Are you in control of your own thoughts, actions and decisions?

[avasopht]

If things were as simple and biological as Determinists like yourself claim they are, if that's all there really was to it, then wouldn't we see the evidence play out in the Nature vs Nurture debate, specifically in the study of twins? Wouldn't it be easy to prove that Nature is a supremely more significant contributing factor to one's development than (what had been classically referred to as) Nurture?

I'm not saying this is definitive proof one way or the other, but if Determinism was as obvious and real as you claim it to be, then wouldn't the outcome of such a study at least have some evidence to support your absolute claims? I do realize it's not an exact comparison. So what other fields of scientific research parallel this discussion close enough to provide useful data? I believe the Nature vs Nurture debate and its resulting data is close enough to warrant consideration.

You do realise that determinism in no way suggests nurture is not a significant factor.

When we are talking about quantum mechanics it's important to realise that we're talking about behaviour on a scale far beyond anything we are able to reach in normal human-to-world interactions.

All of our interactions with the world are deterministic. All of classical physics is deterministic.

There is some debate on whether the brain makes use of quantum mechanics because "human mathematicians are capable of proving so-called 'Godel-unprovable' results." With the counter argument being that cognitive and neurological processes can make mistakes.

Not only are there large gaps of missing information for our human understanding of consciousness, there are gaps of our understanding of the universe itself. You claim that "The matter of the universe, given the conditions it was in at such-and-such a time, was always going to result in the formation of planet Earth, upon which life appeared in such a fashion, to multiply and die off and multiply in just such a way as to bring everyone to this exact moment in this exact fashion." but what do you know about quantum mechanics, general relativity or quantum field theory? Because these fields seem to have concluded that "the universe is indeed non-deterministic at a fundamental level".

It's important to note that non-deterministic behaviour can produce deterministic results at different scales.

For instance, a random coin flip is non-deterministic, yet its average largely isn't. The significance of non-deterministic behaviour can be highly insignificant.

Non-deterministic behaviour is masked by averages, and any quantum entanglement happening in your torch still results in the same shadow.

As I understand it, micro-activities that are non-deterministic have highly insignificant effects. As you increase the number of non-deterministic instances you get more statistically deterministic outcomes, which basically means for the most part that on a fundamental level most significant activity is deterministic.

I imagine that it's when you get closer to the early universe that non-deterministic quantum behaviour has a greater effect.

It's rational to be open to the possibility that living organisms could be making use of quantum mechanics given birds may already be using quantum entanglement for navigation.

I do get a sense of a bit of a false dichotomy between science and something else, be it mysticism, spirituality or something, but I think that as things are are how science will come to understand them. At least that is how it's supposed to work.

[sublunar]

There is some debate on whether the brain makes use of quantum mechanics because "human mathematicians are capable of proving so-called 'Godel-unprovable' results." With the counter argument being that cognitive and neurological processes can make mistakes.

I concede to you being well educated in matters of this sort. I won't even attempt to agree with or argue against any of your points. I just want to say that I do realize the Nature vs Nurture comparison isn't exactly a good one but being short on alternate universes, that was the best I could find. I'd love to know of any other studies of human development which could strongly hint at Determinism in the way that plantzangst describes it (I'm curious: do you agree with his interpretation of Determinism?).

However!

That link above is just one of the countless examples which perfectly illustrate my central point. The professionals who research these things still don't know how consciousness works! So how can plantzangst be so sure of Determinism? He can't, so he chooses to believe. These are muddy waters. But he and others of the same faith would like us to forget about the murkiness and join them in celebrating the crystal clear spring water. No thanks.

I simply won't put my vote into either slot for Free Will or Determinism. Because no-one actually knows. I'm not the kind of person to blindly accept incomplete information as gospel. I prefer to enjoy the perspectives of both without taking sides. I would similarly argue against an equally strict interpretation of Free Will if such an argument was made. Honestly I was hoping for more of a thought exercise out of this thread and not so much evangelism. Still I have enjoyed the discussion.

[platzangst]

I am way too busy for spending the time necessary on a tired old debate that has no practical purpose in my life but I can't just let this guy/gal's arrogance go unchecked.

Says the man who revived a debate that had been dead for days.

