How would you know what my 'definition of free will' is? This smells like another one of your illogical pissing contests! I am not interested. Address my post, it made several valid and logical points.

You argue like a Christian.

Quantum mechanics supports my view of determinism perfectly, I already explained how, yet you conveniently skipped over all of that part.

Blah, blah, blah... add some handwaving, chest puffing, and posturing.

Where is the logical thought and reason required for substance?

This is for anyone to read. See it as a commercial break.

Is it possible to answer the question with a simple yes or no, or is it impossible? Give me a one word answer "yes" or "no".

Here is the question:

Do we have free will?

Because you gave your definition in your last post:



No, being 'free from influence' is not the meaning of free will with repsect to the QM versus Newtonian determinism context.

Newtonian determinism was concerned with direct cause and effect.

So you gave your definition. And your definition isn't compatible with Newtonian determinism.



Is that intended to imply that I don't appeal to logic and empirical evidence?

If so, you've wrongfully slandered me. My position is perfectly logical and empirical.

You're the one who's going off on wild unsubstantiated tangents concerning ill-defined concepts of "non-Newtonian determinism".



Blah, blah, blah... is right. Because you are using the term 'determinism' in a way that is totally different and alien to the way it is normally used.



If you are sincere in wanting substance, then instead of arguing for 'determinism' in some vague ill-defined way that has nothing at all to do with Newtonian determinism you should coin a brand new term for you totally different idea.

You should call it, "Boundarism" and offer it up for the totally seperate and unique idea that it is.

In fact, I would even support such an idea.

QM has done away with Newtonian Deteminism and has revealed a new level of free will that we can genuinely embrace and label as "Boundarism".

Free will within the boundaries of the laws of this physical universe, which includes the laws of quantum physic, which contain true randomness in the sense that specific individual events cannot be precisely predetermined.

That would cover it, and then you'd get your "substance".

It's up to you to get your 'substance'. You have the free will to make that choice of clarity, or you can continue to wallow in arguements for a vague ill-definied 'determinism' that clearly has nothing at all to do with the original concept of 'Newtonian determinism'.

That choice is yours to make.

Yes



Yes, we have free will with the confines of the human condition.



Clearly we don't have total free will to do just anything. We can't just imagine to be 6 years old again and have that just magically happen. Or at least if we do have that ability I have yet to learn that skill.

I suppose we can't truly say that we can't do it. All we can say is that we don't believe we can do it. Maybe we can and we just don't know it? A very famous man once supposedly said that if we had the faith of a mustard seed we could say to a mountain, "Move hence to yonder place", and the mountain would move and nothing would be impossible for us to do.

I've tried that and nothing happened.

Your millage may vary.

Unless... The baseball discription is right... and free will begins at the macrolevel above the baseball.

With QM randomness being the rule in the microlevel 'below' the baseball.

Or did I read that wrong?

So if this is the conclusion, what seems to be the problem. Why is there different opinions on the matter. Why so complicated?

Who would say "no" to the answer and why?

I am trying to follow up and thank you for the patience!

"Freewill.. is for two things... Decisions! We as humans have a mind to decide regardless of God what we want out of are life, we can change it at anytime, place or notion! We can do what ever we want to do on this earth and if God dose not like it he takes us! "

Julie, have you tried to think about this in the following terms:

It is conceivably true that God does not make decisions for us that we can make.

But when we make a decision, it is a choice of one path to follow of two or more available paths of action.

For instance, a woman gets up in the morning, readies herself for work, say, in an office. She has 27 colours of fingernail polish in front of her. God gives her the freedom to choose the one she wants.

So she chooses one. But the crux of the matter is here: There is always (arguably) a rationale, a reasoning why she chooses one or the other over the all other availble ones.

For instance, she chooses the matte mauve. She did not choose burning red, because the office policy dictates to not wear provokative (sexual or otherwise) outfits.

For the same reason she does not choose green, black, torquois, or sparkling blue-and-yellow.

