Determinism vs. Free Will

[Dre89]

No I never said humans have an NP mind. We know humans visually perceive mental images that have no physical location. So for a brain to be the same as a computer, the computer must have a conscious that visually perceives the image before it is physically projected on it's screen.

How exactly does free will violate causality? Causality determines what actions an object is physically capable of committing. Determinism vs FW is simply a debate as to what methodology is applied in selecting those actions.

Just curious, if we don't have free will, why do we need to ponder decisions? Shouldn't our brains just read the environmental stimuli and make the optimal decision? Do robots ponder decisions too before they make an action?

 

[gm jack]

No I never said humans have an NP mind. We know humans visually perceive mental images that have no physical location. So for a brain to be the same as a computer, the computer must have a conscious that visually perceives the image before it is physically projected on it's screen.

And when you visualise something in your head, it isn't because your eyes are responding to anything. You are not visually perceiving anything. All you are doing is recalling memories.

How exactly does free will violate causality? Causality determines what actions an object is physically capable of committing. Determinism vs FW is simply a debate as to what methodology is applied in selecting those actions.

Causality shows what everything will do, not what it can do. Free will would imply the ability to go against the actions of everything before that moment in time and what that "should" entail.

The trouble with causality is that it applies at all levels, including the cellular levels, such as in the brain. Things should behave in certain ways depending on what has happened before and what is currently happening.

Just curious, if we don't have free will, why do we need to ponder decisions? Shouldn't our brains just read the environmental stimuli and make the optimal decision? Do robots ponder decisions too before they make an action?

Because our brain is not perfect. For a lot of species, their behaviours are very instinctual, with very little thought or variance in their behaviours. Humans however, have developed the brain in such a way that we are able to bring a larger quantity of information together in order to chose what we do, resulting in more complex behaviours.

Why it isn't instant? At a basic level, action potentials take time to travel along nerves. Synapses between nerves take time. A huge number of nerves will take place in every decision. More than that however, humans are able to perform complex modelling in their head, running through situations and seeing how they may play out. This takes time, especially as the thoughts are more readily understood on a conscious level (where humans operate) if the thoughts happen somewhat close to real time.

 

[Dre89]

But what you are recalling has a visual structure, it's an image, that's my point.

So your causality argument is pretty much an inductive argument. You're saying that because we've observed cause effect sequences in the universe, the brain must work exactly the same as well?

And as for decision making, what exactly is performing this complex modelling in the brain? What is glueing all these thoughts together? You just acknowledged a distinction between the stimuli and a conscious that acknowledges these stimuli. If we were determined we'd have no conscious, no concept of the self, or "I", because those are notions distinct from our stimuli and thoughts.

The problem is nothing else which the human brain has been likended to by determinists has a conscious distinct from its stimuli and programming. They are simply chains of actions, there's no conscious distinct from these actions.

So are you saying that in time, the most complex robots will actually have to ponder decisions before acting on certain stimuli? You're saying they'll have a conscious, distinct from their stimuli and programming, that makes them acknowledge that they have a self and an "I"?

Are you also saying that the most complex robots will also be able to rebell against their programming? Humans can rebell gainst their biological programming, they pursue things other than what they're meant to (like food, shelter, sex etc.). Humans can abstain from these goods. Essentially, humans are capable of chosing any action their body is physically capable of doing. As of now, robots can only do what they're programmed to do, despite the fact that some of them are probably physically capable of doing other actions which their programming doesn't let them do.

Now if robots are the same as humans, then you have to accept that robots in time will be able to rebel against their programming and become electronic humans.

 

[AltF4]

So, Dre, I see that you have no intention of even trying answer the questions that I've posted, what four times now?

And instead, you just started back with this pseudoscience nonsense about what you seem to think causality means. I would recommend taking a physics course. Or at least read some of the Wikipedia articles I've been posting.

You do know who Pierre Simon DeLaplace was, yes? Contemporary of Isaac Netwon. He came up with this idea (later called "Laplace's demon") that if one were to know the current state of every particle and the fundamental set of laws, one could perfectly predict the future. What you would call "determinism".

He did so because that's how laws work. They don't tell you "what actions an object is physically capable of committing" as you are inventing. They tell you what happens. Period.

(As I then explained, Laplace wound up being wrong about the universe being made of particles. But is otherwise correct that there's an unbroken causal chain at the heart of everything. Determinism vs Free will is a false dichotomy. Neither is right.)

 

[Dre89]

I'm not sure which questions you're talking about. If you restate them I'll answer them.

I'm confused about the causality thing . How does all the quantum causality fit in this picture? I thought it was totally spontaneous.

And still, I don't see how you predict a person's actions because I don't see how particles could convey the persons past experiences etc. All the non-biologicaly factors that affect one's actions, determined or free.

 

[AltF4]

How exactly does Free Will work? Some gland, or chemical that violates physical law? And is it just humans? What about monkeys, dogs, cats, mice, flies, mites, bacteria, viruses, rocks? What causes the line to be drawn where it is?

What would happen if you made an exact, atom-for-atom duplicate of a person? Should we expect them to drop down dead because the copy has no "mind"?

Free Will is a binary proposition. You can either have it or not. There's no in-between. So, then at what point in the human development cycle does Free Will occur? Clearly, the mass of a few dozen cells shortly after conception doesn't have Free Will. But a grown adult does? So at what exact developmental period does Free Will occur? And what causes it to?



Quantum Mechanics still obeys causality. Nothing is changed there. It is true that particles pop in and out of existence, jump around in location, and all sorts of strange and unpredictable things. But that's okay, since particles are not the lowest layer the universe has to offer. The particle is just a reflection of a deeper reality, which is the probability distribution cloud. Causality applies only to fundamental constituents, not macro objects.

Don't take my word for it. Just try looking up Laplace's Demon: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Laplace's_demon The Wikipedia page is full of different ways that people have found it to be incorrect. From physics to computational theoretics.

But all that is quite hard to understand without spending lots of time taking physics classes and studying quantum mechanics. An easier way to see why Laplace style determinism is incorrect is through relativity:

In our everyday lives, we assume that there is a single objective universe that we observe, independent of ourselves. But this is incorrect. Relativity states that the state of the universe itself depends on your frame of reference. ("Frame of reference" here being a specific physics term, but you can imply what it means)

The closer you get to traveling at the speed of light, the more time slows down for you. Similarly, the more time you spend at high gravity, the more time slows down. And since time and space are actually the same thing (called spacetime) space itself also contracts around you.

So if you were watching an interstellar race between spaceships, this would cause quite the bit of trouble. Depending on how you were watching the race, different ships could have won! None of them is an "illusion". Reality itself depends on your point of view.

So it doesn't even make sense to speak of single "Demon" who can observe the universe and view it as it really is. Since reality itself depends on your frame of reference.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I'm going to argue for the existence of free will from a slightly different perspective.

Firstly, I will define free will as "the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints." (Wikipedia) Now I don't want to go into detail with regards to determinism just yet, rather I just want to show that humans possess free will as we defined it.

1st point: We have the experience of free will. We know that we can choose what we want to eat for breakfast, what we want to wear to work, what music we want to listen to. We should not brush this off as insignificant.

2nd point: Lets compare humans with animals. We can see how vastly different animals and other organisms behave with regards to free will. Animals nearly always follow a very well defined and strict set of rules and laws that govern their behavior from the moment they are born until the moment they die, never deviating once. We can call these instincts. Although we have instincts embedded in us to a degree, we are largely free to behave in the world however we desire, which is why humans are the only animals that do things like cause wars and destroy the planet.

3rd point: The strongest argument that I can think of at the moment is the implications that would arise if the reality is that humans have no free will, or if free will is just an illusion. If free will does not exist, then humans have no free will. If humans have no free will, than how can we judge a person for their actions? How could anyone be responsible for anything? Let me more clearly illustrate this with an example.