I don't want to waste time on a pissing match or resort to petty personal attacks so I will keep it brief and to the point.

Says the man who started with such things.

Throughout this discussion, you have placed your foundation upon agreeable and well documented set of scientific facts (which I won't bother quoting here simply to save text space). This is all well and good. But you then try reaching through the dark expanses of the unknown to blindly grasp a definitive conclusion on the other end. The difference between us is that you seem to need there to be a conclusion to cling to on the other end, whereas I do not.

In point of fact, you bringing this up again shows that you need there to be something besides what I claim. In other words, you can't accept that there's a good probability of determinism being true, so you have to shout back at it and dispute it. You could just say "oh well, I don't believe that" and be done with it.

I don't "need" there to be a conclusion, but based on the evidence, I believe in the conclusion I've stated. The fact that I'll vigorously debate the point isn't a measure of my belief in its goodness, but a belief in the logic I use. Again, people seem to gloss over the point that I'm making no moral judgement about whether determination is a good thing, I'm stating what I think is the most rational conclusion to arrive at. If there's anything that rubs me wrong about the debate, it's a stubborn insistence some people have in attributing attitudes and motives to my reasoning which aren't there, either because people are being over-defensive about their own positions, or because they're deliberately trying to misrepresent me. Either way, it's tiring.

Why would I "need" determinism to exist? I don't really gain anything if it does. Life continues on. But if you ask, do I believe in utterly unconstrained free will not bound by the physical universe, I say "no, and here's why". The anger and scorn I get in opposition leads me to believe that in fact it's those who cling to the free will idea that are the needy ones.

You speak of consciousness as if science has dissected and identified its constituent parts. But it has not.

No it hasn't. But do you know what else it hasn't done? Found a single bit of hard evidence that there is anything in the brain that isn't wholly biological. I may not know what various mysterious parts of the brain actually do, but I can point to it and say, "but I know it's made of the same chemicals that make up the rest of the universe." By contrast, who can point at it and say, "here's exactly where a quantum function inserts the free will into our thoughts"? Nobody, yet.

You are making very certain conclusions in no uncertain terms based on incomplete information where there exist large gaps of missing knowledge.

These theories suggest that a deeper understanding of the theory underlying quantum mechanics shows the universe is indeed non-deterministic at a fundamental level.

Because these fields seem to have concluded that "the universe is indeed non-deterministic at a fundamental level".

Ah, but see, here's where flaws in your own assumptions come into play. Look up, I've preserved the quote: "These theories suggest". They don't conclude. And they're theories, open to change. Quantum mechanics has dozens, hundreds of theories, and some are more accepted than others. Some are wild and have no proof whatsoever. Many theories directly contradict each other. Avasopht has done a decent job on the problems with relying on quantum mechanics for a free will "fix" as well as the grossly irrelevant Nature/Nurture analogy.

I'm not trying to prove one thing or the other. I'll take 49% of each.

Here's the problem with that.

I am saying "with the evidence we have so far, I believe, for various reasons, that the universe and therefore we humans as well are determinsitic".

You are saying, "well, because we have incomplete evidence, you shouldn't believe that."

To which my reply is, in essence, "fine, but in the meantime, show me any evidence which solidly contradicts the evidence I've stated. Show me actual evidence that proves free will in some way."

And there is none, at least not presented here. This is why I refer to the "God of the gaps" problem more than once in this mess, because the only opposing argument seems to be, "well, if we don't know everything, then the secret to free will might be somewhere in this gap in our understanding!" And it might be, but so might unicorns. Which sounds flip, I know, but I'm trying to point out that the argument for free will, at least as it seems to be in this exchange, is not based on anything resembling real evidence, just on a technicality of "you can't rule it out until our knowledge of the universe is complete!" That's not proof of free will, that's crossing one's fingers and hoping the proof just shows up one day to prove you right. If anyone's making a leap across darkness, it's those who assume free will exists based on what we do not yet know.

Your splitting the free will/determinism thing into some kind of 49%/49% split means that you are giving an equal weight between hard evidence and sheer unfounded speculation. And as someone said, that's not any kind of leap I'm willing to make.

[plaamook]

For instance, a random coin flip is non-deterministic...

