You Do Not Have Free Will

[Meta_U]

@Materialist

Nonsense. Drawing conclusions from evidence is extremely useful. You’re hunting. You see tracks that resemble an animal, and follow the tracks because you’ve concluded that they are likely to lead to the animal.

But this presupposes the possibility of not following the tracks. Therefore it presupposes the belief in alternative possibilities, so the belief in free will is therefore also presupposed in your example.

@Materialist

You chose to define “decision” as an indeterminate process. So instead of debating semantics, I shifted to selecting. Computer programs most certainly select a logic path on the basis of inputs, or prior computations (see this).

You have just replaced one semantic issue with another.

Look directly at the subject at hand. If the person, computer, or other type of machine, is forced by a deterministic world to make the action that it does, then it is impossible for it to act otherwise. Therefore it does not make a choice, selection, or decision, at any time, as those words are commonly used in a discussion of free will. You can redefine those words however you want, to suit your purpose, but it doesn’t change the fact that when people think about their own capacity to choose, select, and decide, they honestly believe that other possibilities are available. So all your are doing is redefining the words to suit some deceptive purpose.

@Angel

Excellent conclusion! Indeed, whether our brain (and not our conscious will) chooses the right or left button depends on factors hidden from our consciousness. Therefore, we don’t know what exactly caused the brain to make this choice.

The issue then, as I see it, is that if the passing of time provides the living being which exists at the present, with real possibilities to select from, regardless of micro/macro, conscious/subconscious distinctions, then we must account for the reality of the selection process.

This might be the most difficult aspect of free will to understand. Suppose there are a number of possibilities which can be actualized at any moment as time passes. If, whatever it is that selects from the possibilities, and produces an actualization, is said to act in a determined way, then it does not really select from possibilities, because it just actualizes what was predetermined. Then the other so-called “possibilities” were not really possibilities at all. Therefore, to maintain the principle, that the possibilities are real, and something actually selects what will be actualized, from the realm of possibility (the future), we must assume something which acts in a way which is free from deterministic causation. That is the free will agent.

And I agree with you that the free will agent is not the conscious mind. The conscious mind is an apparatus set up by the living being, which is specifically designed to assist in analyzing possibilities and in making free will choices. Notice that the conscious mind does not actually make the free will decision, it is not the agent. If it did, then the choice would be determined by the thinking activity of the conscious mind, and not free. But we notice that in reality we can choose other than what the rational mind tells us to do, therefore the actual free will agent, what chooses the possibilities to be actualized, is not the conscious mind.

[Angel]

@Meta_U

But we notice that in reality we can choose other than what the rational mind tells us to do, therefore the actual free will agent, what chooses the possibilities to be actualized, is not the conscious mind.

You’re talking about freedom of choice again. But how can you know what the brain based its choice on? You don’t have any information about this (when the brain makes its choice, we don’t know anything about it yet). Perhaps it had objective reasons that prevented it from choosing anything else.

[Meta_U]

@Angel

But how can you know what the brain based its choice on?

I don’t think that can be known. The point though, is that “choice” implies free will, for the reasons I explained in the last post. Choice requires real possibilities to choose from. And if the outcome was predetermined, that means there was no real possibilities, only a predetermined necessary result. But if there is real possibilities, and choice occurs, then it is necessary to conclude an agent which is free from determinist causation, which actualizes the potential (possibilities) in the chosen way.. So if we talk about the brain making choices, we must assume a free will agent within the brain, for that to make sense.

[Materialist]

@Meta_U

But this presupposes the possibility of not following the tracks.

No, it does not.

@Meta_U

Look directly at the subject at hand. If the person, computer, or other type of machine, is forced by a deterministic world to make the action that it does, then it is impossible for it to act otherwise. Therefore it does not make a choice, selection, or decision, at any time, as those words are commonly used in a discussion of free will.

When the selection is made, the external world is not forcing the individual to do anything. The individual controls what he does.

Compare this to the computer code I posted, executing a SELECT. The external world is not constraining or directing the selection. The computer is just executing the program. The hardware and software was caused, but the execution is independent of external control and constraint. The actual selection occurs during the execution. The programmer is distinct from the execution, even though he’s one of the causes of how it executes.

