Determinism on the rack

[R.F.]

Correct on both accounts, I didn't read it because I am incapable of interpreting the information. Only a neurologist would be able to come to any conclusions from reviewing the data of the study. However, we can certainly have a neurologist interpret the study for us.

Here is what Wikipedia says "Note that these results were gathered using finger movements, and may not necessarily generalize to other actions such as thinking, or even other motor actions in different situations. Indeed, the human act of planning has implications for free will and so this ability must also be explained by any theories of unconscious decision making".

As I pointed out earlier, Daniel Dennett has made the point that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand. (Daniel Dennett is the Co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University)

In other words, per authorities of the subject, this study raises the possibility that "we are not in in control, or aware even, of our brain processes." It is, however, far from proving it.

What about the hard cold logical impossibility of determinism that I presented with JR Lucas's proof, the Newcomb's paradox or the fact that determinism has a huge logical gap in that it requires no beginning to the universe. (There can be no first cause).

I don't think philosophy can answer questions that are best suited for actual sciences- they can speculate, but only that.

For an example - studying the brain directly brings us to the fact that the pre-frontal cortex is responsible for personality and behavior. Philosophy could have never in a million years have discovered this. How can it then answer other questions that clearly deal with philological aspects of the brain?

It is not possible to freely will. This would suggest that we choose to have [un-willing] impulses. It would presuppose we could create every thought we have- and it posits that we could choose to not think at all. It is clear we make choices and we will things, but we cannot will to will- we are not free or aware of how the forces that brings us to will occur.

Merely speculating will not answer this question. You have to ask yourself: Am I free to think when I please?
If not then you are a slave to your thoughts. And it goes without saying slavery is the opposite of freedom.

[trobd]

I don't think philosophy can answer questions that are best suited for actual sciences- they can speculate, but only that.

For an example - studying the brain directly brings us to the fact that the pre-frontal cortex is responsible for personality and behavior. Philosophy could have never in a million years have discovered this. How can it then answer other questions that clearly deal with philological aspects of the brain?

It is not possible to freely will. This would suggest that we choose to have [un-willing] impulses. It would presuppose we could create every thought we have- and it posits that we could choose to not think at all. It is clear we make choices and we will things, but we cannot will to will- we are not free or aware of how the forces that brings us to will occur.

Merely speculating will not answer this question. You have to ask yourself: Am I free to think when I please?
If not then you are a slave to your thoughts. And it goes without saying slavery is the opposite of freedom.

Philosophy is just logic. Science relies on logic. Science additionally has empirical evidence. There are errors in philosophy due to reasoning errors on the part of philosophers, but that is true of science as well. Overall though it is true that science has much more agreement than philosophy.

"It would presuppose we could create every thought we have". Why? If I can, in my life time, have one thought for no reason, then that thought would be a first cause, and hence show my behavior is not entirely deterministic (remember according to determinism, everything has a reason, there are no first causes).

"and it posits that we could choose to not think at all." Why?

"but we cannot will to will" How do you know?

"we are not free or aware of how the forces that brings us to will occur." I see how awareness would matter, provided some of those thoughts started with me, for no reason what so ever, then my behavior is not entirely deterministic even if I am not aware of where my thoughts come from.

"Merely speculating will not answer this question." Correct, but that is all that we can do, at least until science has figured it out.

I suppose it comes down to whether you are willing to entertain the possibility that something can happen without a cause. It seems impossible that they could. But what if there are parallel realities? Perhaps they exist on dimensions outside the 3 that we are familiar with? Perhaps these parallel realities could have an influence on reality as we know it? It is a far fetched idea, but how can we know it is not true?

[shunyadragon]

What about the hard cold logical impossibility of determinism that I presented with JR Lucas's proof, the Newcomb's paradox or the fact that determinism has a huge logical gap in that it requires no beginning to the universe. (There can be no first cause).

Well, I thought it worth responding to this. The present view of cosmology and physics is that the physical existence that contains our universe possibly if not likely has no beginning nor end. I disagree that determinism requires that.

An interesting reference that deals in part with this is Infinity and the Mind by Ruddy Rucker.

The hard cold logical impossibility of determinism you conclude from JR Lucas's proof is not necessarily accepted by all and possibly not many. Ruddy Rucker rips it good on pages 292-294 in the above reference.

[shunyadragon]

In addition your view of JR Lucas's proof is not believed by all. Rudy Rucker kind of rips it apart on pp 292-294 in his book.

This a repeat of the edited above post. sorry

[trobd]

Well, I thought it worth responding to this. The present view of cosmology and physics is that the physical existence that contains our universe possibly if not likely has no beginning nor end. I disagree that determinism requires that.

An interesting reference that deals in part with this is Infinity and the Mind by Ruddy Rucker.

