for the image to become associated with the sound/sign/symbol. And a child cannot learn language as we know and use it by the teacher speaking through a voice synthesizer to (To2)
(2) remove emotional tonal variances, and speaking from behind a curtain so that emotional gestures cannot be detected. In fact, emotion is so bound up in language that one word can have opposite meanings according to the emotion displayed by the speaker. Man that's "bad," can have two meanings.
We eat, drink, sleep, breed, urinate, defecate, et cetera, as the result of instinct. Without instinct, man would reason that it was too much trouble, or he'd do it later, and end up going extinct.
I'm not saying that emotions don't effect us all day long, just that concept formation is objective. It doesn't matter how we feel about it, a chair is a chair. And this concept is formed by retaining the essential qualities and omitting the measurements of these qualities. It is the objective nature of reality and concept formation that allows us to communicate, not how we feel about the world. You make very good points, but you are talking about psychology.
I'm saying that concept formation of a dog is as objective as the concept formation of a human. And should a human and a dog sit in a vibrating chair with a bare wire and get shocked, both the dog and the human will tend to avoid similar chairs in the future. I'm saying that the beliefs held by the majority of people in this country indicate the majority of people are quite ignorant of logic. Also those who do use "logic" don't see eye to eye, meaning something is wrong with you picture of logic
One Sunday Service years ago I recall during the sermon the Holiness Preacher said, "Psychology is the Religion of Secular Humanism." At that time I was ignorant of the many and sometimes conflicting schools of thought in psychology, but I took his word. Since then I've come to realize the many and occasionally conflicting schools of thought, combined with the differences in interpretation, application, and diagnostics of the average practitioner makes psychology more a religion than a science.
I hesitate to read anything starting with, "One Sunday Service...." but, my God, you took the word of a priest/minister?!! I think we are done if you honestly think that psychology is more a religion than a science. Religion is dogmatic and based on faith. Psychology, while still nebulous and likely being replaced by cognitive neuroscience does not require commitment to ignorance.
I wouldn't hesitate reading anything you've written, regardless of how you start it out. I do hesitate and occasionally don't read the preprinted misconceptions on cards received every December proclaiming what the reason for the season is and the origins of the winter solstice celebration.
Seems you fail to realize not all religions are dogmatic; and faith is based on the evidence of witness testimony and personal experience, just as some psychologists base their blind faith in psychology on
So you think a person is automatically a liar just because he (or she) happens to be a priest/minister, as my brother-in-law is?
I no longer have any religious faith. Some of my life's experiences resulted in me realizing man made God in his image and likeness. But at least I understand the Christian better than one who has never been there.
Anyway, I'm burnt out on commenting here. I'll not respond to any comment from this point on. Send me a message if you want any further communication.
Not a liar, just willfully ignorant. I understand Christianity well, and have done much research on many religions. Was raised Catholic. Never took it seriously, when my brother, at about 8 years old, looked at me and said, in church, you aren't going to kneel? Against God's will? Ha, that's a joke, a very sick one. Antiquated philosophy. Ancient. I'm sure what your brother is doing is great, for people who can't or do not wish to think for themselves. I am seriously glad you have realized...
"One Sunday Service" should warrant the same respect as an Hannuka or little baby Jesus Christmas card. Faith, by definition, is belief in the absence of evidence. Willful ignorance. Witness testimony is not evidence. Personal experience is subjective. Name a religion that is not dogmatic.
"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."
Psychology involves the scientific method, and, again, even though chalk full of irrationality and psycho-babble(Freud), is always open to criticism, testing, discussion, debate, etc. Not so with religion.
Because people disagree doesn't mean there is something wrong with "my" logic. Minds disagree because they by definition have different objective information. We both will avoid electric chairs because that is an objectively bad thing to deal with. If sit in e-chair, then get shocked. Shock is painful. If sit in chair, then pain. 2 Syllogisms -conclusion. Logic.
Now with that objective knowledge, you can feel different ways about the chair, the shock and the pain, but that cannot change the logical conclusion.
Free will is an abstract concept. It is not a tangible set of components. You could say that a set of brain components are resposible for free will. What "definition" are you referring to.
Free will is a mental construct like the entities our ancient ancestors imagined living underground and creating volcanoes. I define free will as it is commonly used. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1975) defines "free will" as "the power asserted of moral beings of choosing within limitations or with respect to some matters without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law." Note the part about without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law. SuperSupernatural
It's not an ad hominem at all. Discussion about what our ancient ancestors thought or did is speculative and based primarilly on assumptions made by a few authorative people who research historical remains. It is widely speculated that our ancestors looked at the stars because of their devine inclinations. Maybe it was because the skies were spectaculor scenery that inspired their curiosity. After all, they could see 9 times as many stars without light polution.
LOL! My statement is dogma? What are you drinking/smoking/eating? So when I note that a belief in free will is preached from the pulpit of every church in the land, when I note that most religious authorities believe free will is absolutely true and promote it accordingly, you suddenly claim that my noting the facts is dogma. Wow, how much more ironic can you get than that? I would like to know how you made my observation into a dogma?
Yeah, actually, looking back I see that you stated "religious dogma" and went on some religious rant and I somehow transposed some other aspect of your discussion of free will as dogmatic. I pretty much ignored your entire speil about religion because I don't see any connection to free will at all with religion. If you want to argue about religion, you're probably talking to the wrong person because I'm probably not going to object to any of your views.
Moral responsibility is very relevant in our universe (which is deterministic). If I jump off a cliff, without precautionary measures, I will die. Therefore it is moral to not do so. For the same reason it is moral to treat others as I would like to be treated. It is our reason that allows morality, not some spirit, or magic in the brain. We make causal decisions to make our lives better.
Moral responisbility as you describe it , is an illusion. You had no choice but to do what was already determined for you to do. This is what determinism is by definition. So there is no point in assigning moral responsibility to anything. You treat others wih respect because it was determined for you yo do so. There is no moral reason because you were not able to freely choose that moral reason. Your morals were given to you by a long chain of deterministic events.
Nothing was already determined. It's not pre-determinism. This does not mean that there is no point in assigning responsibility. Again, if you causally choose to murder and get caught, it is very reasonable, for the rest of society to protect itself from you. It is your fault you did it, but it is not your fault that you were born and that reality is causal. We still have will and we can decide not do murder.
Determinism. Not pre-determinism. It would take a pyschic to determine things before the moment they are determined. Things happen causally, but no one knows exactly what complex things will happens tomorrow. They are not pre-determined. No on can see the future or determine anything before it is possible. Causality, not ESP. You think choice is acausal, I do not.
You said "nothing was already determined". Causality is a vague word which allows you to argue amny incongruent things. I like to avoid its use if possible. You bring it into play far to often to cloud the issue. Causality does not imply determinism.
Nope, just will. Volition. Choice. Not free. Freewill is a primitive concept. Let it go. I understand that it is difficult to assign blame when a person can only do what it is their nature to do, but there just is no possible way the will can be free, and we must assign responsibility to subject society to law.
Then the decison is an illusion. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Eithrer the decision was free or it is an illusion. This is your basic argument against free will.
No it's not. People choose. That I can prove. It is real and not an illusion. You have freedom to choose, but the choice is causal, or determined by the identity of all factors involved. I have plenty of freedom to go left or right (at the moment), but the choice will be determined by my mood, my personality, my temperature, my memories, my goals.....
Then the decison is an illusion. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Eithrer the decision was free or it is an illusion. This is your basic argument against free will.
Why did you reply to me? Whats the point? Are you trying to prove free will impossible by giving an example that, should it be true, would mean unforeseeable events happening outside of conscious awareness could causally but randomly effect choice behavior, thereby making the effected choice the fault of randomness instead of the fault of the chooser? So? I already know that both randomness and causality disprove the hypothetical notion commonly referred to as free will.