@Meta_U

all your are doing is redefining the words to suit some deceptive purpose.

“Selection” is a term that applies irrespective of whether or not determinism is true. That’s not deception, that’s providing a basis to compare a deterministic to an indeterministic account.

Contrast my general term (“selection”) with the way you defined “decision” and “choice” - you define it as an indeterminate act. That excludes the ability to compare a determinist to an indeterminant account. That makes those terms unsuitable for the comparison. It’s just an assertion that indeterminism is true- becaue a determinant entity obviously cannot do something that is indeterminant.

[Meta_U]

@Materialist

When the selection is made, the external world is not forcing the individual to do anything. The individual controls what he does.

Whether it’s external or internal is irrelevant, it’s all the same deterministic world. The individual being is forced by deterministic forces, to carry out acts, and must necessarily carry out the acts which are carried out, regardless of whether the forces come from within or outside. So there is no selection, nor control by the individual, the acts are necessitated by deterministic forces.

@Materialist

Compare this to the computer code I posted, executing a SELECT. The external world is not constraining or directing the selection.

The person who builds and programs the computer is external. And that is what constrains and directs the computer, how it was built and programmed. There is no selection by the computer, even though that word is used. It’s a semantic issue.

@Materialist

“Selection” is a term that applies irrespective of whether or not determinism is true. That’s not deception, that’s providing a basis to compare a deterministic to an indeterministic account.

There is no comparison being made. You simply redefine the word so that it means something completely different, and claim that this is a comparison. That claim is deception.

@Materialist

That excludes the ability to compare a determinist to an indeterminant account. That makes those terms unsuitable for the comparison.

We do not compare by allowing the same word to mean two different things unless we are looking for differences rather than similarities. If similarity is claimed, yet the only similarity is the word, that is equivocation and nothing else.

So, we ought to define the words in one clear way, and proceed to understand how each perspective relates to that defined thing. This would form a valid comparison. In common understanding, “choose”, “select”, and “decide” mean that there is a possibility of more than one outcome, and one of the possible outcomes is produced. Therefore I suggest that we define those terms in this way.

Now we can compare free will and determinism. The concept of free will allows us to understand that choosing, selecting, and deciding, as defined above, actually occur in the world. The concept of determinism forces us to understand that choosing, selecting and deciding, as so defined, does not occur in the world.

What would be the point to changing the definitions of “choose” select", and “decide” to allow that these things happen in a deterministic world? It doesn’t make determinism and free will compatible, because the free willist would simply say that the determinists are talking about something completely different when they use those terms. Therefore there is no comparison being made.

[Angel]

@Meta_U

So if we talk about the brain making choices,

I’ll change the wording if it helps. The brain calculates the best solution for the given conditions and sends a signal to the muscles. The result of this calculation only reaches consciousness after a certain amount of time.

If there are two possible solutions—a reasonable one and a foolish one—then, all other things being equal, the brain will always choose the reasonable one.

Between pleasant and unpleasant options, all other things being equal, the brain will always choose the pleasant one.

The brain is a biological machine for calculating the best solution, so that’s exactly what it does—calculates the best solution.

Thus, the brain doesn’t even have to choose between the two— it simply indicates the best one, based on the sum of all the parameters.

If the conditions change and the calculations need to be recalculated, the brain will recalculate itself and send a signal about a different, better solution, which only reaches consciousness after a certain amount of time, and the person will realize they’ve changed their mind.

The brain’s calculations determine all our decisions.

[Meta_U]

@Angel

I’ll change the wording if it helps. The brain calculates the best solution for the given conditions and sends a signal to the muscles. The result of this calculation only reaches consciousness after a certain amount of time.

This really doesn’t help. You say “The brain calculates the best solution for the given conditions”. But this is a description of what happens in the conscious mind, and you’ve argued for a separation between these two, such that what is represented in the conscious mind is only a reflection of what is going on in the brain. So we really don’t know exactly what the brain is doing, only the conscious mind shows us that type of calculating. And, I don’t think we can characterize what the rest of the brain is doing as selecting “the best solution”, because “best” is a determination of the subjective consciousness. Notice my earlier argument, that what the conscious mind determines as “the best”, the brain does not necessarily follow in action, due to forces of habit etc..