Take Hiter, history's most well known mass-murderer. We may think he's such a terrible person. But let's assume he has no free will. This means that he had no other choice other than to kill 11 million people. He had no choice. How can we be mad at him then? It would make just as much sense to be mad at the gas chambers themselves, or the lethal gas itself. Those devices also had no choice.

To sum up.
1- We experience free will in our everyday lives
2- Contrast the behavior of animals vs the behavior of us.
3- No free will means no responsibility for one's actions!

 

[Theftz22]

Let me lay out an argument for the existence of free will that I've been considering.

1) If the mind is not identical to the brain, then mental states are not identical to brain states. (premise)
2) If mental states are purely physical, then they are identical to brain states. (premise)
3) Therefore if the mind is not identical to the brain, then mental states are not purely physical. (from 1 and 2)
4) If mental states are not purely physical, then determinism is false. (premise)
5) Therefore if the mind is not identical to the brain, determinism is false. (from 3 and 4)
6) If determinism is false, then free will exists. (premise)
7) Therefore if the mind is not identical to the brain, free will exists. (from 5 and 6)
8) If something is impossible, then it is inconceivable. (premise)
9) It is conceivable that the mind is not identical to the brain. (premise)
10) Therefore it is possible that the mind is not identical to the brain. (from 8 and 9)
11) Therefore the mind is not actually identical to the brain. (from 10)
12) Therefore free will exists. (from 7 and 11)

I could give a plausible defense of the premises, and maybe I will at some point, but I'm too lazy to right now.

I'm rather ambivalent at the minute about the soundness of the argument, overall I think most of its premises are quite plausible. The ones that I am currently ambivalent about I'd say are 2 and 8, but both I think are highly plausible.

 

[AltF4]

Suntan Luigi:

Your first and third points are irrelevant.

Your second point leads to exactly a point I've been making: Where do you draw the line with what does and doesn't have Free Will? Why humans? Chimps have an enormous amount of cognitive ability. Why do they not have Free Will? What gland do humans have that chimps don't? What's different about us from them?

And that definition from Wikipedia is just begging the question. It doesn't define anything. What is and isn't an "agent"? This is important. What does it mean to make a choice? I assert that it means to violate physical law.


Underdogs:

I'd challenge (or ask clarification for):

The whole thing: Determinism is false. This has been widely known for around a hundred years now. It's as false as a flat Earth is false. Possible in principle, maybe. But it's been contradicted by experiment. It's false.

4) I don't know what it means for a non-physical thing to exist. When you tell me a physical object exists, the word "exists" has a clear distinct meaning. You are telling me the physical thing has mass, a location, and velocity. But what does it mean for a non-physical thing to exist? What differentiates it from a non-existent non-physical thing?

6) Your whole argument is essentially bound up into this "premise". But it's false. Quantum Mechanics proposes a world that is non-deterministic, but does not allow for Free Will.

8) I can conceive of plenty of things which are impossible. I can imagine a circle who's circumference is 6 times its radius. But this is impossible. (The ratio between the radius and circumference of a circle is 2pi) Indeed, pi is what's called a transcendental number. So called because its value would remain the same in no matter what universe and no matter what axioms of math you have. So it's super impossible even in any hypothetical universe. But I can imagine it.

I conceive of all sorts of impossible things every night when I dream. This line of argument is really quite silly. Being able to or not able to conceive of something is a statement of how wild your imagination is. Whether something is or is not impossible is a statement about the state of the universe. Why would you think that these two have any relationship?

10&11) You jump from "It is possible that X is true" to "X is true". I hope I don't have to go any further to show why this is wrong.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

My response

Suntan Luigi:

Your first and third points are irrelevant.

Could you perhaps explain why you think they are irrelevant? Are you suggesting that what we experience as free will is just an illusion then? More importantly though, how can you possibly say that humans are not responsible for their actions? Does this really make sense to you? You have to have a heart of solid rock to excuse all the rapists, murderers, tyrants, pedophiles, and swindlers in the world, to say that they are all innocent of the crimes they chose to commit.

In fact, if free will does not exist, how can justice exist either? You seem to think that we are machines. Let's assume then that all of humanity on Earth is a giant crowd of machines designed solely to survive and reproduce. How can we judge the actions of machines, when they have no alternatives in their courses of actions? It is impossible. Therefore, how can justice even exist? It cannot. This is the inevitable consequence of free will not existing.

So the crux of my third point is this: If free will does not exist, then neither does justice! You logically cannot believe in justice if you do not believe in free will. If someone killed your mother you would have no reason to be mad at them or seek retribution.

Your second point leads to exactly a point I've been making: Where do you draw the line with what does and doesn't have Free Will? Why humans? Chimps have an enormous amount of cognitive ability. Why do they not have Free Will? What gland do humans have that chimps don't? What's different about us from them?

Chimps are similar in many ways to humans, that is true. But they are also fundamentally different from us in the very same way that all other animals are different from humans. Humans are the only animals that cause global death and destruction, and other such atrocities. Humans tend to take much from the Earth and give little in return, when the case is the opposite for every other animal, including chimps. I'm sure you would agree that humans are not necessary for the survival of the Earth's ecosystems. In fact the Earth may well be better off if we were to just disappear all at once.

One of the main things that distinguishes us from chimps is our generally destructive behavior (or just our behavior in general) towards ourselves, others, and the environment. Chimps and other animals do not possess the free will to do these things.

And that definition from Wikipedia is just begging the question. It doesn't define anything. What is and isn't an "agent"? This is important. What does it mean to make a choice? I assert that it means to violate physical law.

For our purposes we will define "agents" as "humans". Now, to make a choice is primarily a state of mind. For example, say you want to choose between a blue or a black pen. A choice is made when you decide in your mind what color pen you want. That, right there, is the essence of choice.

 

[Dre89]

Sun- I don't think determinism means we can't punish bad behaviour, in fact it's the opposite. If humans aren't free, reward/ punishment becomes more important because conditioning would have a greater influence on how someone behaves.

Sun and Alt- I'd say animals have limited free will in the sense that they are not determined, but aren't capable of mentally choosing certain acts which they are physically capable of (barring human interference). For example animals never leave or corrupt ecosystems, despite being perfectly capable of doing so. No wilderbeast ever refuses to cross the Serenghetti annually.

What makes humans distinct is that we can chose to be otherwise than our nature, because we are capable of mentally choosing any act that we're physically capable of.

 

[AltF4]

Suntan Luigi

When replying, don't put responses inside quotes like that. Sometimes coloration gets lost and your replies become impossible to pick out. Plus they're hard to reply back to. See the sticky here: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=245813


The topics of "Do we have Free Will" and "What are the moral implications of having Free Will" are completely separate topics. Don't muddle them. We are all having a discussion about whether or not Free Will exists. It's completely irrelevant how that impacts justice or out philosophy on life.

If it's true, it's true. Deal with it. You do not get the luxury of choosing the truth based on what would like the world to be. If there's no such thing as "justice" as you've defined it, then whatever. That has no bearing on whether or not Free Will exists.

And your first point is just that people FEEL like they have Free Will. We naturally intuitively think we do. Sure. But I don't see the point here. Are you saying that because it's intuitive, it's true?

Chimps are similar in many ways to humans, that is true. But they are also fundamentally different from us in the very same way that all other animals are different from humans. Humans are the only animals that cause global death and destruction, and other such atrocities. Humans tend to take much from the Earth and give little in return, when the case is the opposite for every other animal, including chimps. I'm sure you would agree that humans are not necessary for the survival of the Earth's ecosystems. In fact the Earth may well be better off if we were to just disappear all at once.

One of the main things that distinguishes us from chimps is our generally destructive behavior (or just our behavior in general) towards ourselves, others, and the environment. Chimps and other animals do not possess the free will to do these things.