Moral responsibility is very relevant in this causal universe! If I jump off a cliff with no precaution, I will die. This is not moral. For the same reason, I treat others with respect. It is reason that allows morality, nothing else. If you make a causal choice to steal, then it is reasonable to charge you with the crime. You are still responsible!!! Just causally.
Correct definitions are paramount. They are correct and only work as well as they entail only essentials. It is the imprecise defining of terms, or the defining of them based on tradition or convention, that results in logical contradiction. The inclusion of metaphor into definitions also messes things up. We must redefine anything that is not correct to progress our understanding. Choice and determinism are almost always defined improperly.
Causality is necessary for concept formation. The scientific method is dependent and based on the universality of causality. I was not saying that QM IS perception. Only that QM effects appear non-causal because this is the limit (as of now) of our perception, since we use photons as our tool of perception, there will be no causality smaller than this, from our perspective, since we use photons to learn about causality or anything visual.
Nothing, ever, has been shown to do something other than its structure dictates. In our world (macroscopic reality), balloons filled with hydrogen or helium go up, in this atmosphere, and those filled with sand go down. A person who has certain convictions, personality traits, mood, neurochemical composition, temperature, etc., must make a certain decision determined by the state of his or her electroneurochemical transmission apparatus. It is a causal process. It must be.
There is no magic in the brain. For a non-causal process would require a supernatural explanation. See law of identity. Reason, the art of noncontradictory integration of conceptual information, would not be possible if causality was not universal. The world would be indescribable, if things did not always refer to those same things. This is more easily understood in the context of the law of identity. For, if something has no specific identity, then it cannot exist.
And if it acts in a way other than that dictated by its identity, then something supernatural has occurred. Even though our decisions appear non-causal or magical, they are not. Since we can now understand why the sun "comes up", we no longer pray for some god to make it come up or think that it has one some daily battle and trip back from the underworld. "Freewill" is for those who wish to live with the mentality of the dark ages, imo. Why is plain simple "will", so unattractive an idea?
Listen, the Word of God says man has free will. That's that. You just have to believe. And the times it said God done something to change someone's mind, well God didn't do anything to their free will. They didn't have to change their mind because they have free will, but they sort of had to because whatever God did he knew would cause them to change their own mind. God didn't change it, He only influenced them in a real powerful way. Free will! Got it? You're bound for Hell if you don't believe
Wow, you are kooky! The Word of God says the Word of God is the Word of God so it must be the Word of God! Simple. Duh! The Word of God says God gave man free will. So, since the Word of God says the Word of God is the Word of God, and since the Word of God says man has free will, then man has free will. Case closed. Philosophical debate is useless. You're going to Hell if you don't believe. Your free choice: Believe or fry! Watch my Freewill vs. Nonfreewill Playlist and maybe you'll get it.
No, MCTMD1, what is truly hysterical is that when someone like Unseenstrings tries really hard to make an ridiculously illogical pun to show the irony of blind belief, sometimes it is hard to figure out whether it is actually a pun or some blind believer expressing his illogical concepts. Now that is really wild!
"Side Note: Any comment or video reply that attacks anyone's character or motives (ad hominem fallacy) instead of using logical argument against a person's comment or an argument of the video will be removed from the video comments. "
I would appreciate it if you upheld your own words on my channel. Thank You.
I have little doubt that MCTMD1 checked out my channel and realized I was not launching an ad hominem fallacy against him but was merely being punny. LOL! Get it. Pun... Funny... Punny!
3 - "will" plain and simple is an illusion if the universe is deterministic
decisons are not magical. they are a complex system which is beyond our curretn understanding. to try and make logical conclusions based on a process which we don't curretnly understand is dubious.
1) Will, or the absence of magic, does not negate responsibility.
2) So?
3) Freewill is the illusion. Will actually exists and it is causal. The deterministic nature of reality is what makes will, it cannot be negated, or made illusory, by it.
1 - there is no intelligent reason for assigning responsibility to determined processes. Very simple and logical concept.
2 - do complex things normally evolve for no reason?
3 - "will" has no purpose in a deterministic universe. The intention of will has no comparative counter-part. By Ocam's razor, there is no need for the concept of will in a deterministic universe.
I never said causality was dubious. Your conclusions are dubious. Which part of that sentence was unclear?
1 - But I didn't call 2+2=5 logical. Strawman argument.
2 - That's how evolution works. It uses a process of selection. What do you want? Should I lie and say that nature does not select?
3 - We all make choice every day. But you say it is an illusion. I say will is an illusion. In a deterministic universe you are no different than a robot. Do robots have will?
1) I'm just saying that calling something logical doesn't necessarily make it so. Drawing an analogy is not a strawman argument.
2) No, don't lie. Complex things evolve because of causality. That is the reason. There is no underlying purpose or goal. Only humans do that.
3) Choice is not an illusion. Never said that. Freewill is an illusion. If robots could make decisions, then yes, they have will. I am a biological robot.
1 - my statement was in fact very logical. You assign an analogy which is not even remotely comparable to my statement and then make me look as if I am wrong because of your analogy. That is a strawman argument. You never argued the logic of my statement. Instead you drew a ridiculous analogy which I agree is illogical.
How could they do otherwise in a world which is one long causal chain? They had choice. What choice. It is just illusion of choice by your definition. If not, then you are not arguing for determinism. I cannot see any other possibilities. You are possibly arguing for weak determinism which is not incompatible with free will.
They could not have made a different choice. I think you are assuming that implicit in the definition of choice is freewill. Choice, imo, is a causal process, like the universe playing out a big grand causal chain. We call it choice because it was previously only a probability, to our eyes. Will I go left or right, not even I know, until I decide.
2 - Read the theory of evolution. It involces random mutations. Nothing causal about that.
"The other major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population"
-stop the ridiculous insults please, like I'd care about any of this shit if I wasn't well versed, son.
The genetic changes that you and whoever you are quoting refer to are not actually random in that they are causal, the process of non-disjunction that results in a new alternate genetic code are dependent on causal processes.
They are random in that we cannot see the different codes, or that they are not made to deal with any selection process in particular and subsequently prosper when they just happen to provide advantage. Nice try though. Seriously, that's a good point.
No reason? LOL That is as funny as saying only humans have consciousness. Any trait/mutation that ended up being integrated into the gene pool did so for a reason. One of the reasons is selective pressures. Oh, and the real funny part is that what we call consciousness is actually blind to much more than it is aware of. Consciousness is merely a filtering system that prevents the organism from being overwhelmed by stimuli and brain processes
There is no underlying goal or purpose to nature. The REASON anything happens is causal. The 8-ball went into the pocket because it was hit by the cue-ball, that is the causal reason. The person started the process for the moral reason or purpose of winning the billiards game.
Of course the REASON anything happens is causal. That is what I said and also gave a causal example. Even if so called "random" events really do happen at the particle level of atoms, the event, though it wasn't chosen and couldn't have been foreseen, would merely become, as an after effect, part of the causal fabric of the universe.
Winning a game of billiards has a moral reason or purpose? Did you learn that moral from the story of Cool Hand Luke?
Agreed. Well put. Yes winning a game is moral endeavor as opposed to an amoral causal event. We humans give purpose to action. Every action a human takes can be said to be moral or immoral. Does it benefit the goals of one's life or does it do the opposite. Albeit, playing a game to win is less of a moral concern than getting a job to support one's children.
CHL, that's funny, I've never watched it, but one of my x-girlfriends loved it and recommended it to me often, never got to it. Would you recommend I watch it?
Actually I mistakenly said Cool Hand Luke when I meant The Hustler. Both are better than most of the crap being produced now-a-days. Of course, I only could recommend them if I knew your tastes. If you are more into the karate/fist fighting, gun-shooting, bomb-exploding types of movies instead of movies based more on the narrative, then the movies may not be for you. The narrative is what makes these movies what they are, not the action.