Why?
I'm not trying to pick a fight here but as far as I can tell you either live in a deterministic universe or you don't, correct? The random coin flip might be way way beyond our ability to calculate but that's not enough to make it random fars I can tell. All we know is that the complete pattern elludes us.

The funny thing is that people cling to the idea of randomness and so called free will becuse they haven't really considered what it would mean to live in an actual random universe. Actual randomness is a bit like talking about infinity, black holes, and the big bang. Just not much to say about the other side of such things really.

[avasopht]

For instance, a random coin flip is non-deterministic...

Why?
I'm not trying to pick a fight here but as far as I can tell you either live in a deterministic universe or you don't, correct? The random coin flip might be way way beyond our ability to calculate but that's not enough to make it random fars I can tell. All we know is that the complete pattern elludes us.

The funny thing is that people cling to the idea of randomness and so called free will becuse they haven't really considered what it would mean to live in an actual random universe. Actual randomness is a bit like talking about infinity, black holes, and the big bang. Just not much to say about the other side of such things really.

It's non-deterministic in the general coin-flipping abstraction, hence we use it for a source of randomness. Of course the result itself is deterministic from an objective perspective, but from the subjective perspective of two humans flipping coins (and not attempting to cheat) it is a source of non-deterministic "randomness," (I could have been clearer on that).

This might also be what's happening in quantum physics, which is why you have the hidden variable theory. In our abstractions / models / theories we treat certain results as non-deterministic when there may just be variables we are unaware of (which would mean that there is need for a new theory to explain it).

The idea of a source of pure randomness is intriguing, as are some of the esoteric ideas I've heard from some who believe the source of "randomness" is not randomness but is the source of pure consciousness that interacts with this world. I've also heard it as an argument from a Christian apologist, and although it seemed a bit of a weak god-of-the-gaps proposition I must admit that it does give rise to at least a few good ideas for your budding novelist!

[plaamook]

The idea of a source of pure randomness is intriguing, as are some of the esoteric ideas I've heard from some who believe the source of "randomness" is not randomness but is the source of pure consciousness that interacts with this world. I've also heard it as an argument from a Christian apologist, and although it seemed a bit of a weak god-of-the-gaps proposition I must admit that it does give rise to at least a few good ideas for your budding novelist!

Yeah it's very intreguing. Not in the god of the gaps sort of way but literally there doesn't seem to be nything in the universe that is random yet the concept is there. And what would or even could produce something random... This is Interstellar 2 material!

[demt]

symetry is possible with good intent most observers are happy ,it all works on a friendly basis, anything is possible as good will.even in microphysics atoms etc relate on a friendly basis fulfilled n happy with their natural drift of symbiosis
currently were not very good media is slowing good vibes down
its vast enough to stand against as a lifestyle choice enevatably swamped with a good cuppa t

[plaamook]

symetry is possible with good intent most observers are happy ,it all works on a friendly basis, anything is possible as good will.even in microphysics atoms etc relate on a friendly basis fulfilled n happy with their natural drift of symbiosis
currently were not very good media is slowing good vibes down
its vast enough to stand against as a lifestyle choice enevatably swamped with a good cuppa t

Not really sure how to take that. Or reply. I don't want to be a dick but I'm assuming you're farting around with some chemical or another.

[sublunar]

I am way too busy for spending the time necessary on a tired old debate that has no practical purpose in my life but I can't just let this guy/gal's arrogance go unchecked.

Says the man who revived a debate that had been dead for days.

You're so salty. I'm super duper terribly totes srry that I can't get on here every day to check for new comments. Super duper sorry about that. So sorry.

the argument for free will, at least as it seems to be in this exchange, is not based on anything resembling real evidence, just on a technicality of "you can't rule it out until our knowledge of the universe is complete!"

Maybe I'm really bad at explaining my point or you are just too entrenched in your own sandbox to step out of it for just a moment and understand. Let me be as blunt as possible.

I'm not arguing FOR some delusional unchained free will, I'm arguing AGAINST your vast, unchecked, arrogance.