@Angel

If there are two possible solutions—a reasonable one and a foolish one—then, all other things being equal, the brain will always choose the reasonable one.

I think that is very untrue, and it’s obvious in cases of habitual actions. The brain often initiates the unreasonable choice (light up a cigarette, etc.). This is why I mentioned earlier how Plato argued against the sophists’ claims that virtue is knowledge. Often knowing the reasonable choice does not necessitate acting that way. So we posit something else “will” as a sort of intermediary, to account for the fact that the brain doesn’t necessarily follow the conscious reasoning, it can simply fall back onto habitual acts which are contrary to the reasoning. But, at the same time, “will power” allows one to overcome the habitual way, and act according to what is determined by the conscious mind as reasonable.

@Angel

Between pleasant and unpleasant options, all other things being equal, the brain will always choose the pleasant one.

The brain is a biological machine for calculating the best solution, so that’s exactly what it does—calculates the best solution.

So I disagree with all this, for the reasons given above. What is called “the pleasant” here is what the brain is accustomed to, and could be represented as the habit, though it need not be at a fully habitual state yet, only priorly experienced as pleasant. An individual could proceed in the unpleasant way, if that way is determined as good, and the pleasant way determined as bad. But this requires will power. The line “all other things being equal” is ambiguous and doesn’t really serve any purpose.

And, the brain is not “a biological machine for calculating the best solution”. “Calculating the best solution” is an activity which the conscious mind (a relatively small portion of brain activity) engages in, and further, it may or may not being doing that, in relation to any given possible act.

So the brain as a whole is very active, and directs many involuntary acts. Metaphorically we might say that the brain takes it for granted that these acts are good, and doesn’t see the need to doubt that. At the other extreme, there are many voluntary acts of an individual, which the brain sets the conscious mind toward determining the best way, and it dutifully follows the conscious determination. However, in between these two extremes there are many acts, like habitual acts, which trend toward involuntary, but still require conscious involvement. The brain doesn’t necessarily task the conscious mind toward evaluating these acts, because they are already quite familiar to it, and it leans toward the metaphor of taking it for granted that the act is good. It may however set the conscious mind to reexamine any such act, and if determined as bad, the will may be applied against it as will power, to prevent it.

The significant thing to notice is that a huge portion of these so-called “voluntary acts” are to some degree habitual, and because of this, the brain does not necessarily apply the conscious mind toward “calculating the best solution”, the usefulness of the act is already into that zone of the metaphor, being taken for granted.

@Angel

The brain’s calculations determine all our decisions.

This is the false conclusion that your faulty description of the brain, as a calculating machine leads you to. Calculating is done by the conscious mind which is a small part of brain activity. The subconscious is not doing calculations. The subconscious is mostly following predetermined patterns of activity, in a mostly causally determined way. But look, the conscious mind can determine that a causal pattern of activity (habit) is bad. With will power, that causal chain may be overcome. This is what we need to account for as the power of free will.

[Materialist]

@Meta_U

Whether it’s external or internal is irrelevant

It’s extremely relevant, and ignoring it is an error on your part.

Irrespective of whether determinism is true, each person engages in selective behavior without being coerced to do so.

A robot could walk about, avoid running into walls, pick up objects and lay them on a table- and could do so without being directly controlled like a radio controlled toy car.

That robot has been programmed to do these generalized tasks, but once constructed, the robot is autonomous. It’s programming is generalized: when it picks up a toy from the floor, it’s not because it was programmed to pick up that toy at that spot.

Similarly, a human is “programmed” (by DNA and experience) to interact with its environment. There are differences. Humans engage in a much more complex set of behaviors, and humans have feelings that influence behavior. Feelings drive us to eat, sleep, avoid danger, seek mates, etc. Experience can affect future feelings, and add knowledge that influences future behavior. There’s no rational basis to deny that we do all these things - irrespective of determinism, And yet, you deny it.

@Meta_U

The person who builds and programs the computer is external. And that is what constrains and directs the computer, how it was built and programmed. There is no selection by the computer, even though that word is used. It’s a semantic issue.

The people who designed and built the computer and wrote the software are out of the picture during execution of the program. The computer is performing the functions, not its designers. That includes making the selections. Your error is to treat the actual execution as superfluous, but if the computer loses power, the selection does not occur. If there’s a glitch in the circuits, the correct selection does not occur. The execution is clearly not superfluous.