I have no clue what you are referencing when you talk about morals in a billiard game. Moral responsibility is the concept that actions can be blamed on an individual which has control to make ethical decisions. If the decisions are not free then the individual does not have control. Thus, illogical to assign blame.
MCTMD1 commented on the morals of a billiard game. I merely replied to his comment.
What does playing the blame game have to do with social control? Suppose an American Soldier received a head injury while defending his country. Suppose this hero developed violent tendencies as a result of the injury. What would playing the blame game have to do with society protecting itself from this injured soldier? When a little girl is given money for sexplay and grows up to be a whore, just blame her?
1 - "Nothing ever" - I would just like to point out that science relies on reproducibility of controlled experiments. So this claim is dubious. "Nothing has ever been demonstrated which is reproducible under controlled conditions."
2 - Is the fundamental level at which the brain makes decisions macroscopic?
3 - All causal process at the macroscopic level are still limited by the uncertainty principle. This begs the question of whether they are deterministic
1) What? It's just impossible. I can't prove that things don't do what they do. They only do what science has reproducibly shown is possible by the laws of reality.
2) Maybe not, but I think it is clear that it is at a higher level than the electron.
3) No, the uncertainty principle only applies to the limit of perception, in this reference frame. Only when we attempt to nail down the precise measurements of momentum and position, do we find probability, but macroscopically they cancel out.
1 - is an informal fallacy "denying the anticedent". Science cannot say anything about conclussive about an incident which is non-repeatable. It cannot be proven, but it is a fallacy to assume that means disproof
2 - Spectroscopy is explained by electrons. It is an importatn tool in many scientific fields
3- Read about what scientists say. One of the biggest criticisms of hidden variable theory is Ocam's Razor. You cannot deny this if you want, but it is the case
1- Which non-repeatable incident are you referring to? Are you suggesting that we do not have any knowledge that is demonstrated reproducibly? Like the speed of light. Things that cannot be proven do not need to be disproved, i.e. God or spirit.
2- This does not negate causality's universality in the macroscopic realm. Electrons are necessary for a book to simply be. We talk about almost all of chemistry in terms of electrons. Entities interacting. Everything bigger is deterministic and causal. Including choice. Not just because our brains are physical organs based in a universe of entities, but because our bases of cognition depend on, presuppose and are built by causally interacting matter with identity.
3- I have no delusions about what quantum theory says. It's just that entities interact causally outside the limit of perception (where matter and energy are exchanged at the subatomic level).
Causality must be presupposed simply think or talk or act or learn or anything! What would it mean if things did not only do exactly what they are capable based on their structure, but something else? It would mean a non-causal world and you could predict nothing. And identity would cease to mean anything.
You do not understand the definition of non-determinism. It does not imply that everything thing is random. It implies not everything is determinate. Big difference!
Wrong. Things do only what they can based on their structure, every time. This is causality. If something is not determinate, then it is random. That's the definition of random.
Unfortunately, reality is reality. It is not defined by how we think it must work. If reality is such that some things cannot be defined by causality then that it the way it is.
I think it is fortunate that reality is reality and not something else. For if it were not we would not be. What cannot be defined by causality, other than those things beyond the limit of our perception?
Unfortunately, reality is reality. It is not defined by how we think it must work. If reality is such that some things cannot be defined by causality then that it the way it is.
What? Did you not argue earlier that predictability is not required for determinism? If I throw a dice 1 000 000 times I can still make predictions about what will happen. They're just limited by certain statistical errors. I need not know any cause/effect for the dice roll and can still confidently make predictions.
It is choice that we cannot predict, but we can predict the probability of dice, but we cannot predict which number will come up, without knowledge of every physical detail involved.
Any. Have no clue what the 2nd sentence is even saying. What's wrong with the speed of light? Hidden variables cannot be proven yet determinists seem to spend a lot of time trying.
"It cannot be proven, but it is a fallacy to assume that means disproof"
-The burden of proof is on you. I am not trying to disprove anything per se, just show you that freewill is as valid as God, which is also unprovable. One cannot be called upon to prove a negative, or something that does not exist.
smaller than what? the wavelength of a photon? We can easily devise experiments which use photons of much smaller wavelengths and make empiricial conclusions based on the results. Photons in the visual wavelength are not required.
Simultaneous knowledge of both momentum and position, silly. Sorry if it wasn't clear that "simultaneous" was meant to apply, as an adjective to both momentum and position. I didn't mean the whole thing as a noun.
I had a feeling that was what you meant but momentum requires more than one observation. So, what is simultaneous wrt momentum measurements? I guess that what you mean is instantaneous calculations of momentum
Macroscopically, we can easily determine the momentum and position of a body. Instantaneous velocity is not a problem where there is no particle wave duality. I know, shit's crazy when we talk subatomic, but again, that doesn't change the fact that there is no unmoved mover in the brain, or anywhere else. Or at least, that I see evidence for.
OK friend, but if you think that .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent or so uncertainty in mass or velocity applies significant macroscopically, then you're right. We would have a very difficult time even detecting a mass difference of this size in the case of a ping-pong ball! Do you have an example where uncertainty matters macroscopically?
Why do you think they teach it at university? To waste our time? Surely you can see the difference in size of a ping pong ball compared to a neuron. After all, we are talking about brain functions not table tennis.
It definitely should be taught in the University, but it should remain in the physics class and have nothing to do with concept formation and causal decision making. I can't say that I know exactly how neurons create consciousness, but they do, that's for sure. Every choice you make is dependent on the previous connections your neurons made as well as other stuff, but it all comes down to the storage and manipulation of information, real information in the real world.
Your choices are not free of this. Your will cannot possibly be free from the existent structure of your brain. The uncertainty while measuring the position or momentum of an electron is moot when discussing neurons, neurotransmitters and the causal nature of information manipulation. There is no reason to think that quantum effects are in any way responsible for choice.
How can it be moot? Neurons are made of electrons. No? Chemistry of cells are explained by electron exchanges. In fact, the electrical activity of the neurons comes from the electron charge. Moot? Convenient argument for you to call it moot. Proove it is moot. There is ample reason, we understand how things work by breaking them down into smaller structures. In fact this is the core of your argument that freedom cannot dome from randomness.
free will and freedom of thought is a god given right .we were born that way and its been taken away by governments dictators and psycological experiments
trishtashha 1 month ago
free will is passive and deterministic is domonate therefor determinstics is imposed on free will then it willl be over rule, unless the indivual determines it's own outcome, without emotional or logical belief, but outside interferance then it becomes deterministic.
taijimasster 2 years ago
I'll try to engage more special effects next time
dartplayer170 2 years ago
I find it interesting that in the discussion between MCTMD1 and WhiteHairedEdler, MCTMD1 apparently likes to have his cake and eat it too. He argues against free will but then turns around and says, "suddenly the magic became logic". When WhiteHairedElder points that the brain is too interconnected, getting feedback and giving feedback from the different sections, and language is too saturated with preconceived notions and emotion in order for the human to disconnect from these factors (GoTo 2)
unseenstrings 2 years ago
(2) and use pure (unaffected by anything) logic, MCTMD1 insist such isn't so. He insinuates that so called "logic" operates within the realm of magic, completely disconnected from the individuals previous mental development and current mental state. When WhiteHairedElder points out such phenomenon as Nazi Germany, MCTMD1 said, "Thinking that you are logical doesn't make it so....we have been evolutionarily programmed to be selectively irrational at times." LOL Then "logic" is a religious belief.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Ask a Christian why Christians held the Inquisition and tortured so many people to death, and you will get the reply, "Well, you see, those Christians (that held the Inquisition) were not True Christians." Ask MCTMD1 why a particular person or people committed similar atrocious acts, and you will likely get the reply, "Well, you see, that person (or those people) had the magic power of logic but freely choose to be selectively illogical." Whew! Please count me out of this quagmire of bull crap.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Yes, neurons are made of electrons, among other subatomic particles. But the uncertainty is only relevant when trying to nail down the position and momentum of an electron. The indeterminacy cancels out and chemistry becomes causal, that's how come there are static rules that the chemicals obey. The gross communication of neurons is a coordination of circuitry that will soon be copied, it has already started. See Jeff Hawkins' Hierarchical Temporal Memory.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Random events, presuming they do happen, would become part of the causal network but would not be freely chosen in any sense of the term. When events happen at a scale below our ability to see the causal factors involved, it does not mean no causal factors were involved. Free will is the god of the volcano invented by our ignorant ancestors. Both free will and moral responsibility are unscientific religious terms. Moral responsibility is irrelevant to behavior modification and protecting society
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago 2
I am quite confident that moral resposibility is irrelevant in a deterministic universe. That is precisely why it bothers me.