I was trying to state my position in a way to avoid having to be so blunt but it seems you still think I am arguing for an un-tethered theory of free will so guess I need to clarify. You arrogantly state unequivocally, without a shadow of doubt, 100%, completely, matter of fact, in no uncertain terms, positively and absolutely, that your conclusion is correct. That there is absolutely NO free will whatsoever in any way at all EVER. Even if you had just dialed back your zealous evangelism 1% and left the 1% gap to the gods, to the unknown, to whatever, then I wouldn't have stepped in and quoted you and told you to cram it. You are SO CERTAIN of yourself and your beliefs that I couldn't just keep scrolling.

Tone down your ego. Stay humble. Leave a little bit of room for error, limited human understanding, doubt, whatever. Stop claiming absolute certainty in a matter that is so murky. Stop taking the argument so personally, be less rigid and more open to other views. The thread is dead, as you say, because you kicked sand in anyone's face who dared utter any semblance of free will. Maybe take some inspiration from the OP Avasopht who, while knowledgeable on the subject could at least hold a conversation on the matter without going on the offense.

[platzangst]

You arrogantly state unequivocally, without a shadow of doubt, 100%, completely, matter of fact, in no uncertain terms, positively and absolutely, that your conclusion is correct.

No I don't.

I say that if the things I state are true - with the proviso that they may not be, hence the word IF - then determinism is the logical conclusion to arrive at. You can go back and read me saying this several times, so either you're too in love with your own interpretation of events to admit error, or you're just lying, now.

There is no arrogance in my statements, except in your own mind. There is no arrogance in saying 2+4+8=14; all the numbers add up just so.

Nothing you say alters that in any way. You say nothing that really challenges any of the basic facts I bring up. You don't manage to do the equivalent of "well, that 4 actually should be 6", you don't clearly establish that anything I say is somehow wrong. The best you do is try to swamp the debate in "well, what if." It's not arrogance on my part to refuse to concede to bad logic. And it's not arrogance on my part if you're overly cranky about the subject.

I mean, pot, kettle, etc.

[CaliforniaBurrito]

The best you do is try to swamp the debate in "well, what if." It's not arrogance on my part to refuse to concede to bad logic.

We wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for "what if" and society won't progress if we abandon the "what if". "What if'" is neither logical or illogical and your own logic isn't as undeniable as a simple mathematical equation. Science and mathematics are different subjects. Science can be challenged and changed while 5+2 is always going to be 7. I don't think it is a matter of arrogance on your part but thinking that asking "what if" is a matter of conceding seems pretty nearsighted of you in my opinion. I've come to the realization that people are going to think the way they do until they die and some people even die for what they believe in. I know it's pretty radical to compare science to religion but that's just about as good as your science is for me. My science and religion is "what if" and it is neither logical or illogical. Is that absurd or what?! Good. Anyways, my point is only the individual can change their own perception. The rabbit hole is there for you to go down if you choose to do so but it certainly isn't going to happen in an off-topic music forum. Feel free to think the Earth is flat for all I care but I do cordially recommend asking "what if". Cheerio.

[demt]

symetry is possible with good intent most observers are happy ,it all works on a friendly basis, anything is possible as good will.even in microphysics atoms etc relate on a friendly basis fulfilled n happy with their natural drift of symbiosis
currently were not very good media is slowing good vibes down
its vast enough to stand against as a lifestyle choice enevatably swamped with a good cuppa t

Not really sure how to take that. Or reply. I don't want to be a dick but I'm assuming you're farting around with some chemical or another.

just a bubble living on the edge of a girl gang that sure natterrs about what goes where and when too mutch is to mutch,more of a dadicated lifestyle and due to coincidence to take a parrrellel mindset thats indeed just farting around withj whatever the gangs into
from baby farther to granddad or daD whilst avoiding jail and still being IN the obligitary heroin addiction and the states methadone answer livened up with crack gives you pure efficiousness amongst the luv that seems to actually live compared to whats left of the people on mental healthand their zombie pill stable lifestyle currently, the best have long gone.definatly ducking and diving the big deals that come my way.losing leading ladies of huge talent and vocals slipping through my fingers.loads more to say good day
the reality of jail and release is massive freedom is suddenly 300 times more valuable the best buzz ever is difficult not to repeat, drugs solves.
yeah beware of freedom in case you find out what it means

[platzangst]

I don't think it is a matter of arrogance on your part but thinking that asking "what if" is a matter of conceding seems pretty nearsighted of you in my opinion.