I'm having a real hard time following you here. The differentiating factor between chimps and humans that gives humans Free Will is that we're inherently destructive? Clearly it's possible for a species to exhibit (self) destructive behavior and do so instinctively. I'm looking for a biological process, here. What chemical or gland or something does the human brain possess that a chimp does not?

For our purposes we will define "agents" as "humans". Now, to make a choice is primarily a state of mind. For example, say you want to choose between a blue or a black pen. A choice is made when you decide in your mind what color pen you want. That, right there, is the essence of choice.

But you're still just punting. The whole human isn't the agent, is it? Your foot never makes a choice. Your ribcage never makes a choice. What I'm getting at is that you've got a problem of reduction. Where is this "agent"?

(I'll give you a hint: You'll notice that everyone else who believes in Free Will in this debate has realized this, and claimed existence of some non-physical world of minds separate from bodies)

And about "choice". What, from a physics standpoint, is the difference between somebody choosing an action and an action just happening normally?

(What I'm getting at is that "choice" is just a nice word for "selectively violates physics")

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Sun- I don't think determinism means we can't punish bad behavior, in fact it's the opposite. If humans aren't free, reward/ punishment becomes more important because conditioning would have a greater influence on how someone behaves.

This can be true, but justice itself still could not exist.

Sun and Alt- I'd say animals have limited free will in the sense that they are not determined, but aren't capable of mentally choosing certain acts which they are physically capable of (barring human interference). For example animals never leave or corrupt ecosystems, despite being perfectly capable of doing so. No wilderbeast ever refuses to cross the Serenghetti annually.

What makes humans distinct is that we can chose to be otherwise than our nature, because we are capable of mentally choosing any act that we're physically capable of.

I like this definition a lot, thanks Dre. It's pretty much what I wanted to say with regards to how we are different from chimps but it's much better articulated.

Suntan Luigi

When replying, don't put responses inside quotes like that. Sometimes coloration gets lost and your replies become impossible to pick out. Plus they're hard to reply back to. See the sticky here: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=245813

Okay (okayface.jpg)

The topics of "Do we have Free Will" and "What are the moral implications of having Free Will" are completely separate topics. Don't muddle them. We are all having a discussion about whether or not Free Will exists. It's completely irrelevant how that impacts justice or out philosophy on life.

Sorry, but I have to disagree on this. I think that the inevitable consequences of having no free will are relevant to this topic. After all, if it can be used to make a certain point then I feel it is relevant enough. Plus, the moral implications of the truth of this topic are very important with regards to our everyday lives. I don't like to think in such compartmentalized terms.

If it's true, it's true. Deal with it. You do not get the luxury of choosing the truth based on what you would like the world to be. If there's no such thing as "justice" as you've defined it, then whatever. That has no bearing on whether or not Free Will exists.

So you deny that both justice and free will exist?

And your first point is just that people FEEL like they have Free Will. We naturally intuitively think we do. Sure. But I don't see the point here. Are you saying that because it's intuitive, it's true?

It certainly supports the existence of free will, if we feel that we have it. If we felt completely compelled to do specific, pre-determined actions around the clock then that would seem more like we don't have free will.

I'm having a real hard time following you here. The differentiating factor between chimps and humans that gives humans Free Will is that we're inherently destructive? Clearly it's possible for a species to exhibit (self) destructive behavior and do so instinctively. I'm looking for a biological process, here. What chemical or gland or something does the human brain possess that a chimp does not?

Please see Dre's excellent definition that I quoted and bolded near the top of this post.

But you're still just punting. The whole human isn't the agent, is it? Your foot never makes a choice. Your ribcage never makes a choice. What I'm getting at is that you've got a problem of reduction. Where is this "agent"?

(I'll give you a hint: You'll notice that everyone else who believes in Free Will in this debate has realized this, and claimed existence of some non-physical world of minds separate from bodies)

This "agent" is us. Me. You. Everyone. It is who we are and what we do. It is not something physical, like you said. The "agent" is simply a person's mind/consciousness, or you could also call it the "soul".

And about "choice". What, from a physics standpoint, is the difference between somebody choosing an action and an action just happening normally?

(What I'm getting at is that "choice" is just a nice word for "selectively violates physics")

Choice is not a physical thing. You cannot define it from a physical standpoint.

 

[AltF4]

Be careful with my wording. I didn't say that the moral implications of Free Will are unimportant. I agree it is important. But it is irrelevant to our current discussion.

For example... consider the question of whether it's possible to build a nuclear bomb using only household cleaning chemicals. Now clearly there are very important moral implications to the answer to that question. And legal implications. But it is a totally separate matter to whether or not it's possible. You can't say "It would be immoral to build a nuclear bomb using household cleaning chemicals... therefore it is impossible"

Likewise, you cannot say that there are negative moral implications to a world where Free Will does not exist... therefore Free Will exists.

I hope that's clear.


As for our intuitive feeling that we have Free Will, it's clearly not true that this indicates the existence of Free Will. The entire reason we have a scientific method is because intuition is not a reliable source of knowledge. If you just take a few university level physics courses, your sense of intuition will be completely blown away. The universe does not work how we intuitively think it should.


And lastly, I'm glad to have finally pried out of you what is invariably behind everyone who asserts Free Will: the belief in a soul. Which just confirms what I've been saying from the beginning here. There is no way to reconcile Free Will with science. You have to resort to magic (religion) to make even any sense out of it.

 

[Theftz22]

The whole thing: Determinism is false. This has been widely known for around a hundred years now. It's as false as a flat Earth is false. Possible in principle, maybe. But it's been contradicted by experiment. It's false.

6) Your whole argument is essentially bound up into this "premise". But it's false. Quantum Mechanics proposes a world that is non-deterministic, but does not allow for Free Will.

I don't see why you say that quantum mechanics disprove determinism. Most of the physical interpretations of quantum mechanics are fully deterministic, and the Copenhagen interpretation has fallen out of favor in recent times.

Now 6 seems to me to be true because if it is not true that every event is causally necessitated by antecedent events then it is probably true that some person, at some time, could have acted otherwise than they did, which is what we mean by free will. There are generally three positions on the topic of three will, libertarianism, compatibilism, and incompatibilism. The only one of these three that rejects the existence of free will is incompatibilism, and incompatibilism presupposes that determinism is true. So it seems that if determinism is false, then libertarianism is true. And if libertarianism is true, then free will exists. So if determinism is false, free will exists.

4) I don't know what it means for a non-physical thing to exist. When you tell me a physical object exists, the word "exists" has a clear distinct meaning. You are telling me the physical thing has mass, a location, and velocity. But what does it mean for a non-physical thing to exist? What differentiates it from a non-existent non-physical thing?

When I say that a concrete object exists, I wouldn't reduce the meaning of that to saying that it has mass, location, and velocity. These are properties of existent concrete things, but they don't define existence. Some might say that something exists iff it obtains in reality. This seems to be non-descriptive though and has some considerations against it. I've been tempted to say that some subject exists iff it has predicates. Something that does not exist has no predicates. Either way, what exactly existence is (some have said it's just another predicate) is a controversial philosophical topic and so I can't do it justice here, but my failure to do justice in defining existence doesn't somehow logically entail that only concrete objects can exist. Dualists, platonists, theists, and deists all believe that something non-physical exists, and together those groups constitute probably over 95% of the general populace and over 75% of philosophers, so it's not a controversy to say that something non-physical can (at least possibly) exist.

8) I can conceive of plenty of things which are impossible. I can imagine a circle who's circumference is 6 times its radius. But this is impossible. (The ratio between the radius and circumference of a circle is 2pi) Indeed, pi is what's called a transcendental number. So called because its value would remain the same in no matter what universe and no matter what axioms of math you have. So it's super impossible even in any hypothetical universe. But I can imagine it.