@Meta_U

@Materialist

“Selection” is a term that applies irrespective of whether or not determinism is true. That’s not deception, that’s providing a basis to compare a deterministic to an indeterministic account.

There is no comparison being made.

That’s your error: you are obstinately refusing to do the comparison that’s needed to understand the real differences between the accounts. You rely on your biased semantics: “choice” = indeterministic selection, therefore indeterminism is true. It’s circular reasoning.

@Meta_U

We do not compare by allowing the same word to mean two different things

Selection does not mean 2 different things. Rather, it can be accounted for in 2 different ways- and it is those divergent accounts that need to be compared to make a rational judgement.

@Meta_U

The concept of free will allows us to understand that choosing, selecting, and deciding, as defined above, actually occur in the world.

YOUR concept of free will can be used to account for what occurs in the world, but it’s not the only coherent way to account for what occurs in the world!

@Meta_U

What would be the point to changing the definitions of “choose” select", and “decide” to allow that these things happen in a deterministic world?

The point is that it makes it possible to compare an indeterminist account to a determinist account. Insisting on a definition thar ENTAILS indeterminism is a refusal to entertain the possibility you’re wrong.

Again, I don’t claim to prove the will is deterministic. But I do insist that every bit of human behavior is consistent with it. As I said, the reasons to believe the universe is deterministic is based entirely on external reasons: the success of physics. You continue to evade my questions about this:

Do you deny that the universe evolves deterministically (including probablistic determination associated with QM)? Do you at least reasonable to believe this is the case?

If you agree that it’s at least reasonable, then how could deterministic processes produce objects that behave indeterminately?

My position is that the mere possibility that human behavior is indeterminate does not undercut my rational belief in determinism.

[Angel]

@Meta_U

This is the false conclusion that your faulty description of the brain, as a calculating machine leads you to. Calculating is done by the conscious mind which is a small part of brain activity.

If the brain, not the conscious mind, always makes the first decision, then it follows that the calculations leading to the final result are performed by the brain.
The brain may or may not factor conscious calculations into its final calculations. In the first case, a person acts as consciously planned, while in the second, they act impulsively or habitually.
The result of the final calculation always comes from the brain and before conscious awareness (the signal has already been sent to the muscles to carry out a specific decision, while the person consciously does not yet even know what decision they will make).

[Meta_U]

@Materialist

Irrespective of whether determinism is true, each person engages in selective behavior without being coerced to do so.

This not “Irrespective of whether determinism is true”. it is only the case if determinism is false. You seem to be having trouble understanding this. If determinism is true, then the behaviour is not selective behaviour at all, but it only appears to be. You agree that under determinism the person cannot act any way other than the way they act. So please agree to what this implies, it is not selective behaviour.

@Materialist

The computer is performing the functions, not its designers. That includes making the selections.

The computer is following the rules of its program, it is not choosing from possibilities. It is not selective behaviour, it only appears to be. You might interpret the computer’s actions as making selections, and call them that, but it would be a faulty interpretation.

@Materialist

The point is that it makes it possible to compare an indeterminist account to a determinist accoun

I explained why this is an equivocal, therefore fallacious comparison you are proposing.

@Materialist

As I said, the reasons to believe the universe is deterministic is based entirely on external reasons: the success of physics.

Physics is not biology. So your reasoning here is faulty as well.

@Materialist

Do you deny that the universe evolves deterministically (including probablistic determination associated with QM)?

Yes, of course I deny that, otherwise I could not believe in free will. Conventional cosmology is extremely faulty. It doesn’t properly account for spatial expansion, dark energy, dark matter, and this is in addition to quantum indeterminacy. I think the idea that the universe evolves deterministically is very naive.

@Materialist

If you agree that it’s at least reasonable,

It’s not even reasonable, to my mind.

@Angel

If the brain, not the conscious mind, always makes the first decision, then it follows that the calculations leading to the final result are performed by the brain.
The brain may or may not factor conscious calculations into its final calculations. In the first case, a person acts as consciously planned, while in the second, they act impulsively or habitually.

