free will and gibbersih

"Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems you're implying that a limit on the mind (information) is also a limit on reality. "

I'm talking about the limit on what can be shown about reality.

"Information requires a mind to perceive it. "

For it to be meaningful, yes. Information can exist without a mind (consider a book or this web page), but it's utterly useless / meaningless until cognificated. (pardon, I just wanted to say cognificated)

If you want to get technical, we might have to make the distinction "potential' information until percieved. Yeah okay then.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sweet! In that case, I agree.

And since everyone's having a run at this one, it seems - I'll join in:

It's not! The terms are connotation-laden human constructs - and without any knowable correlation to anything in reality.

The distinction is something like an imaginary arbitrary boundary on the infinitely-dividable line between two imaginary points in an imaginary matrix with imaginary boundaries.

Yay!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alpha,

So the I is a dialogue, then?


(It could be that a language concept has shaped my thinking in a certain way: In English, you can say me, myself and I -- and since English in general lost the sense for cases, they appear to be equal and the I can talk to the me and myself.
In my native language, the according pronoun is "jaz", but it has 6 cases, and no fancy "cast of parts" like in English (6 seems too much).
So the I, as someone's identity, is necessarily (once more, not just because of psychology theories ingrained into us in school) regarded as an inseparatable one.
But now that I think of my 6 cases -- and thereby 6 different syntactic functions -- I see a superfancy internal connection between the language forms (the forms for the 6 cases) and the conceptualizing of self. Wow. Thank you.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure. But why did these distinctions -- even though they are only imaginary! -- develop? Whence the need for such distinctions?

 

You're doing it again.

You mentioned science's need for reproduceability, implying there's something supernatural about the mind, that it can't be reproduced. Why do you claim science can't reproduce "the abstract layers you (I) talk so proudly about"?
Also, the mind can't be reproduced in it's entirety because you can't reproduce the memories and experience that made it that way. One can reproduce a mind, but not one that already exist(s/ed).

Ah, but there is: we are conscious and self aware.

Really? That remains to be seen. More likely it's removal would impede our path to the truth. Not sure what you mean by "ultimate truth."

That's not determinism, it's merely one aspect of it. I agree with that, but do not agree with determinism.
You should read this description of determinism:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinist
Here's a quote from the beginning:

Notice the "causally determined".
My point is, if you believe things are predetermined, then you're a determinist. You have also claimed you believe they are not causally determined, but this makes no sense. Nothing occurs without having been caused.

Can what? I didn't use the word "can't" nor even it's concept.

Where'd you get this odd belief from? Care to elucidate your reasoning? If a random pattern is built into the universe, then it is a natural law, and is the cause of said random events. Thus even seemingly random events are predetermined. This is the doctrine of determinism.

The intrinsic randomness is due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a limitation on knowledge and measurement. In string theory, which supercedes QM, the randomness is explainable.

At any scale. See above.

Because paradoxes and inconsistencies are flaws in reasoning, not in reality. If someone tells you a lie, you have this abstract concept of what was said in your mind. You then attempt to verify what was said, and find it was a lie. When you do so, you have another abstract concept in your mind of the truth. When you compare you find there's an inconsistency; they contradict each other. The paradox is not in reality, it's in your mind. What the person said was not true, it was a lie, therefore you can resolve the inconsistency in your mind having learned the truth (the reality).

They still are. The seeming randomness is mere chaos and unpredictability, but is determined by that which causes it, be it something in the universe giving rise to chaos, or be it a natural law/feature of the universe itself as you claim.

I never said you did. Read it again. I'm saying it's an implication of your claim.

Safe to assume you meant that every action/choice is caused by the previous state of the brain? I'm not contesting causality, I'm contesting the belief that the physical processes in the brain are the sole causal agents determining one's actions.

Why can't we know the reasons for our choices?

See above.

No, that which the information represents exists, but information is solely something which exists in the mind. Information is meaning.

Hehe.

Hrm, I suppose that's the distinction I just made, so yeah. I guess we're agreed.

Huh?

... Care to put that in plain/simple english? LOL.

 

OMG, I just said that YOU implied that! Not me!

There u go! I believe that if u knew everything about the state of the atoms and charge distribution in the mind (which we can't) then u would have the exact same mind.

I blieve there is nothing to stop us making computers which are so incredibly powerful and complex in the future, that they are aware. Question is, how would u prove it?

I just mean the answer to the questions we are arguing.

Why not? Thats not a very open-minded view of the universe. Do u not believe in inherent randomness?