Asking "what if" is not in and of itself a problem, it's relying on it as evidence, particularly in an argument, that is bad logic.

Scientists talk about dark matter. What is it? We don't really know, we haven't been able to point at anything and say "that's dark matter", It's 'dark' precisely because we have no clear idea of what it is. Okay, so how do we know it exists? Because the formulas and models that science has developed for describing the way the forces of the Universe interact don't match up in some ways. For some things these models work with incredible accuracy - others not so much. So either the models are just wrong - in which case they shouldn't work at all - or there's some unknown factor out there that is affecting the universe and its motions. This unknown factor is dark matter.

I can be convinced that dark matter exists, even if I have no idea what it is, because the reasoning is there and the observations we make provide the evidence that some factor is at work. But if someone came up and said, "hey, I think plaid matter exists" and I said "really? I doubt that, I haven't seen any evidence for it" and the basis of their argument was, in essence, "well, maybe it exists, because you don't know everything", that would be terrible logic without any evidence at all. I'm a skeptic; I don't rely on faith.

Feel free to think the Earth is flat for all I care but I do cordially recommend asking "what if". Cheerio.

The thing is, it's not me that is in the retrograde "Earth is flat" mode, it's everyone on the other side. As humanity has developed, its assumptions about the universe have been challenged, and it always travels from what seems apparent to the naked eye to what actually is. To early humanity it seemed, just by looking, that the Earth was a flat plane and the sun rose on one side, set on the other. Then after more observation, we deduced the Earth was round. It seemed the Sun and stars revolved around the Earth, then we deduced that we revolve around the Sun, which is one star in a spinning galaxy, which is one in a cloud of countless others. Always it's what seems obvious to casual observation that gets disproved.

Well, free will is an assumption that has been with us from the beginning. Early man moved himself around and thought, "well, see how I make myself move? Nobody told me to do it! I must have free will!" That's the flat earth, right there. We now know that our brains are subject to all sorts of influences. We have not yet found any sign of physics or chemistry that is not deterministic. Is there some kind of "spirit" driving is? Maybe, but no real evidence for it exists outside of sheer faith. Facing up to the evidence is tough, for those that value the idea of a free, untethered volition. But until something new is observed, we have to make do with the information we have.

[siln]

determinism is the best thing that could happen to human kind , free will comes as a tool to get back to our destiny
(st augustine made a big deal of free will if you want check that out)

[4filegate]

fingerprints evidence is not as reliable as is widely believed ERRORS

The words "reliability" and "validity" have specific meanings to the scientific community. Reliability means that successive tests bring the same results. Validity means that these results are judged to accurately reflect the external criteria being measured.

In order to protect against forgery, Fingerprints were used as signatures in ancient Babylon in the second millennium BCE.

Fingerprinting or dactyloscopy is a well-known technique for identifying a person. Fingerprints form in the womb at 22 weeks and after that, all they will do is expand as you grow. Therefore, it is possible that a fingerprint 22 weeks after conception could be used to identify a criminal Grandma + Grandpa. However there are numerous cases (Brandon Mayfield and the Madrid bombing) in which innocent people have been wrongly singled out by means of fingerprint evidence.

Absence or mutilation of fingerprints
A very rare medical condition, adermatoglyphia /SMARCAD1 gene, is characterized by the absence of fingerprints.

It can lead to:
Deniable Degradation: "The Finger-Imaging of Welfare Recipients" serves as a social stigma that evokes cultural images associated with the processing of criminals. Oscar (Outil simplifié de contrôle des aides au retour)/aide au retour humanitaire (ARH) - France
Various schools have implemented fingerprint locks or made a record of children's fingerprints.
New Technique Can Classify a Fingerprint as Male or Female. The test is based on certain amino acids in the fingerprints. Levels are twice as high in the sweat of women as in that of men.
At the 31st Chaos Communication Congress, hardware hacker starbug presented how DSLRs with high resolution and equipped with a long focus lens can be used to capture images of hands, or more specifically, fingers in order to use them for spoofing.