I certainly can't conceive of a circle that has a circumference 6 times its radius. Can you really? If I try to conceive of such a thing it is just an oval. Sure I can conceive of a circle in which there is a circumference line through it with a written label 12pi next to it, but I'm not really conceiving of a circle with a circumference of 12pi, the circumference of my conceived circle is wrongly labeled. Anything which has a circumference of 12pi is by definition not a circle, so I don't really think that such a thing is conceivable.

I conceive of all sorts of impossible things every night when I dream. This line of argument is really quite silly. Being able to or not able to conceive of something is a statement of how wild your imagination is. Whether something is or is not impossible is a statement about the state of the universe. Why would you think that these two have any relationship?

By impossibility here I mean logical impossibility, that is that something is impossible iff it is contradictory and thus cannot exist in any possible world. I don't mean physical possibility or impossibility, which refers to whether or not something can happen in the actual world, or the universe. I can think of several good arguments for why something that is impossible would be inconceivable, but I can also think of a good reductio argument against it, so I'm currently a cancellation agnostic about this premise. As I said, perhaps I'll elaborate on this premise at some point in the future.

10&11) You jump from "It is possible that X is true" to "X is true". I hope I don't have to go any further to show why this is wrong.

That comes as a function of modal logic. Since identity is a necessary property, if an entity A is possibly not identical to entity B, then A is just not in fact identical to B.

 

[AltF4]

I don't see why you say that quantum mechanics disprove determinism. Most of the physical interpretations of quantum mechanics are fully deterministic, and the Copenhagen interpretation has fallen out of favor in recent times.

Taken right from the Wikipedia page on Laplace's Demon:

"Due to its assumption of determinism, Laplace's thought experiment is inherently incompatible with quantum mechanical theories, where chance is an essential part of the world's unfolding. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example, states that exact measurements of positions and momentum may not be defined (and observed) together with more than a given precision."

That page then continues on to describe why Laplace's Demon (IE: Deteminism) is disproven from all kinds of different independent fields.

When I say that a concrete object exists, I wouldn't reduce the meaning of that to saying that it has mass, location, and velocity.

I would.

These are properties of existent concrete things, but they don't define existence. Some might say that something exists iff it obtains in reality.

...obtains in reality? I honestly have no clue what that means. You're going to have to explain.

This seems to be non-descriptive though and has some considerations against it. I've been tempted to say that some subject exists iff it has predicates. Something that does not exist has no predicates. Either way, what exactly existence is (some have said it's just another predicate) is a controversial philosophical topic and so I can't do it justice here, but my failure to do justice in defining existence doesn't somehow logically entail that only concrete objects can exist.

So here you say that you don't know what you mean when you say that non-physical objects exist. But don't fear! Nobody else does, either!

And I'm supposed to accept that argument?

Dualists, platonists, theists, and deists all believe that something non-physical exists, and together those groups constitute probably over 95% of the general populace and over 75% of philosophers, so it's not a controversy to say that something non-physical can (at least possibly) exist.

Argument from authority at best. I would even challenge your numbers.

I certainly can't conceive of a circle that has a circumference 6 times its radius. Can you really? If I try to conceive of such a thing it is just an oval. Sure I can conceive of a circle in which there is a circumference line through it with a written label 12pi next to it, but I'm not really conceiving of a circle with a circumference of 12pi, the circumference of my conceived circle is wrongly labeled. Anything which has a circumference of 12pi is by definition not a circle, so I don't really think that such a thing is conceivable.

Yes, it's impossible. I agree that you cannot have a unit circle with circumference of 6. But we're not talking what's possible. Just what's conceivable. And I can think of it.

That comes as a function of modal logic. Since identity is a necessary property, if an entity A is possibly not identical to entity B, then A is just not in fact identical to B.

Ahh, this is coming up again. The argument goes: "I can imagine X and Y being different. Therefore they are different." Which is just absurd.

- It is conceivable that the Earth is not identical to the 3rd planet from the Sun.
-Therefore it is possible that the Earth is not identical to the 3rd planet from the Sun.
- Therefore the Earth is not actually identical to the 3rd planet from the Sun.


EDIT: And I see that still nobody has even tried to answer any of the questions that I asked about how Free Will works.

 

[rvkevin]

Ahh, this is coming up again. The argument goes: "I can imagine X and Y being different. Therefore they are different." Which is just absurd.

- It is conceivable that the Earth is not identical to the 3rd planet from the Sun.
-Therefore it is possible that the Earth is not identical to the 3rd planet from the Sun.
- Therefore the Earth is not actually identical to the 3rd planet from the Sun.

It applies to concepts, not findings of fact. In other words, it simply means that the two things do not share the same definition. For your example, it shows that the concept of the Earth is not identical to the concept of 3rd planet from the sun, that they don't share the same definition, which is in fact the case. This step says nothing about the natural world, merely the concepts that we use to describe it.

Edit: v Welcome to philosophy

 

[AltF4]

Good. So when someone says:

- It is conceivable that the mind is not identical to the brain.
- Therefore it is possible that the mind is not identical to the brain.
- Therefore the mind is not actually identical to the brain.

All you've done is shown that "mind" and "brain" are different concepts. Well duh! You have specifically defined "mind" and "brain" such that they are different concepts. And then we go through some long and elaborate logical proof just to show that they're different concepts?

You have NOT shown that a non-physical mind exists. You have not shown that non-physical minds are even possible.

Making the statement "the mind and brain are not identical" is HIGHLY disingenuous. What you are actually saying is:

"The word Brain means something. The word Mind means something different."

But what you are incorrectly insinuating is:

"Non-physical minds exist"

 

[Dre89]

Sun- Alt's right, the moral implications of determinism have nothing to do with whether it exists or not. Attempting to suggest so is committing an appeal to consequence fallacy.

Alt- Non-physical notions of free will don't need to be reconcilable with science because science doesn't have access to the non-physical, it's not a scientific issue.

Free will by default is a philosophical issue. Like the God issue, it's philosophers who study it. The only time when science becomes relevant is when someone invokes physical arguments, suggesting that science or something physical in the world is evidence of free will. However, also like the God issue, the best arguments are generally metaphysical.

The reason why you think everything has to be reconcilable by science (apart from the fact that you're not educated in non-physical disciplines and the methodologies applied to them) is because you take the metaphysical position of materialism, which discards the non-physical.

Now I know what you'll do here. Because you're only educated in scientific thinking, you're going to think that metaphysical assumptions are undefeatable, and that by my logic any metaphysical premise for free will, or for anything else for that matter, is valid. I don't mean that insultingly- that's exactly what you and the other scientisimists have been saying ever since I've joined the debate hall. People need to learn that something isn't unintelligible simply because they're not educated in it.

To show my point, let's take the notion that the world was created by a pink bull who turns invisible everytime something sentient looks in his direction. People uneducated in non-physical methodologies think that this is an undefeatable claim and therefore it holds no relevance, when in reality it is easily destroyed. For starters, the fact there has been no sense experience of it means that the only reason why it would be logical to believe it exists is if it was metaphysically necessary for some reason. However, given that it is a physical, contingent being, it is very easy to prove it is not metaphysically necessary for anything, and that it couldn;t be the creator of the universe, thus there is no reason to believe it exists. Even if the premise was that it could possivbly exist, that would still have metaphysical consequences (eg. because science suggests a being like that is physically impossible, it must have been created by a God etc.).

The point of that example is that an argument isn't unintelligibe, invincible or pointless if it is non-physical. And seeing that most arguments for FW are non-physical, science has little relevance in the debate.

In fact, not only are you trying to use science to negate FW arguments, you actually tried to use science to make a positve argument that is impossible that free will does not exist. Again, that is only of relevance to physical arguments for free will- the physical can't show that something non-physical doesn't exist.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Be careful with my wording. I didn't say that the moral implications of Free Will
are unimportant. I agree it is important. But it is irrelevant to our current
discussion.