U did, look again. Its near the start of your quote.

it IS a natural law but not one that we have become accustomed to (cause and effect). By your definition above, I am NOT a determinist because I don't necessarily believe in cause and effect. That is what I said too: I am not a determinist.

I still have to do some reading on string theory (which I know nothing about) but aren't there some quantum scientists who believe there may be randomness without necessary cause? I have heard the theory of when the nucleus decays in radioactive material explained this way before.

If I am completely wrong about what I said above then maybe u are right about that!

OK this seems very similar to the ET tower problem we were discussing earlier. Lets change it and say someone was listening to Beethovens 5th symphony. When he switches off the record he can still hear it in his head. Are u saying that this is inconsistent with reality?

Well that used to be my belief until I heard that there may be an intrinsic randomness not (entirely) based on cause and effect. Isn't what u are saying, the hidden variables theory?

Thats what I meant u fool!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I never implied it either. I was the one who said that we cannot know everything about the universe or our brain even, remember?!

Yes. And this state of the brain can be affected by environmental variables and can even affect itself (i.e. new beliefs are generally based on old beliefs).

That what I believe!

Because we can't know the state of our brain.

 

Alpha,

No LOL.
English doesn't have a strong sense for cases, so you are not likely to know what syntactic functions are. I'll give you sentences in English, and translate the noun in question (dog) into my native language. You'll see that if verbs or prepositions are different, a different case is needed.

There is a dog (pes) in front of the house.
I don't go anywhere without my dog (psa).
I give my dog (psu) a lot of good food.
I got my dog (psa) from my mum.
I like to talk about my dog (psu).
I love to play with my dog (psom).

(And this is only the singular, add 12 more for dual and plural.)

Anyway, now that you see how it works, here's the I pronoun (jaz):

I (jaz) love my dog.
My dog couldn't live without me (mene).
My dog brought me (meni) a dead bird.
When my dog sees me (mene), he is very happy.
My dog is always safe with me (meni).
My dog loves to play with me (menoj).

(Some of the forms look the same, but they have different functions; some nouns have 6 different endings for cases in the same numerus.)

Now if you look at the I/jaz pattern, in English, there's only the forms I and me, while we have 6. I don't know how to explain this properly (sic!). Right now I have the feeling that the sense for the I is more dispersed and conceptualized in a different way in my language, because of the cases and their functions.
Cases are a certain way of conceptualizing what is happening to a subject or an object. (The first is the case of naming, the subject (and all other are object cases); the second is the case of origin; the third of receiving/giving; the fourth of "accusing"; the sixth of place; the sixth of tool; eventually the seventh of calling. But this is a great simplification.)

I am quite sure this won't help you much.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But, Indoeuropean at first also had such a load of cases, and knowing that, we can go back, trying to discover how the conceptualization of the I took place in language. Huh.

I know, English seems so much simpler.

 

I did not imply anything supernatural about the mind. The supernatural doesn't exist by definition.

If you knew, perhaps, but the fact that you couldn't reproduce it that way anyway precludes that notion. Thing is, there are undoubtedly countless neural pathways that are identical to some neural pathways in someone else's brain, yet have an entirely different meaning. It's the context. You can't recreate the context.

Prove what? That they're conscious? That's another matter and irrelevant to this thread. I believe we will make computers that are conscious and self aware at some point in the future, though I don't believe it's possible with today's technology. The brain requires a certain critical mass for the requisite number of neural pathways to exist. We are quite a ways from approaching the critical mass equivalent in computers.

The laws of nature wouldn't be consistent otherwise.

What exactly do you mean by "inherent" randomness? I believe in chaos, which is simply apparent randomness due to the butterfly effect. But even seemingly random events have causes. Also, random events, when examined statistically also show nonrandomness, which points to causality as well.

I did check. My statement stands. Please explain what you meant.

If you believe things are predetermined, then you're a determinist, even if you believe in randomness inherent in the universe.

It was theorized to be truly random, since there's no discernable pattern. It appears to be random. String theory/M-theory would explain it due to string vibrations, which can't be predicted precisely.

The distinction between objective and subjective needs to be made. In (objective) reality the music is no longer playing. If another person came into the room they wouldn't hear it. The music in the person's head is inconsistent with objective reality, in the sense that it's playing in his mind, but not in reality. But really, it's just a memory. While it's inconsistent with reality, it's not necessarily inconsistent subjectively (the memory is of a real event and doesn't contradict itself).