The hard cold logical impossibility of determinism you conclude from JR Lucas's proof is not necessarily accepted by all and possibly not many. Ruddy Rucker rips it good on pages 292-294 in the above reference.

"hard cold logical impossibility" was overstated.

You seem to contradict yourself. You say that the present view of physics is that the universe likely has no beginning, but then you say that you disagree that determinism requires this. So are you saying that physics is wrong?

[shunyadragon]

"hard cold logical impossibility" was overstated.

You seem to contradict yourself. You say that the present view of physics is that the universe likely has no beginning, but then you say that you disagree that determinism requires this. So are you saying that physics is wrong?

No, I back off on 'requires it so.' I consider both determinism and free will on the rack.

Ultimately determinism and the laws of nature probably rule the roost, but not in any absolute sense, and I do not think that our physical existence, including our universe is necessarily infinite and eternal, just likely so, because at present this cannot be determined. There is also still the possibility for limited free will.

Actually if you are talking about our universe we live in, it likely had a beginning.

[trobd]

No, I back off on 'requires it so.' I consider both determinism and free will on the rack.

Ultimately determinism and the laws of nature probably rule the roost, but not in any absolute sense, and I do not think that our physical existence, including our universe is necessarily infinite and eternal, just likely so, because at present this cannot be determined. There is also still the possibility for limited free will.

Actually if you are talking about our universe we live in, it likely had a beginning.

Yes, I believe that they are both "on the rack". I hope I have shown that non determinism and free will are not "blind faith".

Physics shows that determinism is the case in the physical universe.

Here is the issue I see: either the chain of cause and effect has been going eternally or not. If the chain is eternal, that means that an eternity has already past, which is counter intuitive. If the chain is finite, then there was a first cause. Whatever that first cause was, we know that it necessarily happened for no reason, because it was the first cause.

[Sum1sGruj]

One has free will whether they choose to or not.

that's a very ironic statement, isn't it?
What's even more ironic, is that it is said that we live in the universe. We are no different then a rock. We are made of the same elementary particles. That means that we are the universe. Therefore, our will is as free as free can be, we just limit it by staying alive and enduring all that comes with life. Marinate on it.

[Jonesboy]

I studying the brain directly brings us to the fact that the pre-frontal cortex is responsible for personality and behavior. Philosophy could have never in a million years have discovered this. .

You've shot yourself in the foot!

Philosophy tells us that that the prefrontal cortex can only be identified by reports of experience. Therefore, the prefrontal cortex can't be used to tell us anything about our experiences.

[R.F.]

Philosophy is just logic. Science relies on logic. Science additionally has empirical evidence. There are errors in philosophy due to reasoning errors on the part of philosophers, but that is true of science as well. Overall though it is true that science has much more agreement than philosophy.

"It would presuppose we could create every thought we have". Why? If I can, in my life time, have one thought for no reason, then that thought would be a first cause, and hence show my behavior is not entirely deterministic (remember according to determinism, everything has a reason, there are no first causes).

"and it posits that we could choose to not think at all." Why?

"but we cannot will to will" How do you know?

"we are not free or aware of how the forces that brings us to will occur." I see how awareness would matter, provided some of those thoughts started with me, for no reason what so ever, then my behavior is not entirely deterministic even if I am not aware of where my thoughts come from.

"Merely speculating will not answer this question." Correct, but that is all that we can do, at least until science has figured it out.

I suppose it comes down to whether you are willing to entertain the possibility that something can happen without a cause. It seems impossible that they could. But what if there are parallel realities? Perhaps they exist on dimensions outside the 3 that we are familiar with? Perhaps these parallel realities could have an influence on reality as we know it? It is a far fetched idea, but how can we know it is not true?

We cannot choose to think, you are aware of this I hope...? When have you ever been sitting around, with NO thoughts in your head, and chose [or willed] to think? [Or vise versa].

All I'm saying is we are not in control of the organ [the brain] that controls us, controls our "self", and is the source for our [involuntary] thoughts. If we are by these means "slaves" than we are not free to will, we can only will.

[trobd]

We cannot choose to think, you are aware of this I hope...? When have you ever been sitting around, with NO thoughts in your head, and chose [or willed] to think? [Or vise versa].

All I'm saying is we are not in control of the organ [the brain] that controls us, controls our "self", and is the source for our [involuntary] thoughts. If we are by these means "slaves" than we are not free to will, we can only will.

You believe this, and you have your reasons for believing this, but you don't know it and, at least for the present, neither does science.

I believe in free will, and I have tried to share some of my reasons with you, but I don't know that it is true.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

[trobd]

You've shot yourself in the foot!

Philosophy tells us that that the prefrontal cortex can only be identified by reports of experience. Therefore, the prefrontal cortex can't be used to tell us anything about our experiences.

If philosophy "tells us" this then let's hear the argument for this proposition.