For example... consider the question of whether it's possible to build a nuclear
bomb using only household cleaning chemicals. Now clearly there are very important
moral implications to the answer to that question. And legal implications. But it is
a totally separate matter to whether or not it's possible. You can't say "It would
be immoral to build a nuclear bomb using household cleaning chemicals... therefore
it is impossible"

Likewise, you cannot say that there are negative moral implications to a world where
Free Will does not exist... therefore Free Will exists.

I hope that's clear.

My point was more along the lines of, "there are such mind-bogglingly massive and all-
encompassing negative moral implications in a world where free will does not exist
that it approaches a point of logical absurdity (e.g. Hitler is as guilty of injustice as a
newborn baby)". Okay, perhaps this point does not prove that free will exists. Maybe
Pol Pot is no different from Martin Luther King Jr. But I must say it's quite hard
for me to understand how someone could actually believe that good and bad people do
not exist, and that there is no such thing as (in)justice. This would probably seem
to many to be a very radical and absurd belief. I don't see what line of logical
reasoning you could use that would convince people of Hitler's innocence.

As for our intuitive feeling that we have Free Will, it's clearly not true that this
indicates the existence of Free Will. The entire reason we have a scientific method
is because intuition is not a reliable source of knowledge. If you just take a few
university level physics courses, your sense of intuition will be completely blown
away. The universe does not work how we intuitively think it should.

I do recognize the value of the scientific
method; indeed, many of the modern conveinieces we enjoy would not exist if not for
this method. However, with that being said, let's now take a closer look at the
often under-appreciated value of intuition.

I read this very amazing book several years ago. It's called "Blink", by Malcolm Gladwell, and it is an excellent book that I would highly recommend if you are looking to better know
the true power of our intuition and first impressions. This book is basically filled
to the brim with many factual instances where people's intuition made them solve a
problem or avoid a bad situation. It's been a while since I read it, but I can give
just one short example from the book here.

A firefighter lead his team into a one-story building on fire. The fire did not
appear to be very severe. However, while they were inside he got an unexplainable feeling of apprehension, and ended up withdrawing his team from the house. No more than thirty seconds afterwards, the entire flooring of the house caved in and a blazing inferno in the
basement was revealed, a far bigger fire then what they had seen on the first floor.
The firefighter who made this call went solely off of his intuition, and he ended up
saving the lives of his whole crew.

The main point is that there are many instances where our intuition can be a very useful and, at times, reliable tool. And there are real world examples that prove this.

And lastly, I'm glad to have finally pried out of you what is invariably behind
everyone who asserts Free Will: the belief in a soul. Which just confirms what I've
been saying from the beginning here. There is no way to reconcile Free Will with
science. You have to resort to magic (religion) to make even any sense out of it.

What I am talking about is our consciousness, feelings, and thoughts that make up who we are. You don't have to think of it as a "soul". You agree that we have these, right?

And if free will is not reconcilable with science, so what? Science is not adequate to
explain everything. For the most part it can only explain the physical dimension of
our universe. Science is totally helpless to answer many philosophical topics. Free will is not a physical thing at all, despite it having physical
consequences. Just because science cannot explain it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You must think outside of the "science box".

Also, this has nothing to do with religion at the moment.

You did not address the definition given earlier on how humans are different from other animals?

And I see that still nobody has even tried to answer any of the questions that I asked about how Free Will works.

Free will does not exist due to an extra gland that humans have over animals. Like I said before, choice is primarily a state of mind. You have to make the choice about what color pen you want in your head before you make the physical choice of buying it. This is what free will really is.

 

[Dre89]

Alt doesn't think humans are different from other animals. He just thinks we're more intelligent.

As for the fact that humans are the only beings capable of mentally choosing any act they are physically capable of, he'd probably just put that down to intelligence too, as most scientific thinkers do, even though that's not really an adequate explanation.

 

[rvkevin]

As for the fact that humans are the only beings capable of mentally choosing any act they are physically capable of

Source?

The main point is that there are many instances where our intuition can be a very useful and, at times, reliable tool. And there are real world examples that prove this.

Just a note: when you are trying to show that something is reliable, it is insufficient to point to successful examples, regardless of how many there are. You also need to consider all the misses.

 

[Dre89]

Rv- Are you honestly going to contest that premise? Animals never leave their ecosystem and corrupt others. They will always participate in annual migrations etc. Contesting that is just being anal.

 

[rvkevin]

Animals never leave their ecosystem and corrupt others.

Even if this were true, it would not support your previous statement. Simply because an animal does not have the physical means to "corrupt an ecosystem" that they are not fit to live in does not mean that they cannot mentally choose to perform any task that they are physically able to do. So lets say a bear leaves the forest and enters the city, I think this would qualify as a shift in ecosystem. Due to the invention of tranquilizer darts, they are unable to physically "corrupt" the ecosystem that they have entered. How in any way does this mean that they can't mentally choose any action that they are physically able to do? It doesn't, it's completely irrelevant. It simply means that we are able to perform more actions, which does not qualify as free will at all.

 

[AltF4]

When someone says they believe some non-physical entity exists and that science is useless to the topic, I usually just roll my eyes. This is the death throes of a bad argument. Once you realize that your argument can't work, you just resort to: "Oh, yea? Well it doesn't have to make sense, because it's magic!"

And that's all well and good when someone draws a hard line between the physical and non-physical. When it is said that there are no interactions between physical and non-physical. But that's not what you are proposing here! Oh, no!

Let's for a moment assume that there is a non-physical world of "minds" separate from bodies:

Clearly minds and bodies directly affect one another. Your mind directly affects your body. This is what "Free Will" is supposed to be. And clearly your brain affects your mind. If you take drugs, it affects your mind. If you stick a needle in your brain, it will affect your mind.

So don't tell me that physics has no role to play, here. This topic is about the nature of this supposed interaction with the physical world. The physical world which obeys the laws of physics.


What you are proposing is that a force comes in from outside our universe and affects our brains. So according to you, people should be able to fly like superman just by thinking it. Your mind can push and pull on objects in the physical world, after all. If only you thought about it hard enough, you should be able to have telekineses.

Are there rules that govern the interaction between minds and bodies? Where does the energy that minds produce come from? If there is a set of rules that govern the interaction, then how is that Free Will? Minds then become just another extension of the physical world, obeying a set of physical laws. If there are no rules, then this is as clear a violation of causality as there can be.



And STILL no attempts to answer my questions about the nature of how Free Will works. I'm going to just declare victory here if nobody even tries to respond to my challenges. I'll even repost it now for the fifth time:

How exactly does Free Will work? Some gland, or chemical that violates physical law? And is it just humans? What about monkeys, dogs, cats, mice, flies, mites, bacteria, viruses, rocks? What causes the line to be drawn where it is?

What would happen if you made an exact, atom-for-atom duplicate of a person? Should we expect them to drop down dead because the copy has no "mind"?

Free Will is a binary proposition. You can either have it or not. There's no in-between. So, then at what point in the human development cycle does Free Will occur? Clearly, the mass of a few dozen cells shortly after conception doesn't have Free Will. But a grown adult does? So at what exact developmental period does Free Will occur? And what causes it to?

 

[Theftz22]

Taken right from the Wikipedia page on Laplace's Demon:

"Due to its assumption of determinism, Laplace's thought experiment is inherently incompatible with quantum mechanical theories, where chance is an essential part of the world's unfolding. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example, states that exact measurements of positions and momentum may not be defined (and observed) together with more than a given precision."

That page then continues on to describe why Laplace's Demon (IE: Deteminism) is disproven from all kinds of different independent fields.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle presupposes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics which has fallen out of favor due to collapsing the wave function. There are currently 4 prominent interpretations of quantum physics that are fully deterministic and 3 that are agnostic as to the issue. There are only 2 prominent interpretations of quantum physics that are deterministic and do not collapse the wave function.