Nah, the hidden variables theory has been proven false by Bell's inequality. It sounded to me like what you were suggesting was something like the hidden variables thoery, lol.

Recall, I said:
"In order to determine the choices one would make, one would need to know everything about..."
I'm not saying you meant to imply it, I'm saying it's a consequence of your claim.

Vaguely, but I never disagreed with that.

But before you claimed the mind can't influence itself... I agree with this position though.

I'm aware of that, and I'm contesting it. That is, I'm arguing a contrary position. I'm saying the physical processes in the brain are not the sole causal agents in determining one's actions.

You don't need to know the state of your brain, only the meaning of it. I did such and such because such and such. Yeah, on a lower level, such and such is a pattern of eletricity flowing through my brain, but so what? It's what it represents, and the effect it has on the rest of the brain that matters.

In that case, I have no clue what you're talking about, and have nothing to comment. Remember, I'm not a linguist.

Indeed.

Uh, indubitably.

 

I did not claim that science can't reproduce the abstract layer. Thats what u were talking about.

No the notion is that the mind is theoretically reproducible but just not practically.

They could appear consistent if there was causality (at one level) with inherent randomness superimposed on top. They would not appear consistent at the quantum level which is what we observe anyway!

What non-randomness is this? Please explain!

Sorry, what i meant was that things can have no cause and still be predetermined.

OK but too many people use determinism in the wrong way then. They use it to suggest that knowing the initial state of the universe, u can know any future state. Now if I Am proven wrong on my "randomness without cause" theory then u are right, I am just another determinist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Doesn't just appear to be random. How about if it IS random

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But if I make a drawing of a cow on a sheet of paper, is that inconsistent with reality because it is small?

What IS my claim there? How does "having to know everything" have to be a consequence of my claim?

No because the mind is not a physical thing. Like u said it is an abstraction based on the physical world. Only physical can influence physical in this universe so it is the brain which influences the mind.

Yes and I am arguing YOUR claim

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, but can't u see the bigger picture here? Even though for all intents and purposes it appears we have free will, in reality what u do or say is dependent on electricity which itself is governed by physical laws which (if my theory of randomness is wrong) can be predicted as long as we know everything. In other words we have no real choice over what we do but we have only apparent choice. This is the scientific basis of destiny

 

You know that I don't know much physics and math and that, and I know it.

But, approaching the issue of randomness from a completely different perspective, that of a linguist, I have always thought of randomness.

Esp. in linguistics, it has long been believed that all processes take place in accordance with *rules* and *laws* -- we just need to discover them.
But modern linguistics shook that old belief, and claims that there are no rules or laws -- only tendencies, guidelines.
There is no logical rule or law that would explain, for example why the First Germanic Sound Shift changed p, t, k into f, d, h. It simply did. Random.

 

I think there is a problem here as follows:

Broadly speaking as in physics and the universe, etc... the mind has no choice than to do what it does, or it wouldn't be doing it. That's a true statement.

Exactly WHAT the mind does, etc, the details of mind's subjective experience are at the whim of the mind (while constrained by the particular mind's limitations). That you cannot 100% predict what I will do or think next based on what I'm thinking now leaves room for will from the subjective perspective. You cannot prove that I don't have will, and it seems to me that I do, so there is no way to show that I don't.

So it seems to me that the problem with the conversation here might be a clash of context, where on party argues "the brain can't not be the brain, or it wouldn't be the brain therefore it has no choice but to be the brain" and the other says "but inside the brain, the brain can direct activities that defy predictability. it can choose things at its whim, given the constraints of the particular brain. based on stimulous from its environment the brain can consciously choose one conclusion or the other based on whatever criteria it deems pertinent at any given time, for any reason - that is choice".

One views it from the outside in, and the other from the inside out - each reaching the logical conclusion from the chosen perspective.

No?

 

Then explain this:

My response was essentially that the mind is not supernatural and there's no reason biological matter can't produce it, and that it is reproduceable as per science.

I'm saying, theoretically, it's not possible.

Yet the inherent randomness would still be caused and would be subject to an explanatory theory, and theoretically, some limited predictability. Well, it would be predictable if you could determine the variables, which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) doesn't allow.

For example, the pattern of water drops in a waterfall appears random, yet when looked at statistically, it obeys the laws of physics and is rather predictable. Or smoke particles moving through the air. They exhibit something known as Brownian motion. It is apparently random motion of particles in a gas or liquid, yet when looked at statistically, they are predictable. This points directly to an explainable physical phenomenon obeying the laws of physics/nature. There is a mathematical model called Brownian motion that is used to rather accurately predict the physical phenomenon of Brownian motion. A third example would be the stock market. Unpredictable, yet clearly obeying various physical processes (economics, etc.).