Saying that consideration of free will is unscientific is bold and stubborn. Your 'view' of what science is does not define 'reality'. This is one of my axioms. Science studies what 'reality' is and breaks it down into simple models which can be understood by us simpletons. Greater minds have struggled with this debate and have been unable to make a decisive conclusion.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Great minds of the past didn't have information now available from microneurobiology, from neurology, from neuroimaging, and from studies in child psychological/mental development. The brain that is responsible for a choice shall be held accountable for the choice and free will and so called moral responsibility are irrelevant to the issue. The thirsty gazelle that chooses to get a drink of water from the lion infested watering hole is responsible for the choice--not me nor you--just the gazelle
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
And the scientists in these great fields are finding that the best models to explain neurology and cellular activuty is stochaistic models.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Stochastic models don't explain anything. Stochastic models merely say the phenomenon is too complex and chaotic to be able to be determined (ascertained) with any degree of preciseness. Besides, no reputable scientist says the human brain is free from causality. Even a supposed random event would become part of the causal network. And please tell me who besides you claim scientists have given up on understanding brain processes and now resort "stochastic models" as admission of their ignorance.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Why don't you look it up yourself? My argument on free will is from a philosophical and physical point of view. I'm not interested in getting into a neurological debate.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Neurons, boutons, axons, dendrites, and synapses are physical. Oh, and your argument is flawed because neither quantum randomness nor causality permit free will. Causality would make free will impossible and so would quantum theory. Random events happening below the atomic scale couldn't be consciously chosen to result in a particular outcome. And so if there was a quantum effect on a choice, the choice might not be causally determined, but it certainly wasn't free from quantum effects either.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago 2
I've heard the same argument over and over and over and always it is an argument of incredulity. Never one shread of logic involved. It is always on not being able to see how the quality of randomness can account qualities required by free will. Proof! Not just words of incredulity.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Free will is religious dogma as taught in the Judeo-Christian Bible. No one can disprove the Garden of Eden and the talking snake story. But no one can disprove invisible and immaterial pink unicorns with purple spots either. However, if I made the claim such existed, the burden of proof would be on me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Free will is an unnecessary entity as far as understanding brain functions. You are making an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you!
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago 2
Our ancient ancestors imagined invisible entities under the ground as being responsible for phenomena we call volcanoes. Science can't disprove such entities, but they are unnecessary for explaining the volcano. Likewise, our ignorant ancestors imagined an invisible entity within the human body that was unaffected by the structure and state of the body, and this entity was imagined as responsible the the phenomenon of choice. This "entity" is also unnecessary for explaining human choice behavior
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago 2
You could define free will as the type of fingernail polish that is now referred to as red. Then by definition, many females would have free will and practically no male would. However, I paint my Chihuahua's fingernails sometimes, meaning during those times she would have free will. Free will could be defined as those brain components necessary for choice behavior. Naturally nonhuman animals have similar components, but by definition, the free will oxymoron could be made to apply only to humans
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
You seem like a very reasonable person, sir. I appreciate it. I think we are on the same page mostly, see above. Am I to understand that you do not believe that we have moral responsibility in a God-less and deterministic universe? I know it matters how we define things, but I believe if correctly defined, morality is objective and matters quite a bit in fact, if one wishes to live as a human. What say you?
MCTMD1 2 years ago
The problem with the assumption of so called "moral responsibility" is that it comes from the notion that everyone has an inborn sense of what is "bad" and what is "good." But as a WhiteHairedElder, I've come to realize that a person's sense of "good" and "bad" develop as a result of personal experiences. Feral children have the morals of an animal, which basically are the morals that one is truly born with. Visit FatGermanBastard's channel. Also watch?v=f5ZjG5YyrS0 and watch?v=QjvyZJDbJHs
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action. (Albert Einstein)
The human is a herd/pack/social animal. We have instincts that compel us to abide by the morals of the group to which we belong; and sometimes our herd instincts conflict with personal morals. Nazi death camps sometimes conflicted with personal morals of German people.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Not too bad, imo. We are certainly programmed with emotional/instinctual/lower brain functions, but we humans are unique in that it is our rationality that allows for and necessitates morality. We can learn how to choose correctly and apply what we have learned to overcome adversity. Sound judgement and action and therefore sound morality can be obtained when or is only as good as it corresponds to reality. What is practical is moral.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
This regards only the individual since mind is individual in nature and only a mind can decide. We are, by the nature of existence, responsible for our own decisions. This is the morality of which I write, that dictated the nature of our world and not according to some god or some group. It's the individual that matters.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
My intuition makes me feel you give rationality more power over humans than what exists in reality. Teaching a child to understand and use language as we all know and use it is impossible without associating signs/symbols/vocalizations to imagery and emotion. And the emotion inherent to language infects our attitudes and opinions in ways that we are usually wholly ignorant of. The difference of opinion that you are having with dartplayer170 probably wouldnt exists if rationality ruled emotion
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
In fact, you'll note that when a person--be it a Christian, Muslim, or anyone else--feels strongly (which is another way of saying, highly emotional) about an issue then he (or she) will exaust the limits of his (or her) rationale in an effort to justify the feeling. Some individuals will fight to the death to protect their emotionally based beliefs. What was discussing herasy like during the period of the Inquisition. What is discussing North Korea or pedophelia like in the US in this age?
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Yes, when people give up reason and the pursuit of knowledge, it is their emotion that is demonstrated. All religion. This irrationality is the source of so much evil in the world. I do believe there is, without a doubt, an evolutionary force selecting for irrationality, but we no longer need to bow to the church or swear to the Fuhrer, in order to survive. Thes selection forces are diminishing. We are stronger without them nowadays, especially if we are lucky enough to be somewhat free.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
The average human does not function by learning complex logic and deductive discourse. The mechanisms and lessons that prevent a man from pooping in his pants are equivalent to the mechanisms and lessons that prevent a "house-trained" dog from pooping on the floor. The mechanisms and lessons that result in a man having a preference for steak over vegetarianism are not based on logic and deductive reasoning. Emotions can be productive or counterproductive. That is, emotions can be logical or nay.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Humans form emotional attachments to things (including ideas) that seem beneficial. And once an emotional attachment is formed, it is not easily undermined by contrary facts. Religion is an example.
Logic is not science though it has been called, "the Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning." However, logic cannot make scientific discoveries but can help make sense of complex issues.
Logical fallacies are effective in argument because the public is ignorant of the rules and strategy of logic
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. You cannot do science without logic. I do not know of these "logical fallacies" you write. Looks like an oxymoron.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
"...'logical fallacies'... Looks like an oxymoron."
Logical fallacies are a category of particular types of fallacies. It is broken down to subcategories consisting of formal fallacies, informal fallacies, inductive fallacies, and relevant fallacies. And Wikipedia breaks these subcategories down to a total of 75 fallacies.