Prof. Carl Hoefer summarizes by saying, "Ironically, quantum mechanics is one of the best prospects for a genuinely deterministic theory in modern times! Even more than in the case of GTR and the hole argument, everything hinges on what interpretational and philosophical decisions one adopts. The fundamental law at the heart of non-relativistic QM is the Schrödinger equation. The evolution of a wavefunction describing a physical system under this equation is normally taken to be perfectly deterministic. If one adopts an interpretation of QM according to which that's it—i.e., nothing ever interrupts Schrödinger evolution, and the wavefunctions governed by the equation tell the complete physical story—then quantum mechanics is a perfectly deterministic theory. There are several interpretations that physicists and philosophers have given of QM which go this way."

...obtains in reality? I honestly have no clue what that means. You're going to have to explain.

Basically is real.

So here you say that you don't know what you mean when you say that non-physical objects exist. But don't fear! Nobody else does, either!

And I'm supposed to accept that argument?

That wasn't my argument, and I think that the definition I would advance is that some subject exists iff it has predicates. My point was that even if I can't adequately do justice in defining existence that does not logically entail that only concrete objects can exist. So my point was basically that you're not making an argument against the existence of non-physical objects by pointing out that it's hard to define existence. That's just a non-sequitur.

Argument from authority at best. I would even challenge your numbers.

My point was simply that it's not a controversial assertion.

Yes, it's impossible. I agree that you cannot have a unit circle with circumference of 6. But we're not talking what's possible. Just what's conceivable. And I can think of it.

Perhaps you have a different conception of the concept of conceiving something (). I don't mean just thinking of a label like circle with a circumference of 12pi. By conceivable I mean something more like being able to actually picture something in your mind. I can't picture a circle with a circumference of 12pi, just like I can't picture a square circle or a married bachelor. One sure fire way to test for conceivability is to try to depict something, for conceivability is a necessary condition for depictability. So I can depict for instance, one's mind existing without one's body, many movies do this. This objectively proves that it is conceivable for one's mind to exist without one's body. Can you depict a circle with circumference of 12pi.

Ahh, this is coming up again. The argument goes: "I can imagine X and Y being different. Therefore they are different." Which is just absurd.

- It is conceivable that the Earth is not identical to the 3rd planet from the Sun.
-Therefore it is possible that the Earth is not identical to the 3rd planet from the Sun.
- Therefore the Earth is not actually identical to the 3rd planet from the Sun.

No the form of argument is that things that are possibly not identical are not in fact identical because they have different modal properties. It's a well established truth of modal logic.

You're argument here is actually sound. The earth is contingently the third planet from the sun but it is not identical to the third planet from the sun. The concept of the third planet from the sun refers to a relative spacial location whereas the Earth refers to a definite planet. We don't even have to appeal to logical possibility here, just physical possibility. It's it physically, or actually possible, that say, an asteroid knocks the Earth farther away from the sun and into a lengthier orbit, thus making the Earth the fourth planet from the sun. This shows that the two concepts cannot be identical.

 

[Dre89]

Rvkevin- There are plenty of ecosystems which are perfectly harmable by certain animals. Explain to me- do you ever see any salmon or wilderbeast rebel and not take part in their respective migrations?

The bear example is irrelevant because because the only reason why a bear would wander into a city is because 1. Before its urbanisation that location was part of the bear's original ecosystem, or 2. The bear has been forced to search for food or territory outside of its regular ecosytem because humans have interfered with its regular ecosyetm, be it through deforrestation, introducing new species which imbalance the ecosystem etc.

Please give me an example of where an animal does something out of its norm eg. corrupting an ecosystem, refusing to migrate, a terrestial animal living an aquatic life etc.


Alt- Again you're simplifying because you're uneducated in non-physical disciplines. You're assuming that non-physical= omnipotence. Having a non-physical mind doesn't mean we can fly, because our potency is still completely physical. Being able to fly would mean we would have a supernatural body. Oversimplifying in this manner just makes you sound like a new age atheist who still thinks God is a man in the clouds with a beard.

And your question about how free will works doesn't need to be answered scientifically if the proposed mind and free will are non-physical. Of course, a non-physical notion of free will still has problems it has to answer, but the science is not relevant. People aren't saying that the science is wrong, it's not a one-dimensional religion vs science issue as you'd like to think it is, it's just that a non-physical proposition is not accessible by science.

Besides, you still haven't answered my question of where the my thought of an apple physicall exists in the universe. I visually perceived something, with colours, shape, dimensions etc. Now in a world where everything is physical, surely that has to have a physical location doesn't it? You can't be a physicalist one minute and then the next minute say that the image I saw exists non-physically.

 

[AltF4]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle presupposes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.

No it doesn't.

Prof. Carl Hoefer summarizes by saying, ...

Appeal to authority again. I'm not interested in what some cherry picked physicist thinks. You'll always be able to find someone who agrees with you.

Basically is real.

Are you even speaking English? You told me: "Something exists iff it obtains in reality". And I still honestly haven't the slightest clue what that's supposed to mean. "Basically is real" isn't even a grammatically correct sentence. Come on, now. I asked for an honest clarification.

That wasn't my argument, and I think that the definition I would advance is that some subject exists iff it has predicates. My point was that even if I can't adequately do justice in defining existence that does not logically entail that only concrete objects can exist. So my point was basically that you're not making an argument against the existence of non-physical objects by pointing out that it's hard to define existence. That's just a non-sequitur.

No, I'm pointing out that your concept for existence is incoherent. You are saying "existence" but have no clue what that actually means in this context. Clearly it does NOT mean the same thing as with physical objects. Yet you use the same word "exists" in order to construct a disingenuous sentence like "Non-physical minds exist".

Pointing out that nobody else is able to figure out what it means for non-physical objects to exist is not a defense.

You're argument here is actually sound. The earth is contingently the third planet from the sun but it is not identical to the third planet from the sun. The concept of the third planet from the sun refers to a relative spacial location whereas the Earth refers to a definite planet. We don't even have to appeal to logical possibility here, just physical possibility. It's it physically, or actually possible, that say, an asteroid knocks the Earth farther away from the sun and into a lengthier orbit, thus making the Earth the fourth planet from the sun. This shows that the two concepts cannot be identical.

I already made a reply to exactly this a few posts ago. Which is what I was hoping you'd say.

When you are making the statement "Therefore the Mind is not actually identical to the Brain." what you are REALLY saying is:

"The mind and brain are different words with different definitions." IE: Their CONCEPTS are different.

Well duh! You don't need a long drawn out proof to show that. That comes directly from the fact that we defined the words so that they ARE different.

What you are NOT saying is:

"You have a non-physical mind which is separate from your body"

 

[AltF4]

Alt- Again you're simplifying because you're uneducated in non-physical disciplines.

Oh, please.

You're assuming that non-physical= omnipotence. Having a non-physical mind doesn't mean we can fly, because our potency is still completely physical. Being able to fly would mean we would have a supernatural body. Oversimplifying in this manner just makes you sound like a new age atheist who still thinks God is a man in the clouds with a beard.

I am doing no such thing. I am pointing out that the mind affects the body. The body is physical. The mind is physically moving parts in the brain. It must be tugging on synapses or something which cause choices to be made.

But a force is a force. If it can be used to tug on a synapse, it could be used to fly in principle. If the mind is able to move parts of the body, what is keeping it from moving things not in your body?

And your question about how free will works doesn't need to be answered scientifically if the proposed mind and free will are non-physical.

So you would agree with what has been my assertion from the very beginning of this debate:

You cannot reconcile Free Will with science. It may be possible in principle, but is as false as a Flat Earth theory. It is contradicted by experiment. In a philosophy class, you might have fun entertaining such notions, but I'll sit that one out thank you very much.

Besides, you still haven't answered my question of where the my thought of an apple physicall exists in the universe.