I would argue that if something could have no cause it would have to be predetermined. But, this is contrary to my beliefs that everything has a cause, and that the universe is not predetermined.

That's not using it the wrong way, they're claiming that is a consequence of determinism. If you know the initial state, and everything obeys causality, then you should be able to predict the next state after the initial one. You would then know everything about that state, and be able to predict the next, etc., ad infinitum. Thus, the implication that everything is predetermined.

Even if there is inherent randomness in the universe (which I think is just an implication you got from the consequences of HUP), it would still obey causality. Every random event would be caused by the natural law of inherent randomness (for lack of a better term).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

indeed. Then the universe would not obey causality on some level. Everything indicates causality is real though. Every event can theoretically be traced to a cause. Every observable event can be traced to a cause. If such causality is only apparent, it must arise from a more fundamental law of nature, which we would discover eventually. But then, would this not also be a product of causality? :bugeye: Every way I look at it, it seems causality is self evident.

Is writing the word "moo" inconsistent with reality? Of course not. Words and drawings are just lines on paper (which aren't really "lines" but that's getting overcomplicated). The words and images induced in our minds are in our minds alone. There's no actual cow on the paper. When you see the drawing you see that it represents a cow and have the association in your mind. That association is a subjective thing. The paper and lead are objective things and aren't inconsistent. The association in your mind could be inconsistent, though in this case I don't think it is. The only inconsistency is the subjective vs. the objective. You look and see a cow, but there's no cow in reality.
The point I'm trying to make is that there can be inconsistencies in your mind alone, not reality, and they're of two forms: that which is inconsistent with itself, and that which is inconsistent with reality.

This:

I replied:

Note: I meant "know" in the sense of the universe "knowing" these things. The universe doesn't "know" the state of the mind so no processes or predictive rule obeying natural law could predict it. It would have to be riddled with inconsistencies.

What about the processes that influence weather? Weather influences itself and physical things, yet the processes that influence weather are not physical.

Clearly that is not true. How did you come to the conclusion that only physical things influence physical things? What abour gravity? It's not physical. Light certainly isn't physical, yet it influences every aspect of our lives.

I think you mean you're arguing against my claim, ie., contesting it.

And finally, here's the meat of it.
It can't be governed solely by physical laws, because reality is consistent. No predictive law can be made for that which is inconsistent with itself. While the mind would not exist without the physical aspect (the brian), once it becomes conscious the physical processes in the brain are no longer the sole causal agents determining it's actions. The mind certainly does influence the brain, and this can be seen every time you move your body by conscious choice. You'd have to be insane to seriously question that. The real question here is whether the influence of the mind is predetermined or not.

They've acknowledged the chaoticness and gone for a more statistical view, but that doesn't indicate true randomness. It actually implies the opposite due to the very feasability of the statistical viewpoint.

This is fairly insightful. While I am arguing from that viewpoint, I am actually looking at it from both sides.

 

Your contradicting yourself above! Which is it? Do u think it is possible or not to reproduce the mind knowing everything (theoretically)?

By looking at such things statistically, u mean looking at a large population on average. I am not denying that u will see the underlying physics when done in this way. Indeed this is the explanation for why things seem to be fairly predictable at our scale. Everything on our scale is statistical!

Fair enough, if thats your belief.

Thats still using it the wrong way because I don't believe the definition of determinism has "causality" in it anywhere!

Not necessarily. The events would not be random after that. At some point (or maybe more than one point) what happens must be completely random and independent of what went before. It may seem supernatural now but maybe this IS nature!

Yes but there are things we cannot understand at the quantum level which may only be explained if we assume that nature is inherently random (i.e. introduce probability).

Yes but I believe that the drawing of a cow on paper is the very same as the image generated in your mind. The drawing of the cow is ALSO abstract is it not?

Well, as u know, I don't necessarily believe we can predict an outcome even knowing everything but forgetting randomness for the moment, then we would be able to accurately predict the path of the universe knowing everything. It is of course practically impossible however

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What? Of course the processes influencing weather are physical! Pressure, temperature etc!

The why are our physics textbooks all about gravity? Light is also physical. I think u are misunderstanding my use of the term. Physical as opposed to metaphysical. I am not talking matter here.

Sorry, against it. U are right!