Nevertheless, by gosh, I never thought about it but you're right: The term "logical fallacy" by itself could be considered an oxymoron.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah right, try to live one day, while appealing to emotion instead of reason. You don't cross the street without looking because you know what might happen. What you feel is irrelevant. Emotions are never logical. You may have a logical understanding of your emotions, but they are automatic responses to new perceptual or conceptual evidence.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Yeah right, try to live one day, while appealing to emotion instead of reason. You don't cross the street without looking because you know what might happen. What you feel is irrelevant. Emotions are never logical. You may have a logical understanding of your emotions, but they are automatic responses to new perceptual or conceptual evidence.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
What does "appealing" to emotion instead of reason have to do with crossing the street? A city-dwelling dog learns to look both ways before crossing the street. Are you saying the dog either "appeals" to emotion or he "appeals" to reason in order to cross?
Since language is loaded with emotional bias, and since language is necessary for "logic," how can you LOGICALLY say that emotions are never logical. Sounds like the "logic" you claim overrides emotion, is another argument for free will.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Man often claimed himself as being the most intelligent animal. But then I reckon he has an emotional bias. The whale may have a larger repertoire of information stored inside his brain, he may be able to navigate the oceans of the world unaided by technology, but we classify the whale as less "intelligent" than us. The notion possibly comes from the illusive assumption that the human is as smart as all the books in all the libraries in all the world. Fact: The human is the most emotional animal
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
A whale or any animal cannot even remotely rival a human's ability to have knowledge about the world and predict. It is in the size of our cortex. Our cortex allows more reasoning. It is the lower more primitive aspects of our nervous system that are responsible for our rough instinctual emotional guide. There is one path to knowledge and it is reason, the art of noncontradictory integration of perceptual/conceptual evidence.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
The dog learns cause and effect, emotion can have nothing to do with the knowledge necessary for safe street crossing. Of course emotion can play a role in crossing the street, but it is not integral to its safe crossing. You can have any number of emotions about the crossing of the street, but only knowledge of when it is clear gets you safely across. Please give me a concrete example of a logical emotion. I am not arguing for freewill, just causality and rationality.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Again you seem to be ignoring the fact that language itself is the association of emotion and images to sounds/signs/symbols. When you use language, the emotion that was associated to the sound/sign/symbol and modified by further experience is still there. That is the reason atheists find emotional release in "God damnit," even though they know the term is illogical.
Imagine having a "logical" discussion about homosexuality a few years ago, when psychology had it listed as a mental disease.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
When you point out the atrocities committed by followers of the Christian Religion to another follower of the religion generally you get the reply that the others were not True Christians. Now allow me to ask you whether Hitler thought he was being logical or not? Allow me to ask whether the great majority of Germany thought of themselves as being illogical? Suppose you had been born in Germany and grew up to be a youth during the Nazi era, would you have acted radically differently than others?
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Thinking that you are logical doesn't make it so. Hitler was illogical, Christians too. And the droves of Hitler's youth. I probably would have been also if I was born in Germany, 1915. As I wrote before, in order to survive, we have been evolutionarily programmed to be selectively irrational at times. Also, it might be logical, to pretend to think Nazism is correct. Self preservation. Thanks to those that came before me, I am free enough to stand by my convictions.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Language is not the association of emotions and images! It is the logical coupling of sounds and objective concepts. Subjective feelings don't make language. Just because emotion, by definition accompanies thought, does not make it responsible for knowledge, only reason can do that. Your emotional apparatuses are attached physically to your cortex, that is why the old brain non-logic of emotionality is always there.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
I never thought of homosexuality as a mental disease and anyone who does is inappropriately appealing to their emotions, they are being illogical.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
You sound like a simplistic introduction to the brain printed a hundred years ago. Feral children should be able to use logic by your reasoning. The brain cannot be divided as you state. The different sections are too integrated and dependent on one another. There is no absolute control center within the brain. There is not a more primitive aspect of the nervous system. There is only the nervous system as it exists and functions within each of us. What is primitive? Breathing? Sleeping? What?
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Emotion is an intense mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes. To say that logic overrules emotion is equivalent to saying that logic can overrule the effect of drinking so that one can drive.
Emotion can also be described as a feeling--an internal mode of stimulation used by instinct. I wonder how logical you can be when your emotion is telling you that you have diarrhea and are about to shit in your pants?
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Emotion is[a]mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and is accompanied by physiological changes
-correct
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Logic does not override emotion, but can prioritize appropriately. I can be angry about something and not lash out. I can be happy about something and not smile. Alcohol will affect the whole brain, and both it and diarrhea have little to nothing to do with what we are debating. Emotion doesnt tell you you have diarrhea, peripheral nerves relay the information to your primary sensory cortex, then to secondary association areasthought. You then have an emotional response to this knowledge.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
You are obviously not a neurologist or a cognitive neuroscientist. I am writing about the basics of neurology because it is these very basic concepts you are ignoring. Emotion is a reaction to thought and can affect it. But it isn't thought. Pick up a neurology book, yes, breathing and sleeping (brain stem functions, see reticular activation center) are evolutionarily much older than reason (cortical functions). Basic neuroscience.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Feral children have human cortices, and if not deprived of stimulation during early childhood they will use reason and will develop simple language even without any help. To dispute this is to have very little knowledge of human cognitive development. We are the rational animal, by way of our genetics, not our family.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
All animals have instinct and lower more simple central nervous systems, humans reason with our evolutionarily brand new large cortex. Sure the parts are integrated/connected, they must be so to function as an animal; this is how come our emotions affect us.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Reason (rationality) is our ONLY guide to knowledge. This happens in our big cortex. Concept formation and integration does not depend on any emotion. Emotions are our subcortical function's response to cortical information. If emotion ran our lives we would not live one day. You need reason to function at the most basic level (as a human). We cannot live on instinct, emotion and our old non-cortical brain as animals do. This is why we must be nurtured for a decade before we can be autonomous.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Complex concept formation is dependent on human language--no language, no complex concept. Human language is emotion and imagery associations to vocalizations and/or signs or symbols. A child cannot learn language without being shown the image of something while making a sound (or while showing a sign/symbol) in order for the image to become associated with the sound/sign/symbol. And a child cannot learn language as we know and use it by the teacher speaking through a voice synthesizer to (To2)
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
(2) remove emotional tonal variances, and speaking from behind a curtain so that emotional gestures cannot be detected. In fact, emotion is so bound up in language that one word can have opposite meanings according to the emotion displayed by the speaker. Man that's "bad," can have two meanings.
We eat, drink, sleep, breed, urinate, defecate, et cetera, as the result of instinct. Without instinct, man would reason that it was too much trouble, or he'd do it later, and end up going extinct.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
I'm not saying that emotions don't effect us all day long, just that concept formation is objective. It doesn't matter how we feel about it, a chair is a chair. And this concept is formed by retaining the essential qualities and omitting the measurements of these qualities. It is the objective nature of reality and concept formation that allows us to communicate, not how we feel about the world. You make very good points, but you are talking about psychology.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
I'm saying that concept formation of a dog is as objective as the concept formation of a human. And should a human and a dog sit in a vibrating chair with a bare wire and get shocked, both the dog and the human will tend to avoid similar chairs in the future. I'm saying that the beliefs held by the majority of people in this country indicate the majority of people are quite ignorant of logic. Also those who do use "logic" don't see eye to eye, meaning something is wrong with you picture of logic
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
One Sunday Service years ago I recall during the sermon the Holiness Preacher said, "Psychology is the Religion of Secular Humanism." At that time I was ignorant of the many and sometimes conflicting schools of thought in psychology, but I took his word. Since then I've come to realize the many and occasionally conflicting schools of thought, combined with the differences in interpretation, application, and diagnostics of the average practitioner makes psychology more a religion than a science.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
I hesitate to read anything starting with, "One Sunday Service...." but, my God, you took the word of a priest/minister?!! I think we are done if you honestly think that psychology is more a religion than a science. Religion is dogmatic and based on faith. Psychology, while still nebulous and likely being replaced by cognitive neuroscience does not require commitment to ignorance.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
I wouldn't hesitate reading anything you've written, regardless of how you start it out. I do hesitate and occasionally don't read the preprinted misconceptions on cards received every December proclaiming what the reason for the season is and the origins of the winter solstice celebration.