Seriously, Dre?! Seriously? You're going to accuse me of not answering your questions in this debate? Let me give you a refresher because you've apparently forgotten:

You asked me a question: (the one you just asked). And then I gave you an answer:

And Alt, you said you answered this question, but what was the answer you gave? All I remember you doing was committing ad hominems by trying to portray me as deceptive.|

And then I respond back, telling you that you're wrong and I just did respond:

Where do you come up with this stuff? This is literally what I posted: (response above)

And now you are coming back again saying I haven't responded to your questions? Absurd. Meanwhile I've posted a series of questions that actually haven't been addressed even after having been posted 5 times now. How am I supposed to have a debate like this?

 

[Dre89]

Ok let me rephrase, I don't think you gave me an adequate answer. I responded that those weren't sufficient answers, and I showed why the computer example fails. It fails because the computer doesn't conceive of the image before it projects it physically on the screen. It doesn't have a conscience distinct form its data, and from the physical projections on the screen.

The human mind however, does not physically project anything onto any screen, yet visually conceives of an image. This is not merely chemicals in the brain- those chemicals may be responsible for the image, but they are not the image itself, otherwise instead of visualing an apple I'd simply be visualing the process going on in my brain. The data in my brain and the image are distinct.

As for the flying thing, again you're phsyicalising it. You're treating the mind as a physical force. The mind is obviously connected to the body, which is why it has control over it and not other objects. You have to remember that if the non-physical exists, then it preceded the physical, which means non-physical agents wouldn't be succeptible to physical laws. If a hypothetical angel were to appear and make an object dissappear, there need be no physical explanation for that because obviously it's a non-physical process.

And no, maybe physical arguments aren't reconcilable with science, but non-physical notions of free will (most of them) don't need to reconcile with science.

The physical world and its laws are entirely contingent- they're not laws of logical necessity, so hypothetically it is possible that they can be broken. The contingency of the physical world is why people such as myself think that something non-physical preceded the physical. But of course, you're a materialist, and like most scientists, you simply just assume a metaphysical position, with numerous metaphysical consequences and assumptions, yet make no defence for it, because you're not educated in/aware of metaphysics. What you're doing is the equivalent of a young Earth creationist believes that the world is 6000 years old based on theology- they simply assume an empirical/scientific point that has empirical/scientific consequences, that can be challenged by science.

 

[Theftz22]

No it doesn't.

I guess I'm just wondering what your sources are. Here's a wiki quote "The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle were in fact seen as twin targets by detractors who believed in an underlying determinism and realism. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, there is no fundamental reality that the quantum state describes, just a prescription for calculating experimental results. There is no way to say what the state of a system fundamentally is, only what the result of observations might be.
Albert Einstein believed that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality, while Niels Bohr believed that the probability distributions are fundamental and irreducible, and depend on which measurements we choose to perform. Einstein and Bohr debated the uncertainty principle for many years."

The article goes on to talk about the different interpretations of quantum physics that eliminate the uncertainty principle.

Appeal to authority again. I'm not interested in what some cherry picked physicist thinks. You'll always be able to find someone who agrees with you.

I can hardly see what else we can do in the realm of science other than appeal to those more educated on the topic. Am I to be expected to do all original research in order to back up my claims? Either way I'm not making an argument like: This qualified guy says, therefore it's true. I chose the quote because it's a good summary of the topic and explains the relationship of determinism and the physical interpretations.

Are you even speaking English? You told me: "Something exists iff it obtains in reality". And I still honestly haven't the slightest clue what that's supposed to mean. "Basically is real" isn't even a grammatically correct sentence. Come on, now. I asked for an honest clarification.

What I meant was that "obtains in reality" basically means "is real".

No, I'm pointing out that your concept for existence is incoherent. You are saying "existence" but have no clue what that actually means in this context. Clearly it does NOT mean the same thing as with physical objects. Yet you use the same word "exists" in order to construct a disingenuous sentence like "Non-physical minds exist".

Pointing out that nobody else is able to figure out what it means for non-physical objects to exist is not a defense.

You never proved that saying that non-physical things exist is incoherent, you simply challenged me to provide a definition of existence that could cover non-physical objects. My point is that it's a non-sequitur to say that my failure to meet that challenge proves that the idea of abstract objects existing is incoherent. Now, the definition of the word exists will apply universally to both physical and non-physical objects, so really you're just showing that it's hard to define existence. Sure, I'd agree that existence entails different things for concrete and abstract objects (e.g. having mass (contra neutrinos), velocity, and location) but a final definition of existence would have to be unequivocal.

I never said that no one knows how to define existence I just said that it's a complex and controversial issue. And so my point is that what you're doing here is equivalent to if I were demand that you explain all of quantum physics to me and then claim that quantum physics is false if you could not. Finally, I don't see anything wrong with a working definition of existence as "a given entity x exists if and only if it has predicates". So this is a non-issue.

I already made a reply to exactly this a few posts ago. Which is what I was hoping you'd say.

When you are making the statement "Therefore the Mind is not actually identical to the Brain." what you are REALLY saying is:

"The mind and brain are different words with different definitions." IE: Their CONCEPTS are different.

Well duh! You don't need a long drawn out proof to show that. That comes directly from the fact that we defined the words so that they ARE different.

What you are NOT saying is:

"You have a non-physical mind which is separate from your body"

Well yes the truth that the mind is not identical to the brain isn't enough alone to prove substance dualism. What it does do is disprove positions like reductive and eliminative physicalism, and forces you to adopt minimally some sort of supervenience theory such as property dualism (the position I am most inclined to). Either way my argument for the existence of free will doesn't necessitate substance dualism being true, just property dualism.

On the above argument by Dre.

Dre is correct, you cannot identify the conception itself with the object of the conception. You could say that the process by which we conceive is a purely chemical process, but the mental image itself is not chemical and exists nowhere in space. You could say it's a different immaterial substance like Dre, I prefer to be more Occhamistic and say it's a mental property, but you cannot say these things are identical. If you did, the following argument would be sound:

1. Given physicalism, our conceptions are purely physical.
2. If our conceptions are purely physical, then they actually exist in the real world.
3. Our conceptions do not actually exist in the real world.
4. Therefore physicalism is false.

2 is true because the actual chemical brain process really exists. But 3 is obvious because I can conceive of something like a flying pig which doesn't actually exist. This argument is sound if you think conceptions or the process of conception is identical to the object of the conception (the mental image) itself. What this shows is that you have to distinguish between the chemical process and the mental image. But when you do that you admit that they are not identical and therefore minimally property dualism follows.

A comment on free will: I no longer think my argument for the existence of free will is sound because I think premise 2 is false.

 

[rvkevin]

Alt, I guess this is what happens when you try to talk to people who study philosophy. You get arguments where they haven’t even defined their terms and when you apply what they normally mean to the argument, you get an obviously false result. However, since they don’t intend to use the regular definition, and take all the components out of the definition that give it its meaning, the argument becomes meaningless. For example, it was proposed that something exists; you then thought that this meant that the proposed phenomena have mass, location, and velocity. Your definition was rejected and replaced with something exists (i.e. is real) if and only if it is real, a meaningless tautology. Also, this is relevant when you are trying to say that something non-physical exists.

Dre., do you really think that humans are the only reason why animals would have to search elsewhere for food and that this is only a recent phenomena? Surely your joking. Anyway, I don’t feel inclined to play 20 questions regarding what you consider corrupting an ecosystem, or what would be considered a terrestrial animal living an aquatic lifestyle considering that you moved the goalpost as to what qualifies as leaving one’s ecosystem.

 

[Dre89]

Doggs- I'm not necessarily saying that our thoughts exist as immaterial substances in another world like Platonic ideas or anything, I'm just making the general point (which you acknowledged) that by Alt's logic those thoughts must physically exist somewhere.

Rv- The terminology is your problem not ours. Free will is a philosophy issue, studied by philosophers, and so philosophical terminology is the norm. Just because you and Alt have trouble understanding our terminology doesn't mean we're being vague, it just means you're uneducated in the topic.