She does not choose brown, because the previous day she wore brown.

And so on. The one she eventually winds up choosing is the only reasonable choice.

But say, there is the brown or the mauve to choose from, and they stand an equal chance, they both even fit her wardrobe for the day, the purse, the shoes; they cost the same; they dry in the same amount of time; etc. etc. Other than their colours, they are completely identical as far as factors are concerned on which the decisions to choos is based.

She can only choose one of the two.

In this case I say she will go with other considerations that are not immediately related to the choice to be made. She may have had a nanny 40 years prior who beat her and the nanny had brown hair, not mauve. So if this happens, she'll choose mauve. She may have had a favourite teacher whose name was Maude, and a hated teacher, Mr. Brown.

But say, the two teachers were both equally hated or both equally liked. Then she will go in her subconscious to another tie breaker. If this tie-breaker is not, that is, it is useless from the point of giving the woman guidance which nailpolish to choose for the day -- the brown or the mauve -- then the woman will keep going from one experinece in her memories to another, and not at all consciously, until she finds a tie-breaker. Until the tie-breaker is found, she is not going to make a choice. This is in stark contrast to the notion of free will: If her will is truly free, she does not need tie-breakers to decide between two equally likeable choices. Furthermore, if her will is truly free, she will choose, against all reason; she will choose a lipstick that is inappropriate or even unacceptable in her office.

So what you could do to exercise your mind is to think about HOW free will could make choices; to think about the mechanism of choice- and decision-making by an individual.

I would suspect that people who are not happy with the choices they've made would like to believe they truly had no choice at all, and thus were not responsible for having made the choices they made.

People who believe that there is no such thing as free will could never blame anyone for the things they do. After all, how could someone be responsible for their actions if they don't have the free will to chose what their actions will be?

Religions that have judgmental Gods would surly go right out the window. All Christians must necessarily believe in free will, it would be ludicous to believe in a God who judges people on their actions if they have no free will. That's would be utterly absurd.

People who argue for determinism are probably pretty rare. In fact, the people who argue for it have probably made a free will choice to argue for it just for the sake of arguing.

what I love bout you Abracadabra.

You spit it out right the way you see it.

Unfortunate that christian think (and that of most two diminsional religions) they have only allowed two choices... Each causal point in their lives must be decided upon binary principles(evil/good)... Life then becomes a struggle for one with a quantum linked spirit/mind as every point has mutiple paths and they KNOW this... But tradition says only choose one of two...

All mankind has a quantum linked mind/spirit... What pain some must feel.

James,

Put the strawman away will you?

I told you already that I am not a strict determinist(fatalist). Your entire last response to me questioned my position in relation to fatalism and pre-determination. You entire series of responses are being made with a wrongful presupposition that I am a strict determinist.

I am not a fatalist! It would be extremely helpful if you would quit arguing that I am. I am closer to a compatibilist. I suspect your conclusions are as well, although I think the yet-to-have-been-disclosed path of reasoning differs tremendously.

Read my earlier posts carefully - Thu 07/30/09 10:03 PM, and Sat 08/01/09 03:07 PM - and see if your position is like my own, except for the notion of what pure randomness means. The definition of that term does not constitute a hinge point to my view.

Your claim is that quantum indeterminism somehow equates to a justification in the belief of free will. You have argued several times that QM indeterminism is causeless and I suspect that this is somehow being equated to a causeless(undetermined) will? You have not shown how, all you have done is assert the notion. I would like to see the connection reasonably made.

Can you do that?

QM is not excluded from cause and effect, and I clearly showed why and how in an earlier post.

My claim is that the will is not free from direct influences that exist beyond our control and subsequently determine that which is able to be perceived as a choice, and therefore the will is not free at all.

What does free will mean to you and how does QM indeterminism fulfill the requirements needed for a free will?

What is needed, in your view, for the will to be free?

James, you wrote earlier...



Determined will... as I see it!



Determined will... as I see it!