Seems you fail to realize not all religions are dogmatic; and faith is based on the evidence of witness testimony and personal experience, just as some psychologists base their blind faith in psychology on
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
So you think a person is automatically a liar just because he (or she) happens to be a priest/minister, as my brother-in-law is?
I no longer have any religious faith. Some of my life's experiences resulted in me realizing man made God in his image and likeness. But at least I understand the Christian better than one who has never been there.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Anyway, I'm burnt out on commenting here. I'll not respond to any comment from this point on. Send me a message if you want any further communication.
Naturalism Org
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Peace.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Not a liar, just willfully ignorant. I understand Christianity well, and have done much research on many religions. Was raised Catholic. Never took it seriously, when my brother, at about 8 years old, looked at me and said, in church, you aren't going to kneel? Against God's will? Ha, that's a joke, a very sick one. Antiquated philosophy. Ancient. I'm sure what your brother is doing is great, for people who can't or do not wish to think for themselves. I am seriously glad you have realized...
MCTMD1 2 years ago
"One Sunday Service" should warrant the same respect as an Hannuka or little baby Jesus Christmas card. Faith, by definition, is belief in the absence of evidence. Willful ignorance. Witness testimony is not evidence. Personal experience is subjective. Name a religion that is not dogmatic.
"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Psychology involves the scientific method, and, again, even though chalk full of irrationality and psycho-babble(Freud), is always open to criticism, testing, discussion, debate, etc. Not so with religion.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Because people disagree doesn't mean there is something wrong with "my" logic. Minds disagree because they by definition have different objective information. We both will avoid electric chairs because that is an objectively bad thing to deal with. If sit in e-chair, then get shocked. Shock is painful. If sit in chair, then pain. 2 Syllogisms -conclusion. Logic.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Now with that objective knowledge, you can feel different ways about the chair, the shock and the pain, but that cannot change the logical conclusion.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Free will is an abstract concept. It is not a tangible set of components. You could say that a set of brain components are resposible for free will. What "definition" are you referring to.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
The brain elements are responsible for will. It is not free.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Free will is a mental construct like the entities our ancient ancestors imagined living underground and creating volcanoes. I define free will as it is commonly used. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1975) defines "free will" as "the power asserted of moral beings of choosing within limitations or with respect to some matters without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law." Note the part about without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law. SuperSupernatural
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Choice is restrained by causality. "Free" does not belong. Just will. Volition. Choice.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Choice is a causal mental calculation.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
dogmatic
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Your statement that free will is dogma IS dogma. How ironic.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Not so. That is simply an unfounded ad hominem.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
It's not an ad hominem at all. Discussion about what our ancient ancestors thought or did is speculative and based primarilly on assumptions made by a few authorative people who research historical remains. It is widely speculated that our ancestors looked at the stars because of their devine inclinations. Maybe it was because the skies were spectaculor scenery that inspired their curiosity. After all, they could see 9 times as many stars without light polution.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
LOL! My statement is dogma? What are you drinking/smoking/eating? So when I note that a belief in free will is preached from the pulpit of every church in the land, when I note that most religious authorities believe free will is absolutely true and promote it accordingly, you suddenly claim that my noting the facts is dogma. Wow, how much more ironic can you get than that? I would like to know how you made my observation into a dogma?
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Yeah, actually, looking back I see that you stated "religious dogma" and went on some religious rant and I somehow transposed some other aspect of your discussion of free will as dogmatic. I pretty much ignored your entire speil about religion because I don't see any connection to free will at all with religion. If you want to argue about religion, you're probably talking to the wrong person because I'm probably not going to object to any of your views.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Moral responsibility is very relevant in our universe (which is deterministic). If I jump off a cliff, without precautionary measures, I will die. Therefore it is moral to not do so. For the same reason it is moral to treat others as I would like to be treated. It is our reason that allows morality, not some spirit, or magic in the brain. We make causal decisions to make our lives better.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Moral responisbility as you describe it , is an illusion. You had no choice but to do what was already determined for you to do. This is what determinism is by definition. So there is no point in assigning moral responsibility to anything. You treat others wih respect because it was determined for you yo do so. There is no moral reason because you were not able to freely choose that moral reason. Your morals were given to you by a long chain of deterministic events.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Nothing was already determined. It's not pre-determinism. This does not mean that there is no point in assigning responsibility. Again, if you causally choose to murder and get caught, it is very reasonable, for the rest of society to protect itself from you. It is your fault you did it, but it is not your fault that you were born and that reality is causal. We still have will and we can decide not do murder.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
"Nothing was already determined.", then you don't believe determinism. What are we debating about?
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Determinism. Not pre-determinism. It would take a pyschic to determine things before the moment they are determined. Things happen causally, but no one knows exactly what complex things will happens tomorrow. They are not pre-determined. No on can see the future or determine anything before it is possible. Causality, not ESP. You think choice is acausal, I do not.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
You said "nothing was already determined". Causality is a vague word which allows you to argue amny incongruent things. I like to avoid its use if possible. You bring it into play far to often to cloud the issue. Causality does not imply determinism.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
"We still have will and we can decide not do murder. "......ummm isn't that free will?
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Nope, just will. Volition. Choice. Not free. Freewill is a primitive concept. Let it go. I understand that it is difficult to assign blame when a person can only do what it is their nature to do, but there just is no possible way the will can be free, and we must assign responsibility to subject society to law.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Then the decison is an illusion. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Eithrer the decision was free or it is an illusion. This is your basic argument against free will.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
No it's not. People choose. That I can prove. It is real and not an illusion. You have freedom to choose, but the choice is causal, or determined by the identity of all factors involved. I have plenty of freedom to go left or right (at the moment), but the choice will be determined by my mood, my personality, my temperature, my memories, my goals.....
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Then the decison is an illusion. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Eithrer the decision was free or it is an illusion. This is your basic argument against free will.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
"watch?v=NWwgqZ5E4sg"
Why did you reply to me? Whats the point? Are you trying to prove free will impossible by giving an example that, should it be true, would mean unforeseeable events happening outside of conscious awareness could causally but randomly effect choice behavior, thereby making the effected choice the fault of randomness instead of the fault of the chooser? So? I already know that both randomness and causality disprove the hypothetical notion commonly referred to as free will.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Moral responsibility is very relevant in this causal universe! If I jump off a cliff with no precaution, I will die. This is not moral. For the same reason, I treat others with respect. It is reason that allows morality, nothing else. If you make a causal choice to steal, then it is reasonable to charge you with the crime. You are still responsible!!! Just causally.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Well said.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Sorry, for my brevety in the last post.
What I meant was that you are defining determinism differently than I am in the video. So, logically there can never be any consensus.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Correct definitions are paramount. They are correct and only work as well as they entail only essentials. It is the imprecise defining of terms, or the defining of them based on tradition or convention, that results in logical contradiction. The inclusion of metaphor into definitions also messes things up. We must redefine anything that is not correct to progress our understanding. Choice and determinism are almost always defined improperly.