The mind is completely goverend by physical actions. It has nothing to do with inconsistencies. Any feeling we have can be reproduced using electrodes.That has already been demonstrated. We have evolved to naturally produce this electricity in response to sensory stimulation. Whenever we make a choice, it is because we want to do something. Why do we want to do something? Because sensory stimulation has given rise to electricity in our brain which makes us do something. the by-product is the feeling that we wanted to do that thing and also that we acted of our own choice.

the mind may influence the brain but really the brain influenced the mind first so it is just the brain influencing the brain again (or what i referred to as the previous beliefs etc still having an impact on our thoughts and choices).

 

I am not denying that for all intents and purposes, that we appear to have free will (and it will probably never be proven by experiment that we don't) but I can't see how free will can fit into our physical theories of the uiverse.

Free will has almost a magical quality in this universe of ours and only living organisms have it (although philosophers have long thought that the universe itself may be aware).

This magical quality can also be seen in large religions such as Christianity which touts that our free will is the biggest miracle that everyone can see every day. free will is such a big thing in religion because they too use it as an excuse for God.

I am saying that actual free will is impossible and although this theory popped into my head for no apparent reason( I was not pursuing the idea) it seems I would now like to use it to fuel my strongly anti-religious feelings

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Too many people are being conned these days IMO!

 

See u on monday guys. I am going home for the weekend so may not be responding later today. Looking forward to another week of heated debate

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, you misunderstand. I was saying if one were to do a scientific experiment to reproduce the phenomenon known as a mind, then one can certainly do so. But one can't recreate someone's mind from scratch.

I wouldn't say everything, but it does make sense that since the statistical viewpoint works, it points to underlying causes in chaotic/seemingly random events.

But that's the whole bloody point! One state causes the next, so if one has complete knowledge of one state you can predict the next state. If it's possible to do so, then everything is predetermined. Again I refer to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism where it specifically refers to causality in the description.
Or if you prefer, a dictionary definition:
1 : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws.

They would be random in the sense of being unpredictable which, after checking the dictionary, is what randomness is all about. Not things occurring without cause. The only reason that came up is because things occuring without cause could not be predicted. But it's not necessary to have things occur acausally to be unpredictable.
Really though, any belief that there's an inherent law that causes random events is unsubstantiated and unfounded.

Not so. In fact, presuming acausal randomness defeats the purpose of explanation. We know there's causal randomness, ie,. unpredictability. These things which aren't understood on the quantum level can be explained by string theory/M-theory.

You must have misunderstood something I said, or failed to understand the distinction I've made. The drawing of a cow in reality is not a cow, nor an image of one. It merely produces the association/image in your mind when you look at it. In reality it's just lead/ink on paper. The image/association only exists subjectively (in the eye of the beholder).

I think I already addressed this. If there was inherent randomness in the universe as you suggest, it would be caused by a natural law and thus could be predicted given complete/sufficient knowledge. What this means is that the universe is still predetermined, whether predictable or not.
We both agree there are things that are not predictable, ie., random.

Pressure and temperature are part of weather itself.

Are you seriously implying that gravity is physical just because it's in physics textbooks? Physics is about behaviour and interactions of physical things

the forces which influence them, such as gravity. A force is not a physical thing.

No, light is pure energy.

I see. Your use is a little too broad.

Physical actions/processes cannot be inconsistent! Thoughts and reasoning can be. I reiterate: No predictive law can be made for that which is inconsistent with itself.
When you make a choice, your mind influences the electrical signals in the brain (essentially itself). For example, if you are reaching in the fridge for something to drink, and at that moment choose what to grab, your mind influences the electrical signals in the brain in such a way as to direct electrical signals to the appropriate muscles to grab your chosen drink. In order to predict with complete certainty which drink would be chosen you would have to know the state of the brain, the electrical signals, and the state of the mind along with it's memories and beliefs and any thoughts running through their mind. This would need to be used to form a predictive theory. Since one cannot know the state of the mind or the thoughts running through it, one cannot predict the choices that will be made, nor even know the criteria by which it will be made. One also cannot form a predictive theory for an inconsistent system. Most, if not all people have inconsistent beliefs and act on irrational reasoning, and therefore their actions/choices can't be completely predicted.

That doesn't follow. It doesn't matter who pushed who first.

First, you need to learn more about said theories. Your knowledge is out of date. Second, I see no reason it can't fit in. I've been trying to explain how.