I guess I didn’t explain well last time, so let me try again. Calculation is an activity performed by the conscious mind. To the extent that the brain is involved in this, it is also a brain activity. You and I have already agreed that the actual choice, what moves the body to act, is not something performed by the conscious mind. Therefore this is not a “calculation”.

So we cannot characterize “the final result”, i.e. what causes the choice, and chosen act, as a calculation. There is no “final calculations”. There is only choice and act. Any further calculation would just be a return to the conscious mind for more deliberation. But we’re not going in that direction, we are looking toward the choice, and the act which follows.

@Angel

The result of the final calculation always comes from the brain and before conscious awareness (the signal has already been sent to the muscles to carry out a specific decision, while the person consciously does not yet even know what decision they will make).

So if we remove “final calculation” here, and replace it with “choice of action”, or something like that, then what you say about the choice occurring before the conscious mind is aware of it, is irrelevant to the question of free will. What is relevant is whether that choice of action is free from causal determinism or not.

[Angel]

@Meta_U

So if we remove “final calculation” here, and replace it with “choice of action”

Why remove something that reflects the real state of affairs and replace it with a misconception? The brain actually computes. You know about AI? Well, this is a model of the brain. And it demonstrates exactly how the brain computes. A working model. And it reasons very intelligently, by the way.

[Meta_U]

@Angel

The brain actually computes. You know about AI? Well, this is a model of the brain. And it demonstrates exactly how the brain computes. A working model. And it reasons very intelligently, by the way.

As I said, calculating is a relatively small portion of what the brain does. And AI does not demonstrate exactly how the brain computes, very far from it in fact. You’re ignoring what I write, and heading off into nonsense again Angel.

[Angel]

@Meta_U

You’re ignoring what I write, and heading off into nonsense again Angel.

Your opinion is subjective. You may have an idea of ​​what your interlocutors think of your thoughts. But you’ll agree that expressing that opinion would be impolite. So I won’t do it.

[Materialist]

@Meta_U

This not “Irrespective of whether determinism is true”. it is only the case if determinism is false.

You’re interpreting “selective behavior” in an indeterministic way. I’m referring to the selection of a path of action, or path of thought:

If determinism is true, the selection is a consequence of contents of the mind that have been caused (directly or indirectly) by the external world. That’s why I’ve referred to this as “programming”, and used a programming analogy.

If determinism is false, there is some aspect of the selection that is not caused, either directly or indirectly, by the external world.

@Meta_U

The computer is following the rules of its program

Correct. The programming establishes what will happen under various conditions. Each condition can lead to a different path of action.

@Meta_U

Physics is not biology. So your reasoning here is faulty as well.

Every well-confirmed feature of biology — metabolism, heredity, development, evolution — runs entirely on ordinary physics and chemistry. There’s no experimentally established phenomenon in biology that requires new physical laws or violates known ones.

@Meta_U

Yes, of course I deny that, otherwise I could not believe in free will. Conventional cosmology is extremely faulty. It doesn’t properly account for spatial expansion, dark energy, dark matter, and this is in addition to quantum indeterminacy. I think the idea that the universe evolves deterministically is very naive.

Argument from ignorance: physics hasn’t explained everything, therefore there’s something that is inconsistent with the basic assumption of physics that the world evolves consistently with laws of nature. Your basis for judging determinism unreasonable is a fallacy.

[ages]

@Jkem33

There are various ways people define free will. The most straight forward way is “control over one’s actions,” which is something we have.

Could there be other so-called ‘purest forms’ of ‘free will’ and/or another so-called ‘most straightforward way’ to define ‘free will’, or do you have and possess ‘the purest form and most straightforward way’?

@Jkem33

Yes, if that is how you define free will, then we have it.

Why, to you, when ‘another’ defines ‘free will’ in ‘their way’, then the question of whether human beings have free will or not is somehow supposedly decided?

@Jkem33

I am controling my fingers to type this very sentence, and every day I perfectly control my body to get by.

Would this all depend on how the ‘I’ word is being defined, exactly

@Jkem33

I am moving according to what I want without problem every single day. And I will continue to do so. The real question is: “Do I choose what I want?”

What do ‘you’ mean by, ‘The real question is: “Do I choose what I want”?’
What is the ‘real’ word in relation to, exactly, or really?