[plaamook]

Not really sure how to take that. Or reply. I don't want to be a dick but I'm assuming you're farting around with some chemical or another.

just a bubble living on the edge of a girl gang that sure natterrs about what goes where and when too mutch is to mutch,more of a dadicated lifestyle and due to coincidence to take a parrrellel mindset thats indeed just farting around withj whatever the gangs into
from baby farther to granddad or daD whilst avoiding jail and still being IN the obligitary heroin addiction and the states methadone answer livened up with crack gives you pure efficiousness amongst the luv that seems to actually live compared to whats left of the people on mental healthand their zombie pill stable lifestyle currently, the best have long gone.definatly ducking and diving the big deals that come my way.losing leading ladies of huge talent and vocals slipping through my fingers.loads more to say good day
the reality of jail and release is massive freedom is suddenly 300 times more valuable the best buzz ever is difficult not to repeat, drugs solves.
yeah beware of freedom in case you find out what it means

Can't come up with any really clever replies to that but I like the idea of 'beware of freedom...'

[miscend]

I haven't learnt anything reading this thread apart from watching people squabbling.

[sublunar]

But until something new is observed, we have to make do with the information we have.

We only "have to" make do with this information in the sense of those of you who "have to" construct a temple out of condensed and overly simplified best guesses for why we are the way we are, ie "Determinism". I don't "have to" define my life with "isms". If you want to, that's cool but I don't "have to" play along. And I wont.

Determinism, after all, is a philosophical idea -not a scientific fact.

Again, I'm not arguing for an un-tethered free will. You keep painting the argument in such light that anyone who has a problem with Determinism is a detached free will hugging flat-earther. But between the two of us, it is you who are evangelizing one side. I don't believe in either one of these theories as the one true faith. I like concepts of both in a philosophical sense. And my life suffers no ills as a result, rather I believe that my personal outlook is enriched for contemplating (whether real or completely imaginary) a balance of both.

You arrogantly state unequivocally, without a shadow of doubt, 100%, completely, matter of fact, in no uncertain terms, positively and absolutely, that your conclusion is correct.

No I don't.

I hate getting into he-said-she-said pissing matches (because I'm not out to attack you as a person, I'd rather stay friendly and civil), but I have already provided many quoted examples of you doing exactly this. How you can even try to deny it now, I don't know. For example, the very first time I quoted you and told you to cram it. And quite a few times since. You speak in absolutes. I've pointed them out and explained why I have a problem with them. In response you have simply tried to wiggle your way out of it and say that to do otherwise is to build a foundation upon the "gaps". As if there is no middle ground here. You're either Deterministic or you're a completely un-attached free will sort of fellow. You are decidedly one side or the other. It, therefore, would appear that you are just here to fight under the banner of your choice. Your foundation being placed upon scientific facts caused you to be overly confident and after skipping through the darkness, you committed the sin of using absolute language in your conclusion on the other side.

I've brought up the Nature vs Nurture argument before because once upon a time, people actually believed that it was primarily one or the other. Just like you do now. Eventually, science caught up and the conclusion seems to be split almost exactly down the middle. The current argument in which this thread is engaged is a theory, so-called because the truth of the matter necessitates a more complete understanding about the mind which we do not as yet have. Once we get there, I am confident that having a more complete understanding will once again find both sides of the fight meeting in the middle.

You say nothing that really challenges any of the basic facts I bring up.

Believe it or not, not everything you have said is fact. Your opinions on the matter are just that. Now, being that I don't subscribe to either side completely, I don't actually have a dog in this fight. I'm simply for some concepts of both. I am however against the arrogance inherent to the materialistic knowitall-ism that you propound in your crusade of determinism. You take sound scientific facts and extend them beyond their capacity to reach very absolute definitive conclusions on the other end. I am only here to point out that while your foundation is solid, your subsequent architecture is shoddy; there are gaps in your temple. Mind the gaps, friend.

[platzangst]

I am however against the arrogance inherent to the materialistic knowitall-ism that you propound in your crusade of determinism. You take sound scientific facts and extend them beyond their capacity to reach very absolute definitive conclusions on the other end.

Yes, you've devoted a lot of time to trying to somehow, I don't know, "un-arrogance" me? Show me what for? Knock me down a peg with your sarcasm and ranting?