Perhaps we do not disagree on meaning or what constitutes randomness...

Sorry James, I missed this earlier response from you...



If free will is to be considered 'free within certain boundaries', then I have no argument.

Sounds like determined will - by those boundary conditions - to me...

I agree with all but your label!

Again...

Another nice post wux!

grrrrrrr:
O'K, darling grrrrranny, that does is -- I refuse honoring your arguments, if you delibertaely misinterpret My words:


As you can see, my dear, I've mentioned the SELF-Hypnosis!
Your Argument may be valid in reference to Hypnosis -- but NOT to what I said! In other words, if I claim "2*2=4", and you claim "sleeping on the ceiling isn't comfortable cuz the cover keeps on slipping off", then what's the point of arguing???
Best regards...

Thanks, Soul!

BTW, out of idle curiousity: Are you a man or a woman? Just asking, no ulterior motives.


I don't drink but have heard of the power of alcohol. Here's one poetic expression on it, which I heard first in a rendition by the the sixties' group Traffic:


John Barleycorn
Traditional English folk song

There were three men came out of the west,
their fortunes for to try
And these three men made a solemn vow
John Barleycorn must die

They've ploughed, they've sown, they've harrowed him in
Threw clods upon his head
And these three men made a solemn vow
John Barleycorn was dead

They've let him lie for a very long time,
'til the rains from heaven did fall
And little Sir John sprung up his head
and so amazed them all

They've let him stand 'til Midsummer's Day
'til he looked both pale and wan
And little Sir John's grown a long long beard
and so become a man

They've hired men with their scythes so sharp
to cut him off at the knee
They've rolled him and tied him by the waist
serving him most barbarously

They've hired men with their sharp pitchforks
who've pricked him to the heart
And the loader he has served him worse than that
For he's bound him to the cart

They've wheeled him around and around a field
'til they came unto a barn
And there they made a solemn oath
on poor John Barleycorn

They've hired men with their crabtree sticks
to cut him skin from bone
And the miller he has served him worse than that
For he's ground him between two stones

And little Sir John and the nut brown bowl
and his brandy in the glass
And little Sir John and the nut brown bowl
proved the strongest man at last

The huntsman, he can't hunt the fox
nor so loudly blow his horn
The thinkerman can’t sort his logic or thoughts
without a little barleycorn.

No.

(Okay, now you can do your worst. :-) )

i'm making crepes for breakfast. because i want to.
nothing will stop me. just watch!

You hit the nail on the head.

There is no macro phenomena happening in the brain that requires QM to explain yet . . . all we have is assumptions, perhaps well intended, but still assuming much.

OF all the research done on neurons we can explain ALL of the behavior without appeals to indeterminism. All of the functions arise from macro level interactions. If Quantum mechanics has effects they are at the quantum level, the line of reasoning needed to connect the dots is vastly more complex then anything presented in this thread.

For me to find Abra's and Searle Arguments to be compelling I would need them to show me where the QM probabilistic phenomenon occurs that directly effects consciousness and allows free will, otherwise its all hand waving . . .


Otherwise its just an appeal to ignorance.
We dont know there for QM dun did it.

I am not saying its impossible, just nothing what so ever someone could call evidence that this QM = free will explanation is meaningful.
This is as wrong headed as it gets.

You are making the assertion. You get to tell me how quantum effects create consciousness.

My position is that this is just smoke and mirrors. You are taking a reductionist position and pointing to QM as if that explains something.

IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

Lets be clear. You have nothing, and have added nothing to the understanding of how a pile of neurons achieve consciousness. Be honest admit this and quite trying to sound smart by explaining basic physics.

QM does not explain consciousness anymore then explaining how a starter works explains how cars move.


Either a neuron fires, or it does not. QM does not make the difference. Show me that the nat that rides the back of the hippo is the one really in charge and then I might be compelled to believe that infinitesimal quantum probabilities overpower neuro synapse and create anything meaningful to happen.