@Jkem33

Or “Why do I want what I want?”

Because of Past Experiences.

@Jkem33

The problem with free will isn’t “Why did you carry out murder?”

Is the ‘real problem’ with ‘free will’, if there is even one with ‘free will’, really, not “Why did you carry out murder?” But rather “Why did you even want to carry it out?”

@Jkem33

Given that you would naturally carry anything out controllably… as long as you decide to do so.

So, when you did carry out murder, are you saying you could do this, but did not intend to and/or did not decide to?
In some, if not all, countries, if this is the case, then ‘it’ is not called murder and is called something else instead.

@Jkem33

At a core it seems to me that we use free will to refer to: “The ability of a thinking agent to make decisions freely, aka uninfluenced.”

But, there can be as many different uses of ‘free will’ as there are different human beings using that term and phrase. After all, every human being can choose to use that term differently if they so choose to and decide to, right? As can be very clearly seen, you, also, have chosen to use that term differently.
By the way, what you have chosen to be ‘at a core’, and/or in a ‘straightforward way’, others do not.

@Jkem33

Not to be confused with carrying out an action freely.

It has already been said and argued that human beings do not even choose ‘actions’, as they are just ‘reactions’ that occur before choices can be made. Which is why there are different words like ‘behaviour’ instead of ‘actions’, which have different definitions and meanings to refer to different things here.

@Jkem33

Indeed, free will happens in the mind.

Will ‘you’ choose to inform the readers here what you call ‘the mind’ is, exactly?
After all, if you do not already have an exact definition for ‘the mind’, then how do ‘you’ know, for sure, that ‘free will’ happens in ‘the mind’, exactly?
Which, by the way, seems to contradict your claim in this thread titlele, that “you do not have free will”.
But maybe this apparent contradiction will be explained further on.

@Jkem33

I perceive it to serve the purpose of achieving near-full absolute responsibility for one’s actions, such that, for instance, justice / punishment (whether divine or human) would be warranted in the absolute.

Okay, but could you express this in ‘a way’ that is much simpler and easier to understand?

@Jkem33

The problem is the following: it is impossible for an agent to be uninfluenced.

Why do so many posters in philosophy forums “see” so many so-called ‘problems’, when, to me, there are literally none existing.
Now, since a so-called ‘agent’ would have to exist out of the Universe, Itself, to be uninfluenced, and since this is an absolute impossibility, it is safe to say and claim, “It is impossible for an agent to be uninfluenced”.

@Jkem33

If you disagree with that here is the actual reasoning:

If you are intereseted, none was needed, well for me anyway.

@Jkem33

This bothers a lot of people because if someone didn’t choose to want bad things, how can you fairly punish them for it? Well, reality doesn’t work mike we want… and justice is a very human concept.

Why are ‘you bothered’ that that bothers a lot of people.
None of you have any other choice but ‘to be bothered’, right?

@Jkem33

But hey, let’s not despair.

Why do you believe that it is logical, rational, and/or sensible to tell people what not to do when you believe, absolutely, that they could not do anything other than despair?
Or, did you already see and know how utterly illogical, irrational,a nd nonsensical it was for ‘you’ here to say and write, “But hey, let us not despair”?

@Jkem33

If our wants are that uncontrolled, at least once we have them, we can decide what to do to satisfy them.

But HOW can ‘you’ control and decide what to do with your uncontrolled wants?

@Jkem33

I posit that people constantly choose the best path forward they can come up with (the best path to satisfy their wants based on the efforts they’re willing to put in and based on what they know).

you can posit ‘this’ if you like, but did you freely choose to, or was it because of an uncontrolled want of yours to do so?
Also, if people really did constantly choose the ‘best path forward’ in Life, then WHY in ‘the world’, in the days when this is being written, there is so much pollution, disagreeing, misunderstanding, conflict, fighting, wars, and murdering?
Are you sure people are actually choosing the ‘best’ ‘path forward’?
I, for One, can see many, many other much better ways, and even ‘one way’ that is Truly ‘the best’ for everyone.

@Jkem33

But sometimes, we aren’t able to reach what we’re technically capable of.

How, exactly, could you not be able to reach what you say and claim that you are technically capable of?

@Jkem33

The efforts we’re willing to put in may be too low, and we find ourselves straying from the optimal path we found.