The only one here who assumes a stance and adheres to it with utter arrogance is you. I've tried to point out how my stance isn't absolute, that isn't good enough apparently. I've tried to explain how having assurance in a chain of logic isn't actually arrogance, but nooo. You say you don't have a dog in the fight but you keep coming back barking.

I mean, first there's the whole "I'm going to be hostile to you because you have an assurance in scientific fact I don't like" mode, and okay, whatever, Tone Cop.

But then there's the utter pointlessness about everything else. You don't like my "arrogance" (which isn't actually arrogance)? Fine. But if you want to actually do anything about it, you have to prove me wrong. After all, why should I hold any less of a belief in my position if everything you say is just irrelevant kvetching? I point out some facts, I show a chain of logic that points to a particular conclusion, and everything you say basically comes down to "well, you don't know everything!" Which is true, but does not in any way contradict the logic I use or what facts I do know. So if you're not challenging the facts, not disputing the logic, how do you expect to shake my assurance in any way? You even say I take facts and "extend them beyond their capacity" but you can't be bothered to demonstrate how, in any meaningful way. There's a lot of churning going on but no butter.

[sublunar]

The only one here who assumes a stance and adheres to it with utter arrogance is you. I've tried to point out how my stance isn't absolute....

"I know you are but what am I" and outright lying.

I've quoted you over and over again using the absolute language, making the absolute claims. I haven't even quoted every time you have done this, just the ones that were easily within reach at the time. Your absolutist claims are what I had a problem with from the beginning. I've made this clear from the first time I quoted you. Must I really go back and quote myself quoting you again? Or picking out all of them to provide them all for you in one convenient place? How silly.

I mean, first there's the whole "I'm going to be hostile to you because you have an assurance in scientific fact I don't like" mode...

You have no such assurance. Determinism isn't scientific fact, but based on your evangelism I am now convinced it is a religion. And like most zealots, you won't accept any less than complete acceptance of your faith.

...You don't like my "arrogance"...you have to prove me wrong. ...You even say I take facts and "extend them beyond their capacity" but you can't be bothered to demonstrate how

It IS in fact arrogant to assume that our current limited human understanding on the matter has a definitive conclusion that you preach. You're far too confident in a conclusion based on incomplete information. Everyone in the field(s) itself seems humble enough to admit that there is a lot we don't yet understand about the mind. But nevermind them, they only do this for a living! All hail Determinism!

Keep on evangelizing your philosophical idea if that's what floats your boat. This is why the thread died, as you say, because you are so deeply indoctrinated into the religion of Determinism that you're impossible to reason with. You make claims that are based on philosophical theory mixed with science and tout them as scientific fact, then expect everyone to counter them. But the catch is that the only way for us to play your game, to disprove your religion, is by latching onto some other unproven theory and then touting its tenets as scientific fact. Only then would we be on a level playing field. But unlike you, I'm not going to setup camp on some silly philosophical theory as it exists in 2017 because I realize that as time goes on and we learn more, that camp will be left behind. I will instead take in what I can, pack the stuff I like and move along with the march of progress.

I have pointed out the errors in your logic. You start your premise on facts but then extend them to fantasy. How does one argue your conclusion other than pointing out that it is flawed? This is what I've been doing. Since we're arguing in the realm of fantasy, I have no similar but opposite fantasies to counter with. So I instead stuck with pointing out the importance of words and that your absolute wording was a stretch of the truth.

Really all I or anyone needs to do is point out the significant gaps which show that your conclusion is merely conjecture. And so this is what I've done.

It's amazing that on a music forum the topic of philosophy has to get so painful and mind numbingly dumb, when it should be fun and enlightening and challenging us to consider different/difficult viewpoints and possibly open our minds even if just a little. Your attempts to force everyone into agreeing with your conjecture are not enlightening and I can't say I've much enjoyed our time together.

[sublunar]

The things in your life happened the way they did and were never going to happen any other way, and so here you are now. It doesn't matter if you go along with society or go against society or stand around on a streetcorner yelling at individual nitrogen atoms. You are the way you are and so you do what you do. Even if someone reads this and goes "oh, heck no! I'm gonna change my life entirely and do everything completely different from now on just to prove free will," that happens because at that particular moment in time, due to those particular inputs, the chemicals in their brain just happen to hit the right way to propel them into an act of rebellion.