For example, Underdoggs and I probably study at universities with conflicting philosophical schools of thought, and we certainly have conflicting metaphysical positions, yet I am able to understand everything he has said in this thread because I am mildly educated in the topic and the terminology.

The fact you two assumed existence only meant a physical existence shows how limited your scope is. In philosophy, the term existence is constantly applied to non-physical entities such as God, angels, sometimes even Platonic ideas etc.

Basically, not every debate topic revolves around science, and the burden of proof is on you to be educated in the relevant discipline if you want to participate in the debate.

 

[rvkevin]

Rv- The terminology is your problem not ours. Free will is a philosophy issue, studied by philosophers, and so philosophical terminology is the norm. Just because you and Alt have trouble understanding our terminology doesn't mean we're being vague, it just means you're uneducated in the topic.

Alt challenged him to define what he means when he says something exists and he responded if it is real. This is just transferring the meaning of one word onto another one that is similarly vague, which doesn't convey any information. This does not illuminate any meaning, this is the epitome of being vague. You don't seem to understand that introducing another contested term does not make the previous term anymore meaningful. Don't blame us for your inability to define a concept.

The fact you two assumed existence only meant a physical existence shows how limited your scope is. In philosophy, the term existence is constantly applied to non-physical entities such as God, angels, sometimes even Platonic ideas etc.

How does philosophy distinguish between non-existent things, existent non-manifesting things, and existent manifesting things? If you can't tell non-physical manifesting things apart from non-existent things, how can you apply the term existence to those entities? Until a method has been discovered, we can't meaningfully say that these non-physical entities exist.

Basically, not every debate topic revolves around science

I agree, right now, we are focusing on philosophy because we have yet to meaningfully define our terms. Once we accomplish that task, we can see if the concepts as defined in the previous step apply the natural world, which is the science step.

 

[Theftz22]

Alt challenged him to define what he means when he says something exists and he responded if it is real. This is just transferring the meaning of one word onto another one that is similarly vague, which doesn't convey any information. This does not illuminate any meaning, this is the epitome of being vague. You don't seem to understand that introducing another contested term does not make the previous term anymore meaningful. Don't blame us for your inability to define a concept.

Strawman alert. I said that some would define it as real but I would not. My preferred definition is that something exists iff it has predicates. Further I said that sure defining existence is a challenge, but that's all it is, a challenge. My inability to do would not entail that the existence of abstract objects is incoherent, and that proposing that it would is analagous to me declaring that quantum physics is false if alt can't explain it.

 

[AltF4]

No, Dre, you should really try reading a little harder and stop assuming that people who disagree with you are idiots. You've made this insult several times now that the problem here is that everyone else but you is unable to comprehend your arguments. It's not. Stop.

I never asserted or assumed that existence must entail a physical existence. I simply stated that I can put forth a concrete definition for physical existence, but I couldn't for non-physical. And so I asked for a good definition.

Nowhere in that exchange was me, the lowly idiotic engineer with a master's degree, misunderstanding complex philosophy terminology.

 

[Dre89]

I don't think you're idiots, I've actually said before that I think you and Rv are intelligent.

You're uneducated in philosophy, and I'm uneducated in science. The difference is that I don't treat science as if I'm qualified to discuss it, hence why I avoid scientific debates unless I'm just asking quetsion, and I don't act as if I can use philosophy to make scientific arguments.

Again, until a physical argument for free will is presented, science will have no relevance in this debate.

Also congrats on becoming a mod. Respect.

 

[rvkevin]

I said that some would define it as real but I would not.

My mistake.

 

[Dre89]

It's good that you openly admitted your mistake. Respect to ma homie.

 

[AltF4]

I guess I'm just wondering what your sources are. Here's a wiki quote "The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle were in fact seen as twin targets by detractors who believed in an underlying determinism and realism. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, there is no fundamental reality that the quantum state describes, just a prescription for calculating experimental results. There is no way to say what the state of a system fundamentally is, only what the result of observations might be.
Albert Einstein believed that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality, while Niels Bohr believed that the probability distributions are fundamental and irreducible, and depend on which measurements we choose to perform. Einstein and Bohr debated the uncertainty principle for many years."

The article goes on to talk about the different interpretations of quantum physics that eliminate the uncertainty principle.

Excellent question. You'll notice the section you're reading (link here for those following along: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Critical_reactions) is titled "Critical Reactions". Which is true, when the Uncertainty Principle first came out, there was a lot of people who couldn't believe it. Notably Einstein.

A lot of people then went to try and prove why the Uncertainty Principle couldn't be true. But it turned out they were wrong.

I'm sure you know this, but for the sake of readers: In Quantum Mechanics, there are two important but distinct areas. The mathematical laws, and the "Interpretations". So there are a series of mathematical equations which describe how particles and stuff works at a fundamental level. And then there is a qualitative description of what those equations "mean".

On one hand, the interpretations don't matter at all. The math works out and matches experiment.

But on the other hand they matter a lot in terms of trying to predict future advances, since they give you an insight into how things work.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is a mathematical rule of physics. It can have many different interpretations. The Copenhagen Interpretation says that wave functions themselves are reality. The Many Worlds Interpretation says that there are many worlds (a multiverse) of possibilities where each uncertain event takes place in parallel.

So the Uncertainty Principle (or any equation in Quantum Mechanics for that matter) doesn't presuppose a particular Interpretation. It goes the other way around. Interpretations are developed to fit the equations.

I can hardly see what else we can do in the realm of science other than appeal to those more educated on the topic. Am I to be expected to do all original research in order to back up my claims? Either way I'm not making an argument like: This qualified guy says, therefore it's true. I chose the quote because it's a good summary of the topic and explains the relationship of determinism and the physical interpretations.

It's perfectly acceptable to quote prominent scientists, but only as an illustrative point. Not as an authoritative point.

For example, Niel Tyson has a way of explaining the cosmos far better than I. So you may find me quoting him from time-to-time in matters of astronomy. But I only do so because he can speak better than me. I'm not making an appeal to authority, I'm just helping the process of understanding by including a good quote.

I objected to your quote because I felt like it was just an appeal to authority. If you think I was wrong about that then tell me.

What I meant was that "obtains in reality" basically means "is real".

Something exists if it "is real"? That's not a good definition, it's just a punt to the word "real".

Your other definition of "having predicates" is at least meaningful. Though I think I don't like it. See next text block...

You never proved that saying that non-physical things exist is incoherent, you simply challenged me to provide a definition of existence that could cover non-physical objects. My point is that it's a non-sequitur to say that my failure to meet that challenge proves that the idea of abstract objects existing is incoherent. Now, the definition of the word exists will apply universally to both physical and non-physical objects, so really you're just showing that it's hard to define existence. Sure, I'd agree that existence entails different things for concrete and abstract objects (e.g. having mass (contra neutrinos), velocity, and location) but a final definition of existence would have to be unequivocal.

1) Neutrinos do have mass (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Neutrino#Mass)

2) That's fair. Saying existence is "having predicates" is at least coherent.

I just think it's far too inclusive for our intuitive understanding of the word "existence". What's going on now is that we're using the same word "exist" to mean two totally different things, which get muddled together.

We say that a brain exists, in a physical sense. Meaning it has position and momentum.

Then we say that a non-physical mind "exists". Which here means something totally different. We really ought to be using a different word. They're totally different.

Well yes the truth that the mind is not identical to the brain isn't enough alone to prove substance dualism. What it does do is disprove positions like reductive and eliminative physicalism, and forces you to adopt minimally some sort of supervenience theory such as property dualism (the position I am most inclined to). Either way my argument for the existence of free will doesn't necessitate substance dualism being true, just property dualism.

I'll let you claim all the invisible non-physical planes of existence that you want, using whatever definition of existence you want. As long as it doesn't interact with our physical universe.

Once you start saying that particles in our physical universe are getting moved, then I become interested. And if you can't reconcile that with physical law, then don't expect me to take it seriously.