Is this because you are ‘technically capable’ or ‘technically incapable’? The latter appears more logical, well to me at first glance.

@Jkem33

To me, the ability to stick with that optimal path is the true free will we should pursue.

Is this the ‘free will’ you do have, or the ‘free will’ ‘we’ do not have, which you wrote in the topic title here of this thread?

@Jkem33

The one I like to call practical free will.

Ah okay. So, you have chosen and decided to introduce another new word here now.

@Jkem33

Not some grand impossible cosmic version, but rather a very down to earth attempt at being the best versions of ourselves, and succeeding.

I was hoping it would not be ‘some grand impossible cosmic version’, as introducing ‘that version’ some people might consider being just ridiculous.

@Jkem33

The ability to consistently carry out the best actions we can come up with, based on what we happen to want to achieve in life.

Okay, but now, ‘Do you have free will?’ Or, ‘Do you not have free will, exactly?’

[Meta_U]

@Materialist

I’m referring to the selection of a path of action, or path of thought:

There is no selection to that path, it is programmed. If I came to a sign, and it said you must go left, unless it was possible for me to disobey the sign and do something else, there is no selection involved. I am simply following the rule. The computer program must act according to its rules, therefore there is no selection involved.

@Materialist

There’s no experimentally established phenomenon in biology that requires new physical laws or violates known ones.

This is so false it’s laughable. The ability to freely choose, violates physical laws, and is experimentally proven daily by everyone.

The issue here, is that you deny all the common, everyday experimental evidence (such as my example of pulling the trigger at a freely chosen time), and you redefine the words which refer to this evidence, in ways designed to argue that the evidence is not evidence. Redefining the experimenter’s terms to dispute what the experiment demonstrates, does not disprove what is demonstrated by the experiment. That’s why your attempts at comparison do not work. They are not comparisons, but a redefining of words so that you are talking about something different altogether.

@Materialist

therefore there’s something that is inconsistent with the basic assumption of physics that the world evolves consistently with laws of nature.

This is not a basic assumption of physics, it is a conclusion drawn by determinists. They fallaciously conclude that since some observed aspects of the world are consistent with laws of physics, therefore the entire world acts this way.

[Materialist]

@Meta_U

There is no selection to that path, it is programmed.

What you’re really saying is that there is no indeterministic selecting of the path.

But if we examine the program code, it is clear that there are multiple paths through it. The path that is taken in any given execution depends on the input. Different input means a different path.

@Meta_U

@Materialist

There’s no experimentally established phenomenon in biology that requires new physical laws or violates known ones.

This is so false it’s laughable. The ability to freely choose, violates physical laws, and is experimentally proven daily by everyone.

Since you think it’s laughable to claim it can’t be experimentally established, you should easily be able to describe an experiment that supports what you just said. I eagerly await your reply.

@Meta_U

They fallaciously conclude that since some observed aspects of the world are consistent with laws of physics, therefore the entire world acts this way.

Inference to the best explanation is not fallacious. It’s consistent with all available evidence, and is falsifiable: the experiment you’re going to describe will do just that, right?

[Meta_U]

@Materialist

The path that is taken in any given execution depends on the input. Different input means a different path.

Look at my comparison example. The sign says left, I must go left, I have no choice but to follow the rule. There is no selection made. If the sign says right, I must go right. Different input, still no selection. the path taken depends on the input, it does not depend on selection.

@Materialist

Since you think it’s laughable to claim it can’t be experimentally established, you should easily be able to describe an experiment that supports what you just said. I eagerly await your reply.

The one I’ve already described for example, pulling the trigger at a random time. Maybe you weren’t here for that part of the discussion, but choosing a random time to do anything violates Newton’s first law of motion, as does free choice in general.

[MoK]

@Angel

You know that our thinking is the work of our brain’s neurons, right? To answer your question, I first need to understand your thoughts about the mechanisms of thought.

I don’t think that anybody knows how humans think. I think we were discussing consciousness.

[Angel]

@MoK

I don’t think that anybody knows how humans think. I think we were discussing consciousness.

School textbooks teach that consciousness is a product of the brain’s thought processes because scientists have accepted this as a scientific fact. I see no reason to doubt their conclusions.