This right here...

You can't possibly KNOW this. You can THINK this all you want. But you can't claim this as scientific fact. Because science doesn't yet know how the mind, how consciousness, works. Therefore you don't yet know. It's furthermore arrogant to claim that you do.

Shall I go back and quote every instance in which you used absolute words to make your points? There are quite a few of them. And they are what I had issue with from the beginning. And I made it clear that they were. I even said if you just backed off a little bit then I wouldn't have had a problem with your points.

[selig]

I can only add one thing that could possibly help here:

"Don't take anything personally."

If everyone were to have followed that advice here, this thread would probably have ended amicably and long ago IMO.

If anyone wants to continue with this discussion, I suggest doing so with the above suggestion in mind.
It will make for a much more pleasant conversation… for everyone.
IMO, of course - I could be totally wrong.

[pacorobles]

Nope. I have to eat so I'm forced to work. I have to work so I have to look, talk and think like a good candidate for the position and get the job.

[CaliforniaBurrito]

Nope. I have to eat so I'm forced to work. I have to work so I have to look, talk and think like a good candidate for the position and get the job.

Self-moderation and adjusting to circumstances can be perceived as being in control.

[platzangst]

You can't possibly KNOW this. You can THINK this all you want. But you can't claim this as scientific fact. Because science doesn't yet know how the mind, how consciousness, works. Therefore you don't yet know. It's furthermore arrogant to claim that you do.

Here's where you're wrong.

Science doesn't fully know how the mind works. But great strides have been made finding out how parts of the mind work. While I can't claim science knows everything about how the mind works, neither is science totally blundering around in the dark about it. And this goes for the strictly biological and chemical aspects of the mind as well as the way the mind and consciousness processes the input it receives. We don't know everything, by far, but we do know a lot.

In all this searching, what we have not found is any sign whatsoever that there is anything about the consciousness that is somehow removed or apart from the biological meat that is our brains. Our brains suffer damage and our consciousnesses get altered. We suffer disease in our brains and we lose our memories, our personalities fade. No true science has seen any sign whatsoever that our "selves" are something other than a process of our biological systems. There isn't even a hint of what some other related process might be. In my "dark matter" example above, I mention how we know it is there because of a discrepancy in our universal models. But there is no corresponding mysterious measurement that indicates some sort of non-biological component to consciousness.

And therefore, I can say with a high degree of certainty, that whatever consciousness is, it's wholly organic in nature.

If that's true - and again, nobody has come up with any reason to doubt it - it follows that like any other organic process, it obeys the laws of chemistry and physics and so on.

And if that's true, then since the laws of chemistry and physics are immutable and always react in predictable ways, then causality must hold sway and consciousness is as deterministic as the rest of the universe.

I do not have to know precisely how consciousness works in order to know that this chain of logic holds up. I can "know" it about as certainly as anyone can know anything. I assume that the sun will be in the sky tomorrow and that steel will have a particular melting point and water will be wet - these are, of course, assumptions, because nobody can really truly know that the laws of reality won't just suddenly suspend themselves on a whim, even though they haven't yet. (How do you know you aren't really a brain in a jar? Well, you can't really know, but in a practical sense you might as well assume what you experience is in fact reality.)

If I give an algebraic equation: x + y = 15, we can't say much about it. But if we say x=5, then we know that y must equal 10 through simple mathematical law. If you don't like it that y=10, you would have to somehow make x not be 5. There's no way around it.

For me to not be able to know that consciousness is deterministic, then some basic premise in my chain of logic must be challenged and disproved. Which has not been done.

Nobody has proven that the laws of physics can spontaneously change. The closest anyone comes is in quantum mechanics, and even though, say, an electron might seem to exist or not exist at random, the weirdness of quantum mechanics does not seem to bleed into the larger world, that is, whatever an electron might do does not affect how an atom of one type will react upon meeting an atom of some other type.

And so I can know what I know. Yes, there is some margin for error in undiscovered territory, perhaps. But it's on the same order as the existence of God. It can be neither proved nor disproved, and all things being equal, the burden of proof rests on the more improbable claim. Let's say I can know it 99%. You say I can't? Well, come up with that 1%, come up with something real, and maybe you telling me I "can't" will actually have some weight.