MCTMD1 2 years ago 2
Causality is necessary for concept formation. The scientific method is dependent and based on the universality of causality. I was not saying that QM IS perception. Only that QM effects appear non-causal because this is the limit (as of now) of our perception, since we use photons as our tool of perception, there will be no causality smaller than this, from our perspective, since we use photons to learn about causality or anything visual.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Nothing, ever, has been shown to do something other than its structure dictates. In our world (macroscopic reality), balloons filled with hydrogen or helium go up, in this atmosphere, and those filled with sand go down. A person who has certain convictions, personality traits, mood, neurochemical composition, temperature, etc., must make a certain decision determined by the state of his or her electroneurochemical transmission apparatus. It is a causal process. It must be.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
There is no magic in the brain. For a non-causal process would require a supernatural explanation. See law of identity. Reason, the art of noncontradictory integration of conceptual information, would not be possible if causality was not universal. The world would be indescribable, if things did not always refer to those same things. This is more easily understood in the context of the law of identity. For, if something has no specific identity, then it cannot exist.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
And if it acts in a way other than that dictated by its identity, then something supernatural has occurred. Even though our decisions appear non-causal or magical, they are not. Since we can now understand why the sun "comes up", we no longer pray for some god to make it come up or think that it has one some daily battle and trip back from the underworld. "Freewill" is for those who wish to live with the mentality of the dark ages, imo. Why is plain simple "will", so unattractive an idea?
MCTMD1 2 years ago
---"has won some daily battle"----
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Listen, the Word of God says man has free will. That's that. You just have to believe. And the times it said God done something to change someone's mind, well God didn't do anything to their free will. They didn't have to change their mind because they have free will, but they sort of had to because whatever God did he knew would cause them to change their own mind. God didn't change it, He only influenced them in a real powerful way. Free will! Got it? You're bound for Hell if you don't believe
unseenstrings 2 years ago
That's hysterical! LMAO!!! In case you are serious, God is an invalid abstract idea, nothing more.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Wow, you are kooky! The Word of God says the Word of God is the Word of God so it must be the Word of God! Simple. Duh! The Word of God says God gave man free will. So, since the Word of God says the Word of God is the Word of God, and since the Word of God says man has free will, then man has free will. Case closed. Philosophical debate is useless. You're going to Hell if you don't believe. Your free choice: Believe or fry! Watch my Freewill vs. Nonfreewill Playlist and maybe you'll get it.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
No, MCTMD1, what is truly hysterical is that when someone like Unseenstrings tries really hard to make an ridiculously illogical pun to show the irony of blind belief, sometimes it is hard to figure out whether it is actually a pun or some blind believer expressing his illogical concepts. Now that is really wild!
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
You said it right!
MCTMD1 2 years ago
I believe this is yours:
"Side Note: Any comment or video reply that attacks anyone's character or motives (ad hominem fallacy) instead of using logical argument against a person's comment or an argument of the video will be removed from the video comments. "
I would appreciate it if you upheld your own words on my channel. Thank You.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
I have little doubt that MCTMD1 checked out my channel and realized I was not launching an ad hominem fallacy against him but was merely being punny. LOL! Get it. Pun... Funny... Punny!
unseenstrings 2 years ago
1 -Moral responsibility
2 - Consciousness evolved for no reason
3 - "will" plain and simple is an illusion if the universe is deterministic
decisons are not magical. they are a complex system which is beyond our curretn understanding. to try and make logical conclusions based on a process which we don't curretnly understand is dubious.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
1) Will, or the absence of magic, does not negate responsibility.
2) So?
3) Freewill is the illusion. Will actually exists and it is causal. The deterministic nature of reality is what makes will, it cannot be negated, or made illusory, by it.
There is nothing dubious about causality.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
1 - there is no intelligent reason for assigning responsibility to determined processes. Very simple and logical concept.
2 - do complex things normally evolve for no reason?
3 - "will" has no purpose in a deterministic universe. The intention of will has no comparative counter-part. By Ocam's razor, there is no need for the concept of will in a deterministic universe.
I never said causality was dubious. Your conclusions are dubious. Which part of that sentence was unclear?
dartplayer170 2 years ago
1- To survive, live and prosper are good enough reasons for me. You can call 2+2=5 simple and logical too, it's just wrong.
2- You are personifying nature. There is no "reason". Meaning is something we human assign to things. There is no metaphysical reason for things.
3- Will is causal mental calculation, or choice. We all do it every day. We all need this ability to live.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
1 - But I didn't call 2+2=5 logical. Strawman argument.
2 - That's how evolution works. It uses a process of selection. What do you want? Should I lie and say that nature does not select?
3 - We all make choice every day. But you say it is an illusion. I say will is an illusion. In a deterministic universe you are no different than a robot. Do robots have will?
dartplayer170 2 years ago
1) I'm just saying that calling something logical doesn't necessarily make it so. Drawing an analogy is not a strawman argument.
2) No, don't lie. Complex things evolve because of causality. That is the reason. There is no underlying purpose or goal. Only humans do that.
3) Choice is not an illusion. Never said that. Freewill is an illusion. If robots could make decisions, then yes, they have will. I am a biological robot.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
1 - my statement was in fact very logical. You assign an analogy which is not even remotely comparable to my statement and then make me look as if I am wrong because of your analogy. That is a strawman argument. You never argued the logic of my statement. Instead you drew a ridiculous analogy which I agree is illogical.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
OK, I'll concede the strawman thing, but it is not logical to not hold someone responsible for their causal decision to commit a crime.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
How could they do otherwise in a world which is one long causal chain? They had choice. What choice. It is just illusion of choice by your definition. If not, then you are not arguing for determinism. I cannot see any other possibilities. You are possibly arguing for weak determinism which is not incompatible with free will.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
They could not have made a different choice. I think you are assuming that implicit in the definition of choice is freewill. Choice, imo, is a causal process, like the universe playing out a big grand causal chain. We call it choice because it was previously only a probability, to our eyes. Will I go left or right, not even I know, until I decide.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
2 - Read the theory of evolution. It involces random mutations. Nothing causal about that.
"The other major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population"
dartplayer170 2 years ago
"Read the theory of evolution."
-stop the ridiculous insults please, like I'd care about any of this shit if I wasn't well versed, son.
The genetic changes that you and whoever you are quoting refer to are not actually random in that they are causal, the process of non-disjunction that results in a new alternate genetic code are dependent on causal processes.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
They are random in that we cannot see the different codes, or that they are not made to deal with any selection process in particular and subsequently prosper when they just happen to provide advantage. Nice try though. Seriously, that's a good point.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
"2 - Consciousness evolved for no reason"
"2) So?"
No reason? LOL That is as funny as saying only humans have consciousness. Any trait/mutation that ended up being integrated into the gene pool did so for a reason. One of the reasons is selective pressures. Oh, and the real funny part is that what we call consciousness is actually blind to much more than it is aware of. Consciousness is merely a filtering system that prevents the organism from being overwhelmed by stimuli and brain processes
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
There is no underlying goal or purpose to nature. The REASON anything happens is causal. The 8-ball went into the pocket because it was hit by the cue-ball, that is the causal reason. The person started the process for the moral reason or purpose of winning the billiards game.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Of course the REASON anything happens is causal. That is what I said and also gave a causal example. Even if so called "random" events really do happen at the particle level of atoms, the event, though it wasn't chosen and couldn't have been foreseen, would merely become, as an after effect, part of the causal fabric of the universe.
Winning a game of billiards has a moral reason or purpose? Did you learn that moral from the story of Cool Hand Luke?
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Agreed. Well put. Yes winning a game is moral endeavor as opposed to an amoral causal event. We humans give purpose to action. Every action a human takes can be said to be moral or immoral. Does it benefit the goals of one's life or does it do the opposite. Albeit, playing a game to win is less of a moral concern than getting a job to support one's children.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
CHL, that's funny, I've never watched it, but one of my x-girlfriends loved it and recommended it to me often, never got to it. Would you recommend I watch it?
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Actually I mistakenly said Cool Hand Luke when I meant The Hustler. Both are better than most of the crap being produced now-a-days. Of course, I only could recommend them if I knew your tastes. If you are more into the karate/fist fighting, gun-shooting, bomb-exploding types of movies instead of movies based more on the narrative, then the movies may not be for you. The narrative is what makes these movies what they are, not the action.