Seriously your argument is being skewered all around the net, even the professionals that like the QM route admit it explains nothing yet, and they are searching for the link to make it meaningful, at least they are honest, or maybe its just that they know what they are talking about . . . hmm, the more I read about this the more I agree with creative . . . very religious to leap to this conclusion and hold it so dear without real direct links.

If its so obvious . . . please do explain the effect on neuro's firing, then explain how that effect makes the difference we are talking about in cognition.

This is called a line of reasoning, and until YOU connect the chain, YOUR argument is meaningless and adds nothing to our understanding it certainly does not support the conclusion that consciousness, and will are non deterministic.

So now that, that is done with . . . sigh back to the real thread on this . . .

For me a more sober explanation starts like this . . .


I want to again reiterate I am comfortable with the truth whatever that might be, but lets be honest when we are talking about mysteries.

My only problem with how you go about it abra is that you offer nothing of substance, I do not need a primer on physics, I need real meat, the above article and associated paper is far better material then your rhetoric.

So it may turn out to be exactly what science needs to exlplain consciousness, or it might be only what explains the language of the brain, and then we decode the program and realize consciousness is a bag of tricks after all and we are just feeling pc's determined after all.

The outcome is not yet known. Elements of indeterminacy does not mean that indeterminacy rules the beast. Also in QM, we find amazing accuracies, so even with indeterminacy can arise determinism, id say 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of something happening is actually 100% in disguise.



I really do find the above paper FASCINATING, ill be hiding away reading it.

The difference between Quantum scales and Macro scales is AMAZING, and any bold assertions about where what behavior is determined needs to be specific.

We must understand this before we try to pretend we know how decisions arise from this thing called a brain.

And before we can put an ultimate label on something like, determined, or random, or indeterminate we need to know how these things happen.

Anything less is a gross oversimplification.

Well, I'm in total agreement with JB then. She says that from her point of view you are purposefully vague and unclear and that invites misunderstanding which you appear to thrive on.

This is a perfect example of this.

You claim to actually agree with the 'subtance' of what I'm saying yet you are determined to continue to use the label, "determinism" which surely you must know has already been associated with the very definite Newtonian ideal of determinism.

So your refusal to create a new label for this new concept simply invites misunderstanding and confusion. Because you're still arguing for "determinism" which is hogwash.

You're smiply using the word to mean something different from how everyone elses uses it, and that invites confusion and misunderstanding just like JB suggests.

If you were sincerely interested in making headway in philosophy and bring 'substance' to the topic, you'd confess that what you are attempting to get at is not the old "determinism" in the Newtonian sense at all, but rather it's a whole new concept that should indeed be labeled as "Boundarism".

But you reject this new label, and instead stick to your guns of vagueness and the missuse of common terms because you love to invite misunderstanding and confusion.

Have it your way.

You're the one who will continually be misunderstood and continue to spark confusion and meaningless arguments that waste everyone's time simply because you refuse to recognize that the concepts you are attempting to address are not the same concepts that eveyone else means when they use the term "Determinism".

You've basically agreed with my position (and evidently have been agreeing with my position all along), but because you refuse to let go of the old Newtonian lable of "Determinism" you set yourself up to appear as if you have some conflicting idea when in fact you don't.

Appearently you are in 100% agreement with me, save for the fact that you refuse to give up an old Newtonian label.

It's ridiculous.

If you were seriously interested in 'substance' you'd drop the semantic games altogether and just address the 'subtance'.

Clearly you are arguing for a change in the semantics of the word 'determinism' when in 'substance' you actually agree with the spirit of what I'm saying.

On your semantic arguement I disagree. I feel the word 'determinism' has a very precise meaning with respect to Netonian classical physics. That kind of 'determinism' is dead.

To cling to that word for the purpose of applying it to a new concept would be ludicrous, that could only serve to create utter confusion and misunderstanding. So why bother clinging to that old term for the purpose of representing a whole new concept?

What would be the point to that?