Also, FYI, I'm an atheist and wouldn't dream of using free will to support religious contentions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I understand, but you really, REALLY should consider that the physical theories of the universe are incomplete. They are not done. There is stuff (like dark energy, quantum gravity, etc.) that simply cannot be resolved at this point. As such the point "it doesn't fit into those theories" says little to contradict the possibility of free will.

Hey man, 'living organisms" have the magical quality of being "living organisms" too. Free will is not magic, nor is "living". All that is, IS, because it is part of the universe. The fact is that "living organisms" do so because the function of the universe made it so. I don't mean "god" I mean, the equivalent of the mathematical function of how the universe operates obviously must have some forces within it that add up to life. That forces could also add up to directed choice isn't that much of a stretch. I find the question of how (if so) completely fascinating.

I have a weird way of looking at it. As sort a weird analogy, free will in two dimensions might look completely deteriministic from three. So from where we are, from our inherent POV, free will is true... however, if one's POV could expand to encompass the next three higher dimensions, they would still have free will from their perspective, but those in the dimensions they were limited to before would appear completely determinstic.

I only say that as an example of how free will could be valid from the POV experiencing it yet invalid from a perspective that is fundamentally different (for instance if the universe itself had a POV).

 

Oh ok, I believe it CAN be recreated from scratch.

No, it shows the underlying cause beneath the REAL random superimposed events.

Yes, but at the omment, I'm still not convinced there has to be cause and effect all the way down. One state does not always have to cause the next.

The difference is what we define as unpredictable. I define it as inherently unpredictable whereas u believe it is unpredictable due to HUP etc. (I presume)

Well again, it is only because I heard a similar theory somewhere else. I wish I could remember the source though.

OK but the image of a cow is similar to the drawing in that it is not an actual cow. It is however an image of a cow. There is nothing special in this however as the definition of image is something that humans experience when they obtain visual sensory data. A bit like taste

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, I believe that if u started the universe in the same state as it started before it would not turn out exactly the same. This is the inherent randomness I speak of. If u could predict it according to causal laws, then it would not be random would it?!

Predetermined but never predictable

OK well then weather is ultimately governed by solar energy. How can u say weather is not based on physical processes? It is one of the most popular areas in the field of physics today!

Yes.

A force is physical. I suppose u could say it is because it can interact with matter. There's a definition for u!

That can interact with matter so it is physical too!

As u can see, it is quite complete though.

There is nothing inconsistent about forming an image of a cow (or whatever u want) in your head!

I know we can never know the ultimate state of our mind. Is that the only basis for your belief in free will though?

It does in this case because it means there is nothing special about the mind influencing the brain. It is still a physical thing influencing a physical thing.

It can't fit in because it goes agains the laws of every theory today (I think) which assume that the universe is set on a predetermined path and that there can be no choice.

Well I'm glad your intentions are as such but I think the outcome of your belief IMPLIES "religion"!

 

I am not saying that science is over. If there is something in science in the future that points to free will (i.e. something that will have to change our scientific understanding drastically) then I will probably be here arguing FOR free will!

Being alive is not that magic. There is nothing in physics that does not allow it. It IS quite improbable however.

No, free will is magic because it is a miracle.

I have no idea what u mean here!

 

And how do you propose to do that? How could you recreate someone's memories, opinions, inconsistent beliefs, and so on? There's no way.

Well, depends on how you define random, but I guess I agree.

Are you saying there can be causes without effects, or effects without causes? I don't see how there could be either, it makes no sense.

Well HUP is a limit on knowledge, and therefore gives rise to a certain unpredictability, and therefore randomness. This is inherent unpredictability due to the laws of nature. What exactly do you mean by "inherent" unpredictability?

Indeed, it might help to clarify things. Perhaps you can find another source?

As I said before, it would have to be due to a natural law (and you agreed). This means it would be the same every time. It would appear to be random, but would be caused by said law, and given knowledge of the law, would be predictable.

OK, now that we've established that, you agree you are a determinist?

Forces are not physical, they are immaterial. They are entirely different from physical objects.

Being able to interact with matter doesn't make something physical, which should be obvious when considering forces and energy.

Nothing inconsistent with itself, only inconsistent with reality, yes. But what about things that are inconsistent in one's mind?

Only a supporting point.

Wrong. It really doesn't matter, and the mind is not physical.

No, that is a common inference, but is not necessarily true. It does not contradict any scientific theory.

Hardly. I do not believe in gods, or the spiritual or supernatural, etc. I believe free will is self evident, and is not contradictory with scientific theories.