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
I have no clue what you are referencing when you talk about morals in a billiard game. Moral responsibility is the concept that actions can be blamed on an individual which has control to make ethical decisions. If the decisions are not free then the individual does not have control. Thus, illogical to assign blame.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
MCTMD1 commented on the morals of a billiard game. I merely replied to his comment.
What does playing the blame game have to do with social control? Suppose an American Soldier received a head injury while defending his country. Suppose this hero developed violent tendencies as a result of the injury. What would playing the blame game have to do with society protecting itself from this injured soldier? When a little girl is given money for sexplay and grows up to be a whore, just blame her?
WhiteHairedElder 2 years ago
Here is an experiment which seems to indicate otherwise...watch?v=NWwgqZ5E4sg
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Here is an experiment which seems to indicate otherwise...watch?v=NWwgqZ5E4sg
dartplayer170 2 years ago
1 - "Nothing ever" - I would just like to point out that science relies on reproducibility of controlled experiments. So this claim is dubious. "Nothing has ever been demonstrated which is reproducible under controlled conditions."
2 - Is the fundamental level at which the brain makes decisions macroscopic?
3 - All causal process at the macroscopic level are still limited by the uncertainty principle. This begs the question of whether they are deterministic
dartplayer170 2 years ago
1) What? It's just impossible. I can't prove that things don't do what they do. They only do what science has reproducibly shown is possible by the laws of reality.
2) Maybe not, but I think it is clear that it is at a higher level than the electron.
3) No, the uncertainty principle only applies to the limit of perception, in this reference frame. Only when we attempt to nail down the precise measurements of momentum and position, do we find probability, but macroscopically they cancel out.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
1 - you completely missed the point, amybe you should actually read what i said
2 - so there are no macroscopic events which are explained as being caused by electrons?
3 - this is an assumption on your part which is not proven and not necessary according to Ocam's Razor. A point which you used previously.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
1- doesn't help
2-We don't need to explain things at the macroscopic level in terms of electrons.
3-Things do only what they can, based on causality. This is not an assumption, but a universal.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
1 - is an informal fallacy "denying the anticedent". Science cannot say anything about conclussive about an incident which is non-repeatable. It cannot be proven, but it is a fallacy to assume that means disproof
2 - Spectroscopy is explained by electrons. It is an importatn tool in many scientific fields
3- Read about what scientists say. One of the biggest criticisms of hidden variable theory is Ocam's Razor. You cannot deny this if you want, but it is the case
dartplayer170 2 years ago
1- Which non-repeatable incident are you referring to? Are you suggesting that we do not have any knowledge that is demonstrated reproducibly? Like the speed of light. Things that cannot be proven do not need to be disproved, i.e. God or spirit.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
2- This does not negate causality's universality in the macroscopic realm. Electrons are necessary for a book to simply be. We talk about almost all of chemistry in terms of electrons. Entities interacting. Everything bigger is deterministic and causal. Including choice. Not just because our brains are physical organs based in a universe of entities, but because our bases of cognition depend on, presuppose and are built by causally interacting matter with identity.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
3- I have no delusions about what quantum theory says. It's just that entities interact causally outside the limit of perception (where matter and energy are exchanged at the subatomic level).
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Because you say so right? No evidence required.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Causality must be presupposed simply think or talk or act or learn or anything! What would it mean if things did not only do exactly what they are capable based on their structure, but something else? It would mean a non-causal world and you could predict nothing. And identity would cease to mean anything.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
You do not understand the definition of non-determinism. It does not imply that everything thing is random. It implies not everything is determinate. Big difference!
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Wrong. Things do only what they can based on their structure, every time. This is causality. If something is not determinate, then it is random. That's the definition of random.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
I was defining non-determinism not randomness !!!
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Same
MCTMD1 2 years ago
So, why did you argue it?
dartplayer170 2 years ago
I never wrote that non-determinism wasn't randomness. Is that what you mean?
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Unfortunately, reality is reality. It is not defined by how we think it must work. If reality is such that some things cannot be defined by causality then that it the way it is.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
I think it is fortunate that reality is reality and not something else. For if it were not we would not be. What cannot be defined by causality, other than those things beyond the limit of our perception?
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Unfortunately, reality is reality. It is not defined by how we think it must work. If reality is such that some things cannot be defined by causality then that it the way it is.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
What? Did you not argue earlier that predictability is not required for determinism? If I throw a dice 1 000 000 times I can still make predictions about what will happen. They're just limited by certain statistical errors. I need not know any cause/effect for the dice roll and can still confidently make predictions.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
It is choice that we cannot predict, but we can predict the probability of dice, but we cannot predict which number will come up, without knowledge of every physical detail involved.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Any. Have no clue what the 2nd sentence is even saying. What's wrong with the speed of light? Hidden variables cannot be proven yet determinists seem to spend a lot of time trying.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Please name a non-repeatable incident.
"It cannot be proven, but it is a fallacy to assume that means disproof"
-The burden of proof is on you. I am not trying to disprove anything per se, just show you that freewill is as valid as God, which is also unprovable. One cannot be called upon to prove a negative, or something that does not exist.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
I already replied about what I think about burden of proof. Nothing has changed since then.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Including a consistent lack of proof for freewill. There isnt even a clue or a good lead.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
smaller than what? the wavelength of a photon? We can easily devise experiments which use photons of much smaller wavelengths and make empiricial conclusions based on the results. Photons in the visual wavelength are not required.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Smaller than the level of mass/energy transfer. Whatever that size is that simultaneous momentum and position knowledge are least possible.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
simultaneous momentum knowledge. Yah right, define that one. momentum involes motion. It cannot be simultaneous.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Simultaneous knowledge of both momentum and position, silly. Sorry if it wasn't clear that "simultaneous" was meant to apply, as an adjective to both momentum and position. I didn't mean the whole thing as a noun.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
I had a feeling that was what you meant but momentum requires more than one observation. So, what is simultaneous wrt momentum measurements? I guess that what you mean is instantaneous calculations of momentum
dartplayer170 2 years ago
Macroscopically, we can easily determine the momentum and position of a body. Instantaneous velocity is not a problem where there is no particle wave duality. I know, shit's crazy when we talk subatomic, but again, that doesn't change the fact that there is no unmoved mover in the brain, or anywhere else. Or at least, that I see evidence for.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Uncertainty Principle still applies at macroscopic level. This is the main feature of 1st year university Physics my friend.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
OK friend, but if you think that .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent or so uncertainty in mass or velocity applies significant macroscopically, then you're right. We would have a very difficult time even detecting a mass difference of this size in the case of a ping-pong ball! Do you have an example where uncertainty matters macroscopically?
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Why do you think they teach it at university? To waste our time? Surely you can see the difference in size of a ping pong ball compared to a neuron. After all, we are talking about brain functions not table tennis.
dartplayer170 2 years ago
It definitely should be taught in the University, but it should remain in the physics class and have nothing to do with concept formation and causal decision making. I can't say that I know exactly how neurons create consciousness, but they do, that's for sure. Every choice you make is dependent on the previous connections your neurons made as well as other stuff, but it all comes down to the storage and manipulation of information, real information in the real world.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Your choices are not free of this. Your will cannot possibly be free from the existent structure of your brain. The uncertainty while measuring the position or momentum of an electron is moot when discussing neurons, neurotransmitters and the causal nature of information manipulation. There is no reason to think that quantum effects are in any way responsible for choice.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
How can it be moot? Neurons are made of electrons. No? Chemistry of cells are explained by electron exchanges. In fact, the electrical activity of the neurons comes from the electron charge. Moot? Convenient argument for you to call it moot. Proove it is moot. There is ample reason, we understand how things work by breaking them down into smaller structures. In fact this is the core of your argument that freedom cannot dome from randomness.
dartplayer170 2 years ago